Once again we in my office are debating whether the article "a" or "an" precedes the word "historic." I found a good discussion here about when to use "historic" and when to use "historical," but I've not found a discussion about which article is correct.

What I've found in other sources indicates that the old rule was that we should use "an" before words beginning with "h" when the accent is not on the first syllable but use "a" when the accent is on the first syllable.

But my references say that rule is antiquated and that it is now preferred that we say "a historic occasion."

Do you agree?

The rule as I understand it is simple. If the initial "h" is sounded, the you use "a"; if it's not, then you use "an".

For most words it's easy enough: An hour; a hamburger. But for certain words, such as "historic" and "hotel" there are two acceptable pronunciations - with or without the sounded "h".

So it could either be "an 'istoric" or "an'otel" if the h is silent, but "a historic" or "a hotel" if the h is sounded.

What would be wrong would be the say "an hotel" or "an historic" with the sounded "h".

Having said which, the dropped "h" is now uncommon amongst the majority of English speakers although it is heard amongst the very top echelons of society and also, ironically, amongst the bottom layers.

What about written text, where no one can hear you aspirate? Similarly, is it "an FBI agent" or "a FBI agent"?

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:
What about written text, where no one can hear you aspirate? Similarly, is it "an FBI agent" or "a FBI agent"?

Written text should follow how you would say it so, as Richard says, it is whichever you prefer when you speak and then would give a guide to the intended pronunciation should anyone read it aloud.

With FBI agent it is perfectly clear, it is "an FBI agent" because whether you read it aloud or not that is what you hear in your head - "a FBI agent being much more difficult to articulate."

The choice of a/an DOES NOT occur with reference to the initial LETTER, it occurs with reference to the initial SOUND.

Hence "a eff bee eye agent is wrong" and "an eff bee eye agent" right.

A similar case can be made for preferring "a useful tool" or "a one-hit wonder" over "an useful tool" and "an one-hit wonder."

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:
A similar case can be made for preferring "a useful tool" or "a one-hit wonder" over "an useful tool" and "an one-hit wonder."

Indeed it can. NO ONE would say "an useful tool" because it is just plain wrong. "A useful tool" and "a one-hit wonder" are correct because the opening sounds are, respectively, yoo and wohn.

I agree that I'd never say "an useful" anything, but I have heard and said, "an historic" when the "h" is pronounced as such. I wonder what the difference is.

I agree that where you use an "a" or an "an" before an acronym can sometimes be confusing. For example, I might contact an NLN staff member or a National League for Nursing staff member. Strange.

Your question is very timely, saranita. On January 4 Rep. Nancy Pelosi's acceptance speech as Speaker of the House of Representatives. According to the advance copy, she said, "This is an historic moment - for the Congress, and for the women of this country."

quote:

According to the advance copy, she said, "This is an historic moment - for the Congress, and for the women of this country."

That's what she wrote - but what did she say?

"An 'istoric" would be correct; "an historic" would not be.

As Bob has written, it's the sound that matters - and written words are often imperfect devices for representing sound.

For many speakers of American English, an historic moment (or occasion) is an idiomatic phrase pronounced without an h or a pause between the indefinite article and the following adjective: /ʡanɪstɔrɪk#moʊmɛnt/. Yet, many of these same speakers pronounce the h in the noun history: thus a history of aitches. One of these speakers would be me. The dropping of h and r is one of those phonological phenomena intimately associated with class and sociolect.

I would say an historic ... but I'm probably unusual in the UK; I think most would say a historic .... However, I wouldn't say an historical ... because the stress is different.

Coincidentally, this article, entitled "An historic crossing" was in the Chicago Tribune.

The contents of it are rather interesting, too. Let's just say that apparently "jaywalking" is okay in the UK. The poor English professor jaywalked and because he resisted a bit, he got pulled into jail. The Trib described the British professor as a "slight, bespectacled and courtly" man, whereas the officer was described as "burly and--gasp!--armed." The poor professor (Fernandez-Armesto) had his peppermints confiscated; even worse, the woman who took his information asked him to spell "university!" Funny!

