Herald Scotland Cryptic Crossword - Mon 05Apr2010 - help needed
Helen Edith Stephenson
request for help in here...
I'm Helen, a fifty-something Australian living in London and doing the
Glasgow Herald cryptic crossword fairly regularly - sometimes with more
success than other times. I find it's a generally approachable crossword
and that most of it is usually do-able - possibly because there are a
good many anagrams and they're some of the easier clues to solve!
If anyone wants to take a look, these crosswords are free and there's an
archive online which seems to go back about 9 months. The main URL to
get into the latest crossword and the archived crosswords (with
solutions to the latter) is
<http://www.heraldscotland.com/services/puzzles/crosswords>
Today's Herald Scotland crossword wasn't too difficult overall, but I am
left with two words that I can't get.
4 across - Short skirt pretty girl's about to make shorter [8]
_ I _ I _ I _ _
8 down - Distribute information for the press [4,3]
_ _ N _ � O _ T
The first letter of 8 down is the last letter of 4 across.
I'm assuming that a short skirt is a MINI and I originally thought that
the answer might be MINIMISE, but that didn't fit with 8 down which is
likely to be either HAND OUT or possibly BANG OUT. I can't think of
anything that fits 4 across that ends in either B or H and a dictionary
search has proved fruitless. I think "pretty girl's about" might mean
that the last 4 letters of 4 across mean "pretty girl" but need to be
arranged backwards to form the rest of the answer to 4 across, but maybe
I've got the whole thing totally wrong and the word doesn't even start
with MINI.
Help!
Helen
Helen Edith Stephenson <helen at baronmoss dot demon dot co dot uk>
--
(I'm sure you can figure out what I mean!)
Website: http://www.wuronga.me.uk/helen/index.html
Blog: http://helenedith.wordpress.com/
Rob Parker
"Helen Edith Stephenson" <he...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5nX1knGQ...@baronmoss.demon.co.uk...
>I suppose I should introduce myself before launching into my first
> request for help in here...
>
> I'm Helen, a fifty-something Australian living in London and doing the
> Glasgow Herald cryptic crossword fairly regularly - sometimes with more
> success than other times. I find it's a generally approachable crossword
> and that most of it is usually do-able - possibly because there are a
> good many anagrams and they're some of the easier clues to solve!
>
> If anyone wants to take a look, these crosswords are free and there's an
> archive online which seems to go back about 9 months. The main URL to
> get into the latest crossword and the archived crosswords (with
> solutions to the latter) is
> <http://www.heraldscotland.com/services/puzzles/crosswords>
>
>
>
> Today's Herald Scotland crossword wasn't too difficult overall, but I am
> left with two words that I can't get.
>
>
> 4 across - Short skirt pretty girl's about to make shorter [8]
>
> _ I _ I _ I _ _
>
> 8 down - Distribute information for the press [4,3]
>
>
> The first letter of 8 down is the last letter of 4 across.
>
> I'm assuming that a short skirt is a MINI and I originally thought that
> the answer might be MINIMISE, but that didn't fit with 8 down which is
> likely to be either HAND OUT or possibly BANG OUT. I can't think of
> anything that fits 4 across that ends in either B or H and a dictionary
> search has proved fruitless. I think "pretty girl's about" might mean
> that the last 4 letters of 4 across mean "pretty girl" but need to be
> arranged backwards to form the rest of the answer to 4 across, but maybe
> I've got the whole thing totally wrong and the word doesn't even start
> with MINI.
>
> Help!
>
> Helen
>
> Helen Edith Stephenson <helen at baronmoss dot demon dot co dot uk>
> --
> (I'm sure you can figure out what I mean!)
> Website: http://www.wuronga.me.uk/helen/index.html
> Blog: http://helenedith.wordpress.com/
DIMINISH (Dish - pretty girl - around mini)
HAND OUT
Rob
Mark Brader
on the one-word (noun) and two-word (verb) forms of the same expression.
