RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Question on a pet peeve
- Don't ever call me Mr. Smeltzer. He died in 1982.
From: josepharose [mailto:josepharose@...]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:08 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Question on a pet peeve
Some people follow a sub-rule which states that "an" can be used
before some words beginning with an "h" when the accent of that word
is on the second syllable.
Thus, "an history" would still be incorrect (and it sounds it). "An
historian" seems generally accepted. Google had about 215,00 hits
for "a historian" and some 67,800 for "an historian."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@c...>
> OK, grammar time.or two
> I have only one full manual of style (Chicago, 14th ed.), and one
> books on grammar and punctuation, so maybe there is a source outthere to
> contradict these. None of us would use the phrase "an history ofthe Civil
> War", but some find it proper to refer to a historian as "an"historian.
> Even some historians I know do so. But everything I have lookedat tells me
> that the proper usage is "a" historian. The Chicago Manual ofStyle even
> addresses this issue fairly specifically, 6.60 stating that "Suchforms as
> 'an historical study' or 'an union' are not idiomatic in AmericanEnglish.
> Before a pronounced h, long u (or eu), and such a word as one, theusage,
> indefinite article should be a".
> What's up with "an" historian? Is this some derivative of British
> and are Americans who use it guilty of some sort of Astor likeaffectation?
>Yahoo! Groups Links