The professor shouldn't really complain because he was breaking the Law. That he didn't know the Law is no excuse.

I suppose the point that The Sunday Times is trying to make is that the way that the Law was enforced was maybe excessive.

Only in the UK would the fact that the policeman was armed give rise to comment; as I have said in the past, even in this terrorism-threatened age, British beat police do not carry firearms. I suspect we are probably the only country where this is the case. Having said which, although I am well-travelled and am used to seeing armed police officers, I still find it somewhat strange and a little threatening.

Yes, like Richard, I am well-travelled and used to seeing armed police but it still feels strange when I see it. I wonder if we are the only country left where police do not routinely carry firearms.

Yes, I too find armed police a little threatening, as do must of us here in the UK. I was recently called to jury service (I didn't actually have to serve on a jury and was discharged after three days) at Woolwich Crown Court, where the trial of the London 24/7 bombers is taking place. Large notices were outside the courts warning people that for security reasons armed police would be patrolling, and it was specially mentioned in the introductory chat given by the court official in charge of the juries.

Well, for Richard and Bob who will soon be here, the Chicago police do draw their weapons every so often when there is a major problem. The Winnetka police? Not so much, so no need to worry. I remember asking one once how often he had used his gun...his answer was "Never." Of course they are required to have periodic practices to keep up their skills.

Richard, am I not correct in thinking that you are pro-gun? I thought we've argued that subject privately before. I am staunchly anti-gun because of a shooting that had occurred in our kids' school in 1988.

BTW, I hear there is an "amusing" YouTube interview of this British professor. I couldn't seem to get it to work, but maybe you will be able to.

quote:

I wonder if we are the only country left where police do not routinely carry firearms

I wonder if you are the only country ever where police do not routinely carry firearms.

I checked the Web and found that New Zealand's police don't carry weapons (here's a link to a forum where I found that mentioned; it was in the post by Mike Subritzky). Also the police in Bermuda don't carry firearms. However, those 2 countries are loosely linked to England in some way, aren't they?

Is it the UK or just England where police don't carry firearms? Do they in Scotland, Wales or Ireland?

Firearms are always an emotive subject but one thing that should always be remembered is this. Guns do not kill people; people kill people. Guns, like all inventions, can be used for good or evil. In themselves guns are neither good nor bad. I used to shoot competitively (at targets) and felt then, as I feel now, that target shooting is a perfectly innocent pastime that harms nobody.

So far as the use of firearms for defence is concerned, this is more difficult. I believe that many countries, the USA included, are too free with their use of firearms as the horrific numbers of shootings shows. Gun control in the UK is much tighter (in all countries of the UK) and even the police can only carry firearms when specially authorised and trained. Even so, wrongful shootings have happened - although far fewer than in the USA. The USA has 0.0279271 murders by shooting per 1,000 people (8th in the world. In the UK the figure is 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (32nd in the world). (SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems).

Both Bermuda and New Zealand were once British colonies and even now are still part of the Commonwealth. Our Queen is technically head of state (as she is of Canada).

quote:

but one thing that should always be remembered is this. Guns do not kill people; people kill people.

Oh...I detest that mantra of the pro-gun people here in the states. I can only respond by saying, were it not for the gun, the person wouldn't be dead. It seems to me that the guns kill people, too, though of course there have to be cooperative human beings. If a 2-year-old gets hold of a loaded gun and shoots himself, obviously he wouldn't be dead had it not been for the gun.

We do agree, however, that the U.S. has far too many shootings and murders with guns. I have always been for better gun control laws, apparently much like England.

