Forum: Author Hangout

h-how can you get a finger full?
handful is easy, you can make a bowl with your hand. But fingers?

how many fingerfuls is a pinch of salt?

A fingerful is how kid's eat peanut butter, by sticking their germ-infected fingers into the family's communal jar. I needed it for a story, where a father is too sick to feed his lover and teenage daughter, and that's all he can manage.

Basically, anyone who's ever had small children should be familiar with the term, as I heard it as a child and used it with my own kids.

When it comes to peanut butter, the kids were fingerful. They'd grab a jar and get a finger full.

Precisely.

@sunkuwan

We don't really have that saying in our language.

OK. Let's start there. It's at least common is select parts of America. It is used anywhere else?

Americans do use the term dependent upon geography.

Apparently, very much so. 56 years old, from Indiana, now live in Oklahoma, NEVER heard of fingerful before. I'm familiar with pinch, dash, hoagie, and grinder, though.

I've heard it used in NYC, Harrisburg, and one other I can't remember.

Since we moved so frequently as children, I'm never sure where I picked up various phrases from (I picked up many British spellings from reading British and Russian classics in school). But my father's family was from New York (Long Island) and we visited there nearly every summer.

But it doesn't answer my initial question. When it is used, is it "fingerful" or "fingerfull"?

@awnlee jawking

You need to check that theFreeDictionary reference again :(

Depending on how I searched (which phrase), FreeDictionary would either insist that "fingerful" or "fingerfull" was the accepted spelling, which only makes me doubt FreeDictionary's value as a reference even more. :(

It's "fingerful" when used.

That's what I assumed, but wasn't sure given the few isolated references. But without many sources ... but I'll leave my usage as it is.

Depending on how I searched (which phrase), FreeDictionary would either insist that "fingerful" or "fingerfull" was the accepted spelling,

Searching for 'fingerful' returns:

"fingerful
Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia.
Did you mean:
fingerfull"

Ngrams is 100% fingerful. A Google web search finds 60% 'fingerful', 40% 'fingerfull'.

Words which retain the -full suffix tend to be obscure and less evolved. The -ful suffix is more future-proof ;)

AJ

Ngrams is 100% fingerful. A Google web search finds 60% 'fingerful', 40% 'fingerfull'.

Words which retain the -full suffix tend to be obscure and less evolved. The -ful suffix is more future-proof ;)

Thanks! That was precisely the authoritative reference I needed for evaluating these types of regionalisms. While -full may be preferred in certain usages, -ful is best in actual usages or with entirely newly coined terms.

I'm feeling pretty miffed at this point about who you thanked for that.

There were a few people who agreed, but awnlee backed it up with the ngrams comparing book and random online usages. While I'd agree with using 'handful' earlier, his was the most thoroughly documented answer.

What could be a more "authoritative reference" than the OxD stating to always use '-ful'. That was your answer.

My confused stemmed from the lack of references, and my worries that the term is entirely a 'regional usage', so I wasn't sure whether Oxford was a reliable source in this instance or not.

While your Oxford reference did provide the intellectual justification, Awnlee's ngrams provided the more authoritative numbers I was seeking, as it confirmed which usage was more accepted, rather than what a few 'experts' dictated.

Although I frequently check on regional uses, this was the first time I couldn't track down how they applied (i.e. is it an British or American usage, and does the spelling change between the two).

In other words, both of you helped, and we quickly reached a consensus about which form everyone preferred, but awnlee settled the issue with some specific usage data, rather than scattershot opinions.

It wasn't that your advice wasn't appreciated, it was just that I was searching for something more concrete, as I wasn't even convinced it was an accepted usage to begin with.

What could be a more "authoritative reference" than the OxD stating to always use '-ful'.

One that was correct?

There are a few uncommon words where -full seems to be preferred, but presumably Oxford Dictionaries isn't sufficiently comprehensive to cover them.

Google for 'words ending with full'.

AJ

Google for 'words ending with full'.

The first one I found had "artfull" and "awfull" and "hatefull."

The first one I found had "artfull" and "awfull" and "hatefull."

That looks like relictual usage not yet eliminated by transitions to the 'ful' suffix most of us would use automatically.

As well as 'fingerfull', theFreeDictionay lists 'quiverfull'.

AJ

Apparently, very much so. 56 years old, from Indiana, now live in Oklahoma, NEVER heard of fingerful before. I'm familiar with pinch, dash, hoagie, and grinder, though.

Throughout the American gold rush years (both back east and out west), pinches and similar measurements were the 'gold standard', but fell out of favor for obvious reason: because the rail-thin prospectors would presents 20 pinches, while the well-fed and beefy clerks would only measure 8!

Fingerful, dash, pinch, so forth, all subjective terms for small quantities.
Not all fingers are equal obviously. I've seen those and many more called out in various recipes. Given the size of my hands verses that of my wife and daughters, it is of sufficient variation to assure inaccurate reproduction of those recipes between us.

