Comments on: Guardian Prize No 25,682 by Araucaria

By: JollySwagman

JollySwagman — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:51:34 +0000

@T99 #7 re Araucarian definition.

That must have been interesting. There’s a small amount from that in the clip on YouTube. It would be interesting to know more of what he said.

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:58:10 +0000

rho
I have enjoyed reading your existential novel this evening.

Apology accepted although not expected (or required).

By: tupu

tupu — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:06:51 +0000

rhotician@22

Actually Thomas says ODE (Oxford Dictionary of English).

It seems the OED is available online via the library services of some County Councils.

By: tupu

tupu — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:00:52 +0000

RCW@15
If you drink a modest part, there’s a lot left in the sink to be desired. Alternatively, if you drink the lot, there’s nothing left.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:42:56 +0000

Rho @23: You can’t go around calling people liars.

Self above: I was only pulling his leg.

Not good enough.

But it depends what he means by appropriate.

Still not good enough.

Ok. Mr Whiting, I apologise.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:59:37 +0000

bridgesong @24: Your blog said you have to read the clue to say inappropriate. Molongo says the clue should have said in inappropriate. These are subtly different objections but in essence they both say that Araucaria made a mistake.

You also say @6 that you enjoy Araucarias liberties. I was trying to persuade you that the clue was not a mistake but yet another liberty. (I think Araucaria always clues deliberately.) I think Thomas99 agreed with my interpretation. I also said why I enjoyed the liberty.

But that was illogical of me. You cannot enjoy a liberty if you don’t “get” it. T99 and I got it. But you and Molongo didn’t, therefore the clue is not only “unfair”, in the Ximenean sense, but also “invalid” even by Libertarian standards. You can’t be forgiven for taking liberties if people can’t see that you’re taking liberties. A joke is not funny if you have to explain it.

I concede. I will not even take the line that a clue is OK if you can solve it.

By: Davy

Davy — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:16:39 +0000

rhotician at 22.

You say ‘Sorry I can’t do links’. Oh yes you can. Just key in the URL as text
and when you Submit Comment, it will be miraculously transformed into a selectable link.

By: aztobesed

aztobesed — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:11:40 +0000

‘Fiddler for one roof’ came in for a bit of stick but I took it as slightly ‘&littish’ – ‘under one roof’ – sharing the same house – indoors – sheltering. I’m sure he wouldn’t expect ‘for’ to be doing the work alone.

By: bridgesong

bridgesong — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:18:45 +0000

Trench Adviser @16: Spoonerisms: Azed sometimes sets a special puzzle involving Spoonerisms. He distinguishes between two different types: consonantal and vocalic. I don’t know if Ximenes ever used them, but Azed’s classification seems to be widely accepted, and here Araucaria is clearly using the second kind.

Rhotician @2 and subsequently: I stand by my original analysis, which was the only way I could make sense of the clue. Grammatically, “dubious” attaches only to “fun” and it is, in my opinion, stretching it too far to make it also serve as part of the definition. I prefer molonglo’s explanation @4.

Finally, I agree with your comment on 5d; but “found” is at least a hint of something hidden; earlier this week Araucaria just used “for” (see Eileen’s comments on 19 across in Guardian 25,687).

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:20:09 +0000

RCW @3

“I think bridgesong’s explanation for 20d is quite appropriate.”

I don’t believe you. I think you’re pulling my leg and lying to bridgesong in the process.
You are no gentleman, sir.