NYT Spelling Bee 12-11-20 final

Hello from Day 23 of the current California COVID constant curfew. And happy second night of Chanukah!

Yesterday I didn’t shoot for Queen Bee, and it’s reflected in my misses! Today I didn’t shoot for Queen Bee, either, and I don’t feel bad about that.

Looking at the misses, they weren’t obvious. I missed HALVAH but got HALVA. I missed PUPAE but got PUPA. I missed HELLUVA because I didn’t think to think of that word.

Meatier misses

APPELLEE: The respondent in a case brought to a higher court. Good for me to separate this so I can think about it more. And for it to be in the news all the time and I still missed it. But that’s OK.
UPHEAVE: literary Heave or lift up (something, especially part of the earth’s surface). What would we do without definitions that start with the literary qualification?
UVEA: The pigmented layer of the eye, lying beneath the sclera and cornea, and comprising the iris, choroid, and ciliary body.
UVEAL: Adjective of the above.
UVULA: A fleshy extension at the back of the soft palate which hangs above the throat.
UVULAE: Many of the above. Because people says uvulae instead of uvulas? OK, bro.
VULVAL: The female external genitals. I don’t know how they get away with such content in a family newspaper!

Today’s summary

Final score: 20 words for 74 points.
Genius minimum: 67 points.
First word: VOLATILITY
Pangram: VOLATILITY

UPDATE

Final score: 21 words for 79 points.
Genius minimum: 67 points.
First word: VOLATILITY
Pangram: VOLATILITY
New word: ATILT

UPDATE 2

Final score: 22 words for 84 points.
New word: AVAIL

I’ll stop looking at it now.

Enjoy your weekend!


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