Parlez vous Francais
Uncle Yap
17Down British painter learns finally to think in French (7)
is a charade of S (learns finally) and PENCER*
I checked my Harrap's and think is given as PENSER
Did someone make a boo-boo?
*BTW, the C (first letter of 24A) is correct
For those who think I have robbed them of a clue,
here is one to replace
Greeting from Yap and nephew Ray (5,3,4)
John Dawson
wrote:
>In today's Sunday Times 4103
>17Down British painter learns finally to think in French (7)
>is a charade of S (learns finally) and PENCER*
>
>I checked my Harrap's and think is given as PENSER
>
>Did someone make a boo-boo?
>
>*BTW, the C (first letter of 24A) is correct
Spenser is the poet, Spencer the painter.
John D.
vinyl1
"John Dawson" <jo...@dont.ask.com> wrote in message
news:r5l2u0530t7f4anf2...@4ax.com...
obscure, named Spenser?
I can't think of one, but you just never know.....
Ilan Caron
happy new year, yap.
well, Winston SPENSER Churchill was quite an accomplished painter...
Mark Brader
> well, Winston SPENSER Churchill was quite an accomplished painter...
Try again.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Let us knot coin gnu werds huitch
m...@vex.net are spelld rong." -- Rik Fischer Smoody
Paddy Grove
But Uncle Yap stressed that the C fitted a crossing clue, so SPENSER
is not a valid answer.
- Paddy
--
Paddy Grove, Cambridge, UK
Rage of a theologian surrounded by party extremists (5)
http://www.psae.f2s.com/Crosswords/Crosswords.htm
Remove 'no spam please' from email to reply
Uncle Yap
<paddy...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com> wrote:
>But Uncle Yap stressed that the C fitted a crossing clue, so SPENSER
>is not a valid answer.
That checking letter C is from CHIMERA, an anagram of ice & harm
so there is absolutely no doubt that the intended answer is
SPENCER ; hence my query that someone boo-boo with
"pencer" as think in French
Ooops, I just solved another clue. Okay, to replace
Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
Robert Briggs
> John Dawson wrote:
> > Spenser is the poet, Spencer the painter.
> Are we absolutely sure that there was no British painter, no matter
> how obscure, named Spenser?
>
> I can't think of one, but you just never know.....
How about Spenser the poet?
Is it not quite likely that on at least one occasion he dipped a
brush into paint and applied it to some surface or other?
Peter Biddlecombe
"Robert Briggs" <Trebor...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote in message
news:41E2BCF0...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET...
Paddy Grove has already reminded us that what Spenser did
is irrelevant here. The clue demands a painter as an answer
and the answer SPENCER fits (and SPENSER doesn't).
The problem is the equation of PENCER with "to think in French".
Even if SPENSER was a possible answer, your suggestion
leads to absurdity - by this logic, anyone who's ever cooked
a meal counts as a chef, and anyone who's ever used a pen
or keyboard is a writer.
Danny Kodicek
"Peter Biddlecombe" <newsgrou...@biddlecombe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:zoydndFEwo6...@nildram.net...
I'd disagree with this: there's a difference between words like 'writer' and
'painter', which are purely discriptive of an action, and 'chef' which means
a profession. So almost everyone could in theory be described as a 'writer',
but only some people could be called 'author' or 'journalist'. But of
course, these words then become useless as a definition, so obviously it
would be inappropriate to use them in this way, at least without some kind
of explanation.
Danny
Robert Briggs
> Peter Biddlecombe wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > vinyl1 wrote:
> > > > Are we absolutely sure that there was no British painter, no
> > > > matter how obscure, named Spenser?
> > > How about Spenser the poet?
> > >
> > > Is it not quite likely that on at least one occasion he dipped a
> > > brush into paint and applied it to some surface or other?
> > The clue demands a painter as an answer and the answer SPENCER
> > fits (and SPENSER doesn't).
I don't think I denied that much: I was merely addressing vinyl1's
question about the possibility of a "British painter, no matter how
obscure, named Spenser".
> > The problem is the equation of PENCER with "to think in French".
That, indeed, was Uncle Yap's *original* question.
> > Even if SPENSER was a possible answer, your suggestion
> > leads to absurdity - by this logic, anyone who's ever cooked
> > a meal counts as a chef, and anyone who's ever used a pen
> > or keyboard is a writer.
>
> I'd disagree with this: there's a difference between words like
> 'writer' and 'painter', which are purely discriptive of an action,
> and 'chef' which means a profession. So almost everyone could in
> theory be described as a 'writer', but only some people could be
> called 'author' or 'journalist'.
Thank you, Danny.
I would class myself as a "cook, no matter how obscure", but not as
a chef, obscure or otherwise.
> But of course, these words then become useless as a definition, so
> obviously it would be inappropriate to use them in this way, at
> least without some kind of explanation.
ISTM that the qualification, "no matter how obscure", provides a lot
of leeway - more, IMO, than a Sunday Times setter can justifiably
use.
Uncle Yap
Mike Robson
Tumbleweed
"Uncle Yap" <yf...@streamyx.com> wrote in message
news:c6fcu0tdcnkfd9hr6...@4ax.com...
> Have I really created an unsolveable almost &lit clue?
>
> Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
> lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
>
no because I could get it immediately which means its at my level which
means its far too easy.
spoiler space (For someone who is even worse at crosswords than me!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think you should have alluded to the seven deadly sins in a more oblique
way without spelling them all out.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Colin Blackburn
> Have I really created an unsolveable almost &lit clue?
>
*I* ?
> Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
> lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
Colin
Owen McShane
> Have I really created an unsolveable almost &lit clue?
What on earth gave you that idea?
Owen
Uncle Yap
<ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk> wrote:
>What on earth gave you that idea?
