Please use the comments form attached to this page for any general feedback relating to the site.
all about cryptic crossword clues
all about cryptic crossword clues
Please use the comments form attached to this page for any general feedback relating to the site.
Good day Dr Clue
In the Letter Selection list, under First and Last letters, we have the entry ‘heartless’, exemplified by “heartless chap = CP”. I’m all but certain that I’ve been ‘corrected’ in the past for not restricting this device to only middle-letter/letters removal in words of odd/even length. By that rule, we’d have “heartless champ = CHMP” whereas my reading is that the lists sanction “heartless champ = CP”. Same goes for ‘gutted’: whenever I’ve gutted a grouse, goose or rabbit, I’m definitely left with more than just the skin! For me, something akin to vacation/emptying is required for a ‘FLindicator”.
Any thoughts on this most welcome, thanks.
Good afternoon to you, and thanks for that
I suspect that I took my lead from Azed on this, as I did on quite a few indicators when initially putting the lists together. I can see from the archive that he has accepted (inter several alia) ‘heartless compiler’ for CR and ‘heartless Ebenezer’ for ER. He also allowed eg ‘square at heart’ for QUAR, but I think that HEART is correctly – but inconsistently – shown in the list as indicating only the middle letter(s). I’m absolutely with you – even the heart of a hearty lettuce doesn’t account for 75% of it. Unless anyone can provide a compelling argument to the contrary, I will re-categorize HEARTLESS, LACKING HEART and DISHEARTENED accordingly.
While I agree about the gutting of game, a gutted building is an empty shell, and the second and third definitions of ‘gut’ (vt) in Chambers support this interpretation. But, taking your point, I don’t think that GUTLESS is valid as a FLindicator, ‘guts’ and ‘heart’ coming to much the same thing (except for surgeons). Again, I will update the core lists, marking the alternative sense as questionable in the Lexicon. GUTS, which appears in the deletion list (all except first and last) should also, I believe, be recategorized to align with ‘heart’, ‘core’ etc.
I wonder about CORED, DISEMBOWELLED and FILLETED – would you agree that they similarly fail the FLindicator test?
BTW, I don’t think that I’ve ever used any of the foregoing for F/L selection, which suggests that I wasn’t entirely convinced by them!
Good evening Dr C, and thanks for confirming my worries: I’d have been gutted had you not.
I do indeed agree that the suggested trio aren’t FLindicators (so might instead augment, along with ‘gutless’, the Mindicator list). I also agree that “gutted” can be interpreted as either middle-only deletion (eg fish or game) or terminal-only retention (eg derelict building).
While we’re on this LSI topic, the inimitable RJH long ago convinced me that ” ‘endless’, ‘interminable’ etc should indicate last-letter deletion only, with ‘boundless’, ‘limitless’ etc reserved for first-and-last-letter deletion. “
Excellent – thanks.
And how embarrassing! I have on more than one occasion (once in quite a vigorous exchange of views on fifteensquared) railed in print against the use of ‘endless’ to indicate the removal of the first and last letter – I believe that it only ever describes something that has a beginning but (seemingly) no end – and then I find that it is there in the list of FLindicators! Not for long, it isn’t!! I guess it’s been there mocking me since day 1.
I would agree about ‘interminable’, the only problem being that Chambers gives one of its synonyms as ‘boundless’. I can’t find an example of it ever being used to describe, say, lone and level sands stretching far away, so I’m going to take an executive decision and treat it identically to endless. Two more iffy ones for the Lexicon.
Good evening Dr Clue. With wonderful wafts of bank-holiday dinner emerging from the kitchen, I am minded to ask whether — unless I’ve missed something — ‘chops’ and ‘slices’ should be added to the insertion section of the C&C list. Thank you.
Hello Monk, and thank you.
I’ve been scratching my head over those two. Their only appearances in the current lists are ‘chopped up’ and ‘chopping’ to indicate an anagram, and ‘slice of’ for first letter selection (only the first of which I’d be likely to use myself).
Chambers gives ‘chop’ as ‘to abolish’ (Collins: ‘to dispense with’), so I think it’s fine as an expulsion indicator. It also has ‘chop’ as ‘to eat (vt)’, which seems to make it valid as a containment indicator, albeit an ‘advanced’ one.
Regarding the insertion aspect, I think ‘slice through’ and ‘slice into’ are definitely ok. There is a single example of ‘slice’ on its own being used as an insertion indicator in the Azed archive, but there’s also an example of it being used (uncompounded) to indicate expulsion, which I’m not at all keen on; there’s also one example of ‘chop’ being used for insertion.
Based on the Collins definitions, I’m inclined to accept ‘slice’ (‘to divide or cut (something) into parts or slices’), but I’m not entirely convinced about ‘chop’ (‘to cut (something) with a blow from an axe or other sharp tool’) – is the tool ever the subject of the verb, I wonder? I’m certainly open to persuasion.
BTW, I am delighted to report that in your honour I will also be adding ‘cowls’ as a containment indicator (of the advanced kind).
Thank you Dr Clue. I had in mind “chopping wood”, which in my mind — and DIY activities — indicates an act of division that is isomorphic to “cutting wood”. I think this is one of those cases wherein a practical application may not be first port of call as a definition for more academic lexicographers. And how lovely to see cowls making a brotherly appearance. I’ve always wanted Chambers to include a definition for a monastic carpenter: a dortour-door salesman š
š
For some reason the monastic carpenter put me rhythmically in mind of those late arrivals (back in the day) at the Home Furnishers’ Ball, Mr and Mrs Wall-Carpeting and their son, Walter.
I just don’t know about ‘chop’ – you could say that an axe can cut a log or split a log, but could it chop a log? Or would that only be the person wielding it?
š I fondly remember such wonderful puns in ISIHAC.
I see what you mean re ‘chop’, but my gut feeling is that, in the cryptic sense, ‘axe chops log’ and ‘man chops log’ are isomorphic. It’s only when we consider a realistic surface sense that the latter becomes ‘axe wielded by man chops log’. Subtle ground indeed! Interested to hear yours and others’ views.
I hoped you would know what I was talking about!
One could argue that nothing is entirely clear-cut in crosswordland, but there’s a point where I think that consistency becomes the overriding consideration. I have ‘wedge’ in the list of insertion indicators, and I think that ‘chop’ has very similar credentials. I’m minded to include it unless there are any objections.
ā¦a question for you, if I may.
What do you feel about āinternallyā? Mindicator, all-except-FLindicator, both, or neither?
Not a problem.
Considering ‘internally’ as the (mathematical) complement of ‘externally’ — a letter string must comprise only internal and external components — I can’t help but see it as an A-E-FLindicator that allows selection of a well-defined but variable-length string, in which ‘well-defined’ is the technospeak for “saying what one means”. That’s why IMHO Mindies must indicate only 1/2 letters for words of, respectively, odd/even length.
It can of course get less-well-defined when substrings of words, possibly including a first or last letter, are to be indicated. For example, would you consider the following Monk clue (fresh out of the oven, for a future puzzle) to be sound: “Tough guy, smooth, wants threesome in romance (4,3)”?
PS In the above thread, could we have “karateka chops log” š
Thanks, Monk
That’s almost exactly how I saw it. ‘Feels’ right, as well. Incidentally, I was doing a pre-publication solve today of a puzzle for a forthcoming blog, and in one clue what did I find but ‘gutlessly allows’, leading to…AS.
