Dan Davison

How cool! Many congratulations!

Holy ###! that’s so cool! Thank you…

Numeration is wrong

Or:
Oil - ultimately why Trump and CIA arranged armed takeover (8,5)

Congratulations - lovely stuff!

I have these as mugs

Becoming a Cryptic Setter · MyCrossword So you want to set cryptic crosswords... why? You know there's no money in it, right? Okay, fine. You've been warned. If you do, however, love puzzles and ...

With so many people taking up setting recently, I’ve put together a quick guide to help you get started.

www.mycrossword.co.uk/blog/becomin...

Happy Christmas x

Oh no, mum, me sandwiches

No, the past simple and the past-subjunctive of the verb to have is had. The pluperfect is “had had”! I had had a dubious attempt at a clue, and I have now learned my lesson!

This is where we agree to disagree. I think it’s grammatically correct, and that use of auxiliary is a stylistic preference, often for clarity of formality. “If I had time”, I would photocopy a grammar! Haha. I don’t think you’d say “If I were to have time”, I would…

Or choose a verb where there is a clear difference between past-subjunctive and present indicative…

Misdirection or misleading! 😜 “if I left” = “if I were to leave”; “if I quit” = “if I were to quit”. What I’ve learnt is that the confusion arises because the two distinct ways of forming the past-subjunctive, either on its own or via ”were + infinitive”. The latter is clearer, it seems

Yes, that’s how I see it, and how I feel my original works grammatically. As you noted elsewhere, the confusion arises because quit looks present in the surface, but it is past subjunctive in the cryptic. The confusion doesn’t arise for leave because present indicative and past-subjunctive differ

I think this one encounters issues with transitivity around “abandoned” which are avoided with “left”. eg grammatically the I looks like it’s being taken from sin. Wheras I left works standalone.

That’s interesting. If the clue were:

Terribly guilty? Not if I left sin (8)

Would that work for you?

Thanks! Glad to know some people liked it!

Yes, think you and Dave have clarified what’s been tricky with the parse… very helpful indeed. 🙏 🙏 both

😛 I think ”if it quits” is “one way” to handle the deletion 😜 … and I absolutely accept that “if it made more obvious sense, people would not be quibbling”! 🤣 “if I *were to* try again, I will pause for thought!”

Haha. Yes. Certainly. Sorry if I’m coming across as defensive. I’m just genuinely interested in the grammar. I didn’t see it as an issue before publishing, so didn’t think to change it, and indeed was rather chuffed with the solution. But as others have pointed out, if it needs so much defending…

I don’t believe that’s correct; the past subjunctive looks like the simple past. The third person past subjunctive of quit, is quit! And not quits… If one wrote, “if she quits on Monday” it is a present tense indicative alternative. The correct past-subjunctive phrase is “if she quit”

Yes, but is perfectly acceptable to just use the past-subjunctive (and I’d argue that’s probably more common in usage). They‘re interchangeable in meaning. If he were to know the truth = if he knew the truth. It just so happens that for quit, the present and past are identical

I suppose part of the reason I am so interested in debating it is because it felt like a grammatically neat solution to the 1st/3rd person mismatch, one that I could see being a useful construction to reuse.

Just replied to PM on this: “If he quit, he would have more time“ is a perfectly acceptable third person conditional clause grammatically (effectively a common shorthand for “if he were to quit”), even though if he quits is also acceptable. The cryptic instruction is “if this letter quit”.

Ah, OK! I see what you mean now, but the conditional also works for third person: if he quit, we would be in trouble… You could equally, write if he quits, but neither is wrong grammatically.

Haha… and I know you are right about fixing clues v defending… 🙏 I’ll know what construction to use “if I were to try again” 🤣

🤣 yes must appear a bit mad. It’s in part because it’s already published (so too late)! But mainly because I’m genuinely interested as to whether the construction as it stands is grammatically unsound. And I’m thinking it must be but somehow the reason why hasn’t yet clicked with me!

Will I see you tomorrow? Not if I see you first… Will you be at work on Monday? Not if I strike… If I die, think only this of me… in these examples the [were to] is implied + understood. To “quit” can be transitive or intransitive, so the instruction “if I quit” is grammatically sound on its own

Yes, I agree with both of your sentiments, but am not yet convinced there’s anything wrong with surface or cryptic grammar: in both cases the verb is part of conditional clause introduced by “if”, so the correct part of verb is “quit”. Hence my original query. I’m still missing something surely 🤔

So in going for the more colloquial expression I was actually trying to increase surface elegance and reduce the ambiguity that would be introduced with additional words! Best laid plans and all that! 🤣 thanks for engaging, Henri! very helpful! 👍