Not by any means what I would call a good clue.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Well, I'm back", he said.
m...@vex.net -- Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings)
Peter Biddlecombe
The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this
are necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American
crossword editors. I have just looked at the sections about double
definitions in Don Manley's 'Chambers Crossword Manual', and in the
clue-writing section of Jonathan Crowther's (Azed's) "A-Z of
Crosswords". Neither says that "shared root" double definitions are
wrong - and Manley includes "Tumblers producing spectacles" as a clue
for GLASSES - both meanings of course being "something made from glass
and therefore called GLASS".
It's possible to find clues in some puzzles which just string a couple
of synonyms together for a double def, and the setter/editor doesn't
realise that other words of the same length would be equally valid
answers. So "Depraved and corrupt (6)" would be a poor clue for
WICKED, because SINFUL is an qually good answer, and there may be
other 6-letter words meaning the same. Banning "shared root" double
definitions is one way of avoiding this problem, but not the only
way. Careful thought from setters and editors is another way.
I'll agree that the clue to HANDOUT is poor, if you can provide
another 7-letter answer which fits both defs AND in at least one of
those meanings is a 2-word phrase allowing the (4,3) enumeration to be
used. Otherwise it's a perfectly fair clue though maybe not a very
original idea.
Mark Brader
> > Rob didn't explain the second answer. It's a double definition based
> > on the one-word (noun) and two-word (verb) forms of the same expression.
> > Not by any means what I would call a good clue.
Peter Biddlecombe:
> The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this
> are necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American
> crossword editors.
So, someone needs to learn from them. Sheesh! :-)
> I have just looked at the sections about double
> definitions in Don Manley's 'Chambers Crossword Manual', and in the
> clue-writing section of Jonathan Crowther's (Azed's) "A-Z of
> Crosswords". Neither says that "shared root" double definitions are
> wrong - and Manley includes "Tumblers producing spectacles" as a clue
> for GLASSES - both meanings of course being "something made from glass
> and therefore called GLASS".
That's a shared etymological origin, which I would still say falls afoul
of the rule, but the Herald clue was worse -- it used the same *meaning*.
It's not really a double definition at all; it's two variants of a single
definition.
--
Mark Brader | "If the standard says that [things] depend on the
Toronto | phase of the moon, the programmer should be prepared
m...@vex.net | to look out the window as necessary." -- Chris Torek
Peter Biddlecombe
> Mark Brader:
>
> > > Rob didn't explain the second answer. It's a double definition based
> > > on the one-word (noun) and two-word (verb) forms of the same expression.
> > > Not by any means what I would call a good clue.
>
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> > The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this
> > are necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American
> > crossword editors.
>
> So, someone needs to learn from them. Sheesh! :-)
What are we learning? I'm happy to learn good ideas about clue-
writing from anywhere, if I can understand why they are good ideas
about cryptic clues, as opposed to (in this case) arbitrary rules
which are one way of getting round a problem. The same set of North
American rules excludes clues consisting of three or more definitions:
do you expect the rest of the cryptic crossword world to follow this
too?
Why do we have rules about clue-writing? I believe we have them to
ensure that puzzles are solvable and that when someone solves a clue,
they're confident that their sensible answer to the clue is the right
answer. I do not believe we have them just so that people can find
reasons to grumble about clues.
>
> > I have just looked at the sections about double
> > definitions in Don Manley's 'Chambers Crossword Manual', and in the
> > clue-writing section of Jonathan Crowther's (Azed's) "A-Z of
> > Crosswords". Neither says that "shared root" double definitions are
> > wrong - and Manley includes "Tumblers producing spectacles" as a clue
> > for GLASSES - both meanings of course being "something made from glass
> > and therefore called GLASS".
>
> That's a shared etymological origin, which I would still say falls afoul
> of the rule, but the Herald clue was worse -- it used the same *meaning*.
> It's not really a double definition at all; it's two variants of a single
> definition.
And you've again failed to tell us why this is a bad thing in a clue-
solving context. What stops you finding HANDOUT / HAND OUT as the
answer that fits both "variants", and NOT finding any other answer?
Steven Gibbs
> The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this are
> necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American crossword
> editors.
