(Message jed:483) showproc jed/483 /home/mjd/bin/mailpager /home/mjd/MH-Mail/jed/483 Return-Path: mjd@plover.com Return-Path: Delivered-To: mjd-filter-deliver@plover.com Delivered-To: mjd-filter@plover.com Delivered-To: mjd@plover.com Message-ID: <19980415213103.651.qmail@plover.com> To: logos@kith.org (Jed Hartman), ranjit@best.com (Ranjit Bhatnagar) cc: mjd@plover.com Subject: Finger names Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:31:03 -0400 From: Mark-Jason Dominus I think it's funny that there's a first finger and a fourth finger and they have only one finger in between. I was trying to explain English finger names to Lorrie' Korean cousin, and I had to explain that there is no such thing in English as `third finger'. The OED says that the fingers, not counting the thumb, are numbered 1234, but it's lying, because the citations all support the 1?4? numbering I would have expected. For example, the _Book of Common Prayer_, which contains the standard English wedding ceremony, says about the ring: ``... put it vpon the fowerth finger of the woman's left hande.'' This is from 1549, but the ring is going on the `fowerth' (`4th') finger, not the `third' finger, so clearly they weren't numbered 1234 in 1549 either.