2 silly questions about the english language

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
However an historical fact doesn't sound incorrect...hmmm...

But it is.

[Tingkai]

"a" is typically used before a consonant sound and usually not before a vowel sound, but not always. And the rule can be different for abbreviations depending on pronounciation.

An NYT reporter said that an hour of her time would be enough to tell you about a history of a union, but it would be an unofficial account.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Elok
I guess "colonel" is even worse.

Not if you're a leftie nunt.

[Terra Nullius]

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-anh1.htm

The school rule is that an must be used before words beginning with h in which the h is silent, such as honourable. That’s correct, but many people—often without knowing it—follow an extended rule: that in speech an appears before a word beginning with h if the first syllable of that word is unstressed, whether or not the h is silent. If you listen carefully you can tell in such cases that the h is also partially or wholly elided away; that’s because it’s quite hard in rapid speech to articulate an unstressed a before an unstressed h without putting some other sound in between and losing the full strength of the h. But it’s common to write a.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Elok
I guess "colonel" is even worse. Kernel, WTF? Makes you wonder if the written form was just made up by someone who hated corn. Or Linux.

In that same vein, one has to wonder from where exactly the "f" in lieutenant originated..

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Arrian
What's wrong with pronouncing the t in often?



-Arrian

That's nearly as daft as pronouncing the t in water.

[Winston]

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin


But it is.

No, Provost is right. "Historical" is preceded by "an" not "a."

"An history" is also technically correct, as DanS points out, but now archaic.

It would be interesting to know when it shifted, and why the shift affected only the noun and not the adjective. One possibility is that "an historical..." has been retained because the alternative, "a historical," sounds too much like its opposite, "a historical." The simpler explanation, thogh, is that the aspirant "h" is generally pronounced more forcefully in the noun than adjective.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
No, Provost is right. "Historical" is preceded by "an" not "a."

Ahem. Provost Harrison, after some deliberation, figured out that he agreed that this was correct. I was the one who gave the example.

Terra Nullius just quoted an excellent explanation for the difference between its use in front of "history" and "historical", by the way. Post #49.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Winston


Ahem. Provost Harrison, after some deliberation, figured out that he agreed that this was correct. I was the one who gave the example.

I know, but I was responding to Oerdin's response to Provost.

Terra Nullius just quoted an excellent explanation for the difference between its use in front of "history" and "historical", by the way. Post #49.

Oops! Missed that. Good one, TN!

[Tingkai]

The New York Times stylebook and the Webster dictionary and the Encarta dictionary all say write "a historical" not an historical.

[Winston]

But this is about the pronunciation, not the way it's written.

[Tingkai]

If it is about pronounciation, there is no right or wrong answer.

Local accents differ.

For example, some people say "off-in" or "off-fin." I would say something like "off-thin."

[Winston]

Well, naturally. Maybe we should drop Queen Elizabeth an e-mail and ask? We'd have to include a good-natured smiley or two, of course.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Oops! Missed that. Good one, TN!

*sigh

Nobody ever ignores me around here.