The HRU Challenge #2 has just ended a few days ago; and as I begin commenting on the questions and answers, Marsha is yet to publish the remaining few answers (and explanations). I must admit that I did horribly in this hunt, thus proving once again that setting questions is not quite the same as solving them! My admiration to the geniuses from up north, Chian Min and Jayaram Menon, and my very good friends Teck Koon and Claire whom I had no doubt would do well, long before the end of this hunt.
When I comment on hunt questions and answers, I usually proceed directly for the "kill". Having commented on so many questions by numerous CoCs, I have been the subject of criticism myself. Some people actually gave me interesting nicknames; some actually making fun of my obsession in grammatical accuracy; some questioning my authority in criticising questions by the masters and grandmasters. Well, I am a nobody! I readily admit that I am new to this sport. And more importantly I also admit that I am vulnerable to make the same mistakes too! I just hope that I won't commit too many of them.
Before I go into the analysis of some of the questions in HRU Challenge #2, I must declare that I admire Marsha's hunting skill—she is most certainly one of the best in the business. Perhaps if I continue hunting, I might be able to reach her level of expertise in 10 years' time, if not more. She is without doubt a figure to be reckoned with in the sport treasure hunt.
Now it is human nature to take the side of the champion instead of a nobody, so I can expect many of you would disagree with my analysis. And perhaps because of that, I should refrain from commenting. But that would be somewhat inconsistent with what I have been doing since I started commenting in the Riddle Raiders Blog. There have been occasions when I felt some of you did not want me to comment, but on the other hand I have been receiving special requests for me to comment, even for hunts which I did not join.
I'd like to reiterate that whenever I comment, it's not meant to be personal. I happen to know some of these CoCs personally; in fact, I consider them good friends. My comments are not meant to be criticisms; rather they're discussions in the hope that we can all come up with a certain level of consistency and accuracy in hunt questions and solutions.
So here goes nothing...
First, I need to repeat a bit of what I have written in a past post. It was in one of Mike's hunts—the Be An Angel Beautiful Gate Hunt—that I came across an interesting question:
Q) Painkillers have strength
A) Numbers
The intended answer was one of those small words on a main sign which my team failed to spot. Instead we gave "CM Power". During the answer presentation, Mike announced that he accepted "CM Power" too. Later, when I was blogging about this question, I attempted to garner support for "CM Power" against "Numbers".
Mike's explanation was that "Numbers" are things that numb (the nerves), hence "Painkillers". And you know the phrase—you have strength in numbers. But because we were unable to spot "Numbers" during the hunt, we chose "CM Power" instead, because:
PAINKILLERS = NUMBERS
and
NUMBERS = C & M (Roman numerals)
Then
STRENGTH = POWER
Unfotunately, Master Teck Koon pointed out the flaws in my argument (yes, I make mistakes too!). He agreed that PAINKILLERS = NUMBERS; and NUMBERS = CM. But PAINKILLERS are not CM. He went on the give another example—that TULIP = FLOWER; and FLOWER = RIVER (cryptically). But TULIP is not RIVER! I had to reluctantly admit my mistake and conceded defeat. Sometimes one has to be brave to admit his mistakes.
Perhaps because of "common practice" in the hunting fraternity, the above problem has the tendency to crop up again and again occasionally. One such example was in the first online challenge in A Hunter's Tale. Check out this question:
Q) Ibu negara yang sah
A) Viki Lim
IBU NEGARA = LIMA (Capital City of Peru)
then
LIMA = V (Roman numeral)
SAH is the reversed of HAS, and HAS = MILIKI
So V + IKILIM (MILIKI reversed) = VIKI LIM
Adopting the same argument, we can agree that IBU NEGARA = LIMA; and LIMA = V. But IBU NEGARA is not V.
And now we come to Q13 of the HRU Challenge #2:
Q13) Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here.
A13) LIBYA
The solution, according to Marsha, lies mainly in word substitutions. First, one has to substitute "expedition" to "trip". Then on account of "discover" as the anagram indicator, to convert "oil" to "oli". Then convert "of primary importance" to "capital" (and this was the word I failed to find). After that, to rephrase (simplify) the clue like this:
When I comment on hunt questions and answers, I usually proceed directly for the "kill". Having commented on so many questions by numerous CoCs, I have been the subject of criticism myself. Some people actually gave me interesting nicknames; some actually making fun of my obsession in grammatical accuracy; some questioning my authority in criticising questions by the masters and grandmasters. Well, I am a nobody! I readily admit that I am new to this sport. And more importantly I also admit that I am vulnerable to make the same mistakes too! I just hope that I won't commit too many of them.
Before I go into the analysis of some of the questions in HRU Challenge #2, I must declare that I admire Marsha's hunting skill—she is most certainly one of the best in the business. Perhaps if I continue hunting, I might be able to reach her level of expertise in 10 years' time, if not more. She is without doubt a figure to be reckoned with in the sport treasure hunt.
