Language desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 22

Hand

What does hand mean in [1]?174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to "old hands", that's a colloquial way of saying "old characters" in this context. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, exactly correct answer. 86.4.186.107 (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A "hand" is a person, or in this context a character as has been explained. Sometimes in talking about ranching (cattle ranches, etc) people will talk about "ranch hands" which are basically laborers. See definition number seven here. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hired hands" is another, more generic usage along those same lines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Old hands" in general means people who are well-experienced at the job they do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What baffles me on that page is what "supplexing" means. +An gr 09:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a coined word, maybe a portmanteau of some kind, a wrestling move involving flipping your opponent over. I googled "supplexing" and one of the first items was this:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual spelling is suplex, with one p. Deor (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

born, a grammatical question

The candidates must be born between 1975 and 1980. It is not a guess, it is a necessity. Is the above sentence correct/acceptable? The question is not about must but about the use of born with any modal auxiliary (or with has/have to) in this way. --117.204.84.237 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering the question, but pointing out that "between 1975 and 1980" is ambiguous. Do you mean between 1 January 1975 and 31 December 1980 inclusive, or between 1 January 1976 and 31 December 1979 inclusive? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "must have been born" unless the sentence was written during the 1970s and the candidates are babies/toddlers. +An gr 07:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant here is the sense in which "must be born" occurs several times in the eligibility column on this page. Angr, how can must have been born be better than must be born? Assumption rather than necessity (if we look for the mood/mode)?--117.204.84.237 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Must be born" sounds like it is a future condition. I.e., the candidate has not been born yet. "Must have been born" is a past condition. I.e., the candidate has been born, and must have been born during the time period specified. Paul Davidson (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Paul's analysis of it. But perhaps there's a dialect difference: the London Youth Games page linked to is presumably written in British English, and I'm American, so maybe "must be born" with reference to people currently in their teens is OK in British English but sounds odd (but no more than odd, certainly not ungrammatical) in American English. +An gr 08:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of it is "Eligibility is open only to people who were born between 1975 and 1980". Since the text is headed "Eligibility", all it needed to say is "Open only to people who were born between 1975 and 1980". If you did not happen to have been born in that period, there's precious little you can do about it now. It's a little different with "Rowers must be in school years 7 to 12 and live or go to school in the borough", because it's possible to change schools in order to meet the requirement. But even there, it's not as if anyone is compelled to do anything; it's just that if they want to be eligible for this event, and if they don't currently meet the criterion, and if it's within their power to arrange their lives to meet it, then they must do so. Which is a longwinded way of saying that, while it may fail pedants' rules, it's comprehensible to everybody and nobody will take it literally and arrange to be reborn at the right time in history, so in that sense, yes, it's acceptable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's pedantic to say it simply sounds odd, at least in my dialect, though of course the meaning is perfectly clear. And no, nobody will believe that they can become eligible by being reborn or born again at a later date. +An gr 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly quirky usage, but it's clear that they mean to say "must have been born". The real problem, as noted earlier, is the vagueness of "between". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Must be born" need not necessarily mean past. When we say "He must be here", we are not meaning a future time, are we? Of course, must have been gives the perfect aspect, that something is already done/over. Suppose you are laying down certain rules of selection/admission to some course/programme. You want to say that only those candidates who were born during a certain period (say between 1975 and 1980) are eligible to apply. Can it be worded in a more easily comprehensible way? --117.204.83.139 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To remove all ambiguity, it should be worded something like "must have been born between January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1980, inclusive." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as I alluded to above, "Eligibility is open only to people born between January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1980, inclusive". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression seems perfectly clear to me. In British English, when we say "between 1975 and 1980" it is naturally inclusive of the whole of the years mentioned. As for "must be born", this is fairly common usage in age-related eligibility criteria. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would infer from the way it's written that it's a short way of saying what Jack says just above. The OP asks if it's "correct/acceptable". And I say that it's not strictly "correct", but it's probably "acceptable" because most readers would make the intended inference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "between 1975 and 1980" means "between midnight in the morning of 1st January 1975 and midnight in the night of 31st December 1980" - there is absolutely no need whatsoever in British English to expand the phrase. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It is often used that way, but it's not unambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unambiguous. Maybe not to an American, but to British ears it is. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, in my view - to my British ears, it is ambiguous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what other meaning is suggested to you by "from 1975 to 1980"? DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question said "between..." not "from..." See my response to the original question. This is not a big deal, but if the questioner is, for instance, drafting a form for completion by others, it would be best expressed in less ambiguous terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquially, "between" and "from/to" are often used in the way Duncan says. But if the OP is wanting to be very exacting and unambiguous, he needs to pose the statement the way Jack said; that way there is no possibility of ambiguity. To my mind, "between" means somewhere in between but not necessarily standing on either endpoint. For example, "between a rock and hard place" implies you're not standing either one, but are somewhere in between. In general, to me "between A and B" with no qualifiers sounds like "neither A or B, but some point in between." In the given example, "between 1975 and 1980" could mean "1-1-75 through (not to) 12-31-80", or it could mean "1-1-76 through 12-31-79". This is something that irks me about hitting streaks, for one. The first game of Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak was on May 15, 1941, and the 56th game was on July 16th. He was held hitless on July 17th. So the streak ran "through" July 16, but "to" July 17, to look at it one way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, we don't use "through" in the way that Americans do; "1975 through 1980" would just sound wrong - or at least American. I agree with Duncanhill and others that this usage means "both dates inclusive" as they say in some legal documents. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the OP is asking how to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible, in which case nothing should be assumed, and Jack's way to say it should cover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel F. Galouye – Pronunciation of Surname

