Guardian Prize 27,663 by Paul

59 comments on “Guardian Prize 27,663 by Paul”

1. I’ve been learning a lot from this site over recent months so thanks to everyone who contributes. I’ve finally started completing the Saturday Prize now, some weeks anyway, and particularly enjoy Paul’s ones. Today is the first time I’ve arrived with no comments yet on the solution here, so I feel compelled to join in.

   For 1a I think the ‘I forgot to say’ just gives PS as in postscriptum rather than PST – the T is provided by TART.

   Mind you, I didn’t know U for posh, so I got to UPS by deciding that this was how a ‘posh’ purse-lipped person might pronounce ‘oops’, so I was well off the mark – but it worked.

2. Thank you PeeDee. And thank you Paul for another super puzzle indeed. 3dn may have been almost too simple, but 10/29 was wonderful – I laughed out loud. Not a thing I do often in these circs. And the same goes for 12ac, perhaps without the laugh. Having said all that I can’t agree that something inorganic is therefore not natural – what is artificial about rocks or water? But a small quibble. Inexplicably my LOI was 28ac; simply couldn’t see it.

3. Thanks Paul and Peedee

   A slightly pernickety observation but I think your explanation of 17,6 was meant to be “anagram (to play) of UTILISE DRAG – this is what you might play”

   SUBITO and GASOHOL were both new to me, though guessable.  I loved MEAT CLEAVER, surface and all.

4. Thanks Paul and PeeDee

   I parsed NOTABLE as NO TABLE (no list – listless).

   I’m struggling to see how INORGANIC can be defined as “not natural” – the vast majority of the universe is inorganic!

   Should the Italian word SUBITO have been indicated as foreign? It means “right away” rather than “suddenly”, anyway.

   Even the coffee machine at the golf club offers “caffe latte” rather than “latte”!

5. Thanks PeeDee. I thought Paul had been getting harder recently but this was over all too quickly. I just had to check Google for USP.

6. I wondered about ‘inorganic’ too but Collins has ‘not resulting from or produced by growth; artificial’.

7. Biggles A @6

   It’s all very well to say “it’s in the dictionary”, but that doesn’t make it correct. Can anyone think of an example in which “inorganic” is used in this way correctly?

8. Re latte, inorganic etc:  I think most words can be used in many ways.  The dictionary records that inorganic is sometimes used as an adjective to mean unnatural and that latte is sometimes used to mean a coffee.  These may not be their original usages nor the most scientific ones, but these usages do exist and I think it is fair game for the setters to use them.  Whether one likes this or not is another matter entirely!

9. PS – thanks for the corrections to the parsings. I don’t have any more time right now but I will try to came back later in the day and update the post.  Please add any more you can find.

10. Paul seems to change his level of difficulty with every puzzle. I’m not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. This one was no great challenge but there were some lovely clues, my favourite being the multiple misdirection in ‘Transfer’. Subito was a new word for me but I found it in my English dictionary

11. Thanks PeeDee. Unspiced fare from Paul today despite TAGINE being first in and VINEGARISH last. Nothing too tough here but I had to google USP to make sense of 8D. Specially likedSUBITO.

12. I’ve just had to re-do this puzzle, as my previously completed grid of last week was totally blank this morning. Anyone else had this problem?

    Thanks PeeDee and Paul (twice!)

13. SUBITO, GELATO, PRESTO(n): three same-length Italian words (+ LATTE) – this looks like just a coincidence rather than part of a theme, or is there something going on?

14. Thanks to Paul and PeeDee. Enjoyable puzzle which largely went in quite readily. However a DNF for me. I came unstuck with subito and tagine which were both unfamiliar to me (though I should have got the latter from the wording). I spent longer staring at those two than I did on all the rest of the puzzle put together. However sometimes you just do not know and I liked meat cleaver and violin case. Thanks again to Paul and PeeDee.

15. Thanks to Paul and PeeDee. Like Pethay@14 I managed initially to get through all but two items (though I had to dredge up aga=cooker from a previous puzzle) but took the rest of the week to fill in LATTE and INORGANIC. With the first I guessed the answer from the crossers but for a long while could not explain it, and with the latter I was fixated on somehow reversing la(d) which of course did not work.

16. Fun puzzle , thanks Paul and PeeDee.

    Like PetHay above esp enjoyed MEAT CLEAVER & VIOLIN CASE. Had to resort to synonym dictionary for VINEGARISH ( obvious == garish ??) and saw LATTE but not parsing until this blog so theoretically DNF. But fun nonetheless

17. More approachable than a few of Paul’s recent offerings but not a walk in the park. CONTAINER SHIP was FOI and that gave me a good start. Didn’t know GASOHOL and had to look it up despite the crossers. I wasn’t sure about INORGANIC but couldn’t think of anything else. Liked TUTSI.
    Thanks Paul.

