Hindu Mr. / WED 9-27-23 / Steamed ___ classic Simpsons sketch / Eponym of a popular vodka brand / On vacation in work calendar shorthand / Alternating current pioneer / Westernmost city in Texas / So-named "father of modern linguistics"

Constructor: Scott Koenig

Relative difficulty: Medium

THEME: A syntactically well-formed but semantically NONSENSICAL sentence from NOAM CHOMSKY — "COLORLESS / GREEN / IDEAS / SLEEP / FURIOUSLY"; all the words are clued separately and straightforwardly *except* FURIOUSLY, which gets a ridiculous, novel-length, ironically NONSENSICAL revealer clue (61A: Following 17-, 37-, 40- and 43-Across, end of a properly formed yet 11-Down sentence by 25-Down demonstrating the distinction between syntax and semantics)

Word of the Day: COLORLESS / GREEN / IDEAS / SLEEP / FURIOUSLY —

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed, but semantically nonsensical. The sentence was originally used in his 1955 thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory and in his 1956 paper "Three Models for the Description of Language". There is no obvious understandable meaning that can be derived from it, which demonstrates the distinction between syntax and semantics, and the idea that a syntactically well-formed sentence is not guaranteed to be semantically well-formed as well. As an example of a category mistake, it was used to show the inadequacy of certain probabilistic models of grammar, and the need for more structured models. (wikipedia)

• • •

Well, thanks for the lecture, I guess, but as a *crossword puzzle*, this was seriously disappointing. I guess if you're a linguistics major or huge Chomsky fan, you get a thrill of recognition, maybe, but otherwise, why is this the theme of a *crossword puzzle*. There is absolutely nothing happening here. It's basically a quotation. There's no wordplay, no cleverness, nothing. Just "here is this guy who said this thing that is famous in his field" that's it. From a solving standpoint, it's a weak themeless with a completely unintelligible revealer (no way I'm reading a clue that long, with that many cross-references, if I don't have to—I just figured out FURIOUSLY from crosses). Someone apparently noticed that the NONSENSICAL sentence in question could be broken up symmetrically and so ... that's what they did? And built a puzzle around it? I'm completely at a loss as to why this was deemed theme-worthy. I'd never heard of this "sentence," and I won't be alone there, but that's hardly the point. The point is that there's no there there. When I finished, I had to look up a thing about Chomsky and now I know it but it was totally unrelated to the quality of the solving experience—in fact, antithetical to the entertainment value of that experience—and I don't feel particularly wiser for having looked it up. And even if I did feel wiser, the puzzle would still be painfully stiff and straightforward and professorial (in the worst sense of the word). If there's a hidden thematic element that makes this puzzle brilliant, congratulations on that, but also if a tree falls in the woods, the quick brown fox, every good boy does fine, etc.

[still from the "Simpsons" episode, "I Am Furious (Yellow)"]

This started out hard for me, as the clue on COLORLESS was no help at all (17A: Like helium and carbon dioxide). Lots of things are COLORLESS. I never think of helium as COLORLESS. I think of it as atomic number 2, making balloons rise and your voice go funny when you inhale it (kids: don't). So I needed most of the crosses there. Plus BABU, no idea (5A: Hindu Mr.). If I've seen it, it's been forever. Some PLOTTERS are up to good, I'm quite sure, so that clue was tough too (4D: They're up to no good). But once I got out of the NW, as is fairly typical, things smoothed out and got a lot easier. Seems quite bad to have both UCSF and SFO in the same grid. A horrible, obvious duplication that should've been excised. I had the -O but was extremely reluctant to write in SFO precisely because I already had UCSF in the grid. Boo to that pair, for sure. But the only thing that truly slowed me down, after the NW, was that illegible mess of a clue on FURIOUSLY. Even there, the crosses were kind, so the time spent spinning my wheels was negligible.

OLDS remains obnoxious and (by now) dated when clued this way (69A: Parents, to kids). Sharon OLDS is a fantastic poet, try her sometime maybe. I mean, she doesn't have a FINSTA (probably), but she's still worth knowing. Speaking of FINSTA, oof (46A: Second social media account for posting private jokes and such, informally). I was wondering when that term was gonna come along. I was wondering that back in like 2015 ... and then time passed ... and FINSTA didn't show up, and the term itself started feeling bygone ... and at *that* moment, the NYTXW thought "Yes, *now* is the time to pounce!" Very on-brand. Anyway, if you are Gen-Z or are lucky enough to have a kid who is, then FINSTA is a known quantity to you, and if not, possibly not. Pretty sure it's a portmanteau of "fake insta(gram account)" ... yes, that is correct. And it's a debut answer. I'm certain that other crosswords, particularly indie crosswords, have used it by now, but it's new to the Times, today. And it probably deserves some novelty credit. I also think it plays nicely off of TIMESUCK (41D: Doomscrolling, e.g.). 

Anything else need explaining? OOO = "Out of Office" (2D: On vacation, in work calendar shorthand). An NDA is a non-disclosure agreement (the term has now appeared in the NYTXW four times, all in the last two years) (33A: Secrecy-enforcing contract, for short). OMG I almost forgot about steamed HAMS! LOL that is the deepest "Simpsons" cut I've ever seen in a crossword (39A: "Steamed ___," classic "Simpsons" sketch). And the clue does not help you at all. I couldn't begin to explain the "sketch." So much going on: the classically awkward and semi-erotic dom-sub relationship of Superintendent Chalmers and Principal Skinner; the extreme upstate-NY specificity of the cuisine in question; the near house fire. It's epic. And again, it's so deep in "Simpsons" lore that I don't know how anyone outside of regular viewers of the show from the '90s could have any idea what the clue was trying to get at. There's probably a linguistics joke here, but my colorless green ideas are sleeping furiously right now, so I don't know what it is. Anyway, here's the "sketch" (which has its own title cards and theme song!!!): "Skinner & the Superintendent":

That's all. Have a nice day. It's my 20th wedding anniversary, so I'm gonna spend much of the day with the love of my life wondering how I got so lucky. Just like every day. Truly great experience, five stars, would recommend. Take care.

Signed, Rex Parker, King of CrossWorld

[Follow Rex Parker on Twitter and Facebook]