Lowdown Cryptic
@lowdowncryptic.bsky.social
Cryptics for The Browser, AVCX, OoLF, Crossweird, and Minute Cryptic. Canada’s rep for the World Cryptic Crossword Championship (London 2025) and World Crossword Federation. Scrabblegrams monthly. Letter banks repeatedly. He/him 🇨🇦
It's an archaic word to begin with, so that's quite obscure for a definition. Sorry, I don't mean to mussitate!
November 25, 2025 at 5:04 PM
It's an archaic word to begin with, so that's quite obscure for a definition. Sorry, I don't mean to mussitate!
Good one!
And for yesterday's I didn't know the word MUSSITATE - it seems to mean mumble or mutter, but not in the sense of protest?
And for yesterday's I didn't know the word MUSSITATE - it seems to mean mumble or mutter, but not in the sense of protest?
November 25, 2025 at 3:23 PM
Good one!
And for yesterday's I didn't know the word MUSSITATE - it seems to mean mumble or mutter, but not in the sense of protest?
And for yesterday's I didn't know the word MUSSITATE - it seems to mean mumble or mutter, but not in the sense of protest?
What I said to Henri and with my ticks above is that "rally first" for R works for me logically (like any "FODDER first") but I realize it's not as satisfying in a clue as other examples (Labour leader, bear head, etc) and I accept that others don't accept it.
I can't reply further today, but TTYL!
I can't reply further today, but TTYL!
November 20, 2025 at 1:58 PM
What I said to Henri and with my ticks above is that "rally first" for R works for me logically (like any "FODDER first") but I realize it's not as satisfying in a clue as other examples (Labour leader, bear head, etc) and I accept that others don't accept it.
I can't reply further today, but TTYL!
I can't reply further today, but TTYL!
@crypticblah.bsky.social, we'd all agree that "FODDER's first" is fine. I accept "FODDER first" on the same basis (it means first of FODDER), but I respect that others don't. I don't accept "first FODDER" (needs to be "first of FODDER").
I'd hope that's logical to all, whatever one's cryptic views.
I'd hope that's logical to all, whatever one's cryptic views.
November 20, 2025 at 1:58 PM
@crypticblah.bsky.social, we'd all agree that "FODDER's first" is fine. I accept "FODDER first" on the same basis (it means first of FODDER), but I respect that others don't. I don't accept "first FODDER" (needs to be "first of FODDER").
I'd hope that's logical to all, whatever one's cryptic views.
I'd hope that's logical to all, whatever one's cryptic views.
Agreed, Andrew.
@crypticblah.bsky.social, it seems we all agree it's the 1st noun that modifies the 2nd (which leader? Labour leader - the leader of Labour). That's akin to "your head" for Y (which head? Your head - the head of YOUR). So "head your" doesn't work. Your comment above is backwards.
@crypticblah.bsky.social, it seems we all agree it's the 1st noun that modifies the 2nd (which leader? Labour leader - the leader of Labour). That's akin to "your head" for Y (which head? Your head - the head of YOUR). So "head your" doesn't work. Your comment above is backwards.
November 20, 2025 at 1:37 PM
Agreed, Andrew.
@crypticblah.bsky.social, it seems we all agree it's the 1st noun that modifies the 2nd (which leader? Labour leader - the leader of Labour). That's akin to "your head" for Y (which head? Your head - the head of YOUR). So "head your" doesn't work. Your comment above is backwards.
@crypticblah.bsky.social, it seems we all agree it's the 1st noun that modifies the 2nd (which leader? Labour leader - the leader of Labour). That's akin to "your head" for Y (which head? Your head - the head of YOUR). So "head your" doesn't work. Your comment above is backwards.
After all that discussion, I just noticed another little problem with your clue that none of us mentioned: the enumeration is wrong! 😫
November 20, 2025 at 2:25 AM
After all that discussion, I just noticed another little problem with your clue that none of us mentioned: the enumeration is wrong! 😫
If it's a compound noun, why is it a flawed argument?
"Company leader" is a compound noun where "company" modifies "leader" (as if it were an adjective). But you can't say somebody is the "leader company" - you would need the "of" in that scenario.
"Company leader" is a compound noun where "company" modifies "leader" (as if it were an adjective). But you can't say somebody is the "leader company" - you would need the "of" in that scenario.
November 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
If it's a compound noun, why is it a flawed argument?
"Company leader" is a compound noun where "company" modifies "leader" (as if it were an adjective). But you can't say somebody is the "leader company" - you would need the "of" in that scenario.
