![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuHas anyone figured out what percentage of trigrams can actually be clued? I've been seeing more and more cases lately where I've been surprised by what I consider a contrived clue for a particular three-letter entry. I understand that sometimes a great theme requires a sub-optimal word in the fill, but it seems to me from my armchair that we're seeing more cases where an ordinary theme gets more than its share of contrived fill entries.
Which led me to wonder: What percentage of trigrams are cluable in some way? What if we break it down into trigrams containing at least one vowel and triconsonant clusters?
Clearly, at one end of the spectrum are entries such as CAT, nearby are common abbreviations such as PDQ and the ever-popular SST, obscure abbreviations such as LGA and DLL, further along are arbitrary roman numerals and consecutive-letter sequences such as DLV and FGH.... but if you absolutely had to clue ZFV could you do it?
Which led me to wonder: What percentage of trigrams are cluable in some way? What if we break it down into trigrams containing at least one vowel and triconsonant clusters?
Clearly, at one end of the spectrum are entries such as CAT, nearby are common abbreviations such as PDQ and the ever-popular SST, obscure abbreviations such as LGA and DLL, further along are arbitrary roman numerals and consecutive-letter sequences such as DLV and FGH.... but if you absolutely had to clue ZFV could you do it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-28 08:07 pm (UTC)