Nice clue, which I consider 100% sound, with the only question relating to its fairness. At the (IMHO) unfair end of the spectrum would be, say, ‘letter’ for any single letter of the alphabet [pick any 1 from 26], with ‘small state’ for the abbreviated name of any state not far away. I’ve never liked ‘note’ for A/B/C/D/E/F/G [1/7] and ‘singleton in hearts’ strikes me as questionable for H/E/A/R/T/S – six possibilities for just a single letter [1/6]. But ‘pair in poker’ for PO/OK/KE/ER offers a considerably better ratio [2/4], while your ‘romance’ offers just five possible triplets. Given that those letters undergo no further manipulation (eg they aren’t part of an anagram), it seems entirely fair.
š Yes, I don’t see why not. Or ‘lamb chops Provençale’ (poor lady)
š
“do up” as containment indicator?
OED: “2.a. transitive. To fasten (something) securely; to tie up, wrap up, make tight.”
“X does up Y”?
Hi Johannes
The problem for me is that the subject of the verb is always the person doing the wrapping rather than the wrapping itself – ‘He did up the parcel’, or ‘He did up the parcel with string’. I think it’s fine in the passive sense, though, where ‘by’ would indicate the agent and ‘in’ or ‘with’ the object of containment. So ‘X done up in Y’ or ‘X done up with Y’ would be valid.
Do you think thereās a case for disturbing/disturbs as an insertion indicator?
Iām not sure myself as it seems more suited to anagramming, but there was an example in the Times a few weeks ago:
Difficult week disturbing a protƩgƩ (7) AWKWARD
and Iām sure Iāve seen it there before.
Hi CG
The first Chambers definition of ‘disturb’ as ‘interrupt’ seems promising, but that still relies on the transitive relationship ‘disturb’->’interrupt’->’break in between’. The OED gives a group of meanings for ‘disturb’: ‘interrupt, derange, hinder, frustrate’, and I think that makes it clear that it is the sort of interruption that sleep, say, might suffer. I’m not convinced that ‘his sleep was disturbed by thoughts of a faulty clue’ really means that the thoughts are contained by the sleep, so I think it’s one of those that I’m inclined to add to the Lexicon as likely to be encountered, but not to include in the main lists.
Incidentally, the Chambers thesaurus offers synonyms for ‘interrupt’ under three headings – ‘interrupt a conversation’, ‘interrupt an event’, and ‘interrupt a view’. Several of the first group are certainly valid insertion indicators, but ‘disturb’ is in the second group, along with ‘disrupt’, ‘halt’, ‘suspend etc.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
I found another Times Quick Cryptic example later:
Nothing disturbing the playwright’s dog (POINTER),
but can’t see any examples from the other papers’ blogs, so I guess most editors currently lean towards what you are saying.
It’s a close one, but it doesn’t ‘feel’ quite right.
Your second example is interesting in the context of my brief item in the latest Azed notes about the inclusion of redundant articles. I would suggest that ‘playwright’ more accurately suggests PINTER than ‘the playwright’, and the surface would be perfectly good without it.
Unraveled as anagrind?
ā unravels/unravelling/unravelled
Also ā Ravel (imperative). Ravels/ravelling/ravelled are valid, but I don’t include words that I can’t imagine ever being of use in a clue.
I see we have “let slip” as anagrind, how about “let loose” and “unleashed”?
They sound good to me. I think that inflexions of ‘unleash’ are also valid as expulsion indicators (Chambers: ‘unleash’ = ‘to release (lit and fig)’)
Censored as expulsion?
I don’t think I can accept that one. When something (eg a film, a letter) is censored, it is subjected to a process of assessment. As a result, parts of it may be expunged, but equally it may emerge unscathed.
I was thinking it might be ok because as it can also be used more specifically. “The document had the name censored”
X with Y censored
Also “redacted”
“The names and email addresses of the users were redacted from the public data”
I agree though.. I’m struggling to find the dictionary definitions that match this usage..
I think that people on occasion use ‘censored’ and ‘redacted’ with the sense of ‘expunged’, but I believe that both properly relate to a process rather than a result. ‘Redacted’ is certainly valid as an anagrind based on the Chambers def.
Cream / creamed as anagrind?
Nice!
Sounded as homophone indicator?
“sound the rhymes clearly”
And the almost too obvious “sounds like”?
Thanks, Johannes
Based on the Chambers definitions, I would say that sounding, sounded and sounds are all valid – as well, of course, as ‘sounds like’. I’m going to have quite a big update to do later this week!
Would pearl be a fair charade for the letter O? Has the definition of something resembling or shaped like a pearl just like egg..
Or does is imply 3 dimensionality or something other than roundness in a way that sphere, blob and egg do not?
I think the assessment of shapes representing letters – or numbers which look like letters – is a tricky one, and the judgment of some candidates is going to be subjective.
If you allow anything that equates to zero, eg ‘love’, to indicate O, then ‘blob’ is fine – Chambers gives it as ‘a score of zero, a duck (cricket sl)’. ‘Duck’ or ‘duck egg’ qualify through the same route.
Chambers has ‘egg’ as “anything shaped like a hen’s egg”. Does that apply to the letter O? I would say so – I’m no expert, but I don’t think there’s much difference in shape between the output of a hen and a duck.
‘Round’ also has strong claims. ‘Sphere’ sounds very 3-dimensional, but if we allow ‘egg’ (equally 3-D), then I don’t see how we can disallow it.
And ‘pearl’? I’m afraid there’s nothing in Chambers which indicates that the word can be used to describe a shape, and the OED has it as suggesting a teardrop form. The first thing that springs to my mind as ‘pearl-shaped’ is a pearl light bulb, and that doesn’t look like an O. So that one gets a ‘no’ from me.
Thanks so much for the thoughtful insights as always!
You’re right, OED is specific about it relating to a pearl-like drop or globule.
Chambers seems more lenient though?
Noun “something resembling a pearl”
Adj “like a pearl in colour or shape”
Hmm..
Johannes – I think those definitions come not from ‘Chambers’ (ie The Chambers Dictionary, aka the Big Red Book) but from Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, a horse of a very different colour (blue).
Chambers itself doesn’t give any definitions for ‘pearl’ which involve similarities of shape, so I think ‘pearl’ for O would be a real stretch.
Aha! I was thinking it might be a case of wrong Chambers. Didn’t have the proper version on hand. I’ll be a bit more wary of it in future..
Frantic as anagram indicator?
Also perhaps “mouth” in the verb sense as containment? Too much of a stretch?
Thanks, Johannes
I reckon ‘frantic’ is an absolute shoo-in. It shall be added.
I’m less convinced about ‘mouth’. I can’t find any evidence of it being used figuratively, so it seems to me more like ‘yard’ (‘to enclose in a yard’) than, say, ‘vice’ (‘to grip, force, jam or strain as with a vice‘ [my italics]). Incidentally, I was slightly surprised to discover that the ‘articulate silently’ meaning of ‘mouth’ appears to be a recent (within the last 75 years) introduction to the language.
For “mouth” I meant in this sense: “To put or take (something, esp. food) in the mouth; to seize with the mouth; to touch (a thing) with the mouth or lips.”
“A wolf..can..mouth an egg without breaking it.”
R. Kipling, Jungle Book 6
Seems very similar to “lips” which is currently listed and marked advanced?
