[Closed] OT: The correct use of 'an'

or an h.

an hotel

AN hotel

Correct.

Should that be the correct use of an "an".?

An hotel is an affectation.

I should clarify...the OP was correct, but you lot are wrong.

IIRC you use "an" before a word that startws with a vowel sound. So if its a silent "H" then its "an" an hour but a hotel as in hour its a silent "H" but in hotel its not.

If you say something like "... an historic..." you may be semantically correct, but you are a first class trwat

While we're at it, I've noticed a proliferation of the use of the word "looser", when they mean "loser".
Losers.

An Swan ?

A Eagle ?

If you say something like "... an historic..." you may be semantically correct, but you are a first class trwat

+1 to that, does my head in.

It's [b]a[/b] hotel, apparently.

[url= http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/aoranhistoric ]oxforddictionaries[/url]

if that's how you decide, who decides how the written word will be pronounced ?

plenty would say 'otel (me included) but they'd not find it easy to argue that they're correct

Yep, it's based on the sound of the word rather than the first letter.

a hotel
a hospital
a unique
a habitat
a horrible

an hour

From the Guardian Style Guide:

a or an before h?
use an only if the h is silent: an hour, an heir, an honourable man, an honest woman; but a
hero, a hotel, a historian (but don’t change a direct quote if the speaker says, for example, “an
historic”)

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_and_an#Indefinite_article ]Wikipedia article here[/url]

Never thought about this before, but after reading the wiki this issue so confusing and wide ranging that I think its difficult to have a "correct" form. Obviously what is "correct" is subjective to a large degree, but almost all "English" speakers would say the "Red Apple" but not the "Apple Red", so I would suggest the "Red Apple" is correct. But this issue seems too complex.

For instance the wikipedia article even mentions this

Some British dialects (for example, Cockney) silence all initial h's (h-dropping) and so employ "an" all the time: e.g., "an 'elmet". The article "an" is sometimes seen in such phrases as "an historic", "an heroic" and "an hotel of excellence"

Which suggests an hotel may be correct depending on where you on from.

Apparently An is related to Ein in german and we have gradualy dropped the n. But apparently the process can work in reverse. ->
Supposedly the word apron should be napron. Napron" itself meant "little tablecloth" and is related to the word "napkin". But it has ended up going from a napron to an apron.

Also the process can add an n to a word ie it should be an ewt but the n shifted to give a newt.

Which may mean if the cockey form kept developing we may end up with

An hotel -> a notel.

From Usage and Abusage - Partridge E., pp.34, 1947.

[img] [/img]

You're quoting the Grauniad on the correct use of English?!! There worserer att shpellin and stuf dan wot i is

I think to answer bluebirds question he need to define what he means by correct.

To be honest I also think he needs to define "is" "that" as well starting from kind of basic language axioms that are undeniably true.

An hotel is an affectation.

Is there an ointment you can get for that?

Well, as with all affectations, you can stick it up your arse.

Well obviously it's [b]an[/b] achronism... 🙄

What about "Historian"? (the profession), would that be "a or an" Historian?

[i]If you say something like "... an historic..." you may be semantically correct, but you are a first class trwat
[/i]

Well, what about those types who say..........

" [i]off of[/i] "

Aarrrgh !, aArrggh. I hate that.

There has been variation on how the initial H in words was pronounced. I seem to remember that hotel used to be pronounced with a silent h like hour, hence an hotel (which would make sense if it's a French-ism). The silence or otherwise of the h does not survive in print, but the n does. Hence confusion.

Well, what about those types who say..........

" off of "

Aarrrgh !, aArrggh. I hate that.

I struggle to understand why so many people get wound up by the way other people use language. Ain't that wot's so nice about it. Language is a living thing, innit. The 'proper' way to speak now, is pretty different from 100 years ago.

on say thats very much on the by and by old chap

whatever is easier for the way that you speak english. for me there is no queens english, just lots of variations that are all valid.

for me, its easier to say 'an historian' than 'a historian' an account of how pronounced my h's are/aren't.

either way i don't suppose its worth getting bent out of shape over it.

Daffy - Member

What about "Historian"? (the profession), would that be "a or an" Historian?

Learn esperanto, it's easier.