Posted three days ago
To date, nobody has got it yet
Or have I missed something?
Colin Blackburn
I think you missed the something that is, 'nobody bothered posting an
answer' is not the same as 'nobody has got it yet'.
Colin
Owen McShane
I had assumed that there had been no replies because the clue was so easy?
Not saying it was a bad clue (quite liked it really), but it was by no
means tough.
Owen
Uncle Yap
<colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think you missed the something that is, 'nobody bothered posting an
>answer' is not the same as 'nobody has got it yet'.
I have been a regular patron here for nearly ten years and I have yet
to see a clue that can be solved not solved unless of course
there is an international boycott of Uncle Yap !!!!
Bwahaha (sob sob)
(and the only one today who got the answer did not say
it was an anagram)
Tumbleweed
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:17:11 +0000, Colin Blackburn
> <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I think you missed the something that is, 'nobody bothered posting an
>>answer' is not the same as 'nobody has got it yet'.
>
> I have been a regular patron here for nearly ten years and I have yet
> to see a clue that can be solved not solved unless of course
> there is an international boycott of Uncle Yap !!!!
what does "...solved not solved" mean? Thats something I cant solve!
>
> Bwahaha (sob sob)
>
> (and the only one today who got the answer did not say
> it was an anagram)
>
..and your point is???? (even I thought that fact was so obvious it didnt
need mentioning)
I'm sure I wasn't the only one who got the answer, just the only one who
posted it.
Uncle Yap
<thisaccoun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>what does "...solved not solved" mean? Thats something I cant solve!
velly solly sometime when I get excited I revert to pidgin
>..and your point is???? (even I thought that fact was so obvious it didnt
>need mentioning)
>I'm sure I wasn't the only one who got the answer, just the only one who
>posted it.
That is stating the obvious, isn't it?
You need one person to answer it and that's solved
and many lurkers (like me for instance) jump to be the first
but you took three days and did not notice that the anagram fodder
included two of the sins. If I may be permitted to commit one of the
7 sins (pride) I though that was neat :-)
Colin Blackburn
> but you took three days and did not notice that the anagram fodder
> included two of the sins. If I may be permitted to commit one of the
> 7 sins (pride) I though that was neat :-)
Surely the sin is sloth rather than idleness. There's probably a subtle
distinction in the eyes of the god who dreamed up sin.
Colin
Peter T. Daniels
It's a list of the seven deadly sins, but how is it a clue?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Tumbleweed
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:00:20 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
> <thisaccoun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>what does "...solved not solved" mean? Thats something I cant solve!
>
> velly solly sometime when I get excited I revert to pidgin
>
>>..and your point is???? (even I thought that fact was so obvious it didnt
>>need mentioning)
>>I'm sure I wasn't the only one who got the answer, just the only one who
>>posted it.
>
> That is stating the obvious, isn't it?
That seems to be required by you!
> You need one person to answer it and that's solved
> and many lurkers (like me for instance) jump to be the first
> but you took three days
I took about 3 seconds to solve it after noticing it. There may have been 3
days elapsed from the time you posted, to the time I answered, but I assure
you I spent the other 2 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 57 seconds doing
something useful.
> and did not notice that the anagram fodder
> included two of the sins.
What leads you to believe that? The fact I didnt bother posting it? Jeez you
really do want the obvious pointing out.
OK,
YOUR CLUE WAS REALLLLLLLLY EASY and the anagram
jumped out like being hit with a bit of 2 x 4 but the clue was sooooo
obvious the anagram wasnt needed other than for confirmation.
thats it.
--
Tw
Derek Wills
> lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
Well, I'm new here, but I thought the anagram was neat.
Of course, everything after "combination" gives it away
immediately. "Combination with others" might be more
subtle.
Anagrams are neat - one of the best has to be "Monster hoax
by Sir Peter S" for Nessiteras Rhombopteryx, the name given
to the Loch Ness Monster by Sir Peter S(cott). Whey khule.
Derek
William Tunstall-Pedoe
<yf...@streamyx.com> writes[...]
>>..and your point is???? (even I thought that fact was so obvious it didnt
>>need mentioning)
>>I'm sure I wasn't the only one who got the answer, just the only one who
>>posted it.
>
>That is stating the obvious, isn't it?
>You need one person to answer it and that's solved
>and many lurkers (like me for instance) jump to be the first
>but you took three days and did not notice that the anagram fodder
>included two of the sins.
I would have thought it was neat too (despite the very easy surface
definition) but forgive me: I don't believe the anagram quite works.
Your clue was:
Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
I'm assuming that "sad" was intended as the anagram indicator and that
"envy and idleness" is intended as the fodder?
However:
"Envy and idleness" has two s's and three n's
"seven deadly sins" has three s's and two n's.
>If I may be permitted to commit one of the
>7 sins (pride) I though that was neat :-)
If I am correct, perhaps you are now saved from this!
This URL may save your pride in the future:
http://www.anagramgenius.com/checker.html
William
Uncle Yap
<wil...@genius2000.com> wrote:
>Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
>lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
>However:
>"Envy and idleness" has two s's and three n's
>"seven deadly sins" has three s's and two n's.
>If I am correct, perhaps you are now saved from this!
This is an anagram of "envy, idleness & sad" with combination as the
indicator. Most standard list would have sloth for idleness, which is
a good synonym for this almost &lit clue.
>This URL may save your pride in the future:
>http://www.anagramgenius.com/checker.html
William, the irony in this thread is that I was greatly assisted in
the construction by using one of your products,
the Anagram Genius v 8.4 which I purchased from you some years ago.
Looks like you should offer me a free upgrade :-)
Jeremy C B Nicoll
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Uncle Yap wrote:
> >
> > Have I really created an unsolveable almost &lit clue?
> >
> > Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
> > lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
> It's a list of the seven deadly sins, but how is it a clue?