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. āmouth (v.), sense II.6.a,ā March 2024
My problem is that I can only find the word used in the literal sense, as in the example that you quote and all those listed in the OED, and Chambers explicitly states that it means ‘to take in the mouth’. On the other hand, Chambers gives ‘lip’ as ‘to edge’ (likewise the OED – example: “the margin…lips the pool”), a transferred sense which ‘mouth’ just doesn’t seem to possess. It’s a perfectly fair suggestion, and I doubt whether its use would outrage solvers, but for me it doesn’t quite clear the bar.
Makes sense! I didn’t think of that meaning of “to lip”, that seems a lot fairer
I don’t understand why last Sunday’s Azed has been dissected. Isn’t it a prize puzzle? That’s what it says in ‘Rules and Requests’. I blog on fifteensquared (as John) and we are told not to publish the blog until the closing date has passed. My blog of this puzzle will appear on Sunday.
Hi Wil, and welcome to the blog.
I think it is a model which servers solvers of all levels well. The Sunday Telegraph’s Enigmatic Variations is similarly the subject of a ‘hints and tips’ blog on Big Dave’s site on publication day and a full review on fifteensquared after the closing date for entries. It’s important that these wonderful puzzles continue to be available and enjoyed, and that surely means doing all we can (i) to encourage new solvers, (ii) to enhance the experience of ‘regulars’, and (iii) to keep the number of entries as high as possible, this being the key yardstick by which publishers assess a puzzle’s value, and thus its justification for retention.
Hiccups / hiccuping as anagram indicator?
Chambers: “hiccup verb 1 intrans to produce a hiccup or hiccups. 2 intrans to falter, hesitate or malfunction.”
Sounds good to me! Consider it added.
Any thoughts on the idea that an anagram indicator should imply a permanent change to the subject?
I’m intrigued…before I head off on the wrong track, can you give a couple of examples of the sort of indicators that you’re thinking about in the non-permanent category?
On the subject of containment indicators..
I don’t see “during”. It seems to be quite commonly used.
Also “over” which can mean “so as to cover”.. “covers”/”covering” already being listed.
Thanks, Johannes
There are three containment/insertion indicators which I see quite regularly that I have deliberately excluded from the list because I don’t believe that they are sound:
DURING – This is invariably used in ‘real life’ to express a temporal relationship – ‘during the day’, ‘during an interval’. The OED definition , “Throughout the whole continuance of; hence, in the course of, in the time of. ” makes this clear. If I need an insertion indicator that can stand in for ‘during’, I use ‘part-way through’.
TOURING – I can’t accept that A ‘touring’ B suggests that A goes round the outside of B. ‘Going round’ is a good alternative.
TUCKING INTO – I’ve no problem with ‘tucked into’, but the only intransitive sense of the verb is “To make an onslaught upon food” (cf ‘slot’, ‘dig’).
However, I think there is a good case for OVER. Having a balaclava covering one’s head and a balaclava over one’s head seem like exactly the same thing. I suspect that I may have meant to add it at some point in the past, but it will be going in very shortly!
Appreciate your thoughts as always!
Interestingly.. “during” seems to be commonly used for insertion, but I can’t find any example of “over” being used for that purpose. From what I’ve seen it seems to be solely used for reversal, or as a connecting word in a down clue. I was expecting you to be ok with the former but not like the latter!
https://cryptics.georgeho.org/data/clues?_search=over&_sort=rowid
https://cryptics.georgeho.org/data/clues?_search=during&_sort=rowid
This also raises the question, should an indicator be omitted from the clinical data page because it is potentially dubious. I would argue that if the resource is targeted at solvers, then it should include anything they are likely to come across in a clue, regardless of whether it’s 100% fair. “during” definitely seems to fit that requirement.
Appreciate your thoughts as always!
Interestingly.. “during” seems to be commonly used for insertion, but I can’t find any example of “over” being used for that purpose. From what I’ve seen it seems to be solely used for reversal, or as a connecting word in a down clue. I was expecting you to be ok with the former but not like the latter!
This also raises the question, should an indicator be omitted from the clinical data page because it is potentially dubious. I would argue that if the resource is targeted at solvers, then it should include anything they are likely to come across in a clue, regardless of whether it’s 100% fair. “during” definitely seems to fit that requirement. Indicators that you think should be avoided by setters could feature that disclaimer, rather than being omitted entirely?
I don’t actually like ‘over’ much, and wouldn’t use it myself, but I can see a justification for it. I know that one could argue that in the phrase “a ring on his finger” there is a similar sense of containment, but this is where what we know from the real world tends to influence our interpretation of a word – something being on one’s head is very different from it covering one’s head.
Your question is a fair one, and I did once start a list of indicators which occur in puzzles but I consider unsound (it’s not just me – I have had support from other solvers regarding the three that I mentioned). The problem is that this would be a separate list, and therefore probably not much help to solvers. I have been reluctant to add any sort of ‘soundness’ column to the main tables, as the vast majority of anagram/containment/deletion indicators would be classed as ‘sound’. I decided when I started the lists to keep it simple and use TablePress; if I had opted for a SQL database I could have generated lists ‘on the fly’, along with some sort of consolidated matrix showing all indicators and their potential uses, sound or otherwise. However, I could still produce such a table based on a one-off data drop.
It’s fair to say that the individual lists are aimed primarily at clue writers and those seeking support (or otherwise) for indicators encountered in published puzzles, hence the exclusion of certain indicators that I consider unjustifiable.
I feel perhaps the single matrix (including indicators that I consider unsound but can be found in published puzzles – I can think of quite a few) might be the most useful addition to the site, both for solvers and for me, as it would stop me vetting the same words repeatedly, but I’m very happy to consider alternative suggestions.
Hello Dr Clue
First may I reiterate my thanks on the ongoing updates and maintenance of this wonderful resource.
Second, may I add that long ago both I and āDer ClueMeisterā RH concurred on the iffiness of āduringā ā a purely temporal preposition ā being used in the spatial sense demanded of insertion into a (written or online) grid. āHe ate crisps during the performanceā doesnāt normally suggest that the crisps were _in_ the performance, a notable exception being Gary Lineker advertising Walkers apostrophe-less Crisps, of course.
Thanks Monk, your kind words are much appreciated.
Thank you also for your observations re ‘during’. It’s one of the ‘allowable’ indicators that I feel most strongly about.
Just checking contginment indicators, and I noticed that “inside” was not included. It’s an obvious one (I thought!) – maybe too obvious?
Welcome Jrsee, and thanks for your comment
‘Inside’ is actually already in there, but it is listed in the ‘Alternative form(s)’ column of the entry for ‘in’. Taking your comment into account, though, I am minded to give it an entry of its own, since as well as being a preposition it can be a noun, adjective or adverb with meanings different from ‘in’ for the corresponding parts of speech.
Came up with an idea the other day, and then discovered it had already been done (of course)
Interlacing two words to form a 3rd.
Haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, as I guess it’s quite a hard thing to get to work, but wonder if it would be nice to mention it here somewhere?
e.g.
Work belonging to us interlaced through the night (6)
https://bigdave44.com/2018/12/14/toughie-2143/
I also thought of the potential “taking turns with”. Would that be fair? Would obviously fit a lot nicer into a surface than interlaced.. and seems pretty unambiguous when interpreted as wordplay
The other thing I wondered is what are the rules? (maybe it’s too rare a device for them to even exist?)
Do both words have to be interlaced as completely as possible?
e.g.
12345 interlaced with ABCDE
A1B2C3D4E5
or could this also be acceptable? (with an offset)
AB1C2D3E45
Interested to hear your thoughts!
Hi Johannes, and thanks for raising some interesting points.
