Indirect anagrams

[Morten G. Pahle]

Dear all,

(please excuse poor examples, but they should illustrate my question)

There seems to be a rule that you cannot have indirect anagrams. E.g.
although ABRIDGED can be clued by "Shortened and confused aged bird (8)",
it cannot be clued by "Shortened sinuous poor hill (8)" (anag. BAD RIDGE)
without causing a raised eyebrow and pursed lip.

However, it seems accepted that clues can include 'indirect reversals',
e.g. I believe that it is acceptable to clue POTS as "Halt! Come back to
plants! (4)" (Halt: STOP), whereas it would not be acceptable to clue
URNS as "Sprints around for pots (4)".

What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?

Or is this 'rule' not as clearcut as I thought?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regards,

Morten

[Paddy Grove]

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Dear all,
(please excuse poor examples, but they should illustrate my question)
There seems to be a rule that you cannot have indirect anagrams. E.g.
although ABRIDGED can be clued by "Shortened and confused aged bird (8)",
it cannot be clued by "Shortened sinuous poor hill (8)" (anag. BAD RIDGE)
without causing a raised eyebrow and pursed lip.
However, it seems accepted that clues can include 'indirect reversals',
e.g. I believe that it is acceptable to clue POTS as "Halt! Come back to
plants! (4)" (Halt: STOP), whereas it would not be acceptable to clue
URNS as "Sprints around for pots (4)".
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?
Or is this 'rule' not as clearcut as I thought?

To my mind, it's simply down to the number of possibilities
involved. There's only one way to reverse a word, so it's not too much
to ask to expect someone to pick the right word and reverse it. For an
n-letter word, there are n! possible anagrams (if there are no
duplicate letters), so it quickly becomes unreasonable to expect
people to work out all anagrams of all words fitting the clue.

You could argue that an indirect anagram is fair if it's very obvious
what the indirected word is, e.g. if the clue talked about a planet
and you needed five letters, you'd quickly guess you needed to anagram
EARTH or PLUTO. But this sort of thing is still frowned on. What's
more common is indirect anagrams that involve a common abbreviation,
e.g. throwing an S into the anagram fodder by clueing it as 'second'
or 'small'.

- Paddy

[Paddy Grove]

Post by Paddy Grove
if the clue talked about a planet
and you needed five letters, you'd quickly guess you needed to anagram
EARTH or PLUTO.

...or VENUS.

[Steve Grant]

On 06 Jan 2006 14:06:40 +0000, Paddy Grove

Post by Paddy Grove

Post by Paddy Grove
if the clue talked about a planet
and you needed five letters, you'd quickly guess you needed to anagram
EARTH or PLUTO.

...or VENUS.

... or SEDNA

[Peter Biddlecombe]

Post by Paddy Grove

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Dear all,
(please excuse poor examples, but they should illustrate my
question)
There seems to be a rule that you cannot have indirect anagrams. E.g.
although ABRIDGED can be clued by "Shortened and confused aged bird (8)",
it cannot be clued by "Shortened sinuous poor hill (8)" (anag. BAD RIDGE)
without causing a raised eyebrow and pursed lip.
However, it seems accepted that clues can include 'indirect
reversals',
e.g. I believe that it is acceptable to clue POTS as "Halt! Come back to
plants! (4)" (Halt: STOP), whereas it would not be acceptable to clue
URNS as "Sprints around for pots (4)".
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?
Or is this 'rule' not as clearcut as I thought?

To my mind, it's simply down to the number of possibilities
involved. There's only one way to reverse a word, so it's not too much
to ask to expect someone to pick the right word and reverse it. For an
n-letter word, there are n! possible anagrams (if there are no
duplicate letters), so it quickly becomes unreasonable to expect
people to work out all anagrams of all words fitting the clue.

This is exactly right. It counts at least double for the possible
interpretations of something like "poor hill" - you could have:
bad/ill/dud ridge/mount
duff/crap/naff berg/fell/down/wold
nasty/awful tor/ben,
and that's without getting the thesaurus out or thinking for too
long. Dozens if not hundreds of possibilities and no good reason
for choosing any one of them to anagram.

Post by Paddy Grove
You could argue that an indirect anagram is fair if it's very
obvious
what the indirected word is, e.g. if the clue talked about a planet
and you needed five letters, you'd quickly guess you needed to
anagram
EARTH or PLUTO. But this sort of thing is still frowned on.

I guess this is just because a simple "don't do it" rule is simpler
than a "don't do it unless it's easy" rule.

Post by Paddy Grove
What's
more common is indirect anagrams that involve a common abbreviation,
e.g. throwing an S into the anagram fodder by clueing it as 'second'
or 'small'.
- 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

[Morten G. Pahle]

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Paddy Grove

Post by Morten G. Pahle
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?

To my mind, it's simply down to the number of possibilities
involved.

This is exactly right. It counts at least double for the possible
bad/ill/dud ridge/mount
duff/crap/naff berg/fell/down/wold
nasty/awful tor/ben,
and that's without getting the thesaurus out or thinking for too
long. Dozens if not hundreds of possibilities and no good reason
for choosing any one of them to anagram.

Sure, the possibilities are many, maybe too many. But for the same reason, would
it be reasonable to expect that setters do not accept clue anagrams with more
than 7 letters (thousands of possibilities if you discount double letters, usual
letter combinations etc.) ?

