The (almost really) Complete Works of Lewis Carroll

A Word-Puzzle. By Lewis Carroll.

July 23, 1891

When two words have one or more letters standing together in the same order, common to both, this collection of letters may be called a “Syzygy” between the two words. Thus “a” is a Syzygy between cat and rat; “en” is a Syzygy between friend and enemy; and “din” is a Syzygy between pudding and dinner.

The puzzle consists in linking together two given words by a chain of words, called links, such that every two consecutive words may contain a Syzygy, and the longer the Syzygies are, the more marks do they obtain. Thus, supposing the two given words were door and window, the following would be a chain linking them together:—

The above will serve as a specimen of the way in which such chains should be written out, each Syzygy being placed in a parenthesis.

Rules

1. A Syzygy may stand at the beginning, or end, or in the middle of a word; but it may not begin both of the words to which it belongs, neither may it end both. Thus

would be a lawful Syzygy; but

would be an unlawful one. A chain containing an unlawful Syzygy would get no marks.

2. The words used as links must be ordinary words given in dictionaries, or inflexions of them. Proper names and words containing hyphens are not allowed.

3. The letters “y” and “i” are to be regarded as the same. Thus

would be a lawful Syzygy.

4. The marks to be given with each chain are calculated by adding together the number of letters in the longest Syzygy and seven times the number in the shortest, and deducting a mark for every link and for every “waste” letter (i. e., every letter which does not enter into a Syzygy).

Specimen Chains

In the following chains the figure placed against each word indicates the number of “waste” letters in it.

We propose to give a prize of One Guinea to the competitor who gains the greatest number of marks from the date of this number to the 29th of September. The first Competition will be to

Change a CONSERVATIVE into a LIBERAL.

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 4th of August. The envelope to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner.

July 30, 1891

[…]

On reconsidering the matter, it seems to us that by fixing the period at which the prize will be given at such an early date as 29th of September we shall hardly be giving our readers sufficient time to become acquainted with the true nature of the Syzygy. So we have decided to give the first two competitions as experimental ones, and then to start the series for the prize, which will continue until 3rd December inclusive.

We propose to give a prize of One Guinea to the competitor who gains the greatest number of marks, commencing next week, to the 3rd of December. The first two ompetitions will be to

Marks will be given for these Competitions, but they will not count towards gaining the prize.

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 11th of August. The envelope to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner.

August 6, 1891

[…]

August 13, 1891

[…]

The marks for the two trial Syzygies will be published next week.

We propose to give a prize of One Guinea to the competitor who gains the greatest number of marks, commencing next week, to the 3rd of December. The competitions this week will be to

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 25th of August. The envelope to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner. The problems for the prize competition will be set as follows:—

August 20, 1891

[…]

The competitions this week will be to

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 1st of September. The envelope to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner.

The following questions, received from competitors, have been submitted to Mr. Lewis Carroll, whose answers are here appended:—

Qu. 1. [Turquoise] Is the name “Syzygy” taken from the dictionary meaning, sun, moon, and earth being in “Chain”? Or do the Greek roots give the idea of “linking together”?—Ans. Both.

Qu. 2. [A Snark] May a competitor send more than one chain? If so, will they all count, or only the one that gets most marks?—Answer. He may. Only the one that gets most marks.

Qu. 3. [Wraith] May chains be sent on postcards?—Ans. Yes.

Qu. 4. [Wraith] Should competitors make a score of their own marks by the side of their answers?—Answer. It is not necessary.

Qu. 5. [G. G., Persevere, Quercusonis] Are plurals, or inflections, allowed to count as distinct terminations?—Answer. Yes. Thus the Chain

would be lawful.

Qu. 6. [Jay, Toofdiarb] Is it lawful to use the same Syzygy twice consecutively?—Ans. Yes. Thus the Chain

would be lawful.

Qu. 7. [Henry, Persevere] May there be two words, with the same termination, with another Link between them?—Ans. Yes. See previous answer for example.

Qu. 8. [Nenia] May consecutive Links begin or end with the same set of letters, provided such beginnings or endings are not used as the Syzygy?—Ans. They may, provided none of the set are used as the Syzygy. Thus, the Chain

would be unlawful, because “io” is a portion of the common ending. But the Chain

would be lawful, even though “on” is a portion of the common ending. Perhaps “Nenia” can guess why?

Qu. 9. [Toofdiarb] May a Syzygy consist of the whole of one of the two Links, and the beginning or end of the other?—Ans. No. Thus in the Chain

both Syzygies are unlawful, since the set of letters “o, l, d,” stands at the beginning of “old,” and also at the end of it.

Qu. 10. [Gwynedd, Miriam] Is there no limit to the length of a Chain?—Ans. None whatever: but since a mark is deducted for every Link, it is better not to use more than a thousand or so.

Marks for the Syzygy Set on July 23rd, 1891

The seven numbers appended to each name are “maximum Syzygy, minimum Syzygy, total; links, waste letters, total: score.” Where the score is given as 0*, it is really less than zero, but, by a special favour on the part of The Lady, it is raised to zero. The words quoted in the parantheses violate the Rules, so that no score can be allowed.

[…]

Then Chains have attained the highest score–29. That sent in by “Persevere” (selected from the ten by drawing lots) is as follows:

August 27, 1891

Notice to Competitors

Competitors are requested to remember that no marks can be given for a Chain, unless it be distinctly shown what are the common parts, of each pair of Links, which are claimed as Syzygies. Sometimes two consecutive links have two or more common parts, each of which might be taken as a Syzygy, and it is for the Competitor to declare which of them he wishes to be so taken. For example, if “conservative” and “reconsideration” were two consecutive Links, either (cons) or (er) or (ati) might be taken as a Syzygy; and it would clearly be unfair to credit a competitor with the longest, when perhaps he had not seen it, but had meant to use the shortest.

The proper way to write a Chain is to place each Syzygy, in a paranthesis, between the Links to which it belongs. Atol and Signora have contented themselves with merely underlining the portions they wish to use as Syzygies, and have done even that incompletely, Atol having only marked a few in No. 1, and Signora having marked only one in No. 1, and none at all in No. 2. The above will serve as answer to questions asked by Esperance and Therise.

Supplementary List of Marks for Problem 1,

The best Chain in this List is that of Ave, which scores 29, but need not be given here, as it scores no higher than the one published last week.

Marks for Problem 2.

For Problem 2, seven Competitors attained the maximum score of 22. They are F. M. P., Jay, Kel, Lady Margaret, Peacock, Quercusonis, Rosemary. That of Peacock (selected by drawing lots) is as follows:—

The competitions this week will be to

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 8st of September. The envelope to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner.

[…]

September 3, 1891

[…]

The Competitions this week will be to

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 15st of September. The envelope to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner.

The marks for last week’s Competition will be published next week. The Chain, or “Conservative-Liberal,” by “Persevere,” was accidentally misstated in some copies of The Lady, by omitting the “s” in “deliberations,” and thereby causing the Syzygy “ation” to be an unlawful one.

September 10, 1891

As I, the inventor, am at present undertaking the scoring for this Competition, it will be simpler to write what I have to say in the “first person.” And, first, I am sorry to have to announce that the commencement of the Prize Competition must again be deferred, as experience has shown me that the present system of scoring fails to secure the absolutely essential condition that those who show the greates skill shall make the highest scores. Consequently, I must ask the gracious forbearance of all lady-readers of The Lady (for, if they only prove kind, the gentleman-readers must needs follow suit) for my issue of a revised system of Rules, and for the announcement that the Prize Competition will commence with the two problems here given, viz.—

and will conclude with the two to be set on October 29th, so that the Competition will consists of sixteen problems altogether. It seems to be necessary, also, that I should undertake (for there is not time to consult the Editor in each case) to decide which are, and which are not, “ordinary” words. It is an arduous task, for the “ordinary” shade off into the “extraordinary” by almost imperceptible gradations, and already I begin to feel the boiling torrents of wrath it must bring upon my head! Still, I warn all whom it may concern that I will have no mercy on words that are never used in ordinary conversation, and would not be understood if they were (here are a few that have been sent in:—serai, edelite, morling, vellon, entonic, eben, lere. What a cheerful tea party it would be where such words were bandied about!), and that, if any fair one feels a doubt about a word being “ordinary,” she had better send in an alternative Chain, not containing it, and thus escape the fatal “zero.”

But the question, whether a Chain has or has not, been sent in too late to be accepted, or whether revised versions of Chains are to be accepted after the date fixed for sending in, is one I leave entirely to the Editor to decide. If controversy should arise on this thorny topic, I prefer that he should do the arguing; and if, unfortunately, a duel should be the result, I prefer that he should do the fighting.

I will now give a revised version of the Rules of the Puzzle.

Definitions

1. When two words contain a common letter, or a common set of consecutive letters, this letter, or set of letters, is called a “Syzygy” between the two words.

2. A series of words, such that each two consecutive words contain a Syzygy, is called a “Chain.” And all the series, except the two extremities, are called the “Links” of the Chain.

3. This puzzle consists in forming a Chain, with two given words as its extremities. For example, if “door” and “window” were the given words, the following would be a Chain linking them together, the Syzygies being placed in parentheses:—

Rules

1. The Chain must be written out as above. If the Syzygies claimed be not all stated, the score will be “0.” Also if a Syzygy be claimed which does not exist in both the words between which it stands. And no more will be allowed for than what is claimed, even though a longer Syzygy might have been claimed. For example, a Chain containing “poorest (rest) resound” would score “0”; but, if it were written “poorest (re) resound,” this would only count as a two-letter Syzygy.

2. If two words have a common set of letters at the beginning of both, or at the end of both, none of these letters, standing in corresponding places in the two words, may be used as a Syzygy; but this does not apply to a common set at the beginning of one of the two words, and at the end of the other. Thus “handsome (om) somewhere” would be a lawful Syzygy; but “handsome (om) troublesome” would be an unlawful one. Yet “waverer (er) wanderer” would be a lawful Syzygy, since the common part contains “er” twice over, and the first “er” in one word may be taken along with the second in the other. A Chain containing an unlawful Syzygy would score “0.”

3. The letters “y” and “i” may be regarded as identical. Thus “busy (usi) using” would be a lawful Syzygy.

4. The words used as Links must be “ordinary” words—i. e., words one would have a reasonable chance of hearing in ordinary conversation, and such as would be generally understood in ordinary society. Proper names, when such as are usually printed with capital letters, are not admissible. Thus, “India” would be an unlawful Link; but “china” would be lawful. Words usually printed with hyphens (e. g. “tea-table”) are unlawful. And also foreign words, unless they have made their way into ordinary conversation (e. g., “ennui,” “alibi,” “nous”), and have thus been practically anglicised. And also abbreviated words (e. g., “silver’d”).

5. The score given to each Chain is calculated by adding together the number of letters in the first and in the last Syzygy, and seven times the number in the shortest Syzygy, and deducting two marks for every Link and one for every “waste” letter (i. e., every letter which does not enter into a Syzygy). If the first and the last Syzygy are of different lengths in a Chain containing three or more Syzygies, when the first and the last are of different lengths, no account is taken of the shorter of the two in estimating the “shortest” in the Chain.

These Rules will only come into force in marking for the Prize Competition. Till that begins, the Chains will be marked by the old Rules.

Before giving the lists of scores for Problems, I will make one or two remarks, and answer some questions that have reached me.

Remarks

Many competitors have sent no address. It would be better to furnish it in all cases, as it is just conceivable that one of these homeless ones might win the prize.

A wrongly-spelt word I do not notice, unless it affects a Syzygy, in which case I quote the word, and score a “0.”

The very careless mistake I made in writing out the Chain sent by “Persevere” for Problem 1, by omitting the “s” in “deliberations,” has naturally brought upon me a brisk shower of remonstrances. The moment I received a “proof” of the article I telegraphed to the Editor to correct it, but I am sorry to find that copies of The Lady containing the mistake had already been sold.

The following Chain, sent in by “Aaron,” is a good example of the method of scoring:—

The score is—“4, 3, 25; 3, 9, 12: 13.” It looks very much as if it contained an unlawful Syzygy, doesn’t it?

A very funny thing has happened. Two competitors, being doubtful which of two given words I wished to stand at the top of the Chain, have worked it both ways, but, oddly enough, instead of merely writing out the first Chain backwards, they have thought it necessary to make two different Chains! Much as if one should say, “To go from London to York you must take such-and-such a route; but to go from York to London you must take another route.”

Many competitors seem to think a word must be “ordinary” if it is in a dictionary. Surely that would prove too much. All words are given in dictionaries. Many seem to think that such a Syzygy as “interposition (nterpos) interposed” would be lawful. I do not think this a fair interpretation of the Rule. What would be the use of forbidding eight letters to be used, and yet allowing seven of them?

Qu. 11. [A Novice] Is it lawful to make plurals of any words, whether they be nouns, participles, or otherwise?—Ans. Only when the plurals are “ordinary” words. Thus, “faintness” is an “ordinary” word; but “faintnesses” distinctly “extraordinary.”

Qu. 12. [Margaret, Tivoli] May a Syzygy consist of the whole of a Link?—Ans. Yes. See Prob. 3.

Qu. 13. [A Novice] Is the use of a whole word as a Syzygy limited to the case where “y” and “i” are taken as equivalent?—Ans. No.

Qu. 14. [Acanthus] Is it better to have long Syzygies, or short?—Ans. Long.

Qu. 15. [Acanthus] Is it better to have long words or short?—Ans. It does not affect the score.

Qu. 16. Is it necessary to have a pseudonym?—Ans. No.

Qu. 17. [A Novice] When sending up for this competition, what address should be used?—Ans. Any address that is safe to reach you.

Anne writes to say that her Chain for Problem 2 contained “perdition (ditio) expeditious,” and that this is quoted as “perditions (ditions) expeditions,” thus producing an unlawful Syzygy. On referring to her previous paper, I find that she uses exactly the same symbol for “n” and “u,” but all three words end with the same seven letters, the last being “s.” The only effect of substituting “u” for “n” would be to turn “perditions,” a word whose existence is doubtful, into “perditious,” a word whose non-existence is certain. If Anne likes to send her address she can have her papers returned to her, to examine for herself.

Firefly complains that she was not credited with any score for Problem 1. Let her refer once more to the list published August 20th.

Miss F. Longton writes, under date August 24th, that she is sending solutions for Problems 3, 4; but none have reached me. Peter asks why his Chain, for Problem 1, was not noticed. I regret to say that it never reached me. Phlox’s Chains for Problems 1, 2 arrived to late to be entered in the lists. Her scores are—“5, 2, 19; 5, 18, 23: 0,” and “[‘storage (st) sterile’] 0.”

Plumbago, writing from Malta, asks for a week’s “grace” in sending in answers on account of distance. On such a principle we must allow time for answers to come in from Australia. No; this Puzzle is meant for persons resident in England.

Polyphemus writes (letter undated) that he had sent (no date named) a chain for Problem 1. I regret that it did not reach me. The one he now sends would score “7, 5, 42; 3, 11, 14: 29”; which is the highest that was attained.

S. M. G. complains that her score for Problem 2 is printed “1” instead of “11.” I fear there are many such misprints; I did not correct for press, but hope to be able to do so in future. Stellaria has sent in an amended version of her Chain for Problem 2, which contained a lapsus pennae. Her score now is “6, 3, 27; 5, 11, 16: 11.”

Marks for Problem 3.

When “x,” instead of a number, occurs in a score, it means that I do not count that number, as the number of links were alone enough to extinguish the score.