I'm not sure about that. That was a "rule" I learnt many years ago, and it
would have been from English sources, almost certainly Don Putnam's "Square
Dealing" series in the old Games & Puzzles magazine (because I can't think
where else I might have learnt it!). It's certainly one of those rules that
I really hate to see broken.
Steven
Peter Biddlecombe
wrote:
> "Peter Biddlecombe" <peterbiddleco...@googlemail.com> wrote
It's perfectly possible that other setters have followed the same
rule, and I suspect there are some setters in the UK who follow this
rule today. (Games & Puzzles was published 1972-1981, so before I was
really serious about solving crosswords.) But in terms of there being
a rule that's followed by a majority of setters, I would still count
this one as North American, in the same way that the Concise Oxford
dictionary classifies informal use of "sure" meaning "certainly" as
North American, even though some Brits use it.
Helen Edith Stephenson
<NOSPAMro...@optusnet.com.au.FORME> writes
>
>"Helen Edith Stephenson" <he...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5nX1knGQ...@baronmoss.demon.co.uk...
>> Today's Herald Scotland crossword wasn't too difficult overall, but I am
>> left with two words that I can't get.
>>
>>
>> 4 across - Short skirt pretty girl's about to make shorter [8]
>>
>> _ I _ I _ I _ _
>>
>> 8 down - Distribute information for the press [4,3]
>>
>> _ _ N _ Ś O _ T
>>
>> The first letter of 8 down is the last letter of 4 across.
>>
>> I'm assuming that a short skirt is a MINI and I originally thought that
>> the answer might be MINIMISE, but that didn't fit with 8 down which is
>> likely to be either HAND OUT or possibly BANG OUT. I can't think of
>> anything that fits 4 across that ends in either B or H and a dictionary
>> search has proved fruitless. I think "pretty girl's about" might mean
>> that the last 4 letters of 4 across mean "pretty girl" but need to be
>> arranged backwards to form the rest of the answer to 4 across, but maybe
>> I've got the whole thing totally wrong and the word doesn't even start
>> with MINI.
>>
>
>DIMINISH (Dish - pretty girl - around mini)
>
>HAND OUT
>
>Rob
Thanks Rob! I must have had my mental blinkers on as I'd considered DISH
but hadn't realised that it went around MINI - which I should have done
as the clue said "around".
I see that my post has generated quite a bit of discussion about whether
these are bad clues, and I have to say that occasionally the Herald
Scotland crossword *does* contain clues which seem somewhat unfair.
Naturally an example doesn't spring to mind right away, but I might
generate a bit of traffic in here by posting one next time I come across
one:-)
Andrew B.
> Mark Brader:
>
> > > Rob didn't explain the second answer. It's a double definition based
> > > on the one-word (noun) and two-word (verb) forms of the same expression.
> > > Not by any means what I would call a good clue.
>
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> > The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this
> > are necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American
> > crossword editors.
>
> So, someone needs to learn from them. Sheesh! :-)
>
> > I have just looked at the sections about double
> > definitions in Don Manley's 'Chambers Crossword Manual', and in the
> > clue-writing section of Jonathan Crowther's (Azed's) "A-Z of
> > Crosswords". Neither says that "shared root" double definitions are
> > wrong - and Manley includes "Tumblers producing spectacles" as a clue
> > for GLASSES - both meanings of course being "something made from glass
> > and therefore called GLASS".
>
> That's a shared etymological origin, which I would still say falls afoul
> of the rule, but the Herald clue was worse -- it used the same *meaning*.
> It's not really a double definition at all; it's two variants of a single
> definition.
I don't have the book to hand, but Brian Greer's book on the Times
crossword mentions this... IIRC he says it's a reasonable rule in
theory, but if you then disallow, say, "Polish fan (4)" as a clue for
BUFF, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (I may have
misremembered the sample clue he gave).
Mark Brader
> > > The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this
> > > are necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American
> > > crossword editors.
Mark Brader:
> > So, someone needs to learn from them. Sheesh! :-)
Peter Biddlecombe:
> What are we learning?
How to do it right, of course! Did you miss the smiley?