When I first started cruising on the Internet, I found a forum on guns and logged in to have an intellectual conversation, I thought. I hadn't known anything about forums at the time, and I certainly wouldn't do that now. However, I was quickly chased off the site, needless to say.

quote:

Oh...I detest that mantra of the pro-gun people here in the states. I can only respond by saying, were it not for the gun, the person wouldn't be dead.

As I tried to say, you can say that about most inventions. Motor vehicles kill more people in the UK in a week than guns do in a year - but nobody suggests they should be banned simply because they cause harm as well as do a lot of good.

Regardless of their design or original purpose, most inventions can be used for harm or for good; it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that those who wish to misuse any invention should be constrained by appropriate controls.

In the UK guns are very tightly controlled and most people aren't even allowed to own handguns (the most commonly used weapon for gun crime). Even shotguns, the farmer's and gamekeeper's normal tool of trade, are very tightly controlled - just try walking into a gun shop and buying shotgun cartridges without the proper paperwork and you'll quickly find out just how tight the controls are.

K. I agree with you. I was going to post a response to the "Guns don't kill people:People kill people" canard, which we hear far too often.

I won't discuss the question of whether or not either the UK or the US needs gun control, just the question of this particular pernicious statement. It is such a clear and obvious self-justification that it should need no refutation. It is akin to drug addicts talking about their right to a personal freedom to take whatever poison they choose, as if their habits have no effect on anyone else. It is self-evidently true that you don't need a gun to kill someone. It is equally self-evident that haveing a gun makes it easier. Killing someone by, say strangulation or stabbing, requires physical effort and is - to use a cliche - up close and personal. Killing someone with a gun is physically more or less effortless, especially with a handgun and depersonalises the act. And therein lies the essence of the problem. Guns alter the act of murder in the mind of the killer and diminish the humanity of the victim. I too have on occasion been target shooting. I'm moderately good at it. I also believe that something once invented cannot be uninvented and it is futile to attempt to uninvent guns. Nevertheless the statement "Guns do not kill people : people kill people" is facile. Guns make it easier. People with guns kill people.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

In the UK guns are very tightly controlled and most people aren't even allowed to own handguns (the most commonly used weapon for gun crime). Even shotguns, the farmer's and gamekeeper's normal tool of trade, are very tightly controlled - just try walking into a gun shop and buying shotgun cartridges without the proper paperwork and you'll quickly find out just how tight the controls are.

A similar situation exists here in Canada. Our recently-enacted gun control legislation requires a hunter to have no less than three certificates on his/her person...1)A hunting license 2)A Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) and 3) A firearms safety education certificate. As a gun owner, I fully agree with these measures, but there is MUCH opposition to them, especially in the western provinces.

quote:

Is it the UK or just England where police don't carry firearms? Do they in Scotland, Wales or Ireland?

I haven't been there for a few years, but the police in Northern Ireland were armed at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s. I haven't seen if they still carry weapons, but suspect they do. In the rest of the UK they go unarmed, except for unusual circumstances.

When I was in London in 2002, I couldn't find my hotel on a rainy night, and I asked some policemen for directions. They were both armed and wearing bullet-proof vests. While I spoke with one of the officers, the other moved off about 20 meters and watched us and the area. The officer who was helping me used the flashlight (electric torch) on the end of his automatic rifle to illuminate the map I had. From what I knew of British police, I thought it was odd they're being armed, and I also noticed parking on the street we were on was prohibited by the use of Jersey barriers. The next morning I took a better look at where we were on the map and noticed it was the US embassy. That explained it, I thought.

Yes, that would be the reason. There are some police who are regularly armed and that includes police on duty at Embassies.

quote:

Motor vehicles kill more people in the UK in a week than guns do in a year - but nobody suggests they should be banned simply because they cause harm as well as do a lot of good.

Of course not, and that same example is given here by the pro-gunners. Yet, one must have a license, insurance (in case something does go wrong), and follow all of the laws, including safety laws (such as air bags, seat belts, head rests, etc.). If we took gun laws and registrations way more seriously (perhaps like you in the UK or Canada), things would be different, I am sure. But we don't, so the guns (as well as the people) continue to kill people.