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
I guess this is just because a simple "don't do it" rule is simpler
than a "don't do it unless it's easy" rule.

Since when do we want things to be simple :-?
We may be missing out on some good clues if this is applied hamfistedly.

Going a little bit further down the path suggested by Paddy; under which
circumstances would such a clue be acceptable? How can it be indicated in a way
which makes it clear and/or which helps select one of the many interpretations,
to limit Peter's argument "no good reason for choosing any one of them"?

BTW: would anone accept TERRA as a planet?

Regards,

Morten

[Paddy Grove]

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Sure, the possibilities are many, maybe too many. But for the same
reason, would it be reasonable to expect that setters do not accept
clue anagrams with more than 7 letters (thousands of possibilities
if you discount double letters, usual letter combinations etc.) ?

But at least you know you're rearranging the right letters (if you
interpreted the clue correctly), so it's worth considering all the
possibilities (Oof course, solving anagrams doesn't really involve
looking at all n! combinations). A solver is probably less prepared to
exhaustively consider lots of combinations if s/he doesn't even know
s/he's got the right letters.

Post by Morten G. Pahle

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
I guess this is just because a simple "don't do it" rule is simpler
than a "don't do it unless it's easy" rule.

Since when do we want things to be simple :-?

Well it's very easy to right a very difficult clue. The question is
whether it's fair and reasonable to expect someone to solve it, and
more importantly whether s/he would get pleasure or satisfaction from
doing so. Giving the solvers a hard slog of trying millions of
possibilities is not going to win you many fans.
- Paddy

[Paddy Grove]

Post by Paddy Grove
Well it's very easy to right a very difficult clue.

Did I really *write* that?!

- Paddy

[Paul McKenna]

Post by Paddy Grove

Post by Paddy Grove
Well it's very easy to right a very difficult clue.

Did I really *write* that?!
- Paddy
--
Paddy Grove, Cambridge, UK
Rage of a theologian surrounded by party extremists (5)

Paddy,
Yes, you did. But I didn't bat an eyelid because I thought that it was
precisely what you meant.
Paul McK

[Peter Biddlecombe]

Post by Morten G. Pahle

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Paddy Grove

Post by Morten G. Pahle
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?

To my mind, it's simply down to the number of possibilities
involved.

This is exactly right. It counts at least double for the possible
bad/ill/dud ridge/mount
duff/crap/naff berg/fell/down/wold
nasty/awful tor/ben,
and that's without getting the thesaurus out or thinking for too
long. Dozens if not hundreds of possibilities and no good reason
for choosing any one of them to anagram.

Sure, the possibilities are many, maybe too many. But for the same reason, would
it be reasonable to expect that setters do not accept clue anagrams with more
than 7 letters (thousands of possibilities if you discount double letters, usual
letter combinations etc.) ?

Based on solving experience, no. Many long anagrams are surprisingly
easy, especially given a few checking letters - they often end in a
common suffix like -tion, -tely, or -ment, or are multi-word phrases
that follow the "recognisable phrase" rule that says "yellow
submarine"
is a valid answer but "purple submarine" isn't. But above all,
adapting Donald Rumsfeld, you're looking for an unknown arrangement
of a known set of letters, not an unknown arrangement of an unknown
set of letters.

The Times puzzle has a limit of something like 6 pure anagrams per
puzzle - but I think it's there to avoid solver boredom, not to
restrict the difficulty level. Without worrying about the number
of possibilities in each case, finding the right synonyms for bits
of a charade or similar clue is often more challenging than solving
an anagram. On the UK TV show "Countdown", the 9-letter anagram
called the "Conundrum" is often solved in less than ten seconds if
either of the contenders cracks it inside the 30-second limit, even
though there are 9x8x....x2x1 = 362,880 theoretical choices. I don't
watch it often, but I'd guess that about 50% of the conundrums are
solved inside 30 secs.

Post by Morten G. Pahle

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
I guess this is just because a simple "don't do it" rule is simpler
than a "don't do it unless it's easy" rule.

Since when do we want things to be simple :-?
We may be missing out on some good clues if this is applied
hamfistedly.

We may, but we also make sure of missing out on many that are
far too difficult. If you think such concerns are over-fussy,
try some Times crosswords from about 1940, before the current
generally accepted rules applied. Apart from a need for some
esoteric literary knowledge, you'll find indirect anagrams and
various other unorthodox clues that would not be used these days -
far more unorthodox than today's "non-Ximeneans" like Araucaria.
Although some of these clues can be fun to solve, the combined
effect can be an extremely difficult puzzle. You can find some of
these puzzles if you sign up for the Times Crossword Club (possibly
only on the Premium version), or if you get the recently published
"75 years of the Times crossword" book. I've tried about 10
puzzles this old in the last year, and my average performance
is about 50% of clues finished after 4-6 times my average time
for completing modern-day Times puzzles - correctly, except for
maybe one mistake a month.) 8 of the 10 were in a 1940 Times
puzzle book I found in a second-hand bookshop. The previous
owner filled in 9 and a half words of puzzle no. 1 and then
gave up!

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Going a little bit further down the path suggested by Paddy; under which
circumstances would such a clue be acceptable? How can it be
indicated in a way
which makes it clear and/or which helps select one of the many
interpretations,
to limit Peter's argument "no good reason for choosing any one of them"?

