grammatical question that's been bugging me.
- Thread starter Cheech
- Start date
Catpicklesdog
Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
I was actually thinking about the very same thing the other day when I saw "an hotel" written in a newspaper so i did some searching and found this:
This originates from the original practice of writing "an hotel" since hotel is an imported French word and the "h" is silent in French. The word "an" is reserved phonetically for words than begin with vowel sounds. Since England was in a wave of French affectation, it was common to use the French pronuniation. There seems no harm in continuing the tradition for the word hotel. Similar rules for inserting consonants exist in other languages and make perfect sense, as language is defined by its oral tradition, not its written rules, your hono(u)r. But, do we need to extend it ruthlessly and illogically, not to mention unpronouncably, to every word beginning with "h"? To say "an hallucination" or "an habitat" is another case of dumb rules presiding over better judgement and general intuition, yet it so clearly does to the servile and unquestioning public of an increasing fraction of the English speaking world. I am forced to laugh when people say "You cannot say X -- that's not a word!" and then proceed to use all manner of slang and concocted expressions themselves. e.g. I cannot poetically improvise the verb "to surveil" (as in surveillance), but the word "globbing" seems perfectly acceptable to the same person. (I believe the criterion for a word appearing in the Oxford English dictionary is that it should have appeared in print at least twice or four times? That being the case, one should be careful to say "X is not a word", simply because it is not found in someone's edition of a dictionary.) My dictionary tells me that "to survey" is associated with the noun "surveyal", and that surveillance stands alone as a different form (both come from old French)-- so why disallow a new word that follows the forms of grammar and is not ambiguous, when a random ugliness like "glob" is to be allowed? In fact many such forms are eventually accepted into regular speech, precisely because they do follow the forms of grammar. I shall always remember the very amusing:
To iterate is human, to recurse is divine.
(Though I do forget where it came from...) Another example is the following. Network service providers speak of "provisioning" --- a word that I personally loathe. The verb "to provide" is associated with the noun "provision"; e.g. "service provision is optimal". To "provision" is a redundant verb formed by "verbing" the noun "provision", and adds neither poetry nor meaning to existing vocabulary. Indeed, one can continue the verbing-nouning process: why not say "provisionizationing"? This also follows the grammatical form. But that would be silly???
Clearly some critics' rules of language are not only illogical but also unfair.
My gut (sometimes) reacts (sometimes) queasily to old fashioned American words that are no longer used in Britain, e.g. "smarts" (to modern ears this sounds like something a child would say, not knowing the word "intelligence"), even though it probably shouldn't. I find it odd to see American authors' spelling changed into English spelling in UK editions, and vice versa. In spite of Mr. Webster's slap in the face to the British over spelling, it is now a fact and serves to identify the cultural difference. Why translate it?
In summary -- if you are going to criticize "grammar", make sure you know what you are talking about. And! Punctuation notwithstanding? Try to have a sense of humo(u)r. It's all a matter of convention, and we are all contributing to its evolution. I question only the developments of language that provide no improvement, nuance or benefit.
Bet you wish you hadn't asked now
Found it here if you want to read the rest of the article???!!!
This originates from the original practice of writing "an hotel" since hotel is an imported French word and the "h" is silent in French. The word "an" is reserved phonetically for words than begin with vowel sounds. Since England was in a wave of French affectation, it was common to use the French pronuniation. There seems no harm in continuing the tradition for the word hotel. Similar rules for inserting consonants exist in other languages and make perfect sense, as language is defined by its oral tradition, not its written rules, your hono(u)r. But, do we need to extend it ruthlessly and illogically, not to mention unpronouncably, to every word beginning with "h"? To say "an hallucination" or "an habitat" is another case of dumb rules presiding over better judgement and general intuition, yet it so clearly does to the servile and unquestioning public of an increasing fraction of the English speaking world. I am forced to laugh when people say "You cannot say X -- that's not a word!" and then proceed to use all manner of slang and concocted expressions themselves. e.g. I cannot poetically improvise the verb "to surveil" (as in surveillance), but the word "globbing" seems perfectly acceptable to the same person. (I believe the criterion for a word appearing in the Oxford English dictionary is that it should have appeared in print at least twice or four times? That being the case, one should be careful to say "X is not a word", simply because it is not found in someone's edition of a dictionary.) My dictionary tells me that "to survey" is associated with the noun "surveyal", and that surveillance stands alone as a different form (both come from old French)-- so why disallow a new word that follows the forms of grammar and is not ambiguous, when a random ugliness like "glob" is to be allowed? In fact many such forms are eventually accepted into regular speech, precisely because they do follow the forms of grammar. I shall always remember the very amusing:
To iterate is human, to recurse is divine.
