Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogboy182
"An historian" is perfectly correct.
Printable View
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogboy182
"An historian" is perfectly correct.
Now I'm confused...
I thought an hour, because the "h" isn't pronounced, so it should also be an historian. The I started doubting... Is this "h" pronounced or not. I thought it wasn't so I kept the n. Then Dogboy said "a" and I thought: Of course....
Now, I don't think anything anymore... :?
Depends on wether you're trying to write English or American. American has rules (albeit complicated ones) for deciding between "a" and "an". In English though, in many cases it depends on the language from which the word originated. "History" and "hotel", for example, were both originally French words where initial "h"s aren't pronounced, so they take "an".
In commonly-used American English, the choice of "a" or "an" is based on pronunciation.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
We say "a historian", "an hour", "a hole", "an hors d'oeuvre".
Ignore people who try and tempt you to say "an historical even" it's just horrible. You will never hear anyone except newsreaders and strange people say this. There is no governing body of the English language as there is for the French, so you can say whatever you like, providing it is obvious what it means, thus: realise, realize.
In the English language "h" is usually a consonant and should be treated as such: an (h)our, a horse, a history lesson, a horrific event.....
"an historian" is just ridiculously pedant, like telling people not to split infinitives, though there is absolutely no reason why it is wrong.
it just doesn't like right. by the way, learn american english, more people speak it than british ! :lol:
I agree that "an historian" sounds stupid, and I wouldn't say it myself. I just thought I should point out that it is, technically speaking, perfectly correct after Dogboy jumped on Gollandski Yosh for using it that way :)
lol, i never jump on anybody, exept hippies, like i sad, i'm laid back, most of the time i am заколибол at myself.
I have never read such a rule in textbooks -- "an historian", and never heard it even in most weird British accents, may be it's your Scottish way of getting what is grammar? :lol:
That's because it's a stupid rule that everyone ignores, like saying "This is he" instead of "This is him" when someone asks for you on the phone. But it is a rule nonetheless.
Nah, if anything Scots are less likely to need this rule, since there aren't any Scottish dialects (that I know of) that 'drop' initial "h"s, unlike a great many English accents/dialects.Quote:
I have never read such a rule in textbooks -- "an historian", and never heard it even in most weird British accents, may be it's your Scottish way of getting what is grammar?
Coincidentally, we had an argument about this at work a few days ago. Roughly half the guys in the studio (me included) could distinctly remember being taught this at primary school, the other half knew nothing about it, and there didn't seem to be any ryhme or reason to who was taught it and who wasn't.
::shrug::
Aye. Exactly.Quote:
That's because it's a stupid rule that everyone ignores, like saying "This is he" instead of "This is him" when someone asks for you on the phone. But it is a rule nonetheless.
IMHO in the European part of Russia it makes more sense to learn British English as we have more social contacts with the British than with Americans. And my sat channels bring me more high quality British stuff than American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogboy182
But does it really matter what you're learning? I bet it doesn't as long as you're consistent.
Zen trai tu stadi Pisin Inglis ... :lol:
My Dad says: "An historian" and also "an hotel"
But then he also says "It is I" and spells "show" like "shew". He tells me off if I say "He's taller than me" rather than "He's taller than I". He hates split infinitives, can't stand the use of "hopefully" to mean "I hope": he uses it only to mean "with hope" and he uses the now obsolete: "therefor" and "herefor".
Actually he resigned from the "Queen's English Society" because they got something wrong.
So, yes, "an historian" is technically "correct", but I think most English people wouldn't even notice. "Posh" newspapers generally write "an historian", so I think both are completely acceptable.
You do have to be aware of the differences between British and American English. When I lived in America I kept a dictionary of differences. I split it into three sections
Words that had different meanings (eg car bonnet/ car hood)
Words that had different spellings but the same pronunciation (centre/center)
Words that had different pronunciation (usually where the stress is) but the same, or similar spelling (HimaLAYa, HimALaya)
I can't remember the exact numbers, but in a year I collected 3 or 4 hundred in the first category and thousands in the other two categories.
I think the last two categories are interesting, but not a problem. But the first category is very serious. I remember my Dad telling a little boy how he used to make "gas bombs" as a child. The father came over and got very angry with my Dad. But to us "gas" means methane and, ok, filling a tin up with methane and setting fire to it is dangerous, but nothing like as dangerous as filling it up with petrol!
Also my Mum used to tell me to "keep on the pavement", which really worried people walking past: "pavement" means the tarmac they put on the roads in American, but means "sidewalk" in English.
The British usually have learnt most (but not all) of these differences, but Americans usually don't realise and the potential for serious misunderstandings exist.
And do "more people speak American English"? I'm not sure I want to get into the argument, afterall I'm sure the original comment wasn't very serious, so please take this the same way :wink: : but I think Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Indian ... Englishes are more similar to British English than to American?
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by woolliamser
Could you tell me what "quid" means? I understood it's a unit of money, but I don't know how much.
'quid' means 'pound sterling'. btw, the plural of quid is quid, thus five quid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pravit
Right. So what is it with the British capitalizing the word Okay all the time? I was reading 'Bravo Two Zero', and the author wrote like this:
"Chris! I can't believe you're alive! Are you Okay?"
"Right. Bloody Iraqis shoot me through the foot! I'm on my chinstrap here!"
that spelling is acceptable, but it is capitalised because the real form is OK (standing for Oll Korrect in the style of the time to make yourself look like a moron by deliberate mizztakez)
Like "sanatorium" and "sanitarium"?Quote:
Originally Posted by woolliamser
I think "Sanitarium" is so misspelled and incorrectly understood a form, that it is not worth being seriously spoken of.
[quote]
Also my Mum used to tell me to "keep on the pavement", which really worried people walking past: "pavement" means the tarmac they put on the roads in American, but means "sidewalk" in English.
[/qoute]
And I remember as one woman nearly fighted with another woman in St.Petersburg who said: "Пускай ваша дочь на панели постоит", because in Petersburg "панель" means "a sidewalk/pavement" but in other Russia the expression "пойти на панель" means "to be a prostitute" and "sidewalk" is "тротуар".
:lol: :lol: :lol:
yeah, my dic. was written by brits, so тротуар is defined as "pavement"(at first I thought it was a road, so when I was reading Russian books I couldn't udnesrstand why the characters kept walking in the middle of roads :D), and панель is defined as "Wainscotting." Crazy Brits.
Sanitarium and sanatorium come from two different Latin words that have the same root (san). Sanatorium is actually the newer of the two words--it's only about 100 years old. And I don't know about the British, but I have never heard an American use the word "sanatorium" in my entire life. I found a medical website that says it was coined in Canada in the early 20th century to refer to tuberculosis hospitals, so people wouldn't confuse them with "sanitariums" (health resorts). Nowadays a sanitarium (in America at least) just means a place for insane people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Propp
British english should be learnt becasue only Americans speak american english, British english is spoken in more places like England, Australia, India, South Africa, New Zealand and so on.
Well, that's only a valid suggestion while these countries remain non-American territories. :wink:
Yeah, I think it's time to take over New Zealand. The US has enough oil now; what we need are more sheep. :wink:
Уважаемые англоговорящие господа, подскажите, сильно ли отличается речь дикторов CNN и BBC? Времена глаголов они хоть одни и те же используют?
Apart from the accent, there are no big differences. Maybe on CNN, you'll encounter more Christian names ("Yeah, that certainly is true, Bill"), and a lot of "Have a nice day"s.:)
no, that happens on the BBC too now. "So Andrew, what does this mean for Gordon Brown?"
I think I vaguely understand what you mean, but can you elaborate a bit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper May
"Christian name" is another term for someone's given first name, coming, I think, from the fact that once generally everyone got their name at baptism. I think Jasper was saying that CNN anchors might address one another less formally than BBC anchors would.Quote:
Originally Posted by roxfan
Yeah, you're right, and it's incredibly annoying. As if they were compensating for lack of knowledge by appearing overly jovial and social. It just seems so pointless, just like saying "John Smith, in front of the houses of Parliament in London, Britain, for CNN International". Gah! We can see what your name is, as the 'anchor' will announce it, and a bar will appear in front of the reporter. The place will be known, as you can see it behind them and the 'anchor' has already announced it. The channel will also be shown in the top right corner of the screen. It's just a way to stretch the report for 5 more glorious self-congratuling seconds. ('Look at me, I'm a big important reporter reporting from a distant and interesting country for a large newscompany.')
