I would like to discuss about yet another interesting treasure hunt topic. Before I go into a lengthy discussion, I'll publish this Q&A from a past hunt which took place ages ago.
A CAVEAT—the friend who sent me this Q&A said he recalled it entirely from his memory, and so he couldn't be sure that he had quoted it correctly or completely. This Q&A might seem familiar to some of you "old-timer" hunters.
At first, my friend sent it to me without any explanation, and I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I was stumped. Then later on, my friend gave me the explanation, and as a result of that explanation, I am bringing it up for discussion here in this blog. Well, here is the Q&A, see what you make of it.
Q) Broken barrel
A) Jalan Keriung
By the way, although I am well-versed in Malay, I don't know what is a "keriung". I know the word "keruing" as that referring to a tree. But I am giving the word here exactly as I have received it from my friend. Again, note the caveat above.
According to my friend, the explanation for the above answer was like this:
The word Broken plays a dual-function role of both an anagram indicator as well as the fodder. Some people would also use the term double duty as opposed to dual-function. Essentially, it means that Broken, as an anagram indicator, tells the solver that the letters found in a word(s) in the sentence must be rearranged in order to make another word(s). That word(s) that is/are to be rearranged is/are known as the fodder(s).
In an ordinary case, the word which is used as the anagram indicator can't be used for another duty within the same question. But in this question, while it is an anagram indicator, it also takes the role of the fodder too. And based on this idea, the word Broken is first equated to ruin. The letters in ruin are then combined together with keg which is derived from barrel. The ruin and keg are combined together and then the letters in them are rearranged by the anagram operation on account of Broken, to arrive at Keriung. To summarise, it's something like this:
Broken = anagram indicator;
Broken = Ruin
Barrel = Keg
Ruin + Keg => anagram operation => Keriung
I have 2 main objections to this solution. First, as always, on grammatical grounds; Broken is the past participle of the verb Break. It can also be an adjective in which the word is used to describe something, e.g. a broken glass. The word Ruin, on the other hand, is a verb. As a conversion of the Broken as a verb, it must also take the past participle form, i.e. Ruined to be grammatically perfect. Alternatively, if the Ruin is to take the adjective form, it is written as Ruinous.
Secondly, as a cryptic puzzle, "double duty" is not generally acceptable—at least with the very little that I know about cryptic clueing, I understand it's not acceptable.
Although the above style is not common in hunt questions, it emerges every now and then. Check out this clue from another past hunt:
Q) Anagram Chinese trip trio
A) Impiana Resort Cherating
Before I was introduced to the wonderful sport of treasure hunting a little over 2 years ago, I knew nothing about cryptic clueing. I have since taken up the hobby and learned a bit here and there, but by no means an expert in it. And this is where I would like to invite opinions from people who I know are experts in cryptic clueing, i.e. Alex Hoh, Lim Soo Khian, Margaret Sha, VK Chong, Nestor Fields or even that Scrabble master—my famous "sparring partner" in the RR Blog, pinky.
A CAVEAT—the friend who sent me this Q&A said he recalled it entirely from his memory, and so he couldn't be sure that he had quoted it correctly or completely. This Q&A might seem familiar to some of you "old-timer" hunters.
At first, my friend sent it to me without any explanation, and I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I was stumped. Then later on, my friend gave me the explanation, and as a result of that explanation, I am bringing it up for discussion here in this blog. Well, here is the Q&A, see what you make of it.
Q) Broken barrel
A) Jalan Keriung
By the way, although I am well-versed in Malay, I don't know what is a "keriung". I know the word "keruing" as that referring to a tree. But I am giving the word here exactly as I have received it from my friend. Again, note the caveat above.
According to my friend, the explanation for the above answer was like this:
The word Broken plays a dual-function role of both an anagram indicator as well as the fodder. Some people would also use the term double duty as opposed to dual-function. Essentially, it means that Broken, as an anagram indicator, tells the solver that the letters found in a word(s) in the sentence must be rearranged in order to make another word(s). That word(s) that is/are to be rearranged is/are known as the fodder(s).