If you restricted yourself to really precise wordings like
"Scottish hillside" = BRAE or "Cellist Pablo" = CASALS,
you might be able to. But you'd probably find yourself too
constrained to come up with a convincing surface meaning that
deceives the solver in the tantalising but ultimately fair way
that makes a really good cryptic clue.

Post by Morten G. Pahle
BTW: would anone accept TERRA as a planet?

I wouldn't, because I think it means land or earth, not "the
Earth", and three dictionaries agree with me - which is more
important than what I think.

General caveat: Cryptic crosswords aren't an exact science,
and the rules usually followed may lead to apparent inconsistencies
like the number of anagram possbilities mentioned above. But the
rules have made sure that cryptic crosswords are not actually the
"branch of witchcraft" that some non-solvers think they are. I
suspect many members of this group would have given up on cryptic
crosswords if they were still done in the 1940s style, though I do
know one solver who grew up with this kind of puzzle and can do
them as quickly as I can do today's puzzles.

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Regards,
Morten

[Steve B.]

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Dear all,
(please excuse poor examples, but they should illustrate my question)
There seems to be a rule that you cannot have indirect anagrams. E.g.
although ABRIDGED can be clued by "Shortened and confused aged bird (8)",
it cannot be clued by "Shortened sinuous poor hill (8)" (anag. BAD RIDGE)
without causing a raised eyebrow and pursed lip.
However, it seems accepted that clues can include 'indirect reversals',
e.g. I believe that it is acceptable to clue POTS as "Halt! Come back to
plants! (4)" (Halt: STOP), whereas it would not be acceptable to clue
URNS as "Sprints around for pots (4)".
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?

I believe the distinction was originally made for no other reason than
Ximenes said so in "On the Art of the Crossword". He had a complete taboo
against indirect anagrams. He justified it by saying that they "seem to me
to disregard the fact that the subsidiary part of the clue...is meant to
help, not be a further problem in itself." This, to me, doesn't hold water
because it argues against *any* sort of indirect clue. (Ximenes acknowledges
that some other setters use indirect anagrams.)

The book is well-respected, and it seems that, in embracing it, people have
happily bought into Ximenes's personal preferences and quirks.

In r.p.c contests, I try to judge indirect anagrams on merit (including
solvability), but there are those here for whom "indirect anagram" indicates
that a clue is flawed.

Steve = : ^ )

[Peter Biddlecombe]

[...]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Morten G. Pahle
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?

I believe the distinction was originally made for no other reason than
Ximenes said so in "On the Art of the Crossword". He had a complete taboo
against indirect anagrams. He justified it by saying that they "seem to me
to disregard the fact that the subsidiary part of the clue...is meant to
help, not be a further problem in itself." This, to me, doesn't hold water
because it argues against *any* sort of indirect clue.
(Ximenes acknowledges
that some other setters use indirect anagrams.)

At the time he wrote the book (1966 I think), that was true.
Apart from the word => abbreviation replacement already mentioned,
I think it's now much less true.

Post by Steve B.
The book is well-respected, and it seems that, in embracing it, people have
happily bought into Ximenes's personal preferences and quirks.

If that's the case, why doesn't someone like Araucaria, who is pretty
openly non-Ximenean, use indirect anagrams regularly? Because, I
suggest, he knows that they tend to make clues too difficult.

The book is respected because it talks a lot of sense. But not
everyone does everything X said. Just compare his rules for numbers
of unches in barred puzzles with Spectator grids. And the Ximenean
ban on anagram indicators like "crash" in "train crash" is ignored
regularly. There is sometimes a tendency to apply standards which he
presumably intended for the advanced puzzles he wrote, in daily paper
ones where they are not so necessary. The classic example is the ban
on cryptic definitions in most US cryptics, which ultimately derives
from the list of clue types given by Stephen Sondheim in the article
that introduced cryptics to the US. That list derives in turn from X.

Peter B

Post by Steve B.
In r.p.c contests, I try to judge indirect anagrams on merit
(including
solvability), but there are those here for whom "indirect anagram" indicates
that a clue is flawed.
Steve = : ^ )

[Steve B.]

.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
[...]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Morten G. Pahle
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?

I believe the distinction was originally made for no other reason than
Ximenes said so in "On the Art of the Crossword". He had a complete taboo
against indirect anagrams. He justified it by saying that they "seem to me
to disregard the fact that the subsidiary part of the clue...is meant to
help, not be a further problem in itself." This, to me, doesn't hold water
because it argues against *any* sort of indirect clue.
(Ximenes acknowledges
that some other setters use indirect anagrams.)

At the time he wrote the book (1966 I think), that was true.
Apart from the word => abbreviation replacement already mentioned,
I think it's now much less true.

Post by Steve B.
The book is well-respected, and it seems that, in embracing it, people have
happily bought into Ximenes's personal preferences and quirks.

If that's the case, why doesn't someone like Araucaria, who is pretty
openly non-Ximenean, use indirect anagrams regularly?
Because, I
suggest, he knows that they tend to make clues too difficult.