My brother is very seriously pro-gun. As soon as it was legal, he enrolled in training and became certified to carry a concealed weapon. He also states (I think it's just bragging) that he doesn't want to visit facilities that will not allow him to carry his weapon. He feels quite adamantly that since the gun control laws we have aren't enforced well, if law-abiding citizens like he and I don't legally carry weapons, only the criminals will have them and we have a more dangerous society. If (he says) everyone in the US had a weapon and knew how to use it, there would be a decrease in crime because the criminals wouldn't have so much power.

I disagree. I would very much like to see stricter enforcement of the laws we currently have, and more laws (along with appropriate enforcement). I don't think passing around more guns is a logical solution to our crime rates. There is no precedent for that, no proof that it has worked in the past.

I have 2 security officers in my library. They carry mace and handcuffs. On a daily basis, the unruly people they kick out of the library will call them "flashlight cops" or "rent-a-cops" and not take them seriously because they do not carry guns. I don't think that is reason enough to arm my officers, however, and every once in a while I have to talk to the officers and explain it all again. Giving the officers guns would invite the criminals, thugs and children to bring their own guns into the library without restriction. Violence breeds violence, and the threat of violence breeds more threats. Have we learned nothing from Gandhi and Dr. King?

Well said, Caterwauller. The gun mania in this country--guns for the sake of guns; guns to defend ourselves against threats we infer are lurking around every corner because of Cable news hype--is a grotesque distortion of the original intent of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (an historic document) written just after the revolution:

quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The "right to keep and bear arms" was for the "security of the state," not for the security of John Q. Citizen walking around town in a time of peace.

I am totally anti-gun. Every gun safety article or program says that if you keep a gun, you are more likely to be wounded or killed by it yourself than you are to ward off an intruder. I will not have one in the house, or knowingly visit anyone with a gun in the house. It horrifies me that the gun lobby has successfully intimidated our lawmakers into backing down from any meaningful gun reform legislation.

I think the British have it right, and so does your library.

Wordmatic

quote:

If (he says) everyone in the US had a weapon and knew how to use it, there would be a decrease in crime because the criminals wouldn't have so much power.

I have heard this argument myself and I don't believe it. However, I have seen no research that gives any link between gun ownership and gun crime - although I am sure it exists. Interestingly, although the USA is a far more trigger-happy nations than the UK (and many other countries) it is far from being the most trigger-happy. Murders by firearms in South Africa and Colombia, for example, are at a far greater level.

One of the factors that needs to be considered is, firearms apart, the USA is a fairly murderous country, with 0.042802 murders per 1,000 people, 24th in the world. This compares with Canada at 0.0149063 per 1,000 people (43rd) and the UK at 0.0140633 per 1,000 people(46th). Of course, that's far below Columbia with 0.617847 per 1,000 people and South Africa at 0.496008 per 1,000 people (SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems).

Of course, if we believe the theories of Michael Moore, the USA has its gun culture because it is a "scared" nation, and he contrasts the level of gun crime in the USA with that in Canada, where guns are common enough but gun crime far lower. I don't know as though I'd agree with everything he says, but it is interesting that, although many countries have been threatened, or even attacked, during the recent increase in terrorism, it is the US authorities that seem to have introduced the most draconian restrictions on the freedoms of citizens and visitors. I would certainly agree that a "fortress mentality" is likely to create a climate of fear.

quote:

Every gun safety article or program says that if you keep a gun, you are more likely to be wounded or killed by it yourself than you are to ward off an intruder.

I plotted some data from Canada concerning gun injuries and death as a function of percentage of households owning guns by province (it ranges from 15% in Ontario to almost 70% in the territories). Firearm homicide is uncorrelated with gun ownership, as are injuries inflicted by others. Accidental injuries and suicide are highly correlated with ownership rate.

