# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/41 "2005-05-10T09:26:00Z")
“An Hotel” is also a very common usage in the UK. I remember reading a reader’s letter to [The Lady magazine](http://www.lady.co.uk/) (which tends to be read by women of “a certain age” from the upper-middle classes, hence rather “proper” and “correct”) in which the writer lamented that the front cover of a particular issue made reference to “a hotel”. The impression was given that this was an unforgivable gaff - although the editor slapped this down pretty smartly by referring to Fowler’s. Many posters have suggested Estuary English as the source of this, but I would suggest it’s also from the opposite end of the social spectrum that the “an + aitch” derives. Upper class speech from the 1900s has tended to drop h’s just as much as working class speech, so it’s rather a double-whammy. Among my mother’s friends - who fit The Lady’s readership to a T (or should that be “to an H”?) - it’s always (in conversation) “an 'otel”, “an 'istoric” etc. So… either “an 'istoric” or “a historic”, but never “an historic” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/42 "2005-05-10T09:40:45Z")
> [@](#): > > This may be a regional thing. Is anyone else from a region where the aitch in “history” is dropped by some speakers? Me. All words beginning with a ‘h’ whose second letter is a vowel are preceded with ‘an’. “an 'orse” “an 'ospital” “an 'ouse” “an 'ead” etc. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/43 "2005-05-10T10:59:16Z")
> [@+MDI](#): > > Me. All words beginning with a ‘h’ whose second letter is a vowel are preceded with ‘an’. > > “an 'orse” > “an 'ospital” > “an 'ouse” > “an 'ead” > > etc. ditto. I’m originally from Yorkshire, England. ---
**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, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/44 "2005-05-10T12:19:27Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > but whether it can be suitably modified in this situation. The point is that grammar cannot be modified - not because it’s an axiomatic system, as you so aptly describe some folks’ attitude towards it - but because it’s something immensely complex that can’t be fully described on paper. One can’t put forth a theoretical grammar for a language that will generate every sentence in the language and not generate ungrammatical sentences. Grammar isn’t something made up by teachers or subject to review - it’s the system that underlies our ability to use language and it can only be understood to a limited degree. Decisions on how one should write something, especially on issues like this that deal with dialectual variation and register, are within the realm of style, not grammar. ---
**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, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/45 "2005-05-10T14:24:00Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > 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. I think you misunderstand what “grammar” means. This a pronunciation, and as far as spelling goes, a style issue. It is not a grammar issue. Whether you write “a herb” or “an herb” depends on how “herb” is pronounced in your dialect, not on the grammatical role of either word. ---
**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, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/46 "2005-05-10T15:33:04Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Whether you write “a herb” or “an herb” depends on how “herb” is pronounced in your dialect, not on the grammatical role of either word. That’s why I gave other examples where a common dialect or regional difference would never be considered for use in ‘standard’ text. Why make a special case for ‘an h…’? ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/47 "2005-05-10T16:31:48Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > That’s why I gave other examples where a common dialect or regional difference would never be considered for use in ‘standard’ text. Why make a special case for ‘an h…’? It’s not a special case. The common regional difference in pronunciation between the use of “a herb” (British) and “an herb” (American), for example, is recognized in the way the article is spelled. There is no reason that “historic” should be treated differently. ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/48 "2005-05-10T16:38:02Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It’s not a special case. The common regional difference in pronunciation between the use of “a herb” (British) and “an herb” (American), for example, is recognized in the way the article is spelled. There is no reason that “historic” should be treated differently. But do we have any solid evidence for differentiation between historical pronunciations of ‘historic’? And we’ve already seen that there’s no consistency of spelling the phrase even within the London media, so can you draw any conclusions about Britain as a whole? ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/49 "2005-05-10T16:45:01Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > But do we have any solid evidence for differentiation between historical pronunciations of ‘historic’? And we’ve already seen that there’s no consistency of spelling the phrase even within the London media, so can you draw any conclusions about Britain as a whole? Why would you need to? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/50 "2005-05-10T16:54:14Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > 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. Exactly. It’s not a question of grammar. It’s phonology. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/51 "2005-05-10T17:11:05Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It’s not a special case. The common regional difference in pronunciation between the use of “a herb” (British) and “an herb” (American), for example, is recognized in the way the article is spelled. There is no reason that “historic” should be treated differently. No, you’ve missed the point. It’s not the same as “An 'erb” vs “A herb” This issue is that with historic (and hotel) _even though_ the “h” is pronounced, it still takes “An”. So the question is why should “An historic”, and “An hotel” be treated differently to “A horse”, despite being pronouced in exactly the same way. It might have its roots in dropped aitches, but that’s not how you hear it in the UK - it’s accepted RP to say “An historic”, not just in dialects where aitches are routinely dropped. So it does become a grammar question, as this is a clear breach of grammatical orthodoxy. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/52 "2005-05-10T17:32:40Z")
> [@e-logic](#): > > No, you’ve missed the point. > > It’s not the same as “An 'erb” vs “A herb” > > This issue is that with historic (and hotel) _even though_ the “h” is pronounced, it still takes “An”. > > So the question is why should “An historic”, and “An hotel” be treated differently to “A horse”, despite being pronouced in exactly the same way. > > It might have its roots in dropped aitches, but that’s not how you hear it in the UK - it’s accepted RP to say “An historic”, not just in dialects where aitches are routinely dropped. > > So it does become a grammar question, as this is a clear breach of grammatical orthodoxy. I explained why they might be treated differently much earlier in the thread. Both historic and hotel are stressed on the second syllable. Therefore, even if the h may be pronounced to some extent (and I doubt that it always is), it is less emphasized than in a single syllable word or one accented on the first syllable. Hence it becomes more logical to us an. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/53 "2005-05-10T17:38:43Z")
> [@e-logic](#): > > This issue is that with historic (and hotel) _even though_ the “h” is pronounced, it still takes “An”…It might have its roots in dropped aitches, but that’s not how you hear it in the UK - it’s accepted RP to say “An historic”, not just in dialects where aitches are routinely dropped. But this simply isn’t the case! Very few people ever say ‘an historic’, or ‘an hotel’. Surely, given there is no consistency of spelling at present, and no consistency of pronunciation, a spelling that accurately represents one of two common pronunciations, i.e. ‘a historic’, is the preferable one? ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/54 "2005-05-10T17:58:38Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > But this simply isn’t the case! Very few people ever say ‘an historic’, or ‘an hotel’. Surely, given there is no consistency of spelling at present, and no consistency of pronunciation, a spelling that accurately represents one of two common pronunciations, i.e. ‘a historic’, is the preferable one? If you expect English grammar, pronunciation, spelling, and style to be consistent, you are in for a dreadful disappointment. If you prefer “a historic,” then fine, go ahead and use it. That’s what style is all about. But recognize that “an historic” is not _wrong_, it’s just a different style. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/55 "2005-05-10T18:46:59Z")
What amazes me is that some folks seem to get deeply offended by “an historic.” (It seems to generate a lot of discussion on these boards, anyway.) Why? How does it harm you if someone else says “_an_ historic”? Is it insecurity? Do you feel like someone who uses “an historic” is trying to put on airs? What the hell does it matter? Can’t both ways be acceptable usages? For myself, I rarely aspirate the ‘h’ in “historic.” (I only aspirate that ‘h’ when it’s at the beginning of a sentence.) So saying “an historic” feels natural to me. For that matter (using another example from this thread), “an Hispanic” feels natural to me with my pronunciation. ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/56 "2005-05-10T19:26:42Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > What amazes me is that some folks seem to get deeply offended by “an historic.” (It seems to generate a lot of discussion on these boards, anyway.) Why? How does it harm you if someone else says “_an_ historic”? Is it insecurity? Do you feel like someone who uses “an historic” is trying to put on airs? In all honesty, there probably is some defensiveness and perhaps inverted snobbery in it (there, I admitted it 😉 ) It ties in with a certain fairly common attitude in Britain (or probably more commonly just England), that dropped Hs are just _wrong_. There’s plenty of teachers (admittedly mainly more ‘senior’ ones) that will ‘correct’ a child’s pronunciation when they drop an H - despite this being an inherent part of the child’s accent. This is an unnecessary imposition of a middle-class, southern, ‘well-educated’ accent on others, which some of us find particularly distasteful. Insisting on ‘an historic’, while also pronouncing the H, seems to rub this in further - not only are us H-droppers expected to pronounce the H, but _also_ the ‘an’ we use (in speech) in its place. ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/57 "2005-05-10T19:51:42Z")
