ASCWC 5 - TRAIN-SPOTTER - The Clues
Vari L. Cinicke
clues. If I have gone off the rails, please apply the necessary
corrections. I will evaluate the clues and pick a winner after waiting a
couple of days for responses.
TRAIN-SPOTTER
1. One (esp. a small boy) whose hobby is observing trains and recording
railway locomotive numbers.
2. Also a person who enthusiastically studies the minutiae of any
subject; a collector of trivial information.
=========================
Mark Brader
Painter who turns Deltics into Dalmatians? (5-7)
I am not quite sure how this works but think this is an &lit.
A Deltic is a train (as well as the engine) and a Dalmatian is spotted.
So the TRAIN-SPOTTER is a painter who (laboriously) paints spots on
trains to make them resemble Dalmatians?
Perhaps the &lit reading is to the second meaning.
=========================
Duke Lefty
Track enthusiast is a runner with jumbled pains on the inside (5-7)
Track enthusiast = TR (AIN-SP) OTTER
=========================
Luciano Ward
Prostrate nit going "Loco!"? (5-7)
&lit, fodder = Prostrate nit
=========================
Rob Kingston
Anorak gives boy wizard a lesson (5-7)
Anorak = DEF (slang) = TRAINS-POTTER
=========================
jasonpaultyler
Nerd shagging a ten ton stripper is sans penis. (5-8)
Nerd = DEF, shaggging = anagram indicator, fodder = a ten ton stripper
is - penis
=========================
Old Timer
Strange pattern I sort for weirdo (5-7)
(pattern I sort)* = weirdo = DEF
=========================
Rodders
Observer of bridal wear (5,7)
&lit TRAIN-SPOTTER
=========================
Steve B
Rat agitating in protest against the status quo is a fanatic whose
motives are loco? (12)
a fanatic whose motives are loco? = DEF, (Rat)* + in + (protest)*,
anagram indicators are 'agitating' and 'against the status quo'.
=========================
John Masters
Observer online educates young speller (5-7)
Observer online = DEF = TRAINS + POTTER
=========================
Veer
I help athletes in the gym with weights, perhaps too obsessively for
just an interested observer? (5-7)
Not clear on the breakdown.
perhaps too obsessively for just an interested observer? = DEF?
I help athletes in the gym with weights = TRAIN-SPOTTER?
help athletes in the gym with weights = SPOT. Not sure where the TRAIN
is coming from.
=========================
Vinit
Nerd totters having sprain injury (5-7)
Nerd = DEF, fodder = totters + sprain
--
Cheers,
vc
Veer
> I have assembled the clues and have provided my interpretation of the
> clues. If I have gone off the rails, please apply the necessary
> corrections. I will evaluate the clues and pick a winner after waiting a
> couple of days for responses.
>
> TRAIN-SPOTTER
>
> 1. One (esp. a small boy) whose hobby is observing trains and recording
> railway locomotive numbers.
>
> 2. Also a person who enthusiastically studies the minutiae of any
> subject; a collector of trivial information.
> =========================
>
> I help athletes in the gym with weights, perhaps too obsessively for
> just an interested observer? (5-7)
>
> Not clear on the breakdown.
> perhaps too obsessively for just an interested observer? = DEF?
> I help athletes in the gym with weights = TRAIN-SPOTTER?
>
> help athletes in the gym with weights = SPOT. Not sure where the TRAIN
> is coming from.
> =========================
vc:Thanks for the line breaks in between making it easy to cut and
paste..
My idea behind the clue is as a semi &lit:
Athletes in the gym : TRAIN
I help //athletes in the gym (TRAIN)// with weights : SPOTTER
perhaps : indicative of a cryptic meaning
too obsessively for just an interested observer : Definition : TRAIN-
SPOTTER
Cheers
vinit
>
> Nerd totters having sprain injury (5-7)
>
> Nerd = DEF, fodder = totters + sprain
> --
It should be T(sprain)*OTTER. Oh ! Wrong enumeration on my part.
Impulsive clue !
Vinit
Peter Biddlecombe
> I have assembled the clues and have provided my interpretation of the
> clues. If I have gone off the rails, please apply the necessary
> corrections. I will evaluate the clues and pick a winner after waiting a
> couple of days for responses.
>
> TRAIN-SPOTTER
>
> 1. One (esp. a small boy) whose hobby is observing trains and recording
> railway locomotive numbers.
>
> 2. Also a person who enthusiastically studies the minutiae of any
> subject; a collector of trivial information.
> =========================
> Mark Brader
>
> Painter who turns Deltics into Dalmatians? (5-7)
>
> I am not quite sure how this works but think this is an &lit.