"Company leader" is a compound noun where "company" modifies "leader" (as if it were an adjective). But you can't say somebody is the "leader company" - you would need the "of" in that scenario.
Oh, I agree that "your" being possessive in "your head" is irrelevant - "your" is just fodder. But while "your head" gives Y (in my view), "head master" does NOT give M. "Master head" would give M, but it's not a great phrase to use in a clue.
The possessive aspect I meant was "rally's first", etc.
The possessive aspect I meant was "rally's first", etc.
November 19, 2025 at 7:12 PM
Oh, I agree that "your" being possessive in "your head" is irrelevant - "your" is just fodder. But while "your head" gives Y (in my view), "head master" does NOT give M. "Master head" would give M, but it's not a great phrase to use in a clue.
The possessive aspect I meant was "rally's first", etc.
The possessive aspect I meant was "rally's first", etc.
@henriwords.com, "rally first" for R is acceptable to me because "FODDER first" can always mean "FODDER's first" or "first of FODDER". But I realize "rally first" for R isn't satisfying in context the way "company leader" is.
I'm OK with "FODDER first" (but not with "first FODDER"!)
I'm OK with "FODDER first" (but not with "first FODDER"!)
November 19, 2025 at 6:54 PM
@henriwords.com, "rally first" for R is acceptable to me because "FODDER first" can always mean "FODDER's first" or "first of FODDER". But I realize "rally first" for R isn't satisfying in context the way "company leader" is.
I'm OK with "FODDER first" (but not with "first FODDER"!)
I'm OK with "FODDER first" (but not with "first FODDER"!)
@crypticblah.bsky.social, the possessive aspect is the key issue here. You're talking about adjective and position like "a brown bear" and "a bear brown", which is fine. I'm talking about why "it's a bear's head" and "it's a bear head" aren't the same as "it's a head bear". There's a big difference!
November 19, 2025 at 6:35 PM
@crypticblah.bsky.social, the possessive aspect is the key issue here. You're talking about adjective and position like "a brown bear" and "a bear brown", which is fine. I'm talking about why "it's a bear's head" and "it's a bear head" aren't the same as "it's a head bear". There's a big difference!
But the possessive aspect and syntax do matter:
FODDER's first ✅
First of FODDER ✅
FODDER first ✅ (although not always as satisfying, depending on word/context)
First FODDER ❌ (bad/ungrammatical, but accepted by some newer solvers thanks to Minute Cryptic and the like)
FODDER's first ✅
First of FODDER ✅
FODDER first ✅ (although not always as satisfying, depending on word/context)
First FODDER ❌ (bad/ungrammatical, but accepted by some newer solvers thanks to Minute Cryptic and the like)
November 19, 2025 at 6:24 PM
But the possessive aspect and syntax do matter:
FODDER's first ✅
First of FODDER ✅
FODDER first ✅ (although not always as satisfying, depending on word/context)
First FODDER ❌ (bad/ungrammatical, but accepted by some newer solvers thanks to Minute Cryptic and the like)
FODDER's first ✅
First of FODDER ✅
FODDER first ✅ (although not always as satisfying, depending on word/context)
First FODDER ❌ (bad/ungrammatical, but accepted by some newer solvers thanks to Minute Cryptic and the like)
Strongly disagree (see my reply to your comment above)
"your head" and "head of your" are fine for Y, but not "head your"
"your head" and "head of your" are fine for Y, but not "head your"
November 19, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Strongly disagree (see my reply to your comment above)
"your head" and "head of your" are fine for Y, but not "head your"
"your head" and "head of your" are fine for Y, but not "head your"
Strongly disagree. Position definitely matters.
"Company's leader" and "company leader" are both fine for L, but "leader company" is not. "Rally first" (not "first rally") could be valid in the same way, but it's not satisfying because you can't really say "that speaker was the rally first".
"Company's leader" and "company leader" are both fine for L, but "leader company" is not. "Rally first" (not "first rally") could be valid in the same way, but it's not satisfying because you can't really say "that speaker was the rally first".
November 19, 2025 at 6:10 PM
Strongly disagree. Position definitely matters.
"Company's leader" and "company leader" are both fine for L, but "leader company" is not. "Rally first" (not "first rally") could be valid in the same way, but it's not satisfying because you can't really say "that speaker was the rally first".
"Company's leader" and "company leader" are both fine for L, but "leader company" is not. "Rally first" (not "first rally") could be valid in the same way, but it's not satisfying because you can't really say "that speaker was the rally first".
