RE: Not in my time

Jul 18, 2023 Last reply: 2 years ago 127 Replies

I don't think you need bother. I was taught to follow Fowler*: in essence, if it /sounds/ like a vowel it's "an".

*A Dictionary Of Modern English Usage. From the second 1922 edition:

"A is used before all consonants except silent h (a history, an hour); an was formerly usual before an unaccented syllable beginning with h and is still often seen and heard {an historian, an hotel, an hysterical scene, an hereditary title, an habitual offender). But now that the h in such words is pronounced the distinction has become anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time. Meantime speakers who like to say an should not try to have it both ways by aspirating the h. A is now usual also before vowel letters that in pronunciation are preceded by a consonantal sound (a unit, a eulogy, a one)."

I think so. As one who normally likes to see the language preserved rather more than it is currently (hotchpotch of other languages though it is), I still think staying in an 'otel is awkward to say and far too French for my comfort.

The one thing France got right was language. It always sounds sexy in French. Mind you, as the saying goes, 'All the problems in French philosophy would have never arisen if they had written in German'...

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Again - but I like that one.

Asian and Jamaican, according to Google, and popularised by Ali G.

Bullshit Baffles Brains.

I don't mind hearing either an 'otel, or a hotel, but it really grates to hear a 'otel, or an hotel ...

Most of the words that entered English from Norman French have similar equivalents in modern French, so it is not really that hard.

However, I expect that today requiring all university applicants to pass an examination on their use of English and to have at least an O level in one foreign modern language would be considered discriminatory or as penalising the disadvantaged.

My 1996 edition doesn't differ much from this although it's too copious for me to bother to copy. Suffice it to say, that the question of the origin of the word (A-S vs. N-F) does not arise.

Knowing the origins and development of words does explain a lot of the oddities of the English language.

Well now this is a puzzle. According to my 1996 3rd edition, we have:

First Edition 1926 Second Edition 1965 Third Edition 1996

Oh agreed. And I have no problem with oddities.

I've often heard people refer to 'an historic..' or 'an historical..' while pronouncing the H but never heard anyone say 'an history of..'.

I've always heard 'history' pronounced with an H and therefore taking 'a', except for those who drop all Hs who then tend to use 'an' ('ee 'ad an 'istory of GBH..).

I heard it at least sixty years ago from East Londoners (now Essex people) and presumably Sarf Londoners would also have been using it then.

This was in the days before there were that many foreigners in London.

It would have been the late Fifties when I embarrassed my mother, who always said my hands were black when they needed washing, when I saw my first black child...

It's a fair cop. My copy's lost its cover and title pages so I was busking it from a (patently faulty) memory. I think it must be Gowers' Second Edition.

Indeed.

TNP is perhaps confused by the way a lot of young British with subcontinent heritage started to use it this century as a tag or filler.

Is it not just a convenient shorthand for: "considering what you have just said, then this follows" ?

If that were how it is used, this debate would not be taking place.

I was taught English grammar at school, too. Only not in UK.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required