This may well be true, I don't take issue with the good reasons presented
why they may not be used. I just believe that there are occasions where a
simple indirect anagram can easily be solved, yet is seen by some to be
flawed, while an obtuse multi-syllable charade, is seen as merely fiendishly
difficult. I believe this traces back to X's book.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
The book is respected because it talks a lot of sense.

Agreed, though I still believe that his objection to indirect anagrams on
the grounds that they "seem to me to disregard the fact that the subsidiary
part of the clue...is meant to help, not be a further problem in itself",
doesn't make much sense, unless you use it to militate against _all_
indirect clues.

Steve = : ^ )

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
But not
everyone does everything X said. Just compare his rules for numbers
of unches in barred puzzles with Spectator grids. And the Ximenean
ban on anagram indicators like "crash" in "train crash" is ignored
regularly. There is sometimes a tendency to apply standards which he
presumably intended for the advanced puzzles he wrote, in daily paper
ones where they are not so necessary. The classic example is the ban
on cryptic definitions in most US cryptics, which ultimately derives
from the list of clue types given by Stephen Sondheim in the article
that introduced cryptics to the US. That list derives in turn from X.
Peter B

Post by Steve B.
In r.p.c contests, I try to judge indirect anagrams on merit
(including
solvability), but there are those here for whom "indirect anagram" indicates
that a clue is flawed.
Steve = : ^ )

[Peter Biddlecombe]

[...]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
If that's the case, why doesn't someone like Araucaria, who is pretty
openly non-Ximenean, use indirect anagrams regularly?
Because, I
suggest, he knows that they tend to make clues too difficult.

This may well be true, I don't take issue with the good reasons presented
why they may not be used. I just believe that there are occasions where a
simple indirect anagram can easily be solved, yet is seen by some to be
flawed, while an obtuse multi-syllable charade, is seen as merely fiendishly
difficult. I believe this traces back to X's book.

If you operate in a world where indirect anags aren't used, you'll
probably find the 'obtuse charade' easier than a clue that 'breaks
the rules', whether this is an indirect anag or one of those
old-fashioned
'partial' cryptic clues where the wordplay gives you only part of the
answer, like "fish with number on the front" for TENCH. Many such
clues
are easy enough to solve once you learn to expect them, but that
doesn't
mean I'd like to see them return.

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
The book is respected because it talks a lot of sense.

Agreed, though I still believe that his objection to indirect
anagrams on
the grounds that they "seem to me to disregard the fact that the subsidiary
part of the clue...is meant to help, not be a further problem in itself",
doesn't make much sense, unless you use it to militate against _all_
indirect clues.

I guess it depends what you mean by "indirect". If you count any
requirement to replace a word by a synonym as 'indirect', then the
principle is pretty odd. But if you count something as 'indirect'
when it requires two steps, I think it makes sense. In the case of
the indirect anagram, the steps are: find synonym, make anagram.
You could also have 'find synonym, abbreviate', e.g. allow 'nippy=C',
using 'cold' as the synonym. I think this would be just as despised as
an indirect anag. For this purpose, the 'step' of putting the charade
elements in order is effectively ignored. So are steps like reversals
and insertions, as they must be indicated in the clue.

Post by Steve B.
Steve = : ^ )

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
But not
everyone does everything X said. Just compare his rules for
numbers
of unches in barred puzzles with Spectator grids. And the Ximenean
ban on anagram indicators like "crash" in "train crash" is ignored
regularly. There is sometimes a tendency to apply standards which he
presumably intended for the advanced puzzles he wrote, in daily paper
ones where they are not so necessary. The classic example is the ban
on cryptic definitions in most US cryptics, which ultimately
derives
from the list of clue types given by Stephen Sondheim in the
article
that introduced cryptics to the US. That list derives in turn from X.
Peter B

Post by Steve B.
In r.p.c contests, I try to judge indirect anagrams on merit
(including solvability),

Unless you're talking about comps where the answer is unknown, and you
solve the clues blind as part of your juding process; or you can point
to some puzzles you solve successfully that use indirect anagrams, I
don't see how you know how solvable they are. My memory of very
limited
experience of them says: very hard to solve unless the indirectness is
restricted to simple conversions like "cold=C" in the anagram fodder.

but there are those here for whom "indirect anagram"

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
indicates
that a clue is flawed.
Steve = : ^ )

[Steve B.]

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
The book is respected because it talks a lot of sense.

Agreed, though I still believe that his objection to indirect
anagrams on
the grounds that they "seem to me to disregard the fact that the subsidiary
part of the clue...is meant to help, not be a further problem in itself",
doesn't make much sense, unless you use it to militate against _all_
indirect clues.

I guess it depends what you mean by "indirect". If you count any
requirement to replace a word by a synonym as 'indirect', then the
principle is pretty odd. But if you count something as 'indirect'
when it requires two steps, I think it makes sense. In the case of
the indirect anagram, the steps are: find synonym, make anagram.
You could also have 'find synonym, abbreviate', e.g. allow 'nippy=C',
using 'cold' as the synonym. I think this would be just as despised as
an indirect anag. For this purpose, the 'step' of putting the charade
elements in order is effectively ignored. So are steps like reversals
and insertions, as they must be indicated in the clue.

