Here's another.

ConversesI Survived the Great Vowel Shift

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

Here's another.

Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.

1ambushedbyasnail
set. 2, 2009, 10:37 pm

Why "an historical"? Every time I read this it drives me absolutely NUTS. Like, I have to put down the book. Historical starts with a consonant! I've been practicing saying it though and seems like half the time it works and half doesn't - depending on the vowel sound in "an." But either way, it seems like in writing it should be "a" because your brain reads "historical" as starting with a consonant. And I generally see it in academic writing...

Please, somebody, find me an explanation!

2Pepys
set. 3, 2009, 3:08 am

In many places, English uses "an" instead of "a" before a(?n) aitch (e.g. "an hour"). It was very common, I think, to write "an history" in the 17c. (But it is true that, at that time, there was no official spelling.)

So your question might be replaced by two questions:
- Why "an" before "hour" and not before "history"?
- Who decided it? Johnson?

3krolik
set. 3, 2009, 4:01 am

>1 ambushedbyasnail:
Sounds like you're experiencing considerable dissonance about some (normal) differences between spoken and written language. The usual explanation concerns whether or not the "h" is aspirated.

Unlike most consonants, its pronunciation is variable. When I was a kid I wanted to invent another letter, which I thought looked cool and would make things more precise. But nobody listened to me. It didn't catch on.

>2 Pepys:
As late as 1904, Henry James was writing "an hotel".

4pinkozcat
Editat: set. 3, 2009, 1:18 pm

Americans tend to use 'an' before 'h' more than other English speakers. I think that it is a throwback to the first settlers which has remained because of America's relative isolation up unto recent times. Now it is starting to creep back due to the influence of the media.

It probably developed from Norman French.

5gregstevenstx
set. 3, 2009, 12:16 pm

I think I'm going to try to start a trend where people use "an" before words that begin with w-

After all, if "h" is "almost a vowel" in many ways, then certainly "w" is nearly a vowel as well, right?

.
.
.

I'm going to go for an walk now...

6ambushedbyasnail
set. 3, 2009, 1:12 pm

#5 - I practically had a seizure reading that.

7pinkozcat
set. 3, 2009, 1:21 pm

#5 *grin* You can say an 'uu' but not an 'double' u, 'd' being a consonant.

8ambushedbyasnail
set. 3, 2009, 1:39 pm

#7 - No, but, you really can't, can you? Because "uu" starts with a consonant, pronunciation-wise... but then you get back into the "sometimes y and w" thing... God, this is getting complicated.

9keristars
set. 3, 2009, 5:21 pm

It's like the overcorrection of "an union" - folks see that it starts with a "u" so they use "an" even though if they actually spoke the words out loud, they would be much more likely to say "a union."

Anyway, I wouldn't have thought "an history" was something American at all. Maybe it's for certain regions that don't aspirate the "h"? That is, if there are any regions where it's common to not do so.

10jjmcgaffey
set. 4, 2009, 3:07 am

I certainly wouldn't use an with history or historical, and definitely would use it with hour. But I pronounce the H for the first two and don't for the third. I have to intentionally elide the H to make "an 'istory" work, and I wouldn't read it that way. Hour is approximately 'ower' for me (ow like ow that hurts).

It's quite likely to be a regional usage - ambushedbyasnail, where did you see it? What sort of academic writing? I haven't noticed it at all (but then, I don't do much academical reading).

11MyopicBookworm
Editat: set. 4, 2009, 6:11 am

I often see "an historic..." or "an historical...", but I don't know anyone who drops the h in these words: it's just a fossilized written usage.

I presume that at least some Americans write "an herb", dropping the h, where I would write and say "a Herb".

12CliffordDorset
set. 4, 2009, 5:47 pm

1) It would seem that the phrase 'dropping an "h"' is less 'dropping' than 'failing to haspirate' it?

2) I've always found the American word "'erb" rather comical, as it usually sounds more like "urb". Do people called Herbert find they are called "urburt"?
.