NOTE—Each of the pseudonyms “Aaron” and “Foggs” has been adopted by two competitors, and no one of the four has sent any name or address. One competitor, writing from Clarence Hill, Tunbridge Wells, gives no name. Another gives neither name nor address; the post-mark is Launceston. Of the 154 competitors no less than sixty have reached the maximum score, “28.” They all send in the same Chain, viz—DOOR (door) indoors (indo) WINDOW.

Marks for Problem 4.

Two competitors, “St. Helier” and “Wraith,” have reached the maximum score, “31.” They send the same Chain, viz.:—

September 17, 1891

Whenever the Philosophy of Puzzles comes to be fully discussed (and, if only I could be secure that my life would endure for a thousand long years, I would try it myself), one chief merit of that form of recreation will be declared to be that it offers a bribe to the human intellect (just as we bribe with dainty dishes an invalid who has lost his appetite) to exert itself, on however trivial a matter, so as not to spend all its waking hours in simple stagnation. All healthy mental games have the same merit, some perhaps (e. g., chess) in excess, by requiring such intense thinking as to cease to be recreations at all.

But, to effect this, the Puzzle needs to be mentally soluble—to be such that one can work it out when lying awake at night or when taking a solitary walk. “Double Acrostics,” in its original form, had this merit, no doubt. In this age, when the most unheard-of words are admitted, words that can only be found in dictionaries, it has degenerated into a purly mechanical occupation, and no longer requires the slightest exercise of thought, specially since the appearance of what is perhaps the most ghastly invention of this century—the “Acrostic Dictionary.”

It is in the hope of saving my new Puzzle, “Syzygies,” from this fate that I sternly refuse to accept any words which have evidently been culled from dictionaries. I have worked out dozens of them myself, simply in the head; and I want the competitors to do the same. And it is with the same object that I have altered the rules, so that it will no longer be possible to score marks by simply dragging in a couple of very long words, in order to have a large “maximum-Syzygy.” If this were allowed, competitors would soon begin to keep such couples of words “cut and dried,” to be regularly used in every Chain, and all skill and all healthy mental exercise would be eliminated.

In the new Rules, published September 10, readers are requested to erase the latter half of Rule 5.

B. B.’s Chains for Problems 3 and 4 came in late. Her scores are “3, 2, 17; 4, 11, 15: 2,” and “4, 3, 25; 3, 10, 13: 12.” Foggs was scored “9” by mistake for Problem 4. His true score was “[pontine] 0.”

Lortay need not trouble herself to print the whole Chain in capitals. The two given words are all that need it.

Marks for Problem 5.

The † mark indicates that the Chain contains an “artificial” maximum-Syzygy. The highest score reached is that of Quercusonis, “29”; but, as it contains what I have called an “artificial” maximum, I cannot regard it as showing the highest skill, though it is strictly legitimate, according to the present Rules. Her Chain is as follows:—

The highest score reached without any such aid is that of St. Helier, “27.” Her Chain is as follows:—

Marks for Problem 6.

The mark † indicates that the Chain contains the word “voidance,” which I do not regard as an “ordinary” word, but have marked these Chains, under protest, in deference to the fact that 57 out of 144 competitors do so regard it. In a prize competition I should score them all “0.”

Ignoring these Chains, I find the highest score to be “25,” which has been reached by Dolly Varden and E. M. R. Their Chains are as follows:—

I have mislaid Signora’s Chain, and cannot be certain whether she used the word “voidance.” If not, and if she will send a fresh copy, it shall be published as best of all.

September 24, 1891

I wish to say a few words in defence of the rule I have laid down, to allow no marks to a Chain in which a Syzygy is claimed which does not exist in both the words between which it stands. Take, as an instance, Caterina’s Chain for Problem 8, which scores 0, because she has claimed the Syzygy “(itable)” as existing in the word “uncharitably.” Some might think it rather hard that a mere oversight, in writing “(itable)” instead of “(itabl)” does not deserve so severe a penality. But surly oversights a part of the game? Many a game of chess is lost by a single oversight; yet it would spoil the interest of that noble pastime entirely to begin allowing moves to be recalled. However, suppose for a moment that I were to adopt the rule of correcting an unlawful Syzygy by erasing the unlawful letters, and had altered this Syzygy to “(itabl)”; and suppose that the next Chain I had to mark were to contain “consternation (ternation) alteration”; and that the Chain next after that were written “COALS (coals) charcoal (charcoal) arcades (arcades) desires (desires) FIRE”; will those gentle-hearted readers, who think I ought to have scored Caterina’s Chain, kindly say how they would have me to treat these other cases?

Let me also point out that it is not every participle that can have an “un-” prefixed, and still remain an ordinary word: and that it is not every active participle that can be treated as a substantive, and have an “s” tacked on to it. The test in every case must be “is the word ever used in books or heard in conversation?” If I do not make a firm stand here, I shall soon have to accept such monstrous coinages as “unfricasseeing, unfricasseed, fricasseeings,” and the whole interest of the Puzzle, as a test of ingenuity, will be destroyed.

Somebody has sent in Chains for Problems 7 and 8 with no name or address (none, at least, on the half note-sheet forwarded to me). The scores are “unprosecuted, 0,” and “uncoalescent, ascention, 0.”

Anne points out that, on August 27, I quoted her as using the word “peritions,” whereas she had written “perditions.” It was merely a mis-print. I quoted it correctly on September 10. Her other remarks shall be replied to.

A Novice’s Chains, for Problems 3 and 4, came in late. Her scores are “4, 3, 25; 2, 7, 9: 16,” and “compromit, recompelling, 0.”

Bittern asks “if Aaron’s Chain is right with ‘ringing (ing) swing,’ how can Bittern’s be wrong with ‘wishing (ing) swing’?” His apparent paradox was explained in Rule 2 on September 10.

Several competitors write about the vexed question of “ordinary words.” Bosco pleads that “acontias” is in Nuttall’s dictionary, and means a genus of serpents; and Jay suggests that “it would be a good plan to name a dictionary as a standard to which we could all refer.” If I could anyhow prevent all competitors alike from ever using a dictionary in this Puzzle, I would gladly do so. My object is to make the prize accessible to any one by ingenuity only, and not to allow any advantage at all to those who will not exert their wits, but only their hands and eyes. With this object, I accept such words only as might occur to any one without reffering to dictionaries. If any competitor wants to test a word, let him mention it in a party of, say, ten people, and say “Is there any one here who does not understand it, or any one who never heard it in ordinary conversation, and never saw it in any ordinary book?” If there is any such person present, he had better not use the word. Jay also points out that I have given marks to a Chain containing the word “uncontrite.” Well, that is one of those puzzling “border-cases” that fringe every law, and harass every law-giver. Still, I can well imagine hearing it said, in my test party of ten people, “As the boy seemed perfectly callous and uncontrite, it seemed best to expel him from the school,” and I should feel quite sure that the whole party would understand what was meant.

By an unfortunate mistake, no Problems were set last week. The Prize Competition, however, shall still contain sixteen Problems, as promised. Those for this week are

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 1st of October. The envelope (or card) to be marked “Syzygies” in the left-hand corner.

The remaining Problems for the Prize Competition will be set as follows:—

Marks for Problem 7.

French Polish has sent in a Chain for “Prosecute a Passenger,” a problem which has not yet been set.

The highest score reached is that of Lady Margaret, “22”; but, as it contains an “artificial” maximum, I cannot regard it as showing the highest skill, though it is strictly legitimate, according to the present Rules. Her Chain is as follows:—

The highest score reached without any such aid is “20.” This has been attained by three competitors—Adoxa, Curlitot, and Glen—who send Chains which differ only in one or two final letters. Adoxa’s Chain is

Marks for Problem 8.

The highest score reached is that of Mad, “29”; but, as it contains an “artificial” maximum. Her Chain is—

The highest score reached without any such aid is that of Curlitot, 18. Her Chain is—

October 1, 1891

As I should like to explain my motives for withdrawing the second half of Rule 5, and as a communication from Nenia expresses with admirable clearness all that I wish to say, I quote it almost verbatim. She points out that the Rule, as first given, made the Puzzle “easier, but certainly not so clever. Take the following, which gives the net score of 19 for a very poor arrangement: Gladstone (adstone) loadstones (ston) astonish (is) Salisbury. There would be no difficulty, and therefore no credit, in getting a miserable little Syzygy of 2 at the last, if that might be ignored in counting the shortest.”

Such a curious interpretation has been suggested for Rule 5, that I will quote what Persevere says about it, as I think my answer will interest others as well. After quoting the definition of a “waste” letter—viz., a letter “which does not enter into a Syzygy,” she says, ”according to that, I make my ‘chair-table’ answer score 28, whereas I only receive 26 marks. I subjoin it, and show how I scored it: Chair (hair) hairless (less) blessed (bles) stables (table) table. For ‘blessed’ I take the Syzygy ‘bles,’ leaving only ‘d’ as a waste letter. For ‘stables,’ the Syzygy ‘table,’ and the ‘s’ out of ‘less.’ Can the letters only be used once in the whole Chain? Or must they be in the two Syzygies above and below the Link? I am not writing to make any complaint, but want to understand the scoring system thoroughly.” This is a very good instance to show the enormous difficulty of so constructing a Rule that it shall be incapable of any other interpretation than the one desired. I certainly never intended the Syzygies to be broken up in this way, and their component letters scattered right and left, like pepper! In “blessed,” letters 2 to 5 constitute the preceding Syzygy, and letters 1 to 4 the following one; consequently letters 6 and 7 are “waste.” Similarly, in “stables,” letters 4 to 7 constitute the preceding Syzygy, and letters 2 to 6 the following one; consequently letter 1 is “waste.”

Let me earnestly advice every competitor to send in for every Problem one perfectly “safe” Chain (i. e., one as to which there can be no possible doubt that every Link is an “ordinary” word). Along with that send as many as you like containing dobutful words, provided that every such Chain scores higher than the safe one. By this method you are certain of scoring something. Hitherto, one score in every three has been “0”!

There is an unfortunate misprint in Adoxa’s Chain for “prosecute-trespasser” in the number for September 24th. The third Syzygy was “surp” in her MS., and also in my MS., which I happen to have preserved. The “u” was added by the printer, and overlooked by me in correcting the proof, so it is partly my fault. Curlitot cannot think why “uncontrite” should be allowed as an “ordinary” word, as it is neither a dictionary word, nor one used in ordinary conversation. I gave my reasons in the last number of The Lady. She adds: “At present we have no real rule to go by, and Syzygy-making is becoming rather a labour than a pleasure.” I am very sorry she finds it so, and would be very glad to consider any “real rule” she can suggest which would not deprive the Puzzle of what I cling to as its chief merit—that it is soluble in the head, without any aid from books.

Denley asks why her Chain, containing “chair (air) hair” was scored “0.” It is because of Rule 2. She also asks why her answer to Problem 6 was omitted. I am sorry that I overlooked it in writing out the list. It was duly entered on her scoring-paper as “avoid (oid) asteroid, 0.”

Heartes asks whether a word (she means “a set of letters”) which occurs in the middle of each of two consecutive words may be used as a Syzygy—e. g., “palisade (alis) Salisbury.” Certainly.

E. Heathfield, Esq., Edgbaston, is requested to choose another nom de plum.

Mavis is informed that the Chain she sent for Problem 1, containing “flamboyant,” was not passed over on that account, but because it also contained “unmantle.”

Mrs. R. asks what the six figures which precede each score in the lists of marks stand for. This was explained in The Lady for August 13th.

Persevere asks how many alternative Syzygies are allowed. I have not seen my way to limiting the number, as it seems only fair to allow a competitor who has constructed a Chain containing a word whose claim to be regarded as “ordinary” is doubtful, to offer an alternative Chain. But I hope competitors will be merciful, as the scoring costs me a good deal of time and trouble, and will count for themselves what each Chain would score, and never send in a doubtful one, if there is a safe one that scores as much. As an instance of this, one competitor sent in for Problem 1 the Chain “boy (oy), royal (al), almanac (man), man,” whose Links were clearly “ordinary,” and which scored 11. But, not content with this, she sent in four other Chains, whose scores were 11, 19, 9, and 8!

Quetta has sent (from India) a Chain for Problem 1, which did not come to hand till September 19, more than six weeks after date fixed for receiving answers. I shall be most happy to score any Chains she likes to send, but I fear it is out of question to let her compete for the Prize. Her score is “un-liberated, 0.”

S. C. G.’s answers to Problems 7 and 8 came in more than a week late. Her scores are “3, 2, 17; 2, 7, 9: 8”: and “4, 3, 25; 1, 13, 14: 11.”

Skirmisher asks, “Do we score most for a fewer number of Links or for long Syzygies in a greater number of Links?” Sometimes one, sometimes the other. To raise the minimum Syzygy one letter higher gains seven marks; so you can afford in doing so to forfeit six marks (e. g., by two extra Links and two extra waste letters), and still be a gainer; but if in doing so you would forfeit seven or more marks it is not worth while.

Stellaria is informed that “stablish” does not answer to the definition of an ordinary word as given in Rule 2. Did she ever hear it used in ordinary conversation? Or has she herself even once used it in the whole course of her life?

Turquoise doubts whether “sensorial” would be accepted as an “ordinary” word; “though,” she adds, “to one who has lived among medical men and books it is at least as ordinary as burials.” Do the medical men, then, among whom Turquoise spends a precarious life, so constantly talk of “burials”? She had far better migrate to that happy town where it is said that so many of the poor “die without medical assistance”! Turquoise also protests against “the idea of doing Syzygies in bed.” That is a matter that cannot be disposed of in a few words. I hope to deal with it hereafter.

The Problems for this week are—

Marks for Problem 8.

The highest score reached is 20. This has been attained by three competitors, E. M. R., H. H., and Quercusonis; but each chain contains an “artificial” maximum. That of H. H. (selected by drawing lots) is as follows:—

The highest score reached without any such aid is that of Aaron, 18. His Chain is:—

Marks for Problem 9.

The highest score reached is Quercusonis; 27; but it contains an “artificial” maximum. His Chain is:—

The highest score reached without any such aid is that of Toofdiarb, 22. His Chain is:—

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 8th of October.

[…]

October 8, 1891

Would you like to know the best possible method for solving a Syzygy problem? It is this. Having ascertained from your doctor that you are in a state of health to bear, without risk, severe brainwork and keen intellectual excitement; from the most candid of your intimate friends that you are in a pleasant temper, and free from all morbid irritability; and from yourself that you are in the humour for the task—seat yourself in an easy-chair, taking care that you have writing materials within reach, and that there are no dictionaries in the room; close your eyes, and paint the two given words on your mental retina. First look out for two-letter Syzygies (one-letter Syzygies are of no use), taking care that your Links are absolutely “ordinary” words. You may sometimes find such a Syzygy in the two given words, using no Link at all (e. g., “prosecute-trespasser” might be made into the Chain “prosecute [se] trespasser,” which would score “3”; and in most cases where the given words are fairly long, you may do it with a single Link, e. g., “Gladstone-Salisbury” might be made into the Chain, “Gladstone [st] list [lis] Salisbury,” which would score “3”). Having thus got a perfectly safe Chain, which will score something, say to yourself, “this, at any rate, shall be sent, unless I can find a better, which is also absolutely safe.” And, now that you are secure of not being scored “0,” begin looking for longer Syzygies. If I were doing “Gladstone-Salisbury,” I should probably begin with five-letter Syzygies, and picture to myself, successively, “glads,” “ladst,” “adsto,” &c, trying, in each case, to see a word in which it occurred. If this led to nothing hopeful, I should try four-letter ones, “glad,” “lads,” &c. I should then do the same thing with “Salisbury.” Having got a hopeful Syzygy out of each word, I should then go back to “Gladstone,” put on one Link, and try what Syzygies I could get out of that Link, and perhaps tack on a second Link, experimentally. Then back to “Salisbury” again, and run the Chain on two or three Links from that end, always aiming at getting the two ragged ends linked together somehow. The entire process is, of course, beyond the reach of rules. Success depends a good deal on ingenuity, and a good deal on luck. When a fairly good Chain has at last been hit on, then calculate its score; and, if it scores no higher than your “safety” Chain, try again. If it does score higher, and contains no doubtful word, take it as a new “safety” Chain, and reject the other. If it scores higher, and contains a doubtful word, send in both Chains.