Daniel F. Galouye is one of my favorite authors of Science fiction. So I’d like to know the correct pronunciation of his surname. The article Daniel F. Galouye says: “(pronounced Gah-lou-ey)“, but I am not sure what that means. Should the “a” in “Galouye” be pronounced like the vowel in the word “far”, or like the vowel in the word “but”? Should the “ou” be pronounced like the “ou” in the word “loud”? And should the “ye” at the end of “Galouye” be pronounced like the “ey” in the word “turkey”? -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and unfortunately Galouye isn't famous enough to be listed in the Merriam-Webster Biographical Dictionary or for his surname to be listed in any of my pronunciation dictionaries. This page gives "GahLOOEE" and "Gah-LOUIE"; in the first example it's said that "ah" stands for the vowel of "car", but I think a schwa is more likely given the position in the word. So my guess is that the first syllable is the same as the first syllable of gesundheit or gajillion, while the rest is just like Louie (rhyming with "gooey"). I think this is supported by his pseudonym "Louis G. Daniels", which seems to be taking the parts of his real name and reversing them: Louis (often pronounced Louie) for the -louye, G. for the Ga-, and Daniels from his first name (with an -s tacked on to make it sound like a last name). I'd also like to bring this example to the attention of the people who complain about the use of the IPA at Wikipedia and want us to use pronunciation respellings instead: this is a perfect example of a pronunciation respelling being ambiguous and unhelpful to readers, while the IPA (/ɡəˈluːiː/ if my guess above is correct) would be unambiguous and clear. +An gr 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, thank you for your answer. -- Irene1949 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern (American?) pronunciation of "finale"

