# An Historic Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 9, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102 "2005-05-09T19:28:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/21 "2005-05-09T22:38:08Z")
As has been said, the ‘a/an’ distinction is made by examining the initial _sound_ of the following word, not the initial _letter_. ‘An historic’ is perfectly correct if you pronounce it ‘an istoric’ or something similar, and ‘a historic’ is perfectly correct if you pronounce it that way. (That is, with an initial /h/.) There are other examples, but only one springs to mind: Is it ‘an SQL statement’ or ‘a SQL statement’? For those of us who say /ess-kyou-ell/ the first makes more sense, and for those who say /see-kwul/ the second is obviously correct. There is no single answer. It depends on dialect. ---
**Author:** ![Queen\_Bruin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Queen\_Bruin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queen_Bruin)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/22 "2005-05-09T23:00:02Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Did he insist on being called “An History Professor”? > > (Not intended as an entirely facetious question) Nah I just called him Dr. J. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/23 "2005-05-09T23:13:46Z")
[QUOTE=GorillaMan] If it’s “An historic” simply due to most English speakers dropping the H, then why not use ‘an’ for other dropped aiches? _‘An Hispanic’_? _‘An hissy-fit’_? What are you talking about? Those aren’t dropped by most English speakers. The h in _hispanic_ would be dropped by a Spanish speaker, but hispanic isn’t a Spanish word. The h is pronounced in English. I have never heard anyone say 'issy-fit. ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/24 "2005-05-10T00:12:35Z")
Colibri, I’ve never heard anyone say 'istoric either, other than in a Cockney dialect. It seems lto me like this a fairly recent thing in this country. I first noticed it about 15 years ago. Could be totally wrong about that. I always hear it from TV and radio news reporters. Sounds like they are trying to be formal. ---
**Author:** ![Jake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/25 "2005-05-10T00:23:10Z")
> [@capybara](#): > > Ok, do we all take issue with “an herb” (pronounced in the American manner, not English)? I’ve always said 'erb instead of “herb”. Until Martha changed my ways. So how is it supposed to be pronounced? BTW glad to hear from another '99er. ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/26 "2005-05-10T00:30:13Z")
Herb with an H is an English thing, ironic considering their tendency to drop Hs. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/27 "2005-05-10T02:27:33Z")
> [@Soylent Gene](#): > > Colibri, I’ve never heard anyone say 'istoric either, other than in a Cockney dialect. > > It seems lto me like this a fairly recent thing in this country. I first noticed it about 15 years ago. Could be totally wrong about that. > > I always hear it from TV and radio news reporters. Sounds like they are trying to be formal. I say _an 'istoric_ myself, and I’m from a working class part of the Bronx. And I’m not trying to be formal, or a grammar maven. That’s just the way that sounds natural to me. _History_ is stressed on the first syllable, so the h in that syllable is clearly pronounced. It’s always “a history.” In contrast, the stress in _historic_ is on the second syllable, so the initial h is less definite. Whether the h is pronounced or not varies in American English (and I suppose British English as well). Whether or not you use a or an before depends on whether or not you pronounce the h, nothing more. This is not a grammar issue at all, it’s a pronunciation issue. Alleging that this is only done by grammar sticklers or formalists is way wide of the mark. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/28 "2005-05-10T03:07:48Z")
Everybody says “an hour”, though, which is a clear case of silent “h” hood. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/29 "2005-05-10T04:13:27Z")
