Please Can We Ban ...

[crosswhit99]

(iv) clues containing compound anagrams that omit the second anagram indicator.

Consider this recent example from an experienced setter:

Corral terrible reptilian - no pet (4,2)

Without the second indicator the clue would need to read:

Corral terrible reptilian - no ept

[Aloysius535]

Disagree. If you read the letters of pet as p then e then t this is perfectly acceptable. These are supposed to be cryptic clues

[scorpiojo]

^ Agreed

[dannyk13]

Instead of regularly posting your thoughts on this here why don't you write to the offending setters?

[ichkeria]

It's acceptable but for the reason that 'terrible reptilian' might be PETRILIAN
Bit of a cop out tho. A bit like buying extra cake ingredients and then not using them :-)

[ichkeria]

Yes not sure AB has the power to ban clues :-)

[ichkeria]

Sorry I meant PETRAILIN above should anyone care :-)

[scorpiojo]

:)

[logophile]

p then e then t would be acceptable if they appeared in that order in 'reptilian', even if separated by other letters, but as they don't then a second anagram indicator is indeed required, as neatly explained by Azed back in 1980:

"No one, I think, would question a clue constructed on the lines of x + y + anagram indicator = z, where x and y consist of one or more words or letters (such as abbreviations, etc.) each, possibly separated by intervening verbiage which indicates that they are to be dealt with together. It is a relatively small step from that construction to one which goes: x is that which + y + anagram indicator would/could give z, or alternatively x is that which z – y + anagram indicator(s) give, where x is the answer to the clue. The first of these two variants (which involves addition rather than subtraction) is both neater and easier to manipulate since I would maintain that in the second the clue-writer should include anagram indicators for both z and y before the subtraction process occurs except in the rare cases when the letters in y may be subtracted from z in their natural order."

[ichkeria]

My head hurts trying to read that AZED "explanation", but as I said above,. you can rearrange REPTILIAN as PETRAILIAN, so you don't need a second anagram indicator.
But the clue is pretty inelegant, anyway

[ichkeria]

Typo - it was a repeat of my earlier post (sigh)

[weecalf]

Can I ask hatwsihsitbuaot ?

[ichkeria]

No worries DiveB :-)

[Baldric]

weecalf, it's about how to get away with chatting in Crosswords Topic.

[fiction-factory]

I think chatting like this is fine if it's a general chat about crosswords. i think it's just non-crossword chit chat on threads asking for help with specific clues that Ed discourages

[Baldric]

It's just an ongoing ego trip for the OPer.

[Tilly2]

Crosswhit, do you have an example of a perfectly compiled crossword that we could all have a go at?

Are you a compiler?

[crosswhit99]

To illustrate how this type of wordplay should be properly constructed, here is an good example to have a go at from a recent Inquisitor crossword:

Unusually wet garters haven't ruined great trousers (5)

[crosswhit99]

.. and another howler:

Ella goes, breaking collarbone on rough ride (6)