"In Denby" would have been better than "of Denby"
since "of" doesn't connote hole.
2) does one need to clue breaking up/separating words as one does anagrams, say?
I feel we are moving towards the establishment of a FIMCA (Federation International des Mots Croisés Associations) which can meet regularly to discuss these matters, ideally in the offices of our Trinidad and Tobago delegate.
I agree that "of" was a slightly iffy link word (and it wasn't supposed to connote anything, incidentally); however, "in" would have been much more unfair, I'd venture, as it would suggest that the "w" should be inserted in the middle of another word. I think the fairest word would have been "at", but I eschewed this in favour of a better surface reading. I did have reservations about "of" myself, though.
There's no convention that the breaking up of words (as in "den" and "by") needs to be explicitly indicated. Paul in the Guardian uses this trick a fair bit (although not in the one he has in today's paper).
Comment