Those are recipe book references. The usage in my story is explaining how he was able to cope in extreme circumstances. See the extract below:

Knowing that Ellen was gone, he got up, lifting Alice in his arms and struggling on unsteady legs to carry her to a separate bed, not wanting to cramp Alice and too weak to dispose of Ellen's body. Instead he gathered what he could: dry crackers and some cans of food he'd scoop out a fingerful at a time, along with some more water and lay beside her.

In this usage, fingerful is more descriptive of the process than a measurable quantity.

In this usage,

It is descriptive to you. To me, I don't know what it is describing.

I've heard the term used on a few occasions to mean dipping a finger into something and pulling it out coated with that something. Your use of the term in that context makes no sense.

It is descriptive to you. To me, I don't know what it is describing.

I've heard the term used on a few occasions to mean dipping a finger into something and pulling it out coated with that something. Your use of the term in that context makes no sense.

In that context, it means it's the ONLY way they could eat (i.e. survive).

Used in cooking it's a god-awful measurement, worthless in terms of making a successful dish, but with children (and fiction in this case) it's simply a description of how someone eats (i.e. "The kids keep taking fingerfuls out of the cake!").

You're point in comparing the two terms is like comparing apple filling to orange crates.

You're point in comparing the two terms

2 terms??? The only term I addressed is fingerful.

You're point in comparing the two terms

2 terms??? The only term I addressed is fingerful.

You 'compared' my usage of fingerful by comparing it with one used in preparing recipes. One is an outdated measurement reference, while the other is a somewhat common regional description of childlike behavior. Just as dictionaries typically list multiple distinct definitions, this usage also has separate usages, despite only one usage being listed in only a couple of sources.

See the following for the distinction:

@Switch Blayde

Maybe in cooking, but…

The first time he came, it was a spoonful. But after the third time, it was no more than a fingerful.

It is descriptive to you. To me, I don't know what it is describing.

I've heard the term used on a few occasions to mean dipping a finger into something and pulling it out coated with that something. Your use of the term in that context makes no sense.

You seem to be extremely confused, CW.

The above is what I posted. I don't see anything in the above about 2 terms. I also see no reference to cooking.

Used in cooking it's a god-awful measurement

Maybe in cooking, but…

The first time he came, it was a spoonful. But after the third time, it was no more than a fingerful.

In this usage, fingerful is more descriptive of the process than a measurable quantity.

IMO it rather nicely combines an indication of measure and the method of eating. It's a $10 word, but the meaning is self-evident from the context. Good choice.

AJ

IMO it rather nicely combines an indication of measure and the method of eating. It's a $10 word, but the meaning is self-evident from the context. Good choice.

Thanks. Those are the best uses of those $10 words, you don't use them often, but when you do, you spare yourself lengthy descriptions struggling to explain basic concepts, yet provide enough context for the readers to identify the word's meaning.

Now I've just got to clean up the multiple random patches I've been making over a 180,000 word book! :(

And please, try changing 'lifting' and 'struggling' in your sample to 'lifted' and 'struggled'. That changes a staccato mess with a comma splice into a simple, smooth-flowing list, IMHO.

Yeah, I'm in the process of updating the dated story in a piecemeal process, and haven't yet reviewed the language or involved editors yet.

If you take a modern novel (except by Dean Koontz), it would be a surprise to find it containing any words not in OxD. Dictionaries are good at covering words by frequency of use. But in terms of absolute coverage, they probably cover less than 10% of current, genuine, not-made-up-on-the-spot words. Absence from a dictionary does not prove a word to be illegitimate.

AJ

Dictionaries are good at covering words by frequency of use. But in terms of absolute coverage, they probably cover less than 10% of current, genuine, not-made-up-on-the-spot words. Absence from a dictionary does not prove a word to be illegitimate.

Most dictionaries have traditionally been slow to recognize clear usage trends, only accepting newer usages only once the older usage has almost gone extinct. To make up for this trend, those same dictionaries are now quick to introduce hundreds of new words which never become common usage, while still fighting tooth and nail over when to drop hyphens. Thus I'm always hesitant about usage patterns when dictionaries argue absolute restrictions. They don't have the best record in those regards. :(

OxD lists fingerful but not fingerfull, not even as a regional/national variation.

At this point, it's clear that no one suggests fingerfull, but when Ross first stated that OED declared -full as dead, I given the lack of references, I wasn't sure whether that adage applied to Brit-English or American-English. Since I rarely use the OED, relying on American dictionaries since I already have problems with using British spellings rather than Americanized ones, there was little incentive. While the OED is clearly the leading authority in British English, it's standing as a authority on American usages isn't as clear.

That was my main objection, I wasn't convinced whether the spelling was a regional variant, or the usage was.

For future reference, can we agree I'll try to list an American dictionary too and you'll check an American dictionary rather than suspecting some difference?

They do all tend to be good and consistent about identifying regional variations.

Agreed. My problem wasn't with you, or my doubting the OEDs assertion, but rather with my not knowing why there were so few dictionary references (i.e. because it was a regional usage, because it might be a British/American thing, or because dictionaries in general (as they often do), simply gloss over or ignore most modern usage patterns (though this was an older phrase, dictionaries may not want to tackle it for fear it'll never become a 'standard' usage).

Given those doubts, I was reluctant to accept the OED's 'definitive' answer on the subject. :(