> Why do we have rules about clue-writing? I believe we have them to
> ensure that puzzles are solvable and that when someone solves a clue,
> they're confident that their sensible answer to the clue is the right
> answer...
Well, my reaction is that I'd be more confident that I had the right
answer if I'd found two *different* ways to get from the clue to the
word, the way I expect a cryptic crossword to do things. In other
words, solvability is tied to the reader's understanding of what is
allowed.
But anyway, solvability certainly isn't the only criterion for goodness.
Consider this clue from a PVPCWC:
Severely criticizes pathological liars (5)
If it said
Severely criticizes (LIARS anagram) (5)
that's equally solvable -- but would it be a good cryptic clue?
> And you've again failed to tell us why this is a bad thing in a clue-
> solving context. What stops you finding HANDOUT / HAND OUT as the
> answer that fits both "variants", and NOT finding any other answer?
That's not why it's a bad thing. It's a bad thing because that's not
how a double definition is supposed to be done, any more than the
LIARS example is how an anagram is supposed to be done. I say.
--
Mark Brader "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
Toronto do say can and will be misquoted and used against
m...@vex.net you in a future post." -- Tanja Cooper, misquoted
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Biddlecombe
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> > > > The idea that double-definitions based on shared meanings like this
> > > > are necessarily bad clues seems to be a notion from North American
> > > > crossword editors.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> > > So, someone needs to learn from them. Sheesh! :-)
>
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> > What are we learning?
>
> How to do it right, of course! Did you miss the smiley?
>
> > Why do we have rules about clue-writing? I believe we have them to
> > ensure that puzzles are solvable and that when someone solves a clue,
> > they're confident that their sensible answer to the clue is the right
> > answer...
>
> Well, my reaction is that I'd be more confident that I had the right
> answer if I'd found two *different* ways to get from the clue to the
> word, the way I expect a cryptic crossword to do things.
Because you learned to solve puzzles where clues always do that. If
you came from a different cryptic crossword culture, you wouldn't
expect that to happen all the time.
> In other
> words, solvability is tied to the reader's understanding of what is
> allowed.
>
> But anyway, solvability certainly isn't the only criterion for goodness.
I don't think I said that it was.
> Consider this clue from a PVPCWC:
>
> Severely criticizes pathological liars (5)
>
> If it said
>
> Severely criticizes (LIARS anagram) (5)
>
> that's equally solvable -- but would it be a good cryptic clue?
No, and it's not a clue you'd expect to see in a cryptic crossword
published anywhere in the last 40-odd years. (Clues almost as
pedestrian as this were part of the early British puzzles that evolved
into cryptic crosswords as we now know them.)
Mark Brader
>> But anyway, solvability certainly isn't the only criterion for goodness.
> I don't think I said that it was.
That certainly appeared to be your intention when you said:
>>> And you've again failed to tell us why this is a bad thing in a clue-
>>> solving context. What stops you finding HANDOUT / HAND OUT as the
>>> answer that fits both "variants", and NOT finding any other answer?
--
Mark Brader "He'll spend at least part of his life
Toronto in prison, or parliament, or both."
m...@vex.net --Peter Moylan
Peter Biddlecombe
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> But anyway, solvability certainly isn't the only criterion for goodness.
>
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> > I don't think I said that it was.
>
> That certainly appeared to be your intention when you said:
>
> >>> And you've again failed to tell us why this is a bad thing in a clue-
> >>> solving context. What stops you finding HANDOUT / HAND OUT as the
> >>> answer that fits both "variants", and NOT finding any other answer?
You decided to tell us that a clue was bad because it didn't follow
the rules - or rather, the rules used by some people who produce
cryptic crosswords. The clue-solving context is important because it
reminds us why we have the rules, not because solvability is the only
criterion for deciding whether a clue is good. If you import a set of
rules and apply it where a different set of rules is used, you will
easily find people doing the "wrong thing", just as you will find
people driving on the "wrong side of the road" if you cross the
Atlantic.
Mark Brader
>>>> But anyway, solvability certainly isn't the only criterion for
>>>> goodness.
Peter Biddlecombe:
>>> I don't think I said that it was.