I must be missing something: I don't see how 'find synonym, make anagram',
with the anagram indicated in the clue, is different from 'find synonym,
reverse' with the reversal indicated in the clue.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
In r.p.c contests, I try to judge indirect anagrams on merit
(including solvability),

Unless you're talking about comps where the answer is unknown, and you
solve the clues blind as part of your juding process; or you can point
to some puzzles you solve successfully that use indirect anagrams, I
don't see how you know how solvable they are. My memory of very
limited
experience of them says: very hard to solve unless the indirectness is
restricted to simple conversions like "cold=C" in the anagram fodder.

Clues of that sort can often be, as you point out, easily solved, yet are
still discounted by some as 'indirect anagrams'. Is 'very hard to solve'
meant to be a criticism? In your experience, are they the *hardest* clues
you've ever been expected to solve?

What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy cause? (11)

Steve = : ^ )

[Mark Brader]

Post by Steve B.
I must be missing something: I don't see how 'find synonym, make anagram',
with the anagram indicated in the clue, is different from 'find synonym,
reverse' with the reversal indicated in the clue.

Only in difficulty. If the synonym has 5 letters, say, there are
119 anagrams but only one reversal, so it may be less obvious when
you have the right synonym.

[Steve B.]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve B.
I must be missing something: I don't see how 'find synonym, make anagram',
with the anagram indicated in the clue, is different from 'find synonym,
reverse' with the reversal indicated in the clue.

Only in difficulty. If the synonym has 5 letters, say, there are
119 anagrams but only one reversal, so it may be less obvious when
you have the right synonym.

Agreed, but for the cases where there's one obvious synonym, the clue can be
relatively easy to solve. I'm not suggesting that using lots of (or any)
indirect anagrams is a good idea, just that I don't see the problem with the
occasional, readily-solvable one, and believe that the blanket ban goes back
to Ximenes's book.

Steve = : ^ )

[Mark Brader]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Mark Brader
Only in difficulty. If the synonym has 5 letters, say, there are
119 anagrams but only one reversal, so it may be less obvious when
you have the right synonym.

Agreed, but for the cases where there's one obvious synonym, the clue can be
relatively easy to solve. I'm not suggesting that using lots of (or any)
indirect anagrams is a good idea, just that I don't see the problem with the
occasional, readily-solvable one...

Neither do I, really. Of course, it might be disconcerting to see them
introduced in a particular series of puzzles that never used them before.

[Peter Biddlecombe]

Post by Steve B.

"Steve B."

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
The book is respected because it talks a lot of sense.

Agreed, though I still believe that his objection to indirect anagrams on
the grounds that they "seem to me to disregard the fact that the subsidiary
part of the clue...is meant to help, not be a further problem in itself",
doesn't make much sense, unless you use it to militate against _all_
indirect clues.

I guess it depends what you mean by "indirect". If you count any
requirement to replace a word by a synonym as 'indirect', then the
principle is pretty odd. But if you count something as 'indirect'
when it requires two steps, I think it makes sense. In the case of
the indirect anagram, the steps are: find synonym, make anagram.
You could also have 'find synonym, abbreviate', e.g. allow
'nippy=C',
using 'cold' as the synonym. I think this would be just as despised as
an indirect anag. For this purpose, the 'step' of putting the charade
elements in order is effectively ignored. So are steps like
reversals
and insertions, as they must be indicated in the clue.

I must be missing something: I don't see how 'find synonym, make anagram',
with the anagram indicated in the clue, is different from 'find synonym,
reverse' with the reversal indicated in the clue.

See Mark B's answer.

Post by Steve B.

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
In r.p.c contests, I try to judge indirect anagrams on merit
(including solvability),

Unless you're talking about comps where the answer is unknown, and you
solve the clues blind as part of your juding process; or you can point
to some puzzles you solve successfully that use indirect anagrams, I
don't see how you know how solvable they are. My memory of very
limited
experience of them says: very hard to solve unless the indirectness is
restricted to simple conversions like "cold=C" in the anagram
fodder.

Clues of that sort can often be, as you point out, easily solved, yet are
still discounted by some as 'indirect anagrams'. Is 'very hard to solve'
meant to be a criticism? In your experience, are they the *hardest* clues
you've ever been expected to solve?

"Very hard to solve": whether this is a criticism depends hugely on
the context. If there are a few hard clues in a puzzle and you
can get help from checking letters, you can usually cope with the hard
clues, regardless of the reason why they're hard. But in a
clue-writing
comp, there is no context, and usually no indication whether a clue
should be easy or hard. "Very hard to explain even when you've
guessed
the answer" is more of a criticism than just "very hard to solve".

And there are two ways of solving a cryptic clue to consider:
Forwards: identify how the wordplay works and find the synonyms/
anagram/whatever. Backwards: guess a word that fits the checking
letters or a possible definition, and see whether you can make the
wordplay explain it. I'd guess that most people solve at least
some clues 'backwards'. If you exclude things like indirect anagrams
and incomplete wordplay, it's much easier to confirm whether your
guess is correct.

The hardest orthodox clues are maybe those relying on the most
obscure knowledge or vocabulary - if you have the necessary
knowledge/vocab and can see that it's needed, you can solve the
clue. If you don't, you can't solve the clue unless you get help
from checking letters or the easier part of the clue, and even then,
you can probably only understand one of wordplay/def'n if you solve
the clue. [If the puzzle is an advanced cryptic and you spot bits
of wordplay, you might use a dictionary to explore possible words,
but I'm assuming that we're talking about puzzles that you'd expect
non-beginners to solve without a dictionary.]