18. Nice puzzle – Thanks, Paul. I’ve  just realised on reading the blog that I failed to parse VIOLIN CASE. I remember being slightly puzzled by LATTER for second. Thanks for setting me straight on those PeeDee

19. @Simply B, “U” for posh is explained here:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English

    @Muffin, SUBITO is an Italian term used in music notation for “suddenly, immediately” (Chambers). If you haven’t heard “a latte”, you clearly don’t frequent coffee shops. I didn’t notice NO TABLE (just parsed it as PeeDee did) but I’m sure Paul had that in mind. Well spotted! Ironically, a real celebrity might be classed as A-, B- or C-list, hence not listless (or rather, not unlisted really).

    I only knew the spelling gasahol and thought there was a spelling mistake till I looked it up.

    I wondered if anyone would complain about “moreish” as being part of the definition. I recall AlanB being upbraided for using a homophonic def in a Rookie puzzle on Big Dave. However, in that case it may have been the whole definition.

20. PeeDee: I know it’s conventional, but FWIW I wouldn’t feel under any pressure to say something in the introduction if it doesn’t come naturally. The explanations themselves are a sufficient contribution. Thanks.

21. Hi Dr Whatson,  my aim with the introductions is to give people an idea if this is the sort of puzzle they might like to have a go at, which they can’t get by reading the blog.

22. cf PeeDee @21

    I wonder if it would be of interest to introduce a rating system for puzzles. Purely subjective of course but it might be instructive, and possibly a bit of fun.

    It would probably need categories – Difficulty, Elegance, Enjoyment perhaps.

23. PeeDee @8

    I accept your point in general, but I’m still struggling with “inorganic”. Can you think of a sentence in which “inorganic” correctly means “not natural”?

    Tony @19

    SUBITO is an Italian word that means “right away” or “at once”. (Latte is an Italian word that means – er – “milk” 🙂 )

24. For those not as ancient as myself, the usage “U’ and “non-U” was attributed first to the privilged socialite Nancy Mitford.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English

25. Hi muffin, it is hard to give an example where inorganic “correctly” means not natural if the premise is that the usage in incorrect.  I expect that for those who don’t view it as incorrect then some of the same sentences you have thought up and rejected will work just fine for them.  Just pick one.

    In general, I often find that those usages that I see in the dictionary but don’t understand often make sense in an environment that I am not familiar with.  Recipe for take is one, I didn’t really believe this until someone pointed out that it is in active use in medical environments.   Health food springs to mind as a possibility, I wouldn’t be surprised if organic and inorganic are used to denote natural and unnatural ingredients.

26. PeeDee @25

    Thank you for the blog. I have not heard recipe = take before. I don’t doubt you, but what is meant by either or both terms in a medical environment?

27. PeeDee @25

    Thanks for your response. I would think that, in the context of health foods, “unorganic” would be the opposite of “organic”!

28. Many really irritating Paul clues. I found this maddening and hard to reconcile with economy of words and good definitions that I think are the hallmark of good crossword compilers. Sorry to be negative but I don’t ever enjoy Paul very much, even if I can (eventually) solve it all. There is no delight in a cleverly crafted clue

29. Dansar – recipe means take in the sense of take 2 pills each day, “recipe 2 per day” or “r 2 per day for short”.

30. Thank you PeeDee, that’s interesting. I had wondered if it might hark back to when a prescription was sometimes called “a recipe”because it had to be formulated by an apothecary, but I couldn’t see how it would become synonymous with “take”.

31. I have also just realised ( from your example) why r is sometimes used as an abbreviation for recipe in cryptics. I had previously assumed it was used as shorthand in cookbooks.

32. muffin @7 and 23. Now you’ve got me struggling. If a reputable dictionary is not an authority for the correct meanings of words then where else can we go?

     

33. Biggles A @32

    Yes, I sympathise. The problem is that dictionaries tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive – i.e. they include definitions tthat are just wrong, though in common use. Could I direct younto “epicentre”?

34. muffin @32

    Dictionaries are and should be descriptive. They record the usage of words that has arisen from popular usage (sorry for the repetition). Whether we like it or not, the ‘meaning’ of words changes over time, and what may to some of us be incorrect nevertheless becomes another shade of meaning – cf refute, hopefully, humanitarian et al.

    I’m not saying I agree with it, but it’s fact.

    If a dictionary records a usage, presumably from more than one source and over time, who can say that it’s wrong.

