An interesting clue and its solution, imported from A Hunter's Tale.
Q) Ibu negara yang sah?
A) Viki Lim
When I organized the KK Challenge 4, I wanted to give a question based on a similar idea as the above. But I decided against it in the end—the question has since sunken into my question bank, perhaps never to surface again. Unless of course if I can find the time to do one of those Chinese New Year hunts in KL where no holds barred? In fact, I have some outrageous ideas involving strange twists which would shake up those master hunters from their comfort zone.
I think there are several issues in the above question which deserve some discussion.
IBU NEGARA:
First up, let's deal with the "ibu negara". According to the setter, he intended that "ibu negara" (which means capital city) to refer to Lima (capital city of Peru). Therefore,
IBU NEGARA = LIMA,
and
LIMA = V (Roman numeral for 5)
The above solution is not uncommon in treasure hunts, but due to very, very detailed analysis and discussions in the RR Blog and also in this blog, we have come up with something that can challenge the accuracy of such solution. To illustrate my point, consider this question which is taken from Mike's hunt last December:
Q) Painkillers have strength
A) Numbers
Sadly, during the hunt my team failed to spot the required answer. We were under serious time trouble, and it did not help that the answer was a relatively small word within a main board. Anyway, after the hunt, I tried to garner support for my own answer: CM Power. I argued that "painkillers", in the cryptic sense, could be equated to "numbers", i.e. something that numbs (the nerves). And numbers, on the other hand, could be referring to C and M, which are the Roman numerals for 100 and 1000 respectively. Unfortunately, master renroc put an end to my argument, saying that:
PAINKILLERS = NUMBERS,
and
NUMBERS = CM
BUT!
PAINKILLERS does not equal to CM. He gave an even better example: tulips are flowers, and flowers are (cryptically) rivers, but tulips are not rivers.
Do you see now what I'm getting at with this comparison?
We can accept that IBU NEGARA = LIMA; and we can accept that LIMA = V. But it will at least get us thinking whether we can all accept IBU NEGARA = V.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "YANG":
Generally speaking, in cryptic clueing the setter is not compelled to provide "connecting words" such as "a", "an", "the", "and" etc. On the other hand, those words may be inserted into the clue without having any role to play other than the requirement of their presence for the proper construction of the sentence in the grammatical sense. Therefore, it can be a bit annoying for the new hunters because sometimes these words are not only there in the clue for grammatical purposes, but also because they play a role in arriving at the solution.
Consider this example:
Q) Came and get entangled?
A) MEGATEC
Notice that the word "entangled" is an anagram indicator; and the words "came" and "get" are the fodders. Yet the word "and" which is found between "came" and "get" does not play any role in the solution; it is there only on grammatical grounds.
Now consider the word "yang" in the subject question:
Q) Ibu negara yang sah?
First, let's imagine what would have happened if that word was not there. Well, we would have come up with: "Ibu negara sah?" The sentence would look a bit strange, wouldn't it? It would look not quite right in the grammatical sense; yet it would have been sufficient for the purpose of a cryptic clue. But because of the presence of "yang" in the question, we need to investigate whether or not it has any significant effect on the entire question itself.
Before we decide how to deal with "yang", let's look at other possible words which are commonly used in "charade" clues. Well, we have seen "add" or "added"; sometimes "take" and the likes. So for example, if we say: HE takes ART, it can mean HEART. But of course it is also possible that the setter does not provide "takes" at all; he merely gives a clue for HE, followed by a clue for ART, and then the solver will have to figure out that he's required to join those two words together.
Well, coming back to the subject question, that word "yang", apart from resulting in a grammatically correct sentence, also has the effect of fixing the meaning of "sah". If without "yang" the solver has to guess the intention and meaning of "sah". But here, "sah" must take the adjective meaning, as in "Capital which is valid". Because of "yang" (which is), it forces the solver to take the adjective meaning of "sah" (valid). If the question had been, say, "Capital valid", then the scenario would have been different. Maybe "valid" could mean other than the adjective meaning—say a verb or noun instead?
"Yang" can't be treated like "and" or "the" or "is". "Yang" is not a "connecting word", and therefore its presence in the question must be significant. I for one do not agree with its presence in the question because the solution had something to do with connecting "ibu negara" with "sah" by the charade operation. If "yang" is replaced with, say, "the" or "and", then I would accept it. But of course that is me; other people may disagree with me!