First of all, let me say that I am very comfortable with the concept of interlacing two words to form another. Indeed, it is something that Azed does from time to time in his clues.
I think that it merits coverage on a page in this site – perhaps combined with other relatively unusual constructions – but I’ll offer a few thoughts below. Note that in my examples I explicitly give the words to be intertwined, but in practice they would most likely be indicated by other words in the wordplay, eg ‘belonging to us’ for OUR in the OEUVRE example.
I reckon anything that suggests the two words being interwoven is fine for ABABAB… – interlaced, interwoven, alternating, taking turns etc. So ‘CUE alternating with ASS’ could be CAUSES. Could ‘ASS alternating with CUE’ legitimately produce the same result (BABABA)? My instinct says ‘no’, but on reflection I think it probably could.
What about ‘COT alternating with ASS’ for COASTS, ie AABBAB (similar to your AB1C2… example)? Definitely not, ‘alternating’ being very specific in its meaning. But ‘COT intertwined with ASS’ could certainly be considered for COASTS, although personally I would prefer ‘COT irregularly intertwined with ASS’ or words to that effect.
Words such as ‘linked’ offer other possibilities. ‘CUE regularly linked with ASS’ would work for CAUSES, while without qualification a looser connection is suggested, probably just the last letter of the first word passing the first letter of the second – ‘SPOT linked with RING’ for SPORTING (ie [A..A]BA[B..B]) seems ok to me.
When I have time, I’ll look at putting together a page with some complete examples, but I hope that in the meantime the above may be helpful.
Would you say “ending” was a fair “After” juxtaposition indicator and should be added to the list?
e.g. X ending Y = YX
Good question! My first thought was ‘yes’, but on reflection I’m not so sure. If X ‘ends’ Y, I think that X is invariably part of Y, eg ‘A fast movement ends the concerto’, rather than being an adjunct, as in eg ‘an interval follows the concerto’. It’s a close thing, but on balance I’m inclined to say ‘no’; I’d be more willing to accept ‘X ending Y’ as meaning that X should be moved to the end of Y, eg ‘section ending play’ for PORTS. Approximate synonyms such as ‘concluding’ and ‘finishing’ strike me as having a similar issue, but I think that ‘X at end of Y’ is fine for YX (‘an interval at the end of the first half’), and I will add it.
I am also minded to include ‘tipping’ and ‘tailing’, both of which suggest the addition of something (‘tailing’ should be in there anyway with its sense of following closely).
As always, though, I’m open to argument or expressions of indignation.
I see the issue now, you’re right that doesn’t seem to quite work when the verb “end” is interpreted like that.
But how about with this alternate meaning (from OED):
III.8. transitive. To furnish with an end of a particular kind, for protection or ornament.
X ended with/in Y would mean X furnished with a tip of Y.
Edit: oh I see you’ve added “tipped”, I guess this would be a synonym?
I did consider that definition, but the sole example would seem to indicate that the subject of the verb is the person doing the furnishing, not the thing stuck on, which would be preceded by the preposition ‘with’. That contrasts with the verb tip, which OED has similarly as ‘to furnish with a tip’, but also as ‘to adorn with a tip’, where the tipping thing is the subject of the verb, as the examples confirm.
It’s certainly borderline, and I’m pretty sure that among the lists on this site you would find several indicators with weaker claims for inclusion. However, I’m inclined to be strict when it comes to juxtaposition indicators, since they don’t contribute very much to a clue cryptically (with the ones that result in XY contributing nothing).
Hey there, thanks for the incredibly useful resource!
Just wanted to suggest the addition of “violated” as anagram indicator.
Hi Johannes, glad you find the site useful
Thanks for that suggestion. I will add ‘violated’ to the anagram indicator list. I will also add the adjective ‘violate’ (=’violated, defiled’) in the advanced category.
Good evening Dr Clue.
Just noticed that, when ordering the Anagram Indicators by function, “wriggles”, alone labelled “Present indicative” rather than the other “Verb indicative(s)”, is concomitantly sandwiched between the last “Past participle” and first “Present participle”. Please consider this missive as an example of audience participlation. š
Good evening Monk, and thank you for your participant missive.
I have corrected the anomaly; editing the anagrind list reminded me that a while ago I had spotted that there were two identical occurrence of ‘fudge’ (mmmm, fudge), one of which has now been seen to.
Good day, Dr Clue
When consulting the juxtaposition-indicator list, it occurred to me that I am all but certain that (for a down clue) I’ve seen “A held up by B” to mean {A< in B} rather than the intended juxtaposition {AB}. To my mind {A< in B} must surely be indicated by "A up held by B" or "B holding/holds A up" because the operand A must be adjacent to its reversal operator "up". Or must it? Is it acceptable to interpret "A held up" as "A held [when it's] up", in a similar way that convention accepts "A B holds" to mean "A [that] B holds". Thank you.
Good day to you too
That’s an interesting one. I’m confident that I’ve seen ‘held up’ used in just the way you describe, and I’m not sure that I’ve ever given it too much thought. In the phrase ‘large, jolly man held upside-down by chimney’, the mental image created matches exactly what we want from ‘X held upside-down by Y’, ie the man, inverted, in the grip of the chimney. But there is a problem with this – what we are actually being told is not that the man is inside the chimney, rather than he is upside-down and the chimney is maintaining him in that position. Because we know the geometry of a chimney, we infer that the man is inside it, but if we were to read, say, ‘man held upside-down by two chimneys’, we might think again.
So even if one accepts that ‘upside-down’ could be replaced by ‘up’ without changing the meaning, I feel sure that you are right, and the order of the words is key. ‘A holding B up’ is fine, I think, for either [A around B<] or [(A around B)<], but 'A held up by B' means [AB], or possibly [A< + B] if you accept 'by' for juxtaposition in a down clue (very questionable, I'd say), but not [B< in A]. One of those situations, I reckon, where an apparently confirmatory 'real life' usage is not what it seems.
Apologies for the late thanks for your reply, Dr Clue, but I’ve been a tad ‘held up’ … š
Good evening Dr C. In addition to yesterday’s thankfully (very quickly) resolved ‘quirky’ query, might ‘banning’, ‘relieving’ and ‘rendering’ — the last two at the suggestion of esteemed ClueMeister Richard Heald — be similarly added to the expulsion list? Thanks again.
Thanks, Monk
Ooh, I’ve had to work my brain harder this time…
First the easy one. ‘Render’, together with its inflections, is clearly an omission. It carries exactly the sense required, and for good measure appears in a winning Azed clue. Approved nem con, and I look forward to using ‘excellent services rendered’ to indicate the loss of ACES.
‘Ban’ is one that I’ve looked at before, and on which I’ve previously struggled to make a judgment. On the one hand, I doubt that solvers would have any problem with it; on the other, it seems to me to suggest not being allowed in, rather than being there originally and then kicked out – ‘He was ejected from the ground and subsequently banned’. I’m not keen on the active form, but there are several examples at &lit of the passive being used, and therefore I’m minded to include the past participle ‘banned’. That’s probably illogical, but I like ‘Y banned from X’ more than ‘X banning Y’.