In an ordinary case, the word which is used as the anagram indicator can't be used for another duty within the same question. But in this question, while it is an anagram indicator, it also takes the role of the fodder too. And based on this idea, the word Broken is first equated to ruin. The letters in ruin are then combined together with keg which is derived from barrel. The ruin and keg are combined together and then the letters in them are rearranged by the anagram operation on account of Broken, to arrive at Keriung. To summarise, it's something like this:
Broken = anagram indicator;
Broken = Ruin
Barrel = Keg
Ruin + Keg => anagram operation => Keriung
I have 2 main objections to this solution. First, as always, on grammatical grounds; Broken is the past participle of the verb Break. It can also be an adjective in which the word is used to describe something, e.g. a broken glass. The word Ruin, on the other hand, is a verb. As a conversion of the Broken as a verb, it must also take the past participle form, i.e. Ruined to be grammatically perfect. Alternatively, if the Ruin is to take the adjective form, it is written as Ruinous.
Secondly, as a cryptic puzzle, "double duty" is not generally acceptable—at least with the very little that I know about cryptic clueing, I understand it's not acceptable.
Although the above style is not common in hunt questions, it emerges every now and then. Check out this clue from another past hunt:
Q) Anagram Chinese trip trio
A) Impiana Resort Cherating
Before I was introduced to the wonderful sport of treasure hunting a little over 2 years ago, I knew nothing about cryptic clueing. I have since taken up the hobby and learned a bit here and there, but by no means an expert in it. And this is where I would like to invite opinions from people who I know are experts in cryptic clueing, i.e. Alex Hoh, Lim Soo Khian, Margaret Sha, VK Chong, Nestor Fields or even that Scrabble master—my famous "sparring partner" in the RR Blog, pinky.
The question to the above cryptic experts is whether they would accept the so-called "double duty" for cryptic clues such as in the above examples in treasure hunt clues. I think there is a need to address this issue, because although there is presently no hard rules in the treasure hunting sport, perhaps it is good that we should initiate at least a general guide on what's acceptable and what's not.
My vote is that "double duty" situations shouldn't be acceptable, and I certainly wouldn't use that kind of "trick" in my hunt.
Now I am fully aware that there are many instances where treasure hunt questions are not rigidly true to the cryptic clueing rules. Examples include the double jeopardy (which I think is not used in the usual cryptic crosswords), and indirect anagrams (which might be used, but rarely in crosswords), to name a few.
I think in spite of what has been termed as the "styles" of the respective CoCs, we should come up with some uniformity in hunt questions. For example, I used to set questions where the intended answers were only one of the words in multiple-worded signboards. This was severely criticised in the RR Blog some time ago, notably by GM Vincent; and then later on I was again criticised by another strong hunter in Sabah. An example of such question is like this:
Q) To come back here would be a waste.
A) Rizab Juta Sdn Bhd
Notice that the intended answer for the question is the word Rizab. The word Juta has been ignored. Having considered the objections and criticisms from numerous parties, I have to reluctantly agree that it makes a whole lot of sense to cover the word Juta too in my question. As for the remaining "Sdn Bhd" or "Enterprise" etc, they have been accepted as words meant to confirm the answers. Thereafter, I have adjusted my "style" and allowed for "Juta" for my subsequent hunts.
During the recent TrialBlazers Hunt, I noticed that the above issue was again brought up in Mike's blog, where he cited an example—that for a brand name Pizza Hut, the "Hut" can't just be ignored by the CoC.
Anyway, coming back to the "double duty" situation, if we are to allow it in hunt questions, then I think it opens up possibilities in a whole new dimension. As I am writing this post, I am already thinking of so many crazy ideas. For if we can allow the "double duty" in this case, I can't see why we can't do the same for other kinds of "double duty". For the moment, I'd rather keep those naughty ideas of mine to myself.
Let's hear it from the hunting fraternity. What say you?
6 comments:
Double Duty or &Lit is an acceptable trick in the bag. However with that said, (in my opinion) certainly not in the way the crafter of the 'Jalan Keruing' question meant it to be.
This is an &Lit trick I've come across:
Q: Essential panel that is part of a computer.
A: Keyboard
where one can appreciate that "Essential panel" can stand on its own as an answer for "Keyboard" or be used smoothly as part of the entire definition to also answer "Keyboard", hence the Double Duty!
To use a word as both a keyword and fodder is not &Lit and can be quite impossible to solve!
The nature of the Double Duty in this particular case is different from the example you have quoted.
As I know it, &Lit refers to a cryptic clue that has no definition in it—and cryptic clues almost always have the definition portion—but still valid because the wordplay in the clue defines, to a greater or lesser extent, the answer. Take this example which I've modified from an internet source:
Q) Perhaps he bugs Gore.