VALIDITY OF SAH:
Finally, we come to "sah". In spite of that long discussion of "yang" above, it turns out that it didn't really matter after all. The thing that made me withdraw my own question in the KK Challenge 4 was because of something similar to "sah".
Before that, I'd like to mention here that I've received 2 emails from hunters who expressed their objection—that this question isn't fair on account of the "silent" reversal. I can understand their objection. Having said that, however, I have not forgotten that perhaps a bit of leeway may be permissible for online or virtual hunts. Hunters have much more time to think in the comfort of their homes with a whole load of research materials to help them. The same can't be said about hunting on the road under the hot sun under time pressure.
No—it wasn't because of the "silent" reversal that made me withdraw me own question. Rather, it was the due to the bilingual involvement in the solution that made me doubt my own question.
In the RR blog, there was a so-called "killer riddle" which involved something similar, i.e. a "silent" reversal, where PU was read as SATA (ATAS reversed). But that was not my main concerned. A master hunter, ce5nt, came up with something interesting. The clue was set in the English language, and one of the words found therein was "main". What master ce5nt did caused something of a stir; he saw that word "main" as a Malay word (even though it was clear that the question was in English), and from that angle he adopted "main" (play) as an anagram indicator.
I found ce5nt's idea very interesting, but it was quite obvious that that idea was not well-received from the discussion that followed. We are all familiar with treasure hunt questions set in Malay, but the solutions are in English, and vice versa. But it's a different matter when the question is set in English, the word (s) read as Malay, and then arrived back to an English answer. It was for that reason that I withdrew my own question in the KK Challenge 4.
Q) Ibu negara yang sah?
A) Viki Lim
When I organized the KK Challenge 4, I wanted to give a question based on a similar idea as the above. But I decided against it in the end—the question has since sunken into my question bank, perhaps never to surface again. Unless of course if I can find the time to do one of those Chinese New Year hunts in KL where no holds barred? In fact, I have some outrageous ideas involving strange twists which would shake up those master hunters from their comfort zone.
I think there are several issues in the above question which deserve some discussion.
IBU NEGARA:
First up, let's deal with the "ibu negara". According to the setter, he intended that "ibu negara" (which means capital city) to refer to Lima (capital city of Peru). Therefore,
IBU NEGARA = LIMA,
and
LIMA = V (Roman numeral for 5)
The above solution is not uncommon in treasure hunts, but due to very, very detailed analysis and discussions in the RR Blog and also in this blog, we have come up with something that can challenge the accuracy of such solution. To illustrate my point, consider this question which is taken from Mike's hunt last December:
Q) Painkillers have strength
A) Numbers
Sadly, during the hunt my team failed to spot the required answer. We were under serious time trouble, and it did not help that the answer was a relatively small word within a main board. Anyway, after the hunt, I tried to garner support for my own answer: CM Power. I argued that "painkillers", in the cryptic sense, could be equated to "numbers", i.e. something that numbs (the nerves). And numbers, on the other hand, could be referring to C and M, which are the Roman numerals for 100 and 1000 respectively. Unfortunately, master renroc put an end to my argument, saying that:
PAINKILLERS = NUMBERS,
and
NUMBERS = CM
BUT!
PAINKILLERS does not equal to CM. He gave an even better example: tulips are flowers, and flowers are (cryptically) rivers, but tulips are not rivers.
Do you see now what I'm getting at with this comparison?
We can accept that IBU NEGARA = LIMA; and we can accept that LIMA = V. But it will at least get us thinking whether we can all accept IBU NEGARA = V.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "YANG":
Generally speaking, in cryptic clueing the setter is not compelled to provide "connecting words" such as "a", "an", "the", "and" etc. On the other hand, those words may be inserted into the clue without having any role to play other than the requirement of their presence for the proper construction of the sentence in the grammatical sense. Therefore, it can be a bit annoying for the new hunters because sometimes these words are not only there in the clue for grammatical purposes, but also because they play a role in arriving at the solution.
Consider this example:
Q) Came and get entangled?
A) MEGATEC
Notice that the word "entangled" is an anagram indicator; and the words "came" and "get" are the fodders. Yet the word "and" which is found between "came" and "get" does not play any role in the solution; it is there only on grammatical grounds.
Now consider the word "yang" in the subject question:
Q) Ibu negara yang sah?
First, let's imagine what would have happened if that word was not there. Well, we would have come up with: "Ibu negara sah?" The sentence would look a bit strange, wouldn't it? It would look not quite right in the grammatical sense; yet it would have been sufficient for the purpose of a cryptic clue. But because of the presence of "yang" in the question, we need to investigate whether or not it has any significant effect on the entire question itself.