Now it is human nature to take the side of the champion instead of a nobody, so I can expect many of you would disagree with my analysis. And perhaps because of that, I should refrain from commenting. But that would be somewhat inconsistent with what I have been doing since I started commenting in the Riddle Raiders Blog. There have been occasions when I felt some of you did not want me to comment, but on the other hand I have been receiving special requests for me to comment, even for hunts which I did not join.
I'd like to reiterate that whenever I comment, it's not meant to be personal. I happen to know some of these CoCs personally; in fact, I consider them good friends. My comments are not meant to be criticisms; rather they're discussions in the hope that we can all come up with a certain level of consistency and accuracy in hunt questions and solutions.
So here goes nothing...
First, I need to repeat a bit of what I have written in a past post. It was in one of Mike's hunts—the Be An Angel Beautiful Gate Hunt—that I came across an interesting question:
Q) Painkillers have strength
A) Numbers
The intended answer was one of those small words on a main sign which my team failed to spot. Instead we gave "CM Power". During the answer presentation, Mike announced that he accepted "CM Power" too. Later, when I was blogging about this question, I attempted to garner support for "CM Power" against "Numbers".
Mike's explanation was that "Numbers" are things that numb (the nerves), hence "Painkillers". And you know the phrase—you have strength in numbers. But because we were unable to spot "Numbers" during the hunt, we chose "CM Power" instead, because:
PAINKILLERS = NUMBERS
and
NUMBERS = C & M (Roman numerals)
Then
STRENGTH = POWER
Unfotunately, Master Teck Koon pointed out the flaws in my argument (yes, I make mistakes too!). He agreed that PAINKILLERS = NUMBERS; and NUMBERS = CM. But PAINKILLERS are not CM. He went on the give another example—that TULIP = FLOWER; and FLOWER = RIVER (cryptically). But TULIP is not RIVER! I had to reluctantly admit my mistake and conceded defeat. Sometimes one has to be brave to admit his mistakes.
Perhaps because of "common practice" in the hunting fraternity, the above problem has the tendency to crop up again and again occasionally. One such example was in the first online challenge in A Hunter's Tale. Check out this question:
Q) Ibu negara yang sah
A) Viki Lim
IBU NEGARA = LIMA (Capital City of Peru)
then
LIMA = V (Roman numeral)
SAH is the reversed of HAS, and HAS = MILIKI
So V + IKILIM (MILIKI reversed) = VIKI LIM
Adopting the same argument, we can agree that IBU NEGARA = LIMA; and LIMA = V. But IBU NEGARA is not V.
And now we come to Q13 of the HRU Challenge #2:
Q13) Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here.
A13) LIBYA
The solution, according to Marsha, lies mainly in word substitutions. First, one has to substitute "expedition" to "trip". Then on account of "discover" as the anagram indicator, to convert "oil" to "oli". Then convert "of primary importance" to "capital" (and this was the word I failed to find). After that, to rephrase (simplify) the clue like this:
Q13) TRIP to OLI is CAPITAL here.
Further simplification will yield: TRIPOLI is CAPITAL here. And so the the answer is LIBYA. But by now I think many of you can guess my objection.
The original meaning is:
(1) TRIPOLI is OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE here.
The derived meaning is:
(2) TRIPOLI is CAPITAL here.
In (1) above, we are looking for a place where TRIPOLI is of primary importance, i.e. fundamental, profound, significant etc.
In (2) above, we are looking for a place where TRIPOLI is the capital (city), i.e. the meaning has changed substantially because of the word substitution.
Not my style when setting hunt questions, and perhaps that's also an indication that I still have plenty to learn in this sport! So now you can understand why I admire and respect those who solved this question.
28 comments:
In my opinion, the V in Viki Lim does not fall into this category, because it is pronounced the same, whether as a Roman numeral or as a Capital city. Just needed a little thinking out-of-the-box.
Ah! that is another possible way of seeing it!
When I see the letter "V", I pronounce it as VEE. When I intend to use that letter "V", as a Roman numeral, to mean the number "5", I still pronounce it as VEE, although in my mind, I see a number. To me the pronunciation of "V" is always VEE no matter what it represents - whether a letter of the alphabet or number. But I suppose it is possible that some people might also pronounce that letter as LIMA.
The indication for "capital" was necessary because there're 3 Tripoli which can be found in "our world" i.e in Greece, Lebanon and Libya. Without which, any of the 3 would fit, therefore "of primary importance" was added to specify the country we wanted. To give the question with "capital" direct would be too much of a giveaway and any other form would make the surface reading very odd. I was told that in cryptic clueing, one may not mean what you say but must say what you mean.
Hi KK,
This will have to be short (very uncharacteristic of me!), otherwise I won't get much work done!... hehehe.
I'm not objecting your effort to narrow down the scope of search by specifying which of the 3 Tripolis you wanted. In fact, I welcome that! It helps the solvers as well as safeguard yourselves.
And it's a good thing that you brought up that line:
You may not mean what you say; but you must say what you mean.
