Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 April 4
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 3 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 5 > |
| 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. |
April 4
editToday's (4th April) featured article intro ("named to")
editHi All, on todays main page in the featured article (Roberto Luongo) intro it states "He was named to the 2014 Canadian Olympic Hockey Team", which does not read right to me, I would expect to see "He was named in the 2014 Canadian Olympic Hockey Team". Is the use of the word 'to' an Americanism ? Or is it just me? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just asked the same at WP:Main_Page/Errors#Today's_TFA. Bazza (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- American English uses only "named to", and "named in" sounds very strange (to me at least). I was unaware of this difference. Would "selected for" work? Jmar67 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Selected for" sounds nice and neutral. In America, "named in" is often followed by "the indictment". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's arguably a short form of "named as an addition to". Jmar67 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and it's hard to tell why "named in" would be appropriate. If it were just a list of honored players, that would be one thing. But he was actually selected for the team and could have played in the games. Unless "named in" is a somewhat shorthand way of saying "named into". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Named in" may be equivalent to "was a member of", expressing the state following the nomination, whereas "named to" refers to the nomination. Jmar67 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Nomination" implies that a further selection or qualification follows. "Named to" suggests that that is not the case. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was using "nomination" in its other sense meaning "appointment to". Jmar67 (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- And the way you get to be a member of it is to be named to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Named in" may be equivalent to "was a member of", expressing the state following the nomination, whereas "named to" refers to the nomination. Jmar67 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and it's hard to tell why "named in" would be appropriate. If it were just a list of honored players, that would be one thing. But he was actually selected for the team and could have played in the games. Unless "named in" is a somewhat shorthand way of saying "named into". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's arguably a short form of "named as an addition to". Jmar67 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Selected for" sounds nice and neutral. In America, "named in" is often followed by "the indictment". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- American English uses only "named to", and "named in" sounds very strange (to me at least). I was unaware of this difference. Would "selected for" work? Jmar67 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Named to" sounds right to me. IMHO, it's a straight synonym for "selected to". "Named in" does not look correct in this context. I'm a Canadian, but certainly no Olympian, if that matters. :) Matt Deres (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Selected to" sounds just as bad to me as "named to"!: 'selected to represent Canada' sounds OK to me, but 'Selected to the Canadian team' does not, anybody else from the UK agree/disagree ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I had hoped you would explain your preference for "named in". Jmar67 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- UK examples of 'named in': Aguero named in Man City squad for Wembley showdown with Brighton - Evening Express and Gillespie named in England Under-18s squad | Northampton Saints...GrahamHardy (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- That would be equivalent to "included in", I guess. Jmar67 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a little more specific than "included in", because in such sporting circumstances the included players' names may need to be formally and publicly announced beforehand to comply with the governing body's requirements and/or to be printed in match programmes, etc. "Named to" does not sound natural to this Brit – it's not wrong, it's just not commonly used here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- They would be named in the announcement, sure. As part of being named to the team. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bugs, cannot you accept that usages sometimes differ on opposite sides of the Atlantic (and, for that matter, Pacific)? No-one (apart, perhaps, from yourself) is claiming that either usage (named "to" or named "in") is globally incorrect; we are merely establishing, in reply to the original query (from a Brit), that "to" is commonly used in the USA (and presumably Canada) but not in the UK where "in" is the norm. Since the FA in question had a Canadian subject, "to" should be fine, but it's not unreasonable that editors for whom it sounds unnatural should have queried it. (Won't pursue this any further as I have to leave for a meeting with a group of friends about one of our number found dead a few hours ago.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm simply trying to figure out why someone would say "in". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's correct grammar in the UK. If you don't speak Britixh English you probably wouldn't know. But I've been doing so for over 60 years and we say "named in" the team here and never "named to" the team. Sheesh. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about grammar, it's about usage. Do Brits ever say "named to", and if so, under what circumstances? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have never heard "named to" in the UK.