McHamish - Member

I should clarify...the OP was correct, but you lot are wrong.

+1.

an diamond, for example

a diamond

Depends on if you drop the "h" or not. A hotel, an 'otel

Part of the affectation comes, not from estuarians failing to include all pronouncable letters in their utterances, but in the contiuing grip onto the past perpetrated by the (thankfully) diminishing aristocracy. Once they would converse with each other in French, and so "un hotel" becomes "an 'otel".

I am a plebian, but never will I pronouce "aitch" as "haitch".

[i]an diamond [/i]

Anna Dapter.

<whoosh> for Jeremy 😆

an mtb

TandemJeremy - Member
a diamond

pardon?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]Anne Diamond was a TV presenter yeah, from Brum IIR.

[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQefIvH6lEkQ853UiFcZ0zSJ3PHk-mA_hyH-pzStKV1vV2ITXyU [/img]

Tom Thumb raises an interesting point, which cut's to the core of our typey, online discussiossiion here, one that's not been raised here yet.

we are blurring the vboudaries between written and spoken language, and raissing grammatical issues by consequence. You can imagine someone very well bred and finely spoken saying "an hotel" dropping the haitch and getting away with it.

but what manner of speech will those who read your words use to read them in? and how will they approach acronyms? spel or fill out?

or wot?

aracer - Member

<whoosh> for Jeremy

😳

You approach acronyms and abbreviations phonetically thus it is a UK individual (because the U in UK is pronounced in the same way as you) but an FBI agent (because F is pronounced in the same way as the first syllable of efficient).

From Fowler's:

[img] [/img]

[b]Amoral [/b]is a novelty whose progress has been rapid. In 1888 the OED called it a nonce-word

Blimey, there's no need for that 😯

The Fowlers thing has reminded me.

A lot of words beginning in h come from the french, where it is very rarely (if at all?) pronounced. French used to be the language of court in England, so those words are "most correctly" pronounced following the french pronunciation of a silent h, and consequently preceded by an an.

Interestingly, the french may have at one stage pronounced their hs. Look at "hôtel". the circumflex over the o replaces an s which once followed it (made it easier to write, took up less space cheaper on paper or something(?) so hôtel used to be hostel, which we also use in English, a word which must have into English usage before "hôtel" and from which I think no-one, no matter how toffee-nosed, would drop the h and recede with an an.

If you turn to p394 of Fowler's (2nd Ed.) - i presume everyone has a copy - you will see 'nonce word' defined as "...a word coined for a single occasion".

I think I need a copy of fowlers. 🙂

Ah... interesting.

On another random tangent, what's their definition of "definition"?

Blimey, I love this stuff! "a nonce-word" = something used once.

once is a french word pronounced with a hard (?) "o" (like opposite)

So we're back with the migration of the n from "an" to the start of the word that once required it.

Now that's tidy. End of thread, surely!

In my copy of Fowlers there is no mention of the word "gullible".

BJ: hah, really? got excited there.

totally wrong anyway:

once
c.1200, anes, from ane "one" + adverbial genitive. Replaced O.E. æne. Spelling changed as pronunciation shifted from two syllables to one after c.1300. Pronunciation change to "wuns" parallels that of one. As an emphatic, meaning "once and for all," it is attested from c.1300, but this now is regarded as a Pennsylvania German dialect formation. Meaning "in a past time" (but not necessarily just one time) is from mid-13c. Once upon a time as the beginning of a story is recorded from 1590s. Slang once-over "inspection" is from 1915. At once originally (early 13c.) meant "simultaneously," later "in one company" (c.1300), and preserved the sense of "one" in the word; the phrase typically appeared as one word, atones; the modern meaning "immediately" is attested from 1530s.

No definition/entry for definition or gullible in my copy.

not even a picture?

an teallach

CaptJon - Member
No definition/entry for definition or gullible in my copy.

It doesn't have an entry for 'Skeptical' - go and look if you don't believe me

Our Scotch friends will know that in Gaelic, there's a word "an" which means "the" Actually, maybe they won't seeing as none of them speak it. And of course, following Celtic logic, there's no word for "a" (i.e. the indefinite article). Just a word for "the"; if you mean [i]a[/i] something, you just use nothing at all.

an phoblacht