An historic. It was an historic event.

I'm not sure exactly when or where I became aware of this device, but it was an instantaneous amendment to my grammar and typing. I wish I could walk into a time machine so that I can gather up all the people who have heard me use the incorrect form so that I may hang them all. This includes everyone who read any topic where I have made the same error.

I also have a bone to pick with the one who pointed out that it's

Addictive, not addicting.

Apparently that depends on how you pronounce the H sound.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/historical.html

"An historic" is an anachronism. I'd use it myself if I wasn't a proponent of reforming the language to a simpler state. "H" is a just an unvoiced vowel, though - The "H" in "historic" is just the "I" sound made without voicing the sound in the throat. Same goes for all other "H" sounds, like "ha", "ho", "hu" and "he". It's a really odd consonant in that sense, and basically more of an undercover vowel, hence its historic treatment with an "an".

But heck. I say we should only fuss over grammar that makes a functional difference when communicating. So things like the difference between "poisonous" (you bite it, you die) and "venomous" (it bites you, you die), etc.

I'd like to see the end of unnecessary nomalisations: vowels made into nouns.

Edit Ninja'd.

Being American I've never ever ever EVER heard something be referred to as "an hotel" or "an historic event", If I was an English teacher I think I might has a stroke at the sound of that... it sounds so wrong.

Believe me Robodl95, "an historic" would be the LEAST of your troubles if you were an English teacher.

Wojtek, I'm afraid it's never that simple. A better rule of thumb is to see if the word sounds like it begins with a vowel. Take, for example, the Xbox console. Which flows better: "An Xbox" or "A Xbox"?

God, I know it's correct, but I just can't bring myself to say it!


I get enough weird looks for using "whom" properly.

In some languages, such as French and Spanish, h is silent. (I took both in school.)

I think "an historic" flows better than "a historic."

Talking about "flow" is useless unless you're buying tampons. An error can "flow" well if you think it sounds right (i.e. hear it a lot), and something correct can "flow" badly because you're not used to hearing it. It might be useful -- if slightly unspecific -- in prose, when you're talking about how the rhythm of a given text "takes you further". It does not work in grammar. "It just sounds better" is a much better descriptor, which even lets you specify. "Flow" is a dead end, because how can you argue with that?

Not to go all prescriptive grammar on your ass, but sometimes things that "sound right" are wrong simply because they make no logical sense. I have a friend who insists the singular of "meter" is "met", because the ending, -er, coincides with the Danish plural marker -er.

The one word I see so many people use incorrectly is myriad, meaning "a lot of".

So many people put "a myriad of". You wouldnt say "a "a lot of" of" something, would you? Hence this little rule I learnt helps: "myriad, like many, stands alone"

Moving on, the other thing I hate to see is the word "definitely" spelt wrong. I know that spelling it with an "a" ie "definately" sounds right, but when I see it written I cringe. Same with "seperate" - sounds right, but not spelt right - the correct spelling is "sepArate"!

Gets off of soapbox.

Myriad can also be used as a noun though, so wouldn't saying "a myriad" make sense in that case?

http://talkwordy.com/2009/02/27/a-m...ust-one-really/

Ah, something I didn't know! Yes, when used as a noun it would make perfect sense.

However, about 99% of the time I've seen it used, it's been as an adjective and therefore wrong to my way of thinking.

Thanks for that information

Same here that's what I was taught.

When I read the word definitely when it's spelled incorrectly as definately, I read the a as a long a, due to the e following the t, and I think of the male name Nate. I also feel compelled to remind the person of the root word finite as a tool for explaining why it is spelled the way it is. When I read it spelled defiantly, I wonder why the person thinks that is the right spelling and wonder if they're even aware it's a completely different word with it's own meaning.

That's actually not correct, a myriad of dictionaries say so


http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.a...ctionary/myriad

Couple of things:

1. "A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with." (Note the irony in how I phrased that. ) I mostly stick to this rule, although with some sentences - I had an example, but I can't think of it right now - don't work properly unless the preposition is at the end.

