Interesting clue (spoils today's Times, No. 23900)
Peter Biddlecombe
New name Stalin made up for game (and Lenin wasn’t involved) (4,6)
Dave Baker
"Peter Biddlecombe" <peterbid...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b22a8811-21c7-4be6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Have a go at:
New name Stalin made up for game (and Lenin wasn't involved) (4,6)
Quite clever. Double anagram of "Lenin wasn't" and "New N Stalin". Lawn
tennis.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Flying Tortoise
<peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Have a go at:
>
> New name Stalin made up for game (and Lenin wasn’t involved) (4,6)
Haven't I seen that clue before? Fairly recently in fact.
Chris Shore
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:fv76ct$pth$1...@news.datemas.de...
Indeed, very nice. However, I started on the wrong track by trying to
make an anagram of "New name Stalin" with the letters LENIN deleted.
The letter count being wrong put a stop to that one fairly quickly but
it struck me that it would havebeen a much nicer way of constructing
the clue...
Chris
Peter Biddlecombe
I didn't think it was a re-run, but if it is I'd be interested to know
where
else you saw it.
Flying Tortoise
<peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 3:07 pm, Flying Tortoise <purple....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 1:11 pm, Peter Biddlecombe
>
> > <peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Have a go at:
>
> > > New name Stalin made up for game (and Lenin wasn’t involved) (4,6)
>
> > Haven't I seen that clue before? Fairly recently in fact.
>
> I didn't think it was a re-run, but if it is I'd be interested to know
> where
> else you saw it.
Ah, well, now there's the question! I don't stray from The Times,
Listener, Spectator round very often so logic suggests it would be one
of them but ...
I'm pretty certain I'm not psychic or precogniscant and I distinctly
remember thinking that I'd not seen a 'double' anagram before and I'm
fairly sure it involved Stalin and tennis but whether it was ten grids
ago or a hundred.....
I'll let you know if it comes to me in a blinding flash.
Michael Tuchman
Stalin". Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is taken?
Peter Biddlecombe
> >news:b22a8811-21c7-4be6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > Have a go at:
>
> > New name Stalin made up for game (and Lenin wasn't involved) (4,6)
>
> > Quite clever. Double anagram of "Lenin wasn't" and "New N Stalin". Lawn
> > tennis.
>
> OK - but how does one figure out that the anagram should be of "New N
> Stalin". Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is taken?
How: by counting letters in 'new name Stalin' - something has to give!
Why: because N is an abbreviation for Name ("why can", maybe, rather
than "why does")
Rishi
> >news:b22a8811-21c7-4be6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > Have a go at:
>
> > New name Stalin made up for game (and Lenin wasn't involved) (4,6)
>
> > Quite clever. Double anagram of "Lenin wasn't" and "New N Stalin". Lawn
> > tennis.
>
> OK - but how does one figure out that the anagram should be of "New N
> Stalin". Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is taken?
That's a good question. Solvers are right in expecting actual letters
to be arranged.
However, it is an established convention in UK cryptics to indicate
any roman numeral (e.g., V, C) or well-known abbreviation (e.g., N) in
the anagram fodder by a phrase (five, hundred or Northern) in the
clue.
Note that Northern gives only N. "Compass point" won't do for N
because it might also be any other.
Of course, US cryptics with their stricter and more compact rules may
never allow this.
Mark Brader
> > Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is taken?
> However, it is an established convention in UK cryptics to indicate
> any roman numeral (e.g., V, C) or well-known abbreviation (e.g., N) in
> the anagram fodder by a phrase (five, hundred or Northern) in the
> clue.
In what context (beside "Chambers"!) is N a well-known abbreviation
for "name"? I don't remember seeing the word abbreviated at all.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "There are no new ideas, only new
m...@vex.net mouths to speak them." -- Linda Burman
Peter T. Daniels
> Michael Tuchman:
>
> > > Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is taken?
>
> "Rishi":
>
> > However, it is an established convention in UK cryptics to indicate
> > any roman numeral (e.g., V, C) or well-known abbreviation (e.g., N) in
> > the anagram fodder by a phrase (five, hundred or Northern) in the
> > clue.
>
> In what context (beside "Chambers"!) is N a well-known abbreviation
> for "name"? I don't remember seeing the word abbreviated at all.
In the (old, anyway -- 1928) Episcopal Prayer Book: "I, N.N., do ..."
when the penitent or vower was to state their name.
Rishi
You've a point there! While browsing through Chambers I often see some
abbreviations duly recorded but which I have never seen used in any
context or text outside of the crossword solver's favourite
dictionary.
Peter Biddlecombe
> Michael Tuchman:
>
> > > Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is taken?
>
> "Rishi":
>
> > However, it is an established convention in UK cryptics to indicate
> > any roman numeral (e.g., V, C) or well-known abbreviation (e.g., N) in
> > the anagram fodder by a phrase (five, hundred or Northern) in the
> > clue.
>
> In what context (beside "Chambers"!) is N a well-known abbreviation
> for "name"? I don't remember seeing the word abbreviated at all.
