I just watched a tournament episode of $100K Pyramid where the lady won the $100K thanks to Linda Kelsey, who gave as a clue of "Red Light Traffic" for "THINGS THAT STOP".

I was kind of surprised this was an acceptable clue. If you were judging, would *you* have allowed it?

Reactionary: I would let it through.

After review: Eh...it really doesn't fit the box (would fit THINGS THAT ARE STOPPED), but I'd mill over it and probably still let it through.

I would NOT have allowed that, because I felt that clue was too specific.

Yes. Traffic stops at a red light.

For it describing "things that are stopped", if a contestant gave that for "things that stop", I'd give them the box, so it seems fair to allow the occasional clue that wanders over into different forms of the keyword.

On what grounds?

I wouldn't stay up late waiting for a response.

In that case...

Yes, I would definitely allow it. No questions asked!

I think the one rule is that the clue must make contextual sense, where it doesn't sound awkward, no? In this case, it sounds fine, and despite Spongebob's post, it's not too specific. Like unrealtor said, traffic stops at a red light as opposed to green (or in Virginia, yellow), so the clue fits.

I'm thinking I don't take it, though I'm having a hard time justifying that call given the rules as we know them to be. 'Red Light Traffic' is clearly a way of trying to get around 'Traffic at a red light', which of course is not allowed. I've seen some convoluted terms invented to avoid the prepositional phrase, but this one just appears on the surface to be a little too made-up. Like I said, though, I'm not sure I have a strong argument.

http://gizmodo.com/360079/spongebob-square...the-wrong-place

I agree. When would one use that phrase in real life? You can "green light" something, but I've never heard anybody "red light" something. Although it's immaterial, because like the first few to respond, I'd have let it through on instinct. Frankly, isn't "a braking car" a perfectly legal, and arguably better, clue? (We've of course had the benefit of mulling this over, without the pressure of 60 seconds and $100,000)

-Jason

To go in a completely different direction. People who shop at mall or stores are sometimes referred to as "Mall Traffic" or "Store Traffic". In certain areas of the world, the "seedy" areas are called the Red Light District. Couldn't the men that shop there be called "Red Light Traffic"? And isn't the point that they stop and buy "something"?

I don't think you do. I'm not sure where that's different from "The Hall of Fame books" or "Walt Disney dog", both of which not only walked, but won someone $100K.

Oh, I have.

Probably, but this isn't a discussion of what the best clue is, this is one of whether the cited one is legal, no more and no less.

Or a little something-something, as it were. :)

"Red light" is something that stops and "traffic" is something that stops, so I would err on the side of yellow light and allow the list.

[THINGS THAT STOP]

Grammatically, you are looking at a verb that is both transitive and intransitive, aka ambitransitive.

A defective clock can stop. (intransitive)
A crime-fighter can stop thieves. (transitive)
A red light can stop traffic. (transitive)

The verb, as written, can be taken either way. And, there is no direct or indirect object given within the subject.

> If the clue given is “a red light”:

"Red" and "light" are not synonymous for the verb "stop" -- no *defined* connection.

No synonyms and no grammar misuse. Looks legal to me; I'd allow it.

> As for the specific “red-light traffic” clue:

There is precedence for “red-light” being used in adjective form as in “red-light district” (insert joke here). And you could have a red-light warning, red-light condition, etc.

Traffic exists in a red-light condition. That seems to be allowable as well.


I've always wondered about what would pass for a possessive relationship clue, i.e. “a red-light’s traffic”. I remember the old WC round with Teresa Ganzel for [THINGS THAT ARE REVIEWED] when she gave the clue "a critic's play". However, a critic is a person, and potentially a playwright.


Just piling on a little bit more…

--scottwa

But to be accurate, a "red light" doesn't stop, it causes something to stop. Going further, would "red lighted traffic" be allowed? It makes more sense than "red light traffic".

Not IMO. "Braking" is pretty synonymous with "stopping," in the context of a car.

Depends on which prostitute you ask!

which is an interesting point. From what I can see from the rules, this is illegal because it's illegal. It doesn't give anything away from the clue that I can tell. I've never understood why the rules are so, only noticing what you do, that liberties with the language and sentence construction have been taken to work around the rules.

Not necessarily. You could be tapping the brakes to just slow the car down, not to stop it entirely.


Brendan

If the category were PEOPLE WHO DIE BEFORE THE NEXT COMMERCIAL, I would see no problem with "red shirt ensigns." Neither do I see a problem with "red light traffic."

I discovered yesterday that there is an Achievement in the Xbox 360 version of Star Trek: Legacy if you get the guy in the red shirt killed during a mission.

