DA Debate for October 15/16th, 2010

A new category for a very common phenomenon: debates on whether something or other was appropriate.

Here’s what I thought was up for debate:

  • stab = speculate on in 12 across. As far as I’m aware, for stab to take on that meaning, it’s take a stab or have a stab, never stab alone, and using the meaning of a phrase’s operative word in a definition seems a step too far.
  • lobbing = arrival in 24 across. I assumed from the word lobby that lobbing had something to do with an arrival. Then I looked in the dictionary and didn’t find anything to support what I supposed. Can this be defended?
  • get at = contact in 6 across. How does that work?

5 thoughts on “DA Debate for October 15/16th, 2010

  1. Good idea, I think, this separate category: the Confusions often develops into a braiding of the Q&A for which it was designed and the debates on appropriateness/fairness of clue components. I’ll have a stab (ha!) at these.

    STAB: Can only agree wholeheartedly with the comment above.

    LOBBING: I think this is absolutely OK. I suspect it’s Aus idiom, as Chambers doesn’t have it, but Macquarie Concise does:
    “9. (sometimes followed by *in*, *into*, *at*, etc.) to arrive; *They lobbed in at about 3 o’clock*.
    I use it all the time. So in the gerund form for *arrival* is fine to me.

    GET AT: Macquarie again: 35. “get at … to reach, make contact with.” As in “They stayed out of mobile range where we couldn’t get at them.” I’m happy with that one too.

    PS. How do I do italics in these comments so I don’t need to use those silly asterisks?

  2. The italics is a bit of a pain to do.

    You have to wrap your text around things called tags, like so:

    <em>This will be italicised when you submit your comment</em>

    GET AT meaning contact is a new one for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *