Grammar People:

[RenewRevive]

Well, I'm up for a bit of, erm correction, if you know what I mean?

[pale blue eyes]

Originally Posted by RenewRevive

pale blue eyes:

I bet you get a big kick out of correcting people on invalid sentence structure, right?

Well, I am not that anal but if it's something really obvious then I will say something. I think it all stems from the one horrible semester I worked at the writing center at school. My God, it was horrible. You would not believe the stuff people would bring in. Some of it should have been written in crayon or something.

[RenewRevive]

I believe ya.

So, why the sleep deprivation you mentioned anyway; insomnia?

[neopryn]

it's pretty sad that i found this thread really interesting

[pale blue eyes]

Originally Posted by RenewRevive

I believe ya.

So, why the sleep deprivation you mentioned anyway; insomnia?

I have a thirty page paper due tomorrow that I had planned on finishing this weekend but that didn't happen. I also have three journal articles to write and an exam all tomorrow.

Off I go, I need food and my third wind is dying. Procrastination, yay!

[tcm]

i wouldn't mind saying an hotel.

[HorseflyKing]

Originally Posted by mpp

i think i usually write "an" and say "a"

me too.
i was taught that in formal writing - like for school reports or whatever - you should use "an"

[Trotskilicious]

i love how people can be grammar nazis yet stuff like this can be argued about.

it's a history like I see on many textbooks on my bookshelf. "A HISTORY OF MODERN RUSSIA," "A HISTORY OF IRELAND," "THE MAKING OF MODERNITY: A HISTORY OF 19TH CENTURY EUROPE."

[tcm]

Originally Posted by benjamin619

A historical, or An historical?

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ns/smile09.gif

[rocksteady]

i was about to make a thread asking for someone explain the proper usages of who and whom, but i guess i'll just throw it in this thread seamlessly.

in my opinion (which is worth nothing) whether harden or soften the 'h' in history, it still needs to have 'a' in front of it, because that's the pronunciation that's sanctioned by websters, random house et al.

[duovamp]

How on Earth did I miss this thread? Blast it all.

[duovamp]

Whom for direct objects.

[tcm]

you know how he & him work? who & whom are like that.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by tcm

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ns/smile09.gif

an historical

[tcm]

agreed. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ns/smile08.gif

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by tcm

you know how he & him work? who & whom are like that.

so

who stole the cookies from the cookie jar

and

whom were the cookies stolen by

are both correct?

[Trotskilicious]

i'm not an english major but I am a history major.

[tcm]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

so

who stole the cookies from the cookie jar

and

whom were the cookies stolen by

are both correct?

by whom were the cookies stolen!

[rocksteady]

alright.

see, the cookie supply has been depleting faster than i've been eating them, and i've been wondering how to discuss it with my roommates with looking like a fool.

thanks tcm.

[tcm]

cookie thieves are not typically meticulous grammarians. you oughtn't be taken aback if the retort is no more than an exasperated me want cookie.

[HorseflyKing]

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/historical.html
At one time, an was the preferred usage before an unaccented syllable beginning with h. This is what the grammarian's grammarian, Henry Fowler, has to say on the subject:


. . . an was formerly used 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. (1)**


Since the early twentieth century, those unaccented h sounds have been more commonly pronounced than not, especially in American English. But when Lederer and Dowis insist that an historical should never be used, they are promulgating a rule that is not yet carved in stone.


To many Americans, an historical reference probably sounds pretentious and unlikely. But to many of us who are middle-aged or older, that phrase sounds better (and is easier to pronounce) than a historical reference.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

i was about to make a thread asking for someone explain the proper usages of who and whom, but i guess i'll just throw it in this thread seamlessly.

who when it's a subject, whom when it's an object.

[Eulogy]

wow i totally didn't notice there was a page 2.

[tcm]

speak for yourself, buddy.

[Eulogy]

I just don't see why you should change how a word is pronounced based on what precedes it.

When you say "the historical," you pronounce the h, right? well, i guess some people might not. but if you do, then there is no reason to use "an" before historical. or something.

[tcm]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I just don't see why you should change how a word is pronounced based on what precedes it.

what?

[HorseflyKing]

Goddamn people from Ohio don't pronounce the H.
Ever!

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by tcm

cookie thieves are not typically meticulous grammarians. you oughtn't be taken aback if the retort is no more than an exasperated me want cookie.

I think a simple "AY!? WHO IS EATIN THE MOTHERFUCKING COOKIES!?" would suffice.

[tcm]

Originally Posted by HorseflyKing

Goddamn people from Ohio don't pronounce the H.
Ever!

Ever's in Australia, man.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by tcm

what?

did you read what followed that?

I was saying that most people pronounce the "h" on historical when it is preceded by "the." and if that is indeed the case, "an" should not be used before "historical."