>
> A Deltic is a train (as well as the engine) and a Dalmatian is spotted.
> So the TRAIN-SPOTTER is a painter who (laboriously) paints spots on
> trains to make them resemble Dalmatians?
>
> Perhaps the &lit reading is to the second meaning.
I don't think you understand what an &lit is. A clue is &lit if the
whole clue is simultaneously a definition and wordplay. I cannot
see wordplay to make TRAIN-SPOTTER here, so unless I'm being
dense, it cannot possibly be an &lit. There is no such thing as
an "&lit reading". I would classify it as a cryptic definition, as
there is no definition of a dictionary meaning of the answer.
[If you have been guided by the "Secrets of the
Setters" book based on Guardian crosswords, the author
misunderstands &lits and counts cryptic definitions as &lits.]
Corny old example of an &lit:
This could give bang out at sea, for GUNBOAT - a definition
and a description of anagramming "bang out", with "at sea"
as the anagram indicator.
> =========================
> Luciano Ward
>
> Prostrate nit going "Loco!"? (5-7)
>
> &lit, fodder = Prostrate nit
[This one _is_ an &lit]
> =========================
> Rodders
>
> Observer of bridal wear (5,7)
>
> &lit TRAIN-SPOTTER
Again, NOT an &lit - there is no wordplay. Again, it's
a cryptic def punning on the train of a trad wedding dress.
Peter Biddlecombe
Impulsive correction too?
"Enumeration" normally means the numbers in brackets
at the end of the clue. (5-7) is correct. What's wrong is that
the fodder contains two S's and the answer only has one.
It would work as a clue to TRAIN-SPOTTERS.
Steve Ball
> On Jun 3, 8:46 am, vinit <vini...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Vinit
>>
>>> Nerd totters having sprain injury (5-7)
>>
>>> Nerd = DEF, fodder = totters + sprain
>>> --
>>
>> It should be T(sprain)*OTTER. Oh ! Wrong enumeration on my part.
>> Impulsive clue !
>>
>> Vinit
>
> Impulsive correction too?
> "Enumeration" normally means the numbers in brackets
> at the end of the clue. (5-7) is correct.
Funny, it's (12) everywhere I looked.
--
Steve = : ^ )
Steve Ball
Only then the definition would need to be "nerds".
Vari L. Cinicke
>> =========================
>> > Rodders
>> >
>> > Observer of bridal wear (5,7)
>> >
>> > &lit TRAIN-SPOTTER
> a cryptic def punning on the train of a trad wedding dress.
>
>
>
Bridal wear = TRAIN, observer = SPOTTER
An "observer of bridal wear" fits the secondary definition of
TRAIN-SPOTTER well enough.
I do understand that &lits have to use the whole clue as the definition
and provide an alternate cryptic reading.
--
Cheers,
vc
Colin Blackburn
> On 6/4/2010 2:27 AM, Peter Biddlecombe wrote:
>>> =========================
>>> > Rodders
>>> >
>>> > Observer of bridal wear (5,7)
>>> >
>>> > &lit TRAIN-SPOTTER
>> Again, NOT an&lit - there is no wordplay. Again, it's
>> a cryptic def punning on the train of a trad wedding dress.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bridal wear = TRAIN, observer = SPOTTER
That's not wordplay it's just how the cryptic definition works.
> An "observer of bridal wear" fits the secondary definition of
> TRAIN-SPOTTER well enough.
Eh? How?
I agree with Peter this is just a cryptic definition.
Colin
Old Timer
<peterbid...@googlemail.com> launched the following text through
the ether:
Slightly OT - the best &lit I've ever come across was
Some in Commons term Mrs T one, abusively (7)
This is a double &lit, containing both a hidden word and an anagram -
clever stuff!
vinit
having sprain injury (5-7)
Peter Biddlecombe
Concise Oxford and Chambers have it as one word, Collins as two
words. But (12) seems to be the norm. Apologies for being distracted
by a different mistake and wrong assuming there was only one.
Peter Biddlecombe
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > On 6/4/2010 2:27 AM, Peter Biddlecombe wrote:
> >>> =========================
> >>> > Rodders
>
> >>> > Observer of bridal wear (5,7)
>
> >>> > &lit TRAIN-SPOTTER
> >> Again, NOT an&lit - there is no wordplay. Again, it's
> >> a cryptic def punning on the train of a trad wedding dress.
>
> > Bridal wear = TRAIN, observer = SPOTTER
>
> That's not wordplay it's just how the cryptic definition works.