Good point! Abbrevs in the Times puzzle (one-letter ones in
particular)
are usually kept to ones on a list, which has essentially the ones
in one or both of Collins and Concise Oxford, with exotic stuff like
B=Barns (Concise Oxford) excluded. It's just possible that n=name
has been added to one of the two since my editions were published,
or that they let it in via the Prayer Book, though the Brit version
has
"N. or M.", jokingly explained as "name or moniker". But I also
wonder whether allowing name=N was a rare editorial slip-up.
Peter B
The Last Danish Pastry
news:d9f0f724-5cd1-4e22...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
#On May 7, 8:12 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
#> Michael Tuchman:
#>
#> > > Why does 'NAME' get shortened to 'N' before the anagram is
taken?
#>
#> "Rishi":
#>
#> > However, it is an established convention in UK cryptics to
indicate
#> > any roman numeral (e.g., V, C) or well-known abbreviation (e.g.,
N) in
#> > the anagram fodder by a phrase (five, hundred or Northern) in the
#> > clue.
#>
#> In what context (beside "Chambers"!) is N a well-known abbreviation
#> for "name"? I don't remember seeing the word abbreviated at all.
#> --
#> Mark Brader, Toronto "There are no new ideas, only new
#> m...@vex.net mouths to speak them." -- Linda Burman
#
#You've a point there! While browsing through Chambers I often see
some
#abbreviations duly recorded but which I have never seen used in any
#context or text outside of the crossword solver's favourite
#dictionary.
Here is a clue which uses an abbreviation from Chambers that I have
never noticed in a crossword...
A bad fiend (5)
--
Clive Tooth
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=61771
Michael Tuchman
here somewhere.... :-)
Seriously, though, I appreciate both perspectives - I'm glad I'm not the
only one who blinked at the 'N=Name'. I can respect the "why can"
rather than "why does" argument. After all, this is about creativity,
not law. Still at some point, you can't stretch the Silly Putty(TM)
too far before there's no longer a connection.
Peter Biddlecombe
> "Rishi" <chaturv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
indef. (an abbreviation for "indefinite")
But:
In the kind of puzzles that use weird stuff from Chambers,
answers are not abbreviations unless there's at least a
note like "one answer is an abbreviation".
For me at least, "indefinite" and "indefinite article", which
matches the "A" that you're using as a def., are not the
same thing.
The Last Danish Pastry
Erm... INDEF is not the answer.
However, I should not have said "... uses an abbreviation from
Chambers ..." but rather "... uses a symbol from Chambers ...".
Peter Biddlecombe
> "Peter Biddlecombe" <peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Well maybe after another day or so of not getting a
right answer, you should give us some checking letters,
or just tell us.
The Last Danish Pastry
Yes, I'll give it another 24 hours... then I'll post the solution and
see if anybody can explain it. I will be careful to put on my special
brickbat-proof helmet first...
The Last Danish Pastry
news:68fp45F...@mid.individual.net...
A bad fiend (5)
DEVIL
Colin Blackburn
> "The Last Danish Pastry" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68fp45F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Yes, I'll give it another 24 hours... then I'll post the solution
>> and see if anybody can explain it. I will be careful to put on my
>> special brickbat-proof helmet first...
>
> A bad fiend (5)
>
> DEVIL
A -> 500 -> D
I think it is a leap too far to read A as a medieval Roman numeral and
then convert that back to an ancient Roman numeral without some
additional indicator.
Interesting though.
Colin
The Last Danish Pastry
news:68ig75F...@mid.individual.net...
You got it :)
But I have never seen, for example, "300 arrangements..." for B ORDERS
...
What stops setters from using 300=B? I have always thought "in
Chambers" = "OK".
Peter Biddlecombe
I agree with Colin!
Given the range of other abbrev. choices for puzzles where these
medieval Roman numerals are suitable material (advanced
cryptics with Chambers as the reference), they always seem
like barrel-scraping to me. (And I don't recall them being
taken quite this far - just a number to letter conversion, like
"Italian loving 500 more" for AMORE (not in Chambers but
allowing medieval notation but not a reference to a well-known
song seems daft!)
Peter Biddlecombe
> "Colin Blackburn" <n...@ximenes.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:68ig75F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Last Danish Pastry wrote:
> >> "The Last Danish Pastry" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:68fp45F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> Yes, I'll give it another 24 hours... then I'll post the solution
> >>> and see if anybody can explain it. I will be careful to put on my
> >>> special brickbat-proof helmet first...
>
> >> A bad fiend (5)
>
> >> DEVIL
>
> > A -> 500 -> D
>
> > I think it is a leap too far to read A as a medieval Roman numeral
> > and then convert that back to an ancient Roman numeral without some
> > additional indicator.
>
> > Interesting though.
>
> You got it :)
>
> But I have never seen, for example, "300 arrangements..." for B ORDERS
> ...
>
> What stops setters from using 300=B? I have always thought "in
> Chambers" = "OK".
In most cases, common sense! The rule you quote applies to
barred-grid cryptics. If you apply it to daily paper puzzles you
soon end up with unsolvable puzzles. AFAIK no daily paper
blocked puzzle has ever used these, not even one of the
"eliminator" puzzles they used to use to whittle down the the
Times championship field.
Googling for
"medieval roman numerals"
only finds a few mentions in solving blogs, suggesting that
even in these hard puzzles, they're not used very often.