Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 30

"Grappling" as an adjective

I'm not done with the document from rural nineteenth-century Pennsylvania that I asked about here, and it's time for another quandry. Anyone ever hear of "grappling" being used as an adjective? The page that I'm studying now includes a protest by the minister against an action of the elder board, saying that what they've decided to do is "novel grappling and suspitious", if I read it rightly. "Suspicious" is obviously the meaning of the final word, but I'm not sure that I've read the second word rightly; is there perhaps a similar word? Or is anyone familiar with a usage of this word that would fit here? My Oxford Universal Dictionary does not have any entries for "grappling" except for the obvious gerundal form of the noun "grapple", so I'm not at all sure that I've transcribed this word rightly. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Against what action was the minister protesting? That might give us a hint as to possible synonyms or meanings of "novel grappling". —— Shakescene (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like "novel" is the adjective and "grappling" ("wrestling") is the noun. Give us the entire sentence and it might become clearer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"The nomination of an elder to attend the superior Court on this occasion is novel grappling and suspitious At a previous meeting the appointment of an elder to meet presbytery was refused viewing it in such a light I must enter my protest" The context is appointing a member of session (the elder board) to go to Presbytery — a regional governing body (it's officially a "court of the church", but not a court in the sense of holding a trial; I can explain more if you want to know) composed of ministers and elders from the churches it governs, including the one whose minutes I'm transcribing. Session had appointed an elder to attend the previous meeting, but the minister said that Presbytery didn't let the elder that went to its previous meeting be a part of that meeting. Therefore, he says that there's something wrong with appointing a specific elder to attend; apparently he wants whichever elder that can go to go. I'm not entirely sure that I understand his meaning correctly; aside from the difficulty of reading the writing, this minister's language is complex enough (both here and elsewhere) that his meaning is difficult to comprehend, even when I've been reading documents of this sort for years. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I know that I've transcribed the punctuation (or lack thereof) correctly. Would the minister's background be of any help in understanding his meaning? A sketch of his life appears on pages 574/575 of this PDF — he's Robert Lusk, not the minister who is on pages 574/575 of the original book. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, novel grappling makes sense. "Novel," in this case means "out of order," "unusual." "Grappling" can be construed as "grasping," I think. That is why this behavior is being characterized as being "suspicious." Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you think that the minister is saying that Session is attempting to take too much power for itself? I'm familiar with this usage of "novel", especially in connexion with Lusk — he was very much the traditionalist, opposing even minor changes in the church's ways of doing things (i.e. those that did not change its teachings) because they went against the way things had been done in the past. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to take too much power, and to do so unfairly. "Grappling" is unsubtle. Paired with the word "novel," the implication is that of a questionable grab for power. Perhaps it is a contrivance to pass over someone who meets all requirements for this, to get to a candidate of one's preference. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

¶ What seems likeliest by far to me is that, even though no comma separates them, "novel", "grappling" and "suspitious" are all being used adjectivally —("grappling" here technically being a participle rather than a gerund or part of a progressive tense)— to modify "nomination" —(each technically serving as a predicate adjective governed by the same common "is"). In other words, neither "novel" nor "grappling" is modifying the other word, but each separately modifies "nomination". The sentence written out pedantically would then read: "The nomination ... is novel, is grappling, and is suspitious."
If I'm right, then the exact intended meaning of "grappling" becomes less important (perhaps it's a malapropism) and the meaning of "novel" seems pretty clear. The Second Edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1913) is in the public domain and available free (and legitimately) on line; perhaps it offers some pre-1900 American examples of a similar usage of "grappling" that might not be in the OED or the Oxford Universal Dictionary. Alternatively, you might want to consult books and monographs about 19th-century Pennsylvania dialects; perhaps there was some leakage or borrowing from Pennsylvania Dutch, Celtic tongues or other local speech patterns outside standard literary English. Or perhaps the minister is unconsciously borrowing part of his phrase from a bible, prayer-book, order of service or hymnal. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Since first encountering it, I've approached this description the way you have as being without commas — punctuation is quite rare in this document, with multiple names often appearing without commas, such as "John Thomson John Steele and John Renfrew". I'm confident that this isn't a formulaic phrase: "grappling" isn't in the King James Version (the version that was used in this church) of the Bible, it's not in the Scots Metrical Version of the Psalms that was used at this period (hymns aren't used in the Reformed Presbyterian Church), and the denomination did not use specific orders of service or prayer books. Webster doesn't seem to yield anything unique. Sorry for the confusion re parts of speech; I meant to say "gerundal form of the verb", and my point was that I couldn't find a usage in the dictionary that corresponded to this. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a lexicographer or linguist (even an amateur one) and my formal training in grammar ended several decades ago when I graduated from high school, so my uninformed guesses are no better than anyone else's. I can see two ways of interpreting "grappling" if no better source appears:

1. in the sense of "wrestling" (which some dictionaries give as one meaning of "grappling", although as a noun or gerund, rather than as an adjective or participle) with an extended connotation of "contentious" or "causing contention". The unconsciously-transferred biblical allusion might perhaps be to Ephesians 6:12 before St. Paul's descriptions of the Whole Armour of Christ: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (1611 Authorised or King James Version); or
2. in the sense suggested in someone's earlier posting, of grasping (grappling) for power or victory in this dispute. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian translation requested

I have reverted a user that changed the translation of "pult ost" from semisoft cheese to "fucked cheese". I have been soundly chastised for my prudish editing by the user, therefore I would like to get an informed opinion on the translation before reverting futher. Please leave a "talkback" template on my talk. Thanks Tiderolls 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit, the anon is correct. However, the word "pult" can also be a noun, meaning "desk". decltype (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP editor did not include a summary for the edit I reverted. An irrelevant fact given your helpful translation. I guess it's a 1RR for me on that article. Thanks for the quick response. Tiderolls 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an understandable mistake. However, the real "vandal" was the one who introduced the term "semisoft cheese" in the first place, because that makes no sense whatsoever, as far as I can tell. decltype (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I found out, the meaning often differs when two words are used as individual words ("pult ost") or when they are compound words ("pultost"). This site [1] gives some amusing examples where failure to concatenate the nouns results in semantic BS. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I'm not sure why the Norwegian language article would elaborate so much on that though, it's the same in all Germanic languages, really, except English. E.g. German "eine rothaarige Frau" (a red-haired lady) when written "ene rot haarige Frau", becomes "a red, haired lady". Actually, "pult ost" vs "pultost" isn't quite a true example of that because the pronunciation (vowel stress) changes. Which is a different quirk of Scandinavian languages: Lots of words change meaning with a slight change in stress/intonation - which isn't marked with accents or anything, but must be inferred from context. --Pykk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The pronunciation changes in all the examples cited, but that's beside the point. The point, and I suppose the reason that the article elaborates on it, is that it is a new phenomenon. I suspect the reason is the limited capabilities of the spell checkers (spellcheckers?) of word processors and mobile phone's. To anyone above 40, it's not really humorous, it's plain ugly. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-Profit Organization

On this page about Nick Vujicic, it is mentioned that he runs a Non-Profit Organization (linked in the first instance), but lower down it says 'non-profitable organization', which to me means something else. Should this be changed? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unless his organisation is making losses! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this entire final paragraph is written as a hagiography and should be heavily edited to be useful in an encyclopedia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know how to contact the original user to get him/her to change it. Can someone do it for me, as I will be offline for a while soon (travelling) and won't be able to do it myself? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Basic phrases in Irish

My wife and I will be going on holiday to Ireland next week, and we'll be spending some of our time in the Gaeltacht. I'm aware that there will only be a tiny number of people who can't speak English, but it seems only polite to learn at least a few words of Irish if we're talking to people for whom it's their main language. So could someone please give me the Irish for a few basic words and phrases - "hello", "goodbye", "please", "thank you", "a pint of Guinness and have one for yourself", etc. I'm not too hot on either IPA or Irish orthography, so your best pseudo-phonetic Latin alphabet please.