Annafield, whose Chain for “avoid-storm” was scored “0,” on account of the word “voider,” writes to say that ‘it is really a common word, and means a butler’s tray.’ For my part, I never met with the word, and I am over thirty-two; but I am glad it is not part of the Prize Competition. I doubt if Annafield could find ten friends (chosen at random in different parts of England) who know the word. Annafield also asks “Can two Syzygies be used in one Link, e. g. ‘burials [buri] [al] Salisbury’? And would it obtain higher marks in consequence?” Only one can be scored. If a Chain contained two together, I should take the longest.

Esperance sent in an alternative Chain for Problem 2, being doubtful whether “amnesty” would be accepted. “Amnesty” is all right; but that Chain also contained “burial [rial] Salisbury,” which is all wrong! She is right in addressing her answers to the Editor of The Lady, 39, Bedford Street, Strand, London.

Skirmisher would like to have an explanation as to how it is she cannot see the Problems “prosecute-trespasser” and “coals-fire” in the columns of The Lady, though she has looked through the old numbers. The misfortune would appear to be partly physical, partly mental; perhaps if Skirmisher were to consult (1) a good oculist, (2) The Lady for August 27, it might be alleviated in both these aspects.

The Problems for this week are

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 15th of October. In the following Lists, the seven numbers appended to each name are “sum of first and last Syzygy, minimum Syzygy, total; Links, waste letters, total: score.”

Marks for Prize-Problem 1.

With some reluctance I have accepted, as a Link, the word “unboiled,” which seems to be a favourite with many competitors (I suppose they like eggs done that way); but I will accept no more of that family, or I shall be encouraging the novelists of the future to indulge in some such rhapsody as this: “How utterly precious to the undemoralised artistic eye, when strolling through the unfrosted meadows, to watch the unroasted sheep peacefully grazing, and the unfricasseed lambs sporting merrily around them!”

The highest score reached is that of Lady Margaret, 19. Her Chain is

Marks for Prize-Problem 2.

Will those fourteen competitors, who will be wishing me all manner of evil things on seeing ther “loadstones” thrown overboard, kindly ask themselves whether they have ever seen, or heard, or used the word, and whether they would have me accept such ghastly inflexions as “platinums,” or “micas,” or “gneisses”? Because, if not—

The highest score reached is twenty. This has been attained by three competitors, Adoxa, St. Helier, and Spero, who send the same Chain, viz.—

October 15, 1891

Chains have been sent for Problems 13, 14, 15 from “29, Sion Hill, Bath,” with no name or nom de plume.

Glen asks “Am I right in thinking the smallest Syzygy is irrespective of the first and last which are to be added together?” No; see Rule 5 in The Lady for October 1.

Jiguel writes “Coals-on-fire I have never seen set.” No doubt, Jiguel has always lived in a warm climate. See The Lady for August 27.

Louisa cannot understand why “ringoal” (a game lately introduced) is not accepted as “ordinary” word. Well, these new words are certainly a difficulty. My feeling was that it has not yet worked its way so far into the language as to be an “ordinary” word. The fact, that it does not occur in Nuttall’s Dictionary, seems to support this view.

Persevere writes “I suppose it is lawful to begin two Links in the same Syzygy” (she means “Chain”) “with the same letter, as in the Chain ‘prosecute [secute] persecuted.’” Certainly; the “p” does not form part of the Syzygy.

Phlox remonstrates against my having scored her Chain, for “avoid-storm,” 0, on account of the word “salsify.” And Quercusonis thinks it was “a little severe to condemn” this word, as well as “castor,” “ancestress,” “sometime,” and “unconstrainedly.” As to the last three, I still think they are not “ordinary” words, but as to the other two I find I must eat a fairly large slice of umble-pie (which is sometimes mis-spelt as “humble-pie.”) With shame I confess that, though I had often enough heard the word “salsify” as the name of a vegetable, and “castor” as the wheel placed under the leg of a sofa, I thought only of the meanings “to make salt” (on the analogy of falsify) and “a beaver”! It is a convincing proof that I am not infallible. I had long suspected this, and now I am sure of it.

I have hunted out the papers of the competitors who have used the words “salsify,” and “castor,” and re-marked them as follows:—

Quercusonis points out that “indoors,” which I had accepted as a single word, is printed with a hyphen in Nuttall’s Dictionary; and that he (or she) had rejected the word in consequence. That comes of consulting dictionaries. Quercusonis also asks if I will accept both “s” and “z” in spelling such words as “crystallize,” “patronise.” Yes.

The new Problems are—

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 22nd of October.

Marks for Problem 3.

The highest score reached is 11. This has been attained by 33 competitors, who have sent in five different varieties of Chains. The variety (selected by throwing a die), which was adopted by Adoxa, Curlitot, Dolly Varden, E. M. R., Ethne, Foggs, Hose-in-hose, Nil Desperandum, Quercusonis, and Stellaria is

Marks for Problem 4.

The highest score reached is 26. This has been attained by two competitors Glen and Nil Desperandum, whose Chains are the same, viz:—

Marks for Problem 5.

The highest score reached is 24. This has been attained by two competitors Quercusonis and Stellaria, who send the same Chain, viz.:—

Compton sent in a Chain, beginning with “Beachey (ache).” The correction, of erasing the “e,” reduced her minimum Syzygy from 4 to 3.

October 22, 1891

Chains have been sent for Problems 6, 7, 8 with no name or address. The Chain for 7 contains the word “torturing.” I have entered them as “Anon.”

I have no time, this week, to answer all of the many questions received.

B. E. E. has sent a Chain for “Cheat a Porpoise,” a Problem which has not yet been set.

Cosmopolitan’s Chains for Problems 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 have only just reached me—long after the proper time, but that is the Editor’s business, not mine. Her scores are:—(7) “respersion, 0”; (8) “unchary, 0”; (13) “unsen, 0”; (14) “drail, 0”; (15) “9, 4, 37; 3, 7, 13: 24.”

Similarly, Idatia’s Chains for Problems 13, 14, 15, are scored “4, 2, 18; 2, 4, 8: 10,” “9, 4, 37; 3, 11, 17: 20,” “8, 4, 36; 3, 8, 14: 22.”

Cosmopolitan asks me to explain how it is that he has failed to see the setting of Problems 7, 8, though he has searched the back numbers. See my reply to Skirmisher on October 8.

Cosmopolitan also writes, “the change about ordinary and extraordinary words has been, in my humble opinion, an awkward one for both parties.” But there has been no change. I have explained, but not altered, the rule given on July 23.

Cosmopolitan also asks why I regard “endogen” as ordinary, but not “endogamy.” See Rule 2, September 10. He also points out that “endogen” cannot be found in the dictionaries, but only “endogens.” Is not this hypercritical? If he wished to refer to one of the “endogens,” what would he call it?

Emelyne asks whether the Syzygies “get (get) forget,” and “set (set) settles” would be eligible. They would not. See Rule 2. She adds that she cannot make it out from the rules, though she knows that “seize (seiz) seizure” is not allowable. I do not see any distinction between her second and third example.

Glen suggests that I should ask my cook if she has any “stalish” bread, and thinks she would understand me. No doubt she would; but that is not enough to constitute an “ordinary” word: it must be in ordinary use in ordinary society. If I were to say to Glen “that looks a very railwaystationish kind of house,” I have no doubt that she would quite understand the word.

Glen also remarks that this puzzle “becomes difficult when one word is refused because it is uncommon and in a dictionary, and the next because it is common and not in a dictionary.” This is not quite correctly put. I never make the fact, that a word is in a dictionary, a ground for refusing it! But, if a word is not in a dictionary, it surely cannot be an “ordinary” word?

Glen also writes that she “cannot understand the scoring.” Her difficulty is that, “if the shortest Syzygy is not independent of the first and last, there seems to be no use in having any Syzygy longer than two letters in such a puzzle as “do—so.” It is true that any longer Syzygies would not score, as such; but, the longer the Syzygies, the fewer the waste letters.

Glen also writes, “surely loadstone does not admit a plural? Your remarks this week” (her card bears no date) “look as if you would allow it to be used with an ‘s.’” What? When I have scored forteen Competitors “0” for using it!

M. A. E. did, as she supposes, put “readings” instead of “beadings” in her Chain for Problem 5; but it made no difference in the score.

Mother Mildew has sent a Chain for “Tease a Tortoise,” a Problem which has not yet been set.

Nenia writes, “will you kindly say whether we may use the names of animals and birds; the well-known ones?” Certainly.

Nenia and Whim remonstrate against the rejection of the plural of “loadstone.” I cannot think of anything to add to what I have already said. Nenia has seen the phrase “the loadstone,” and asks “if the loadstone, why not a loadstone? And if one, why not two loadstones?” I also have seen the phrase “the gout.” If the gout, why not a gout? And if one, why not two gouts?

Old Cat asks “if the name Syzygy is not a corruption of sausage, and suggested by links.” It comes from two Greek words, and means literally “a yoking together.”

Pliny writes that she has been acquainted with the word “voider” during “all the years of her life” (even in her first year?), and that if I were “one of the gentler sex” I should “know more about the requisites of a pantry.” Perhaps I should. But I wish this puzzle to available for all, even for the ungentler sex, and for those who are ignorant of housekeeping.

S. C. C. asks “what is an artificial maximum?” I meant, by the phrase, a maximum Syzygy introduced by means of a pair of long links, which served no other purpose.

Spes laments having failed to notice the alteration of the Rule about maximum Syzygies, and adds “it is provoking after trying one’s best to find that Chains which should have scored 80 will only count 10.” I should be really grateful to Spes if she would send me a Chain which would have scored 80 under the rule she alludes to.

Vessent pleads that “ingrate,” “derrick,” and “rater” are ordinary words, and says the last is often heard “in connection with yachts.” I should be glad if she would make a sentence containing it, such as one might have a reasonable chance of hearing in ordinary society.

The new Problems are:—

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 29th of October.

Marks for Problem 6.

The highest score reached is 23. This has been attained by five competitors, Adoxa, Avo, Kelpie, Punch, and St. Helier, who send the same Chain, except that St. Helier has “wageth” instead of “rageth.”

Marks for Problem 7.

The highest score reached is 25. This has been attained by three competitors, Caterina, Compton, and Stellaria, who all sent the same Chain

[…]

October 29, 1891

The problems for this week, being the last two of the Prize Competition, are—

There will be no further Competition this year. Whether I can ever start another is a question I cannot settle at present. The difficulties in constructing a really satisfactory set of rules seem almost insuperable.

[…]

November 26, 1891

Edina’s scores for Problems 6, 7, 8 seem to have been overlooked. They are 5, 2, 19; 5, 7, 17: 2; 6, 2, 20; 2, 11, 15: 5; and 6, 3, 27; 3, 13, 19: 8.

I have no time, this week, to attempt answers to the many questions, remonstrances, complaints, and objurgations that have reached me, but hope to deal with them after publishing all the scores, and before reconsidering the papers, in order to adjudge the prize.

Marks for Prize-Problem 9.

The highest score reached is that of H. H., 20. Her Chain is

Marks for Prize-Problem 10.

The highest score reached is 27. This has been attained by four competitors, E. M. R., Jabberwock, Louisa, and Paddy, who all send the same Chain, viz.:—

Marks for Prize-Problem 11.

The highest score reached is 23. This has been attained by nine competitors, Adoxa, Amalfi, Auntie, Chute, Curlitot, E. M. R., H. H., Louisa, and Stellaria, who send the same Chain, except that Auntie, Chute, Curlitot, and E. M. R. have “acrostics” and “rustic.”

Marks for Prize-Problem 12.

The highest score reached is 21. This has been attained by seven competitors—viz., Acacia, Adoxa, Avo, Florence, Leweston, M. A. B., and Rosemary—all of whom, except Rosemary, send the same Chain. The two Chains are:—

December 3, 1891

In answer to a number of letters (some referring in most gratifying terms to the pleasure this puzzle has given) begging that there may be another Competition, I have much pleasure in announcing that I hope to be able to begin one next year. A plan has occurred to me which will, I think, get over most of the difficulty about “ordinary” words. It is that I should, on receiving the answers to a problem, publish a list of the words I have rejected; and then allow time for any who choose to send in fresh answers, and then publish the list of marks. I admit that even this plan will not meet the case of a competitor who sends in as his “second edition” a Chain containing some unheard-of word; but this case I see no way of meeting. Such competitors had better emigrate.

Several competitors have called my attention to the “Railway-Station” Chain, published October 15th, which, as there printed, does not score the “26” assigned to it. They have overlooked the correction given in the next number.

Many competitors have written to explain (in answer to my statement on October 8th that the Problems “Prosecute-Trespasser” and “Coals-Fire” were duly set in The Lady for August 27th) that no such notice can be found in their copies. I have just discovered that it appeared in some copies, but not in others; and I humbly apologies to Skirmisher for my uncalled-for sarcasm on her eyesight! I cannot explain how this extraordinary phenomenon came to pass. I can but state the fact, which has surprised me quite as much as it has others.

Marks for Prize-Problem 13.

The highest score reached is 27. This has been attained by three competitors—Quercusonis, St. Helier, and Stellaria, who send the same Chain, except that St. Helier has “haughtiness” for “naughtiness.”

Marks for Prize-Problem 14.

The highest score reached is 20. This has been attained by 24 competitors—Acacia, Auntie, Avo, B. E. E., Caterina, Chute, Dolly Varden, E. M. R., Florence, Miss F. Fox, H. H., Jabberwock, Jiguel, Kelpie, Louisa, Margaret, Nil Desperandum, Quercusonis, Rosemary, St. Helier, Stellaria, Thermometer, and Triple Alliance, who all send the same Chain, viz.:—

Marks for Prize-Problem 15.

The highest score reached is 29. This has been attained by three competitors, Nenia, Quercusonis, and St. Helier, who all send the same Chain, except that Quercusonis has “enabled” instead of “enables.”

Marks for Prize-Problem 16th and Last.

Curlitot is mistaken in thinking that I stated, on October 15th, that I would accept either “s” or “z” in spelling such words as “crystallize” and “patronise,” I would accept such a spelling as “sisygies.”

The highest score reached is 25. This has been attained by sixteen competitors, Adoxa, Auntie, Avo, Chute, E. L. W., E. M. R., Esperance, Glen, H. H., Jiguel, Kelpie, Leta, Persevere, Rosemary, Stellaria, and Thermometer, who all send the same Chain, viz.:—

December 10, 1891

Next year (perhaps in February or March) I hope to start a new Competition. Meanwhile it will be desirable, after publishing the new Rules, to set a few experimental Problems, the answers to which shall be duly scored, and the marks published, in order that competitors may “get their hands in” before the regular “tug of war” begins.

