"An" historical...

Comma? Yes, please.   Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:44 pm GMT
Still seeing "an historic" or "an historical" printed in newspapers, magazines and any other type of publication drives me absolutely crazy. Hearing it is even worse.

I understand people have difficulty figuring out whether to use "a" or "an" before an acronym, but the rule is actually pretty simple.

If the acronym, whether pronounced as one word or as individual letters, begins with a vowel sound, use "an." For example: an MBA. The "M" has the "em" sound.
If the acronym begins with a consonant sound, use "a." Example: a CIA...

You do not use "an" before "historical" or "historic."

Here is the entry from Working With Words: "Many people also get confused by an "h" at the beginning of a word: a (not an) historical event [because the initial sound is 'hih']"

On a side note, notice "an" was used before "h." This is because the letter "h" alone has an initial "ay" sound.

Now the entry from The Associated Press Stylebook: "historic, historical: A historic event is an important occurrence, one that stands out in history. Any occurrence in the past is a historical event."
Johnny   Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:04 am GMT
<<a (not an) historical event [because the initial sound is 'hih']" >>

No, because those who say "an historical" don't pronounce the H, so it sounds right to say "an istorical". There's no H for them.
Lazar   Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:19 am GMT
Johnny is correct - it's just a matter of personal style or dialectal variation. Bear in mind that at one point, "an" was used before all vowels: for example, the King James Bible says, "Children are an heritage of the Lord."
Clark   Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:49 am GMT
>>No, because those who say "an historical" don't pronounce the H, so it sounds right to say "an istorical". There's no H for them<<

That's not true. As far as I can tell, most people pronounce the H in "an historical... ". It used to grate on me when I first noticed it but I expect to hear now.
Clark   Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:50 am GMT
* "hear it now"
H   Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:04 am GMT
I think it's a phonetic journalistic cliche, or even a fad, and we have to put up with it. To me, it sounds plummy.
They say "an historic", but in other combinations they do pronounce the H - I've never heard "some 'istoric" or the like.

But in Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire hurricanes hardly ever happen.
Matt   Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:24 am GMT
Isn't there also a "second rule" about putting "an" before a h-word? To do with which syllable is stressed in the pronunciation of the word...
Lazar   Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:25 pm GMT
<<Isn't there also a "second rule" about putting "an" before a h-word? To do with which syllable is stressed in the pronunciation of the word...>>

Well the rule (such as it is) is that "an" would be used before an initial unstressed syllable, but not before an initial stressed syllable (either primary or secondary). That's why some people say "an historic", but nobody these days would say "an heritage".
Comma? Yes, please.   Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:37 pm GMT
Johnny and Lazar: I don't think it can be a matter of personal style or dialect, because in the English language you are supposed to pronounce the "h" in historic and historical.

It's not like one day I can just decide to stop pronouncing the "t" in tomato.

"Yes, I'd like to buy an omato, please."
"Excuse me, what? What's an omato? Do you mean A Tomato?"
(I realize that's a bit far, haha.)

From the dictionary:
[hi-stawr-ik, -stor-]
well-known or important in history: a historic building; historic occasions.

[hi-stawr-i-kuhl, -stor-]
based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.
Lazar   Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:56 pm GMT
<<Johnny and Lazar: I don't think it can be a matter of personal style or dialect, because in the English language you are supposed to pronounce the "h" in historic and historical.>>

Well, to be precise, I was referring to the use of "an", not to the elision of the [h]; but I would still treat [h]-elision similarly. In any case, there is no ultimate authority that decides how you are "supposed" to pronounce things in English; English pronunciations change all the time.

<<It's not like one day I can just decide to stop pronouncing the "t" in tomato.>>

That's because nobody else does that, and it would sound weird. But individual people didn't just decide at random to start treating "historic" and "historical" differently; it's the way the language has evolved for some speakers and in some places.

<<From the dictionary:
[hi-stawr-ik, -stor-]
well-known or important in history: a historic building; historic occasions.

[hi-stawr-i-kuhl, -stor-]
based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.>>

Your point? There are all sorts of common elisions and colloquial pronunciations that are not listed in dictionaries.
Comma? Yes, please.   Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:22 pm GMT
Yikes, Lazar, I'm not trying to start a war!

My reason for posting this to begin with is because I'm tired of seeing newspapers, magazines, journalists, etc. printing "an historic", when in The AP Stylebook and Working With Words, two books that are considered journalism bibles by a large chunk of the journalism world, "an historic" is considered incorrect usage.

I realize that language evolves. And, yes, saying "an historic" was once the norm, but it is no longer viewed that way in the journalism world. Or by many English lovers, either.

Of course there is no "ultimate authority" that decides how we're supposed to pronounce words. But I think the majority would agree that, yes, pronouncing the "hih" sound in "historical" is correct. In which case, the majority serves as this "ultimate authority." Today, people cringe when they hear "an historic", just as they would if I were to pronounce the "h" in "herb" and say "a herb." Because it's not how the majority uses it (Yes, that's how the British pronounce it. Remember, though, I'm referring mostly to journalists).

Language has evolved, it's taken its course, and no longer is saying "an historic" considered correct grammar by most. So the rest of the people who are stuck in the past need to jump on board this evolving language train. Because it's pulled out of the station.
Comma? Yes, please.   Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:26 pm GMT
By the way, let me go ahead and put a hyphen between English and lovers.
"English-lovers"
Lazar   Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:47 pm GMT
<<Yikes, Lazar, I'm not trying to start a war!>>

No, you're just perpetuating an argument that's been going on for decades if not centuries - that between prescriptivism and descriptivism. Today most serious linguists take a descriptive approach - the professors who run Language Log ( http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ ) are a good example.

<<My reason for posting this to begin with is because I'm tired of seeing newspapers, magazines, journalists, etc. printing "an historic", when in The AP Stylebook and Working With Words, two books that are considered journalism bibles by a large chunk of the journalism world, "an historic" is considered incorrect usage.>>

Stylebooks express a preference for a certain usage, whoop-de-do. There are also mainstream sources that attest "an + h" as an optional usage: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/an . I have no problem with stylistic preferences and house rules, and I myself don't use "an + h" - but "an + h" is a common phenomenon among native speakers, and there's no objective linguistic basis for saying that it's incorrect English.

<<Or by many English lovers, either.>>

And by "English-lovers", I'm quite sure that you mean pretentious, underinformed pedants. As I noted above, most mainstream linguists take a descriptivistic approach.

<<But I think the majority would agree that, yes, pronouncing the "hih" sound in "historical" is correct.>>

You could find large numbers of people to condemn the usage of other groups of people. No surprise there.

<<In which case, the majority serves as this "ultimate authority.">>

No, the natural tendencies of native speakers are the native authority.
Lazar   Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:55 pm GMT
Sorry, I meant "ultimate authority" there.
Comma? Yes, please.   Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:32 pm GMT
Again, Lazar, I'm tired of seeing JOURNALISTS use this, therefore style books certainly should matter. So your "whoop-de-do" comment doesn't make much sense to me.

<<And by "English-lovers", I'm quite sure that you mean pretentious, underinformed pedants. As I noted above, most mainstream linguists take a descriptivistic approach.>>

Descriptivistic... are you making a point? That because you are a mainstream linguist, you can make up a word?