Interesting question, one that I have asked myself from time to time. In conversation, I always say "an 'istoric." When I write, it comes out "a historic." Hmmm.
Let's consult some of the experts. First, Fowler/Gowers (2nd ed.):
Although both adjectives [historic and historical] are now always aspirated when not preceded by the indefinite article, the use of an with them lingers curiously.
What??? Come again??? Well, even Fowler stumbles sometimes, I guess. If it is aspirated when not preceded by the indefinite article, it is reasonable to assume that it is not aspirated when it is preceded by the indefinite article, in which case it is not in the least curious why the use of "an" lingers. In fact, the use of "an" would seem to be required.***
So, onwards....
Brians' Errors in English. Short and sweet:
A HISTORIC
You should use "an" before a word beginning with an H only if the H is not pronounced: "an honest effort"; it's "a historic event."
From a North Carolina State University's Online Writing Lab (an excellent resource, by the way):
Question (From an N.C. State faculty member): Should words beginning with "h" use the indefinite article "a" or "an", as in a historic occasion or an historic occasion?
Answer: The Chicago Manual of Style (6.49) notes that:
Before a pronounced "h," long "u" (or "eu"), and such a word as "one," the indefinite article should be "a." Chicago gives the following examples: a hotel; a historical study, a euphonious word, such a one, a union, BUT an honor,
and an heir.
More interesting is its lead-in comment: "Such forms as an historical study or an union are not idiomatic in American English." Ha! This is clearly a case of "Methinks the manual doth protest too much." Writers wonder about this form precisely because they have heard it¾ which, of course, means that it is idiomatic. To choose what to do, you need to think about the reason for grammar rules, which I believe is this: To enable writers to use language in such a way that readers will concentrate on content rather than on format. If you reason through the problem starting from that principle, you'll decide to follow the Chicago rule. The forms it generates are more familiar, and therefore more invisible. After all, few writers want to draw attention to an indefinite article.
www2.ncsu.edu
More from the Writing Lab on aspirating or not aspirating one's h's, which also should indicate why the OED might not be the best source for Americans to consult on this question:
Question (From an N.C. State faculty member): Please help settle an argument. Which is correct?
a hypothesis -or-
an hypothesis
Answer: I recommend a hypothesis.
The relevant rule in the Chicago Manual of Style is 6.60:
Such forms as an historical study or an union are not idiomatic in American English. Before a pronounced "h," long "u" (or "eu"), and such a word as one, the indefinite article should be "a":
a hotel
a euphonious word
a historical study
such a one
a union
-but-
an honor
an heir
This opens the question of differences between American and British English. The British are less likely to pronounce "h" than are Americans, and a case could be made that an historical is, in fact, idiomatic in some dialects of British English.
The example you give, however, is not very complicated. As far as I know, the "h" is regularly pronounced in hypothesis on both sides of the pond. Or at least that's my hypothesis.
Which side of the controversy are you supporting?
In short, if you are British, you are still more likely to drop your aitches; if you are American, you probably pronounce them.
What you do NOT do, however, is use an "an" with an aspirated aitch! As a former radio correspondent, I say, boo to you, NPR!!!! Shame!!!! Fie!!!!
Joan
Edit:
***I get it! (My neighbor fed me too much cognac this evening.) What Fowler is trying to say here is that the unaspirated "aitch" in "historic" lingers ONLY when used with the indefinite article, and he finds that odd. BUT it clearly lingers more among the Brits than it does among us.
|