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- These Guardian articles seem to use "named to" [1] [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not quite, Alanscottwalker. They both contain the sequence "named to", but in neither case is this followed by a team or squad. The second one (which does relate to British sport) uses "named in" twice, though to positions, rather than to a squad. --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- So, you can be "named to start", "named to the Pro-Bowl" (which quibble whether that is the Pro-Bowl team, or at least the same as, 'named to the Olympics') but somehow you can't be 'named to the Canadian team', ah well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, Alanscottwalker, that is not what is being said. If "named to" is regularly used in Canada, then "named to the Canadian team" (or "named to [anything else]") is fine in this Canadian-context instance. What is being affirmed, by several of us elderly Brits, is that "named to [a team]" is not regularly – in fact hardly ever – used in Britain, which is why one or more Brits originally queried it. Now that "named to" has been confirmed usual in North America by various Right Pondians above, we Left Pondians accept its use here, but it is very offensive to continue rejecting our assurance that the overwhelmingly usual usage in Britain is "named in" and implying that it's somehow wrong or perverse. The question as to why it's usual here is essentially unanswerable: language idioms and other local preferences in speech appear, change and disappear without much regard to logic. {The poster formerly known as 87,.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- So, you can be "named to start", "named to the Pro-Bowl" (which quibble whether that is the Pro-Bowl team, or at least the same as, 'named to the Olympics') but somehow you can't be 'named to the Canadian team', ah well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not quite, Alanscottwalker. They both contain the sequence "named to", but in neither case is this followed by a team or squad. The second one (which does relate to British sport) uses "named in" twice, though to positions, rather than to a squad. --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- These Guardian articles seem to use "named to" [1] [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have never heard "named to" in the UK.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about grammar, it's about usage. Do Brits ever say "named to", and if so, under what circumstances? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's correct grammar in the UK. If you don't speak Britixh English you probably wouldn't know. But I've been doing so for over 60 years and we say "named in" the team here and never "named to" the team. Sheesh. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm simply trying to figure out why someone would say "in". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bugs, cannot you accept that usages sometimes differ on opposite sides of the Atlantic (and, for that matter, Pacific)? No-one (apart, perhaps, from yourself) is claiming that either usage (named "to" or named "in") is globally incorrect; we are merely establishing, in reply to the original query (from a Brit), that "to" is commonly used in the USA (and presumably Canada) but not in the UK where "in" is the norm. Since the FA in question had a Canadian subject, "to" should be fine, but it's not unreasonable that editors for whom it sounds unnatural should have queried it. (Won't pursue this any further as I have to leave for a meeting with a group of friends about one of our number found dead a few hours ago.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- They would be named in the announcement, sure. As part of being named to the team. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a little more specific than "included in", because in such sporting circumstances the included players' names may need to be formally and publicly announced beforehand to comply with the governing body's requirements and/or to be printed in match programmes, etc. "Named to" does not sound natural to this Brit – it's not wrong, it's just not commonly used here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That would be equivalent to "included in", I guess. Jmar67 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Selected to" sounds just as bad to me as "named to"!: 'selected to represent Canada' sounds OK to me, but 'Selected to the Canadian team' does not, anybody else from the UK agree/disagree ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Suppose there's a government job which is made by appointment. In the UK, would you say the individual was appointed in that job, or appointed to that job? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's a different phrase entirely and you're becoming tiresome. I think I've never heard "named to" the XYZ team in my life. Akld guy (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- As are you, but I can put up with you. :) Being appointed to an office, or to a team, is the same idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's a different phrase entirely and you're becoming tiresome. I think I've never heard "named to" the XYZ team in my life. Akld guy (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Suppose there's a government job which is made by appointment. In the UK, would you say the individual was appointed in that job, or appointed to that job? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed interesting to encounter such clear-cut differences between us. I think the Americans are perfectly willing to accept that the UK says "named in", but we are curious as to why. Is it equivalent to "named to be in" or "named as being in", for example? What do you think of when you use the word "in" and what sounds strange about "to"? The one thing that confuses me about "in" is that it implies the player is already a member of the squad, team, etc., i.e., was added at some previous time, whereas "named to" focuses on the addition itself. Jmar67 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- "it implies the player is already a member of the squad, team, etc..." Well, that's exactly the point isn't it? He already is a member when the report says he has been "named in the team". As to what's strange about "named to the team", that sounds like his name has been supplied to the team as a mere candidate and he has not yet been accepted into it. Counterintuitive. Akld guy (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not counterintuitive in America. It's the British usage that sounds counterintuitive to us. But as someone noted above, there's often no accounting for idiomatic differences. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)