    I find it interesting that that this discussion generally occurs when a word has had a previous meaning changed, but not when a (to me) abhorrent neologism becomes accepted. As a former student of language and linguistics I find it very curious.

35. Hi muffin, the advantage of dictionaries being descriptive is that they record an objective reality – someone can go out into the world and observe what is actually being written and said.  A dictionary that records “correct” meanings is subjective, the entries would vary depending on who writes them.  A dictionary that contains only definitions that you find correct would be a personal to you.  Similarly for crosswords that only use those definitions.

    More specifically: many (almost all?) of the words in our current language are variations from earlier usages and meanings.  What is correct today wan’t correct in earlier times and in the future won’t be correct again.  If you have a dictionary that records only your own view of what is correct it will be frozen in time from your birthday.  It would not be relevant to earlier generations and won’t be relevant to later ones.  It would be a dictionary for your generation only (and your social class, religion, political persuasion etc too).

36. @Muffin, yes, in Italian subito means immediately and latte, milk; in English, though, they mean suddenly (in a musical score) and a particular coffee drink made with milk and expresso.

    @Dansar and others, I think it’s a good bet that the everyday sense of recipe as cooking instructions comes from the fact that many will have begun “Take [e.g. six large eggs] …”

37. @Muffin, they are examples of what linguists call ‘false friends‘ or ‘faux amis‘.

38. PeeDee@35

    Whilst the aim of lexicographers may be the objective description of language, I think that there must be some subjectivity involved, otherwise why is “of” not listed as a synonym for “have” as in “should of”? It has been in widespread use for at least 80 years and probably much longer. I don’t have Chambers but I can’t find the a reference to this in either Collins or the Shorter OED.

39. I have followed the discussion around current vs. original meanings and the authority of dictionaries and found it of great interest.  I don’t know with any certainty what ‘subito’ meant in its original language (Latin), but there is no question in my mind that as a foreign (Italian) word used in English it is a musical term, and it means ‘at once, immediately’ and nothing else.  If its meaning in the original language is being used, that fact should really be indicated in some way.  As for ‘latte’, as a foreign (Italian) word it means ‘milk’.  However, it is used millions of times daily as a short form of ‘caffe latte’, and we all know what it means.  I’m usually with muffin when it comes to preserving words which when used loosely tend to kill off their usefulness as precise  terms, but ‘latte’ as a familiar short form is here to stay and is rightly (in my opinion) in English dictionaries as a milky coffee drink.

    I believe in the authority of dictionaries, but the idea that they are infallible is of course nonsense.  Obviously language development and usage over time have their own influence on dictionary content, but there can also be errors.  When the second edition of Collins English Dictionary came out, I found (over a few months) six errors in it, and all of them were accepted by the editorial board and corrected in the next edition.  I have just looked up ‘subito’ in my Latin dictionary, and against ‘subitum’ it says ‘a sudden or unexpected occurence’ – which (if I wanted to) I could report as containing a miss-spelling of ‘occurrence’.  Aside from small errors like these, there are sometimes good reasons for questioning the authority of a dictionary, especially (in my experience) concerning the inclusion of single-letter abbreviations, but that is another sub-topic, and I’ll let it rest there.

40. Me @39
    Sorry about my mis-spelling of mis-spelling (‘miss-spelling’).
    E&OE.

41. Hi all

    Interesting discussion. I agree that dictionaries do need to be descriptive, but they should be more prepared to point out when a usage is wrong. To use an example I’ve used before, what if a dictionary included under WHALE “large fish”? I’m sure that it could justified on “usage”!

    It’s all so aggravating!

42. Dansar – I have often wondered why “of” for “have” is not included in the dictionary myself as it is very frequently used.  My theory is that until recently its use has been exclusively verbal and so has been regarded as a matter of diction rather than of meaning.  Recently the rise of social media has resulted in much of what would have been only verbal communication now being written: think Facebook, Twitter, text messaging, Ebay etc.  Seeing “of” written in place of “have” can no longer be regarded only as a matter of pronunciation or even a typographical error, it is clearly a widespread confusion of the two words.  My expectation is that before long it will get recorded.

43. Alan B – quite so about dictionaries not being infallible.

44. Dansar @38, PeeDee @42
    The of/have issue has been covered in at least one dictionary. From the ODE under ‘of’:
    “USAGE: It is a mistake to use of instead of have in constructions such as you should have asked (not you should of asked). For more information, see usage at have.”
    And under ‘have’:
    “A common mistake is to write the word of instead of have or ‘ve: I could of told you that instead of I could’ve told you that. The reason for the mistake is that the pronunciation of have in unstressed contexts is the same as that of of, and the two words are confused when it comes to writing them down. The error was recorded as early as 1837 and, though common, is unacceptable in standard English.”