Of course, if there's either a Wikipedia page or another website somewhere which will give me this, please point me in that direction. Thanks! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the dialect spoken in that area, but you should get along fine with Munster dialect, as it's the standard dialect. 'Hello' is 'Dia dhuit' (jee-a gwit), 'goodbye' is 'Slán' (slorn), 'please' is 'le do thoil' (le do hill), and 'thank you' is 'go romh maith agat' (ga ruv moy agut). Here is a website that will give you more phrases. It's an ugly site, but once you get your head round what's happening on each page, it becomes easy enough. Good luck, and have a nice trip! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another which is probably better, because you can listen to the phrases, too. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, here is some free downloadable software which is fun to use. I used it for Korean and got quite far. As a professional linguist, I recommend it for those who just want to learn to survival level. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear up a misconception: Munster is not the standard dialect, however much its speakers wish it were. Irish doesn't have a standard spoken dialect (the standard written language is a hybrid of the three main dialects that succeeds in leaving native speakers of all three dialects equally unhappy). And the OP didn't say which part of the Gaeltacht s/he and his/her wife will be going to anyway, but it's true that you'll be understood no matter which dialect you're aiming for, and Irish speakers will be so delighted you're trying to say anything in Irish at all that they won't mind if you sound like you're from some other county. KageTora's phrases are basically right, though "thank you" is spelled "go raibh maith agat"; my phonetic respelling would be more like "gorrama haggat". For "hello", Dia duit is always what's taught to learners (and its answer is Dia's Muire duit [jee-as mwirra ditch]), but in practice that sounds quite formal, and what Irish speakers are most likely to actually greet each other with is just "How are you?" – and that differs from dialect to dialect. In Munster, it's Conas atá tú? (kunnas a-taw too), in Connacht it's Cén chaoi a bhfuil tú? (kayn khee a will too) and in Donegal it's Cadé mar atá tú? (ka-jay mar a-tah too). KageTora's phonetic respelling of Slán as "slorn" is fine if you're a speaker of a non-rhotic accent of English, but for the rest of us, "slawn" or "slahn" is a better approximation. +Angr 06:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic: my favorite Irish toast (told to me repeatedly by an 88 years old woman, after her fourth G&T) is, “Astonishingly good luck!” DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! We don't know where we'll be, which is part of the fun of it - we're starting from Galway so will probably begin in Connemara, but may well get to bits of Donegal or Kerry. We're relying on "Irish speakers will be so delighted you're trying to say anything in Irish at all that they won't mind if you sound like you're from some other county" - or indeed, given how bad our pronunciation will be, another planet! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ellipses" in writing

I have been given a summer reading assignment for an upcoming AP English course. The assignment includes reading Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. A question on this assignment asks- What do the ellipses in the story indicate? I know that an Ellipsis is removing words in a quote using ... but that is not what my teacher is talking about. Is an ellipse in a piece of writing a flashback? Please help (I would ask my teacher, but he has specifically told us not to contact him during the summer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.87.168 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As Ellipsis says, it "can also be used to indicate a pause in speech, an unfinished thought or, at the end of a sentence, a trailing off into silence..." --- OtherDave (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No contact during the summer? He probably went to watch the Solar Ellipse. When I was in school, we were told the only valid use of the ellipsis was where something is missing. But common usage seems to have added those other very useful usages... A device I use all the time. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick google of “Ethan Frome” and “ellipsis” gives us, in the first 5 suggestions, the article “Full of Gaps and Tricky Foreshadowing” at [2], and a page from Suzanne J. Fournier’s Edith Wharton’s "Ethan Frome": A Reference Guide [3], which in turn points to Jean France Blackall’s paper “Edith Wharton’s Art of Ellipsis”. // BL \\ (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm writing something very informal I might use an ellipsis when I would use a semicolon more formally. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there's also Ellipsis (narrative device), intentionally leaving out sections of the story. That's probably what the teacher means. Indeterminate (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The great Herb Caen, a San Francisco institution (and journalist) for six decades and coiner of the term “beatnik” among others, thrived on what he called three-dot journalism. Item, item, whose got an item . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's another use of ellipis: "In the explosion, three people were killed and another five wounded". It could have been " ... and another five were wounded". But it's the same verb being used, so in a parallel construction it's often not necessary to repeat it. You could use the verb again, though, if you wanted to; but choosing not to do so is choosing to employ ellipsis. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a word for this?

