Ignoring the vowel rule, which is right?

Historian, n. (an.) - someone who writes about or studies history

Source - 1986 Cambridge Concise English Dictionary.


I think what Gilly is getting at is that we cannot accept evidence from an unobtainable source. Which also renders mine invalid. :)
 
William said:
I think what Gilly is getting at is that we cannot accept evidence from an unobtainable source. Which also renders mine invalid. :)
Click to expand...
Not really. More the fact that everything he posted was out-dated. Check the spelling on other words - really wanting us to accept that what does not have modern writing and spelling has correct modern usage?
 
@ Gilly- Mainly the first line-
historian, n. (a.)
Click to expand...

A historian is not an! (Dunno if I can get the head of history to confirm this- It's a Saturday ;) )

Mohinder said:
Leezer.. the quote you posted includes "an historian" TWICE.

And DOESN'T include "a historian".

Selfpwned.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you read the dates on those, they are both from pre-19th C. sources ;)

With regards to the unobtainable evidence point, anyone have a copy of the OED to hand? (Pretty much the same in my Concise edition minus a couple of the quotations.)

-Leezer-
 
Last edited:
leezer3 said:
Mainly the first line-


A historian is not an! (Dunno if I can get the head of history to confirm this- It's a Saturday ;) )

-Leezer-
Click to expand...

You should ask the head of English, surely?

Dude you posted an article which ITSELF uses 'an historian' and DOES NOT use 'a historian'.

You proved yourself wrong, with evidence!
 
Mohinder said:
You should ask the head of English, surely?

Dude you posted an article which ITSELF uses 'an historian' and DOES NOT use 'a historian'.

You proved yourself wrong, with evidence!
Click to expand...

Arrgh :D
Trouble is too many people are posting at the same time- See my previous post, which was edited when I saw the posts that I'd missed lol.

I'm also wondering at the mo if both usages are valid?- I can only post for what I know & the fact that several people got ticked off for using an historian.

(Probably about 10 more posts by now :cool: )

Oh, also, would you accept that the OED is the primary reference dictionary?- From a quick search of our library catalouge, we have far more copies of the OED than the Cambridge.

-Leezer-
 
Last edited:
Mohinder said:
You should ask the head of English, surely?

Dude you posted an article which ITSELF uses 'an historian' and DOES NOT use 'a historian'.

You proved yourself wrong, with evidence!
Click to expand...

Dude, you're talking about historical sources within the definition, which are there to show examples of previous use. The source cites that the correct usage is a historian, no matter what they used in the 17th century. So, no, he didn't prove himself wrong.

And that is as far as I wish to go within this arguement.
 
Pudney@work said:
Dude, you're talking about historical sources within the definition, which are there to show examples of previous use. The source cites that the correct usage is a historian, no matter what they used in the 17th century. So, no, he didn't prove himself wrong.

And that is as far as I wish to go within this arguement.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the English language and how to use it.
 
Pudney@work said:
Yahuh, I'm just pointing out that you're arguement that his source proves himself wrong is in fact erroneous :p
Click to expand...
If what you and he are saying is that the usage has changed then I want to know when that happened.

As is clear with the passage posted, an historian is/was acceptable use. This was still true when I was at school 10 years ago.
 
Mohinder said:
We're talking about the English language and how to use it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this evolves over time ;)
Just as an example, I could pull up plenty of quotes from the OED which still use the & thou as form of address, but would you accept that these are no longer in modern usage?
Both of the quotes in that article are from pre 19th century sources, and therefore are invalid in reference to the usage stated in the header, which is the current- They are just there to illustrate the usage & meaning of historian.

Gilly said:
If what you and he are saying is that the usage has changed then I want to know when that happened.

As is clear with the passage posted, an historian is/was acceptable use. This was still true when I was at school 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well for a start, the OED entry is from the 1986 edition. Again though, I suspect that this is one of those indefinable points- It is not the case that a word changes in something like the OED, and then all forms of usage will instantly switch to that form; The process is something like this:
#Word/ form of grammer etc. is first used.
#Usage increases & continues increasing for whatever reasons.
#When the usage becomes commonplace (Note that this is not in reference to the general public, rather the wider academic community) the word will get added to the OED, but this might not happen for a long time after this.]
#Usage continues increasing, due to it being in the OED, until it is finally in general public usage.
This process could well take over 100 years before the word is in total public usage.

-Leezer-
 
Last edited:
Gilly said:
If what you and he are saying is that the usage has changed then I want to know when that happened.

As is clear with the passage posted, an historian is/was acceptable use. This was still true when I was at school 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm not entering this part of the arguement, I always understood it to be "an historian" and it's been years since I last studied English.

historian, n. (a.)
SECOND EDITION 1989

(h{shti}{sm}st{revc}{schwa}r{shti}{schwa}n) Also 6 -ien. [a. F. historien (in OF. also adj.), f. L. historia HISTORY: see -AN.]