I'm itching to respond, but I don't have the time to do so now. Will surely discuss more on this catchy line later.
He he he..
I am all ears !
Now where were we?... Ah! Yes, that catchy line:
You may not mean what you say, but you must say what you mean.
The first time I saw it was in the Riddle Raiders Blog. And since then I’ve seen it a few more times, including in this blog. I wonder how many of us really understand it. And I’m not sure if what I think it means is indeed correct! So this is what I’ll do; I’ll write what I think it means, and then if any of you find anything wrong, please feel free to share with us here.
To illustrate my point, let me quote an example of a simple cryptic clue:
Q) Cast votes for a cooker (5)
A) Stove
Looking at the "surface reading" of the clue, one may get the impression that this has something to do with some sort of election process, perhaps for a chef. But of course the intention of the setter has nothing to do with an election. In that sense the setter does not mean what he says, thus we can say he has satisfied the requirement of “you may not mean what you say”.
However, at the same time, the setter “must say what you mean”. In other words, the setter is compelled to express, albeit cryptically, what he’s looking for. How does he do so? Well, he has at his disposal several cryptic devices known as indicators, i.e. words which can be used to signal some sort of wordplay. In the above example, the word “cast” is an anagram indicator; and “votes” is the fodder which is to be reconfigured into “stove” which in turn agrees with “cooker” (definition). One way or another, the setter “must say what he means” by giving the instruction to jumble up “votes” to become something which is equal to “cooker”. And in such a way, the setter satisfies the requirements of “may not mean what he says” and at the same time “must say what he means”.
Now let’s compare that with Q13 of HRU Challenge #2:
Q13) Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here.
The surface reading tells the solver something about oil exploration, which in this case has nothing to do with what’s intended by the setter. Therefore the setter has satisfied the requirement of “you may not mean what you say”. But has he satisfied the requirement of “must say what you mean”? Let’s investigate.
Obeying cryptic rule, he expects the solver to find the synonym of “expedition”, i.e. “trip”. That’s still within the rule. Then “discover” is the anagram indicator to reconfigure “oil”. That is also still within the rule. The result of these two operations is the word TRIPOLI. In this sense, the setter has obeyed the requirement of “must say what you mean”, although saying it through cryptic avenue. I therefore can’t find anything wrong in that word TRIPOLI.
Now we come to “of primary importance”. The setter expects the solver to find CAPITAL, and then use that word as the thing he’s looking for. He starts by saying he’s looking for a place where TRIPOLI is of primary importance, but what he actually wants is to find a place where TRIPOLI is the capital city. Those are two different things he's asking for. That is something like saying “give me an apple”, when actually I want an orange. He does not obey the requirement of “must say what you mean”. Do you see my point?
I’m sure there is a better way to explain the rule, but I suppose I’m not doing a very good job here. Anyone out there can think of a better way to explain? Can you help?
Ok, let me try to explain what I understand from Cornelius's explanation. Hope you all don't mind, really.
Cornelius, please correct me, if this is not your intended explanation.
To start with, I refer back a clue that is posted in HRU blog recently, a treasure clue. I just take the substance of it.
That results when some bright people take a break.
First Level
===========
some bright people = SMARTIES
take a break = TIMEOUT
Second Level
============
SMARTIES + TIMEOUT = SARS
However, SARS can never result when SOME PEOPLE TAKE A BREAK.
SOME PEOPLE TIMEOUT = SARS (Valid)
SOME PEOPLE TAKE A BREAK = SARS (not valid)
See my point?
Ok, come back to Q13.
Q13) Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here.
First Level
===========
Expedition = TRIP
discover oil = OLI
primary importance = CAPITAL
Second Level
============
TRIPOLI is CAPITAL here = LIBYA
However, TRIPOLI is of primary importance here can never be LIBYA.
TRIPOLI is CAPITAL here = Libya (Valid)
TRIPOLI is of primary importance here = Libya (Not Valid)
For both case, other words are used
a) TAKE A BREAK instead of TIMEOUT
b) PRIMRY IMPORTANCE instead of CAPITAL
for smoother reading, however once other words are used instead, the meaning will be difference
SOME PEOPLE TAKE A BREAK = SARS (not valid)
TRIPOLI is of primary importance here = Libya (Not Valid)
Am I correct or even close, Cornelius? Please further elaborate.
Ummm... I guess that's another way to explain it, CK Loh, though I'm not sure if you have succeeded in confusing the audience instead... hehehe.
I wanted to comment further on some other questions in the HRU Challenge #2. But I was occupied with some very interesting discussions with other hunters through emails. I guess some hunters are very shy people, and therefore prefer to discuss in private.
I'd like to share just one of them, without revealing the name of the hunter.
Excerpt (email from hunter):
"Let's use the analogy of a bridge across a river.
The bridge is 'NUMBERS'.
On the left bank are PAINKILLERS etc: Synonyms of the bridge
On the right bank are C, M, etc.: Examples of the bridge.