On the other hand, if you own a gun and a swimming pool, the pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a kid than the gun.

It has been my experience that in long-standing controversies the thing that both sides agree upon is the thing that both sides have wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? The only thing both sides agreed upon was "or"; the solution was "and". The single thing that both sides agree upon in our endless national gun debate is this: Guns are not toys! But this is utter rubbish: guns are the biggest, loudest, funnest, most dangerous toys ever! Gun control advocates would do well to realize that they are asking people to give up their toys, and rather expensive toys at that.

I do not now nor have I ever owned a gun (or a pool), nor did my family have guns when I was a child, but I have gone shooting a few times and I made sure my kids learned how to shoot. I find myself frustrated with both sides of the debate, but as there seem to be few gun nuts on this board I'll just address the gun control advocates.

Cat, K., Word: have any of you ever actually shot a gun? I think you should. Here's what I think you would learn:

First, once you got over the "Eek! a gun!" thing (and no one had a bigger "Eek!" thing than I did) you would find that law-abiding gun nuts are way, way more paranoid about safety than you are.

Second, you would learn that guns are a lot heavier than they look on TV. Louder, too (but you'll be wearing ear protection, of course, and eye protection).

Third, you'd learn that gun nuts are generally not wild-eyed homicidal lunatics but responsible people who don't want to get shot either and keep their guns locked in refrigerator-sized Browning gun safes.

Fourth, there are a lot of laws regulating gun ownership, handling, and transport that you have never heard of, and they vary from city to city and state to state.

If you really want to make a difference, here are my suggestions:

First (sorry about all the lists...) don't talk about "banning guns". Nobody is going to ban guns. Whatever your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is established law now. San Francisco passed a referendum banning handguns and it was immediately thrown out. So don't alienate a substantial chunk of the electorate with futile quixotic crusades.

Second, recognize that most firearm crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own a gun and did not legally obtain their gun. Laws vary from state to state, but people with any drug, breaking and entering, or violent crime convictions including misdemeanors generally can't legally own a gun. Have a couple of joints left over from the September fishing trip? In the eyes of the federal government you are drug addict and cannot legally own a gun (this particular law is generally only used to threaten people already arrested for other crimes, but it is the law). Criminals can't purchase guns from regular gun stores, instead they purchase them from crooked federally licensed gun dealers, operating out of their homes, who make a living supplying criminals. Oakland did a study a few years ago and found that something like 70% of the traceable guns used in homicides one year could be traced back to two dealers. It is ridiculously easy to get a federal gun license allowing you to order guns directly from the manufacturer and have them shipped to your house. If you really want to lower gun crime focus your attention there.

Yes, once long ago I went target shooting with some college friends-of-friends one weekend. They were very stolid, sane, somewhat pompous, shallow, boring, ordinary people. I did not enjoy the experience and was glad when it was over.

You make a lot of excellent points, but I still think that if we could take people's "toys" away, if they were not legal to own, period, in the first place, as they are not legal back in "the old country," then the criminals would have a much more limited supply to work with. A girl can wish, can't she?

I'm afraid I will never get over the "eek" factor.

WM

quote:

The single thing that both sides agree upon in our endless national gun debate is this: Guns are not toys!

I don't agree. I think many pro-gunners consider their guns toys. You are talking about the "responsible" owners, and, yes, there are some. However, there are many irresponsible owners who don't even lock their guns up when they have little kids running around. How disgusting is that?!

quote:

Cat, K., Word: have any of you ever actually shot a gun?