Before we decide how to deal with "yang", let's look at other possible words which are commonly used in "charade" clues. Well, we have seen "add" or "added"; sometimes "take" and the likes. So for example, if we say: HE takes ART, it can mean HEART. But of course it is also possible that the setter does not provide "takes" at all; he merely gives a clue for HE, followed by a clue for ART, and then the solver will have to figure out that he's required to join those two words together.
Well, coming back to the subject question, that word "yang", apart from resulting in a grammatically correct sentence, also has the effect of fixing the meaning of "sah". If without "yang" the solver has to guess the intention and meaning of "sah". But here, "sah" must take the adjective meaning, as in "Capital which is valid". Because of "yang" (which is), it forces the solver to take the adjective meaning of "sah" (valid). If the question had been, say, "Capital valid", then the scenario would have been different. Maybe "valid" could mean other than the adjective meaning—say a verb or noun instead?
"Yang" can't be treated like "and" or "the" or "is". "Yang" is not a "connecting word", and therefore its presence in the question must be significant. I for one do not agree with its presence in the question because the solution had something to do with connecting "ibu negara" with "sah" by the charade operation. If "yang" is replaced with, say, "the" or "and", then I would accept it. But of course that is me; other people may disagree with me!
VALIDITY OF SAH:
Finally, we come to "sah". In spite of that long discussion of "yang" above, it turns out that it didn't really matter after all. The thing that made me withdraw my own question in the KK Challenge 4 was because of something similar to "sah".
Before that, I'd like to mention here that I've received 2 emails from hunters who expressed their objection—that this question isn't fair on account of the "silent" reversal. I can understand their objection. Having said that, however, I have not forgotten that perhaps a bit of leeway may be permissible for online or virtual hunts. Hunters have much more time to think in the comfort of their homes with a whole load of research materials to help them. The same can't be said about hunting on the road under the hot sun under time pressure.
No—it wasn't because of the "silent" reversal that made me withdraw me own question. Rather, it was the due to the bilingual involvement in the solution that made me doubt my own question.
In the RR blog, there was a so-called "killer riddle" which involved something similar, i.e. a "silent" reversal, where PU was read as SATA (ATAS reversed). But that was not my main concerned. A master hunter, ce5nt, came up with something interesting. The clue was set in the English language, and one of the words found therein was "main". What master ce5nt did caused something of a stir; he saw that word "main" as a Malay word (even though it was clear that the question was in English), and from that angle he adopted "main" (play) as an anagram indicator.
I found ce5nt's idea very interesting, but it was quite obvious that that idea was not well-received from the discussion that followed. We are all familiar with treasure hunt questions set in Malay, but the solutions are in English, and vice versa. But it's a different matter when the question is set in English, the word (s) read as Malay, and then arrived back to an English answer. It was for that reason that I withdrew my own question in the KK Challenge 4.
What we have here in the subject question is essentially the same thing. The question is set in Malay, but one of the words, i.e. the reverse of HAS is read as an English word. That word is then translated into Malay, "miliki". The whole process in itself can be quite confusing! The question which me must ask ourselves—though admittedly not an original question—is whether we can all accept a question set in a particular language, but the word (s) in it read in another language, i.e. the bilingual approach I mentioned earlier. Well, based on that forum we had in the RR Blog, I had the impression that the idea was not a popular one; but I may be wrong.
HAS = MILIKI?
This is going to be the last, I promise! As I was reading the explanation of the setter, I was grinning to myself. I must say I enjoyed the explanation—the question was evil; the kind that I would conjure up myself. But then I came to the point where the setter equated HAS to MILIKI. I made a short pause to think about this translation.
Elsewhere in this blog, I have repeated several times that Malay is almost as good as my first language. I may not know all the Malay words in Kamus Dewan, but I must express my doubts on HAS = MILIKI. You see, in Malay we have MILIK which more or less means owned by something. For example, we can say, rumah itu milik siapa (who owns that house)? We can also use the same base word the other way round. But in such a case, we must add (imbuhan) "me" in front, and "i" at the back, so that we get MEMILIKI, as in: Dia memiliki ladang kelapa sawit. I must say it is strange to say: Dia miliki ladang kelapa sawit. But don't rely on me. It is possible that some changes have been done to the Malay language since I left school a hundred years ago. I must dig out my Kamus Dewan to look for that word MILIKI, but I seriously doubt that it exists in that form. But to repeat, I may be wrong—Bahasa Malaysia, like many other languages, is growing all the time. It won't surprise me if MILIKI is now an acceptable word on its own.
