‘With’ as a linking word
Do the setters here solely interpret the linking word ‘with’ as D -> WP, where D [is made] with WP, or do you believe ‘with’ can be used in the conjunctional sense (like ‘and’) and be used in either direction?
I personally believe the latter - but I was informed that most editors prefer the former. Why is the latter frowned upon, when the conjunction ‘and’ can be used in either direction? Does it have to do with interpreting the same linking word in two different ways?
Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.
Sign in to leave a comment
Sign in to leave a comment
There are two kinds of link word use: *equivalence* ("it's this, and it's that") and *causality* ("this, [made] with that"). Both "and" and "with" can mean "accompanying" when describing two different things (bacon and/with eggs) - neither of these is the crossword linker use. "and" can be used to describe two things with a shared def/WP: "XY+Z and *synonym of XYZ*" = equivalence. "with" can be used to describe an outcome: "this def [made] with that WP" = causality. /cont
3 comments