Re: SCWC 32: Discussion: IMPLEMENT

Angus Rodgers:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:09:13 GMT, Steve Ball
<steveb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Adrian Bailey:

"Steve Ball" <steveb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C28DD403.A025%steveb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[On 7 June] Flying Tortoise
<purple....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Angus Rodgers" <twir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:20vb6319fkdb7cpla7pmrvj115a165mq8l@xxxxxxxxxx

I'm guessing the indication is "ME" in "I'M PLENT(Y)".

Then I'm afraid I'm going to have to raise the same objection with
which I've had my own knuckles rapped by a professional crossword
editor, namely that if "I" is used in word play "I am" is not
acceptable as an instruction for what to do with the "I" (or ME in
this case). What you're actually saying is not I am in but I *is* in.
Therefore "I am in", or "I am sent to the end of" and the like can
only be used to put IM or IAM in play. "I can be seen in", "I'll be at
the end of" or similar is required to put I or ME in.

I disagree.

But with no argument for your point of view? Here's how I see it:
in the cryptic reading "I" is to be read as "the letter 'i'" and the rest of
the grammar should work with this substitution. "The letter 'i' am..." is
clearly ungrammatical and requires "...is...", which doesn't work in the
surface. As Flying Tortoise points out, you can get around the problem with
something like "I will be" which also works as "the letter 'i' will be...".

My impression (for what it's worth - which is not a lot,
as I've been away from cryptic crosswords for a long time,
and am slowly trying to get a feel for them again) is that
such a stringent requirement cannot be applied consistently.

I can point you to at least one crossword which appears six days a week
fifty two weeks per year, is set by one setter and in which it is applied
consistently. If someone working that hard can adhere to it, anyone can and,
once you get used to it, breaches seem like 'cheating'.

I dimly remember Ximenes's most golden of golden rules as
being something like, "I need not mean what I say, but I
must say what I mean" (or it might be the other way round!)

No, that's right - except that it's Afrit's injunction.

(snip)

So long as you can see what the setter was doing with the
words (even if only with hindsight), I don't think the
process has to follow any particular formal set of rules.

Afrit's injunction is a formal rule. I infer from it that the second,
cryptic reading of a clue must *mean* something and, to me, that implies a
logical grammatical statement in English.

There is a loose general principle that the cryptic clue
does with the signifier what it pretends to do with the
signified, so that for example *I* do not end up in the
middle of some word, but the letter "I" does; but, within
this loose general constraint, I think there is quite a
lot of room for creative/imaginative/humorous wordplay.

Certainly, as long as you say what you mean. "I" doesn't mean "me" in any
legitimate English usage I can think of.

(snip)

Also, my impression (again, only for what it's worth)
is that setters do not adhere to this rule in practice.

Some do.

For instance, suppose the subsidiary element "MEN" had
been clued by "fellows": would the clue-writer then be
forced to say "fellows gets into ...",
and not "fellows
get into ..."?

Emphatically, yes. A good setter will get around the problem with something
like "Fellows seen in..." A setter who says "Fellows get into" to insert MEN
into something is, in my book, cheating: he/she is breaking the rules of
grammar.

and not "fellows
get into ..."? Of course not

Here, I disagree as much as is possible.

- but on what ground? It
cannot be just because "MEN" consists of more than one
letter

No, in the cryptic (or 'literal') reading of a clue, MEN is a word, a
syllable, a string or whatever and is *singular*. If you clued the three
letters separately, or in two groups, then you could say, e.g. "[indication
for M] and [INDICATION for EN] get into...". If you clue it as one piece,
then it's *one* piece and is, of course, singular.

(snip)

I may be in a muddle, but it seems to me to be common
practice in cryptic clues to allow the bare signifier,
the meaningless string of letters, still to carry some
shreds of its former dignity as a full-blown word with
a meaning,

Not for me. In the cryptic, reading of a clue, they're merely groups of
letters.

so that for example if it was once a plural
word, then it may still employ a plural verb form,

Nope. A word, whether it is MAN or MEN is *one* thing and, in the cryptic
reading of a clue, each of these words is singular. "Man gets into..."
works. "Men gets into..." gives you an ungrammatical surface so you'll need
to do something like "Men getting into..." or "Men seen in...", but "Men get
into..." is not a viable option because now the cryptic reading is
ungrammatical,

(snip)

Steve = : ^ )

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: eth1394 and IP over firewire
    ... I'm not even sure what that means, but despite the old kernel the ... snip ... ... Reading the following links should clue you in. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... <snip lots> ... do you know how to weigh a mountain? ... Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are ... that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... <snip lots> ... do you know how to weigh a mountain? ... Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are ... that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We keep lowering insulin dosage but BG readings stay low
    ... We took a BG reading in the evening and she registered a 296 reading ... Her insulin, whether she produces her own or she ... if he can convince the endo to agree with him. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Free State Security - part 2
    ... [another big snip] ... Each time you devolve into using terms like "whining" ... You've failed to illustrate how my proposed reading is ... that the earth orbits the sun, Mr Galileo Galilei? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)