It's an anagram (combination) of ENVY IDLENESS SAD
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
William Tunstall-Pedoe
<yf...@streamyx.com> writes
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:51:33 GMT, William Tunstall-Pedoe
><wil...@genius2000.com> wrote:
>
>>Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
>>lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
>>However:
>>"Envy and idleness" has two s's and three n's
>>"seven deadly sins" has three s's and two n's.
>>If I am correct, perhaps you are now saved from this!
>
>This is an anagram of "envy, idleness & sad"
>with combination as the
>indicator. Most standard list would have sloth for idleness, which is
>a good synonym for this almost &lit clue.
>
combination from a permutation but I guess "combination" works as an
anagram indicator from an everyday English perspective.
Without trying to excuse the fact that I missed this alternative parsing
of the wordplay, this does raise the interesting issue of what I call
the "PR issue". Even if a clue has a completely sound way of reading it,
the existence of an alternative way that leads the solver to think the
setter has made an error is reason enough to abandon the clue IMO.
Newspapers publish solutions without explanation and if the solver fails
to spot the intended way it can destroy trust in both the setter and the
newspaper that lets through such "defective" clues.
I last discussed this in the context of whether "endless" could mean
"with the first letter missing". A solver is likely to think on seeing
the solution "this is beginning-less not end-less!" even though
"endless" can be read cryptically as "with one of the (two) ends of the
word missing". As a result, such a construction should be avoided at all
costs despite being sound from a first principles point-of-view.
>>This URL may save your pride in the future:
>>http://www.anagramgenius.com/checker.html
>
>William, the irony in this thread is that I was greatly assisted in
>the construction by using one of your products,
>the Anagram Genius v 8.4
Had I been sure you were using Anagram Genius I'd have been slower to
point out the apparently incorrect anagram. The software doesn't make
mistakes like that.
>which I purchased from you some years ago.
>Looks like you should offer me a free upgrade :-)
>
Yes - version 9 was released in late 2003. As it was around six months
work by me I'm not really inclined to offer free copies. The benefits
are well worth the upgrade fee.
William
Steve B.
> In article <174eu0httk3djfjnv...@4ax.com>, Uncle Yap
> <yf...@streamyx.com> writes
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:51:33 GMT, William Tunstall-Pedoe
>> <wil...@genius2000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
>>> lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
>>> However:
>>> "Envy and idleness" has two s's and three n's
>>> "seven deadly sins" has three s's and two n's.
>>> If I am correct, perhaps you are now saved from this!
>>
>> This is an anagram of "envy, idleness & sad"
>> with combination as the
>> indicator. Most standard list would have sloth for idleness, which is
>> a good synonym for this almost &lit clue.
>>
> OK - your pride is restored! A mathematician would distinguish a
> combination from a permutation but I guess "combination" works as an
> anagram indicator from an everyday English perspective.
>
> Without trying to excuse the fact that I missed this alternative parsing
> of the wordplay, this does raise the interesting issue of what I call
> the "PR issue". Even if a clue has a completely sound way of reading it,
> the existence of an alternative way that leads the solver to think the
> setter has made an error is reason enough to abandon the clue IMO.
I can't agree. The existence of an alternative *sound* parsing that leads to
a different answer may be reason to abandon a clue but surely you're not
suggesting we should abandon all clues which a solver could take another way
*even if (say) the letters for the (incorrect) anagram don't add up*?
> Newspapers publish solutions without explanation and if the solver fails
> to spot the intended way it can destroy trust in both the setter and the
> newspaper that lets through such "defective" clues.
If the solver fails to spot the intended way, he'll ask here, and someone
will spot it. I don't believe crosswords should be set to a standard where a
clueless solver can't possibly take something the wrong way.
> I last discussed this in the context of whether "endless" could mean
> "with the first letter missing". A solver is likely to think on seeing
> the solution "this is beginning-less not end-less!" even though
> "endless" can be read cryptically as "with one of the (two) ends of the
> word missing". As a result, such a construction should be avoided at all
> costs despite being sound from a first principles point-of-view.
Whether 'the end' can mean 'the front end' (I don't like it) is a different
question to whether an anagram should be avoided because there are two ways
to choose the fodder, *only one which gives a valid solution*.
Personally, I think Uncle Yap's clue's biggest flaw is that, in the fodder,
one of the sins, 'envy', is given by the name always used for it (like the
five sins given in the (too easy) definition), whereas the other is given by
a translation - 'idleness' for 'sloth'. A clue which listed all the sins by
their usual name would be a giveaway, (as it already is listing six of
them), but it would be sound. A clue which translated them _all_ to
something else along the lines of 'sloth'/'idleness' might be a little more
difficult, but a clue which has two sins listed in the fodder, one each way,
is, to me, flawed. It's just not 'consistent', or 'symmetrical', or
something...
Just my AUS2¢,
Steve = : ^ )
Phil Rose
>
> Without trying to excuse the fact that I missed this alternative parsing
> of the wordplay, this does raise the interesting issue of what I call
> the "PR issue". Even if a clue has a completely sound way of reading it,
> the existence of an alternative way that leads the solver to think the
> setter has made an error is reason enough to abandon the clue IMO.
>
> Newspapers publish solutions without explanation and if the solver fails
> to spot the intended way it can destroy trust in both the setter and the
> newspaper that lets through such "defective" clues.
>
>
Is it really a problem? A lot of clues have more than one way of parsing
them. That's what makes crosswords challenging. I've just submitted an
Azed clue which relies on two ways of parsing to deliberately mislead.
I, for one, don't get particularly hung up if when looking at the answer
I still don't get it. What is less satisfactory is getting an answer but
the clue is blatantly below standard.
Phil.