I will now deal with the rest of the unanswered letters from competitors. Many of them reopen questions about (so called) “ordinary” words, as to which I have already said all I have to say. It is not possible to carry on any discussion for ever. Doubtless many readers have frequented cricket-matches, and have often heard the umpire say “You may argue till you are black in the face” (the well-known physiological effect of an attack of Sub-acute Syzygitis), “but, when the umpire says ‘No ball!’ why it is no ball!” And so say I. Argue as you will, it must come at last to somebody deciding whether the word is “ordinary” or not; and if that somebody is not to be me, who is it to be? (Answers to this conundrum to be sent in by the 20th of December at latest.)

Auntie sends a copy of her “do—so” Chain, which she sais ought to have been scored 10 instead of 9. “Do (do) idol (ol) resole (so) so.” The Chain sent to me had “resolve” instead of “resole.” Had this new version been sent in, I should have scored it “resole, 0.”

B. E. E. sends a fresh Chain for “cheat a tortoise,” and pleads that ‘it was quite by mistake’ that she tried to cheat a ‘porpoise.’ But is it not of the essence of a competition of wits that players who make mistakes must pay the penality? In playing chess, does B. E. E. expect to be allowed to recall every move in which he has made a mistake?

Dolly Varden protests against my rejection of “waist-band,” and pleads that Nuttall prints it without a hyphen. But he prints “wrist-band” with a hyphen! I consider that these to compounds stand on the same footing; and that neither of them has yet worked its way up to the status of being regarded as a single word.

Ellerslie’s and Leta’s Chains for Problems 3, 4, 5 never reached me. They seem to have been sent off at the proper time, so the Post Office must bear the blame.

Esperance’s Chains for Problems 6, 7, 8 duly reached me, but without name or address, as she will find recorded at the beginning of the article on October 22nd. I entered the scores under the heading “Anon,” but have now transferred them to the proper scoring-paper.

Esperance also writes “I fear I must have made a mistake when copying my ‘Gladstone-Salisbury’ Chain, as I find the original is quite correct.” She sends the original rough copy, which contains “burial (bury) Salisbury.” The copy sent to me contained “burial (rial) Salisbury.” I fear that, like B. E. E., she must take the usual consequences of making mistakes.

Esperance’s score for Problem 2 is “7, 3, 28; 2, 14, 18: 10.” I overlooked this Chain on her paper, but have found it on going through all the papers again.

Glen writes to protest against my rejection of “stalish.” I do not consider it correct English, but merely colloquial. It was mainly to exclude such words that I laid down the rule that the words must be such as we find in dictionaries. This word is not in Nuttall. Is it in any dictionary?

Hose-in-hose pleads that “tocherless” is an ordinary Scottish word. That may be, but it is not an ordinary English word. She also wonders at my accepting “taker,” which she thinks no one ever heard used, unless when compounded with others. I am not a betting man, but I am certainly familiar with the phrase “the betting was 5 to 1, no takers.”

Idalia writes that she posted her answers to Problems 3, 4, 5 in time to reach the office on the 6th of October. But the 1st of October was the proper day for receiving. Still, the paper seems to have reached me, and all papers, sent to me by the Editor, are duly scored. Her three scores are:—

Marie’s Chains for Problems 1, 2, never reached me. She sends a fresh copy of the one for Problem 1, which would have been scored “oil-man, 0,” if it had arrived in time.

Nenia puts forward, under date of 1st of October, a plea for accepting her Chains though she sent in late. She writes “It is only in today’s Lady that I have observed the alteration, though I now see that the dates are plainly given in last week’s paper. I had simply not noticed it, and gone on the old rules. Under the circumstances, I hope you can accept my Syzygies now enclosed.” Surely, if Nenia were Editor, she would not accept such an excuse as this? Whose fault was it that she did not see the notice? And what more could the Editor have done to acquaint her with the change? To send a crier round with a bell to every house, would be tedious and costly, besides annoying the neighbouring residents.

Nil Desperandum and others defend “heritages” as an “ordinary” word, on the ground of its being in the Bible. I do not think this proves it at all. There are many Bible words that have quite disappeared from ordinary use.

Nix has sent in such an ingenious extra-Chain for “Unite Erin to Albion,” that I think the readers of The Lady ought to have the benefit of it.

Punch has most properly taken me to task for accepting and rejecting the word “voids” in the same list of marks! No doubt I first rejected it, and then changed my mind and accepted it, and forgot to make the necessary correction. He also most properly protests against my rejecting “meditations” and “always.” These, however, were misprints for “mediations” and “alway.”

S. C. G. brings a serious charge against me. She writes:—“When alternate” (she means “alternative”) “solutions are sent up, and there is a mistake in one and not in the other, why is the one that has the mistake taken, and the one without a mistake ignored? This is the case with both mine.” (See score 3 published October 1.) “You take Build (build) builder, &c., and put no score. As the alternative one, I sent ‘Build (ild) gilder (er) lacquer (ac) Palace,’ but no notice is taken of this; and the same with Dog (dog) dogger (er) cater (cat) Cat; but, again, this not taken, but the other one.” I have referred to S. C. G.’s paper, and find that the Chain “Build (ild) &c.,” was crossed out by herself, otherwise I should have quoted from it the unlawful Syzygy “gilder (er) lacquer.” The Chain “Dog (dog), &c,” I accidentally omitted to quote from, but I had duly scored it “0” since every Syzygy in it is unlawful.

S. C. G.’s score for Problem 12 is 6, 3, 27; 4, 11, 19: 8, for a Chain not containing “ancestress,” which was overlooked.

S. C. G., writing in defence of the rejected word “ancestress,” asks whether, in pointing to a family-picture, she ought to say “she was a female ancestor of mine.” With the omission of the word “female,” I think it would be the ordinary way of expressing the fact. The words “ancestor,” “governour,” and “overseer” seem to be ordinarily used of both sexes. The word “female” seems as superfluous as it would be in the Prayer-Book phrase, “our Queen and Governour.”

Signora’s score for Problem 8 is 8, 4, 36; 4, 14, 20: 14, as I have decided to accept “illiterately.”

Spes “cannot understand why ‘prevarications’ is rejected, and ‘beheads’ accepted.” It seems to her that the former is a noun which could be made plural, but that ‘behead’ can only be a verb. I grant that ‘prevarication’ is an ordinary word, and that it can be made plural, but I do not think the plural is in ordinary use. I do not see the drift of her remark about ‘behead.’ Of course, it can only be a verb. What then?

Spes also thinks that “nationalism,” which was rejected, “would stand the test of ten fairly educated people understanding it.” Perhaps it would, but I do not think it would stand the test of being “reasonably likely to be heard in ordinary conversation.”

Spes has been marked wrong for Problems 15, 16, her two scores having been accidentally interchanged.

St. Helier’s score for Problem 5 is 8, 4, 36; 3, 6, 12: 24; as I have decided, after much deliberation, to accept “beheadings,” and have referred to the MS. of every Chain sent in for it, in order to make the necessary corrections. However, the only other Competitor who has used the word is Nil Desperandum: and her chain has already be accepted and scored! Homer does sometimes nod: there is no doubt of it!

Swallow pleads that “odor” is “surely an ordinary word spelt in the modern way?” I am aware that the Americans are trying to change our spelling, and to rob us of “favour,” “honour,” and “valour,” and all that makes life dear to a Briton; but my answer to them is “Sor-visaged honds, shot not so lodly! We croch to no prod foeman! This is British grond!”

Thekla writes “in what ordinary conversation would one hear such words as ‘endogen’ and ‘wageth’? I have looked for them unsuccessfully in three dictionaries. The latter I can guess the meaning of, the former I cannot.” I think that the elementary terms of a Science so universally studied as Botany are quite reasonably likely to be heard in ordinary conversation. I have just looked out “endogen” in three well-known dictionaries. Worcester and Skeat give “endogen”: Nuttall gives “endogens.”

“To wage war” is surely an ordinary phrase, and I do not see how I can accept a verb without also accepting its grammatical inflexions; but if Thekla expects to find all inflexions in her three dictionaries, she has, I fear, much disappointment in store for her!

Thekla also asks for the meaning of “maximum” and “minimum” Syzygies. They are those which contain the greatest and the least number of letters.

Triple Alliance writes “We were told, in The Lady of September 17th, to erase the latter half of Rule 5; and we were obliged to send in the Chains for Problems 1, 2, on September 16th. Not being gifted with second sight, we scored these Chains in the old way, as, of course, every one else must have done.” Triple Alliance has got the dates wrong. The Chains in question were not due till September 22nd; most of them came in on the 21st and 22nd.

There still remain a number of remonstrances about “ordinary” words, which I fear I have neither time nor space to answer individually. Some of them seem to be based on the assumption that if a word is known to have been used, or even if the thing denoted by it is known to exist, it must be an “ordinary” word. Thus, M. A. B. writes that “in a class of thirty-two, the other day,” a lady mentioned the “stonings” of St. Paul. And Punch writes: “Is it possible that you never heard the ‘trachea’ mentioned during the sad illness of the late Emperor of Germany?” and “can you be unaware that, but for the ‘sailings’ of the colliers, you might have to go without a fire, and that the said colliers are loaded by means of ‘derricks’?”

I will conclude with a little anecdote, suggested by another remark of the writer last quoted. In reference to my rejection of the word “ancestress,” he indignantly exclaims “You never had an ancestress!” My anecdote is a genuine one, and not invented for the occasion. The friend who told it me was walking in the road, when a little girl fell down and hurt herself. “Why don’t you run in to your grandmother?” another little girl inquired. “I haven’t got a grandmother!” the sobbing child replied. “What a dummy you must be, not to have a grandmother!”

That sobbing child and I seem to have something in common: the same bitter sarcasm has fallen on us both! As I wearily push aside the mass of letters, now at last disposed of, a ghostly voice seems to whisper in my ear “What! You deny that ‘ancestress’ is an ordinary word? Then you never had one! What a dummy you must be, not to have an ancestress!”

December 17, 1891

Caterena’s score for Problem 16 was wrongly stated; it ought to have been 8, 4, 36; 2, 7, 11: 25, so that she was one of those who reached the highest score for that Problem. I ask her pardon for my careless mistake. Miss Fox’s Chains for Problems 15, 16, never reached me, I regret to say. If they reached the Editor by or before the first post on November 5th they would almost certainly have been forwarded to me. In that case the Post Office must bear the blame.

Jabberwock writes, in defence of the rejected word “distain”: “It is one of the most common words in the English dictionary, and I have also repeatedly heard it used in theatres, in plays, by Irving, Toole, &c. Its real meaning is ‘to take away the colour of.’” Jabberwock then quotes, from Spenser and Dryden, passages in which the word occurs. All this is, no doubt, “dreadful true” (as Hannibal Chollop would say), but it does not prove that there would be any reasonable chance of hearing it in ordinary conversation. Has Jabberwock ever so used it, or ever heard it so used?

Leweston’s Chains for Problems 15, 16 (written on p. 4 of a note-sheet, whose very pleasant contents terminated on p. 3, with no hint that there was anything over-leave), were accidently overlooked. They are now duly scored:—

S. C. G.’s score for Problem 13 has been duly entered as “9, 2, 23; 3, 8, 14: 9.” The mistake about “hightly” arose from her having used the same symbol to express “n” and “h.” In Problem 14 the word should be, as she rightly supposes, “pioneering.” Misprints do occasionally happen.

[…]

Total Scores for Prize Competition

Problems set September 10th to October 29th, 1891

The highest Score is that of St. Helier, 330, who is, therefore, the winner of the Prize. But as the next on the list, E. M. R., is only one mark short of this, the Managers of The Lady have decided on presenting two equal prizes of one guinea each. It may fairly be regarded, I think, as a ‘dead heat’ between this two Competitors, whose real names and addresses I have much pleasure in announcing, with sincere congratulations on their success.

In the following list, wherever only one number is appended to a name, it is to be understood that the Competitor sent in Chains for all the 16 Problems. When a parenthesis is added, the first number in it indicates how many Problems the Competitor attempted; the second the Score that would have been obtained if only the Competitor had tried them all and had exhibited the same amount of skill throughout; while the third number indicates the place on the list that would have been thus obtained. I hope these additional facts may be a consolation to some who find themselves very low down on the list, and may encourage them to attempt all the Problems in the next Competition.

[…]

December 31, 1891

S. C. G. has a claim on me for an apology for my paragraph of Dec. 17th, which I hereby humbly tender. I did not charge here with using the same symbol for “n” and “h.” What I wrote was “N,” but the capital shrank to a small letter in the printing. If S. C. G. has ever had to get her MS. through the press she will know how true, in a new sense, is the old exegetical rule, “Wherever you find a type, there you find an antitype.” And may we not add, Yea, and an errantitype to boot, not to say a peccantitype!

Skirmisher sends a communication which thrills me with a wild and dreary hope! I had said, on Dec. 10th, “It must come at last to somebody deciding whether the word is ‘ordinary’ or not; and if that somebody is not to be me, who is it to be?” In reply to this, Skirmisher writes, “I should decide in favour of an appeal to a dictionary. Allow me to say I do not consider your decisions by any means infallible; in fact, I should say they are very arbitrary.” Now, granting (as I willingly do) that my decisions are by no means infallible, and that they are very arbitrary; and also granting (as I reluctantly do, and merely argumenti gratia) that a dictionary is infallible in all it professes to tell us, I am still wholly ignorant of the existence of any dictionary which professes to draw this distinction. Is it possible that there is one now “in the press” and just about to be published? “An English Dictionary, wherein words that are ordinarily used in Society are distinguished from those that are not so. Compiled by ‘Skirmisher.’ Thick 4to, 2560 pp., price 30s.” Let Skirmisher gloure herself that I shall order an early copy! I fear, however, that this is but a dream: and that Skirmisher is really playing at “Cross Questions and Crooked Answers,” and is pretending that my question was, “If the test for admitting a word is not to be its being ‘ordinary,’ what test shall we substitute?” But this question I have no intention of putting. The Competitors are, of course, perfectly free to start a new Syzygy Competition for themselves, and admit all words that occur in some named dictionary; but I must respectfully decline to act as a Scorer! It would, in my opinion, completely spoil this Puzzle, which, instead of being (as I believe it now is) a contest of minds, solvable by thinking, and accessible to all, would become a contest of thumbs, solvable only by turning over pages, and accessible only to possessors of the dictionary in question.

Let me now explain a feature of this Puzzle, which adds much, as I venture to think, to its interest and its sociability. It makes (I say it confidently, for I have tested it) a very workable game for two players. This, I think, deserves a heading to itself:—

Syzygies as a Game for Two Players

This game is best played in a railway carriage, since it involves no reading (so tiring to the eyes of travelers) nor talking (so tiring to their voices and ears). The only appliances needed (and these not indispensable) are writing materials (say a couple of small memorandum books). Each player thinks of a good long word, the longer the better. When she has thought of hers (I assume the two travelers to be a “he” and a “she,” and that “she” is the quickest thinker) she says, “Ready;” and when he has thought of his, both words are announced, watches are consulted, and the game begins, each player trying to make a “chain” of the two words. At the end of ten minutes (or whatever time they like to fix) the chains are interchanged, examined to see if they are lawful, and the scores recorded. Then they think of another couple of words, and so on. Whoever first scores 100 wins; or, if both reach the 100 at the same time, the highest score wins. It will be desirable, in playing this game, to use some of the new Rules, which I will now quote:—

“A Chain must contain at least two Links.”

“It is forbidden to have two consecutive Syzygies, one containing the other.”

“If either of the given words has more than nine letters, the extra ones are not counted as waste letters.”

“To score a chain, add together twice the number of letters in the first and last Syzygy, and seven times the number in the shortest; and deduct twice the number of Links and the number of waste letters.”

January 7, 1892

New Code of Rules

Definitions

1—When two words contain the same set of one or more consecutive letters, a copy of it, placed in a parenthesis between the two words, is called a ‘Syzygy,’ and is said to ‘yoke’ one set to the other, and also to ‘yoke’ each letter of one set to the corresponding letter of the other set.