I lol'd.

I think that you have to have a line past which you won't allow contrived phrasings . . . but that line can't really be defined to satisfy everyone. Given the need to make a decision in the span of 2 seconds, I'd let it through.

I do, however, think that "the Hall of Fame books" and "Walt Disney dog" are safer, since they can both be read to be "hiding" the preposition "of", which is one that occasionally got by (in the '80s) even when it was said outright. "Red light traffic" is hiding an "at" (or a "near" or an "around"), which is more descriptive.

My issue is more a matter of grammatical correctness, really. Which I suppose "the Hall of Fame books" is (although, really, "books?" "Members," maybe), but if you're going to ding "Red-light traffic" for not being "Red-lit traffic" (which I think we all agree would be fine), then you have to ding the Disney clue for not being possessive, too.

/I guess if you're thinking about the Publisher's Hall of Fame, then, sure, books

It's one of those things that became codified as the show ran on. Somebody realized that 'a prepositional phrase' was something that could be easily defined, and recognized in a split second, so by making them illegal it made the judging more consistant. It's a lot like Jeopardy's Final Jeopardy rule that it's OK to misspell a word unless the misspelling changes the pronunciation. That wasn't a real rule originally, but they were taking certain misspelled words and not taking other ones, so they ultimately felt they had to have a standard.

If synonyms were against the rules, I think "red-light car" should be buzzed because red-light means nothing in this case other than stopped. Same with braking or braked car. With red-shirted ensigns, there are other meanings that could be drawn (he's in engineering, for example) besides dead-before-the-commercial.

Did anyone notice a change over the years, especially during Donnymid, from the contestant figuring out the link between the giver's list of things to the one killer clue that answered it by itself.

And what was Hall-of-Fame books a clue to?

This is the problem of judging. 'Braking' is a synonym for 'stopping', while though everybody knows what you're supposed to to at a red light, 'a red light' and 'stopping' are not synonyms.

Also, remember we've been discussing this for days. The judge has to decide in that instant. Maybe he went home that night and thought to himself that he shouldn't have accepted that clue. It's definitely a subjective call.

True, true. Does anyone know if Pyramid had run-throughs to uncover possible thorny issues ahead of time? Not that this would be infallible, of course. Rayburn referred to Match Game having meetings at which potential answers were discussed and Mandel was invited to some on the 90s version, I recall.

Well, it coulda been in reference to a car full of hookers.

\Think "Ford Focus" with a vowel replaced.

"Things That Are Enshrined." It's the clue that won Keif Ferrendini $100,000.

"Hall-of-Famers" seems pretty legit, despite the prepostition. "Hall-of-Fame books" is just weird.

Well, again, if you can cite an HOF that would in fact enshrine books, then it's fine. And those absolutely exist, so I can see why it was let through. I look much more askance at "Walt Disney dog" in that particular run.

My logic: in the general vernacular, "The Shaggy Dog" is a Walt Disney movie, Wilson Daniels is a Walt Disney character, and the shaggy dog is a Walt Disney dog. I wish I could put it in to better words, but in my mind, it checks out.

Your logic is reasonable and adequately communicated. I suppose I can see that too. I guess I don't like that Keif didn't precede it with the article "a", as you did, which wouldn't have made it sound nearly as awkward.

She did, kind of. She said "A dog...Walt Disney dog", as if to go back and put "Walt Disney" in there. Kind of similar to "Hall of Fame Books". Her first clues were "The torah...the holy books...", so she may have just been going with the flow. I see what you mean though.

Also true. I wasn't suggesting that the absence of a leading article makes it illegal, it just makes it sound questionable.

/okay, we're analyzing this a little too much now :)
//back, and to the left
///back, and to the left

Oh boy, now I have a chance to be contrary!

I would not accept the latter, because that phrase would mean that you're shining red lights on the cars.

Which, it could be argued, you are.

Mmm . . . maybe.

I've seen some pretty big street lights... :)

But see, "maybe" is enough in this case. If you can make a reasonable case for it, they kinda have to err on the side of "let it fly."

the catergory-- things that are reviewed

clue- a critically acclaimed movie

allowed ? "

I'm thinking buzz...isn't "critical acclaim" synonymous with review?

A positive review, yes. A review in general?

What Kevin said. I think it flies.

At least in the '80s, the rule on synonyms seemed to be "is it in the dictionary"? (One that lists synonyms, perhaps.) The words in question really need to be combined before you can call them synonyms, and that goes beyond a simple look-up in a reference book.

You would actually have a stronger case for "critic(ally)" = "review(er)", I think--but still not one strong enough to get zapped.