Are they well connected? No, because there are 2 different bridges of the same name - different meaning of NUMBERS...
Bridge : LIMA
Left Bank : IBU NEGARA etc.: The bridge is an example of this.
Right Bank: V etc.: Equivalent representation of the bridge.
My opinion : LIMA the number looks like the capital, sounds like the capital, but is NOT the capital. Therefore, it's still a different bridge.
I think Q13 is somewhat different.
If the bridge is 'TRIPOLI IS CAPITAL HERE', then it's no different from LIMA...
However, the bridge can be 'TRIPOLI IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE HERE'
Left bank : Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here.
When I climbed the bridge from the left bank, I asked myself 'In which country is Tripoli of primary importance ?'
The answer is LIBYA (EVEN IF 'of primary importance' is not converted to 'capital')
In Libya, Tripoli is of primary importance because it is the capital and the main port etc. There is no need to use two different meanings of capital.
There is no need to change the meaning on the bridge."
Excerpt of my response (edited):
"Well, not that I intend to be an idiot, trying to be difficult, and enjoy debating for the sake of debating. But if talking about "of primary importance" without specifying that it's a capital city, then who is to say that TRIPOLI is not referring to the cities in Lebanon or Greece? What makes you think that TRIPOLI aren't equally of primary importance in those countries?
Cornelius,
In Q 13, in my opinion , the setter did say what she meant.
"primary" has "capital" as a synonym in a thesaurus. That is fair indication.
Jayaram Menon
Hi Jay,
Thanks for your comment. I'm itching to write more, but I'm running late for a lunch appointment now.
I'm not disputing PRIMARY = CAPITAL. Had the question been:
Q) [TRIPOLI] is primary here.
Then, by adopting PRIMARY = CAPITAL, I can accept the solution because the meaning of PRIMARY in this case has not changed.
But the question is like this:
Q) [TRIPOLI] is "of primary importance" here.
I think that is not the same as saying:
TRIPOLI is capital city here.
The process of that conversion has changed the meaning.
Have to run!... arghhhh!!
The way we see it, this problem wouldn't have occurred if you had substituted the right words for all parts of the sentence. You have substituted "expedition" for "Trip" and you have accepted "Expedition (Trip) to discover oil" is Tripoli, but why fall short of substituting the remaining "of primary importance" as capital ? You should read the whole sentence and not just accept the first half and dispute the second. Tripoli is never meant to be "of primary importance" but "expedition to discover oil" is, for good surface reading.
To put it simply, we didn't mean what we said with "(Expedition to discover oil) is (of primary importance) here". But what we said actually meant "(Tripoli) is (capital) here".
Note that : The adjective definition of "capital" is "of primary importance"
Msha have this to add :
If you have noticed, treasure hunt questions are in many ways different from that of cryptic crosswords. In cryptic crosswords, one part of the clue is a straight definition; the other part is wordplay. It's deceptive on surface reading, yet unambiguous, since each clue gives you two ways to confirm its answer i.e. The definition part confirms the wordplay part.
The format is very different in treasure hunt questions. There are no two parts to the question to avoid ambiguity as in crosswords. In fact most of the time, questions are only one-sided and features only the wordplay part. But in treasure hunts however, we are given a list of names or signboards to fit the question, and this in some ways counteracts the ambiguity. Most of the times in fact, we are unable to solve the question just from the question itself, and hunters have to search for the correct signboard to fit the answer.
Coming back to the question again: "Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here"; If you had continued to substitute the proper words to fit " "Tripoli is capital here", the list of countries provided would have help provided the intended definition.
The way we see it, this problem wouldn't have occurred if you had substituted the right words for all parts of the sentence. You have substituted "expedition" for "Trip" and you have accepted "Expedition (Trip) to discover oil" is Tripoli, but why fall short of substituting the remaining "of primary importance" as capital ? You should read the whole sentence and not just accept the first half and dispute the second. Tripoli is never meant to be "of primary importance" but "expedition to discover oil" is, for good surface reading.
To put it simply, we didn't mean what we said with "(Expedition to discover oil) is (of primary importance) here". But what we said actually meant "(Tripoli) is (capital) here".
Note that : The adjective definition of "capital" is "of primary importance"
Msha have this to add :
If you have noticed, treasure hunt questions are in many ways different from that of cryptic crosswords. In cryptic crosswords, one part of the clue is a straight definition; the other part is wordplay. It's deceptive on surface reading, yet unambiguous, since each clue gives you two ways to confirm its answer i.e. The definition part confirms the wordplay part.
The format is very different in treasure hunt questions. There are no two parts to the question to avoid ambiguity as in crosswords. In fact most of the time, questions are only one-sided and features only the wordplay part. But in treasure hunts however, we are given a list of names or signboards to fit the question, and this in some ways counteracts the ambiguity. Most of the times in fact, we are unable to solve the question just from the question itself, and hunters have to search for the correct signboard to fit the answer.