(Though I do forget where it came from...) Another example is the following. Network service providers speak of "provisioning" --- a word that I personally loathe. The verb "to provide" is associated with the noun "provision"; e.g. "service provision is optimal". To "provision" is a redundant verb formed by "verbing" the noun "provision", and adds neither poetry nor meaning to existing vocabulary. Indeed, one can continue the verbing-nouning process: why not say "provisionizationing"? This also follows the grammatical form. But that would be silly???
Clearly some critics' rules of language are not only illogical but also unfair.
My gut (sometimes) reacts (sometimes) queasily to old fashioned American words that are no longer used in Britain, e.g. "smarts" (to modern ears this sounds like something a child would say, not knowing the word "intelligence"), even though it probably shouldn't. I find it odd to see American authors' spelling changed into English spelling in UK editions, and vice versa. In spite of Mr. Webster's slap in the face to the British over spelling, it is now a fact and serves to identify the cultural difference. Why translate it?
In summary -- if you are going to criticize "grammar", make sure you know what you are talking about. And! Punctuation notwithstanding? Try to have a sense of humo(u)r. It's all a matter of convention, and we are all contributing to its evolution. I question only the developments of language that provide no improvement, nuance or benefit.
Bet you wish you hadn't asked now
Found it here if you want to read the rest of the article???!!!
^^^ man, you really made your case there...
It makes sense.
In french, you don't pronounce the "H" in any of those words, so i can see how it was brought in from there and adopted by the english language.
It makes sense.
In french, you don't pronounce the "H" in any of those words, so i can see how it was brought in from there and adopted by the english language.
Catpicklesdog
Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
The correct grammar depends upon from where you come. In looking at the newspaper article from Minnesota, it should be an A. The American grammar rule is pretty basic. An A for consenant sounds and an AN for vowel sounds.
Well, I did read the headline from Foxnews online ... Doesn't get more american than that.
It should be A, Because I said so..
"An Istoric"?? what is that? the only way that is right is if you have a head cold and your nose is plugged up. The english language has been butchered up by a bunch of people who "THINK" something is acceptable, or who think its cool, or neat to be different.
If the word begins with any other sound than that produced by the letters A, E, I, O, and U, then it should be A. An is reserved for applications where the double vowel sound makes it difficult to pronounce.
What is accepted, and what is correct are two very different things...
A hoe, is a garden tool...
Shizzle is NOT a word!
History is pronounced History...
Hour is pronounced Our..
O'rly? means nothing...
And Probably is not spelled Prolly....
We are in a text message crazed era, its its going to destroy us all, Soon we'll all be drawing deer on the walls of our caves with pointed rocks... and eating spit fire cooked rabbits....
"An Istoric"?? what is that? the only way that is right is if you have a head cold and your nose is plugged up. The english language has been butchered up by a bunch of people who "THINK" something is acceptable, or who think its cool, or neat to be different.
If the word begins with any other sound than that produced by the letters A, E, I, O, and U, then it should be A. An is reserved for applications where the double vowel sound makes it difficult to pronounce.
What is accepted, and what is correct are two very different things...
A hoe, is a garden tool...
Shizzle is NOT a word!
History is pronounced History...
Hour is pronounced Our..
O'rly? means nothing...
And Probably is not spelled Prolly....
We are in a text message crazed era, its its going to destroy us all, Soon we'll all be drawing deer on the walls of our caves with pointed rocks... and eating spit fire cooked rabbits....