And the worst thing is that England is following their example.
Having had to do audio and video news reports, I think that particular signoff is a hold-over from radio broadcast news, where you really did have to say it. Now it's just a formal touch. And if they do drag it out longer than necessary, I doubt it's self-congratulation - in many cases, broadcast segments have to be a very specific length of time, and journalists sometimes get creative about stretching things out if they're coming up a bit short. I myself am the master of the dramatic pause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper May
simply 'An" is pronounce in fron of the word ONLY if the word begins with a vowel.
Ex: an vowel Wrong)
a vowel (correct)
this works in the case of the word hour, only because the 'h' i silent, therefore the beginning word is 'o'
That's exactly how I was taught in school. If a word's first sound (not the first letter) is a consonant, use "a"; if it is a vowel, use "a".Quote:
Originally Posted by nikki2028
So it was always "an hour", "an heir" but "a history lesson" etc.
And the rules we were taught were disctinctly British; sometimes very obsolete British, at that. For example, we were taught to pronounce "restaurant" as "restrong", to imitate the French nasal sound. Imagine my surprise when I got access to modern English dictionaries, like Longman, Collins Cobuild, English Oxford Dictionary (mind you, all of them British dictionaries) and found out that it is pronounced -- well, as it is pronounced now, ending with "-nt" and not with "ng".
Actually, to quote an overused commercial jingle, "I'm Lovin' It!" :D
It's nice to see differing parts of the world, and THEIR "take" on American English vs. British English. Where I was raised (at least through 8th grade), we were taught "the Queen's English," so I'm sure I sound pedantic and overeducated. Nothing could be farther from the truth! By senior year in high school, I'd learned the rule: The indefinite article (IA) is always "a," if the first letter following the IA is sounded like a consonant. (A YEAR; A BASEBALL, A HISTORY BUFF,etc.) Conversely (?), if the first letter following the IA isn't sounded, the IA is "an." (AN HOUR; AN HORS D'OEUVRE, AN ITCHY SPOT, etc.) :?
As for split infinitives, etc., well, let's just not get me started on that whole can of worms. (Learning German as my second language helped me, but more just for parts of speech, and cases.) :wink:
I'd love to chat with you all more, if interested.
boisebret@msn.com
Actually the French sound is not the same as the English phoneme 'ng', it's more like the 'start' of an 'ng', it shouldn't sound the same at all.. so, sure, it would be rather strange to say it as 'restrong'. If you said it the French way, it wouldn't be a problem at all because most British people would not really pronounce the 't' at the end of the word (I think we have a glottal stop there), at least in casual speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by translations.nm.ru
I think the main difference between the Brit. English and French pronunciation of 'restaurant' is in the 'r' sounds which are dramatically different.
I was watching Sleepy Hollow which was set at around 1900 I think, and alot of the people still had British accent (it was set in America). Which led me to ponder, how did the americans, and the australians et.c get their different accents? I read one theory that at the time when there was mass emigration to America from Britian, the British accent at the time was like the modern American accent. I also read somewhere else that the American accents are the product of the different nationalities of people. E.g. British, Irish, Dutch and all the other Europeans.
But if the British spoke like that at the time, then if we changed, surely American would have as well. Reminds me a bit of "If God made man in his image, then is he black, because humanity originated in Africa?" This doesn't take into account that we are jest as direct descendants of the first humans as the modern Africans.. Sorry, that was a bit irrelevant..ho hum...
Well, my theory is that the Irish habit of pronouncing the short 'o' as an 'aa' has contributed a great deal to the current American accent. And of course, Yiddish and Italian immigrants have more or less singlehandedly formed the Noo Yoik stereotype accent. And I've noticed that when Dutch people speak English, even those trying to learn the British accent (like VM), their accent features a lot of similarities to the American accent.
Oh poor VM! Compared to a Dutchman trying hard to mimic the British accent (which one?). Oh what a blow!
I nearly choked.