Coming back to the question again: "Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here"; If you had continued to substitute the proper words to fit " "Tripoli is capital here", the list of countries provided would have help provided the intended definition.
Back from lunch and see that the empire has stuck back!... hahaha! And struck twice in a row too! What, suddenly became-trigger happy kah?
We have come to a point where, as I said in my post above, that it boils down to "common practice" in treasure hunt.... and "not my style". The approach, as I said, has been used many times in the past, and so it continues to be used; plain and simple.
I'm beginning to look like a fool against the grandmasters, of course, but well, you know me lah... I'll put my head on the chopping board still. (Smile)
I am not against adopting synonyms, i.e. word substitutions in questions. I myself do that all the time in my questions. But I think what's happening here is that in the course of all the twistings and bendings of wordplays, we sometimes get confused. And if something is accepted by the majority in the hunting fraternity, then who am I to swim against the current? That's why I said in my above post that there is obviously still a lot for me to learn, i.e. the style which is obviously inaccurate to me. I won't do it in my own questions, but I will need to know it for the purpose of solving questions set by others.
STATE PHYSICIAN = TASTE
By adopting the PHYSICIAN as an anagram indicator. Because if I were to find it's synonym, I can get DOCTOR. DOCTOR, as a noun, is not an anagram indicator. But DOCTOR as a verb can mean to "change information in order to deceive others". It is in this capacity that DOCTOR can become an anagram indicator. But PHYSICIAN is a noun and can't be an anagram indicator. And unless if I am mistaken PHYSICIAN can't be a verb. However, it happens that when converted into one of its synonyms, i.e. DOCTOR, that synonym can have a verb meaning.
My contention is that I can accept the use of PHYSICIAN's synonyms, but only those of noun meanings too. Changing to verb synonyms would depart from the original meaning of the setter.
Nevertheless, IF - I say IF - we can allow the transformation of the noun PHYSICIAN to a verb synonym, i.e. DOCTOR, then are we allowed to indirectly accept PHYSICIAN as an anagram indicator? My contention is it shouldn't be acceptable. Therefore, I say PHYSICIAN is not an anagram indicator, period!
We see many clues are set in such a way that a word which may appear like a verb, but is intended (by the setter) as a noun instead and vice versa. That is OK, that is all in the beauty of deception of the cryptic clues. If there is a possible verb meaning for PHYSICIAN, but appears like it's intended to have a noun meaning in the clue, then that is OK. That's what the trick is all about. We can then convert to its verb form of DOCTOR, and then I might be more willing to accept it as an anagram indicator. I say might, but that is a separate issue! However, I only know of a noun PHYSICIAN.
If, for example, I see "Oliver Twist" in the question, I am even willing to treat that TWIST as an anagram indicator, because apart from its noun meaning, it can also have a verb meaning. It's all in the deception.
But "of primary importance" can only have an adjective meaning, yet we are taking the noun meaning of its synonym instead (as in the capital city of a country).
So what we have here are two different scenarios. In one case, we have a word in the clue which can only have a noun meaning. In the other case, we have a word that can have noun and verb meanings. In the latter case, the setter can deceptively construct the sentence so that it appears that that word is used as a verb, but actually has a noun meaning, and vice versa. But in the first case, it's not possible to do that - the setter only has the noun meaning. When converted into its synonym, it must also still maintain its noun meaning, otherwise, that synonym is not a valid synonym.
CAPITAL as an adjective is equal to OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE.
CAPITAL as a noun is NOT equal to OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE. CAPITAL is therefore not a valid synonym for OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE for the intention of the setter.
In spite of all this long story, I have said from the beginning that I failed to find the word CAPITAL to start with. It was there that I arrived at a dead end. In an email to a hunter, I said so too. I said that had I been able to find CAPITAL, I would have probably figured out LIBYA and chosen that answer. But I would still have disliked it anyway! Nobody said it's a perfect world.
Shortly after the answer and explanation for Q13 was published in A Hunter's Tale, I took the trouble to google up TRIPOLI. I have, of course, heard of TRIPOLI before this, but to be honest, I did not know then that it's the capital city of LIBYA. I was fairly surprised when I found TRIPOLI in 3 countries, namely, LEBANON, GREECE and, yes, LIBYA.
After reading all those Wiki information, I became excited, and wanted to comment on Q13 there and then. But somehow when I eventually commented on it, I had forgotten the very thing that excited me in the first place. Instead, I went on to discuss about synonyms, verbs, nouns, adjectives, word substitutions etc.
On my way home from work just now, I was stuck in a traffic jam and I racked my brains to recall why I was so excited on Q13. And then I remembered. So before I forget again, I might as well raise it here now.
By now you know my objection on the use of CAPITAL as a noun, which I feel is not a valid synonym of "of primary importance". So I will not dwell on that. But let's just assume for a moment that I can accept the substitution of "of primary importance" with "capital". That would mean that I can accept the intention of the setter as:
TRIPOLI is CAPITAL here.