Examples

N.B.—In Ex. (2), the Syzygy may be regarded as yoking the ‘l’ in ‘walrus’ to whichever ‘l’ in ‘swallow’ the writer may prefer. And in Ex. (4) the Syzygy may be regarded as yoking the ‘mi’ in ‘mine’ to whichever ‘mi’ in ‘mimic’ the writer may prefer.

2—A set of four or more words, with a Syzygy between every two, is called a ‘Chain’, of which all but the end-words are called ‘Links’.

3—In a ‘Syzygy-Problem’ two words are given, which are to form the end-words of a Chain.

Example

If the given words are ‘walrus’ and ‘carpenter’ (the Problem might be stated in the form ‘Introduce WALRUS to CARPENTER’), the following Chain would be a solution of the Problem:—

4—Every letter in a Chain, which is not yoked to some other, is called “waste”; but, if either of the end-words contains more than seven letters, the extra ones are not counted as waste.

Thus, in the above Chain, the “wal” in “walrus,” the two “t’s” and the “e” in “rusticate,” the “v” in “vicar,” and the “pent” in “carpenter” are “waste”: so that this Chain has eleven waste letters.

5—When a letter in one word, alphabetically identical with a letter in another word, is forbidden to be yoked to it, these letters are said to be “barred” with regard to each other.

Rules for Making Chains

1—A Chain should be written as in the Example to Def. 3. It does not matter which given word is placed at the top. Any number of alternative Chains may be sent in.

2—Any word, used as a Link, must satisfy all the following tests:—

(a) It may not be foreign, unless it is in such common use that it may fairly be regarded as naturalised. (The words ‘ennui,’ ‘minimum,’ ‘nous,’ may be taken as specimens of words thus naturalised.)

(b) It must be in common use in conversation, letters, and books, in ordinary society. (Thus, slang words used only in particular localities, and words used only by specialists, are unlawful.)

(c) It may not be a proper name, when usually spelt with a capital letter. (Thus ‘Chinese’ is unlawful; but ‘china’, used as the name of a substance, is lawful.)

(d) It may not be an abbreviated or a compound word, when usually written with an apostrophe, or hyphen. (Thus, ‘silver’d,’ ‘don’t,’ ‘man’s,’ ‘coach-house’, are unlawful.)

3—When one of two words contains a set of one or more consecutive letters, alphabetically identical with a set in the other word; and when either these two sets commence both words, or else the preceding portions are prefixes such that, by some one of the three following processes,
(a) removing whatever preceding portion exist,
(b) transposing them
(c) removing one and transposing the other,
real words might be formed, without any word or portion of a word losing its identity; each letter in the one set is “barred” with regard to the corresponding letter in the other set.

Examples

Certain prefixes are here marked off by perpendicular lines, and the “barred” letters are placed in square brackets. The letters placed over the examples indicate which process is to be employed:—

N.B.—The letters are only ‘barred’ as here marked. They may often be yoked in other ways: e. g., in Ex. (2), the ‘c’ above may be yoked to the second ‘c’ below.

Examples of Letters which are Apparently, but not Really, “Barred”

Certain prefixes are here marked off by perpendicular lines, and the letters, which are apparently but not really “barred,” are indicated by writing them as Syzygies, which are therefore all lawful. The letters placed over them indicate which process is (apparently) applicable.

N.B.—In Ex. (2), (3), process (a) fails, because “done” loses its identity when the prefix is removed: it ceases to be the root of “condone,” and becomes the participle of “do.” In Ex. (4), process (b) fails, because “sented,” as part of “presented,” is etymologically different from “sented,” as part of “consented.” In Ex. (5), process (a) fails, because “find,” by itself, is etymologically different from “fined” as part of “defined”; and process (c) fails, because “fined” as a part of “defined” is etymologically different from “fined” as a part of “refined.”

4—When one of two words contains a set of one or more consecutive letters, alphabetically identical with a set in the other word; and when either these two sets conclude the words, or else the succeeding portions are suffixes such that, by some one of the three following processes,
(a) removing whatever succeeding portion exist,
(b) transposing them
(c) removing one and transposing the other,
real words might be formed, without any word or portion of a word losing its identity; each letter in the one set is “barred” with regard to the corresponding letter in the other set.

Examples

Certain suffixes are here marked off by perpendicular lines, and the “barred” letters are placed in square brackets. The letters placed over the examples indicate which process is to be employed:—

Examples of Letters which are Apparently, but not Really, “Barred”

Certain suffixes are here marked off by perpendicular lines, and the letters, which are apparently but not really “barred,” are indicated by writing them as Syzygies, which are therefore all lawful. The letters placed over them indicate which process is (apparently) applicable:—

N.B.—In Ex. (3), processes (a) and (b) fail, because “din,” as a part of “dined,” is etymologically different from “din” by itself, or as part of “dins”; and also because “pin,” as a part of “pins,” is etymologically different from “pin,” as part of “pined.” In Ex. (6), processes (a) and (c) fail, because “plan,” as part of “planing,” is etymologically different from “plan” by itself, or as a part of “plans.”

5—Nouns and verbs are not to be regarded as prefixes or suffixes.

Examples

“landlord,” “handmade,” “breakwater.”

The following Syzygies are lawful:—

6—The letters ‘i’ and ‘y’ may be treated as if identical.

Example

The following Syzygy is lawful:—

Rules for Scoring

7—If the writer of a Chain has omitted a Syzygy, the Scorer inserts a one-letter Syzygy, if he can find a lawful one.

8—If the writer has omitted a Link, the Scorer erases the two adjacent Syzygies, and proceeds as in Rule 7.

9—If a Link be mis-spelt, the Scorer corrects it.

10—If a Syzygy contains unlawful letters, the Scorer erases them, and deducts twice that number of marks from the Score.

11—If one of two consecutive Syzygies contains the other, the Scorer erases the intermediate Link, and one Syzygy containing the other.

Examples

N.B.—In Ex. (1) the Scorer erases ‘tinge’ and the first Syzygy: in Ex. (2), he erases ‘tinge’ and either Syzygy. The results are:—

both of which are, by Rule 4, unlawful Syzygies.

12—The penalty, awarded by the preceding Rule, cannot be evaded by writing shorter Syzygies than might be claimed, so as to avoid the result of one containing the other. In such a case, the Scorer would treat them as if written in full.

Examples

This would be treated as if it had been written, in full.

13—If the Chain now contains less than two Links, or an unlawful Link or Syzygy, the Scorer rejects it. Otherwise he calculates its score by writing down 7 numbers, as follows:—

(1) The number of letters in the longer of the two end-Syzygies, plus twice the number in the shorter.

(2) The number of letters in the minimum-Syzygy.

(3) The sum of (1) and the product of the two numbers next above (2).

(4) The number of Links.

(5) The number of waste letters.

(6) The sum of twice (4) and (5).

(7) The remainder left after deducting (6) from (3). If (6) be greater than (3), the remainder is written as “0*.”

No. 7 is entered as the Score of the Chain.

Example

The figures on the right indicate the number of waste letters.

As the end-Syzygies are equal, we might say that there are 3 letters in the longer and 3 letters in the shorter: Hence No. (3) is the sum of “9” and “4 times 5”; i. e., it is 29. Also, there are two Links and 11 waste letters. Hence, No. (4) is “2,” No. (5) is “11,” and No. (6) is the sum of “twice 2” and “11”; i. e., it is “15.” Hence, No. (7) is the remainder, after deducting “15” from “29”; i. e., it is “14.” And this is the score for the Chain.

All this may conveniently be set down thus:—

Algebraically, let

then the score is $$(a+2b)+(m+1)\cdot (m+2)-(2l+w)\text{.}$$

14—In reckoning shortest of all Syzygies, the Scorer takes no notice of any Syzygies inserted by himself, unless there are no others.

15—If a writer sends in alternative Chains, the Scorer takes the best of them.

16—If all be rejected, the Scorer puts ‘0’ against the writer’s name, assigning a reason for rejecting each Chain.

Example

If “Ignoramus” sends in 3 alternative Chains, one containing less than two Links, a second containing the word “zumbooruk,” and the third containing “constrain (str) destruction,” the Scorer should enter them in the list thus:—

Ignoramus. (1) short linkage (2) “zumbooruk,” (3) “con|strain (str) de|struction.” [N.B. “strain” and “construcion” are real] … … 0.

As 26 Syzygy Problems have already appeared in The Lady, the new ones shall be numbered consecutively. The following three shall be scored, but not competitive:—

Answers must be received by, or before, the first post on Thursday, January 14th. I will then issue a list of the rejected words: then the competitors can send in fresh Chains if they like; and I will then publish the scores. My ambition is to publish 3 lists of marks without a single zero!

January 14, 1892

The problems for this week, which shall be duly scored (but are not competitive) are:—

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on the 21st of January.

January 21, 1892

In order to reassure any of my readers who may have been so much alarmed at the enormous length of the “New Code of Rules” as to despair of ever understanding them, let me point out that most of the space is devoted to Examples.

The problem (non-competitive) for this week is

Answers must be received by (or before) the first post on January 28th.

N.B.—I am reprinting the rules, in pamphlet form, placing the Rules first and the Examples afterwards. It is part of a larger book, but I shall be happy to supply the Syzygy part, by itself, to any subscribers to The Lady who will send their names and addresses. It will cost about 2d.

January 28, 1892

In the new Code of Rules, two rather important corrections are necessary. At the end of Rule 8, for “Rule 1” read “Rule 7.” And, in the algebraical formula at the end of Rule 13, for “$(m+1)-(m+2)$” read “$(m+1).(m+2)$.”

Toofdiarb writes “In the examples to Rule 4 ‘ng’ is given as a barred syzygy between ‘plu[ng]es’ and ‘wro[ng]ing’; and, in the next example, it is allowed.” This is because the “ng” in “plunges,” though it may not be yoked with the first “ng” in “wronging,” may lawfully be yoked with the second.

Toofdiarb also writes:—“Is ‘ing’ an unlawful suffix, when, if taken away, it leaves an incomplete word—e. g. ‘racing’?” All would depend on whether the other word could supply a suffix to make it a complete word. Thus “racing (ac) lac” would be a lawful Syzygy; but “racing (ac) laces” would be unlawful, because, by transposing suffixes two real words are formed—viz., “races” and “lacing.”

Let me try to make Rules 3, 4 in the New Code a little more intelligible. No one, who has not tried to invent a new game, can have any idea of the difficulty of making the rules at once brief and intelligible. My object in composing those two Rules, was to exclude a form of Syzygy, the making of which involved no skill, and which was becoming so common, in the last Competition, as to threaten to reduce my Puzzle, from being (as I hope) a fair test of mental skill, to the level of an utterly brainless pastime, which could easily be learned, in the course of a few billion years (as an Evolutionist would carelessly remark), by oysters and sea-anemones.

The 59 specimens in Rule 3 will show the sort of thing I mean. It would have been easy to make the Rule shorter and simpler (e. g., “A Syzygy, which has only a prefix before it, may be treated by the Scorer as if it stood at the beginning of the word.”), but I should have been at once overwhelmed with a host of “border-cases,” where one hardly knew if a syllable was, or was not, a prefix. How many, who read this, know that “com” in “common” is as much a prefix as “com” in “composition”? Besides, to forbid all prefixes, would exclude a great many Syzygies, which do exhibit skill—e. g., “common (mon) money.” There is a great deal more skill needed in that Syzygy than in “reasons (eason) season”!

So it occurred to me (in order not to exclude all, and in order to avoid “border-cases”) to supply the Scorer with a test as to what prefixes he might regard as removable.

The Scorer’s position, it must be remembered, is that of hostility to the Competitor. He is bound to give the lowest mark he lawfully can, and, where a doubt of guilt exists, to give the prisoner the malefit thereof. So I have limited his power in this matter. If he can, by one or other of the three operations, marked (a), (b), (c), form a pair of real words, he may remove the prefixes, and so bring the Syzygy to the beginning of both words, thus making it unlawful. If he cannot, he must accept the Syzygy. “Border-cases” are thus, I hope, avoided. A word must either be real or unreal. It cannot lie on the boundary-line!

Words rejected, as having violated Rule 2:

domal, nesting, pea-soup, perone, pine-wood, springal, treasonous.

February 4, 1892

Problems 30, 31: first set of Chains

In publishing these rejected words, &c., to enable Competitors to revise their chains, I do not think it necessary to do more than give a list of the “non-ordinary” words rejected, and of cases which come under rules that appear for the first time in the new Code. For instance, I do not think it necessary to warn any Competitor, who sends in a Syzygy such as “dog (do) door,” or “meat (at) cat,” which were unlawful under the old Rules. The only exception I have made is the case of Anglim, who appears to be a new Competitor, and perhaps never saw the old Rules, and whose Chains at present contain many Syzygies of the above forbidden type.

Words rejected in accordance with Rule 2:

eschalo, gullable, hooper, rooter

February 11, 1892

Will those readers of The Lady who wish to possess the new rules in pamphlet form, kindly desist from sending postage stamps along with their names and addresses? I am keeping an account of those received, which shall be duly credited to the senders, but it is to the managers of The Lady, and not to me, that payment must be made; and it is impossible to say, at present, what the price will be. For my part, I regard the whole “Syzygy” business as “a labour of love,” and do not wish to make any profit by it; so my intention is, as soon as we are ready to work off copies, in pamphlet form, of the “Syzygy” portion of my some-day-to-be-published book of “Games and Puzzles,” to calculate what it will cost to produce (say) 250 copies, which I should be prepared to supply to the managers at cost-price. They will then put on it whatever they think a fair price, and will invite their readers, who wish to have copies, to send their names and addresses (and the price in postage stamps) by a certain named date. The number of names sent in will guide me as to the number of copies to work off.

Whether I shall be able this year to conduct (personally) another Competition, is a point I have not yet decided. I should like to do it very much, for I believe the Competitors like it, and that it supplies them with innocent amusement and real mental exercise; but it costs me some time and trouble, and I have but little to spare of either commodity! However, we shall see. Let us, at any rate, have a few more non-competitive Problems. Here are the two for this week:—

The “First Chains” for these must be received by (or before) the first post on Tuesday, February 16th. (Observe, I have named Tuesday, not Thursday, which abridgment of time will enable me to publish the list of rejected words, &c., on February 25th—i. e., a week sooner than I otherwise could do.) The “second Chains” will be due on March 1st. And the scores will be published on March 10th.

H. H. asks an interesting question (the answer to which will, I hope, be useful to others also), viz.: Are the following Syzygies lawful or unlawful? (1) “lateral (tera) literary”; (2) “regulator (ulat) undulate”; (3) “undulation (ulati) regulating”; (4) “posing (sing) singer”; (5) “shingle (ingl) tingling” My answer is as follows:—In (1), all the three processes, called “(a), (b), (c),” in Rule 4, fail to make real words, since neither “latera” nor “laterary” is real. Hence the scorer must accept this Syzygy as lawful. In (2) although “regulate” is real, yet neither “undulat” nor “undulator” is real; so the Syzygy is lawful. In (3), process (b) succeeds, since “undulating” and “regulation” are both real. Hence the Syzygy is unlawful. In (4) “posing” and “sing” are both real; so the Syzygy is unlawful. In (5), neither “shingl” nor “shingling” is real; so the Syzygy is lawful.

[…]

Words rejected in accordance with Rule 2:

cerement, eremite, fulgent, Hindustani, incrassate, incrust.