A) George Bush.
The letters found in "he bugs Gore" may be rearranged to come up with anything at all, but "George Bush" agrees with the wordplay in this case. Therefore, there is no need to throw in the definition portion like "President" or "Politician" into the clue.
But now the Double Duty that we have here is quite different. We have an indicator which also has the duty as the fodder. If we can allow this, then are we also agreeable to, say, a container indicator being used as a fodder?
What you have shared I feel is a direct anagram, unless the fact "George Bush bugs Al Gore on a frequent basis" is qualified. If this fact is qualified, then yes, indeed it is an acceptable &Lit trick.
Yes, 2R1I, it is indeed a direct anagram. Maybe it is not a very good &Lit example. What I know is that "&Lit" means "and literally so".
It means that the clue contains the cryptic indication of the solution, but which contains no definition part. Instead the clue as a whole functions as the definition.
Therefore,
Perhaps he bugs Gore
could be viewed from 2 angles. First, in the cryptic sense, i.e. "perhaps" as the anagram indicator; and then "he bugs Gore" to be rearranged to become "George Bush".
The second way of looking at the clue is in the literal sense, and here I feel that "perhaps" is enough to support "he bugs Gore" to qualify "George Bush" as the answer. Perhaps is adopted in a "suggestive" way that Bush bugs Gore. That perhaps in the sentence means that the sentence is not a statement of fact. It is in this way that I feel there is no necessity to qualify that Bush does indeed bug Gore.
Similarly, the word "possibly" in the following example is an anagram indicator in the cryptic sense; as well as a "suggestive" word in the literal sense:
Q) Possibly a rope ends it.
A) Desperation
Maybe it's not as good as:
Q) Terribly evil
A) Vile
which is also a direct anagram. Again no definition in the clue; instead the whole clue itself is the definition (apart from the cryptic indication).
Oh I really need to spend lesser time at my pc!... hehehe. Been spending like hours online!!
Re the clues you posted:
By Ximenean rules which are de facto standard in the modern cryptic crossword, such clueing is forbidden.There is no distinction between indicator and fodder as well as nothing telling us that we need to consider otherwise.
It would be interesting to hear what the setter said when explaining the answer after the hunt.
In the first case , it is also an indirect anagram. Such clues need not be further obfuscated by double duty of indicator and fodder.
To break a rule , one needs extraordinary circumstances to justify it. That answer is not worthy of such rule-breaking.The setter has been merely clever- but without wit.
Was there a special circumstance in the sector which he could exploit that justified such an approach? I doubt it. I can think of a situation which could justify it. Nothing else on that sector except that sign and maybe a couple of others.Then it might be a situation which he would want to try something special.
So , in my opinion, the first clueing is inappropriate.
Perhaps something like this would have served his purpose better:
WRECK DOUBLE BARREL.(Here , the hunter would at least have an opportunity to explore. Does DOUBLE refer to BARREL or WRECK? )
As for the second clue, its one virtue above the first clue is that its not an indirect anagram.
The solver would have at least been able to scan potential answers. And then look at the remaining letters which would form ANAGRAM.
"Ok", he decides."I get it. i know this is the answer and i know what you are doing. It's a no-no but since you gave me an opening and that opening led me to this point....let's move on".
In the history of cryptic crosswords, Ximenes(1902-1971) , inheriting the edifice made by Torquemada(1892-1939) in the Observer, set out principles which almost all cryptic crosswords follow.There are , of course, oracles like Araucaria(1921- ) who can break rules and still be understood and accepted by a broad swathe of dedicated solvers. But he does it with great wit and cunning and CONTINUES to do so , exploring new ways that this form of wordplay can coherently portary HIS vision of the deepest nature of language and thought.
In other words, when you want to break rules , you must do so with great caution and with fairness.
Thank you.
Nestor Fields
Thank you, Mr Fields, for a rounded and well-elucidated comment. And I am glad that of the 2 experts who've responded so far, both disfavoured the double duty situation in the given questions.
However, apart from your comment on those questions, your post has also made me realised that there is so much more for me to learn! It's been a while since I started doing the cryptic crosswords now, but I must admit that I have to struggle to fill up even half of the blanks; not to mention my heavy reliance on the dictionary!
How about the other cryptic experts? Is it safe to assume that you don't agree with the "trick" in those questions too?
Post a Comment