American TV series frequently advertise their season "finale," three syllables with "ale" pronounced "ALlee." Has this always been an acceptable pronunciation of this word? Or was it once considered incorrect, and the word pronounced "fihNAL" (rhymes with "canal")? 63.17.49.5 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"fin-AAL-EE" is the only pronunciation of "finale" that I know of. "FII-NAL" is the pronunciation of "final", a different word. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Finale" rhymes with "Win Ollie". "Final" rhymes with "Spinal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Win Ollie? Finn-AH-LAY! DuncanHill (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you're pronouncing it very carefully and exactly, Duncan. But usually it comes out rhyming (non-rhotically) with barley, Carly, gnarly, Harley, Marley, and parley. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining how words are pronounced by using other words is like explaining colours to a blind man. Of course "Ollie" is going to rhyme with "finale" in Texas. Where is the IPA when you need it. Richard Avery (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not being particularly careful or exact, just saying it as I've heard it said many times. DuncanHill (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually heard anyone say it "finn-AH-LAY". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Radio 3. DuncanHill (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking BBC, that's a little out of my range. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you invested in one of these new-fangled "internet computer devices" you could listen to it on that, or so I am told by people who have such technical implements in their homes. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I could pick it up on my TRS-80? Also, my modem is so slow it has a crank on it. But back to my question: Is that "Radio 3" British? American? Something else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's BBC Radio 3. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. I would expect very exacting pronunciation from the BBC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name's Duncan, not Roger. DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone say 'Ollie' as 'arley'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In New York, "arley" would be "ahley" (non-rhotally, as Jack had said), except "Ollie" would be more like "awlie". Rather than posting words with R's in them and advising saying them non-rhotally, the more direct way (in American MIDWESTERN English, not "Texas" English) would be to say that "finale" rhymes with collie, dolly, folly, good golly, Miss Molly, Polly, holly, jolly, volley, and pro'lly others I can't think of just now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purely speculative, but it may be that confusion over the pronunciation may arise from the mistaken assumption that "finale" is derived from French, and thus the original pronunciation must have been "French-like". Actually, as Wiktionary points out [3], the English word "finale" is derived from Italian (probably coming via opera), where it has basically the same pronunciation as in modern English. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which pronounciation is under discussion. I am with Jack, again. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by bolley, Colly, gnolly, Holley, Molley, and polley, but then I realised that Ollie in American is very different from the British pronunciation of the name. We do pronounce finale in a very similar way though. Dbfirs 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with Wiktionary, I have only ever used and heard /fɪnɑːli/. However, I just looked it up on the OED and it gives /fɪnale, fɪnɑːleɪ/. The final /e, eɪ/ do not sound normal to me as a speaker of American English. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, here. Where I live, there's a chain of dessert restaurants called "Finale", and the four GAm speakers I just IMed call it either /fɪnɑli/ or /fɪnæli/. Maybe a fronter a than the a of father, but the last vowel is uniformly /i/ rather than /eɪ/.--Atemperman (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to it being Italian rather than French: an opposite case is "forte" (noun, as in "my forte is languages"), which (according to the OED) was borrowed from French and originally pronounced monosyllabically, but has subsequently come to be pronounced as two syllables. The OED doesn't say so, but I assume this is under the influence of the adjective "forte", which is from Italian and bisyllabic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people pronounced "forte" like "fort" (probably the ones who pronounced "filet" as "fill-it") but normally it sounds like "for-tay", i.e. rhymes with "fore-play". I have to use rhymes, because the IPA stuff not only is gibberish in general, but on my PC it often looks like little boxes, which I really don't know how to pronounce. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs with regards to "fil[l]et", the whole of the UK, with few exceptions, pronounces it with a hard "t". For-tay prevails by some margin here. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Filet" as "fill-AY" and "fillet" as "FILL-it" is the normal U.S. usage, I would say. The McDonald's "Filet o' Fish" sandwich (or just "Filet") is pronounced "fill-AY", although I've also heard it pronounced as a homophone of "filly" or "Philly", i.e. accent on the first syllable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another one of these language oddities, like pronouncing "suite" like "suit" instead of "sweet". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the fast-food joint called Chick-fil-A pretty well illustrates the U.S. pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to learn 'forte' comes via French rather than Italian. That means that, unless I maintain a pronunciation I now know to be incorrect - horror! - I can no longer claim that the piano is my forte and make it sound witty. What a dreadful dilemma to be in! :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, the forte you are good at is from the French, the forte that is loud is from Italian. So if you play the piano loudly you could still get away with it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the final syllable (final "e" in this case) is pronounced in French when it is part of a lyric. So, friend Jack, if you were to sing out loudly and off key "My forte is the piano", roughly based on the music for "Glory, glory, hallelujah" you would have enough possible meanings for a whole catalogue of agreements. :-) Bielle (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sing it softly, and there are more still. Bielle (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's much more my style, Bielle. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]