Here’s another one from chemistry: periodic table vs periodic acid. The second one is per-iodic, accent on the second syllable.
Since the OP has been answered, permit me a minor hijack. To a mathematician (and near everyone else), “equivalent” is hyphenated as equiv-alent, but to a chemist it is equi-valent and pronounced quite differently. This is a problem for the automatic hyphenation algorithm of TeX.
Agree. It’s the vowel sound vs. consonant sound that matters. That’s why you would say “A one-time superstar” but say “an on-point argument” - “one” is pronounced like “won,” but “on” is pronounced starting with a vowel sound.
Asimov loved that example. I think he used it in a mystery…
Maybe they should just use the spellings un-ionized, an-ion, cat-ion, equi-valent to prevent ambiguity.
You’d probably be the only one with that expectation.
When I silently read “a thread on the SDMB talked about dogs” I mentally pronounce it Ess dee em bee. Which is exactly how I’d say it if reading aloud.
If I was reading some article that talked about the IRS or FBI or ICBMs I’d certainly not expand those into the full set of words, mentally or orally. Nor would I expect any other person to do so.
I’ve heard it in the wild. But not often. I knew one IT guy who always used “earl”, and a bunch of marketing types.
Futurama had a robot cop named Url - pronounced Earl
ETA deleted
It’s a somewhat philosophical question whether you can have “rules” in the absence of a central rule-setting institution. I think you can. Despite the absence of such a rule-setting institution, there are certainly some principles which are so universally recognised among those who speak American English that deviations from them would be considered incorrect. I don’t think there would be anything wrong with calling these principles “rules”, even if there is no rule-setting authority that promulgated it. So I don’t think it would be fair to say that there are no rules whatsoever in American English.
Maybe there should be a rule that it’s okay to call something a rule even if no rulemaking authority ruled the rule a rule.
International law has the concept of customary law, which, despite not being legislated by a legislative authority, is generally considered to be “law”.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with calling them “rules.” They are rules.
DrDeth’s statement that “there are no rules in English, only opinions,” is misleading at best. It depends on a narrow definition of the word “rule” as an officially dictated practice. Since English has no formal body that decides on correct practice as French and Spanish do, it’s true in that sense. However, there are more general definitions of “rule,” including generally recognized practice, even if not official or explicit. Baseball has rules in the first sense; society has rules of courtesy in the second. If you violate the first kind of rule you will receive an official sanction; if you violate the second people will look at you funny or think you are an idiot. English certainly has rules of the second sort.
As said above, the “a/an” rule is a descriptive rule, not set by any official body. It describes how people actually speak. Most native speakers apply the rule instinctively. Problems mainly arise when people over-think the rule, by believing it is based on spelling rather than pronunciation.
Another descriptive rule is the order of adjectives.. When a noun is preceded by more than one adjective, the usual order is: opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, color, origin, material, type, and purpose. Most Native English speakers are not consciously aware of this rule, but apply it instinctively. There is nothing grammatically “wrong” with placing adjectives in a different order, it will just “sound wrong.”
I was unaware of this rule (or practice, if you prefer). Where do nouns used attributively fit into this paradigm. There is a reason I ask. When Quebec switched from religion based schools to language based, some pointy-headed bureaucrat, not a native English speaker, decided that the new school board here would be called the English Montreal School Board. Virtually every native speaker of English feels that there is something just a bit off about this and it should be Montreal English School Board. “Montreal” is a noun used attributively here.
Sure, English does have customs. and the A/an thing is one of them.
But the customs fail when we get to corner cases such as abbreviations, and words that dont pronounce the first letter. In those cases, just winging it to whatever sounds best to you is just as good as consulting a style guide, as even style guides differ and dont agree.
I’m not sure that the general order of adjectives is the operative principle here, since I would consider that “Montreal” and “English” both refer to origin or nationality, and are at the same level. Instead, I think the overall principle that adjectives go from the more general to the more specific as they approach the noun is at work. That is, there are several Montreal school boards, and the English school board is a specific one of them, so that is the order that sounds right.
Well no, it’s not a custom in the ordinary sense of custom. It’s a rule, by one of the common meanings of “rule.” When you use words in an idiosyncratic way, as you do here, it doesn’t aid communication.
I really don’t know what exactly you are trying to say here. For one thing, you are using “corner case” (as you have before) in some non-standard way. Corner case is jargon from engineering or computing that “involves a problem or situation that occurs only outside of normal operating parameters”. I really can’t see how this applies to abbreviations and words that begin with a silent “h.”
But has been repeatedly pointed out, the rule does not fail when it is understood to apply to pronunciation rather than spelling. It works perfectly. If its application varies with respect to particular words, it is based on variation in how the word is pronounced, in particular whether “h” is pronounced or not.
This is a case where a Style Guide is not really necessary, since the rule is simple and easily stated. My Chicago Manual of Style and AP Guide basically have the identical rule. I think it very unlikely that any style guide would differ. You might perhaps have a style sheet for an individual publication to specify usage for particular words that may vary in pronunciation such as “historic,” but that’s an individual decision by a publisher or author, not a general style.
Absolutely agree about “a” and “an”, and it seems just about everyone else does, too, except @DrDeth. The written usage should follow the spoken form. “A apple” is just gratingly wrong (or bizarrely non-standard, if you prefer) whether spoken or written.
Never heard that before, but I think it’s probably largely correct, although there are undoubtedly exceptions. “A beautiful old red English sports car” sounds right; most other permutations do not (“a red English old beautiful sports car” sounds odd).
Here’s a bit more elaborate explanation. I wasn’t aware of it myself until someone pointed it out on the board a few years ago. The bizarre thing is that most native speakers employ this pattern instinctively without ever being aware that the rule exists.
It seems to me that it depends on what you’re trying to distinguish between:if there are a bunch of school boards in Montreal and you want to specify the English one, than English Montreal school board is right - but if there are a bunch of English school boards all over Canada and you want to talk about the one in Montreal, that it’s the Montreal English school board.
I wasn’t aware of the order myself until I started teaching English and one classroom had that on a poster. ISTM that the vast majority of grammar and such are things that as native speakers we absorb and learn. As such, native speakers can’t just instantly become teachers of their language. You have to actually study it — not to learn to speak correctly but to be able to explicitly teach what you already unconsciously know but are now aware of the ways.