Post by Steve B.
What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy
cause? (11)

Can't solve it without any checking letters so I'd move on and come
back later, when I've probably got some. I can't think of any (11)
synonyms for the most likely-looking def's (walks from place to
place / needy cause).

Peter B

Post by Steve B.
Steve = : ^ )

[Steve B.]

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
Clues of that sort can often be, as you point out, easily solved, yet are
still discounted by some as 'indirect anagrams'. Is 'very hard to solve'
meant to be a criticism? In your experience, are they the *hardest* clues
you've ever been expected to solve?

"Very hard to solve": whether this is a criticism depends hugely on
the context. If there are a few hard clues in a puzzle and you
can get help from checking letters, you can usually cope with the hard
clues, regardless of the reason why they're hard. But in a
clue-writing
comp, there is no context, and usually no indication whether a clue
should be easy or hard. "Very hard to explain even when you've
guessed
the answer" is more of a criticism than just "very hard to solve".

Agreed.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
Forwards: identify how the wordplay works and find the synonyms/
anagram/whatever. Backwards: guess a word that fits the checking
letters or a possible definition, and see whether you can make the
wordplay explain it. I'd guess that most people solve at least
some clues 'backwards'.

Depending on the puzzle, once I get some checking letters, the proportion is
quite high. Double definitions can _only_ be solved by guessing the answer
from one def., then checking against the other.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
If you exclude things like indirect anagrams
and incomplete wordplay, it's much easier to confirm whether your
guess is correct.

Agreed.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
The hardest orthodox clues are maybe those relying on the most
obscure knowledge or vocabulary - if you have the necessary
knowledge/vocab and can see that it's needed, you can solve the
clue. If you don't, you can't solve the clue unless you get help
from checking letters or the easier part of the clue, and even then,
you can probably only understand one of wordplay/def'n if you solve
the clue. [If the puzzle is an advanced cryptic and you spot bits
of wordplay, you might use a dictionary to explore possible words,
but I'm assuming that we're talking about puzzles that you'd expect
non-beginners to solve without a dictionary.]

Post by Steve B.
What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy cause? (11)

Can't solve it without any checking letters so I'd move on and come
back later, when I've probably got some. I can't think of any (11)
synonyms for the most likely-looking def's (walks from place to
place / needy cause).

I, of course, hoped you'd solve it to make my point that even a reasonably
obscure indirect anagram, is solvable.

So is it solvable with the maximum no. of checking letters? (Sometimes I
can't solve clues - or understand the solution at least - even when I have
them all).

Walks from place to place for needy cause (11)

P _ R _ P _ T _ T _ C

Actually, the wordplay sucks. It really needs:

Walks from place to place from needy cause (11)

and, even then, the anagram indicator is weak.

Steve = : ^ )

[Peter Biddlecombe]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
Clues of that sort can often be, as you point out, easily solved, yet are
still discounted by some as 'indirect anagrams'. Is 'very hard to solve'
meant to be a criticism? In your experience, are they the
*hardest*
clues
you've ever been expected to solve?

"Very hard to solve": whether this is a criticism depends hugely on
the context. If there are a few hard clues in a puzzle and you
can get help from checking letters, you can usually cope with the hard
clues, regardless of the reason why they're hard. But in a
clue-writing
comp, there is no context, and usually no indication whether a clue
should be easy or hard. "Very hard to explain even when you've
guessed
the answer" is more of a criticism than just "very hard to solve".

Agreed.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
Forwards: identify how the wordplay works and find the synonyms/
anagram/whatever. Backwards: guess a word that fits the checking
letters or a possible definition, and see whether you can make the
wordplay explain it. I'd guess that most people solve at least
some clues 'backwards'.

Depending on the puzzle, once I get some checking letters, the
proportion is
quite high. Double definitions can _only_ be solved by guessing the answer
from one def., then checking against the other.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
If you exclude things like indirect anagrams
and incomplete wordplay, it's much easier to confirm whether your
guess is correct.

Agreed.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
The hardest orthodox clues are maybe those relying on the most
obscure knowledge or vocabulary - if you have the necessary
knowledge/vocab and can see that it's needed, you can solve the
clue. If you don't, you can't solve the clue unless you get help
from checking letters or the easier part of the clue, and even then,
you can probably only understand one of wordplay/def'n if you solve
the clue. [If the puzzle is an advanced cryptic and you spot bits
of wordplay, you might use a dictionary to explore possible words,
but I'm assuming that we're talking about puzzles that you'd expect
non-beginners to solve without a dictionary.]

Post by Steve B.
What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy cause? (11)

Can't solve it without any checking letters so I'd move on and come
back later, when I've probably got some. I can't think of any (11)
synonyms for the most likely-looking def's (walks from place to
place / needy cause).

I, of course, hoped you'd solve it to make my point that even a reasonably
obscure indirect anagram, is solvable.
So is it solvable with the maximum no. of checking letters?
(Sometimes I
can't solve clues - or understand the solution at least - even when I have
them all).
Walks from place to place for needy cause (11)
P _ R _ P _ T _ T _ C
Walks from place to place from needy cause (11)
and, even then, the anagram indicator is weak.
Steve = : ^ )

[Peter Biddlecombe]

[...]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy cause? (11)

Can't solve it without any checking letters so I'd move on and come
back later, when I've probably got some. I can't think of any (11)
synonyms for the most likely-looking def's (walks from place to
place / needy cause).