Start to read out of disgust when the internet goes down (6)
November 19, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Start to read out of disgust when the internet goes down (6)
It wasn't inconsistent, I was saying "first rally" is invalid the same way that "head your" would be invalid.
"rally first" is trickier because I'd accept it on the same basis as "your first" but it's not ideal grammatically, in context. It's only valid based on "[WORD] first" = "first of [WORD]".
"rally first" is trickier because I'd accept it on the same basis as "your first" but it's not ideal grammatically, in context. It's only valid based on "[WORD] first" = "first of [WORD]".
November 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM
It wasn't inconsistent, I was saying "first rally" is invalid the same way that "head your" would be invalid.
"rally first" is trickier because I'd accept it on the same basis as "your first" but it's not ideal grammatically, in context. It's only valid based on "[WORD] first" = "first of [WORD]".
"rally first" is trickier because I'd accept it on the same basis as "your first" but it's not ideal grammatically, in context. It's only valid based on "[WORD] first" = "first of [WORD]".
You're right, that's not a good example. Better would be "rally leader", which to me is every bit as valid as "rally's leader".
I was making a broader point, but I doubt there's a good context where "rally first" is interchangeable with "rally's first", so please disregard!
I was making a broader point, but I doubt there's a good context where "rally first" is interchangeable with "rally's first", so please disregard!
November 19, 2025 at 5:36 PM
You're right, that's not a good example. Better would be "rally leader", which to me is every bit as valid as "rally's leader".
I was making a broader point, but I doubt there's a good context where "rally first" is interchangeable with "rally's first", so please disregard!
I was making a broader point, but I doubt there's a good context where "rally first" is interchangeable with "rally's first", so please disregard!
Nice idea, but almost all experienced cryptic folks won't like "first rally" for R. It can be "first in rally" or "rally's first" or even "rally first" (by my standards), but not "first rally".
You could find a fairer way to indicate removing R, and make it work better for the surface as well.
You could find a fairer way to indicate removing R, and make it work better for the surface as well.
November 19, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Nice idea, but almost all experienced cryptic folks won't like "first rally" for R. It can be "first in rally" or "rally's first" or even "rally first" (by my standards), but not "first rally".
You could find a fairer way to indicate removing R, and make it work better for the surface as well.
You could find a fairer way to indicate removing R, and make it work better for the surface as well.
Me, I've always accepted I can be ME, and vice versa (different case but same person). And "your head" for Y is fine with me. Blah is stricter than I!
November 19, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Me, I've always accepted I can be ME, and vice versa (different case but same person). And "your head" for Y is fine with me. Blah is stricter than I!
Topical one for yesterday! What's the answer?
November 19, 2025 at 4:15 PM
Topical one for yesterday! What's the answer?
Wordplay is good, just a minor issue that "by" strictly shouldn't be part of the definition (answer is a noun) and also shouldn't be a link word. But some who accept looser definitions that don't match part-of-speech (e.g. Minute Cryptic!) might be OK with it.
November 19, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Wordplay is good, just a minor issue that "by" strictly shouldn't be part of the definition (answer is a noun) and also shouldn't be a link word. But some who accept looser definitions that don't match part-of-speech (e.g. Minute Cryptic!) might be OK with it.
No worries, we all have to make our share of bad clues as we progress into making mostly good clues!
November 14, 2025 at 3:13 PM
No worries, we all have to make our share of bad clues as we progress into making mostly good clues!
If you make your clues easier, maybe more people will solve them!
November 13, 2025 at 10:43 PM
If you make your clues easier, maybe more people will solve them!
"Hung proudly" suggests the answer is an adjective or a past tense verb, not a noun. Better if the def is the correct part of speech, e.g. "It's hung proudly".
Using "stroke" to mean "bunt" also doesn't feel right to me.
As a spoiler text option, there's ROT-13: rot13.com
Orggre guna abguvat!
Using "stroke" to mean "bunt" also doesn't feel right to me.
As a spoiler text option, there's ROT-13: rot13.com
Orggre guna abguvat!
November 13, 2025 at 10:20 PM
"Hung proudly" suggests the answer is an adjective or a past tense verb, not a noun. Better if the def is the correct part of speech, e.g. "It's hung proudly".
Using "stroke" to mean "bunt" also doesn't feel right to me.
As a spoiler text option, there's ROT-13: rot13.com
Orggre guna abguvat!
Using "stroke" to mean "bunt" also doesn't feel right to me.
As a spoiler text option, there's ROT-13: rot13.com
Orggre guna abguvat!