Colin Blackburn
> Is it really a problem? A lot of clues have more than one way of parsing
> them. That's what makes crosswords challenging. I've just submitted an
> Azed clue which relies on two ways of parsing to deliberately mislead.
Ah, to WORDSMITHERY I guess. You'll have to publish it here (though the
answer is now known) once the solution is published. Unfortunately
although I finished the puzzle I didn't have time to form a clue.
I was very impressed with the winning clue in the previous competition,
for FIVE O'CLOCK SHADOW
Colin
William Tunstall-Pedoe
<prett...@everything.com.au> writes
>William Tunstall-Pedoe said:
[...]
> this does raise the interesting issue of what I call
>> the "PR issue". Even if a clue has a completely sound way of reading it,
>> the existence of an alternative way that leads the solver to think the
>> setter has made an error is reason enough to abandon the clue IMO.
>
>I can't agree. The existence of an alternative *sound* parsing that leads to
>a different answer may be reason to abandon a clue but surely you're not
>suggesting we should abandon all clues which a solver could take another way
>*even if (say) the letters for the (incorrect) anagram don't add up*?
>
talking about an "obvious" anagram indicator and anagram fodder which is
wrong by a single letter from the intended answer. If this was published
in a newspaper which only publishes the intended answer, it would look
to significant numbers of people like an error by the setter/editor and
undermine trust in the publication.
I'm not saying the clue is incorrect - just that it would be a mistake
for the editor to publish such a clue.
It doesn't help that Uncle Yap's clue needs a slightly more involved
reading to get the correct anagram letters ("and" needs to be read as a
charade indicator to avoid using those letters in the fodder). Solvers
are used to seeing sequences of words with the same number of letters as
the answer followed by an anagram indicator and leap to assuming that
the clue is a straight anagram. When those letters anagram to "neven
deadly sins" and the clue (very obviously) lists (and indicates with the
length pattern) "seven deadly sins" many people will assume that they
have found the correct answer but an error's been made by the setter.
Trust is a really important thing with solving crosswords. When someone
willingly throws themselves into a puzzle and potentially spends hours
scratching their head, they need to be confident that when the solution
is finally revealed to them they will be satisfied with the result. A
few bad experiences in the past and they may prefer not to bother or to
tackle a rival newspaper's effort instead.
William
Peter Biddlecombe
"William Tunstall-Pedoe" <wil...@genius2000.com> wrote in message
news:zmQZHfJu...@genius2000.com...
I agree that in daily paper puzzles it's a good thing for one
interpretation of the clue to be clearly better than others, but I wonder
how much trust would have been lost by this clue,because I'll bet that
most people who solve this clue do so in a way that I think of as
"backwards". Let me explain...
If you solve a clue "forwards", you find a possible interpretation of part
of the clue as wordplay, and then see if you can make the wordplay
produce something that fits the definition. So for an anagram, you
identify an indicator and possible fodder, confirming it's the right
length, and then see what you can make out of the fodder, writing
the fodder letters in a jumbled sequence, fishing out the Scrabble
tiles, thinking very hard, or whatever. If you can make something that
fits the definition, that's the answer.
If you solve a clue "backwards", you spot a possible definition and think
of a word that fits it, and also fits the stated word-length(s), then see if
you can find the wordplay. In this case, the most obvious thing about
the clue is the list of sins, and the word lengths help a LOT (a quick
look at the nifty "Chambers Phrase File" (out of print I'm afraid) shows
only 10 phrases that fit (5,6,4)). So you think "sins" => "seven deadly
sins", see a possible anagram indicator and some stuff in the clue
with plenty of Es and Ss and the single conspicuous single V, and
that's enough - you don't actually bother to confirm that the anagram
fodder is exactly right because you don't need to - experience shows
that for phrases of 3 or more words, finding a phrase that fits a possible
definition is enough to be sure of the answer (guessing here but doubt
I'm very wrong) at least 98% of the time. For the 20-odd letter phrases
in Times Jumbo puzzles, make that about 99.8%.
Which in turn makes me wonder whether phrases of more than
two words should just have "(15, 3 words)" in the style of some more
difficult puzzles.
>
> William
>
> ---
> http://www.crosswordtools.com/
Danny Kodicek
"Colin Blackburn" <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cs8f9c$ggf$1...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
Which was?
Danny
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <41E6A1...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Uncle Yap wrote:
> > >
> > > Have I really created an unsolveable almost &lit clue?
> > >
> > > Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
> > > lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
>
> > It's a list of the seven deadly sins, but how is it a clue?
>
> It's an anagram (combination) of ENVY IDLENESS SAD
Respecting the previous long discussion, it ought to have been "Envy &
idleness, sad combination ...."
William Tunstall-Pedoe
<newsgrou...@biddlecombe.demon.co.uk> writes
>
[...]
>
>I agree that in daily paper puzzles it's a good thing for one
>interpretation of the clue to be clearly better than others, but I wonder
>how much trust would have been lost by this clue,because I'll bet that
>most people who solve this clue do so in a way that I think of as
>"backwards". Let me explain...
>
> and the word lengths help a LOT (a quick
>look at the nifty "Chambers Phrase File" (out of print I'm afraid) shows
>only 10 phrases that fit (5,6,4)). So you think "sins" => "seven deadly
>sins", see a possible anagram indicator and some stuff in the clue
>with plenty of Es and Ss and the single conspicuous single V, and
>that's enough - you don't actually bother to confirm that the anagram
>fodder is exactly right because you don't need to - experience shows
>that for phrases of 3 or more words, finding a phrase that fits a possible
>definition is enough to be sure of the answer (guessing here but doubt
>I'm very wrong) at least 98% of the time.
I'd agree with this.
Essentially what you are saying (as I understand it) is that most of the
people who grasp the wrong interpretation of this clue won't notice the
single letter that's wrong and therefore won't lose trust in the
publication. I guess that's right (but I noticed).