Recall, neveu, I am from a farm in Wisconsin. I have shot bb guns (hardly count, I know) and 22 rifles. Yes, when I was a kid (probably 10!), I had a 22 rifle, with only my 12-year-old cousin showing me how to shoot it. I waltzed around our farm, shooting at pigeons and sparrows...with little kids running around. It is amazing that I didn't put someone's eye out, and I am not proud of that. Yet, it was the culture and probably still is. The guns, by the way, were kept, loaded, in the house...with 5 children in the family. When I think back, we were a very lucky family.

quote:

Criminals can't purchase guns from regular gun stores, instead they purchase them from crooked federally licensed gun dealers, operating out of their homes, who make a living supplying criminals.

Not in Chicago. In Chicago criminals go to gun shows or order guns from the Internet or magazines, and it's perfectly legal. Mayor Daley has tried very hard to stop that, but because of the "toy lovers," he hasn't been able to yet. Oh, and the the Laurie Dann example above that I linked to (Hubbard Woods shooting)? She legally owned her multiple guns, yet she was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and the police in her comunity (Glencoe) knew of it because of many calls to her house.

Having said all of that, I do agree with some of your analysis, such as that guns will never be completely banned, at least in my lifetime. We need to work on tightening the registration of guns and the buying of guns. My daughter, having been involved with the Hubbard Woods shooting (an experience like that might change your mind, neveu), spent a summer as an intern with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and knows a lot more about the research than I do. Neveu, I am copying your post and sending it to her for reply. If you think I am for anti-gun, you should see her! Her friends were killed and maimed because of a woman who should never have owned guns. Many in our community are still affected by this horrible shooting that occurred many years ago, and of course other communities, throughout our nation, have had similar experiences. Had I not been involved, I never would have believed how something like this could affect a commmunity.

Nice discussion, and I am glad we are keeping it civil and somewhat cerebral (though, I've added some emotion with the Hubbard Woods shooting, I know).

Women seem more anti-gun than men. Interesting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I don't wish to set off a gender war, but I would like to add the following stories to the discussion for your consideration.

My firstborn is a girl, and my son was born two years later. I had decided, as did a lot of baby boomer moms, that I would never buy my children toy guns, for all the usual and well-intentioned reasons. My daughter never had an interest in them. My son began asking for one when he was three. I told him no and explained why. Soon afterwards, I found he had built himself a gun out of Tinker Toys. I took away the Tinker Toys, and explained why. The next day, I fixed him a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, and a couple of minutes after I served it, I turned from the kitchen counter to see he had chewed the sandwich into the shape of a gun and was pointing it out the window. I gave up and got the kid a "cowboy" gun. I don't believe he ever owned any other gun than that one. But the experience did make me wonder if there is something "in" most males that causes them to have more interest in guns than most females. My son had not seen a gun in our house, and at that time he did not have toy gun owning friends. Westerns were not in vogue on television at the time, and we never watched crime shows.

I also saw -- and I think this was a Dr. Phil segment on "Oprah" -- an experiment where a group of little girls and little boys were put in a room together where a gun (unloaded, of course) was on a shelf. A police offier showed the children the gun and gave them an excellent lecture on the dangers of guns and even told them how children had been hurt by guns. Someone then called him out of the room, and he instructed the children not to touch the gun and made them promise not to. A hidden video cam filmed several like sessions, and every time, some of the boys almost immediately got the gun to play with, while the girls usually did not and sometimes even tried to caution the boys not to do it.

That is very interesting, Saranita.

For neveu from my daughter:

"I would read what's available here--I think he is mostly wrong. This will definitely help (and is easier than me typing it out).

By the way, if federal firearm licensees are selling to criminals, they can certainly get those licenses revoked.

Also, I don't know anything about this study, but here it is.

According to the NRA:
The City of Chicago requires all firearms possessed in the city to be registered. Handguns not previously registered in Chicago cannot be registered. Oak Park, Evanston, Morton Grove, Highland Park, Wilmette, and Winnetka prohibit the possession of a handgun. Firearms may be transported under the general rule through Chicago for a lawful recreational firearm-related activity.

We probably have a concealed carry law.

The NRA actually has some interesting info."

That Harvard study she sent us was especially illuminating.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,