CrypticBlah

Great spot.

Maybe a bit utilitarian for a kitchen,I agree. Depends on what you're cooking though? Might be good for a meth lab too.

I just googled Bayonet fitting LED cluster lights and that was maybe the third or fourth suggestion. Loads more on Amazon they seem to classed as garage lights by the (I assume Chinese from the company names) manufacturers. Would be useful for my workshop too, I might try and make one myself.

Not quite what you're looking for but does show it's possible.

Super Bright Multi-Directional LED Light – 3000 Lumens Adjustable Garage, Loft & Workshop Lighting Energy Efficient Screw & Bayonet Fitting Brighten up your garage, loft, attic, shed or workshop with this powerful, multi-directional LED light. Designed for maximum coverage and efficiency, this motion-activated light features three adjustable LED panels that you can angle precisely where you need the most illumination. Delivering an impressive 3,000 lumens of crisp white light, this compact but mighty fitting is 3.8 times brighter than a traditional 60W bulb, yet consumes only 24W of energy – saving you money on your electricity bill. Compatible with both screw and bayonet fittings, installation is quick and easy – no tools or wiring required. Perfect for dark or awkward spaces where traditional lighting doesn’t reach. Whether you’re tackling a DIY project in the garage or searching for boxes in the loft, this multi-directional LED light ensures every corner is well lit. Easy to fit, incredibly bright, and energy-saving – it's the smart lighting upgrade your home or workspace needs.

www.amazon.co.uk/Super-Bright...

Agreed better as is IMO too. Thought the flak was OTT. I liked it.

Not for me I agree,was just wondering.

Don't have a subscription but checked out the blog and it made me chuckle, would an indicator for yoof-speak have helped deflect some criticism perhaps? The def and solution are in Chambers so it's fair game as a solution. Maybe anything else would just be misleading in the wrong way of course?

Does seem a strange one yes. I'll admit without the definition in the clue I may very well have thought oh that's the Welsh footballer isn't it?

Not worried avout the commas there, and your two substitions do work yes.

I wouldn't bother. The Netflix mini series pilot got dreadful reviews.

That's all absolutely fine. My argument is more that separating the pp from it's auxillary verb means it is no longer a verb. However I am clearly swimming against the tide here.

As an indicator where there is fodder acting as subject and/or object yes but in a definition? The clue should function grammatically in both senses.

Good luck with them.

I'm not sure it can, no. A verbal phrase can define a verb but an adverbial phrase surely defines an adverb. Is behaving like Reeves would be a verbal phrase and I wouldn't object to dropping the auxiliary verb in the solution.

My other though was to use a present participle of an auxillary verb - doing like Reeves - but then I realised that's the mother of all double duty.

I do see that argument of wider context of course but behaving badly is also not a verb it's an adverbial phrase. It answers the question How...

Hope you're going to keep this up for all twelve.

PP without an auxillary is either an adjective or a gerund not a verb. The exception to that is when forming a simultaneous continuous present of two actions, or if one action interrupts the other. Both of which requires two clauses. The def has one clause and no auxiliary and ergo not a verb.

I'll report you to the Académie Française if you're not careful. They have a whistleblower line you know.

Fair enough.

Pervert!

So without the context of a main clause "behaving like Reeves" is adverbial as it answers the question how is Reeves behaving.

"Behaving likes Reeves is/does/is doing"includes the auxiliary verb (or two) and so is a verbal phrase.

The present particple requires an auxiliary verb to be a verbal phrase one can't say "I speaking" it's "I am speaking"

We do use the present particple on its own in a verbal sense but only as part of a dependent clause.

Semantically I think we can all accept speaking dishonestly can mean lying or misleading so yes it's a very subtle distinction which as Widders pointed out most solvers wouldn't notice or care about if they did notice.

But...

Well, I shall continue to reply with a GRR when you don't avoid one.

It's the least I can do.

4. An "adjectival" (from point 2) could potentially modify either a noun or a verb.

5. If it modifies a noun it's acting as an adjective.

6. If it modifies a verb it's acting as an adverb

7. Here "like Reeves" is modifying behaving and hence is adverbial.

Yeah I've noticed that myself.

I was keeping it simple to start whether a phrase is adjectival or adverbial depends on what it is modifying.

Just giving in to the zeitgeist. Even Azed has used a few that could be considered questionable.