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.
[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 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.
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?).
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.
Of course they say “an hour”. “Hour” starts with a vowel.
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”?
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.
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.
Assuming you’re talking about England, it’s certainly not a small minority that drop Hs.
Yes. And it gets dropped in Estuary English, too, which is by far the most dominant influence on pronunciation throughout England at the present time.
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.
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.
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.
), 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.