Agreed.
>
> > An "observer of bridal wear" fits the secondary definition of
> > TRAIN-SPOTTER well enough.
>
> Eh? How?
Agreed again. Specifically, assuming "secondary definition"
means the "person who enthusiastically studies the minutiae
of any subject" one, "observer of bridal wear" has nothing to
indicate the "enthisiastically" or "minutiae" aspects, and
why "bridal wear" rather than any other 'subject'?
Vari L. Cinicke
Vari L. Cinicke
I may have been overeager in seeing &lits everywhere. Thanks for the
feedback.
--
Cheers,
vc
Peter T. Daniels
Because the only gowns we see trains on any more are bridal gowns?
In E2R's notorious photo shoot with Annie Leibowitz, did her garment
include a train?
Peter Biddlecombe
We've done that bit - I said already "it's a cryptic def punning on
the train of a trad wedding dress."
I assumed (correctly as far as I can tell) that we were discussing
whether the clue can function as a definition for the answer.
>
> In E2R's notorious photo shoot with Annie Leibowitz, did her garment
> include a train?
I have no idea whether anyone's garment included a train, or
why it matters.
Peter T. Daniels
Then why did you ask "why 'bridal wear'"?
> I assumed (correctly as far as I can tell) that we were discussing
> whether the clue can function as a definition for the answer.
>
> > In E2R's notorious photo shoot with Annie Leibowitz, did her garment
> > include a train?
>
> I have no idea whether anyone's garment included a train, or
> why it matters.-
Because if it did, it would be an example of a gown with a train that
was not a wedding dress. Duh!
Peter Biddlecombe
Because the clue was being described as an &lit. An &lit
is simultaneously wordplay and definition, not wordplay
and cryptic definition.
>
> > I assumed (correctly as far as I can tell) that we were discussing
> > whether the clue can function as a definition for the answer.
>
> > > In E2R's notorious photo shoot with Annie Leibowitz, did her garment
> > > include a train?
>
> > I have no idea whether anyone's garment included a train, or
> > why it matters.-
>
> Because if it did, it would be an example of a gown with a train that
> was not a wedding dress. Duh!
Maybe the simplest way to get the answer to a question is to
ask the question directly. Can I think of a gown with a train that
isn't a wedding dress? Yes - the outfit worn by "E2R" each year
for the state opening of parliament:
http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com/2008/12/state-opening-of-parliament-as-imagens.html
Steve Ball
I think we should draw a distinction between "cryptic definition", which is
something like (the old chestnut) "Jammed cylinder? 5,4" for SWISS ROLL
where the clue does, in fact, define the answer but in a misleading way, and
"pun" which is what we have here, which makes no real effort at definition,
and just plays on the words.
Peter Biddlecombe
If we're happy to accept that trains are common enough features of
bridal wear for "train spotter" to match "observer of bridal wear", I
think
that's a cryptic definition. (Despite finding a non-bridal "train"
this
morning, I think the link is close enough.)
I don't see how you draw the line between a CD and what you're
calling "pun". Understood the right way, an "observer of bridal
wear"
is a TRAINSPOTTER, and understood the right way, a "jammed
cylinder" is a SWISS ROLL rather than a part of a defective engine.
In one case, the word whose meaning is unexpected is TRAIN in
the answer and in the other it's 'jammed' in the clue. I don't think
this makes enough difference to make it worth using a different name.
Steve Ball
Well there's a distinction there to be drawn. This clue isn't a great
example so, consider this:
Area cordoned off containing a bomb, perhaps (4,3,4) = USED CAR YARD.
This is a cryptic definition: the clue is an accurate definition of the
answer, couched in misleading terms. "Jammed cylinder (5,4)" = SWISS ROLL is
of this type.
Now consider:
Where the cleric puts his wardrobe allowance? (10,4) = INVESTMENT FUND
This is a pun; there is little attempt at definition (beyond saying it's
somewhere money can be put); a cleric's wardrobe has *nothing* to do an
investment fund. Rather the clue puns on "vestment" (and, in this way, may
lead you to the answer). Note this type of clue typically ends with a "?"
where what I'm calling a cryptic definition usually doesn't require one.
I'm saying that the clue that started this discussion is of this type, and
that it's distinct from the "Jammed cylinder" type in that it contains a pun
- bridal wear has nothing to do with trainspotting; there's nothing
analogous to this in "Jammed cylinder" - and it makes little effort at
definition - here, "observer" is all we get - where "Jammed cylinder"
provides an accurate definition, albeit couched in misleading terms.
_Now_ do you get the distinction?