I, of course, hoped you'd solve it to make my point that even a reasonably
obscure indirect anagram, is solvable.
So is it solvable with the maximum no. of checking letters?
(Sometimes I
can't solve clues - or understand the solution at least - even when I have
them all).
Walks from place to place for needy cause (11)
P _ R _ P _ T _ T _ C
Walks from place to place from needy cause (11)
and, even then, the anagram indicator is weak.
Steve = : ^ )

Apologies for the empty post. Here's one that's far from
empty...

The answer's now obviously PERIPATETIC, but ...

The definition sucks too. For fussy folk like me,
a phrase like "walks from place to place" is not an adequate
definition for peripatetic, which is an adjective or a noun
('a peripatetic teacher'). "walks from ..." is either a
verb phrase or a noun one, but the noun meanings of 'walk'
don't fit. The rule here is, in short: use the right part
of speech. Assuming you intended the adjective meaning,
"Walking from ...." would do the job, or better, "Travelling
from....", as "walking" is really too specific. If you mean
the noun, you need something like "Traveller from ...".

Good rule of thumb: if you can replace the defined word with
the def and still make sense, you're on the right track - e.g.
OK: My trombone teacher is peripatetic
matches
OK: My trombone teacher is travelling from place to place
but not
Dud: My trombone teacher is travels from place to place
and of course,
OK: My trombone teacher travels from place to place
would have to match
Dud: My trombone teacher peripatetic

There are cases where this replacement idea doesn't work,
such as "A colour" => GREEN, but when the definition is
supposed to be a synonym/synonymous phrase like "the
colour of grass", it's worth checking.

But of course the biggest problem is that I still can't see
how "needy cause" fits in. After cheating by looking up
anagrams of "peripatetic" I can find "precipitate" = cause.
But "needy" certainly wouldn't make me think of an anagram,
so the chance of finding 'precipitate' without having the
prior knowledge that an indirect anag is probably involved
seems very slim. If the clue used a decent indicator and a
more obvious link to 'precipitate', like 'rain or snow'
(verbs!), I _might_ have got the idea unaided.

As a comparison, I'd expect to understand all the wordplay
in Times puzzles completely in much less time than I spent
thinking about this, except for maybe one literary/'General
Knowledge' obscurity per week. The same would apply to the
Independent, FT, Guardian or Telegraph if I did them every
day. I don't often pull rank, but if a former winner
of the Times Crossword Championship still can't understand
your clue when presented with the answer, it's probably
too hard.

Is all this analysis really fussy? From the solver's
point of view, quote possibly. Adapting your clue, "Stormy
precipitate wanders from place to place" would be nearly
as solvable as "Stormy precipitate wandering from place
to place", though the surface meaning of both is poor.
But in my experience, the setters and editors who worry
about issues like this are generally the ones who produce
the best puzzles.

Peter B

[Steve B.]

.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
[...]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy cause? (11)

Can't solve it without any checking letters so I'd move on and come
back later, when I've probably got some. I can't think of any (11)
synonyms for the most likely-looking def's (walks from place to
place / needy cause).

I, of course, hoped you'd solve it to make my point that even a reasonably
obscure indirect anagram, is solvable.
So is it solvable with the maximum no. of checking letters?
(Sometimes I
can't solve clues - or understand the solution at least - even when I have
them all).
Walks from place to place for needy cause (11)
P _ R _ P _ T _ T _ C
Walks from place to place from needy cause (11)
and, even then, the anagram indicator is weak.
Steve = : ^ )

Apologies for the empty post. Here's one that's far from
empty...
The answer's now obviously PERIPATETIC, but ...
The definition sucks too. For fussy folk like me,
a phrase like "walks from place to place" is not an adequate
definition for peripatetic, which is an adjective or a noun
('a peripatetic teacher'). "walks from ..." is either a
verb phrase or a noun one, but the noun meanings of 'walk'
don't fit. The rule here is, in short: use the right part
of speech. Assuming you intended the adjective meaning,
"Walking from ...." would do the job, or better, "Travelling
from....", as "walking" is really too specific.

I took my definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition

per·i·pa·tet·ic     P   Pronunciation Key  (pr-p-ttk)
adj.
1. Walking about or from place to place; travelling on foot.

and actually changed 'travels' to 'walks'. You're completely right about the
part of speech, but I would be happy with 'walking'.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
But of course the biggest problem is that I still can't see
how "needy cause" fits in. After cheating by looking up
anagrams of "peripatetic" I can find "precipitate" = cause.
But "needy" certainly wouldn't make me think of an anagram,
so the chance of finding 'precipitate' without having the
prior knowledge that an indirect anag is probably involved
seems very slim.