Now the tough one. I fear I must disagree with the ClueMeister, although I know that the sole example of ‘relieving’ in the &lit archive is from the great man himself. I do feel, though, that on occasion what is acceptable to Azed (where clue writers have the chance to explain their clues) may be less acceptable to solvers who must rely on knowledge or limited works of reference. I am always wary of including indicators which I think are likely to leave solvers struggling to parse a clue even when they’ve got the answer. Chambers gives ‘release’ as a meaning of ‘relieve’, but the object is typically the person being released, with the troublesome thing following the preposition ‘from’. OED does have a ‘chiefly Scottish, now rare’ sense that would fit the bill, but I generally draw the line at ‘rare’ meanings, as they can be hard for solvers to locate. That said, I’m very comfortable with the euphemistic ‘relieved of’ for expulsion, and I also note that ‘relieving’ and ‘relieved by’ are missing from the replacement indicator list, which seems like an oversight.
I’ll make the updates, and I am of course open to persuasion – though if I saw ‘X relieving Y’ in a clue I’d expect it to mean ‘X replacing Y’, and I think I might be unhappy if it turned out that X was getting rid of Y without taking its place.
Hi Dr C. Re āto releaseā as one of Chambersā meanings of ārelieveā, I take your point about the object being typically the person seeking release āfromā some troublesome thing. Typically, yes … but not exclusively. Surely the object can also be the troublesome thing itself, such as pain (as in my CACOGASTRIC clue to which you refer) or tension (as in my more recent clue to MALIK) ā¦ or, indeed, the troublesome surplus letters blighting an anagram? Chambersā bald definition āto releaseā makes no such stipulation as to its correct usage, so for that reason surely we can have no objection to the use of ārelievingā as a deletion indicator? Your painstakingly compiled indicator lists are valuable tools to clue-writers both professional and amateur (like me), but I wonder: are they intended to be an exhaustive guide to devices that might be encountered in Azed and elsewhere (regardless of perceived soundness/unsoundness), or do they reflect your own personal tastes?
Hi RJHe
I did think long and hard about ‘relieves’/’relieving’ but I feel sure that ‘relieving pain’ draws on the OED’s sense 4a, ‘To ease or mitigate (what is painful or oppressive); to render less grievous or burdensome’. There is no mention of elimination, and I don’t believe that pain relief or famine relief result in freedom from pain/famine, only a reduction in severity.
I think ‘personal tastes’ might be putting it a little strongly, but the lists certainly reflect my personal judgment, right or wrong. I’m sure that I am guilty on occasion of inconsistency, sometimes accepting a bald Chambers definition (particularly with well-established indicators) while at other times actively seeking out clarification of a particular meaning. I have never intended that the lists should be exhaustive in terms of including every device that one might encounter in a published crossword; it did cross my mind at one time that I could include ‘obelised’ indicators, but I felt that would make the lists unnecessarily complicated. Therefore I have simply excluded indicators such as ‘touring’ and ‘during’ because I just don’t think they are sound. There are devices used in some puzzles (such as the ‘lift and separate’, eg ‘suntan’ = s-lash) that I would never use and would not include, even though the solvers of those particular puzzles are usually familiar with the device and happily accept it. I originally put the lists together for my own (decidedly amateur) use – I am delighted that others have found them useful and contributed considerably to their enhancement, but I realize that no two setters will ever fully agree on what is acceptable and what is not, let alone any two solvers.
Good evening Dr Clue — Was there a specific reason for excluding “quirky” from the anagrind list, despite the relatively recent addition of the v.i. “quirks”? It could reasonably be argued that (in everyday usage) “quirky” is synonymous to “eccentric” or “oddball”, both of which are included therein. Thanking you.
Hi Monk, and thank you
I do like the odd easy one. The only reason I can think of for the exclusion of ‘quirky’ is that its application was lost in the post! It’s one of those potential anagrinds that ‘feels’ absolutely right, and although Chambers doesn’t offer a definition, the entry in OED indicates a pedigree that few can match (1a: ‘full of quirks or shifts’, 1b: ‘eccentric’, 2: ‘full of twists, turns, or flourishes’). If further evidence were required, it occurs as an anagrind in a winning Azed competition clue. Welcome to the lists, ‘quirky’.
Thank you sir! I’m currently looking at a tray containing a cuppa and some toast, and all I can now think of is a ‘quirky teaboard’ š [PS latest date on indicators content page now requires amendment.]
Hello Dr Clue.
In a recent Times puzzle, the wordplay “much fondness” was used to indicate LIKIN[G]. My immediate reaction was that it should have been “much of fondness”. However, I see that neither “much” nor “much of” are included at the CC as last-letter-reduction indicators; presumably this omission is a result of prior consideration. My query is: by the substitution test, could not “much of” be OK, perhaps if augmented by a {pronoun} or {definite article}? See e.g.:
“He’s eaten much of {his/the} dinner/food/cheese” = almost all of the noun, mass or otherwise; āļø
“He’s eaten much food/cheese” = a great quantity of the noun considered as a complete entity; ā
“He spent much of {the/his} time” = almost all of the time-period in question; āļø
“He spent much time” = a great quantity of time considered as a complete entity. ā
That is, could not “much of {pron./art.}” be included?
Interested to hear your and others’ thoughts on this. Thank you.
Hi Monk, and thanks for a very interesting (and nicely exemplified) observation/question.
First of all, I think it’s probably fair to say that the omission of ‘much’/’much of’ may in truth be the result of little or no consideration on my part!
However, ‘much fondness’ wouldn’t be attached to my view of that particular construction. It seems to me that the adjective ‘much’ – similarly to ‘plentiful’, ‘considerable’ etc – doesn’t carry any sense of proportion of a whole, and is invariably applied to a generic noun, eg ‘much firewood’, ‘considerable entertainment’. I would disqualify such adjectives as reduction indicators on both counts.
As you say, though, the noun form of ‘much’ is a very different matter – with the preposition ‘of’, it is applied to a specific noun and very clearly (as in your examples) indicates proportion. I think that it is therefore perfectly reasonable that solvers should interpret ‘much of lunch’ as ‘much of the lunch that I’m referring to’ (just as in the real world one would understand ‘he spent much of lunch talking about crosswords’ as referring to a specific lunch, and obviously a most enjoyable one). ‘A lot of’ is already in the list, and I believe that ‘much of’ ‘and ‘a great deal of’ should also be there. I’m open to further offers, though that is probably sufficient to establish the principle, which can be extended to a variety of adjective/noun/preposition combinations such as ‘a considerable proportion of’ and ‘a big hunk from’.
Yes, that seems to be it: generic ā as opposed to specific āļø . Ta muchly, Dr Clue š
Thank you for updating a couple of the data lists in the last few hours. Though the lists now very helpfully contain update information, might it help visitors to this wonderful site if you could also add the dates of their _latest_ versions on the main Clinical Date page at http://www.clueclinic.com/index.php/clinical-data? That way visitors could at a glance keep abreast of all the latest addenda on the single ‘contents’ page. Many thanks.
A splendid idea! Consider it done.
Update: it is done.
Much of thanks! š
Good day, Dr Clue.
Having noted that the date-annotated links to the Data lists at http://www.clueclinic.com/index.php/clinical-data/ are no longer in alphabetical order, I wonder if it might be an idea to make a virtue of this and to reorder the content page in order of list-modification date, with most recent first?
Many thanks.
Thanks, Monk.
Excellent idea. I’ve changed the dates to YY/MM/DD format and sorted the rows in descending order. I’ve also added the option to sort in alphabetical order of list name. I could sort them alphabetically by default and allow the user to sort by date – which do you think would be preferable?
Thanks Dr Clue.
Perhaps newbies to the site would benefit from a default alphabetical ordering, as regular visitors would know the ropes well enough to change the order trivially. And probably only a handful of us would use the non-default setting to keep abreast of updates on a regular basis!
