NYT Spelling Bee 10-17-20 final

Absolutely frustrating when genius level is at 57 points. Like, seriously? The article about the Spelling Bee was published yesterday, and the first one out is this one?

Anyway, as accurately predicted, there were a lot of answers I missed yesterday.

IMAM: Sorry :/
LAMA: That’s two spiritual leaders in a row.
LAMINA: Oh! This is a layer. You know, like how you laminate. OK. I see you, NYT Spelling Bee.
LAMINAL: I don’t know nearly as much about phonetics as some in my Tuesday night board games group do, but now I know one more thing than I did before! This is where you put your tongue to the roof of your mouth to make consonant sounds in words like LamiNaL.
LIMA: The type of beans kidneys look like.
LIMINAL: Relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process.
LIMN: First reaction is that this is not a word. Second reaction is that HORCHATA absolutely should have been a word and that I’m insulted that a word that means to depict or describe in painting or words is more important than something tangible such as a delicious beverage.
MAIM: fine.
MAMMALIAN: Seriously? They wouldn’t take MAMMALIA, they wouldn’t take ANAMALIA, but they take MAMMALIAN. Unconscionable.
MANIA: Yeah!
MILITIAMAN: But no TILLMAN, PITMAN, MILLMAN
MINI: oh.
TAILLAMP: all right.
TATAMI: wow. I missed this yesterday. Clearly didn’t stick with me.

Today I started out with the pangram. I think there is only one. I finished with the minimum necessary for genius level.

Final score: 17 words (!) for 57 points (!)
Genius minimum: 57 points (!)
First word: ALCHEMY
Omitted words: CALAH, CHYEAH, CHACHA, ALEYCHEM, MALACHEY, ELYAN, MELECH, HAMLACHYM

This entry was posted in NYT Spelling Bee, Other Games and tagged , , , , on by .

About raabidfun

I'm a guy living the #raabidfun lifestyle. I figured I would create a blog about crossword puzzles I do. The idea is to do the NYT crossword and the WSJ crossword daily as much as I can. That includes when I don't finish and have clearly failed. They can be difficult. Also I am not an attorney, and any legal analysis in this blog reflects my interpretation, which means it can be flawed and should not be relied upon for use in legal matters (especially against me).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s