Crosswords by Charlie Methven

The argument against nounal anagrams

People who dislike nounal anagram indicators start from the position that a clue only works properly if it 1. describes some fodder as being a certain way (using an adjective to qualify a noun), 2. tells the solver what the fodder is doing (presenting a noun as performing a verb), or 3. tells the solver what they need to do the fodder (presenting a noun as the object of a verb). I think the reason these three are allowed is that pairings of fodder + indicator (what many would call fodules) are consciously or unconsciously expected to express facts about the wordplay, statements which are true or false rather than just concepts.

Any other phrase is therefore disallowed by definition, including phrases which express something coherent about a string and a type of wordplay but do so without using any of these three syntactical categories.

Here's how we can express things about an individual in normal life, either by having that individual perform verbs or by modifying it with adjectives.

Mr Tickle	This tells us Mr Tickle exists, and now we can add extra information about Mr Tickle using verbs or adjectival modification.
poor Mr Tickle	This tells us Mr Tickle exists and is poor. We've modified the thing we started with.
Mr Tickle jumps	This tells us Mr Tickle exists and is jumping. The thing we started with is now performing an action.
kick Mr Tickle	This tells us that we need to kick Mr Tickle. The thing we started with is now the object of an action.
Mr Tickle lunchbox	This doesn't directly tell us something about Mr Tickle. We're not saying Mr Tickle exists and he's on a lunchbox: we're expressing the concept of a lunchbox which has something to do with Mr Tickle. We've stopped modifying Mr Tickle himself, and the words no longer really tell us what Mr Tickle is like, tell us what he's doing, or tell us what to do with him.

Note how the middle three can be treated as statements. "Mr Tickle is poor", "Mr Tickle jumps" and "you have to kick Mr Tickle" could all be true or false, but "Mr Tickle lunchbox" is just a concept, not a statement.

Another useful set of examples might be thinking of the script for a play. We want the script to state clearly that certain characters are required to be on stage, and we want to know what condition those characters are in or what they're doing.

MACBETH	This tells us Macbeth is on stage, and now we can add extra information about him using verbs or adjectival modification.
MACBETH, bearded	This tells us Macbeth is on stage with a beard. We've modified the thing we started with.
MACBETH dies	This tells us Macbeth is on stage, and does the action of dying. The thing we started with is now performing an action.
spotlight MACBETH	This tells someone reading the script that they need to spotlight Macbeth. The thing we started with has now become the object of an action.
painting of Macbeth	This doesn't directly tell us anything about Macbeth. We're not saying that Macbeth is on stage and there's a picture of him: we're saying a picture is on stage and it's a picture of Macbeth. We've stopped modifying Macbeth himself, and the stage directions no longer describe Macbeth being a certain way, doing a certain thing, or having a certain thing done to him.

Again the middle three can be treated as statements. "Macbeth is bearded", "Macbeth dies" and "you have to spotlight Macbeth" could all be true or false, but "painting of Macbeth" is just a concept, not a statement.

Now we can try to bring this back to crosswords directly, remembering that the criteria we started off with are that the clue should describe what the fodder is like, tell us what it's doing, or tell us what we need to do to it.

Austen	Here's our basic fodder
new Austen	Here's our basic fodder in a new condition. We've modified the thing we started with.
Austen changes	Here's our basic fodder, doing the action of changing i.e. becoming anagrammed. The thing we started with is now performing an action (even if it's really the solver who performs that action).
re-write Austen	Here's our basic fodder, and we need to do the action of re-writing to it. The thing we started with is now the object of an action.
Austen arrangement	Just as neither "Mr Tickle lunchbox" or "painting of Macbeth" were both concepts rather than statements about either of those gentlemen, this isn't really saying anything true or false about the string AUSTEN. We're not saying the fodder exists in the clue and now it's in an anagrammed form: we're expressing the concept of an anagram which relates to AUSTEN, but if we expect the grammar to give us a statement of the kind which will turn out to be true or false, who's to say whether such an anagram exists in the clue or not? The clue no longer tells us what the fodder is like, tells us what it does, or tells us what to do it, because the fodder AUSTEN is no longer the main thing we're talking about - we're instead talking about an arrangement and AUSTEN is only indirectly relevant. Rather than modifying "Austen" with verbs or adjectives, we've technically flipped things round and we're now qualifying "arrangement" with the word "Austen". "Austen arrangement" or "arrangement of Austen" may express a category of potential arrangements of AUSTEN, but a bit like "Mr Tickle lunchbox" and "painting of Macbeth", they're not statements about AUSTEN or claims about what is actually happening in the clue.

I think I can now follow the objection to nounal anagram indicators: the issue is that they can't possibly tell the solver what needs to be done in any of the three approved methods which are 1. describing the fodder by modifying it with a noun, 2. saying what the fodder is doing by having it perform a verb and 3. telling the solver what to do with the fodder by making it the object of an imperative verb. More generally, they can't be turned into a statement. At best, nounal indicators express a concept like "anagram of AUSTEN", but they don't make a statement about the fodder.

I see that much, but my question is then why those three approved methods are the only ones we can trust to impart anything of value to the solver. I feel comfortable calling "AUSTEN anagram" a coherent phrase (as in "How many AUSTEN anagrams can you come up with?"), so why do we decide that this coherent phrase can't be used in crosswords? The answer seems to be that only the three methods described are considered to express anything grammatically, but that's unsatisfying because English uses nouns qualified by other nouns to form coherent names for categories all the time ("tennis ball" etc). Noun-on-noun phrases are grammatical, and claiming they're not is a cop-out and an affront to millions of tennis balls, so the issue must be that they don't mean or express the sort of thing that's needed in a crossword clue.

One explanation may be that things expressed using the three "approved" methods can all be turned into true or false statements, whereas a category on its own can't be treated that way. My lingering question is why a category name is considered too vague and insufficiently meaningful for use in wordplay, because nobody has any trouble seeing a category name like "hairy dog" or "big country" in a charade or definition and replacing it with an example of that category.