I've been collecting words that have an interesting property. Check it out:

• Apposite → Ap posi t e = apt
• Appropriate → Ap propria t e = apt
• Deceased → De ce a se d = dead
• Municipality → Muni ci pali ty = city
• Precipitation → P r ecipit a t i o n = rain

Is there a term for this? Can anyone think of more? I think that:

• Speaker → S p e a ker = pa (PA, public address)

...might be cheating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do n ot think s o = no. But interesting find, though :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Before → B e fo re = ere (poetic way of saying "before")
  • For lack of a better term, "words containing their own synonyms". It occurs to me that a look at an unabridged dictionary would be in order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kangaroo word springs to mind :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding! And as a bonus, I didn't know we had an "appendix" feature. Let's just hope some deletionist surgeon doesn't remove it. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I've got this wrong, but by appearance alone you seem not to have noticed that the appendix page was on Wiktionary, for which they have an entire namespace. It's not our appendix feature :) Vimescarrot (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Well done! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There're really thousands of examples, e.g. await = wait, etc. etc. HOOTmag (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm looking for non-trivial examples, in the sense that the contained synonym isn't derived from the same root as the larger word, at least not quite so trivially. Reading the above (for which, Good find, and thanks!), I notice that: app end ix = end is close. Not a synonym exactly, but still on the same team. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help thinking computer would help here - take dictionary + thesaurus in digital form, and the rest is simple - you could end up with a complete list - in fact if it is requested I would undertake this myself, after being provided with the two data sources.

I'm also quite curious if this is related to language structure, or just probability at work - anyone know.

The examples you provide are quite.. ..compelling...83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why the coiner of this term chose the kangaroo, rather than marsupials generally, all of which carry their young in a pouch. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because kangaroos are the only animal 99% of people (outside Australia perhaps) would think of that do so? Terms aren't coined with optimal biological accuracy in mind... -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Heights" anagrams to "highest". Maybe "kangaroo word" is easier to say than "marsupial word". It sounds better too. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Difference between an aim and an objective

What is the difference between an aim and an objective in a management context? Not a homework question. 78.147.140.105 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe aim refers to more of the direction whereas objective could refer more to the end goal. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In business, I tend to hear "objective" being used for a list of specific achievements, such as the objectives on an employee performance review. "Aim" is a more general term, maybe at the strategic level. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are two articles that talk about the difference [4] and[5] // BL \\ (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a word

A word that is equal to 'namesake' but attributed to someone's countenance? The physical representation of a person who has done something deemed worthy of their face being on... something. --67.85.117.190 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of an example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you just looking for the word likeness? Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shot in the dark: statuesque. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Physiognomy? AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is there such discrepancy between various people's rules of capitalization? Is it sort of the same as the Wikipedia inclusionist/deletionist argument? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I've read the US Constitution in its original form, and notice that many more words used to be capitalized than are now capitalized. Is it merely that some people carry the rules over, while others do not -- perhaps this is inclusionist vs. deletionist. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a scholarly answer, but only what I've observed: English is based in part on German. In German, all nouns are capitalized, not just proper nouns. I think that usage was carried on in English for some time, and not just in legal documents such as the Constitution, as I've seen it that way in regular publications also. Sometime in the 19th century, that usage was changed such that caps are used only with proper nouns, as well as the first-person singular ("I"). With the internet and texting and such, we've seen further evolution (so to speak) of standard usage, to where often everything is lower case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

