Why is it "'an' historical"?

[WeRSauron]

In the GOP victory speech, they said “an historical.” I also saw “an historical” at the Catholic Encyclopedia at Newadvent.org.

Why is “an” used instead of “a”? Since when did the “h” of “historical” become silent? Or is there something more here that I am not seeing?

Thanks!

[Askance]

Normally “an” is used before an “h” word only when the “h” is silent, such as in “an honour”. Otherwise “a” is used as with any word starting with a consonant (eg “a hotel”).

My guess is this usage of “an historical” is an unconscious device to avoid confusion with the word “ahistorical”. Formally, it should definitely be “a historical”.

[pulykamell]

Some people aspirate the “h,” some people don’t. The former would say “a historical,” the latter “an historical.” Most Americans aspirate the ‘h,’ so the correct form should be “a historical.”

“An historical” is a bit outmoded in contemporary English, although you will still see it in certain contexts. Personally, I think it sounds stupid and pretentious.

[Polycarp]

There are a few words, of which historical and historic are the most common, which begin with a sounded H but have the primary accent on the second syllable, and as a result the /h/ sound gets very short shrift. They take “a” and “an” interchangeably.

Some dialects elide or eliminate the /h/ phoneme, as they do with “humble” – think of Uriah Heep. KJV rendering of Psalm 51 and traditional prayers derived from it refer to “An humble and a contrite heart…”

[Cisco]

I think Brits should say ‘an historic’ because the vowel sound in “'istoric”, but Merkins that use it are probably misunderstanding the rule.

[commasense]

I have no cite at the moment, but I would wager good money (if I had any) that this goes back to classical education in England, specifically the study of Greek. In ancient Greek, words that start with vowels have breathing marks that indicate whether you pronounce them with with an initial H sound or not. For instance, the Greek word from which “history” is derived is ιστορια (istoria). A rough breathing mark ( ‘ ) over the initial iota means that you pronounce it his’ tor i’ a. If it had a smooth breathing mark ( ’ ) over the iota, it would be pronounced like a normal short i. When it migrated into English, ιστορια naturally became history with an H.

But since many of the most pedantic (and largely disregarded) rules of grammar ultimately derive from analogies to classical languages (e.g. you shouldn’t split an infinitive in English because in Latin infinitives are one word and can’t be split), my WAG is that the fact that istoria starts with a vowel led some pedant to proclaim that history should be preceded by “an.”

[Jervoise]

@Cisco

I think Brits should say ‘an historic’ because the vowel sound in “'istoric”, but Merkins that use it are probably misunderstanding the rule.

If we’re talking Brits, there’s quite a few accents in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I can imagine Michael Caine saying “istoric”, but dropping h-sounds is not universal.

[GorillaMan]

@Jervoise

…dropping h-sounds is not universal.

I’m confident that it covers the majority of Britain. And I agree with Cisco, that ‘an historic’ seems to be a mis-transcription of this pronunciation.

[roger_thornhill]

Thanks to Julian Burnside for both the “rule”:

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.

and some historical background:

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.

Kudos, then, to Don Henley:

“Welcome to *the ** 'otel California”

*stressed, not weak, form before a vowel

[seosamh]

This is something older, posh English people do deliberately, not Cock-er-knees or anyone else oo drop their “haitches”.

You’ll hear them speak of “an hotel”. Gawd knows why; to me it’s tremendously pretentious.

[GorillaMan]

@roger thornhill

…an HB pencil…

That one’s not definitive, as there’s different pronunciations of ‘H’.

[roger_thornhill]

@GorillaMan

That one’s not definitive, as there’s different pronunciations of ‘H’.

Burnside acknowledges as much in his humorous introductory paragraphs:

“I am told on good authority that in schools of a certain denomination, and in those schools only, it is pronounced invariably as haitch, an oddity I cannot explain” (Arnold Wall The Queen’s English, 1958). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the pronunciation aitch is hard to explain. The pronunciation of the letter H is one of Australia’s great social shibboleths: not just the way it is sounded as the first letter of a word, but more particularly the way the name of the letter itself is said. Some people say haitch, others call it aitch.

Although the spirit of our times is generous, forgiving and tolerant, the choice between aitch and haitch can cause a good deal of anxiety and even hostility. Generally speaking, haitch is used by those educated in that part of the Roman Catholic system which traces its origins to Ireland. Aitch is preferred by the rest. Some apostates deny their origins by abandoning haitch; but there is little traffic in the other direction. When I was a child, I was forbidden to say haitch; friends who said haitch were appalled that I ate meat on Fridays.

[Jervoise]

@GorillaMan

I’m confident that it covers the majority of Britain. And I agree with Cisco, that ‘an historic’ seems to be a mis-transcription of this pronunciation.

Really? My English partner pronounces the H-sound quite clearly.

[Kizarvexius]

It’s a rule of thumb that if a person ever refers to “an historian”, he probably is one.

[commasense]

I should have thought to check my Fowler’s first thing, but it was late last night. The very first entry in the 1926 edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage is (of course):

Originally Posted by H.W. Fowler
a, an. 1. A is used before all consonants except silent h (a history, an hour); an was formerly usual **before an unaccented syllable beginning with h **(an historical work), but now that the h in such words is pronounced the distinction has become pedantic, & a historical should be said and written.

*Emphasis mine. *

So the folks who thought it had to do with Britons dropping their aitches have it partly right, but it was that plus an unaccented first syllable that led to the practice. When it was proper to say an historian, it would have been wrong to say an history, because in the former case the accent is on the second syllable and in the latter it’s on the first.

So it looks like my Greek guess was off base.

[suranyi]

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”.

Ed

[Charlie_Tan]

But… would anyone say: “an history”?

[suranyi]

@The Gaspode

But… would anyone say: “an history”?

The key difference is that “history” is accented on the first syllable, while “historic” is accented on the second syllable.

Ed

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

I recall a P.G. Wodehouse story, probably from around 1922, in which a character mentions staying at ‘an hotel’.

Nails on a chalkboard is what that’s like.

[Walloon]

@Cisco

Merkins that use it are probably misunderstanding the rule.

Who are “Merkins”?