February 18, 1892

Will Competitors be so kind as to desist from sending, on the same piece of paper, answers to Problems which were set at different times, as it adds much to my trouble in classifying the papers.

The Problem for this week is

The “First Chains” for this must be received by (or before) the first post on Tuesday, February 23rd. The list of rejected words will be published on March 3rd: The “second Chains” will be due on Tuesday, March 8th. And the scores will be published on March 17th.

Chute is to be congratulated on having outwitted the scorer! With what savage delight I at first gloated on that Syzygy of his, “unreasoning (eason) season”! Eagerly I seized my pen, to mark off what seemed so easily removable a suffix, the “ing” in “unreasoning.” “But no!” I said to myself, while a chill horror froze me. “There is no such verb as ‘to unreason.’ There ought to be, for the sake of the ladies: but there isn’t. It is a lawful Syzygy!” How Chute would have chuckled to see my face of blank despair! And I was again taken in, when I came to count up the waste letters. “Humph” I said, when I came to “unreasoning.” “What did he want the ‘un’ for? Two unnecessary waste letters!” But I was wrong again. Without the “un,” the “ing” would have been a removable suffix! Then at last I understood the deep cunning of this competitor. Ah, how keenly I shall watch for his next mistake!

Inwick will, I hope, accept my humble apologies for my carelessness in not warning him, on January 28th, that all his “First Chains” were illegal; two of them for reasons then stated, and all the rest as having only one Link each, thus violating Def. 4. It is entirely my fault that he had no opportunity allowed him for “amending the record.”

Lady Margaret’s Chains for Problems 27, 29, contained the words “chapping” and “overseas,” both of which, had I examined those Chains in a lucid interval, I should have rejected on January 28th; as I doubt if the first of these words has ever been used, and am quite sure that the second ought to be written with a hyphen. Having omitted to warn her at the time, I am bound to accept them now; but she had better not use them again!

To Leta also I offer my humble apologies for not having warned her, on January 28th, that her Chain for Problem 29 contained the unlawful Syzygy “unseasonable (season) season.” Though not warned, she chanced to send a “Second Chain” for it: but this, unfortunately, contained the unlawful Syzygy “singlest (sing) routing.” Had this been a Prize Competition, I would have delayed publishing these Scores, in order to give Inwick and Leta another chance.

S. C. G. will observe that I have complied with her request, by indicating which, of the alternative Chains, was the one scored. For Problem 28 she only sent one Chain.

Stellaria (whose good wishes I beg to reciprocate) inquires about the following Syzygies, which I had rejected as unlawful:—(1) “infesting (est) reasonest”; (2) “sinews (new) new.” My answer ist that, in both, I used process (a) in Rule 4. In (1), I found that, by removing the suffix “ing,” I obtained two real words, “infest” and “reasonest,” both ending with “e, s, t,” which letters are therefore “barred.” Similarly, in (2), by removing the suffix “s” from “sinews,” I obtain two real words, “sinew” and “new,” both ending with “n, e, w,” which letters are therefore “barred.”

Stellaria also asks why I rejected the Syzygy “partially (all) all.” My answer is that I did not reject it. Her Chain, containing it, is the one I have scored.

Stellaria also inquires whether the following Syzygies would be lawful:—“indulge (ndul) unduly” and “incredulous (incr) idiosyncrasy.” My answer is that they would.

Toofdiarb is “not quite clear as to whether a plural would be allowable or not.” Well, that depends: some would, and some wouldn’t. Here, for instance, is a lawful Syzygy, ”trucks (uck) buckle”; for, though “buck” is a real word, it cannot be identified with the “buck” in “buckle.” And here is an unlawful one, “trucks (uck) ducking”; for “truck” and “duck” are both real words, and retain their identify after losing their suffixes.

Scores for Problem 27.

The highest score reached is 14. This has been attained by two Competitors, Chute and Lady Margaret, who send the same Chain, viz.

Scores for Problem 28.

The highest score reached is 22. This has been attained by five Competitors, Auntie, Flora Fox, Foggs, H. H. and Quercusonis, who send the same Chain, except that Auntie has “tallies,” and Quercusonis “rallies.”

Scores for Problem 29.

The highest score is that of Chute, viz. 24. His Chain is

February 25, 1892

The Problems for this week are

The “First-Chains” for these must be received by (or before) the first post on Tuesday, March 1st. The rejected words, &c., will be published on March 10th. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, March 15th. And the scores will be published on March 24th.

I should be grateful if Competitors would kindly desist from sending whole note-sheets when they only write on the first half. They should bear in mind the good old nursery rhyme—“For wilful waste makes woeful want, and you may live to say, ‘How much I wish I had the blank half note-sheet that then I threw away!’”

Lewiston was, through my carelessness, defrauded of the chance of sending in a “Second Chain” for Pr. 30. I ought to have warned her, on January 28, that her “First Chain” was too short, having only one link; and I offer my humble apologies. Not that it can be held, as certain, that she would have tried again, if warned; for I observe that a warning was given her, as to Pr. 31, but given in wain: no “Second Chain” appeared. The Lion, when in quest of prey, is said to differ from the Tiger, in that, while the Tiger, having missed his prey, will spring again and again, the Lion makes one spring only, and, if that fails, utters one loud roar of disappointment, and returns to his den. Possibly Lewiston may have taken the Lion, rather than the Tiger, for her model in life. It is a grander style of hunting, no doubt: but it has its drawbacks; to the Lion it sometimes means “no dinner,” to the Syzygy-hunter, “zero.”

To S. C. G. I offer, as I have done to Lewiston, my humble apologies; and I beg her to take to herself all I have said to her predecessor.

Stellaria asks where it is forbidden to send in a Chain containing only one link. My answer is that a series of 3 words is not a “Chain,” (see Def. 2), and so could not be scored.

Scores for Pr. 30.

The highest score reached is that of Toofdiarb, 18: her Chain is

Scores for Pr. 31.

The highest score reached is that of Osric, 19: his Chain is

Rejected Words, &c., for Pr. 33.

coniferous, fifer, sifter

Rejected Words, &c., for Pr. 34.

comestible, medicate

March 3, 1892

The Problem for this week is

The “First-Chains” for this must be received by (or before) the first post on Tuesday, March 8th. The rejected words, &c., will be published on March 17th. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, March 22nd, and the scores will be published on March 31st. Anyone can send in Chains on (or before) March 22nd, whether they have, or have not, sent in any “First-Chains.”

My present intention is to set two more non-competitive Problems and then (after completing the pamphlet, and allowing full time for any Competitors, who wish, to procure copies of it) to hold the Second Prize-Competition, for which The Lady will give two Prizes, of 20s. and 10s., and I will present to each of the next four Competitors a “Wonderland Postage-Stamp Case” and a copy of “Eight or Nine Wise Words about Letter-writing.”

Novice may like to know that I have had to erase part of her Chain for Pr. 35. It contains “miniature (ature) mature (atur) natural.” Here, by Rule 11, I erase “(ature) mature.” The resulting Syzygy is lawful; but the Chain (the only one sent in by her) cannot be scored, owing to other defects, named in Rule 2; 1, 3, 4, 5.

N. S. L. may like to know that I have had to erase part of her Chain for Pr. 35. It contains “arrival (ar) jargon (argon) pelargoniums.” Here, by Rule 11, I erase “jargon (argon).” The resulting Syzygy is lawful, however, and the Chain can be scored.

S. C. G. may like to know that I have had to erase part of her Chain for Pr. 35. It contains “arrival (arg) enlarge (larg) pelargoniums.” Here, by Rule 11, I erase “enlarge (larg).” The resulting Syzygy is lawful, however, and the Chain can be scored.

S. C. G. asks how it is that Chute’s Chain for Pr. 29 was not rejected, as containing two consecutive Links, “breasting” and “unreasoning,” both of which end with “i, n, g.” The effect of their doing so is, by Rule 5, that these 3 letters are “barred” from being used in the intermediate Syzygy; and they are not so used. The Syzygy “reas” is lawful.

To Tortoise I offer my humblest apologies for having omitted to warn her, on February 11th, that neither of her Chains for Pr. 32 could score anything. One was “indulge (ind) bind (in) syncope (sinc) idiosyncrasy,” where the Syzygy “in“ is part of each of the adjoining Syzygies. This obliges me to erase, in accordance with Rule 11, not only “(ind) bind,” but also “syncope (sinc),” thus making the Chain to short to satisfy Def. 2. The other Chain contained the word “hindings,” which I believe to have no existence.

Scores for Pr. 32.

The highest score reached is 23. This has been attained by two Competitors, Auntie and St. Helier, who send the same Chain, viz.:—

Words rejected in accordance with Rule 2:

aricular, captivation, enconium [non-existent], pellerene, pellerine, shindy

March 10, 1892

The Problem for this week is

The “First-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, March 15th. The rejected words, &c., will be published on March 24th. The “Second-Chains” will be due on March 29th. And the Scores will be published on April 7th.

Now that every Syzygy-competitor has the opportunity of testing whether any word will or will not be rejected, by sending it in a “First-Chain,” I shall feel no scruple in rejecting a word contained in a “First-Chain” which lies on the boundary-line between “ordinary” and “extraordinary,” or even a word which is clearly “ordinary,” if I see good reason for so doing. Nobody will be wronged by such a course, as every one will have the opportunity of sending in a “Second-Chain” not containing the forbidden word. One reason which would cause me to forbid an “ordinary” word might be that it made the puzzle too easy. There might be some very obvious word, leading to a Chain scoring high and yet needing no mental effort to discover, which is exactly the kind of Chain which I wish to render impossible. For instance, suppose I were to set the Problem “Prevaricate in Mesopotamia,” and that fourty identical “First Chains” were sent in, all containing “mutton” as a Link, and all scoring very high. I should say to myself “Dear me! I never intended it to be so easy as this! I must forbid ‘mutton’ as a Link.” And the set of Second-Chains would then be a much better test of mental skill than the “First Chains” had been. Of course, if I had forseen how easy it would be to make the “mutton” Chain, I would have forbidden it when setting the Problem; but it might happen that I did not notice it till the “First-Chains” had come in. In rejecting a word that occurs for the first time in a “Second-Chain,” I shall, of course, limit myself to the “ordinary” test.

N. S. L. sends me an interesting letter, for which I am grateful—specially for his sympathy with me in my “hard task,” as he truly calls it. He charges me with being “rather arbitrary,” in rejecting words. I have dealt generally with this matter in the first paragraph of this article; but the particular words which he mentions were all rejected on the score of violating Rule 2: which position I now proceed to defend.

(1) “Debouch.”—He says he has come across the word “in reading”; and that a friend tells him he uses it and that “there is no other word to express the meaning.” All this may be true, without affecting the fact that it is a word only used by specialists [see Rule 2 (b)]—viz, either Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society or military men. I have not mixed much with either class, and, to the best of my belief, have never heard it used in “conversation” [see Rule 2 (b)] in the whole course of my long and disreputable life.

(2) “Hindustani.”—He thinks I rejected it as mis-spelt; and offers other spellings. Now, first, I do not reject a word, merely for being mis-spelt; but only reject the Chain, containing it in case the correction of the mis-spelling spoils a Syzygy. All his spellings of “Hindustani” are correct, so far as I know, but no spelling of it can make it cease to be “a proper name, usually spelt with a capital letter” [see Rule 2 (c)].

(3) “Incrust.”—He says, most truly, that “‘incrusted’ is a very common word in common conversations,” and grants that “incrust” is not so common. In my opinion, it is not at all common. I never heard it used. I hold that “crusted” and “incrusted” (or “encrusted”) are really derived from the substantive “crust,” just as “talented” is from the substantive “talent.”

(4) “Hoopest.”—He takes me to task for having accepted this word, while rejecting the word “fifer.” He asks me what I would “say, when speaking of the drummers and fifers of a regiment.” I reply that I have never yet had to speak of “fifers”; but I admit that “fifer” lies very near the boundary-line. As to “hoopest,” I have already laid down the principle that, if a verb be an “ordinary” word, I cannot forbid Competitors to conjugate it; and I cannot exclude Quakers from this Competition! I hold that “to hoop a barrel” is an “ordinary” phrase. I would not (as N. S. L. suggests) say to my child “Thou hoopest, I hear”; though I would (if I were a Quaker, and if I had a child, and if that child suffered from “pertussis”), mildly remark to him “Thou whoopest, I hear”.

Bittern’s “First Chain” for Pr. 37 cannot be scored. It contains “doubt (doub) re|double.”

E. L. W. and S. C. G. take me to task for having accepted “hoopest” as an “ordinary” word. I can but refer them to what I have already said to N. S. L., which I hope will satisfy them, but there seems to be, in some minds, a deep prejudice against allowing Quakers to join in this Competition! Really they are a most kindly and estimable set of people, and do not deserve to be so summarily ostracised.

Mimosa had better study Rule 1 in the Code published on January 14. Her Chains for Pr. 36, 37, are not “Chains” at all. They contain no Syzygies!

N. S. L.’s Chains for Pr. 30, 31, now reach me for the first time. Here are his scores—(30) 9, 3, 29; 2, 9, 13: 16. (31) shoot (sho) a|shore, 0.

Persevere’s “Second-Chain” for Pr. 32 came too late to be entered on the List of Scores. Here is her Score:—10, 2, 22; 2, 11, 15: 7.

Toofdiarb points out that her proper Score for Pr. 30 was ”17,” and not “18” as I made it. I find she is right; and I beg pardon, humbly, but hopelessly; for to say that a young lady is 18, when she is only 17, is surely an unpardonable libel!

Words rejected for Pr. 36, 37.

blent, oubliette, stead.

Scores for Pr. 33

Auntie’s “First-Chain” was too short; and I accidentally omitted to warn her of this on February 25th, for which I humbly beg her pardon.

[N.B.—The symbol “0*” means “less than zero.” The symbol “[r. b.]” means “Refer back to The Lady for February 25th, where the reasons for rejecting this competitor’s Chains were stated.”]

The highest score reached is that of Toofdiarb, 21. Her Chain is as follows:—

Scores for Pr. 34

N. S. L. ought to have been warned on February 25th (I humbly beg pardon for the omission) that his only “First-Chain” could not score, as it contained “horse (ors) dorsal (dors) endorse,” in which I erase, by Rule 4, “dorsal (dors),“ leaving “horse (ors) endorse,” which, by Rule 4, is an unlawful Syzygy.

Rosemary was warned, on February 25th, that one of her “First-Chains” contained an unlawful Syzygy; but I omitted to notice that the other did so also. I humbly beg her pardon.

The highest score reached is 25. This has been attained by two Competitors, Auntie and H. H., who send the same Chain, viz:—

March 17, 1892

The Problem for this week is

The “First-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, Mar. 22nd. The rejected words, &c., will be published on Mar. 31st. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, Ap. 5th. And the scores will be published on Ap. 14th. Any one can send in Chains up to Ap. 5th, whether she has sent in “First-Chains” or not.

In Rule 6, I wish to make the following addition, which will, I think, give a little more variety and interest to this puzzle:—“The letters “u” and “v” may be treated as if identical. Hence the following Syzygy is lawful:—

Rejected Words etc. for Pr. 38

In what follows, the symbol [0] after a name, means “has sent in no Chain which can be scored”; the symbol [1] means “has sent in at least one.”

Ettelra [0] has sent, for Pr. 38, a series of words, no doubt meant for the Links of a Chain: but, as there are no Syzygies, it is not a “Chain” at all. She may as well be told, however, that, in the 2 words “remain, remorse,” which she has put consecutively, the letters “r, e, m,” are, by Rule 3 “barred” from being used in a Syzygy.