13ambushedbyasnail
set. 4, 2009, 5:52 pm

No, in fact, we laugh when we hear an 'erb called a herb because we associate it with people named Herb.

14jjwilson61
set. 5, 2009, 1:40 am

I don't think I can tell the difference between not aspirating an h and dropping it.

15krolik
set. 5, 2009, 11:12 am

Three easy steps:

1. Say "how". That's aspirated.
2. Then, hit your thumb with a hammer.
3. Say "ow". That's not aspirated.

If you like, you can skip step 2.

16jjwilson61
set. 5, 2009, 11:38 am

So an unaspirated h is the same as no sound. That's what I thought, but then msg 12 doesn't make sense.

17mene
set. 5, 2009, 11:58 am

> 3 : Did you invent another letter?

18ambushedbyasnail
set. 5, 2009, 3:22 pm

#15 - Well yeah, we know that, but #12 suggests that "dropping" and "not aspirating" are different. Which I'd like to hear the reasoning behind.

19pinkozcat
set. 5, 2009, 8:36 pm

An aspirated 'h' in the middle of a word has a sort of huff.

i.e. - Antony / Ant-hony

It sort of softens the 't'

20vpfluke
set. 5, 2009, 11:34 pm

Hindi and other Indian subcontinent languages have aspirated and unaspirated consonants all over the place.

21MyopicBookworm
set. 7, 2009, 9:27 am

But we're not talking about aspirated consonants:we're talking about initial h as a standalone consonant. If you don't aspirate it, then it simply isn't there, which is conventionally called "dropping" it. Yes, I know you can't go round after a Cockney speaker and sweep up a litttle trail of dropped aitches from the floor, but that's what we call it! So #12 part 1) doesn't make sense to me either: failing to aspirate an h is the same as dropping it.

22CliffordDorset
set. 7, 2009, 1:06 pm

My apologies for the confusion. I wasn't suggesting there IS a distinction. Merely expressing the feeling I have that the word 'dropping' here sounds odd. As though we were carrying words as ordered assemblages of letters, and occasionally found the load too onerous.

23msladylib
Editat: set. 7, 2009, 4:56 pm

>22 CliffordDorset: As though we were carrying words as ordered assemblages of letters, and occasionally found the load too onerous.

You mean they aren't?

I listen to some people who seem to leave whole clumps of letters out of their speech, out of laziness, apparently, or unfamiliarity, perhaps. So your image makes some sense. Just today, I heard someone pronounce "nickname" almost as if it were spelled "nee-name." Too much trouble to put in the "k" sound? This was a person whose first language is (Latin American) Spanish. Else, it may have been a choice between the "k" and the "n," as some Romance languages don't have very many consonant clusters.

24keristars
set. 7, 2009, 5:33 pm

This conversation is suddenly reminding me of this photo, which I'm sure is staged, but which reminds me of how some of my family members (rural, Northeast Florida) sound when leaving their phone numbers on answer machines. Link to the image, because it's a bit large, but it's basically a wooden panel with "For a good time call Shaniqua Na Fa Fo Fo Fo Na Fa" written in black marker.

http://i27.tinypic.com/afdb2a.jpg

Also, on the topic of "carrying words as ordered assemblages of letters, and occasionally [finding] the load too onerous" - I can easily imagine people doing that when faced with my given name, which is five syllables long and 17 letters when written. They inevitably shorten it to one syllable and three letters, which causes me no end of irritation (so I ended up picking my own, preferred nickname, of course).

25Mr.Durick
set. 7, 2009, 5:51 pm

So now I'm going to try all the area codes with that number! Cuz it's not a local number.

Robert

26erilarlo
set. 7, 2009, 7:31 pm

Note: it's not LETTERS people leave out of words, it's sounds 8-) And it's very often a matter of dialect which sounds are left out--or in some cases added. Look at the different syllables we and the Brits leave out of some words we share, often the result of varying stress.