2. Split infinitives are incorrect grammar - so "to not go" is wrong, and "not to go" is right. I almost always follow this one.

Sorry... I really, really couldn't resist. :P

There are some words beginning with H which are typically used next to "an"... hour, herb (although I know that not everyone pronounces it "erb"), honest... there are probably others too. Again like Element Leaf said, it's all about what sound the word starts with not just what letter. I've never heard it said "an historic," but I could see how some people could say it like that (with a silent H.)

Ending a word with a preposition is okay sometimes. There are words that simply don't have an object in the way that you use them.

The anti-split infinitives rule is insane. It's blatant pedantry, and it doesn't aid communication. It's a pet hate of mine because I've known other people in editing who enforce it for no reason. It's a hangover from when language engineers were obsessed with making English more like Latin, where you can't possibly split an infinitive. Nobody should enforce this "rule", but people can follow it if they like. Bearing in mind there's no reason to follow it.

If somebody refuses "to not go" but does accept "not to go" then I submit they are the ones with a poor grasp of English and its uses.

Hey I never said I had perfect grammar.

I went to the soccer game.

Ending sentences with prepositions, splitting infinitives, starting sentences with "and", and a ton of other "grammar" rules we are taught in school are NOT incorrect grammar. They are often poor STYLE, but not incorrect GRAMMAR. Grammar is black and white - it's right or it's wrong. Style is a matter of taste, and differs depending on what you are writing. A school paper, a short story and a scientific article will each have different style rules. Unfortunately, a lot of English teachers try to force style as grammar, corrupting our youth with silly ideas.

A lot of these rules incorrectly taught as grammar go back to the 17th century when the first English grammar and spelling books were written. Before then, people pretty much spoke and wrote English however the heck they wanted. These early books set up initial rules, but because all the educated people knew Latin, these early grammar rules were based on Latin. For example, it is absolutely wrong to split an infinitive in Latin, so people tried to crowbar that rule into English. However it really doesn't work that well. There are times it is stronger to put a word inside the infinitive. This isn't a problem in most language because most language have single-word infinitives (or, like Greek, have no infinitive verbs).

That certainly depends on what level of sophistication you're working with.

Grammar is very much a fluid thing. It's a human construct, and can be disputed until perfection is reached. However, the subject of grammar, language, is changing very quickly, so perfection will never be found if one wants to reflect the flux of actual language in one's grammar books.

Sit in on one of my classes next time we do syntactic analysis, then tell me that grammar is either right or wrong and that there's only one correct way of doing things.

This should not be taken to mean that all rules can be disregarded, but that the prime objective of language is to make oneself understood in a somewhat standardised and unambiguous way.
Honestly, if you can defend your incorrectness with more eloquence than "Herp derp, I dont need you're grammar or etymalology", I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.


I really hope this post got my outraged pearl-clutching across.

though i always say "an hour", because the H in Hour is pretty quiet...


*tears hair out*

i just really hate seeing people using the wrong " there/their/they're " or " your/you're ". >:| ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.

its so simple to remember!
" there " - place. over THERE.
" their " - possessive. that's THEIR 'their' :P
" they're " - they + are - a = they're. short for they are.
" your " - possessive. that's YOUR bottle of water, not mine.
" you're " - you + are - a = you're. short for you are.

/soapbox

SuicidiaParasidia, what are your thoughts on capital letters?

OMG!

"Then" is not the same thing as "than", not even remotely. It drives me INSANE when people write that "something is better then something else." It happens all the time!

</rant>

Split infinitives, the bane of my Latin classes in high school!

Am I the only one who hates, no, loathes hearing people use double negatives? I know somebody who repeatedly says, "You won't go nowhere" to me...so what he's really telling me is that I will in fact go somewhere, which obviously isn't what he means at all. It sounds awful when people say things like that and I almost always feel compelled to point it out, but this person happens to be an authority figure so it would be inappropriate for me to point out his poor grammar. I have to bite my tongue!