Mark Brader:
>> That certainly appeared to be your intention when you said:
>>>>> And you've again failed to tell us why this is a bad thing in a clue-
>>>>> solving context. What stops you finding HANDOUT / HAND OUT as the
>>>>> answer that fits both "variants", and NOT finding any other answer?
Peter Biddlecombe:
> You decided to tell us that a clue was bad because it didn't follow
> the rules...
To be exact, I said it was "Not by any means what I would call a good
clue."
> - or rather, the rules used by some people who produce
> cryptic crosswords.
Indeed, I had not realized that the rule in question was not universal.
However, I did word my original criticism cautiously enough to allow
for the possibility. You seemed to take offense anyway.
> The clue-solving context is important because it reminds us why we
> have the rules, not because solvability is the only criterion for
> deciding whether a clue is good.
Then why did you say "And you've again failed to tell us"? I never
claimed the clue was unsolvable. We don't consider "(anagram LIARS)"
acceptable any more, because it's not cryptic enough. And the sort
of double definition in question is, to some of us, unacceptable for
the same sort of reason.
> If you import a set of rules and apply it where a different set of
> rules is used, you will easily find people doing the "wrong thing",
Of course. And I thank you for the information that this is an area
where standards vary -- although it seems that there is variation
within Britain.
> just as you will find people driving on the "wrong side of the road"
> if you cross the Atlantic.
Well, that one rather depends on what country I cross into.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It is one thing to praise discipline, and another
m...@vex.net | to submit to it." -- Miguel de Cervantes, 1613
Peter Biddlecombe
> Mark Brader:
>
> >>>> But anyway, solvability certainly isn't the only criterion for
> >>>> goodness.
>
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> >>> I don't think I said that it was.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> That certainly appeared to be your intention when you said:
> >>>>> And you've again failed to tell us why this is a bad thing in a clue-
> >>>>> solving context. What stops you finding HANDOUT / HAND OUT as the
> >>>>> answer that fits both "variants", and NOT finding any other answer?
>
> Peter Biddlecombe:
>
> > You decided to tell us that a clue was bad because it didn't follow
> > the rules...
>
> To be exact, I said it was "Not by any means what I would call a good
> clue."
Is that supposed to mean something other than "A bad clue"?
>
> > - or rather, the rules used by some people who produce
> > cryptic crosswords.
>
> Indeed, I had not realized that the rule in question was not universal.
> However, I did word my original criticism cautiously enough to allow
> for the possibility. You seemed to take offense anyway.
>
> > The clue-solving context is important because it reminds us why we
> > have the rules, not because solvability is the only criterion for
> > deciding whether a clue is good.
>
> Then why did you say "And you've again failed to tell us"? I never
> claimed the clue was unsolvable. We don't consider "(anagram LIARS)"
> acceptable any more, because it's not cryptic enough. And the sort
> of double definition in question is, to some of us, unacceptable for
> the same sort of reason.
In this particular case, I'll agree that it's not particularly
cryptic. But you didn't mention "not cryptic enough", just the shared
defintion aspect. And there are "shared definition" clues like the
"polish fan" one suggested by someone else, which for me at least are
cryptic enough to count as acceptable clues.
Mark Brader
>>> You decided to tell us that *a clue was bad* because it didn't follow
>>> the rules...
Mark Brader:
>> To be exact, I said it was "Not by any means *what I would call* a good
>> clue."
Peter Biddlecombe:
> Is that supposed to mean something other than "A bad clue"?
"Not good" is not necessarily bad. Also, see emphasis added above.
And I'm done with this thread.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "The last time I trusted you, we had Mark."
m...@vex.net -- Jill, "Home Improvement" (B.K. Taylor)
Rodders
>
> "Not good" is not necessarily bad. Also, see emphasis added above.
> And I'm done with this thread.
Thank fcuk for that :-)
Mark Brader
> > And I'm done with this thread.
> Thank fcuk for that :-)
Women's wear, right? Were we *dragging* it out, then?
--
Mark Brader, Short words good; sesquipedalian verbalizations undesirable
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- after George Orwell