Which is proper?
For example, would one say, “…an historic event…,” or “…a historic event…?”
Which is proper?
For example, would one say, “…an historic event…,” or “…a historic event…?”
If you’re pronouncing just the letter “aych” then it’d be “an H” but for words starting with H, the sound isn’t a vowel sound so it would be “a historic event.” At least, that’s how I say it.
Depends how you pronounce it. The rule for “A” vs. “An” has nothin to do with spelling, and everything to do with preventing a collision of vowel sounds, especially two unstressed vowel sounds. So, for example, “an H” or “an L” are correct English. Since the different pronunciations of “historic” are a matter of dialect, the only rule that needs to be followed is that the article should agree with your preferred pronunciation - if you pronounce the initial consonant, it’s “a historic”, but if you do not, it’s “an historic”.
This has been discussed recently.
brianmelendez quoted Bryan A. Garner:
Pronunciation is the key word. It is interresting to read older text, to see how the pronunciation has changed. For example, if you read Gibbons Decline and fall…, you will notice that he wrote an horse, as well as an usual [sub]something[/sub]. Which leads me to believe that he pronounced those words differently from what we do today. But then he wrote more than 200 years ago, and the language has evolved.
You speak for your own dialect area. In Australia, I heard most people say the letter as “haitch”, and therefore with the article it was “a haitch”.
So, for example, “an honor student” is correct while “a honor student” is incorrect?
Yes.
The letter H is named AITCH, even in Oz.
AH, thanks for asking.
Maybe so, but I know what I heard, and it sure as heck wasn’t “aitch”.
As mentioned, it maters not at all how you spell it. If you write aitch, but say haitch, then it is indeed a aitch, But that is for Aussies. What I find especially irritating are the CBC announcers who say, an historical, which is almost impossible if you are English speaking. Someone mention “a usual”, which correctly illustrates the fact that it is stricly a pronunciation rule. Also “a university”.
This discussion illustrates one of the best arguments against spelling reform for English. Here is one–maybe the only one–phonetic spelling rule and it results in different spelling in different dialects. If phonetic spelling were adopted, practically every word would have its own spelling in each dialect and we would not all be able to read each other’s posts.
What you have heard is Australians who do not know how to pronounce “aitch”. I know, my wife is one and it’s always bugged me. “Look it up in the dictionary,” I say,“the only spelling is A-I-T-C-H”. “Yeah whatever,” says she.
I know there are a lot of them, but that doesn’t make it right. Probably comes from the cockney background of many Australians.
Yes it does. Just because there is a large group of people who pronounce a word differently than you do does not mean that they are wrong and you are right. As far as any linguist, and the vast majority of dictionary writers, are concerned, you’re both right, at least when speaking your respective dialects. Cockney and the Australian dialects it influenced may enjoy less prestige than whatever it is you speak, but rest assured that their speakers do indeed know how to speak their own language.
If you insist on arguing this there are lots of people in the Pit who would be happy to take you on.
It’s usually “haitch” in Ireland, as well.
Just found this article from the publisher of the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English. It addresses the “aitch” versus “haitch” issue, and mentions that the aspirated version is thought to come from the Irish, as ruadh’s post might suggest. Predictably, the publisher refuses to say whether one or the other version is correct, instead asking that we simply respect the fact that different people simply have different preferred pronunciations of the same word.
I’m aware of the linguist arguments that seperate the spoken word from the written, and am not particularly interested in debating it.
Interestingly enough it seems to be a significant minority of Australians who do it rather than a majority (speaking from my experience only).
As far as the linked article goes it neglects to distinguish between alterations in pronunciation that require a different interpretation of the letters present, and alterations that require the addition of letters that are not present, in the correct spelling.
Of course your original point is quite correct, if you say haitch, then you should say a haitch rather than an haitch.
Is “seperate” the correct spelling in Australia?
No I don’t think so.