I agree with you entirely. The letter 'h' is a consonant, therefore it should be treated as such. It's not colloquial dialects that matter - but the standard form of the language itself. Also, it drives me mad that people pronounce the letter 'h' as 'haich' rather than 'aitch'. Just because a large number of people are ignorant as to how the language is supposed to be used, this doesn't mean to say that this is correct!
"An" historical...
Sorry, I couldn't respond earlier because of the silly 10-posts-per-day-rule.
<<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.>>
Within journalism, fine, I guess you could argue for adherence to style guides as a stylistic or esthetic issue. But before that, you also argued against "an + h" just in general.
<<Descriptivistic... are you making a point?>>
No, just a slip of the fingers. I should have written "descriptive".
<<That because you are a mainstream linguist,>>
No I'm not - to be a mainstream linguist I'd have to have a degree in linguistics, which I certainly don't. At most, I'm an amateur linguist.
<<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.>>
Within journalism, fine, I guess you could argue for adherence to style guides as a stylistic or esthetic issue. But before that, you also argued against "an + h" just in general.
<<Descriptivistic... are you making a point?>>
No, just a slip of the fingers. I should have written "descriptive".
<<That because you are a mainstream linguist,>>
No I'm not - to be a mainstream linguist I'd have to have a degree in linguistics, which I certainly don't. At most, I'm an amateur linguist.
There is a tendency to "drop" the initial "h" when enunciating many words, especially one like "hotel" and "historical" for instance, treating it as is it was a vowel, and the indefinite article "an" is invariably used, but we've been here before in this Forum so I don't feel inclined to say anything further here on this topic.
"We stayed at an hotel on the Isle of Skye" or "It's an historical fact that Scotland was united with England in 1707".
"We stayed at an hotel on the Isle of Skye" or "It's an historical fact that Scotland was united with England in 1707".
I can tell you that many of the oldest Southerners omit the "h" sound in such words. For example, my own father still pronounces "humble" as "umble". (There were one or two other words he pronounces that way, but I can't recall what they are at the moment.) This tendency probably originates from an English heritage. It's probably only natural that such speakers would use "an" instead of "a" in this situation.
Whatever the case, modern-day Southerners do pronounce the "h". Comma, I do believe you've got too much time on your hands.
Whatever the case, modern-day Southerners do pronounce the "h". Comma, I do believe you've got too much time on your hands.
↑ Oh. One other word he pronounces funny is the word "humor", which he pronounces as "yoo-mor". Doesn't RP use this pronunciation, too?
<<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:>>
By "all vowels", did you mean "all h's"? Does it depend on how many syllables the word has, as for instance, you could never say "an hand", but you could say "an heritage"?
By "all vowels", did you mean "all h's"? Does it depend on how many syllables the word has, as for instance, you could never say "an hand", but you could say "an heritage"?
<<By "all vowels", did you mean "all h's"?>>
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.
<<Does it depend on how many syllables the word has, as for instance, you could never say "an hand", but you could say "an heritage"?>>
I'm not sure; but I was able to find "thine hand" in the KJV, with the "thy~thine" distinction being somewhat parallel to the "a~an" distinction. Really I had just read about that fact from sources like etymonline.com: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=a .
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.
<<Does it depend on how many syllables the word has, as for instance, you could never say "an hand", but you could say "an heritage"?>>
I'm not sure; but I was able to find "thine hand" in the KJV, with the "thy~thine" distinction being somewhat parallel to the "a~an" distinction. Really I had just read about that fact from sources like etymonline.com: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=a .
<<Also, it drives me mad that people pronounce the letter 'h' as 'haich' rather than 'aitch'. Just because a large number of people are ignorant as to how the language is supposed to be used, this doesn't mean to say that this is correct!>>
At least, they don't drop their (h)aitches... ;-)
At least, they don't drop their (h)aitches... ;-)
<<Also, it drives me mad that people pronounce the letter 'h' as 'haich' rather than 'aitch'.>>
That's a dialectal feature common in Ireland and Australia.
<<Just because a large number of people are ignorant as to how the language is supposed to be used, this doesn't mean to say that this is correct!>>
So are the British incorrect for saying "zed", or are the Americans incorrect for saying "zee"? It's not ignorance, it's the diversity and evolution of human language. Get over it.
That's a dialectal feature common in Ireland and Australia.
<<Just because a large number of people are ignorant as to how the language is supposed to be used, this doesn't mean to say that this is correct!>>
So are the British incorrect for saying "zed", or are the Americans incorrect for saying "zee"? It's not ignorance, it's the diversity and evolution of human language. Get over it.
<< That's a dialectal feature common in Ireland and Australia. >>
Yes, and England. It's annoying and incorrect.
<< So are the British incorrect for saying "zed", or are the Americans incorrect for saying "zee"? It's not ignorance, it's the diversity and evolution of human language. Get over it. >>
The Americans are incorrect for saying 'zee'. You can't have it both ways; either American English is a dialect (British came first, all the evolution took place in Britain) or the American 'zee' is incorrect.
ME get over it? You're the one getting stressed over it!
Yes, and England. It's annoying and incorrect.
<< So are the British incorrect for saying "zed", or are the Americans incorrect for saying "zee"? It's not ignorance, it's the diversity and evolution of human language. Get over it. >>
The Americans are incorrect for saying 'zee'. You can't have it both ways; either American English is a dialect (British came first, all the evolution took place in Britain) or the American 'zee' is incorrect.
ME get over it? You're the one getting stressed over it!
<<You're a troll. Go find something better to do.>>
Lazar, he isn't a troll. He is just a prescriptivist and a bit of a supremacist. His views on the English language are rather strange, though.
Lazar, he isn't a troll. He is just a prescriptivist and a bit of a supremacist. His views on the English language are rather strange, though.
<<You can't have it both ways; either American English is a dialect >>
Since when wasn't American English a dialect? Not much variation, but there is some.
Since when wasn't American English a dialect? Not much variation, but there is some.
I assure you that I'm not a troll. Nor am I a supremacist, I don't think that in Britain, we are any better than those in America, however I get fed up when Americans assume that their usage is the only correct way, such as 'toward' instead of 'towards', so I'm countering it as best and extremely as I can.
All I'm saying is that the English language originated in ENGLAND. That's why it's called ENGLISH, not AMERICAN. What you speak in America is not wrong, but if you're going to call it the same language as that we speak here in Britain, and you're going to say that the American model of the language is the correct standard, then I can but disagree.
Dialects of the same language differ, but in my eyes, the original language originated here in England, therefore British RP is the correct standard for the language.
You may disagree all you like, and I certainly will as well. It's easy to dismiss somebody as a troll because you can't counter their argument. The real test of intelligence is to argue intelligently.
All I'm saying is that the English language originated in ENGLAND. That's why it's called ENGLISH, not AMERICAN. What you speak in America is not wrong, but if you're going to call it the same language as that we speak here in Britain, and you're going to say that the American model of the language is the correct standard, then I can but disagree.
Dialects of the same language differ, but in my eyes, the original language originated here in England, therefore British RP is the correct standard for the language.
You may disagree all you like, and I certainly will as well. It's easy to dismiss somebody as a troll because you can't counter their argument. The real test of intelligence is to argue intelligently.