45. Thanks for that Gaufrid.  It  is particularly interesting in that it is an example of a dictionary expressly stating a usage as wrong.

    I wonder why Chambers chooses not to mention it.

46. PeeDee @45

    In my experience, Chambers seldom, if ever, gives more than just the definition(s) and, where appropriate, an indication that the word is obsolete, slang etc. Collins sometimes has an example of usage in addition to the definition(s), but the ODE (and I assume the full OED) not only gives examples of usage for many (most?) words but it also comments on some of the more prevalent incorrect usages, and other errors, that abound today in the spoken and written word. However, whether ‘standard’ English is relevant in today’s society is another matter altogether (and better discussed in another place).

47. PeeDee @43

    It is used throughout “The Grapes of Wrath”

    And thank you Gaufrid

48. @AlanB, is your “and nothing else” there to exclude ‘suddenly’? If so, you’re up against Chambers and Collins.

    Btw,I think ‘occurence’ is American spelling. Maybe your Latin dictionary is American?

49. @Muffin, the problem with dictionaries marking usage as ‘wrong’ is that when enough people adopt the it, it becones right. Or dost thou disagree with that proposition? In fact, I’ve often seen entries in Chambers along the lines of “often (in error): [the widesoread usage]”. Doubtless this gets dropped in later editions if the disapproved usage spreads widely enough (such as plural ‘you’ for ‘thou’).

50. Tony @48

    Well, yes, I suppose I am up against Chambers and Collins, as you delicately put it!  Both those sources say it’s a musical term and both define it as ‘suddenly; immediately’ in that order.  I know it as a musical term, and I think ‘immediately’ is a better way to understand (and carry out) that musical instruction than ‘suddenly’.  Incidentally, I’m sure I’ve heard ‘subito’ in modern Italian speech, meaning ‘immediately’ rather than ‘suddenly’.  There is no major point of difference here, perhaps, because there is some overlap between the meanings of those two English adverbs.

    My Latin dictionary is British, and I think the mis-spelling I mentioned is a typo.

51. When used in the phrase ‘inorganic growth’, the word approaches the meaning of un-natural.

52. Muffin

    Not sure you understand dictionaries.

    i.e. they include definitions that are just wrong, though in common use

    The job of a dictionary is to indicate what words mean, how they are spelt and how they came to mean what they do. The fact that thousands of words came to mean what they do by a common misunderstanding of the original meaning of a word doesn’t make the dictionary wrong. That’s how language works.

53. In defence of muffin, it would be possible to create a dictionary that takes a particular political/social stance and assigns “correct” meanings to words in the language now.  This would require republishing frequently, but with the arrival of the Internet and the ease of end-user collaboration this would be a practical proposition: no need for an army of sub-editors and onerous printing costs.  Wikipedia already publishes a traditional dictionary this way, you could produce an opinionated dictionary this way too.

    I suspect the end result might be several dictionaries, each giving a different version of correctness, and users would have to choose the one that matched their own world view.

54. Alex @52

    whale n.: large fish

55. muffin – what is this thing you have about whales and fish?  You make up a poor dictionary entry and then point out what a poor dictionary entry it is.  What am I supposed to learn from this?

    A dictionary editor who writes the entries using a style taken from casual speech would be not doing his or her job very well.  Conversely the owner of a sandwich van who uses the precise botanical Latin names for the vegetables on the menu would be equally perverse.

56. @Muffin

    ‘Fish’ has been used to describe any animal that lives exclusively in water for a very long time, even though it seems the OE ‘fisc’ only applied to vertebrates with gills. Cf starfish, jellyfish etc etc. Of course ‘large’ in the French from which it was derived meant “wide, broad”, so perhaps you are objecting that a whale is also long? Whales are, of course, enormous (but have committed no crime).

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/fish#etymonline_v_5975

57. Didn’t realise what a hornet’s nest I had poked a stick into.

58. I am just realising that there are ‘double layer’ clues, where a clue is given to a word which is then used as an anagram.  I did not realise this happened, and it seems to make things really tricky.  Is this a standard ploy, or just something Paul does?

59. Hi Karen, which specific clues do you have in mind?

    Usually anagram parts are either literals from the clue or common abbreviations where the item being abbreviated contains the abbreviated letters.  For example: R for resistance might be considered fair game as part of an anagram but I for electric current would not.  Some crosswords such as The Listener have written rules as to exactly what is and is not considered acceptable, The Guardian has a more relaxed attitude and it is up to the setter and editor to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Comments are closed.