I remember reading a reader’s letter to The Lady magazine (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”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hs) 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:
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.
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.
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.
)