[...]
>Which in turn makes me wonder whether phrases of more than
>two words should just have "(15, 3 words)" in the style of some more
>difficult puzzles.
>
This is also an interesting point.
From a computer's perspective I strongly agree with you that phrase
length descriptions give *huge* amounts of solving information away.
They reduce the pool of possible answers down to a tiny fraction of what
it would be otherwise.
As you know, I wrote the only cryptic solving computer software that
exists and in some cases the software (e.g. at crosswordtools.com) can
solve a cryptic clue with high confidence when almost none of the clue
itself is understood. Some patterns even indicate a particular answer
uniquely. When one or more checked letters are added the pool of answers
is reduced extremely strongly in combination with the length
information.
However, I don't think humans can exploit this information so
effectively using just their brains. I'm willing to be corrected but I
doubt many people could reel off many of the ten (5,6,4) phrases you say
exist from nothing but this pattern. The length pattern certainly helps
and (as you say) will give a lot of extra confidence to a candidate
answer when found another way but isn't nearly so useful in finding the
answer directly.
William
Colin Blackburn
> "Colin Blackburn" <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:cs8f9c$ggf$1...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
>>I was very impressed with the winning clue in the previous competition,
>>for FIVE O'CLOCK SHADOW
>
>
> Which was?
'In Foreign Office I've hit trouble,' the PM bristles
Colin
Peter Biddlecombe
> In article <ouydnVClCK-...@nildram.net>, Peter Biddlecombe
> <newsgrou...@biddlecombe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>>Which in turn makes me wonder whether phrases of more than
>>two words should just have "(15, 3 words)" in the style of some more
>>difficult puzzles.
>>
> This is also an interesting point.
>
> From a computer's perspective I strongly agree with you that phrase
> length descriptions give *huge* amounts of solving information away.
> They reduce the pool of possible answers down to a tiny fraction of what
> it would be otherwise.
>
> As you know, I wrote the only cryptic solving computer software that
> exists and in some cases the software (e.g. at crosswordtools.com) can
> solve a cryptic clue with high confidence when almost none of the clue
> itself is understood. Some patterns even indicate a particular answer
> uniquely. When one or more checked letters are added the pool of answers
> is reduced extremely strongly in combination with the length
> information.
>
> However, I don't think humans can exploit this information so
> effectively using just their brains. I'm willing to be corrected but I
> doubt many people could reel off many of the ten (5,6,4) phrases you say
> exist from nothing but this pattern.
That's certainly true
> The length pattern certainly helps
> and (as you say) will give a lot of extra confidence to a candidate
> answer when found another way but isn't nearly so useful in finding the
> answer directly.
There is a bit of "direct" help. There are a few words that are very
likely to crop up somewhere in long phrases. Most obviously, a single
letter word is nearly always A or I, and there's a small set of other words
that it's worth thinking of as possibilities where the word length allows
it -
something like OF, IN, TO, IT, AS, ON, BY, UP, IS, NO, AT, AN, OR,
THE, AND, FOR, YOU, ONE'S, YOUR - and of course the combo
OF THE for a 2,3 sequence. Trying a few of these can often help to
dig the phrase out of your brain.
>
> William
>
>
> ---
> http://www.crosswordtools.com/
Robert Briggs
> Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
> > > Uncle Yap wrote:
> > > > Envy and idleness, sad combination with pride, covetousness,
> > > > lust, gluttony & anger (5,6,4)
> > >
> > > It's a list of the seven deadly sins, but how is it a clue?
> >
> > It's an anagram (combination) of ENVY IDLENESS SAD
>
> Respecting the previous long discussion, it ought to have been
> "Envy & idleness, sad combination ...."
Pourquoi?
Why use an ampersand when "and" is a conjunction of the same length
as the next word ("sad"), giving a nice ambiguity as to whether the
anagram is a "sad combination" of "ENVY AND IDLENESS" or a plain old
"combination" of "ENVY [mere conjunction elided] IDLENESS, SAD"?
This ambiguity is, of course, trivially resolved by those who notice
it and recognise the seven deadly sins, which *ought* to include all
the "regulars" here.
As Peter Biddlecombe has noted, some who solve the clue "backwards"
may make a quick scan of the potential fodder for plausibility and
not notice that "and" must be read simply as a conjunction with "sad"
as part of the fodder, but those who *do* go to the bother of marking
off all the letters jolly well ought to spot what is going on.
Steve B.
> In article <BE0DFD00.49A3B%prett...@everything.com.au>, Steve B.
> <prett...@everything.com.au> writes
>> William Tunstall-Pedoe said:
> [...]
>> this does raise the interesting issue of what I call
>>> the "PR issue". Even if a clue has a completely sound way of reading it,
>>> the existence of an alternative way that leads the solver to think the
>>> setter has made an error is reason enough to abandon the clue IMO.
>>
>> I can't agree. The existence of an alternative *sound* parsing that leads to
>> a different answer may be reason to abandon a clue but surely you're not
>> suggesting we should abandon all clues which a solver could take another way
>> *even if (say) the letters for the (incorrect) anagram don't add up*?
>>
> We are not talking about a completely different set of letters. We are
> talking about an "obvious" anagram indicator...
(snip of poster's defence of his position.)
For the record, the clue was easily solved, the alternative (incorrect)
parsing was spotted but it bothered me not, and neither does it now.
Steve = : ^ )
Danny Kodicek
"Robert Briggs" <Trebor...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote in message
news:41E4109C...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET...
> Danny Kodicek wrote:
> > Peter Biddlecombe wrote:
> > > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > > vinyl1 wrote:
>
> > > > > Are we absolutely sure that there was no British painter, no
> > > > > matter how obscure, named Spenser?
>
> > > > How about Spenser the poet?