Fair enough. I said the anagram indicator was weak.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe
If the clue used a decent indicator and a
more obvious link to 'precipitate', like 'rain or snow'
(verbs!), I _might_ have got the idea unaided.
As a comparison, I'd expect to understand all the wordplay
in Times puzzles completely in much less time than I spent
thinking about this, except for maybe one literary/'General
Knowledge' obscurity per week. The same would apply to the
Independent, FT, Guardian or Telegraph if I did them every
day. I don't often pull rank, but if a former winner
of the Times Crossword Championship still can't understand
your clue when presented with the answer, it's probably
too hard.
Is all this analysis really fussy? From the solver's
point of view, quote possibly. Adapting your clue, "Stormy
precipitate wanders from place to place" would be nearly
as solvable as "Stormy precipitate wandering from place
to place", though the surface meaning of both is poor.
But in my experience, the setters and editors who worry
about issues like this are generally the ones who produce
the best puzzles.

It was a lousy clue - I wouldn't enter it in a contest here - hastily tossed
out to demonstrate that, once something is parsed as an indirect anagram,
(which I assumed it would be in the context of this discussion), even one
with an obscure synonym is still solvable. It failed miserably.

Steve = : ^ )

[Peter Biddlecombe]

Post by Steve B.

"Steve B."

.

[...]

Post by Steve B.

Post by Peter Biddlecombe

Post by Steve B.
What do you make of this?: Walks from place to place for needy cause? (11)

Can't solve it without any checking letters so I'd move on and come
back later, when I've probably got some. I can't think of any (11)
synonyms for the most likely-looking def's (walks from place to
place / needy cause).

I, of course, hoped you'd solve it to make my point that even a reasonably
obscure indirect anagram, is solvable.
So is it solvable with the maximum no. of checking letters?
(Sometimes I
can't solve clues - or understand the solution at least - even
when
I have
them all).
Walks from place to place for needy cause (11)
P _ R _ P _ T _ T _ C
Walks from place to place from needy cause (11)
and, even then, the anagram indicator is weak.
Steve = : ^ )

Apologies for the empty post. Here's one that's far from
empty...
The answer's now obviously PERIPATETIC, but ...
The definition sucks too. For fussy folk like me,
a phrase like "walks from place to place" is not an adequate
definition for peripatetic, which is an adjective or a noun
('a peripatetic teacher'). "walks from ..." is either a
verb phrase or a noun one, but the noun meanings of 'walk'
don't fit. The rule here is, in short: use the right part
of speech. Assuming you intended the adjective meaning,
"Walking from ...." would do the job, or better, "Travelling
from....", as "walking" is really too specific.

I took my definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition
per·i·pa·tet·ic P Pronunciation Key (pr-p-ttk)
adj.
1. Walking about or from place to place; travelling on foot.
and actually changed 'travels' to 'walks'. You're completely right about the
part of speech, but I would be happy with 'walking'.

Sorry, I only looked at the fairly short Concise Oxford, which
only mentions walking in relation to Aristotle's teaching
method - a connection beyond my knowledge of
Classics/philosophy.

Post by Steve B.
It was a lousy clue - I wouldn't enter it in a contest here -
hastily tossed
out to demonstrate that, once something is parsed as an indirect anagram,
(which I assumed it would be in the context of this discussion), even one
with an obscure synonym is still solvable. It failed miserably.
Steve = : ^ )

[Paul Daniel]

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Dear all,
(please excuse poor examples, but they should illustrate my question)
There seems to be a rule that you cannot have indirect anagrams. E.g.
although ABRIDGED can be clued by "Shortened and confused aged bird
(8)", it cannot be clued by "Shortened sinuous poor hill (8)" (anag.
BAD RIDGE) without causing a raised eyebrow and pursed lip.
However, it seems accepted that clues can include 'indirect
reversals', e.g. I believe that it is acceptable to clue POTS as
"Halt! Come back to plants! (4)" (Halt: STOP), whereas it would not be
acceptable to clue URNS as "Sprints around for pots (4)".
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple
reversals?
Or is this 'rule' not as clearcut as I thought?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Regards,
Morten

Azed No. 1,754 - 08/01/06

23 Across
A couple of boundaries dismantled over-fancy stuff (8)

Naughty Azed - but not too hard I think.
Please note that there are prizes for this crossword for entries postmarked
14th Jan or earlier.

Regards

Paul Daniel

[Morten G. Pahle]

Post by Paul Daniel

Post by Morten G. Pahle
Dear all,
(please excuse poor examples, but they should illustrate my question)
There seems to be a rule that you cannot have indirect anagrams. E.g.
although ABRIDGED can be clued by "Shortened and confused aged bird
(8)", it cannot be clued by "Shortened sinuous poor hill (8)" (anag.
BAD RIDGE) without causing a raised eyebrow and pursed lip.
However, it seems accepted that clues can include 'indirect
reversals', e.g. I believe that it is acceptable to clue POTS as
"Halt! Come back to plants! (4)" (Halt: STOP), whereas it would not be
acceptable to clue URNS as "Sprints around for pots (4)".
What is the reason this distinction has been made, apart from the fact
that anagrams are of course more difficult to spot than simple reversals?
Or is this 'rule' not as clearcut as I thought?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Regards,
Morten

Azed No. 1,754 - 08/01/06
23 Across
A couple of boundaries dismantled over-fancy stuff (8)
Naughty Azed - but not too hard I think.
Please note that there are prizes for this crossword for entries postmarked
14th Jan or earlier.
Regards
Paul Daniel

Any reference to some of the players' hairstyles must be purely incidental
;-))

Morten