> [@Soylent Gene](#): > > Herb with an H is an English thing, ironic considering their tendency to drop Hs. No,\* 'erb\* is an \*American \*thing, everyone else just says herb. No idea why 'merkins do this, my guess is they think it’s a French word (because it’s connected with cooking?). ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/30 "2005-05-10T04:44:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Herb with an H is an English thing, ironic considering their tendency to drop Hs. I believe that dropping aitches is limited to a few dialects at most, but I’m willing to accept correction. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/31 "2005-05-10T05:07:54Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I say _an 'istoric_ myself, and I’m from a working class part of the Bronx. And I’m not trying to be formal, or a grammar maven. That’s just the way that sounds natural to me. > > _History_ is stressed on the first syllable, so the h in that syllable is clearly pronounced. It’s always “a history.” > > In contrast, the stress in _historic_ is on the second syllable, so the initial h is less definite. Whether the h is pronounced or not varies in American English (and I suppose British English as well). Whether or not you use a or an before depends on whether or not you pronounce the h, nothing more. > > This is not a grammar issue at all, it’s a pronunciation issue. Alleging that this is only done by grammar sticklers or formalists is way wide of the mark. Dialects that use this “an”, according to what I’ve read (and it matches well with what I here) use it when the following word starts with /h/ in an unstressed syllable. So “an historic” but “a history”. Simple matter of pronunciation. To me, “historic” starts with /h/ so it’s always “a historic event”. Colibri’s right on this one. > [@Zsofia](#): > > Everybody says “an hour”, though, which is a clear case of silent “h” hood. Of course they say “an hour”. “Hour” starts with a vowel. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/32 "2005-05-10T05:52:00Z")
This has come up [before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284730&highlight=historic). A summary of what I (and [Julian Burnside](http://malcolmfarnsworth.com/english/usage/haitch-aitch-burnside.shtml)) contributed then. First, the “rule”: > [@Burnside](#): > > The rule is simple enough: a word which begins with a vowel sound takes an; a word which begins with a consonant sound takes a. So, an honest person, an hour, an heir, an unusual event &c.; a hypothetical case, a historic occasion (but colloquially an 'istoric occasion), a useful suggestion, &c. Before initials, the choice of article depends on the way the name of the letter is sounded: a UN resolution; an S-bend, an HB pencil, an X-rated film, an MP. Then, some historical background: > [@Burnside](#): > > In late Latin, and in early Italian and French, the aspirate gradually ceased to be sounded. In Italian, the h was progressively dropped in the written form of words, so that it is now absent from words which, in the French, retain it without sounding it: eretico (hérétique); istoria (histoire); orribile (horrible);osteria (hôtel). > > In Anglo-Saxon speech, h was always sounded, but since the Norman conquest, the English pronunciation of words with an initial h gradually adopted the French manner: the english language has always been something of a trollop, pursuing advantage where it can. So for hundreds of years, the h was seen but not heard in “proper” speech, at least in words which derive from the romance languages. > > If the initial h of a noun or adjective is not sounded, then the word naturally takes the indefinite article an. At least from the 11th century then, it was natural to refer to an (h)istory, an (h)otel, an (h)our, an (h)onourable woman, an (h)umble person. The ambivalence of usage survives in words like hostler/ostler. > > However, from the 18th century on, English usage began once more to aspirate the initial h. This coincides with the arrival of the Hanoverian monarchs, whose native language had always sounded the h. Thus words which had come into English via French began to be said with aspirated h’s, although the change was gradual and patchy. Published in 1828, Walker’s Dictionary says that h is always sounded except in heir, heiress, honest, honesty, honour, honourable, herb, herbage, hospital, hostler, hour, humble, humour, humorous, & humorsome. Since that time, those underlined have also changed, but in the USA herb is still said with a silent h. Next, an interesting historical allusion: > [@suranyi last time round](#): > > I guess I’m the only one who remembers the brouhaha surrounding Time magazine’s cover story in 1984, titled “A Historic Choice”, regarding the selection of Ferarro as the Democrat’s VP choice. A lot of people complained that it should have been “An”. Today, when understanding of the process that has led to the current situation is generally very limited, the problem with writing “an historic” in mainstream media publications is that many readers will assume that the spelling is also a guide as to how you should pronounce the words. Thus, rather than “an (h)istoric choice”, many people (without the benefit of a knowledge of history) will think it should be pronounced as “an historic choice”. In England, you can from time to time hear people who fall into this trap. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Regarding “history”, I went to school in England with a boy from Northern Ireland (born there of parents born in England, as I recall, and residing there until he was 13), and he used to say 'istory (NB **Colibri** ). This may be a regional thing. Is anyone else from a region where the aitch in “history” is dropped by some speakers? Incidentally, how do the Americans here pronounce “humor” and “humorous”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/33 "2005-05-10T06:10:33Z")