I’m not offended by it. Just a little annoyed. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/58 "2005-05-10T21:11:53Z")
Well, I wasn’t trying to short-circuit the discussion or cast aspersions. It’s just that I’ve noticed that “an historic” seems to strike a nerve, and I was trying to figure out why. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/59 "2005-05-10T21:36:07Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > But this simply isn’t the case! Very few people ever say ‘an historic’, or ‘an hotel’. Surely, given there is no consistency of spelling at present, and no consistency of pronunciation, a spelling that accurately represents one of two common pronunciations, i.e. ‘a historic’, is the preferable one? I disagree - it depends which circles you move in, I guess. Within the Home Counties upper-middle classes “an historic” and “an hotel” (with aspirated _h_s) are very much the norm. Listen to Hyacinth Bucket for an example - I think that’s the usage people object to, not the fact that the “h” is dropped in some accents. So my point is that in British Received Pronunciation (ie. “Oxford” or “BBC” English) it is acceptable to say “an hotel” or “an horrific” with aspirated _h_’s. However, this does not appear to be consistent across all _h_-words in which the first syllable is unstressed. You commonly hear people pronounce certain words (historic, hotel etc) in this way without doing so for other words which ought to follow the same rule (Homeric, Hispanic etc). Why say “an historic” but not “an hypothesis”? I’ve never heard or seen “hypothesis” preceded by “an” - is this a common American usage? Whence this inconsistency? This is a short excerpt from Fowler’s which deals with this: > [@](#): > > Opinion is divided over the form to use before _h_-words in which the first syllable is unstressed: the thoroughly modern thing to do is to use _a_ (never _an_) together with an aspirated _h_ (_a habitual, a heroic, a historical, a Homeric, a hypothesis_), but not to demur if others use _an_ with minimal or nil aspiration given to the following _h_ (\*an historic, an horific \* etc). > > Three special cases: _an hotel_ (with no aspiration in the second word) is now old fashioned, but by no means extinct; in _humble_, the _h_ was originally mute and the pronunciation _'umble_ prevailed until the 19c. but is now obsolete: it should therefore be preceded by _a_ not _an_ > > \ > > At the present time, especially in written English, there is abundant evidence for the use of _an_ before _habitual, historian, historic(al), horrifi_ and _horrendous_, but the choice of form remains open. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102/60 "2005-05-10T22:05:52Z")
> [@e-logic](#): > > I disagree - it depends which circles you move in, I guess. > > Within the Home Counties upper-middle classes “an historic” and “an hotel” (with aspirated _h_s) are very much the norm. Listen to Hyacinth Bucket for an example - I think that’s the usage people object to, not the fact that the “h” is dropped in some accents. I hope the Hyacinth reference is a joke. And even if it does prove to be the norm in the Home Counties middle-class (something I would still doubt without evidence), they’re still a small minority. > [@](#): > > So my point is that in British Received Pronunciation (ie. “Oxford” or “BBC” English) it is acceptable to say “an hotel” or “an horrific” with aspirated _h_’s. Be aware that RP is largely a creation of early broadcast media, which had particular concerns about clarity of individual sounds, above ease of use. It’s no more a ‘typical’ accent of anywhere than the mid-Atlanticisms of CNN. > [@](#): > > However, this does not appear to be consistent across all _h_-words in which the first syllable is unstressed. > > You commonly hear people pronounce certain words (historic, hotel etc) in this way without doing so for other words which ought to follow the same rule (Homeric, Hispanic etc). > > Why say “an historic” but not “an hypothesis”? I’ve never heard or seen “hypothesis” preceded by “an” - is this a common American usage? > > Whence this inconsistency? The inconsistency only exists in the wilful or misguided ignoring of genuine speech patterns. I’ve tried reading all of this out loud, and yes, I do say “an 'ypothesis”, and “an 'ispanic” - but strangely I can’t feel comfortable without the H in Homer. Further thought, not fully worked out: My objection to the written use of ‘an historic’ maybe corresponds to this - it seems to acknowledge the possible H-dropping in that one case, and by implication deems other H-droppings to be wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-historic-question/303102.md?page=4)