> > > >
> > > > Is it not quite likely that on at least one occasion he dipped a
> > > > brush into paint and applied it to some surface or other?
>
> > > The clue demands a painter as an answer and the answer SPENCER
> > > fits (and SPENSER doesn't).
>
> I don't think I denied that much: I was merely addressing vinyl1's
> question about the possibility of a "British painter, no matter how
> obscure, named Spenser".
I had a sudden exciting thought, but then was disappointed. It turns out
that the painter Spencer from Balamory is also spelled with a C...
Danny
Danny Kodicek
Ouch! That's mean. But I agree, brilliant, particularly the definition. Not
quite happy with SHADOW = trouble, but I can see the logic. And although
it's very hard, for a long phrase where you would expect to get the
enumeration, I think it's reasonable.
Danny
Mark Iredell
>
> If you solve a clue "forwards", you find a possible interpretation of
part
> of the clue as wordplay, and then see if you can make the wordplay
>
> If you solve a clue "backwards", you spot a possible definition and
think
> of a word that fits it, and also fits the stated word-length(s), then
see if
It's funny, it feels to me to be the other way around, with "forwards"
meaning solving from the definition first, etc. Probably because I
solve regular crosswords too. Or maybe it has something to do with
driving on the right side of the road?
--
Mark
Colin Blackburn
>>'In Foreign Office I've hit trouble,' the PM bristles
>
>
> Ouch! That's mean. But I agree, brilliant, particularly the definition. Not
> quite happy with SHADOW = trouble, but I can see the logic.
It's in the dictionaries.
> And although
> it's very hard, for a long phrase where you would expect to get the
> enumeration, I think it's reasonable.
It is also a competition Azed and so should be of that standard.
Of course at any other point in this government's term the clue would
not be so apt.
Colin
Paddy Grove
> I had a sudden exciting thought, but then was disappointed. It turns out
> that the painter Spencer from Balamory is also spelled with a C...
I'd be impressed if Balamory characters start making it into crosswords.
Inventor that is behind bridge, peraps? (5)
:-)
- Paddy
--
Paddy Grove, Cambridge, UK
Rage of a theologian surrounded by party extremists (5)
http://www.psae.f2s.com/Crosswords/Crosswords.htm
Remove 'no spam please' from email to reply
Paddy Grove
> "Danny Kodicek" <use...@well-spring.co.uk> writes:
>
> > I had a sudden exciting thought, but then was disappointed. It turns out
> > that the painter Spencer from Balamory is also spelled with a C...
>
> I'd be impressed if Balamory characters start making it into crosswords.
>
> Inventor that is behind bridge, peraps? (5)
I meant (6) of course.
Colin Blackburn
> Paddy Grove <paddy...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>"Danny Kodicek" <use...@well-spring.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I had a sudden exciting thought, but then was disappointed. It turns out
>>>that the painter Spencer from Balamory is also spelled with a C...
>>
>>I'd be impressed if Balamory characters start making it into crosswords.
>>
>>Inventor that is behind bridge, peraps? (5)
>
>
> I meant (6) of course.
And perhaps, perhaps?
Colin
Danny Kodicek
"Paddy Grove" <paddy...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com> wrote in message
news:r7kkwe...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com...
> Paddy Grove <paddy...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Danny Kodicek" <use...@well-spring.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > I had a sudden exciting thought, but then was disappointed. It turns
out
> > > that the painter Spencer from Balamory is also spelled with a C...
> >
> > I'd be impressed if Balamory characters start making it into crosswords.
> >
> > Inventor that is behind bridge, peraps? (5)
>
> I meant (6) of course.
And you probably meant 'perhaps', too :)
Incidentally, Balamory = worst children's TV programme ever produced, in my
opinion. Guaranteed to leave me frothing at the mouth. Now Tikkabilla -
there's a classy programme.
Danny
Paddy Grove
Paddy Grove
> Incidentally, Balamory = worst children's TV programme ever produced, in my
> opinion.
You obviously haven't seen Zingalong.
Danny Kodicek
"Paddy Grove" <paddy...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com> wrote in message
> "Danny Kodicek" <use...@well-spring.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Incidentally, Balamory = worst children's TV programme ever produced, in
my
> > opinion.
>
> You obviously haven't seen Zingalong.
I admit I haven't had that pleasure. Unless it's that terrible 'Hi 5' ripoff
on ITV.
Danny
Owen McShane
> "Danny Kodicek" <use...@well-spring.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Incidentally, Balamory = worst children's TV programme ever produced, in my
>> opinion.
>
> You obviously haven't seen Zingalong.
>
Arrgghhh... you said the "Z" word.
Has to be the single most irritating program on Cbeebies. As a father of a
4 year old and a 20 month old, I feel quite qualified in this field.
Balamory, on the other hand, I can take.
Give me Pingu anyday...
I'll get me coat.
O
Danny Kodicek
"Owen McShane" <ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.17....@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:32:31 +0000, Paddy Grove wrote:
>
> > "Danny Kodicek" <use...@well-spring.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> Incidentally, Balamory = worst children's TV programme ever produced,
in my
> >> opinion.
> >
> > You obviously haven't seen Zingalong.
> >
>
> Arrgghhh... you said the "Z" word.
>
> Has to be the single most irritating program on Cbeebies. As a father of a
> 4 year old and a 20 month old, I feel quite qualified in this field.
Almost exactly the ages of my children too. Funnily enough, although
CBeebies is on far too much in our house too, I can't remember ever seeing
this programme - is it new?
And yes, sorry everyone for going quite so far off-topic.
>
> Balamory, on the other hand, I can take.
Ugh. PC Plum - do some proper &^&*ing police work and stop arseing about
birdwatching and handpainting with the nursery school children, you bloody
great twit.
> Give me Pingu anyday...