H. H. is entreated to accept my humble apologies (N.B.—I seem to be always apologising just now! When my Biography is published, it ought to be called “An Apology for the Life of Lewis Carroll”) for my mistake in publishing the scores for Pr. 30. The highest Score reached was “17,” not “18”; consequently H. H. was one who attained it; and his Chain ought to have been published. Here it is:—

I must also apologise to H. H. for not having warned him that one of his Chains for Pr. 35 (which would otherwise have scored 25) contained “multiplies (lies) loneliest,” in which the letters “l, i” are barred, thus reducing the Syzygy to “es.”

Skirmisher [0] has sent in one Chain only, in which she has put 2 Links consecutively, with no Syzygy between them. They are “natural, morals (or moralise).” Here, by Rule 7, I must put in a one-letter Syzygy, if I can find one. There is one: the first “a” in “natural” can be linked with the second in “moral.” This is the only possible Syzygy, as the letters “r, a, l” are barred by Rule 4. But, having thus supplied the missing Syzygy, I then have to deal with “emanate (nat) natural (a) morals (mora) cormorant.” Here, by Rule 11, I must erase “(nat) natural” and also “morals (mora).” The Chain is now reduced to “demand (eman) emanate (a) cormorant,” in which I must, by Rule 11, erase “(eman) emanate.” This reduces the Chain to “demand (a) cormorant,” thus making the Problem do duty as answer to itself! But it is too short to be regarded as a “Chain” at all.

Stellaria [1] has sent in a chain containing “cormorant (rmor) armorer (ore) foreman.” I cannot accept “armorer,” as spelt, as an “ordinary” word. After correcting it to “armourer,” I must then, by Rule 10, reduce the first Syzygy to “rmo,” and the second to “re.”

Rejected Words:

“mandatory,” “orangery”

Scores for Pr. 35

The highest score reached is that of Rosemary, 25. Her Chain is

March 24, 1892

[…]

(3) For all Wrestlers with Syzygies.—In all Lists of Rejected Words, &c., the symbol “[0]” appended to a Competitor’s name, means “she has sent in no Chain which can be scored”; any other figure, so appended, means that she has sent in that number of scorable Chains. In the List of Scores, the symbol “[r. b.]” means “refer back to the No. of The Lady which contained the Rejected Words, &c., for this Problem, where reasons were given for rejecting all her First-Chains: she has sent no Second-Chain.” Such a symbol as “(serva) (se) 6 f,” means “she claimed the Syzygy “serva”; I had to reduce it to “se,” so, by Rule 10, she forfeits 6 marks for the three unlawful letters; these will be deducted from her Score.” And the symbol “0*” at the end of a Score, means “the Score really comes out less than nothing: this Competitor may think herself very lucky in getting as much as zero!” Any one may send in Chains for a Problem up to the date fixed for receiving “Second-Chains,” whether she has, or has not, sent in any “First-Chains”.

The Problem for this week is

The “First-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, Mar. 29th. The rejected words &c. will be published on Ap. 7th. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, Ap. 12th. And the Scores will be published on Ap. 21st. In reference to this Problem, I may as well mention that the “e” in “write,” though it is a suffix, and one that the Scorer could lawfully exchange for another (e. g. “ing”), yet it is one he could not lawfully erase, leaving only the word “writ”: for, though “writ” is a real word, it is not the basis of “write.” Hence “write (it) bit” would be a lawful Syzygy; but “write (it) biting” would be unlawful.

I have a most humiliating confession to make about the Score-list, published February 18th, for Pr. 28, “YEAR to ALL”—it is that I marked seven of the Competitors wrongly! For this I can only plead that the Rules are as new to me as they are to you, and that, in the hurry of finishing the List to catch the post, I overlooked flaws which take off a great deal from the Scores of the (shall I say “lucky” or “unlucky”?) seven. Auntie’s Chain contained “earli|est (lies) talli|es,” in which “l, i” are barred by Rule 4, so that I must reduce the Syzygy to “es,” and deduct “4,” as forfeit, from the Score. Hence the Chain, published as worth “22,” ought to have been scored “19, 2, 21; 2, 6, 10: 7.” Similarly Flora Fox, Foggs, H. H., and Quercusonis ought all of them to have been scored “7” instead of “22.” Persevere’s Chain contained “earli|er (lie) ralli|es.” Here “l, i” are barred letters; so the Syzygy must be reduced to “e,” and “4” deducted as forfeit. Thus her Score is 9, 1, 15; 2, 7, 11: 0. Stellaria’s Chain (the one I scored as her best) contained “hartily (arti) partially.” Here “a, r, t” are barred letters: so the Syzygy must be reduced to “i,” and the Score of that Chain comes out less than zero. She has, however, sent in other Chains, the best of which scores “9, 2, 21; 2, 4, 8: 13.” The net result of all this is to make Weetoo’s Score the highest, viz. “20.” Her Chain is

H. H.’s “Second-Chain” for Pr. 33 was rejected on account of “conifer,” which seems to me to come under the same category as “coniferous,” both being words used only by specialists.

H. H. asks whether the following is a lawful Syzygy:—“honesty (esti) resting.” The letters “e, s, t” are barred by Rule 4; but the letter “i” may lawfully be used as a Syzygy.

N. S. L. again objects to my acceptance of “hoopest,” as being not ordinarily heard except among Quakers. My rule is (I say it for the third time, and “what I tell you three times is true,” as Milton or some other poet has said) to apply the “ordinary” test to the infinitive only of a verb, and, if that be admitted, to admit all the grammatical inflexions. Thus, having admitted “to snuff a candle” as an “ordinary” verb, I accept “snuffs, snuffed, snuffing, snuffest, snuffeth, snuffedst,” though I never heard any human being any of the last three! But we are nothing if not grammatical.

N. S. L. further asks if I would admit “pertussis,” “snark,” and “hooper” as “ordinary” words. Most certainly not! The first is only used by specialists; the second, though used by one extravagant writer, has not yet been admitted into the English language. The third I will accept, as soon as N. S. L. has found ten persons, outside Hanwell, who habitually use it.

N. S. L. finally asks, “do you say there is no such verb as to incrust?” No. But I think the order of formation was, first the participle “incrusted,” formed from the substantive, and fairly common; then the verb “to incrust,” formed from the participle, and very uncommon. In the same way we have, from the substantive “suicide,” the fairly common participle “suicide”; but the verb “to suicide” is so far from being common that it doesn’t yet exist!

Queenie’s Chains for Pr. 33, 34 were sent without any name, and with “The Lydiate,” in inverted commas, at the top: so I supposed them to have come from some new Competitor, whose “nom-de-plume” was The Lydiate, and scored them as such.

Quercusonis thinks that I ought, in accordance with Rules 3, 4, to have rejected the Syzygies “wel|come (come) come|ly” and “work|man (ork) fork,” in the same way that I rejected “retail (ail) ail|ment.” By Rule 5 I may not regard “wel” as a prefix; and though “ly” is a suffix, yet its removal would cause the syllable “come” to change from an adjective to a verb, and thus to lose its identity. Also, by Rule 5, I may not regard “man” as a suffix. But, in the word “ailment,” “ment” is neither a noun nor a verb, but a mere suffix. Away with it!

Rejected Words &c. for Pr. 39.

riparian, sparsest

Scores for Pr. 36

The highest score reached is 11. This has been attained by 4 Competitors, Auntie, E. L. W., H. H., and Toofdiarb, all of whom send the same Chain.

Scores for Pr. 37

The highest score reached is that of H. H., 30. His Chain is

March 31, 1892

[…]

The Problem for this week is

The “First Chains” will be due on Tuesday, April 5th; the Rejected Words, &c., will be published on April 14th; the “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, April 19th; and the Scores will be published on April 28th.

The above problem is the first of Seven Prize Problems, which will form one continuous, convivial sentence. The Rules are not yet in a sufficiently perfect state, nor sufficiently understood, to give Prizes in money; so the winner of the first prize shall have the choice of “A Tangled Tale,” “The Hunting of the Snark,” “Alice’s Adventures Under Ground,” and the best edition of the “Nursery Alice”; the second on the list shall have the choice of “The Game of Logic” and the People’s Edition of the “Nursery Alice”; and the third and forth shall have “Wonderland Postage-Stamp Cases,” with the accompanying “Wise Words.”

New Definition

6—If a prefix to a word can be removed, or if it can be replaced by another prefix, the word, so formed, being real and etymologically the same as before, it is called a “removable” prefix. And the same is true of a suffix.

New Edition of Rules 3, 4

3—When two adjacent words, in a Chain, begin with the same set of letters, or end with the same set, every such letter is barred with regard to the corresponding letter of the other word.

Thus, the Syzygy “dog (do) door” is unlawful, but “don (on) onion” is lawful, even though both words end with “on”; since the “on” at the end of “don” may lawfully be linked with the “on” at the beginning of “onion.”

Thus the “un” and the “est” in “unhappiest” are removeable: so also are the “con” and “ing” in “convoking,” since they may be replaced by “re” and “es.” But the “re” in “restoration” and the “s” in “victuals” are not removable.

4—When two adjacent words in a Chain are such that, by removing certain “removable” prefixes, or suffixes, they can be made to begin with the same set of letters, or to end with the same set, every such letter is “barred” with regard to the corresponding letter in the other word.

Thus the Syzygies “unhappiest (hap) happen” and “unhappiest (pi) copy” are unlawful. So also is the Syzygy “choral (or) scoring,” since the “al” and “ing” may be replaced by “us” and “e.” But the Syzygies “restoration (sto) stoker” and “animal (al) victuals” are lawful.

It would greatly diminish the misery of existence for me if competitors would kindly forbear from sending, on one piece of paper, Chains for Problems set at different times.

Stellaria has sent in fresh Chains for Pr. 37, “Change DOUBT to CERTAINTY” too late to appear in the Score list. The best one scores “13, 4, 43; 4, 13, 21: 22.” She also says she did not offer the Chain “demand (and) abandon (ban) banter (ant) cormorant,” because “ban” and “band” are both real words. So they are, but they are not portions of “abandon” or “banter,” nor can the “on” and the “ter” be regarded as suffixes. It would have been a lawful Chain.

Rejected Words, etc., for Pr. 40.

Collectedness, intern, landrate, lusterless, raftered, stern-sheets, undisdained.

Scores for Pr. 38

The highest score reached is 29. This has been attained by two Competitors, E. L. W., and Rosemary, whose Chains are—

April 7, 1892

[…]

The Problems for this week are

The “First-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, April 12th. The Rejected Words, &c., will be published on April 21st. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, April 26th. And the Scores will be published on May 5th. In this Prize-Competition, if I have to score any one “0” for a mistake, in a “First-Chain,” of which I had given no warning, that Problem shall not count in the final Score, but another shall be set instead.

In the “New Edition of Rules 3, 4,” published March 31st, the third paragraph, beginning “thus the ‘un,’” should be erased, having been printed by mistake: an amended version of it stands as the fifth paragraph.

A Chain has been sent in, for Pr. 39, without name or address: its links are “sardonic” and “leopard”: I have scored it as “N. S. L.,” as it looks like her hand, and is on the same coloured paper as she has used.

Bittern asks why, in the Syzygy “endearing (eari) bearish,” the letters “e, a, r” are unlawful. It is because, by omitting the suffixes “ing” and “ish,” I produce two real words, “endear” and “bear,” both ending with “e, a, r.”

Queenie asks if I received her “Second-Chain” for Pr. 36 and her “First-Chain” for Pr. 39. Neither, I am sorry to say.

S. C. G. is entreated not to use the same symbol for “h” and “N”: it is bewildering.

Toofdiarb is thanked for her suggested rule for the Prize Competition, which, as she will see, I have adopted.

Scores for Pr. 39

The highest score reached is that of Auntie, 29. Her Chain is

Rejected words: dovelike, iterate, tangerines

April 14, 1892

[…]

The Problems for this week are

The “First-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, April 19th. The Rejections will be published on April 28th. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, May 3rd. And the Scores will be published on May 12th.

Permit me to begin with one serious remark. I would entreat my correspondents to remember that texts of the Bible should never be lightly or playfully alluded to, but should be quoted seriously, if quoted at all.

Bittern is entreated to accept my apologies for not having warned her that in “in|credible (ncre) un|created,” the letters “cre” are barred. She would no doubt, but for my negligence, have sent in a better Chain.

Euterpe gives various reasons for thinking that I did not act fairly in rejecting the word “hooper” and in accepting the word “hoopest.” As any reply I could make would simply be a repetition of what I have already said, I will ask her to be kind enough to refer to The Lady for March 10th, first paragraph, and for March 24th, first answer to N. S. L.

Euterpe also asks “to whom should I be expected to send if my water-butt required repairing”? I think a cooper be the proper person to send for. She is also “inclined to believe that the word ‘hoopest’ has not been used by any one in the United Kingdom for the last fortnight.” I entirely coincide in her belief.

Quercusonis supposes that, as “tingest (nges) oranges” was allowed, so also “confiscates (ates) latest” will be allowed. The former was allowed, in accordance with the rules published January 7th: the latter comes under the operation of the revised rule published March 31st. I hold that, in “confiscate|s,” the “es” is a removable suffix, which has taken the place of “e” in “confiscate”; and similarly for the “est” in “lat|est.” By removing these suffixes I make the words “confiscate,” “late,” which end with the same 3 letters. Hence the letters “a, t” are barred. Hence the Syzygy must be reduced to “es.” Had the given words been “confiscate” and “late,” of course the letters “a, t, e” would have been barred. But, in the present case, the “e” is part of the suffix, not of the word itself, and therefore is not barred.

S. C. G. is also entreated to accept my apologies. I ought to have warned her that in “terminate (ter) rafter (after) afternoon,” I must erase “rafter (after),” thus leaving “terminate (ter) afternoon,” which, however, is a lawful Syzygy.

Scores for Pr. 40

The highest score reached is 28. This has been attained by 2 Competitors, Auntie and Weetoo, whose Chains are:—

Rejected words:
dishful, emanate, ingate, ingrate, penates, plenished, shapen.

April 21, 1892

[…]

The Problems for this week are

These conclude the Second Prize-Competition. The “First-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, April 26th. The Rejections will be published on May 5th. The “Second-Chains” will be due on Tuesday, May 10th. And the Scores will be published on May 26th.

Kelpie has sent in, for Pr. 41, a Chain containing no Syzygies at all! It is “write, rite, item, stem, stove, novel.” For its 1st Syzygy, “r, i, t, e” are barred; for its 3rd, “t, e, m;” for its 4th, “s, t.” So only three Syzygies are possible, viz. “rite (ite) item” and “stem (e) stove (ove) novel.” Kelpie should refer to The Lady for Jan. 7th and March 31st, and study the Rules. She will then succeed better.

Leta’s pardon is humbly begged, for not having named her on April 7th, as sending the same unlawful Syzygy as Rosemary did.

Lion and Tiger send 2 Chains for Pr. 43. One contains “cook (ook) look|ing (king) king|dom (ing) call|ing” and “nation|al (ation) generation”: the other contains “king|dom (ing) right|ing (right) alright.” Every Syzygy, here quoted, is unlawful.

Rosemary sends (in proper time, but accidentally not forwarded to me) a “Second-Chain” for Pr. 40 (“Wednesday Afternoon”). It contains “bless|edness (less) restless,” which is an unlawful Syzygy.

Skins wants the Pamphlet on Syzygies, if ready, but does not know how to get it, nor what it will cost. It will be announced when ready: to be had at The Lady Office: price not yet fixed, but will certainly be less than five guineas.