Peter Biddlecombe
I can see the difference and thought I had indicated this. But if
you
read "jammed cylinder" as the original setter of that clue wanted
you to read it, you are diverted away from SWISS ROLL, just as
you are diverted from TRAINSPOTTER by "observer of bridal wear".
"Observer" is NOT all you get - you get "bridal wear" which might
suggest TRAIN.
So for me, the distinction is worth recognising in detailed
discussion
of cryptic definition clues, but it's not worth inventing a new
clue-type and telling people that some of the clues that
would previously have been called cryptic defs are now to be called
something else.
Steve Ball
Observer IS all you get by way of *definition*, which is what I wrote,
(though you chose to ignore that part).
> - you get "bridal wear" which might
> suggest TRAIN.
That bit's a *pun* on "train", and that's _distinct_ from a *definition*.
That was my whole point: a pun is not a definition. They're two different,
*distinct* ways of pointing at an answer.
> So for me, the distinction is worth recognising in detailed
> discussion
> of cryptic definition clues, but it's not worth inventing a new
> clue-type and telling people that some of the clues that
> would previously have been called cryptic defs are now to be called
> something else.
You can call them what you like, but they're two distinct types of clue and
talking of them as it they're not is likely to go the way of any
conversation that's missing an important distinction. It might be said of
"Observer of bridal wear (5,7)" or "Where the cleric puts his wardrobe
allowance? (10,4)" that they're unfair because there's no accurate
definition. If you turn this in "Cryptic definitions are unfair because
there's no accurate definition" you also hit "You find them crowded in bars
(15) = SEMIDEMIQUAVERS, which has an excellent definition. Proceed at your
own risk.
Peter Biddlecombe
I don't know exactly when the term "cryptic definition" was invented,
but my guess is that this term has been in use for about 40 years.
My prediction is that this category will continue to be used for at
least another 40 years.
The problem with chopping up clue-types into more precise types
is the difficulty of maintaining common understanding of the
boundaries between the types. This is where we came in - this
sub-thread started because two clues were placed in the wrong
category. The best way to condemn future crossword fans to
even more tedious debate about whether a clue is categorised
correctly is to invent more categories. If you want further evidence
look at pretty much any discussion where the term "semi-&lit" is
used to describe a clue, and half the time is spent arguing about
what "semi-&lit" means.
Steve Ball
> On Jun 7, 1:06�ｿｽam, Steve Ball <pretty.g...@every.thing> wrote:
>> Peter Biddlecombe:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 10:30�ｿｽpm, Steve Ball <pretty.g...@every.thing> wrote:
>>>> Peter Biddlecombe:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:39�ｿｽam, Steve Ball <pretty.g...@every.thing> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Biddlecombe:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 7:47�ｿｽpm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 11:32�ｿｽam, Peter Biddlecombe
>>
>>>>>>>> <peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 1:16�ｿｽpm, Colin Blackburn <n...@ximenes.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2010 2:27 AM, Peter Biddlecombe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>>>>>> �ｿｽRodders
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> �ｿｽObserver of bridal wear (5,7)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> �ｿｽ&lit TRAIN-SPOTTER
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, NOT an&lit - there is no wordplay. �ｿｽAgain, it's
>>>>>> Steve �ｿｽ= : ^ )
>>
>>>>> If we're happy to accept that trains are common enough features of
>>>>> bridal wear for "train spotter" to match "observer of bridal wear", I
>>>>> think
>>>>> that's a cryptic definition. (Despite finding a non-bridal "train"
>>>>> this
>>>>> morning, I think the link is close enough.)
>>
>>>>> I don't see how you draw the line between a CD and what you're
>>>>> calling "pun". �ｿｽUnderstood the right way, an "observer of bridal
>>>>> wear"
>>>>> is a TRAINSPOTTER, and understood the right way, a "jammed
>>>>> cylinder" is a SWISS ROLL rather than a part of a defective engine.
>>>>> In one case, the word whose meaning is unexpected is TRAIN in
>>>>> the answer and in the other it's 'jammed' in the clue. �ｿｽI don't think
>>>>> this makes enough difference to make it worth using a different name.
>>
>>>> Well there's a distinction there to be drawn. This clue isn't a great
>>>> example so, consider this:
>>
>>>> Area cordoned off containing a bomb, perhaps (4,3,4) = USED CAR YARD.
>
>>
>>>> This is a cryptic definition: the clue is an accurate definition of the
>>>> answer, couched in misleading terms. "Jammed cylinder (5,4)" = SWISS ROLL
>>>> is
>>>> of this type.