The "here", of course, refers to a place, or more specifically, a country, the name of which is found in the list published together with all the questions.
Now think about it, would there be any difference if the question boils down to:
TRIPOLI is CAPITAL of here.
Notice that additional word - "of". That additional "of" would have made the original sentence rather awkward, viz:
Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance OF here.
Therefore, for the sake of good surface reading, that additional OF could not be included.
Unfortunately, without that OF, the question becomes loose and in my opinion can't exclude LEBANON and GREECE as possible answers. Let's see why.
We have many states in Malaysia, and Kota Kinabalu is the capital of Sabah, which is a state found in Malaysia. So when we are talking about CAPITAL we need to specify which capital. If we want, we can say that Kota Kinabalu is a capital in Malaysia (but of course it's not the capital of the country).
So Sabah is a capital in Malaysia, but it is not the capital "of" Malaysia.
Therefore, TRIPOLI is a capital city found in LEBANON too. It is the capital city of North Governorate, although it is not the capital city of the country.
Similarly, TRIPOLI is a capital city in Greece too, but it's not the capital city of the country.
Confusing, huh?
Thanks Cornelius for another angle to view Q13.
To me, let me put straigtht to the point, I can accept kkchai and Marsha explanation. Deep in my heart I feel Cornelius's explanation are more accurate, just my opinion. However, since I start hunting, I don't really pay much attention on ACCURACY more on CONSISTENCY. To me, if I want to hunt week in and week out, I need to adapt to any COC style, and not every COC is ACCURATE, as long as they are CONSISTENT, I have no concern. I would rather study the COC style itself, so that I know what to expect from his/her hunt, when I attend his/her hunt. I agree that treasure hunt is no cryptic crossword.
Saying all this, My personal opinion of Q13 is, it is not CONSISTENT on what HRU believe. Just one week ago, when I read HRU blog, I found the interesting article about the SMARTIES + TIMEOUT question from one of the hunt. I have mentioned the example above, and the below is the exact phrase that I get from the HRU blog.
"In my opinion this riddle is a classic case of x = y and y = z but x /= z, ie. x and z are both originating from different branches."
"Yes, the combination of SMARTIES & TIME OUT does yield SARS. However, SARS can never result when SOME PEOPLE TAKE A BREAK. See my point?"
As I have still so much to learn, I found that explanation in the blog is very useful to me, I learn one important clue that HRU won't ask this type of question in their hunt.
I just need to adjust myself, if I go Razif's hunt for example, I will prepare to answer X = y, y = z, type of clues. If I go to hunt to Cornelius and HRU hunt, I will be sure this question will never come up.
As far as I concern the SMARTIES & TIME OUT question is very similar to the question of Q13 as explain above. Thus, I really caught off guard, when I found out the explanation of Q13.
To be frank, I think the question is fair, as it is not too much combination to come out to TRIPOLI, and from there you have the chance to get LIBYA. But in my opinion, it is same to SMARTIES + TIMEOUT clues too, as other hints like brown, sweat and can is given, so it is not too much combination too. That is why both clues are broken.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a complain mail, I have learn alot from kkchai and marsha, so I will be very gtrateful for their effort. I just want to highlight my view, as a still learning hunter to them as a feedback, and I think they would like to listen on the feedback of a still learning hunter, after so many feedback from the master.
The still learning hunter feedback is, I am very confused on what type of benchmark is expected for 1st March.
Let me quote you an example, if there is one question on 1st March that sounds like this (and our team is out of time)
"A mad physician."
and we find this answer Restoran Adam
should we stay or should we move?
A mad physician
= a mad doctor
= ADAM
In my opinion, hunters need to know which COC accept ADAM as an answer and which don't, I am very sure Cornelius won't.
The HRU Challenges, just like the opinions we have shared in A Hunter's Tale, are not the result of a collective effort, but based more on an individual's view point and/or creativity.
Makes us that much more difficult to read in the motor hunt, huh (with a 4-in-1 effort)!
So, my advice to all is don't go out on Mar 1 looking for patterns or you may get frustratingly disappointed. Just stick to what you know, we won't be bending the rules too much, if at all. ;-)
CK Loh,
Of all the people, I must say that you're the last person I'd expect to support me. We have quite a long history of differing views, so I have a feeling that you've surprised many people here!... hehehe.
But yes, in this case, in spite of all the discussions on treasure hunts, we still mustn't forget that at the end of the day, we can't dictate how the CoCs should set their questions. They all have different styles and emphasis in their questions and riddles; and some may be accurate, others not so accurate, and others still don't really know what treasure hunt is all about.
So, yes, the only safe thing to do is to try to learn the "style" of the respective CoCs. Claire, for example - after my recent virtual hunt - has declared that she knows my "style". My response to that is: DON'T BE TOO SURE! Trust me, if I don't allow you to get the full score, you WON'T GET THE FULL SCORE! And I don't have to hit below the belt to achieve that!
