It is not an historic occasion.

[opyty]

"Haitch" is obviously correct because it starts with a "H"

I see (sorry, cee) what you mean. But then why oh wy oh y doesn't double-u begin with a wouble-u ? For eff's sake.

[rudi]

I see (sorry, cee) what you mean. But then why oh wy oh y doesn't double-u begin with a wouble-u ? For eff's sake.

Exactly.

And, following that kind of logic, shouldn't "Gee" be pronouced "Ghee" so as to not confuse it with "Jay"?

And "Why" (Y) should be pronounced "Yhy".

Oh, and "Eff" would be "Feff", "Ell" would be "Lell", "Emm" would be "Memm", "Enn", "Nenn"; "Arr", "Rarr"; "Ess" "Sess"; ""Ex" "Xex".

So, "Aitch" it is...

[depressed beyond tablets]

Fascinating stuff. What about eg: James' house. What's with all that ' rubbish? (doesn't merit new thread.)

[samadriel]

I think it's just because "James's" feels a bit awkward.  My name happens to be James, and yet it's not something I have to deal with much... probably because I don't write about myself in the third person, come to think of it.

I read something etymological once about how the mere apostrophe was once reserved for usage with holy figures, ie, you'd write "Jesus' sacrifice", "Jesus' hotrod", etc, but you'd write "James's house"; if that's a case, then presumably the convenient tic of just using an apostrophe migrated into normal language during more secular times.

edit:  Ah, here's an interesting snippet from the Wikipedia 'apostrophe' article:

Singulars

    * Respected sources require that almost all singular nouns, including those ending in an s, a z, or an x, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, The Economist, and Purdue University's Online Writing Lab. Such sources would demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Mephistopheles's cat.

    * Rules that modify or extend this principle have included the following:

            * If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended.

            * Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in an s sound, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times, which makes a general stipulation, and Vanderbilt University, which mentions only Moses and Jesus.

    * As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's, even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's; Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules. See Possessive of Jesus.

    * Similar examples of notable names ending in an s that are often given a possessive apostrophe with no additional s include Dickens and Williams. There is often a policy of leaving off the additional s on any such name, but this can prove problematic when specific names are contradictory (for example, St James' Park in Newcastle [the football ground] and the area of St James's Park in London). See points above; for more details on practice with geographic names, see the relevant section above.

[wheatgod]

Not a grammar-y query, but a/an historic one.

What is the term used when the history books are written by the winners, say, and reflect a slanted sided view of the truth? Is it 'revisionist'?

I have a friend who insists that Glastonbury 2005 was "a piece of heaven", so I want to accuse her of doing this.

[samadriel]

Yes, 'revisionist history'. applicable to anyone who pretends a rotten time was good, and vice versa.

Consider! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

[squinky]

Thanks for this. Hearing people talking about 'an historic whatsit' has baffled and vaguely upset me ever since my teachers taught me that an only comes before vowel sounds. And while this thread hasn't been the most conclusive yet, at least it's reassured me that I'm not the only one who's slightly lost.

[jutl]

My Lord; I do here in the Name of all the Learned and Polite Persons of the Nation, complain to your Lordship, as First Minister, the our Language is extremely imperfect; that its daily Improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily Corruptions; and the Pretenders to polish and refine it, have chiefly multiplied Abuses and Absurdities; and, that in many Instances, it offends against every Part of Grammar. But lest Your Lordship should think my Censure to be too severe, I shall take leave to be more particular...

If a man like Swift couldn't swing it, I think you all ought to give it up. Complaining about other people's grammar is a masturbatory activity, like reading Lynne Truss. How many times have you been thrown by a grammatical 'error' enough to actually be confused as to the person's meaning? I don't mean a pretend 'he's not conjugated that verb correctly so he might mean anything - and have a knife' kind of confused - I mean genuinely at a loss as to what is being said? I'd contend that it almost never happens. 'Incorrect' grammar is usually just as functional as correct grammar. Where it is not, the subtle distinction that it attempts to express is too subtle to be maintained through the standard mechanisms of linguistic transition. I bet you've heard people using the subjunctive - say - a lot, but hearing it does not teach the ability to use it if the listener is unsure as to the purpose of the grammatical transformation. It's the same in the case of 'historic' - originally the purpose of the 'an' transformation was to ease pronunciation. For whatever reason that purpose is no longer necessary or meaningful to a large section of the speaking population, so it falls into disuse. Any rules you might have learned about when 'an' is used are intended to describe the way the language is not codify and 'ascertain' it. It's like moaning about your map of Mt St Helens being out of date now it's exploded.

[samadriel]

I wish I could identify exactly what it is that so compels me to demand 'correct' grammar -- perhaps I am attempting to impose linguistic order in the face of a whirling maelstrom of monosyllabic ignorance that retards our language, robbing it of its capacity to efficiently convey sophisticated concepts, but...  fuck off!  Fuck off back to the bayou if you can't put a simple fucking comma in the right place!  Learn the language or get out of the cou--

--wait, scratch that bit.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I can't really agree with what jutl has posted in this instance. It's very jarring to here 'an' in front of any word which doesn't start with a vowel sound. It doesn't matter to me whether I can still interpret the meaning of a sentence. All I keep thinking is "those people read the news to millions". Maybe they should speak in street slang, jutl? After all, we can understand it and that's all the matters, right?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

"I'm not sure if I knew I'd ever get this moment again but I'm happy to be part of a historic night."

Maybe David Beckham should get knighted after all. Good stuff.

[katzenjammer]

I think the problem is that 'h' is such a weedy consonant, it's not really a proper letter at all when pronounced, more just a sharp outtake of breath, therefore some people find it easier to place 'an' before certain words beginning with 'h' and some people don't.  I don't think either of them sound quite right, perhaps we need a new word to go before 'h' words, how about 'arrrrr', pronounced with a strongly rolled 'r'?

[non capisco]

Tangent: When the hell did "Contraversey" become a word?

Prince?

[Pylon Man]

I've noticed on the news that they say "an horrific" as well.

[Little Hoover]

I'm not one to care about Grammar but "an historic" is very annoying because if you say it, you're causing yourself extra effort to make that sound, normally Grammar is wrong because people lazily don't pronounce words properly, but with an historic people seem to think it's the proper way of saying it. Same with Haitch. It's unnessecary and incorrect to make the sound so why do it.

[Dark Sky]

I'm not one to care about Grammar but "an historic" is very annoying because if you say it, you're causing yourself extra effort to make that sound

Nah.  Saying "an 'istoric" is much easier than saying "a historic", whether you say "ay historic", or "ah historic".

The problem stems from the way that the "huh" sound in "historic" is not really hard enough to distinguish from the "a", and yet is too soft really to be a proper vowel sound.

The thing which regularly confuses me is the pronunciation of "the".  I catch myself saying it both ways (i.e., "thuh", and "thee"), and yet I'm not quite sure what my own personal ruling is as to which one I use for what purpose.  Like "either" and "neither"...I say those both ways as well, and yet still haven't worked out any pattern to the usages.

[SetToStun]

The thing which regularly confuses me is the pronunciation of "the".  I catch myself saying it both ways (i.e., "thuh", and "thee"), and yet I'm not quite sure what my own personal ruling is as to which one I use for what purpose.  Like "either" and "neither"...I say those both ways as well, and yet still haven't worked out any pattern to the usages.

For me that's another vowel-sound thing: "thee elephant"/"thuh giraffe". Mind you, I'm not sure how consistent I am - I've never monitored myself. I am, however, now curious and will have to actually listen to everything I say in order to find out. Damn you, Dark Sky, damn you to Hell!