Now that's classy television. Don't get me wrong, Cbeebies has a hell of a
lot more hits than misses, and is blessedly ad-free into the bargain. And
for that matter, I could name a dozen other children's programmes that are
excellent, especially from Nickelodeon. In my opinion, we're currently in a
golden age of kids' TV which they'll remember with as much fondness as we
children of the 70s remember Roobarb, Bagpuss and the Clangers (not to
mention my own TV stardom in Pullover). The horrors of the 80s and 90s (a
few excellent exceptions like Dangermouse aside) are well behind us. And of
course, kids' movies are also booming. We went to see Lemony Snicket
yesterday and it was superb.
Danny
Phil Rose
>
> "Colin Blackburn" <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:cs8run$mcb$1...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
> > Danny Kodicek wrote:
> > > "Colin Blackburn" <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:cs8f9c$ggf$1...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
> >
> > >>I was very impressed with the winning clue in the previous competition,
> > >>for FIVE O'CLOCK SHADOW
> > >
> > >
> > > Which was?
> >
> > 'In Foreign Office I've hit trouble,' the PM bristles
>
> Ouch! That's mean. But I agree, brilliant, particularly the definition. Not
> quite happy with SHADOW = trouble, but I can see the logic. And although
> it's very hard, for a long phrase where you would expect to get the
> enumeration, I think it's reasonable.
>
> Danny
In Azed the enumeration would have been "16 (3 words)".
Robert Briggs
> In my opinion, we're currently in a golden age of kids' TV which
> they'll remember with as much fondness as we children of the 70s
> remember Roobarb, Bagpuss and the Clangers ...
You whippersnapper, you!
You've barely lived unless you can remember Christopher Trace on
"Blue Peter".
Brian Skinner
You're still a youngster unless you can remember "Toytown" on the
wireless.
--
Brian
Simon Montagu
>
> You've barely lived unless you can remember Christopher Trace on
> "Blue Peter".
... and William Hartnell is your definitive Doctor Who
Uncle Mac, anyone?
Steve B.
'Wireless' dates you even before you mention any programmes.
Steve = : ^ )
Owen McShane
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> ... and William Hartnell is your definitive Doctor Who
Tom Baker was, is and forever will be Dr Who.
Although that Mcgann bloke did a very good job IMHO, will be interesting
to see how Eccleston does (I expect great things actually).
O
chris...@arm.nospam.com
It's interesting how the changing faces of Dr Who dates many
people. For me, the golden age is John Pertwee with the brigadier
and the Master. It was all downhill from there...
Chris
Colin Blackburn
> Owen McShane wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:57:15 +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Briggs wrote:
>>
>>>... and William Hartnell is your definitive Doctor Who
>>
>>Tom Baker was, is and forever will be Dr Who.
>>
>>Although that Mcgann bloke did a very good job IMHO, will be interesting
>>to see how Eccleston does (I expect great things actually).
I watched Eccleston in Jude at the weekend. I too expect great things
but I expect it'll not live up to the memories I have of other Doctors.
> It's interesting how the changing faces of Dr Who dates many
> people. For me, the golden age is John Pertwee with the brigadier
> and the Master. It was all downhill from there...
I was brought up on John Pertwee but grew to like Tom Baker. The earlier
Doctors are vague memories, the later ones travesties.
Veering back onto topic, are there any examples of published, mainstream
clue that use 'who' as an indicator of 'doctor' or vice versa that
spring to anyone's mind?
Colin
Ian Payn
"Colin Blackburn" <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote
> > It's interesting how the changing faces of Dr Who dates many
> > people. For me, the golden age is John Pertwee with the brigadier
> > and the Master. It was all downhill from there...
>
> I was brought up on John Pertwee but grew to like Tom Baker. The earlier
> Doctors are vague memories, the later ones travesties.
++++ I'm a Jon (sic) Pertwee man myself. In Stanley Gibbons' window on The
Strand (thery're branching out) there's an inflatable Dalek and a
commemorative (of what?) plate with Pertwee and The Brigadier on it. Only
the anticipated scorn from the wife prevents me from dashing down there with
the cash. For the plate, that is: The inflatable Dalek is lamentable.
> Veering back onto topic, are there any examples of published, mainstream
> clue that use 'who' as an indicator of 'doctor' or vice versa that
> spring to anyone's mind?
++++Now I have seen something like that, and it was in the last year or so.
Probably The Guardian, but detail escapes me.
Danny Kodicek
"Ian Payn" <Ian....@CharterChambers.com> wrote in message
news:41ee4915.0@entanet...
Me too - IIRC it was a Paul crossword, and featured a whole lot of who's.
Danny
Peter Biddlecombe
'who' => 'doctor' : don't recall seeing this - hopefully because most
setters would use "who, perhaps" or something similar, for reasons
discussed fairly extensively in other threads lately.
Vice-versa: has certainly been used in British puzzles though I can't
quote you an example.
>
> Colin
Danny Kodicek
"Peter Biddlecombe" <newsgrou...@biddlecombe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:XZadnQK8cpx...@nildram.net...
That would be poor cluing, though, because the Doctor's name is definitely
not 'Who'! Whereas in the other direction (with a 'perhaps'), I think it
clues reasonably via the TV show title. Hard to say why it works in one
direction but not the other, but definitely feels right to me.
Danny
Owen McShane
fubar, so here it (hopefully) is again:
Subject: Re: [Way-way-way OT] Re: Parlez vous Francais
From: Owen McShane <ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk>
Reply-To: ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk
Newsgroups: rec.puzzles.crosswords
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:00:30 +0000
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:37:05 +0000, Colin Blackburn wrote:
> I was brought up on John Pertwee but grew to like Tom Baker. The earlier
> Doctors are vague memories, the later ones travesties.
