A(n) historical take on the evolving use of a/an

English speakers disagree – sometimes vehemently – about how to use “historic” and “historical” with the indefinite articles a/an

Staff

Few people would disagree that the spread of the coronavirus is historic, having “great and lasting importance.” (We hope that it will soon be historical, “concerning past events,” too.) English speakers do disagree, though – sometimes vehemently – about how to use these two words with the indefinite articles a/an. Is it “a historic event” or “an historic event”? And what’s behind the argument?

The difficulty dates back to the Norman Conquest of England, in 1066. Before William the Conqueror invaded, Old English was chock-full of guttural h’s, as in the first word of the poem “Beowulf”: “Hwaet!” (What!) The language of the conquerors, Norman French, was full of h’s, too, but only when written down. Since it was descended from Latin, it often spelled words such as honour, humor, and herb with “h” as Latin had, even while it dropped the sound in pronunciation. The French word for “modest or lowly,” for example, was often written humble but pronounced “umble.”

English adopted these words and continued to spell and say them the same way for hundreds of years. In the late 19th century, Baron Aldenham, director of the Bank of England, complained when the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary dismissed his pronunciation of humour – “yumour” – as “obsolete.” Meanwhile, some dialects of English had dropped nearly all their h’s, not just those in words derived from French. Such “h”-dropping came to be seen as terribly low class and ill-bred; think of Eliza Doolittle in “My Fair Lady.” 

The Victorian middle classes adopted “h” as a way to differentiate themselves from the Elizas of the world, pronouncing the letter when it began a word. Victorians got so “h” happy, though, that they started to hypercorrect, enunciating “h” wherever they found it, even in some of the French-derived words – hospital and hotel, for example. 

Though the pronunciation and social significance of “h” changed radically in the 19th century, our familiar rules for indefinite articles still applied. If you aspirated “h” in hotel, it was “a hotel,” because we use “a” before consonant sounds. If you dropped the “h” and said “otel,” you used “an,” since in that case the word begins with a vowel sound. 

Not all French-derived words made the jump at the same time, however. Many English people said “an otel” right into the 1940s, and Americans still say “an erb” when talking about herbs. 

Multisyllabic French-derived words like habitual, historical, and historic are laggards in this transition to the enunciated “h.” They are stressed on the second syllable, so that “an historic” rolls off the tongue more easily than “a historic.” A third of English speakers thus still write “an” with these words.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.