Thanks, Monk. That was my thinking as well, so I’ve now set the list up that way.
Hi Doctor Clue and Monk,
Perhaps as Chambers has ‘To a great extent’ as an adverbial meaning of much then it could be allowed without the of after, although I can not yet thing of a sentence in which it could be swapped?
Hi Andy
OED also has ‘to a great extent’, but none of the examples given suggests a meaning which could be described as partitive, rather than the sense which it carries in Shania Twain’s “That Don’t Impress Me to a Great Extent”. On reflection, I’m also doubtful about whether ‘to a great extent’ is quite the same as ‘to close to its full extent’ (similar to the ‘much’/’much of’ comparison).
We’re down to very fine margins here, and there are undoubtedly indicators in the lists which are equally near to the borderline, but I feel that I need slightly stronger evidence to persuade me to add indicators than to remove existing ones. I’ve also looked through the Azed archive, and there are no clues in there which use ‘much’ as a reduction indicator, so I’m afraid that at this point I remain unmoved!
General query to all. I own a 12th. edition Chambers (quite elderly now) and a book token acquired at Christmas. As far as I can see on my Google ramblings, the 13th is still the most recent but there are rumours of a possibly imminent 14th. Does anyone have any news of such a tome.
Thanks for any info.
Peter Bissett
Hi Peter
The latest version is indeed the 13th edition (2016) – note that the 2014 printing should be studiously avoided, since it omitted all the ‘star’ words from the 12th edition.
When a new edition is published, the various editors adopt it at different speeds, but within 12 months at most I would expect it to be the new standard across the board for Azed, EV, Listener etc.
I have no knowledge of an imminent 14th edition (paper or electronic), but others will probably be better informed than I. Can anyone tell us if a new edition is in the pipeline?
Thanks for the reply. I have no doubt that, as soon as I use my precious book token on the 13th., the 14th. will be inevitable!
Peter
I have received some information from the publishers – see this post.
Just seen the following note on your Azed 2688 page:
The closing date for competition entries has, I understand, been corrected ā it is now Monday 8 January.
Was this communicated anywhere else? I didn’t have time to enter due to the crazy original closing date published with the puzzle, and I doubt I was the only one.
Hi Andrew
I understand that the revised date was published in the Observer on the following Sunday (ie the day when the comp supposedly closed) – I subscribe to the electronic version so didn’t see the correction, although I had inferred from the original closing date being a Sunday and the results being published on ‘8 January 2023’ that it was probably a failed ‘copy and paste’ job.
I suspect that you weren’t the only one who didn’t submit an entry, and I know that others dashed something off in order to catch the earliest possible post, only to find that the date had been extended and they could have taken a lot more time over their clues. Not good at all.
As with the matter last year where the competition rubric was changed, with some very un-Azedlike wording and allowing entry by email, it seems there’s a communication breakdown somewhere along the line.
My fear for some while has been that the Observer will eventually realise that a substantial amount of newspaper space, plus the budget for prizes, is servicing an audience in the very low hundreds and decide to pull the plug. The recent problems don’t suggest a smooth and harmonious relationship.
Too right about the communication/QA issues! I think you may be underestimating the total number of Azed solvers somewhat, although the proportion of them who purchase a paper copy of the newspaper is, I suspect, very low, likewise the proportion nowadays who enter the clue writing comps. The Guardian has promoted the idea that Azed is something of a national treasure, and there would be an almighty outcry were he to be ‘cancelled’. When he decides to hang up his Chambers, things could change, although as long as the Mephisto is running in the ST I can’t see the Guardian dropping its barred cryptic. When the Sunday Telegraph were planning to drop the Enigmatic Variations, I understand that they intended to replace it with a ‘straight’ barred cryptic.
The Independent on Sunday didn’t think the Beelzebub barred puzzle was worth persisting with. If I remember rightly, Paul Henderson was willing to continue it after the original setter passed away.
In many ways, newspaper cryptics seem to be in a better state than they once were, especially with the sustained popularity of blogging sites and youtube videos, but falling subscriptions and changes of ownership (eg Telegraph now) make me wonder if puzzles will eventually be slashed to save money. The cryptics I see in regional papers seem to have been bought from companies that can automatically generate puzzles from a database of not very good clues. They are no substitute for the ones set by the brilliant individual setters we’re spoiled by now.
I know very little about the Beelzebub series, but I gather from Paul Henderson’s blog that he took over from Richard Whitelegg in 1995 and set all the puzzles from 270 to 1358, with the demise of Beelzebub coinciding with the Independent ceasing to appear in paper form – as you say, it was not Paul’s decision to stop production. I share your fears – at the moment the crossword/puzzle editors for the ST/Guardian/Telegraph are ‘old school’, and I don’t see the threat coming from them, but should there be changes in personnel, ownership or direction then barred puzzle aficionados could find themselves left with very little beyond specialist outlets such as the Magpie, the Crossword Club and the Crossword Centre. And probably the Listener, which seems to have achieved ‘protected species’ status.
Apologies, I thought Mr Whitelegg had passed away more recently than that; I didn’t realise PH had set so many.
My post reads rather gloomily in the cold light of day, so I’m going to resolve myself to enjoying what we’re lucky to have now. Long may it continue!
Hear, hear!
And the number of online channels now available means that there will always be an outlet for barred puzzles as long as there are people to set them.
…to which I will add a brief plug for the ‘rebooted’ Crossword Club magazine (https://www.thecrossword.club/), and not because one of the prize puzzles in this month’s issue is from yours truly. Well, not just because of that…
Dear Crossguesser (inspired nom de plume, BTW)
Re your last sentence, today’s newsletter from Crossword Compiler flags the following V11.31 update: “New Feature: Generate Clues, an AI-powered generator for all unclued words (optionally multi-language; internet required, fixed quota) … The new clue generator can handle simple quick/American style clues in multiple languages, but uses a standard GPT (LLM) so quality may vary a bit randomly and there can be omissions. It cannot currently handle cryptic clues beyond simple play on words and (if you are lucky) homophones, nor clues in squares. The new help assistant is a general GPT that also knows the content of the latest help file and website.”
Might this offer automation of, eg, the Telegraph’s Cross-Atlantic puzzle?!
Hello Dr Clue.
Since you occasionally update your Clinical Data lists, might it be possible to add a “Last updated dd-mm-yyyy” comment to each list’s header, so that we may efficiently keep abreast of augmentations and/or corrigenda? Keep up the great work!
Thank you.
Excellent idea, thank you. Consider it done!
In your juxtaposition indicators list you have “supported by” listed as “after” for a down clue. Should this not be “before” – ie, A supported by B should be A before/above B?
Excellent lists
thanks
Hi DeeKay, and welcome to the site – glad you find it useful
Thanks for that – well spotted! ‘Supporting’ and ‘supports’ were correctly shown as ‘after’ indicators, but as you say, ‘supported by’ is a ‘before’ indicator which had got labelled incorrectly. Now fixed.
Hello Dr Clue
Would you be happy to add:
[1] ‘gloves’ to the containment-indicator list, as per ‘trousers’ and ‘pockets’;
[2] ‘models’ to the verb-indicative elements of the anagram-indicator list?
Many thanks.
Hello Monk
Regarding ‘gloves’, I think the Chambers definition ‘to cover with, or as if with, a glove’ (my italics) is sufficient supporting evidence. OED suggests that in practice it is rarely used figuratively, but I don’t think that matters, and I’m always particularly keen to add an indicator that can masquerade as a different part of speech. Consider it done.