English is a Germanic language, but the standard orthography of written English has not been significantly influenced by the orthography of written high German (except for a few loanwords). AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules for written English are set in stone only insofar as a single text, style guide, or whatever says what the rules are. They all differ from one another to some degree, otherwise there'd be no point in publishing later ones. Some style guides are much more favourably regarded than others. Some matters (like always starting a sentence with a capital) are virtually universally agreed on; others vary, sometimes quite considerably. And then, language moves on, constantly. What was ok yesterday is not today; and vice-versa. A style guide from the 18th century would probably be risible even to the pedants of today. Some people cannot wait for change to happen, and even cause it to happen; others resist it to the very marrow of their soul. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(an example of changing rules) ... I was taught (many years ago) that the seasons were proper nouns and so always had capital letters like months and days of the week. It has taken me many years to get used to the modern style of writing spring, summer, autumn and winter. Dbfirs 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I haven't noticed much discrepancy, assuming you're just talking about modern writing. The rules seem pretty standardized and universal. Could you give some examples? (I don't think the seasons really count, as almost no one capitalizes them and it would seem very strange, I think, to most people to see them capitalized.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For a non-legalistic example of capitalizing nouns frequently, note the examples in Joe Miller's Jests, a book from the early 18th century. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic Crossword Clues

I've never understood cryptic crossword clues, could somebody help me with these ones please:

1. Marsupial primarily found in island, a native running wild (9,5) - I think the first one might be bandicoot but I dont understand the second part?

   TAS + M + ANIAN DEVIL

2. It appears, on the surface, to get court involved in a little work (7) - no clue about this one

   Outcrop

3. It could be okay after last of sweet (7,4) - again, no idea where to begin

   Dessert wine

   Last of sweeT = T; T + okay = Tokay, a dessert wine

4. Celebrate first piece of luggage / appearing here? (8) - again, no clue

   CAROUSE + L

5. Realistic, / having been affected by gravity of our situation (4-2-5) - this one really has me stumped

   DOWN TO EARTH

6. Knowing what others have in mind, / yet putting one's foot down (7-7) - again no idea at all

   THOUGH + TREADING

Thanks in advance for the help guys --Thanks, Hadseys 23:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cryptic crossword article explains many types of clue. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeh I've seen it but I don't really have much of an idea how to group these particular clues? --Thanks, Hadseys 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1 - Possibly the answer is an anagram of "a native running" ("wild" means rearrange the letters). 5 is "down to earth". Ie a synonym for "realistic". "Affected by gravity of our situation" = gravity pulls us down to the earth. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one is just "tasmanian devil". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Carousel (Carouse + L) and Thought-Reading TheMathemagician (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to that one, except the "appearing here?" part doesn't make sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

At an airport, luggage appears on a carousel. Deor (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The "here" part only makes sense if he's reading it from an airline magazine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the 'here' means 'at the answer' i.e., on a carousel. --ColinFine (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first one, for example, "Tasmanian devil" is an anagram (indicated by "running wild") of "island a native", along with the first letter ("primarily") of marsupial. Deor (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey people, got the answers! Thanks for all your help! --Thanks, Hadseys 01:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Me again. I only got two more clues left to solve now and here they are:

7 Down: In which characters are inclined to show stress (7)

I have the following letters: I?A?I?S

13 Down: Computer problem that bought an end to investment (6,5)

I have the following letters: T?O?A?H?R?E - I have a feeling its "Trojan Horse"?

Thank you very much --Thanks, Hadseys 01:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's Trojan Horse and Italics (inclined letters indicated the word is stressed) TheMathemagician (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The trick in the Trojan Horse clue is the alternate meaning of "investment" for siege or besieging, as in the Siege of Troy. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And in the italics, the literal meaning of 'inclined' where the clue is designed to lead you towards the metaphorical meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)