Dan Davison
@danjdavison.bsky.social
Teacher. Books, poetry, theatre & I’m learning to set cryptic crosswords
Oh no, mum, me sandwiches
December 18, 2025 at 7:58 PM
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!
December 18, 2025 at 7:30 PM
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…
December 18, 2025 at 7:20 PM
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…
December 18, 2025 at 7:06 PM
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
December 18, 2025 at 6:57 PM
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
December 18, 2025 at 6:47 PM
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.
December 18, 2025 at 6:41 PM
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?
Terribly guilty? Not if I left sin (8)
Would that work for you?
December 18, 2025 at 5:11 PM
That’s interesting. If the clue were:
Terribly guilty? Not if I left sin (8)
Would that work for you?
Terribly guilty? Not if I left sin (8)
Would that work for you?
Thanks! Glad to know some people liked it!
December 18, 2025 at 5:05 PM
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
December 18, 2025 at 5:03 PM
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!”
December 18, 2025 at 4:57 PM
😛 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…
December 18, 2025 at 4:42 PM
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”
December 18, 2025 at 4:22 PM
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
December 18, 2025 at 4:08 PM
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.
December 18, 2025 at 3:45 PM
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”.
December 18, 2025 at 3:42 PM
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.
December 18, 2025 at 3:32 PM
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” 🤣
December 18, 2025 at 2:46 PM
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!
December 18, 2025 at 2:37 PM
🤣 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
December 18, 2025 at 2:30 PM
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 🤔
December 18, 2025 at 2:19 PM
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! 👍
December 18, 2025 at 1:19 PM
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! 👍
Haha. Yes, I SWYM, but all polysemous meanings are introduced by the subordinating conjunction if, so all possible meanings indicate the same thing: if I [were to / would / could / had etc] quit! So unless I’ve misunderstood your meaning the cryptic instruction is unambiguously to delete the I?
December 18, 2025 at 1:16 PM
Haha. Yes, I SWYM, but all polysemous meanings are introduced by the subordinating conjunction if, so all possible meanings indicate the same thing: if I [were to / would / could / had etc] quit! So unless I’ve misunderstood your meaning the cryptic instruction is unambiguously to delete the I?
Haha. Yes. I know what you mean! 😊 Agree with you. I do often re-write clues that I think might provoke quibbles even if I think they work, I just thought this was fair and grammatically sound… I suppose to me your fix version and mine are exactly the same defence! 🤣
December 18, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Haha. Yes. I know what you mean! 😊 Agree with you. I do often re-write clues that I think might provoke quibbles even if I think they work, I just thought this was fair and grammatically sound… I suppose to me your fix version and mine are exactly the same defence! 🤣