For want of an indefinite historical article [S. Worthen | Weblog]

You're viewing

owlfish's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Dear People raised in the UK or Canada, and other people who like filling out polls:
[Poll #1679508]

Languages are challenging, not least because they keep changing. "an historian" and "an historical figure" were some of the British grammatical quirks I got down early.

Only now, the internet tells me, times, they are a changin'. It's okay to use "a" instead of "an" for histor* words in British Englishes. I would like some more evidence on the subject one way or the other.

←

→

There are 62 comments over 2 pages. (Reply.)

← 1 2 →

I'd probably be more likely to use the older form in formal writing, but that's not guaranteed.

I've never used 'an historian' in nearly thirty years of being one.

I say "an" about 70% of the time but write "a" most of the time.

I have always used "a", as I always pronounce the "h". Just as I do in "herb", of course...

I'd also say "a hotel", though "an hotel" doesn't feel as wrong as "an historian".

Like you I pronounce the "H" in "historian", so I would no more say "an historian" than I would say "an hair", "an horse" or "an horoscope".

I also agree about "hotel".

[link] [parent] [reply]

I figure if it's good enough for AJP Taylor, it's good enough for me. If we cave on this, it's only a matter of time before the "should of" idiots win that battle.

I mean, it's thanks to them we lost 'norange'

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

gillo

(no subject) —

heleninwales.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

desperance.livejournal.com

I've always said "a historian" and "a historical figure", but have long been faintly worried that I'm getting it wrong.

I was actually taught the "is the h pronounced?" test as a rule in middle school, so we were docked for an historian, but also for a herb. (Unless you were talking about "a Herb," as the name but not the plant had a pronounced h. Another rule.)

Which really is what happens when you establish rules for things that are riddled with exceptions and the non-systematic application of principles, like language. You should have seen the ways we had to wrestle with sound-shift rule writing in morpho-phonology, and we were even allowed to use optimality theory, which allowed for rule-breaking on priority ordering.

(And I almost wrote "voiced h" for "pronounced h," but then I had flashbacks to a paper I wrote on the phonology of Hupa, and the debated on whether a certain sound was an unvoiced vowel or a voiced velar fricative. I was wandering the halls of my dorm muttering like a madwoman about that one. And "voiced h" isn't really accurate anyway, so I stood down.)

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

makyo.livejournal.com

(deleted comment)

There is always some critical element missing from a poll. I was thinking written (since what I need it for is editing), but I wish I'd written the poll to include both options now.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

desperance.livejournal.com

The grammar girl podcast covered this recently saying both are fine depending on whether the H is sounded and that it usually is.

Colonial perspective: I say an historian every time, also an hotel, but always a herb. I have no idea what I do in writing, but I think I would tend towards an historian with the understanding that a historian is perfectly respectable (ha ha) and an historian is merely a tick derived from my own speech.

For the record, in editing I would tend only to change it for consistency within a document or consistency within a publication.

[link] [parent] [reply]

"An historian" leads me to suspicion of dropping of aitches, up with which I do not easily put.

Oops! I filled out the poll and then realized you weren't talking to me! Sorry.

You do not fall into the category of people who like filling out polls?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ironically, I only started saying "an historian" after going to graduate school... in the U.S.

You are an exception to every rule.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I always use "a," never "an." I am American.

My father (an historian himself) taught me to say "an" before those words. So I don't think of it as British, just old-fashioned.

I'm not only Australian, but someone just identified me on Facebook as the real me for using 'an' (other Gillians don't, it appears). I was taught that whether a consonant is needed before an 'hi' depends on how the 'h' is sounded in the dialect, and in Australian English it's aspirated, but only very softly, so it's 'an.' We ought to say 'an herb' but it's often 'a herb' because the 'h' in herb is so very strong in our dialect and because we react quite strongly to the standard US pronunciation of 'herb'. That 'h' is almost non-existent in most North American English, which means I keep wanting to hear 'a nerb.'

Gillian in the UK is very much a name of a specific period - almost all those I know are somewhere between 45 and 58. I don't know anyone in my general circle/age group who uses "an" for hotel, historian or herb. The latter has a particularly strong "h" in most of the UK, so it's not surprising. Yet it comes, of course, from the French "herbe", where the "h" is never pronounced. US practice may well be fossilised, like the use of "gotten" as a past participle.

I'm Gillian too, though only my mother uses my full name.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

owlfish

(no subject) —

square-egg.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

gillpolack.livejournal.com

I've come across this question before and as a result I'm not sure. Both are correct depending on how you pronounce your haches in in those cases (I seem to recall some people would go a history but an historical figure). I think my natural tendency is to say a historian and a historical figure and would naturally tend to pronounce the haches with some prominence, but I can pretty easily say an historian and an historical figure. Interestingly I think adding the "an" leads me to the partial elision of the h, so I will say something closer to an 'istorian and an 'istorical figure when I switch to the use of "an."

Whoops. I filled out the poll without reading closely enough--I am an 'a historian' person, but of course that's not surprising as I'm American!

So you don't fall into the third category of people, those who like filling out polls?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think in a standard British accent the 'h' in those words is only faintly aspirated. It's not exactly 'istorian, but it's a very soft h. Hence 'a -H-istorian' makes you sound the H too strongly, it sounds strange to my ears.

I find things like this very interesting.

This is spot on. Well - actually - the an rule applies to words with a French origin. I think the US difference is probably one of those bits of Mayflower English that went over before we went all Frenchified in the 1680s and then had that mode standardised by Johnson.

Think about how dreadful 'an horse' sounds. It's most definitely a horse. But anyone saying 'an 'otel' sounds like they can afford to stay in a good one, in my book.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

communicator.livejournal.com

I detest the "an histor*" construction. It makes no sense logically and I've never really seen a truly cogent argument in its favour. As a matter of plain English, I change it to "a histor*" in texts I'm editing.

(Before any readers get too outraged, I generally edit newspaper articles. Were I going through someone's book, I'd leave it as-is because it's part of their authorial voice -- much as I'd hate doing so.)

Blast - I keep forgetting we can't 'like' things in LJ. Consider this comment 'liked', both semantically and thematically (and possibly ecumenically).

[link] [parent] [reply]

I was taught 'an' only if it's silent, and not to drop my h's. So a hotel, but an honour. In writing, I'd probably redraft to avoid the construction.

You know - that is probably the rule I use as well, but not consciously.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Just to muck things up (and coming from the bottom of the world, where we don't really speak English anyway...) I would say 'a historian', but might say 'an historical occasion'. Or I might reverse them. But down here we pronounce the 'h', so really it should be 'a'.

I often want to address poll questions to southern hemisphere speakers of English variants, but you are so relatively few on my f'list cumulatively that it always feels presumptuous to hope that many or any of you will happen to fill out a given language poll. And then all of you always do, for which I am grateful.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

zcat-abroad.livejournal.com

Well, back in the 1960s at my Grammar School in Sheffield I was told, firmly, that 'an' was incorrect because the lack of a vowel at the beginning of the following world.

My gut feeling is that in both cases "an" is the correct usage, but I deliberately use "a" because it feels better to me - and there is no possibility for misunderstanding.

I would say both are correct, but 'an' much more mellifluous.

I was taught (by my Ma rather than a teacher in my school) that it's an. It's nothing to do with whether the h is pronounced and something to do with whether the stress is on the first or second syllable and is something to do with the French. I'm a bit vague on the details...

There are 62 comments over 2 pages. (Reply.)

← 1 2 →

October