3 ms·
yep, the thematic entries are nothing like cryptics; the only similarity is that they both involve wordplay. the wordplay here is closer to jokes like "what fru
by zem 6y ago
yep, the thematic entries are nothing like cryptics; the only similarity is that they both involve wordplay. the wordplay here is closer to jokes like "what fruit wanted to conquer the world?" "alexander the grape!" - that is, while the answer will not be a real word or phrase as would be required in a cryptic, it will be logically derivable from the theme and the clue.
one interesting thing about the non-thematic entries in an american crossword is that the only form of wordplay they allow is what in cryptic parlance would be called a "cryptic definition", that is, a clue which is a straight definition in which the words need to be read laterally. the nyt cryptic definitions are as good as any i've seen in the guardian, particularly my all-time favourite,
John, to Ringo (3)
for LOO
- whoisburbansky 6y agoI don't actually get how "John, to Ringo" translates to LOO, would you mind explaining? [Edit]: Ah, totally missed the toilet connotation, thanks folks!
- SlickNik 6y agoI suspect - John is slang for the toilet, and Ringo here would be an Englishman - so what would an Englishman call a toilet? A loo. groan
- simondw 6y ago"John" is another word for bathroom. So is "loo", at least in the variety of English that Ringo speaks.
- zem 6y agospecifically, 'john' is american slang for a toilet; the corresponding british slang is 'loo'. 'ringo' is an example of a very well known englishman, so 'to ringo' is an acceptable indicator to clue 'to an englishman'.