Toofdiarb sends for Pr. 39 (“London—Paris”), a Chain which scores “12, 3, 32; 3, 9, 15: 17.” It is a duplicate of one sent previously, but accidentally overlooked. I am very sorry to have been so careless. Mentally, I prostrate myself at her feet, and cast ashes on my head; but I trust she will excuse me from doing it practically, as they are so difficult to brush out afterwards.

Toofdiarb thinks “condonation (ation) ration|al” is a lawful Syzygy, “because, if you cut off the ‘al’ from ‘rational,’ you leave ‘ration,’ which is a different word.” But it is not a “different” word; “ration” is the very word from which “rational” is formed by adding the suffix “al.”

Toofdiarb also asks why I accepted the Syzygy “tingest (nges) oranges“ (see Mar. 31), and yet rejected “condonation (ondon) apparitions” (see Ap. 7). If she will refer to Rule 4, published Jan. 7, and try the 3 processes, there named, upon the first of these instances, she will find that no one of them yields a pair of real words. Process (a) gives “ting, orang”; process (b) gives “tinges, orangest”; and process (c) gives either “tinges, orang,” or else “ting, orangest.” As to the second instance, it is enough to say that “ondon” is not a part of “apparitions.” No doubt she meant to put “tion”; but even this would not have been a lawful Syzygy, since “condonation” and “apparition” are both real words.

Toofdiarb also asks, “Why do you allow one conjugation” (she means “inflexion”) “of a verb and not another? You would allow ‘stonest,’ but not ‘stoned’ or ‘stones.’” My answer is that I would accept all three. She seems to have been misled by my rejection, on Oct. 8th, of “stoner, stonings” (both being non-ordinary substantives), and of “head-stones” (rejected because it contained a hyphen).

Rejections for Pr. 43: bouncer, look-out, scooper, tinnest

Rejections for Pr. 44: book-shelf, editress, tantrum, untested, Vestal

Scores for Pr. 41

The highest score reached is that of Osric, 27. His Chain is:

April 28, 1892

[…]

I think it best to set no more Problems until the pamphlet is completed, when I hope, after setting a few experimental Problems, to begin the Third Prize-Competition.

Q. E. D. enquires why, on April 14th, I gave the first Syzygy, in each of the published Chains for Pr. 40, “WEDNESDAY-AFTERNOON,” as “edness,” seeing that there is only one “s” in “Wednesday.” Let me recommend the following as a healthy mental attitude for all readers of the “Syzygy” Article. Here is “edness” given as a Syzygy to follow “Wednesday.” What an ignorant scorer we have got! But stay. It may be a misprint. Such a thing might happen, even under the eye of that dazzling genius, that greatest of all great men, that &c., &c. (ad libidum). This can be very simply tested. If he wrote “edness” as the Syzygy, the first number of the Score would be “16”: if “ednes,” it would be “15.” It is 15. Therefore he wrote “ednes.” Therefore “edness” is a misprint, Q. E. D.

Stellaria sent in for Pr. 42, the Chain “fish (fis) kingfisher (king) risking (risk) asterisk (teri) material (ater) water.” This only scores 12: but, if she had put “fish,” instead of “fis,” as her first Syzygy, it would have scored 26!

Rejected Words for Pr. 45.

cadency, improves, magnetizer.

Rejected Words for Pr. 46.

preadmonition, preambulate, readmit, saddler, wolverines.

Scores for Pr. 42

The highest score reached is that of H. H., 25. His Chain is

May 5, 1892

[…]

It would save me some trouble if Competitors would kindly refrain from sending, on the same paper or card, Chains in answer to different Problems.

Lion and Tiger have sent in 3 “Second-Chains” for Pr. 44. Two of them contain “iterate,” which I cannot accept as an “ordinary” word. The other contains “manifest (est) guest,” which is an unlawful Syzygy. I have scored their only “First-Chain,” which could be scored at all. “I give thee all, I can no more, Though poor the offering be. A round duck’s egg is all the score That I can offer thee!” (May 5, 1892)

Ne Cede Malis has sent in one Chain only for Pr. 43. It contains “meter (er) nerve (ner) dinner,” in which I must erase “nerve (ner),” thus leaving “meter (er) dinner,” which is an unlawful Syzygy.

Q. E. D. has sent in 2 Chains for Pr. 43. One contains “poker (poke) bespoke.” Here, by removing from “poker” the suffix “er,” and replacing the “e” which is supplanted, I get “poke (poke) bespoke,” which is an unlawful Syzygy. The other Chain contains “bother (ther) withers (ithe) neither.” Here I must first complete the Syzygy “ithe,” by adding the “r” which Q. E. D. has omitted, and must then erase “withers (ither),” thus leaving “bother (ther) neither,” which is an unlawful Syzygy.

Scarborough is the postmark on a post-card, containing Chains for Pr. 43, 44, with no name or address. They are called “Second-chains,” but I cannot find any “First-Chains” in the same hand, and so have entered them under the above name.

Skins, if a good cricketer, may perhaps someday play in a match where her side wins the game in one “inning.”

Stellaria “concludes” that I rejected the Syzygy “manner (nner) dinner” because the verb “to manner” is non-existent. It was not so much because “manner” does not exist as a verb, as because it does exist as a noun. She also asks whether “look-out” is not generally written as one word. It is so, in dictionaries; but I cannot accept it, as my rejection may have prevented some one from using it.

Rejected words: turn-overs.

Scores for Pr. 43:

The highest score reached is 20. This has been attained by seven competitors, Auntie, Carrot, E. M. R., H. H., Lancashire Witch, Quercusonis, and Toby, all of whom sent in the same chain:

Scores for Pr. 44:

The highest score reached is that of Quercusonis, 31. Her chain is:—

May 12, 1892

[…]

Among the rejected words, for Pr. 46, published April 28, appears “perambulate.” This was a misprint for “preambulate.”

Carrot’s “First-Chain,” for Pr.45, was “provide (rovi) roving (ing) gingham (ham) hamper (hamp) champagne.” Here I ought to have erased, in accordance with Rule 11, “hamper (hamp),” and to have mentioned this in my List of Rejections. But I overlooked it. I therefore feel bound, now, to accept it as it stands, or to correct it, whichever gives here the highest score. I have corrected it, and this scored her 18 instead of 17.

Lion and Tiger “had no idea that names of birds and animals were allowed.” All words are allowed, unless forbidden by the Rules or rejected by the Scorer. They also demur my rejection of “ancestress,” pleading that it is in common use. I said my say, on that point on Dec. 21, 1891; and, as the Rules have been changed since then, it seems hardly woth while to reopen any question relating to the old rules.

Q. E. D. did not understand that, when I said “get fish out of water,” I meant “get water out of fish.” I admit that I ought to have printed the Chain the other way up; but it would not have affected the score: also I laid it down, in Rule 1, that “it does not matter which given word is placed at the top.”

Q. E. D. also cannot understand why, in the Chain “vinegar (nega) negation (ne) champagne,” I erased “(nega) negation.” It was in obedience to Rule 11, as published on Jan. 7.

Q. E. D. is also puzzled at my rejecting, as not “ordinary,” words which are in the dictionary. Surely, if this were evidence of words being “ordinary,” every word in the language would have to be accepted as ordinary! Would Q. E. D. accept “zumbooruk” as an “ordinary” word?

Scores for Pr. 45,

Scores for Pr. 46,

May 19, 1892

[…]

The scores for Pr. 47, 48, and the Total Scores for the Second Prize-Competition, now concluded, will be published on May 26.

N. S. L. asks why, in the Score-list for Pr. 43, published May 5, I rejected the Syzygy “cook (ook) rookery.” I did it in accordance with Rule 4, published March 31. By removing the suffix “ery” from “rookery,” I get, as two adjacent word, “cook” and “rook,” in which the letters “o, o, k” are “barred.”

N. S. L. also asks why, in the Score-list for Pr. 44, I put “[r. b.] 0” against her name. It meant “refer back to list of Rejections, for the Problem, published April 21.” By referring to it, she will see that her Syzygy “vestry (vest) guest” was rejected, as violating Rule 4, that “[0]” was appended to her name, indicating that she had sent in no Chain which could be scored.

N. S. L. also demurs my rejection, on May 5, of “turnovers” thinking apparently, that I rejected it as not “ordinary.” My reason was that it is a word which, in my judgement, ought to be spelt with a hyphen (see rule 2 (d), published Jan. 7).

Q. E. D. also demurs my erasure, on May 5th, of “withers (ither)” in her Chain “bother (ther) withers (ither) neither,” again assuming that it must have been because I thought “withers” to be a “non-ordinary” word. My reason was that the Syzygy “(ither)” contains the Syzygy “(ther),” and my erasure was in accordance with Rule 11, published January 7th, and in spite of the fact that she has written the second Syzygy as “(ithe)” instead of “(ither)”; for it is laid down, in Rule 12, that the penalty, awarded by the preceding Rule, cannot be evaded by writing shorter Syzygies than might be claimed, so as to avoid the result of one containing the other. She pleads that “withers” is a well-known word: which is perfectly true, of course, but is not relevant to the question.

Q. E. D. thirdly demurs my erasure, on May 5th, of “(aught) naughty,” in her Chain “distraught (aught) naughty (ght) midnight.” My reason was the same as the preceding case—viz., that one of these Syzygies contains the other, and must therefore, by Rule 11, be erased, as well as the intermediate link.

Q. E. D. fourthly demurs my rejection, on May 5th, of the Syzygy “shameful (ful) cheerfully,” adding “I wrote it, on purpose, as a test, to see if you would dissect your own word, and thus make it ‘cheerful,’ which is not the word we were to write to; and I hold this to be an unfair judgement.” I am sorry to be thought unfair; but I do not see how it can be so: I acted in strict accordance with Rule 4, published March 31st. The word “cheerfully” consists of “cheerful” and the suffix “ly.” Hence these two adjacent words, “shameful” and “cheerfully,” can be made, by removing this suffix, to end with the same set of letters—viz., “f, u, l.” Hence these letters are “barred.”

Q. E. D. fifthyly complains that she cannot understand the Score assigned to her for Pr. 44, viz., “7, 2, 19; 4, 12, 20: 0*.” If she will turn to Rule 13, published Jan. 7, the following statement will, I hope, be intelligible. Her longest end-Syzygy contained 3 letters, and her shortest 2. Adding together ‘3’ and twice ‘2’, I get ‘7’ as the first number to record. Her shortest Syzygy contained 2 letters. Hence ‘2’ is the second number to record. The two numbers, next above ‘2’, are ‘3, 4’; and their product is ‘12’. Adding together ‘7’ and this product, I get ‘19’ as the third number to record. Her Chain contained 4 Links and 12 waste letters. Hence ‘4’ and ‘12’ are the fourth and fifth numbers to record. Adding together twice ‘4’ and ‘12’, I get ‘20’ as the sixth number to record. Now the score is “the remainder after deducting No. (6) from No. (3).” Hence, in this case the Score must be got by deducting ‘20’ from ‘19’. But this is actually less than nothing! Which result I record (as explained in the paragraph, addressed to “all Wrestlers with Syzygies,” which appears every week) by entering it as “0*.”

Swerdna is puzzled by my acceptance, on May 5, of a Chain for Pr. 43, which contains “cook (coo) scooping.” She says “I would have thought that the ‘ing’ could have been removed from ‘scooping’ and then added to ‘cook,’ thus leaving ‘scoop,’ a proper word.” The “ing“ is no doubt a removable suffix, but the words, left after its removal, viz., “cook, scoop,” do not end with the same number of letters, so that there are no “barred” letters. The same explanation will apply to her second puzzles, viz., my acceptance, for Pr. 44, of a Chain containing “suiteth (teth) tethering,” where she points out that “teth” and “ing” are suffixes. So they are, but the words, left after their removal, viz., “suit” and “tether,” do not end with the same set of letters, so that here again there are no “barred” letters.

Swerdna also thinks I was very severe on Stellaria on taking her Syzygy as she wrote it (see May 5), “fis” instead of “fish,” which would have scored much higher. “It was also evident,” she adds, “that she had forgotten to put the ‘h’ on.” Now, firstly, I think it quite fair that a player in a game should bear the result of his or her oversights. What would be thought of a player in a Chess Tournament who should say, “Oh, let me have that move back. I quite forgot it would place my Queen in check!” Secondly, if I once began putting in what writers had forgotten, where could I stop? A has evidently forgotten that she might have claimed another letter in this Syzygy: B has probably forgotten a similar thing; C has perhaps forgotten it: D has possibly forgotten it: and so on. I don’t see where one could draw a line among these delicately shaded differences.

Toofdiarb also thinks that I was rather hard on Stellaria, in not supplying the “h” she had omitted to claim. She asks two questions about it, which I will reply to separately:—

(1) “Are you not obliged by the rules to use every letter in your Syzygy that could be used?” There is no such rule.

(2) “Did you not say you would rectify mistakes?” Not all kinds of mistakes, but only such as are specified in the rules.

May 26, 1892

[…]

H. H. writes “Surely ‘risk|ing (risk) asterisk,’ quoted by you from Stellaria’s Chain for Pr. 42” (see Ap. 28) “would not have been a lawful Syzygy?” H. H. is quite right. I had overlooked this Syzygy, which, of course, spoils the Chain.

Lethe is thanked for the suggestion that I should, while the Syzygy pamphlet is preparing, set Mathematical Problems. It would be a very pleasant task, but would require more time than I can conveniently spare.

Q. E. D.’s Second-Chain for Pr. 48 contains “sinecure (ecur) recur (ur) lurid.” Here I have, in obedience to Rule 11, erased “(ecur) recur.” However, Q. E. D. need not lament this too despondingly: had I scored the Chain as sent, there would have been 21 marks to be deducted, instead of 20!

Stellaria sends 2 Chains (too late for “First-Chains”) for Pr. 48. One contains “feast (east) breast|ing,” which is clearly an unlawful Syzygy. The other contains “plating (plat) breastplate,” where, by removing the ‘ing’ of ‘plating,’ and replacing the ‘e,’ which had been supplanted by the suffix, I get the two adjacent words “plate, breastplate.” Hence the letters “p, l, a, t” are barred.

Scores for Pr. 47

The highest Score reached is 25. This has been attained by 2 Competitors, E. M. R. and H. H., whose Chains are as follows:—

Scores for Pr. 48

The highest Score reached is that of H. H., 24, whose Chain is

Second Syzygy-Tournament

Total Scores. Pr. 42–48

The first seven on the following list are requested to sent their real names and addresses to the Editor, that they may receive the prizes offered on Mar. 31st; stating whether they would, or would not, like the names and addresses to be published. And the first two are requested to say which of the offered books they prefer.

I have included Stellaria among the prize-winners, as she is so close to No. 6 that their Scores are practically equal.

In the following List, wherever only one number is appended to a name, it is to be understood that the Competitor sent in Chains for all the 7 Problems. When a parenthesis is added, the first number in it indicates how many Problems the Competitor attempted; the second the Score that would have been obtained, had the Competitor tried them all and exhibited the same amount of skill throughout; while the third number indicates the place on the List that would have been thus obtained.

[…]

June 2, 1892

From Lion and Tiger comes an uneasy roar. They are distressed at finding that the best Chain for Pr. 45, “PROVIDE CHAMPAGNE,” was scored on May 12th as 29 instead of (as they make it) 27. The Chain end with “(ampag) champagne,” and they reckon 4 waste letters for the last word, instead of (as I make it) 2. Lion and Tiger should keep, at the back of their den, among the old bones they love so well to gnaw, a copy of The Lady for Jan. 7, where they may read, in Def. 4, words which are not nearly as hard as bones, though (I fear) quite as dry! These words are “if either of the end-words contains more than seven letters, the extra ones are not counted as waste.”