On that topic, incidentally, I’ve been experimenting with adding a hidden but searchable column to each indicator list, holding the part of speech of the indicator and then an asterisk followed by an alternative part of speech for the surface reading, so ‘gloves’ would get a ‘V*N’; the idea is that one could then narrow a search down to, say, reversal-indicating adjectives which could also be nouns (eg ‘upright’) using the filter ‘A*N’ or all reversal indicators which could be nouns (eg ‘upright’, ‘backing’) by filtering just on ‘*N’. I’m going to set it up on one list to see if it’s helpful.
I’m not so comfortable with ‘models’, for which the only intransitive Chambers definition is ‘practises modelling’. The Collins def doesn’t do it any favours, saying ‘If someone models for an artist, they stay still in a particular position so that the artist can make a picture or sculpture of them.’ I see that ‘modelled’ (=’shaped’) isn’t in the list, and I will add it, but I’d need a bit more convincing about models/modelling, much as I like the idea of ‘Massage naked models’ for KNEAD.
Hi Dr Clue
Thanks for the swift and informative reply — that’s glovely news — and, re last example, š
The part-of-speech column would be an excellent addition to your already wonderful resource. Coincidentally, I almost added to my earlier query a related issue of annotating verbs as ‘VT’ or ‘VI’, though I appreciate that in some cases the T or I form is contextual. In the ASCII lists that accompanied early versions of Ross Beresford’s ‘Tea and Sympathy’, verbs were distinguished thus.
Before posting here, I’d earlier raised the ‘models’ issue in a clue-tweak discussion with esteemed Clue Meister Richard Heald, who kindly pointed out that: “The first 2 examples here show that Azed is OK with “models” as both transitive and intransitive verb: http://andlit.org.uk/azed/cluesearch.php?series=B&page=0&search=models&clueopt=0.” All very interesting!
Hi Monk
Many thanks for the feedback. If I were starting again, I’d almost certainly do the anagram indicator list differently, though I’m not sure exactly how!
When I started on the lists, I went through quite a lot of Azed slips looking for candidate indicators that I hadn’t considered. There were quite a few that I felt perhaps Azed had given the benefit of the doubt to that I wasn’t comfortable with. I’d be interested to know what Richard’s own view is about ‘models’ – initially I couldn’t make up my mind whether it suggests taking up a pose or holding one, but on reflection I think it is frequentative (‘he models for a living’, ‘she modelled for Picasso’), hence the ‘practise’ in the Chambers def, with ‘pose’ describing the action itself (C: ‘to assume or maintain a pose’).
Hi Dr Clue
FWIW, I — along with Serpent/Basilisk/Jack, with whom I happened to speak tonight — am persuaded by your earlier observation re the (expected) stasis of a ‘model’ as the subject of a modelling session.
Our conversation also raised the query as to why ‘has/having’ is not in the containment list, as the first two definitions of ‘have’ in Chambers are ‘to hold’ and ‘to keep’, and ‘/holding’ and ‘keeps/keeping’ are indeed included therein. Thanks.
I like the term ‘stasis’, and I think it’s a ‘no’ for ‘models’.
When it comes to ‘has’/’having’, I suspect that when I originally put the lists together I was unduly influenced by personal preference. I’d always avoided them as containment indicators, essentially on the basis that the shared meaning of ‘have’, ‘hold’ and ‘keep’ relates to abstract possession, but it’s an approach that if taken consistently would rule out a whole bunch of other indicators. There’s an example in OED, ‘A lake, is that which continually hath water’, where containment is undeniable (even by me!). Today sees ‘has’ and ‘having’ being welcomed to the list.
Hi Dr C,
Like you, I’m more convinced by ‘model’ as an anagrind when it’s used transitively rather than intransitively. When it comes to anagrinds I suspect Azed relies on his memory and instincts quite a lot instead of consulting the BRB. Two anagrinds that feature occasionally in his own clues are ‘flicks’ and ‘batting’, both used intransitively, but if he checked the Chambers definitions of both I think he’d stop immediately.
Hi RJHe
I’m sure you’re right about Azed. I must confess that I hadn’t myself checked ‘batting’ before I included it in a clue for a Listener puzzle a few years ago and was quite surprised when it was rejected – until I looked in Chambers! The OED gives intransitive meanings of both ‘bat’ and ‘flick’ which would potentially justify their use as anagrinds, but if they were to be allowed the floodgates would be opened for the likes of ‘bangles’, ‘wagtails’ and a great many more.
Is there room in the world of cryptic clue-setting for “divergent definitions”, which would have a common root but multiple meanings that are different enough to permit use in double-definition (DD) clues? One might surmise that I am a champion of such constructions, given the paucity of words that truly have different origins to their differing meanings.
Hi Dr Daniel
I assume that we are talking about a clue like ‘Engaged detective’ for BUSY, where both definitions appear under the same headword in the dictionary. Is that correct?
We are indeed. It also seems to be that this very subject has been discussed recently, if perhaps under a different name. Reduced cognitive capacity, c’est moi.
The earlier discussion on this site related to counterintuitive definitions rather than what you term divergent definitions (which seems as good a name for them as any). I think it’s a subject worthy of consideration.
There is a school of thought that in double definition clues the two definitions should be of words which are ‘completely different’ – this typically means that they relate to two separate dictionary headwords (eg stake=pole/stake=bet) or to one dictionary word and one proper noun (eg nice/Nice). This has the unusual (for crosswords) merit of being a very clear line, and it’s hard to argue with any definition pair which stays the right side of it. However, in a dictionary such as Chambers there are words which have been brought together under a single headword with questionable justification, and on top of that there are (as you say) ‘divergent’ meanings of various types, which may relate, say, to a gradual change in the sense of a word (eg devious) or the acquisition of informal/slang senses which bear little relation to the core meaning (eg clock).
I don’t see a problem with the use of DDs in double definition clues as long as they are fair to the solver, which really means being unambiguous (a consideration which also applies to ‘multiple headword’ double definition clues, but is probably a greater risk with divergent definitions where one sense is informal). I wouldn’t have a problem with ‘Notice face’ for CLOCK, but I would be less happy about ‘Notice timepiece’, which is dangerously close to being valid for both CLOCK and WATCH. I would not accept ‘What baker makes money?’ for BREAD, as it is also a clue for DOUGH.
Dear DrC
Thanks for the wonderfully informative site. What do you think about ‘at’ as juxtaposition indicator?
Hello Dr. X, and welcome to the site
That’s a very good question. It is certainly a horrible word to indicate in a wordplay (it’s not surprising that some setters resort to that old chestnut, ‘bit of a kip’), a reflection of it being an odd sort of word. While Chambers gives many meanings for prepositions such as ‘on’ and ‘in’, the entry for ‘at’ is limited to ‘Denoting (precise) position in space or time, or some similar relation, such as amount, response, occupation, aim, activity’.
And when you consider how the word is used in practice, you can see why that’s all Chambers is prepared to say. You can be ‘at the table’ but not ‘at the chair’. “He’s at the theatre” suggests that he’s inside, but “I’ll meet you back at the car” could mean either ‘near’ or ‘in’. There are certainly examples in English where ‘at’ might appear to mean ‘beside’, but where exactly is someone who is described as being ‘at the door’?
As a juxtaposition indicator it isn’t a clear no-no, but I feel the ‘precise position’ thing from Chambers suggests being in the same place rather than nearby, and that is what would prevent me from using it in my own clues.