The earliest Dr I too can remember is Jon Pertwee, the biggest memory of
which is his last story with the spiders, where he turned into Tom Baker.
I have many memories of the brigadier, Bessie, and UNIT (I can certainly
recall joining UNIT through the UK comic, where you got a membership card
with a simple letter substitution code to decipher later messages from
UNIT that appeared in the comic).
I do know that most subsequent Drs encountered the brigadier at some stage
though too...
> Veering back onto topic, are there any examples of published, mainstream
> clue that use 'who' as an indicator of 'doctor' or vice versa that
> spring to anyone's mind?
I can recall a Grauniad one in the last year or three where several of
the answers were the actors who had played who. ;)
O
Owen McShane
Subject: Re: [Way-way-way OT] Re: Parlez vous Francais
From: Owen McShane <ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk>
Reply-To: ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk
Newsgroups: rec.puzzles.crosswords
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:19:27 +0000
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:24:09 +0000, Danny Kodicek wrote:
>> Probably The Guardian, but detail escapes me.
>
> Me too - IIRC it was a Paul crossword, and featured a whole lot of who's.
Found it:
Prize Crossword No. 22851 set by Paul
Across
1 Who third was cheeky and modest (7)
5 Who fifth took hire cars into the river (7)
9 Who fourth and sixth would add one to twelve (5)
10 Who second found depression a heavy load (9)
Down
17 Who first with cunning plan's ending in misery (8)
19 Who eighth finds Renault sound (6)
23 Who seventh was the real thing (5)
Once the theme was spotted, obviously not too hard... good fun for a Who
fan nonetheless.
O
Owen McShane
> I was brought up on John Pertwee but grew to like Tom Baker. The earlier
> Doctors are vague memories, the later ones travesties.
The earliest Dr I too can remember is Jon Pertwee, the biggest memory of
which is his last story with the spiders, where he turned into Tom Baker.
I have many memories of the brigadier, Bessie, and UNIT (I can certainly
recall joining UNIT through the UK comic, where you got a membership card
with a simple letter substitution code to decipher later messages from
UNIT that appeared in the comic).
I do know that most subsequent Drs encountered the brigadier at some stage
though too...
> Veering back onto topic, are there any examples of published, mainstream
> clue that use 'who' as an indicator of 'doctor' or vice versa that
> spring to anyone's mind?
I can recall a Grauniad one in the last year or three where several of
Colin Blackburn
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:24:09 +0000, Danny Kodicek wrote:
>>Me too - IIRC it was a Paul crossword, and featured a whole lot of who's.
>
>
> Found it:
>
> Prize Crossword No. 22851 set by Paul
Cheers. I remember it now. It still took me as long to get the first one
this time around!
Today's Paul also has a theme, and although the very first clue contains
the word doctor the theme is not.
Colin
Owen McShane
>> Probably The Guardian, but detail escapes me.
>
> Me too - IIRC it was a Paul crossword, and featured a whole lot of who's.
Found it:
Prize Crossword No. 22851 set by Paul
Across
Ian Payn
"Owen McShane" <ow...@NOSPAM.dub.org.uk> wrote
>
> I do know that most subsequent Drs encountered the brigadier at some stage
> though too...
++++ The splendid Nicholas (The Brigadier) Courtney appeared with all the
Doctors up to and including Sylvester McCoy (I hope he turns up in the new
series). Had Paul McGann done more than the one film he may well have shown
up with him.
However!!!! When he appeared with William Hartnell he wasn't playing The
Brig. He played some sort of intergalactic chappie.
The Doctor's name is "The Doctor", by the way. "Doctor Who" is a question.
chris...@arm.nospam.com
I notice that no-one so far has remarked that Peter Cushing also
played Dr Who in the original film (possibly in some sequels too
but I'm not sure about that). What I can't remember is whether
that was before or after the beginning of the BBC series. I
suspect it was before, in which case, Hartnell would strictly
be No 1 and Paul's numbers would all be one out!
Chris
Danny Kodicek
<chris...@arm.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41EF9812...@arm.nospam.com...
The TV series preceded the film, but I think it was during the reign of the
first Doctor. Many of my friends are psycho Who fans (a few of them even
write Who books and radio programmes), so they'd know, but I'm not an
afficionado myself.
Danny
Colin Blackburn
> I notice that no-one so far has remarked that Peter Cushing also
> played Dr Who in the original film (possibly in some sequels too
> but I'm not sure about that). What I can't remember is whether
> that was before or after the beginning of the BBC series. I
> suspect it was before, in which case, Hartnell would strictly
> be No 1 and Paul's numbers would all be one out!
The film, "Dr. Who and the Daleks", was released in 1965. The TV series
began in 1963.
The IMDB is useful for stuff like this:
http://www.imdb.com/find?q=dr%20who;tt=on;nm=on;mx=20
http://www.imdb.com/find?q=doctor%20who;tt=on;nm=on;mx=20
it even has the 2005 TV series listed.
Colin
Owen McShane
> I notice that no-one so far has remarked that Peter Cushing also played
> Dr Who in the original film (possibly in some sequels too but I'm not
> sure about that). What I can't remember is whether that was before or
> after the beginning of the BBC series. I suspect it was before, in which
> case, Hartnell would strictly be No 1 and Paul's numbers would all be
> one out!
>
> Chris
I think whovians discount Cushing, because as you say, he only appeared in
the film (actually 2 films.. "Dr Who and the Daleks" and "Daleks' Invasion
Earth: 2150 A.D.". Hartnell was definitely No.1
I also doubt whether they would include Mcgann in a proper list, with his
being a (rather good) one off.. I believe Eccleston is being regarded as
the 8th Doctor. Of course Paul's crossword predates the announcement of
Eccleston, so we can let him off.
As for Richard E Grant, who knows ;)
O