7 comments:
Just to voice out my opinion in miliki. I do some checking on miliki myself. You won't find "miliki" as a entry in Kamus Dewan version 4, the latest version.
However, after further checking, my understanding is
Correct
-------
Saya memilki ladang kelapa sawit itu.
Not Correct
-----------
Saya milki ladang kelapa sawit itu.
However,
Correct
-------
Ladang kelapa sawit yang saya miliki itu sudah dijual.
miliki can only be used when object (ladang kelapa sawit, buku) is used first in the sentence followed by the the person (saya, dia, Ali).
miliki can't stand by it own, but it is ok if used in the above form.
Thank you, CK Loh, for enlightening us on "miliki".
Perhaps out of habit, last night, after I posted this article, I went on thinking about "miliki". I don't have a Kamus Dewan with me at home, but yes, I can agree with the usage as you've suggested above:
"Ladang yang saya miliki itu..."
However, when used in such a way, that word "miliki" is more accurately translated as "own" rather than "has".
Any other Malay experts can help us out please? It's time that we update ourselves with Bahasa Malaysia!... HAHAHAHA!
If you own it, does that not meant you have (has) it.
Peter,
We're trying to sell a piece of agricultural land of about 1,300 acres in size somewhere in Lahad Datu for some months now. We have found someone interested in the land; he plans to open up an oil palm estate there. The owner has all the proper documents to prove his ownership and also confirmed through a title search at the Lands Office.
But the sale had to be put on hold because some natives have developed some parts of the land with their kampung houses as well as planted some cash crops and oil palms/rubber. They have put in a claim against the paper owner.
The paper owner "owns" the land, but as of now, he doesn't really "have" it. It has been established that those natives might have a valid claim on at least some portions of that land! This will probably end up in court and becomes a landmark case in Malaysia.
In the English legal system, there is a provision (I believe under the Limitation Act, although don't quote me on this) which gives a squatter the paramount right on a land against the paper owner if that squatter had occupied that land for a period of over 12 yrs to the exclusion of the paper owner.
Having said that, however, yes, usually when you "own" something it means you "have" that something.
For the purpose of discussion and analysis, we want to investigate the accuracy of everything. But as I have repeatedly said all the time, in the real hunt, don't hope for ultra accuracy or consistency all the time. Otherwise you are bound to be disappointed, because all too often many CoCs are inaccurate--far from it!
The other thing which I've failed to mention here (although I have mentioned it when analysing my own question) is that sometimes a particular word, standing on its own, may not be an exclusive fit. For example, PHONE being equated to ACID, if taken on its own may be debatable. But when taken as a whole, having considered the other clues found within that question, it can be confirmed by those other elements.
Similarly, HAS = MILIKI may not be an exclusive fit here, but the question is whether IBU NEGARA = V is strong enough to support HAS = MILIKI?
Thank you Corny,
A 12-words paragraph in exchange of 8 paragraphs of contention.
Hahaha!
It's a curse, Peter! Whenever I explain anything I can't help trying to make that explanation as comprehensive as possible. Whatever I do, I almost always go into the details; and quite often unnecessarily so! Doesn't really matter, contention or not. It's an old habit which is hard to change.
hi,
here is some simple explanation I got but I am not sure how accurate it is....
In my opinion :
has = mempunyai
this is more suitable compare to "memiliki / miliki" but it still depends on how you use the word
for example:
---> she has a car (dia mempunyai sebuah kereta)
[meaning the she owns it]
---> she owns a car (dia memiliki sebuah kereta...or some would say dia miliki sebuah kereta)
But if to make the word "has" more suitable to the meaning of "miliki", the sentence might somehow look and sound as below:
---> she has the book
[meaning she having it but not neccesary the book is hers (not the owner)]
"has a book" and "has the book" having different meaning where the first one means "owns a book" and the second mean "having the book"
Therefore if translate into BM it would sound and look as:
---> dia (me)miliki buku itu
Some would argue if the word "miliki" here is being use correctly without the "kata imbuhan - ME". But I would say both with and without the "ME" should be correct. This also making the word "has" playing the role of the meaning "miliki" instead of "mempunyai" and also bringing the meaning that "the person is having the book instead of the book is own by the particular person."
Just my two cents opinion. Correct if I am wrong as I am also a new hunter myself and learning from all the experience ones. :)
Post a Comment