Thank you for clarifying the issue, DrC. That helps.
Dear DrC
Though the C&C list on this (wonderful) site has ‘crowds’ as only a containment indicator, two definitions of crowd (vt) in Chambers are ‘to fill by pressing or driving together’ and ‘to compress’; would these not respectively imply both insertion and containment? Or should the former definition have ‘fill’ replaced by ‘make more dense’ — in which case the insertion interpretation vanishes? Thanks.
Hi Monk, it’s a pleasure to welcome a distinguished setter to the site.
Thank you for your kind comment and the observation/question. By coincidence, I was about to publish a post which inter alia encourages readers to submit suggestions for improvement to the lists, so it’s great to hear from someone doing just that!
My ‘go-to’ resource on occasions when Chambers offers insufficient clarity is the OED, and its definition 7 for the transitive verb is:
“To fill as a crowd does, to throng (a place). (The passive of result is to be crowded with; the passive of action to be crowded by.)”
One example given is “The servile and insincere flatterersā„.who crowded the antechambers of the great Queen.”
I think that’s a compelling justification for including ‘crowds/crowding’ as an insertion indicator and ‘crowded with’ as a containment indicator, which is what I will do! Many thanks for the suggestion.
Thanks DrC. Only just discovered this reply, so I thought that my Q had gone into the ether. Might there be a way of emailing to an unpublished ‘post (noun)-validation’ address an automated alert to any reply; better still, with a URL back to the original Q? Thanks … and also for the updated lists, of which good use already being made š
Hi Monk
Excellent idea! I’m going to experiment with a couple of notification plug-ins, but at the very least I will send an email notification to all new commenters when their first posting is approved.
While I was tidying up a large stack of papers (mainly crossword-related) yesterday, I came upon a couple of sheets on which I had jotted down several new candidate indicators, quite a few of which were not in the lists. I have added the remainder, and I will summarize them in a news post. Favourite: probably ‘mantle’ = ‘to cover’, as I can imagine something like “Touches warm gas mantles (6)”.
Richard Heald, another poster here — also friend, esteemed crossword-tester/solver and cluesmith extraordinaire — and I have often discussed such a construction’s unseen/implicit ‘that’, termed by Richard as a ‘thut’, as in “Touches warm [that] gas mantles”. May we hereby coin this as the [nicely rhyming] term “crosswordese present-indicative wheeze” (CPIW)?
It’s not such a pernickety point as in plain speech we’d be unlikely to say either “man jacket clothes” or “man that jacket clothes” but rather “jacket worn by man” or “man wearing jacket”. Probably explains why, as a solver, I’m very frequently caught off-guard (with ease!) by the CPIW.
I must confess that the CPIW (as it shall henceforth be known) is something of a favourite of mine, being of devious mind. It can be used in phrases when the relative pronoun is naturally omitted in English, eg ‘room one occupiesā for RIM, where the surface reading does not need a relative pronoun, eg ‘take back skirts’ for TRAIL, or when the pronoun appears to be part of the wordplay, eg ‘what cream comprises’ (BEHEST). I also like the compound CPIW, eg ‘area cricket ground covers’ for ICE TRACK. I’m not sure that I’m much good at spotting them in other people’s clues, though!
I can only echo your final description of RJH, although I have never quite forgiven him for (as Azed put it) ‘just pipping’ me in a certain Azed comp š
Hi, I would like to provide a link to your excellent list in my crossword construction web app (https://exet.app). It would be great if I can get a URL that directly shows *all* the entries (something like http://www.clueclinic.com/index.php/anagram-indicators/?all) instead of the first 100.
Thanks!
Ah, I had only looked at the anagrams list earlier, but I now see all the other excellent lists as well (containers, letter-picking, etc.). Same request for *all* of them, pleaseāURLs that lead to full lists. Thanks!
Hello. Your lists of indicators are invaluable for compilers and solvers alike. May I suggest that you consider creating an additional list – this would be for letter replacement indicators? For example “stands in for”, “assumes the role of” etc.
Hi Richard, and thank you for your comments.
As it happens, I already have a list with around 30 entries which I set up a little while ago but haven’t yet published. It includes your first example but not the second, which I actually used myself in a recent puzzle, so I would have benefited from the list being available too.
Once the list is published I hope that, as always, readers will contribute their own suggestions in order that I can make the list as comprehensive as possible. Watch this space!
Excellent – looking forward to seeing it. As it happens, I used the second example I gave in a clue I devised yesterday, which is why I had it in mind.
It is now available for perusal! All corrections and suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received.
Just finished AZED 200. Very enjoyable ! Hard to believe I was only 15 when this was published, a pupil at a ābog standardā comprehensive school and can honestly say, that of the 15 guests – apart from the team – I would only have been familiar with 2 of the names – and one of them we didnāt study (not a classical education!)
On which note , is there a possible typo for 6D ? My Chambers doesnāt have tellet – is it teller ?
Being a Patrick Leigh Fermor fan and lover of Crete, the best clue was definitely 7D !
I recall tackling this one before I put it on the site (unlike Azed 1 it hadn’t been filled in by the book’s previous owner), and I thought it was very tricky indeed – certainly harder than quite a few Listener puzzles of recent times. I don’t think it would have been any easier back in 1976, since the ‘guests’ were not figures contemporary with the puzzle.
I can’t blame the book for ‘tale-tellet’ – that was my transcription error, which I will fix when I remember how to upload the puzzles to the site!
I thought Iād have a go at AZED number 1. I found it hard going. 2D and 3D took a while to crack. I failed on 32D – I had wrap, I knew in my gut it was wrong. I only have 2014 Chambers which doesnāt have 38A ?? And I canāt parse 18A. Also, is there a misprint for 7D? I can make it work with a Scottish Slipper, but not clipper. Anyway it was fun. Best clue for me was 28D – very 1970s !
Hi Daron
if this puzzle appeared next week, I would probably rate it as 5/5 for difficulty – the earlier puzzles were quite a bit trickier than the more recent ones, and I can’t remember anything like the 2d/3d combo in recent times.
I think IZZET must have been omitted from Chambers some considerable time ago – OED gives it, along with ‘izzart’ and ‘uzzard’ as alternative spellings of ‘izzard’ (the only version which Chambers still gives).
18A is tough, and I don’t think Azed would write a clue like that these days. ‘Gammer’ is an archaic/dialect term for an old woman, but it isn’t an agent noun (it’s probably a corruption of grandmother) and therefore the idea that gammers would have gammed is both whimsical and obscure.
I’m certain you are right about 7D – I took the puzzle from ‘The Best of Azed Crosswords’, which has ‘clipper’, but it’s clearly an error. I’ll put that right – thanks for pointing it out.
28D is both concise and deceptive, very neat.
Ahead of your notes on Azed 2,615 could I query 16A? The answer is plain to see but nowhere in Chambers can I find this idiom, nor in the OED, nor in the text of Faerie Queene. Am I looking in the wrong place?
Hi Matthew
The notes are now published – I’ve picked that clue out for comment in “Setters’ Corner” and I think that what I’ve written there should answer your question, but please come back if not.
DrC
Thank you very much DrC – I did wonder if that was it!
Best of luck with the site. It looks good and I’m hoping its clinical data section will enable me to put my 12th edition Chambers away for good.
Thanks, David – much appreciated. All contributions to the site will be very gratefully received, as will suggestions for content…I feel there’s more that could usefully be added to the Clinical Data section, but I’m not sure what it is…