Anyway, to be fair to HRU, CK Loh, the HRU Challenge #2 was not their collective effort as a team. So what we've seen may not reflect the "style" of the entire team members. In fact, I won't be surprised if they are also debating on some of the questions amongst themselves too. Furthermore, they might have been occasions where they have not agreed uninamously on the acceptability of some of the answers submitted by the hunters too.
If you can read the CoC's style, that is very good. But don't forget to play the game like how it should be played.
Oops! I didn't know that 2R1I had posted that while I was still composing my last comment!
Hi Corn,
I'm a little surprised to find that you are still deceived by what I do not mean which is "Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here" and have failed to recognise what I actually meant which is "Tripoli is capital here".
My question is meant to deceive. I certainly do not need to indicate to you that I'm using the adjective "of primary importance = capital" in my question and actually meant the noun of "capital" in my answer. That would defeat the whole purpose of cryptic play, wouldn't that?
Maybe that's a little confusing ... to the extend that you have contradicted your own statements you posted in response to Jaya's comment (hehehe!):
===
I'm not disputing PRIMARY = CAPITAL. Had the question been:
Q) [TRIPOLI] is primary here.
Then, by adopting PRIMARY = CAPITAL, I can accept the solution because the meaning of PRIMARY in this case has not changed.
===
You are saying you can accept "primary" but you cannot accept "of primary importance", but "primary" here is also an adjectve too, no?
Anyway, let's put that aside. Maybe I'll follow your style and give a simple example from crossword puzzles to illustrate instead:
Q. It's light and portable.
A: TORCH
In the question, the setter did not mean it's light (or not heavy, and "light" here is an adjective).
What he meant was LIGHT as in TORCH (and light here is a noun).
See the similarity?
In response to CKLoh's question:
===
A mad physician
= a mad doctor
= ADAM
In my opinion, hunters need to know which COC accept ADAM as an answer and which don't, I am very sure Cornelius won't.
===
This question is going from "A mad physician" (you do not mean what you say) to a mad doctor (AGAIN... you do not mean what you say) to "ADAM" (you finally meant this).
Whereas the question "Expedition to discover oil is of primary importance here" (we do not mean what we say) goes to "Tripoli is capital here" (it goes straight to what we actually meant).
See the difference?
Marsha,
HAHAHAHA!... so you noticed that too, huh? Yes, I was in a rush for a lunch appointment, and I responded to Jayaram in a hurry. Someone had since written to me through email to point that out. Indeed I can't accept PRIMARY = CAPITAL too (for this purpose of Q13), because obviously that is wrong for the same argument I've put forward before this.
Q) It's light and portable
A) TORCH
No, I can't see the similarity. That word "light" in the clue can have an adjective as well as noun meanings. The setter can use that to his advantage. He can make it appear like he's using it in its adjective form, when actually he's using it in its noun form. In this case, the setter "said what he meant", i.e. he said "light" and meant it as a noun. We the solvers can't complain because that word "light" has both adjective and noun meanings. It's up to us to guess which one is the intention of the setter.
Q13) TRIPOLI is "of primary importance" here.
In your Q13, "of primary importance" can ONLY have the adjective meaning, you don't have the choice to deceive us solvers with a possible noun meaning. Since there is only an adjective meaning available to you, then it follows that you mean it as an adjective - and only as an adjective.
You said "of primary importance" which can only have an adjective meaning, yet you expect us to give you a noun instead. Therefore you did not say what you mean!
See the dissimilarity?
Lunch!!... I need food!!... HAHAHA!
Another attempt to rephrase Corn's
view :
If the question has a word with multiple meanings or multiple tenses, any of these can be used for the answer.
However, if one of the meanings/tenses is used to arrive at a 'bridging' synonym (eg. capital), then using another tense or meaning of that synonym to arrive at the answer would have changed the meaning. Sounds even more complicated :)
Marsha,
I see the difference of both question. Thanks for the clarification.
My understanding is on your book,
1) IT IS OK IF
Level 1: surface level = you does not mean what you say
Level 2: it goes straight to what you actually want
2) IT IS NOT OK IF
Level 1: surface level = you does not mean what you say
Level 2: wordplay as a result from level 1
Level 3: after wordplay you mean what you say
Thus, a mad physician and the SARSI will not fit in your book.
Is that right?
Fair. Just 1 more question.
I assume this is OK on your book too, as it seems fit base on the explanation above.
1) Headmaster.
Answer: BADAWI PRO
Level 1: Replace head (adjective) = premier (adjective), thus
premier master.
(I do not mean what I say)
Level 2: Premier Master
Premier (noun) = Prime Minister = Badswi
Master = Pro
(Go straight to the point)
As discussed, some COC won't accept
HEADMASTER = BADAWI PRO
as HEAD <> BADAWI
However, I think this question will be ok on your book base on my understanding from your explanation.
Your opinion on this clue will be deeply appreciated. Thanks.