27msladylib
Editat: set. 8, 2009, 2:28 am

Of course, there are sounds that are left out, but don't we represent those sounds with letters or some combination of letters? I was having fun in my post above. Should have included ;-)

I do not remember not being able to read, and so I have this image, if you will, of all speech somehow being spelled out, often even as I am listening.

Oh! The pronunciation of "corollary" is an example of the difference varying stress makes. Neither the British nor the Americans seem to leave anything at all out, but the pronunciations, at least to me, are startlingly different. I can hardly imitate the British pronunciation, and am brought up short "translating" when I hear it. "Laboratory" not so much.

28erilarlo
set. 8, 2009, 3:55 pm

There's ANYone who says "laboratory"?? 8-) We usually say "LABratory" and the Brits usually say "laBORatry", it seems to me.

29CliffordDorset
set. 8, 2009, 7:00 pm

This 'Brit' says 'laBORatorry'! But then I would say 'LAVatorry' rather than 'LAVatree'!

One Americanism that annoys me - because the Brits are slavishly adopting it - is 'research'.

Increasingly we hear 'REsearch', when English English always used to say 'reSEARCH'. The American pronunciation goes severely against the grain: in Italian it's 'riCERca' and in French 'la reCHERche'. Why this word for special treatment? I never hear 'REpeat', or 'REtire' (unless the latter is where English English says 'Re-tyre'!
.

30Pepys
set. 10, 2009, 6:25 am

#4: "It probably developed from Norman French" is an interesting remark. I don't know if Norman-French developed it first, but there might be some relationship with the similar problem there is in French with the initial h. Although it is never really aspirate in the French pronounciation, the Larousse dictionary makes a difference between, say, histoire and *haricot. (So listed in the dictionary, with a star before.) With the first, you should say "des z-istoires" (with a liaison) when you use plural; with the second, never say "des z-aricots" unless you insist on passing for uneducated.

I notice that histoire is of Latin origin, *haricot of Frankish (Germanic) origin. The great majority of French words with an aspirate h are indeed of Frankish, Germanic, English, etc. origin. (But it seems to me that there are also many exceptions...)

So I'm just wondering if this doesn't simply apply also to English, where your Saxon, Norsk and Scandinavian words would get an aspirate h and the other words not.

By the way, I think that things have changed now in France and that it is tolerated to say "des z-aricots". But "des aricots" with no liaison is much posher and more stylish.

31MyopicBookworm
set. 14, 2009, 7:08 am

That reminds me how much a French-speaking friend laughed when I referred to a Paris metro station as "Chatelet-leZ-'alles": apparently you're not suppose to do the liaison here. The problem with French is that, as far as I know, the h is always silent, never aspirated, but some silent h's are more silent than others: l'herbe but la hache. Like English spelling, Ithink it's just designed to confuse foreigners.

32Pepys
set. 14, 2009, 9:51 am

No: very simple with my rule (er, I'm not a linguist, so I should be humble!):
- herbe is of Latin origin, so l'herbe (silent)
- hache (just as halle) is of Frankish origin, so la hache, la halle (aspirated).

Of course, you have to be quick enough to guess the origin...
And, as I said, there seem to be quite a number of exceptions.

33Petroglyph
set. 14, 2009, 2:24 pm

> 29

Yes, but that stress alternation does fit in with an English-internal pattern, where verbs and nouns that have the same base form differ in where the stress lies:

a REcord -- To reCORD
an ADdress -- to adDRESS
a PRESent -- to preSENT
a SUSpect -- to susPECT


There's heaps of examples like that. Of course, many others, like a/to reward still have the same stress pattern for both noun and verb. But the pair a reSEARCH - to reSEARCH shifting its pronunciation to become, well, more regular, if you like, in some way, doesn't really bother me. (For the record, I say reSEARCH in both cases.)

34pinkozcat
set. 14, 2009, 11:02 pm

Me too. I also say adDRESS, never ADdress

35MyopicBookworm
Editat: set. 18, 2009, 5:59 am

There's even one instance (at least in UK English) where the same word may have different stress according to sense: to surVEY is to look over something; to SURvey is to conduct a formal assessment (a SURvey).