We um…aspirate? the h’s. We pronounce them. We say them right out. “HYOO-mur” “HYOO-mur-us.” ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/34 "2005-05-10T06:19:28Z")
The letter H apparently is the cause of some confusion in pronunciation. I worked with a guy in Lowell, Ma who had a terrible time with H. In giving a presentation one time he had to pronounce H all by itself. He screwed his eybrows into a knot, turned slightly purple and finally came out with “haich.” His story was that the nuns used the ruler in his grade school if you didn’t pronounce it that way. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/35 "2005-05-10T06:39:26Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > This is not a grammar issue at all, it’s a pronunciation issue. Alleging that this is only done by grammar sticklers or formalists is way wide of the mark. But it _is_ a grammar question, because it’s a question about how we should _write_ the thing. Nobody’s saying anybody is right or wrong to say “an 'istoric” or “a historic”. The question is whether we should attempt to replicate these nuances in what we write. > [@zoe](#): > > I believe that dropping aitches is limited to a few dialects at most, but I’m willing to accept correction. Assuming you’re talking about England, it’s certainly not a small minority that drop Hs. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > This may be a regional thing. Is anyone else from a region where the aitch in “history” is dropped by some speakers? Yes. And it gets dropped in [Estuary English](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary_English), too, which is by far the most dominant influence on pronunciation throughout England at the present time. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/36 "2005-05-10T07:09:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > We um…aspirate? the h’s. We pronounce them. We say them right out. “HYOO-mur” “HYOO-mur-us.” Not in my dialect. That seems like a Britishized pronunciation. I say “hew-mur”. I guess the only difference is which vowel is the nucleus of the syllable - /`hju m@r/ (as said by the Brits) versus /`hiw m@r/ (as said in my dialect.) The SAMPA may not be exactly correct here, but it ought to get the idea across. > [@GorillaMan](#): > > But it is a grammar question, because it’s a question about how we should write the thing. Nobody’s saying anybody is right or wrong to say “an 'istoric” or “a historic”. The question is whether we should attempt to replicate these nuances in what we write. If you’re stepping off into “should” territory, it’s not grammar, it’s style. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/37 "2005-05-10T07:15:09Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > If you’re stepping off into “should” territory, it’s not grammar, it’s style. No, because grammar isn’t some axiomatic system into which the English language has moulded itself. The rules change over time (or do they boldly go? 😉 ), to reflect changes in the language. My point of view is that there’s no uniform or dominant pronunciation of ‘historic’, so it’s not possible to define a grammatical rule to suit. Others seem to be arguing the opposite. We’re not disagreeing about whether grammar should exist, but whether it can be suitably modified in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/38 "2005-05-10T07:22:45Z")
Associated Press style: It was a historic event. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/39 "2005-05-10T07:30:33Z")
Two British style guides give two views: The Times goes for ‘an historic’ and the Guardian for ‘a historic’. The latter also says to retain ‘an historic’ if it’s a direct quotation of speech. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/40 "2005-05-10T07:45:44Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Two British style guides give two views: The Times goes for ‘an historic’ and the Guardian for ‘a historic’. The latter also says to retain ‘an historic’ if it’s a direct quotation of speech. One up to The Guardian. Might start reading it one day! I checked The Daily Telegraph and it had: ‘a historic victory for Margaret Thatcher over the Socialists’. So count it in with The Guardian. Really, no Americans say _'umor_? Thought I’d heard it… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102.md?page=3)