Ah! renroc, I think you read me well. Yes, that is another way to express my view, though I'm not sure if you have made it even more confusing to the audience... hehehe
Q) It's light and portable
A) TORCH
The setter said "light" and he meant that word as a noun, because "light" has a noun meaning (apart from the adjective meaning). He "said what he meant". But when he constructed the clue, he tried to deceive the solver by making that "light" appear like it's intended to be an adjective. That is cryptic deception and does not break the rule.
But imagine that he constructed the clue like this instead:
Q) It's not heavy and portable
Now the scenario has changed. The setter said "not heavy" in his clue, and "not heavy" can only be an adjective. The setter cannot then claim that he means it as a noun. In other words, he can't equate NOT HEAVY to TORCH, even if LIGHT is a possible substitution for NOT HEAVY.
NOT HEAVY = LIGHT;
LIGHT = TORCH;
but
NOT HEAVY is not TORCH
Therefore,
OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE = CAPITAL;
and,
CAPITAL = TRIPOLI;
but,
OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE is not TRIPOLI
To the friend who emailed to me, I'm glad to know that you agree with my view on Q13.
And yes, you are absolutely correct - at the end of all the long discussions/debates, the CoC has the final say. I never suggested for a moment that we take away that prerogative from the CoC. These are 2 separate issues were are talking about here.
The first issue is about who should have the final say? The answer should logically be the CoC.
The second issue is the quality of the questions/answers, which I feel is a separate issue from the the first one above.
The point I'm trying to make here is, CoCs are not infallible - that their decisions are not always the correct ones. These forums we have in this blog and other similar blogs can hopefully be the platforms to some sort of implied understanding amongst the many CoCs to have a kind of consistency in the riddles given in treasure hunts.
However, all we can do is hope. Eventually, it is beyond our control if the CoC decides to be "different" and picks an answer which is outside the boundaries of the specified sectors; or adopts "physician" as an anagram indicator; or rejects "giant" as an adjective to describe "the Rafflesia in relation to all other flowers". It's their call, and we are all at their mercy.
We are all only human and vulnerable to making mistakes. In the long run, we hope that the inaccuracies can be minimised somehow.
by ckoh:
CK Loh,
Of all the people, I must say that you're the last person I'd expect to support me. We have quite a long history of differing views, so I have a feeling that you've surprised many people here!... hehehe.
ckoh,
Yeah, we seems that we have differing views on almost everything that has been discussed. Not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, if we hunt in the same car one day. Haha.
However, in this clue I am more on your side on the accuracy.
The reason is simple, if two levels question where replacement of word in the first level, and in the second level the replaced word means another thing but straight to the point, is allowed, it can open to alot of possibilities.
You see
Headmaster?
= Premier master
= Badawi Pro Sdn Bhd
The setters might just want the letter M from the Signboard Head (first indicator) master = M.
But, if the participants provide answer like Badawi Pro or other prime minister's name, can the COC reject the answer after accept the similar style earlier on.
Just imagine, when we see the word Head, apart from treating it as an indicator of first, it can also means premier which can be any prime minister in the world. Just too much possibility to me. It can be much more.
However, as mentioned above, I have no problem on the accuracy more on the consistency. As long as the same COC is consistent with his view, it is game for me. It is for me to adjust to the COC style, if I want to play, it is as simple as that. If I really don't like the style I can always opt not to play.
Just give you an an analogy of a game called mahjong. It is CNY time, so for Chinese quite a number of them will play this game/gamble on the CNY time with friends and relatives. And if you really play this game before, whilst the basic rules are almost same, but at least they are few minor rules differed at every home. I still haven't go to a place where all the major and minor rules are exactly the same.
However, I believe that there is no one universal rule that everyone need to follow it, if you are looking for that only to play, then chances are you don't play more than you play. So, normally, I will ask the rules, adjust myself and enjoy the game.
As far as it is CONSISTENT, not I get the tiles I get 5 points, you get the tiles you get 7 points, then I think it is fair and square. Everyone follow the same rule, agreed rule, I just need to adjust.
So, we switch back to this discussion. I can accept Marsha logic after I found out more from her, how her logic work. But if am the one that set the rules, I mean I be the COC, this type of question will not be in my question style.
Whlist I can accept the style, I don't really like it, but I am aware of it that some other COC might think this is a good idea.
May I wish all Chinese folks, HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR!
Just to further elaborate
Headmaster?
= Premier master
(Replace head with premier)
= Badawi Pro Sdn Bhd
If you can accept
Headmaster?
= Badawi Pro Sdn Bhd
Why not
Headmaster?
= Badawi Expert
= Bad awi Expert (Double Jeopardy)
= Wai Expert Corporation
For those who think that to replace primary importance to capital is a good idea, do you think
Headmaster = Badawi Pro Sdn Bhd
or
Headmaster = Wai Expert Corporation
is a good idea too?
I really don't know, but I do see similarities between both clues.
Anyone can enlighten me that the CAPITAL clues are different than the HEADMASTER clues, and let me know the difference of it?
Post a Comment