Listener 4173 Bias by Zag

[starwalker]

Well, that was an interesting workout and an area about which I previously knew absolutely nothing. Thanks for that Zag.

[Stavrolex]

Is it not perhaps a problem that BRB itself has 2 different spellings for one of the theme words? I think the preamble could have been clearer on which one was to be used.

[Staurologist]

I agree that this was very easy--under an hour this morning when I got round to it. I guessed the theme from the title, so the phrase was easy to find. For those who want to learn more about the people connected with the theme words, Lempriere is very good, although I expect you can find them all through Google.

Stavrolex--there is indeed a misprint in all editions of the BRB, going back at least to the 1959 edition with supplement. The correct version (from the original Greek) is given in Greek dictionaries, in Lempriere, and in Wikipedia. It is also to be found under another headword in the BRB! However, Brewer has the misprint too, even back to the Reverend's original edition, and I think that by now it may be regarded as a variant spelling. I expect that Zag and the checkers didn't even think about it, or they wouldn't have left it ambiguous. What do the experts think?

[Stavrolex]

Staurologist, I'd assumed Zag had chosen the nature of the bias to reflect the misspelling (rather than misprint I think) in the BRB, since it takes the same form but in that case one would have expected the preamble to clearly state which form was to be entered. I've assumed the correct spelling & submitted accordingly. I shall be mightily miffed if the wrong spelling is deemed to be correct! It's interesting that the variant spelling goes back to classical (or at least Hellenistic) times (according to my ancient Liddell & Scott), but odd that both forms are still shown in the BRB (albeit under different headwords) - an easy correction to have made, one would have thought. Maybe no one's ever noticed - I wouldn't have spotted it without the searching the electronic version.

[bobbycollins]

How thick do I feel? I didn't find that in the least easy.

Under an hour? - that's just awesome.

[tristram37]

Surely the preamble makes it clear that the spellings to be used are those in the BRB under the main heading where all the theme words are revealed, regardless of whether they are correct or not? Otherwise there would have been no point in the addendum following the recommendation for the 2011 edition. Any other spellings should be marked wrong. Actually there are 2 dubious ones (one being fixed by an interlocking word), but in the context of this puzzle that is irrelevant.

[tilbee]

Am I the only one totally confused by the recent posts on this thread ? I understand the potential ambibuity (confirmed by cross checking answer) on the penultimate letter of one theme word. This seems to be a question of whether one uses the ancient or modern nomenclature. Without the knowedge of the original language, I am not sure of the other, but from what I can see BRB, Wiki etc are all otherwise consistent.

[tilbee]

Or even ambiguity - perhaps there was a 'b' in the original source ?

[trux]

Had brief look at this on Saturday morning but had to break off after 20 minutes (by which stage nearly half grid filled but no theme) ; visitors staying, dinner party, lunch party (all for b'day celebrations). So only back to it this evening and quite quickly latched onto required theme (and checked in BRB early, rather than on Wiki) which made rest relatively easy. Thanks, Zag, for gentle but nonetheless enjoyable puzzle.

[Stavrolex]

Tilbee, there's definitely an inconsistency between the spelling of one of the items in the BRB (under the main heading, unless it was corrected in the 2011 edition which I haven't got) and Wiki, etc. but there's no cross checking so the preamble is surely ambiguous, i.e. do you enter the "biased" version or not. The preamble simply says that Chambers confirms all of the theme words. I don't take that to mean that a misspelling under the main heading is necessarily to be followed when the correct spelling is found elsewhere in Chambers. I guess I assumed that Zag was deliberately drawing our attention to an error in the BRB but perhaps I'm reading too much between the sexy lines...

[perseverer]

If you locate the ten-letter phrase and look that up in the BRB, then it confirms the nine theme words, including the ones which are paired, and I can see no good reason to look anywhere else. Tilbee, I think the discussion is about an earlier word than the one you refer to, where the unchecked letter has 2 possibilities if you look far enough in the BRB, but as I say, I cannot see past the spelling given in the entry for the ten-letter phrase, which does not appear changed between the CD version (based on 2003) and the 2011 version. (Then again I have been wrong before!)

[tilbee]

Stavrolex - still don't see this, must be missing something obvious, but I am very curious regarding what that could be. If you want to clarify without giving the game away to anyone who is still enjoying the solve then you can contact me at:- [email protected]

[tilbee]

Thanks Stavrolex, just shows that there is always someone who understands the further sublety more than you. As someone who does not submit, and even did not realise, despite checking, that my initial grid entry was not consistent with BRB, I would have been happy to claim 100% correct this year to date. Suggest to all that they check their entry against BRB, since I am sure that this is the one which will count.

[Philoctetes]

I blame the Romans and their attempts at transliterating between two alphabets producing two homophones which slipped into usage together. Both are equally "correct", though I would go with the version in the relevant entry in teh BRB

[Staurologist]

For further clarification, Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (9th edition) lists the correct spelling as a lemma and adds "freq. written corruptly [Brewer's spelling]". L&SGEL also includes the corrupt spelling as a separate lemma, with a cross-reference to the correct variant (although it does not cite instances). Glare's Oxford-Latin Dictionary also gives the two versions. [I don't have Lewis & Short to hand.] So it appears that this problem originated in ancient times, which has persisted. The OED includes an etymological note about this under the adjectival form of the correct variant; everywhere else it uses that variant, except in three 17th century citations, where the corrupt version was used in the original. The modern Greek name for the theme word also has two variants, according to the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World.

Incidentally, it is amusing that there is a connection between this and one of the clued lights, as hinted at by Stavrolex ...

I would agree with those who interpret the preamble as suggesting that the corrupt spelling should be submitted, were it not for the fact that the BRB lists the correct version under another headword (i.e. confirms it, as the preamble says). I would expect both versions to be accepted. In other words, I agree with Stavrolex on all counts (except perhaps for assuming that Zag and the checkers realised what was going on). After all, we are etymological cousins :>)

[tenflags]

I don't like it when I spend time trying to weigh up the pros and cons of which way to jump on an ambiguity such as discussed above. I remember having a strokey beard moment about the highlighting on that Galileo one last year - I jumped the right way as it happened but I think I recall that the setters accepted both options. I think that approach would be fair in this instance.

[IainGrace]

Without, I hope, starting a further lengthy thread about AB rules, do the posts from Sunday pm onwards not perhaps give away a little too much assistance than they ought about a general aspect of the theme - if only in confirming the provenance of some of the unclued thematic entries?
Incidentally, am I a little behind the plot in only recently learning that the Liddell of "Liddell & Scott" was the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland"?

[Stavrolex]

Sorry if I've strayed too far in drawing attention to the nature of the unclued entries. I rather assumed anyone looking at this thread would have spotted the general nature of the thematic items already. Certainly anyone familiar with the works (work?) of Messrs L&S (incidentally I don't suppose compiling a monumental lexicon left much time for telling his daughters fantastical stories).

Many thanks to Staurologist for the erudite post (and apologies for inadvertently bringing up to date very fine user name). For what it's worth Lewis & Short treats the "incorrect" version as merely a later variant. Misspelling more like! Not that much later though, as googling the "correct" version in a linguistically appropriate way gets you 276 times more hits than the "incorrect" version (as against a ratio of 12 to 1 in English). Finally, to clinch things, Spotify has 3 tracks with the correct spelling and zero with the incorrect. I rest my case...