>>
>>>> Now consider:
>>
>>>> Where the cleric puts his wardrobe allowance? (10,4) = INVESTMENT FUND
>>
>>>> This is a pun; there is little attempt at definition (beyond saying it's
>>>> somewhere money can be put); a cleric's wardrobe has *nothing* to do an
>>>> investment fund. Rather the clue puns on "vestment" (and, in this way, may
>>>> lead you to the answer). Note this type of clue typically ends with a "?"
>>>> where what I'm calling a cryptic definition usually doesn't require one.
>>
>>>> I'm saying that the clue that started this discussion is of this type, and
>>>> that it's distinct from the "Jammed cylinder" type in that it contains a
>>>> pun
>>>> - bridal wear has nothing to do with trainspotting; there's nothing
>>>> analogous to this in "Jammed cylinder" - and it makes little effort at
>>>> definition - here, "observer" is all we get - where "Jammed cylinder"
>>>> provides an accurate definition, albeit couched in misleading terms.
>>
>>>> _Now_ do you get the distinction?
>>>> --
>>>> Steve �ｿｽ= : ^ )
>>
>>> I can see the difference and thought I had indicated this. �ｿｽBut if
The problem with lumping different clue types together is the
misunderstanding generated when something is said about one type of "cryptic
definition" that doesn't apply to another type of "cryptic definition". We
can go backwards and forwards like this indefinitely. I'm fairly sure you
now appreciate the distinction between theses two types of clues commonly
lumped together under "cryptic definition". You can can call them what you
like, and I'll do the same.
Colin Blackburn
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
>>> Peter Biddlecombe:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 6, 10:30 pm, Steve Ball <pretty.g...@every.thing> wrote:
>>>>> Peter Biddlecombe:
>>>>>>> Peter Biddlecombe:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 11:32 am, Peter Biddlecombe
>>>>>>>>> <peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 1:16 pm, Colin Blackburn <n...@ximenes.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2010 2:27 AM, Peter Biddlecombe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Observer of bridal wear (5,7)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, NOT an&lit - there is no wordplay. Again, it's
>>>>>> If we're happy to accept that trains are common enough features of
>>>>>> bridal wear for "train spotter" to match "observer of bridal wear", I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that's a cryptic definition. (Despite finding a non-bridal "train"
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> morning, I think the link is close enough.)
>>>>>> I don't see how you draw the line between a CD and what you're
>>>>>> wear"
>>>>>> is a TRAINSPOTTER, and understood the right way, a "jammed
>>>>>> cylinder" is a SWISS ROLL rather than a part of a defective engine.
>>>>>> In one case, the word whose meaning is unexpected is TRAIN in
>>>>>> this makes enough difference to make it worth using a different name.
>>>>> Well there's a distinction there to be drawn. This clue isn't a great
>>>>> example so, consider this:
>>>>> Area cordoned off containing a bomb, perhaps (4,3,4) = USED CAR YARD.
>>>>> This is a cryptic definition: the clue is an accurate definition of the
>>>>> answer, couched in misleading terms. "Jammed cylinder (5,4)" = SWISS ROLL
>>>>> is
>>>>> of this type.
>>>>> Now consider:
>>>>> Where the cleric puts his wardrobe allowance? (10,4) = INVESTMENT FUND
>>>>> This is a pun; there is little attempt at definition (beyond saying it's
>>>>> somewhere money can be put); a cleric's wardrobe has *nothing* to do an
>>>>> investment fund. Rather the clue puns on "vestment" (and, in this way, may
>>>>> lead you to the answer). Note this type of clue typically ends with a "?"
>>>>> where what I'm calling a cryptic definition usually doesn't require one.
>>>>> I'm saying that the clue that started this discussion is of this type, and
>>>>> that it's distinct from the "Jammed cylinder" type in that it contains a
>>>>> pun
>>>>> - bridal wear has nothing to do with trainspotting; there's nothing
>>>>> analogous to this in "Jammed cylinder" - and it makes little effort at
>>>>> definition - here, "observer" is all we get - where "Jammed cylinder"
>>>>> provides an accurate definition, albeit couched in misleading terms.
>>>>> _Now_ do you get the distinction?
>>>>> --
>>>> I can see the difference and thought I had indicated this. But if
Of course you are always free to adopt whatever terminology you choose
when talking to yourself. But when trying to communicate with others it
is useful to have some common language. When you write a definitive book
on cryptic clues maybe your usage will start to be adopted. Until then
the usage used by Ximenes, Alec Robins, Don Manly, Azed, Don Putnam, Tim
Moorey,... will continue to prevail.
Colin