Lead: On Feb. 23, 2026, Natan Last examined Adam Aaronson’s Tuesday crossword for The New York Times, spotlighting a compact but clever theme that rewards attentive solvers. The puzzle hides a pattern in ordinary clue tags: entries signaled by “e.g.” all resolve to two-word phrases whose words begin with the letters E and G. Examples include 17-A (ETHNIC GROUP) and 50-A (ENDOCRINE GLAND). The gimmick unfolds without a formal revealer, producing a slow-building “aha” for many solvers.
Key Takeaways
- Publication: The puzzle was discussed in a Feb. 23, 2026 column by Natan Last in The New York Times (Tuesday puzzle), with photo credit to Erik Jacobs.
- Constructor: Adam Aaronson created the puzzle; the theme relies on the familiar clue tag “e.g.” to signal a letter-pair pattern.
- Theme rule: Each theme answer is a two-word phrase where the first word starts with E and the second with G (E.G. as initials).
- Examples: 17-A clued as [Nuyoricans, e.g.] yields ETHNIC GROUP; 50-A clued as [Thyroid, e.g.] yields ENDOCRINE GLAND.
- Presentation: There is no single revealer entry; the pattern emerges through repeated instances across the grid.
- Solver experience: The trick favors solvers attuned to clue punctuation and common shorthand like “e.g.” or “for one.”
- Literary note: The column links the constructor’s craft to Georges Perec’s description of grid work as mathematical and clue-writing as associative language play.
Background
Crossword constructors have long used tiny punctuation cues and suffixes in clues to communicate usage, category, or subtype — tags such as “in slang,” “for short,” or “e.g.” are part of everyday crossword syntax. Experienced solvers learn to treat those tags as signals, not throwaway text; constructors sometimes exploit that shared grammar to create thematic twists. Georges Perec, a novelist who also built puzzles, famously compared grid-building to a kind of letter-based arithmetic while treating clue-writing as looser verbal play, a contrast that many contemporary constructors echo.
Tuesday puzzles in major outlets, including The New York Times, frequently present a single conceit executed cleanly rather than an elaborate gimmick; Aaronson’s offering follows that tradition by embedding a concise, repeatable mechanism. Because the theme markers are ordinary clue tags, the puzzle relies on a subtle cognitive shift — solvers must re-interpret “e.g.” from a purely explanatory appendage to an instruction about initials. That approach rewards both novices who notice the pattern and veteran solvers who appreciate the craft of stealthy theme delivery.
Main Event
Adam Aaronson’s grid uses several theme entries that conform to the E.G. initial pattern. The first obvious instance appears at 17-A where the clue [Nuyoricans, e.g.] maps to ETHNIC GROUP — Nuyoricans are an example of that broader category. Later, 50-A is clued [Thyroid, e.g.] and resolves to ENDOCRINE GLAND, again matching the E then G initial structure. Each themed slot is a natural, dictionary-style phrase rather than forced wordplay, which helps the gimmick feel tidy and fair.
Crucially, the puzzle contains no explicit revealer entry that announces “E.G. = E then G.” Instead, the repeated pattern of ordinary-looking clues with “e.g.” nudges solvers toward the rule. Many will first fill one or two theme slots from crossings and then experience a slow recognition as the initials line up. This quiet delivery is a construction choice: it privileges the solver’s discovery process over a headline-style disclosure.
Grid construction balances the E.G. entries with ballast fill and some long non-theme answers to preserve overall symmetry and difficulty appropriate for a Tuesday puzzle. The result is a puzzle that feels accessible yet smart: the central trick is small enough to fit the weekday slot but clever enough to be satisfying.
Analysis & Implications
From a construction perspective, relying on commonplace clue tags as thematic indicators is an economical way to create unity without resorting to letter-shifts, rebuses, or gimmicky grid shapes. It demonstrates how meta-cluing — using the language of clues themselves as part of the puzzle’s language — can be an elegant route to originality. For solvers, the approach foregrounds close reading: punctuation and trailing abbreviations are not inert but actionable information.
Editorially, a stealthy theme without a revealer reflects a trend in which constructors and editors trust solver literacy about clue conventions. That trust can raise the satisfaction of discovery, but it may also slow newer solvers who might not immediately consider punctuation as instructive. In teaching settings or crossword primers, this puzzle is a clear example for explaining why clue tail phrases matter.
On a broader level, the puzzle continues a lineage of constructor play that emphasizes linguistic craft over puzzle shock value. The balance between fair play and concealment matters: Aaronson’s entries are standard phrases, which keeps the trick in the realm of pattern recognition rather than obscure trivia. The puzzle therefore stands as a model of subtle thematic design suited to weekday audiences.
Comparison & Data
| Grid Slot | Clue (paraphrase) | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 17-A | [Nuyoricans, e.g.] | ETHNIC GROUP |
| 50-A | [Thyroid, e.g.] | ENDOCRINE GLAND |
The table isolates two representative theme entries; the pattern repeats elsewhere in the grid. Compared with puzzles that use a single conspicuous revealer, this design disperses the signal, which typically produces a higher variance in solver recognition times: some solvers spot the pattern early, others only after completing several themed answers. That distribution is part of the puzzle’s intended experience.
Reactions & Quotes
“Letter-based arithmetic” — a compact way to describe how letter placement and grid rules shape a puzzle’s architecture.
Georges Perec (novelist and cruciverbalist; cited for concept)
Solvers commonly report an incremental realization when a quiet pattern like repeating initials is used instead of a single revealer.
Community observation (solving community trends)
Constructors often treat clue punctuation as one more lever for creativity rather than mere grammar; Aaronson’s puzzle is an illustration of that ethos.
Constructor analysis (industry commentary)
Unconfirmed
- Whether Adam Aaronson intended the puzzle’s lack of a formal revealer as an explicit stylistic choice has not been stated in an official constructor note and remains unconfirmed.
- Broader social-media reaction patterns (how quickly the majority of solvers noticed the theme) are anecdotal and not systematically verified here.
Bottom Line
Adam Aaronson’s Feb. 23, 2026 Tuesday puzzle uses a small, clever gimmick: the familiar clue tag “e.g.” doubles as a thematic instruction that the answer will be an E–G two-word phrase. The design rewards attentive clue-reading and exemplifies how subtle meta-cluing can produce a pleasing solver experience without heavy-handed mechanics.
For solvers and constructors alike, the puzzle is a compact lesson in crossword literacy: punctuation and shorthand in clues are meaningful, and trusting that solver literacy can produce elegant, low-flash thematic constructions. Those paying attention to clue tails will find this puzzle both fair and satisfying.
Sources
- The New York Times — Media (column by Natan Last; puzzle by Adam Aaronson; photo credit Erik Jacobs).
- Encyclopaedia Britannica: Georges Perec — Reference (literary background on Perec as novelist and puzzle-maker).