Linguistic Pet Peeves

The rule I was taught is that "an" is used before a vowel or vowel sound and "a" before a consonant or consonant sound.In the case of "h" we have the following:
an hour - because of the vowel sound
a historical, house, horse etc. - because of the consonant.They should have used an "a" before university because it has a "y" sound, which is usually a consonant.

quote:

---

For example, "I have a hypothesis" vs. "I have an hypothesis" or "It's a historical fact" vs. "It's an historical fact."

---

You have a hypothesis and a historical fact.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Thanks for clearing that up, Tone. Of course, having the Aus Govt. Style Manual handy means we are safe from the infidels.:-)

quote:

---

That's odd because I've always said, "a herb" (fully pronouncing the "H").

---

"erb" andf "herb" are both correct. The first is the common pronounciation in the US, the second in the UK and those countries which speak English heavily influenced by the UK.

ATM machine.See also: PIN number, SAT test, and so on.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Double-negatives are grammatically correct? I didn't know that. Well, if that's what you're saying. I'm afraid you kind of lost me but I think that's what you meant. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Somewhere around the middle of the nineteenth century there was a big push towards formalising grammar (the kind of formalised grammar they teach in schools), much of which was just a big exercise in intellectual oneupmanship. The two most glaring examples are "don't split infinitives" (derived from Latin, where you couldn't; but utterly stupid in English grammar) and "double negatives". I challenge you to find a single native english speaker who doesn't understand "I didn't do nothing wrong".The natural grammar of English uses double negatives as affirmatives.

Hi purpledawn.Yes, this is similar to what I was taught. For some reason, though, I also recall being taught "an hypothesis" and "an historical." I'm not really sure why. For these words, it doesn't seem to make sense but I can understand others, such as the case of "herb" mentioned earlier.I've always assumed that it's just an Australian thing but I don't know for sure. Anyway, I noticed at a very early age (thank you, Sesame street ) that Americans pronounce the letter H "eytch," whereas I was taught that it's "heytch," with the actual H sound (as it sounds at the beginning of "house," for example) pronounced.This obviously affects the way I pronounce certain words, like the aforementioned "herb." Americans say "erb"...I say "herb" (with the H sound. As such, an American would say "an herb" but I would say "a herb."I'm interested to hear from the other Aussies on the forum. Is this the correct Australian pronunciation or was I taught incorrectly? How were the other Aussies taught to pronounce the letter H; "eytch" (no H sound), or "heytch" (with H sound)?

No problem, Nighttrain. Happy to help.

Ah! Thank you, schraf! I thought so, but I wasn't sure. Heh, I should have read to the end of the thread before replying to purpledawn. Anyway, thanks for the confirmation.

All of which are the correct grammatical usage. Sorry.

I'm not questioning whether or not people understand it, I just wondered if it conforms to the correct formal English grammar. I honestly don't know, that's why I was asking. As I said, I'm really not that well versed in the formal rules of English. That's why I could only give Lam my own personal experience regarding his question of "have" vs. "has." I could tell him what I believe "sounds right" but I couldn't actually tell him why they're used this way. Sorry if I came across the wrong way.

Formal grammar, no; the actual grammar of English, yes.Real grammar describes the structure of the language; formal grammar proscribes it.

Oh, you mean the common usage of grammar? Alright then. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry about my confusion.

So? They're still stupid.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I find this amusing, that on a board largely dominated by evolutionists that people would be objecting to what might be called the evolution of language. Well, maybe not, I don't know, we all have our various peeves and there are certainly some things that make my teeth gnash.But I also feel any mostly objective examination of language reveals that it is subject to its own form of evolution. Think about it, we don't even come close to speaking the English of Chaucer's time, or Shakespeare's time. Hell, we should go back to the Norman invasion and stop what was the unholy crossbreeding between English and French. Grrr, what were they thinking?