1. A writer or author of a history; esp. one who produces a work of history in the higher sense, as distinguished from the simple annalist or chronicler of events, or from the mere compiler of a historical narrative.
1531 ELYOT Gov. I. xxiv, Quintus Fabius for this qualitie is soueraignely extolled amonge historiens. 1581 SIDNEY Apol. Poetrie (Arb.) 25 The Historian [sayth] what men haue done. 1589 J. SANDFORD tr. Agrippa's Van. Artes 15 There are.. other amonge the Historians, giltie of greater lies. 1663 COWLEY Verses Sev. Occas., Royal Soc. ix, And ne'r did Fortune better yet Th' Historian to the Story fit. 1769 Junius Lett. xii. 55 It is the Historian's office to punish, though he cannot correct. 1873 FREEMAN Hist. Ess. Ser. II. ix. 308 Gibbon is before all things the historian of the transition from the Roman world to the world of modern Europe. 1874 GREEN Short Hist. i. §4. 38 Baeda was at once the founder of mediaeval history and the first English historian. 1879 GAIRDNER Early Chron. Eng. ii. 77 He [William of Malmes.] is a genuine historian, not a dry compiler of annals like the writers who preceded him. 1884 FREEMAN Methods Hist. Study (1886) 33 The man [Polybios] who looked at his own age with the eyes of an historian of all ages.

{dag}2. One who relates a narrative or tale; a story-teller; in quot. 1603 rendering Gr. {pi}{epsilon}{rho}{iota}{eta}{gamma}{eta}{tau}{gha cu}{fsigma} ‘local guide, cicerone’. Obs.
1586 YOUNG tr. Guazzo's Civ. Conv. IV. 202b, You are but a simple Historian for ministring of mirth. 1603 HOLLAND Plutarch's Mor. 1194 Our discoursing Historians and expositours shewed us the place, where sometimes stood the obelisks of iron. 1667 MILTON P.L. VIII. 7 What thanks sufficient..have I to render thee, Divine Hystorian.

3. One versed in history. rare.
c1645 HOWELL Lett. (1655) IV. xi. 29 Not to be an Historian, that is, not to know what Forren Nations and our Forefathers did, ‘Hoc est semper esse Puer’, as Cicero hath it. 1665 EVELYN Corr. 21 June, What your Lordship's curiosity will desire to dip into, to emerge a complete historian.

{dag}B. adj. Relating to or founded on history; historical. Obs. rare.
1632 LITHGOW Trav. Author to Bk. Bivb, Go lively charg'd with stout Historian Faith, And trample downe base Crittickes in the Dust.

Hence hi{sm}storianess, a female historian. rare.
1837 New Monthly Mag. XLIX. 597 Mrs. Macauley, the historianess, married his brother. a1839 L. E. LANDON in L. Blanchard Life (1855) I. 48 She is a great historianess, a most charming delightful woman.
Click to expand...

Ok Mohinder, the times where "an historian" are used are bolded along with the dates of the quotes. Historically "an historian" is correct as that is the way it is quoted, but as the source starts of with historian, n. (a.) it suggest's that grammatically it's evolved. Oh, and I'm at work, I have no time to check for syntatic or semantic errors in what I post.
 
I don't think this is as cut and dry as it seems..

I kind of agree with this link

http://www.theslot.com/a-an.html

"You choose the article that suits your own pronunciation"

"To restate my position: First you must deal with the word. Repeat after me: "Historic, hotel, hysterical, Hispanic." Did you pronounce those h's? Then it's a historic, a hotel, a hysterical, a Hispanic. If you truly said "Istoric, otel, ysterical, ispanic," go ahead and say "an." But you are in the minority. The standard pronunciations include the h, and so you must write "a.""
 
Dude! The (a.) is NOT the article! Look at it:
historian, n. (a.)
Click to expand...
It just means that the word has a secondary, rare usage as an ADJECTIVE as well as a noun! It's not 'a', it's 'a.' with a full stop meaning it's an abbreviation of something!

EDIT: Here's the 'adjective' sense from the OED:
{dag}B. adj. Relating to or founded on history; historical. Obs. rare. 1632 _1100_ _1200_ _1300_ _1400_ _1500_ _1600_ _1700_ _1800_ _1900_ _2000_ _2100_ 1632 LITHGOW Trav. Author to Bk. Bivb, Go lively charg'd with stout Historian Faith, And trample downe base Crittickes in the Dust.
Click to expand...
EDIT2: the {dag} is the little dagger symbol that means it's an archaic or rare usage.

The reason it's 'an' and not 'a' is because of the word's Greek origin, where it is spelt Ιστορία. Words beginning with vowels in ancient Greek had accent marks in front of them. When the word was borrowed into Latin, the Romans stuck the H in front to represent the accent mark because they didn't have any kind of equivalent. (As to how the accent mark altered the pronunciation of the word, and if they actually made a distinction in sound in ancient Greek or it was a relic from an even earlier time, I don't know, since it's over 10 years since I did any ancient Greek, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make it a full-on voiced 'H' like it's pronounced in English.)

So the word migrated to England via the Normal conquest, but, at some later point, some grammarian or other decided to clean the language up and declared that the "correct" way to say the word was with a silent 'H' to correspond with its Greek roots, covering-up the French bastardisation the word had gone through on its way here.

Needless to say it didn't really stick cause people kept saying "a historian", and I think both usages are acceptable today. I use "an" when I write but only because I'm worried I might get an anal examiner, but really "a" is more correct since that's the way people pronounce it today. Languages shift and change after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom