Dropping the initial H (which makes "an historic" correct) has been going on for a long time in American English. I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as the speaker is consistent. [edit] Actually, a little research indicates that "historic" (and related words) actually used to be pronounced with a silent h, and it's only a relatively modern event that the h is pronounced. So using "an historic" is somewhat archaic, but still not technically incorrect. [re-edit] I just listened to the McCain sound-bite, and have to say that it never occurred to me that someone might say "an historic" without dropping the h. That is definitely incorrect.
125 days ago | Tagged As: dialectical differences
lol, jeez, I didn't know McCain was that old. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
124 days ago | Tagged As: wrong and needs to be stopped
"an" is only for words that begin with a vowel sound so if the pronunciation were to shift again to historic being pronounced istoric then okay fine. But that is not the language currently, I don't believe there even is an accent that exists which would drop the 'h' so using "an" is just plain wrong. There is a real reason "an" is used instead of "a" that's because a vowel sound followed by a vowel sound is hard to follow in speach "I'm eating a apple" when said fast gets garbled and can be hard to understand. "I'm eating an apple" is easy to understand even if it's a teenager talking (they talk really fast usually) So if one understands the reason "an" is used in place of "a" in some instances, it's really easy to see that "an historic" really makes little sense at all.
124 days ago | Tagged As: wrong and needs to be stopped
I think we should have a rally and support David! ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
124 days ago | Tagged As: wrong and needs to be stopped
AMEN!!!!!!!!...............................................
It's an epidemic. I think it started with McCain's election night speech. But I can't stand to hear it.
I really haven't the slightest. I suppose it probably just evolved over time. As time went on, people just started to say an historic because it was easier for them, I suppose. It just rolls off the tongue easier. So, it's kind of due to laziness, but kind of due to the evolution of the language. I, personally, say a historic. It confuses me when people say an historic.
125 days ago | Tagged As: laziness
You're wrong, there is nothing wrong with using "an historic" because the 'a/an' rule is a matter of pronunciation, not spelling. It is used more commonly in British English than American English, but there is nothing wrong with it. And what is this business about McCain starting it??
125 days ago | Tagged As: Correct Speech
I think you missed the point, as I did at first. "An historic" is correct if you drop the initial h, so it's pronounced as "an istoric". The issue here is with saying "an historic" while pronouncing the h, as McCain did in this part of this speech.
Why should dropping the letter "h" in historic make using 'an' correct? That's just pure rubbish.
Because if you drop the h, then "historic" begins with a vowel sound, just as dropping the h in "herb" or "hour" causes it be begin with a vowel sound, making "an herb" and "an hour" correct usage.
No sir. You're wrong. It is a historic, never an historic. And the dropping of the H is not an American thing. It's done in French, Spanish et cetera. But not American English.
If someone pronounces "historic" as "istoric", as many people do, then it is proper to say "an historic". The only time it's an issue is if the initial h is not dropped, in which case it should be "a historic". Your prescriptivist perspective is simply incorrect in this case. Languages change; get over it.
Oh. I forgot that saying get over it automatically makes you right. Well I understand language changes but as of now it is grammatically incorrect to say an historic. Get over it.
There are many regional accents/dialects which do not pronounce the h in historic. Please explain to me how it is grammatically correct for them to use "a" before a word which is pronounced with an initial vowel. Or are you seriously arguing that dialects represent incorrect usage?
I have never heard an istoric, only an historic, in American englsih. If it is being pronounced istoric, which I can't help but think you're making up, then it is simply a dialect thing and not what I'm inquiring about. Duh. If every language question were answered with, "It is a regional dialect," then WTF would English classes be for? Why don't we all just speak our own individual dialect of English, thus eliminating improper English. Or any language at all. We can all speak our own languages.
sir, Sir, SIR??? Uh-uh. I may be wrong but unless I have an operation, I'll never be a sir!
Ooopps. That wasn't supposed to be a reply to you! Actually I don't think it is.
Can it have something to do with tense? Present = a and past = an? It is a historic moment and it was an historic moment. It sounds okay to me either way.
I'm fairly certain it's a just a dialectic shift. But "an" as opposed to "a" as opposed to "an" is a part of the English linguistic history. If you look at the word "help" as an example of English diachrony, it use(d) to be: I-helpe Thu-hilpst He/heo-hilpth we-helpath ge-helpath hi-helpath And now we have: I-help You-help He/she-helps We-help You(all)-help They-help There's no right or wrong way. It's just how languages evolve (in the same way that biological organisms evolve). Minor shifts in linguistic practice permeate entire dialects (Appalachian as opposed to Boston) leading ultimately to new languages altogether. Family Guy does a running linguistic-gag with the whole "coo'hwhip" thing that Stewey does to Brian, which I always find fascinating (my minor use to be in linguistics so I get all giddy with linguistics in general).
-Say "cool whip"... -Cool Hwip. -Say "cool". -Cool. -Ok, now say "whip". -Whip. -Now say "cool whip". -Cool Hwip. -(Meg) Brian you're acting Hweird. -Oh come on! There's not even an H in that word! I love that gag! :D
It's Stewey? Of course it's a natural progression of the English language that some people make a mistake that becomes the Norm. But as of now it's incorrect English.
It's not a mistake or incorrect (I'm not even sure "incorrect English" makes sense). It's just a variance in language. Linguistic syntax isn't concrete. It changes every time a new word is added to the English lexicon or some new convention like the "quote mark" is introduced. And it isn't geographically universal. Simply put, pPeople have different idiolectical practices and you will find that "an historic" or more generally "an" preceding non-vowel sounding words is used often enough (the mark of a standard linguistic component) to be a part of the standard English syntactical (as opposed to "syntaxical", which is much closer to the English idiom) trend.
It's possible he just made a slip of the tongue. We all make mistakes you know. And that clip only showed one time that he said it...
125 days ago | Tagged As: slip of the tongue
Actually, I think using "an" with h words is the old fashioned and the British way...I could be wrong though.
125 days ago | Tagged As: dialectical differences
It use to be the Queen's English preference, but that's slowly changing towards the Colonial English: "a historian" instead of "an historian", for example.
It's funny it just doesn't sound right to me. John Doe is a historian and John Doe was an historian sounds correct to me as a matter of tense.
It depends on if the 'h' is pronounced. I don't think I've ever said it, but if I slip into the accent of one of the other languages I speak (Spanish, perhaps), the 'h' can easily go, and then my grammar Nazi takes over and changes 'a' to 'an.' Easy.
124 days ago | Tagged As: dialectical differences
I have never ever heard anyone say that. ...................
|
