Picture of Gussalufz (a wizard bearing a crossword).

Linking Words

Gussalufz, April 2025

Some linking words give me pause for thought while setting. It's usually because I've seen someone object to their usage for some reason, and I've either (a) agreed with that reason or (b) have come up with a counter reason that makes them OK to use (for me, at least), and I need the pause to figure out whether it was (a) or (b). This write-up is an attempt to tabulate a whole darn annotated set of linking words for my own future self (and hopefully other setters will be able to derive some value as well).

A linking word is a word that's inserted between the wordplay part and the definition part in a cryptic clue. The need typically comes from the surface reading, but the setter has to make sure that the linking word works well in the cryptic reading as well. I use the same model as I have described in my article on Cryptic Grammar: the linking word has to work in the sense of the setter observing the wordplay (in present or present continuous tense) or the setter instructing the solver to apply the wordplay.

For example, the linking word "from" works well in this clue:

Food from a can (4)
This is because the cryptic reading of the clue, [definition] from [wordplay], is grammatically correct; it is the setter telling you that a word for a kind of food (ALOO) can be created from the wordplay of concatenating A and LOO (can). This linking word only works in the [definition] from [wordplay] direction; it cannot be used in the opposite direction, [wordplay] from [definition].

Big Table Of Linking Words That Work Well

Here's the main act, a table tabulating some controversial and some not-so-controversial linking words, alongside a column noting which of the two directions they work in, and some occasional notes. The table can't be and isn't comprehensive (one can always find creative rephrasings!). It is also not a list of absolute commandments: context-specific subjective judgement is the ultimate decider, for any setter.

Linking word(s) Direction(s) Notes
and [definition] and [wordplay]
[wordplay] and [definition] 		Here's the definition of the solution word, and here's a bit of wordplay that creates the same word.
or [definition] or [wordplay]
[wordplay] or [definition] 		The solution word can be derived from this definition or from this wordplay.
is [definition] is [wordplay]
[wordplay] is [definition] 		The solution word is the same as the result of this wordplay.
's [definition]'s [wordplay]
[wordplay]'s [definition] 		Note that the 's is to be read as is in the cryptic reading. A common ruse is to have it work as a shortening of has in the surface reading.
being [definition] being [wordplay]
[wordplay] being [definition] 		This one feels slightly weird, but less so if you imagine a comma before the being and think of it as definition/wordplay, being the same as wordplay/definition.
from [definition] from [wordplay]
of [definition] of [wordplay]
with [definition] with [wordplay]
[wordplay] with [definition] 		The first direction is generally accepted by everyone, but the second one is not. If you interpret with as from, then the second direction does not work, indeed. But the trick is to see the with simply as a conjunction, in the sense of alongside, for the cryptic reading to make sense.
in [definition] in [wordplay]
[wordplay] in [definition] 		Similar to the case of with, the first direction is generally accepted by everyone, but the second one is not. Alberich used to use it in both directions, but Monk suggested that in works as found in, so only the first direction ([definition] in [wordplay]) works. For me, the question is, can I interpret the clue as the setter observing/describing the wordplay while cogently connecting to the definition via the linking word? I think so. For the first direction, this interpretation comes from is found in, and for the second one, it comes from is seen in: [wordplay] (is seen) in [definition].
for [wordplay] for [definition] This construction only works with instructional wordplay.
to find
to get 		[wordplay] to find/get [definition] This construction too only works with instructional wordplay.
becomes
composes
concocts
constitutes
constructs
creates
forms
formulates
gives
generates
leads to
makes
manufactures
offers
produces
yields 		[wordplay] becomes/.../yields [definition] The present continuous versions of these ([wordplay] creating [definition], etc.) seem weird to me. But, one can be forgiven to imagine an elided is in front of them, if the surface really really needs such a form.

When the wordplay is presented as an instruction, the infinitive forms of these linking words can be used (to create, to form, etc.).

Small Table Of Controversial Linking Words That I Think I'm OK With

Linking word(s) Direction(s) Notes
as [wordplay] as [definition] This construction only works with non-instructional wordplay.
has [definition] has [wordplay] This, in fact, is the origin story for this article. A friend (and budding setter) used this construction, and I nitpicked initially. But, upon reflection, I felt that this is fine! It's the setter observing that the solution word has this wordplay. For example:

This beach area has raging disease (7)
displays
exhibits
parades
shows 		[definition] displays/.../shows [wordplay] These are extensions of the has construction. The setter is saying that the solution word (with the given definition) exhibits the listed wordplay.

Small Table Of Linking Words That Some Setters Are OK With But I'm Generally Not

Linking word(s) Direction(s) Notes
causes [wordplay] causes [definition] I think wordplay can create words but not cause them.
at [definition] at [wordplay]
[wordplay] at [definition] 		I can't see wordplay and definition as locations at which the other thing happens.
to [wordplay] to [definition] While leads to is fine, just to by itself seems weird to me.
on [definition] on [wordplay]
upon [definition] upon [wordplay] For both on and upon, I can see how they can work in some restricted scenarios, such as [definition] upon [mixing something], but in those cases, for me it's more natural to think of all of upon mixing as the anagrind, without any linking word.

References

Many others have written on this topic, and as expected, there are some disaagreements to be found. Please do go through these excellent links!