Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Although not as miffed as bob, I agree with him. A simple google search is all that was required. If a setter is going to include general knowledge, they should really get it right.

In fairness, Collins is the reference dictionary for the Times and it draws a clear distinction between the definition and origin of two terms, i.e. gravity vs. gravitational.
Bob makes a fair point.

Jono, thanks for that Collins info - is it a fairly new thing? I remember Richard ?????, who used to be the Times Crossword Editor, said in one of his columns that there was no single reference book/work for the Times crosswords. And that seemed to make sense as the Times crosswords are from a number of setters, maybe relying on their different dictionaries?

Interesting, Malone. I had been under the impression that Collins was the only reference source.

However, I found this quote from the editor on TfTT from as recently as March this year…

“ Setters are advised that answer words should ideally be justifiable in at least one of Chambers, Collins or the Concise Oxford Dictionary, with Collins preferred for its range of proper nouns “.

Thanks, Jono - and I still think that makes perfect sense, not sticking to one reference book (the more the merrier where words are concerned, I feel!) And because of the reference to Chambers, I still have no quarrel with the clue.

It is quite obviously wrong, and the fact that some muppets at Chambers have it wrong as well does not make it correct ...

Bobdown, I sympathise, and I feel it must be infuriating to see such an error. The 'muppets' at the Oxford Dictionary of English got it wrong too. Me, I'll take it as a valid answer as far as the puzzle is concerned - I'd always check dictionaries before Google. I'd say that I'd try to remember the correct meaning for use in the real world, but I don't think it's a phrase that would ever pass my lips.

There have been several occasions when 'wrong' definitions have featured in Chambers (and probably in other dictionaries). The ones I've seen have always been slightly technical, specialised - things like a something not being a true radical because... and XYZ is definitely NOT a fern because....
I know we've had lists before of humourous definitions (the dreaded 'mullet', for example), but I don't think there's beem a compilation of errors.

Do we really want to go full nerd on this? First, it wasn’t Einstein at the outset, it was Poincarré who posited “ondes gravifique” in 1905. Einstein (in a very different conception of spacetime) re-posited the idea as “ Gravitationswellen”. Either term can legitimately be translated into English as “gravity waves” or “gravitational waves”. The admittedly useful distinction - to distinguish between the (known) fluid dynamic and the (posited and since established) cosmic phenomena - has never, as far as I know, been adopted as a given in lexicography. It may now be it’s time.

Oh, thanks for that that, Jack! It's interesting to know that all the muppets might not be so ... muppetty, muppetish, after all! I'd never argue with a scientist - not because I''d never win, just because I don't care enough. I do quite like people being passionate about their subject and holding on firmly to their convictions, but I also like Chambers (and the other dictionaries) to be wrong as seldom as possible.

When asked why he had defined 'pastern' incorrectly in his dictionary , Dr Johnson's pithy reply was: "Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance". His mistake has provided entertainment for nearly 300 years. Perhaps we should not worry too much about such mistakes.