What is correct English: "a historic" vs. "an historic"... What's the difference?
83370
A historic, \nwith any vowel sound you use AN\nwith any consonant sound you use A.\n\nEX. a horse, but an apple.\n    an honor... here the letter H doesn´t have any sound that´s why we use an.
621682
"being that" is rather clumsy and not really correct.I'd use either "that" or "being" depending on what sounded best.There is no real difference in meaning,English is not a precise language
1081886
There is no particular reason. If there is an "an," "expert" is a noun, without the "an," it is an adjective.
640980
Both sentences are grammatically correct when examined alone.\n\nThe first is talking about a situation in the present.  You would use this expression when you give a gift to someone.\n\nThe second is talking about a future situation.  You would use this expression when you were talking about a movie that the other person plans to see in the future.
22198
There isn't a hard and fast rule. "An historical" is old-fashioned but not wrong. There is a full discussion of the matter on a great web page for language questions, World Wide Words (see link below).
414921
Sentence number 2 is correct.\n\nThe reason sentence 1 is not correct is because it has a dangling participle. In other words, the participle cannot distinguish what it wants to describe. \n\nIt could be that you realize how much different you have been than before (like in sentence 2)\nOR------\nit could be that you realize how FREQUENTLY you have been different than before.\n\nIf you read sentence 1, you will realize that both senerios could be true. \n\nHope this helps\nThanks\nJon
86778
die Geschichte (also means story, die Geschichten is the plural form)\nsee http://dict.leo.org for future reference
954273
both one is singular, the other plural\n\n:> peace\n.
485191
The first one would be better if you said "I have seen that movie ten times already."\nOr, if you prefer, you could say "I have watched/seen that movie ten times."\n\nThe second would be better if you said "I lived in China for five years."\n\nIf you STILL live in China you would need to say "I have been living in China for five years."
721149
Perhaps one easy way to help you distinguish and remember: look at the word their or there without the T.  There - T = here (a location)  Their-t = heir (a person).   \n\nThere always refers to a place.  Their always refers to a person or persons.
445091
BASIC explanation why "an" may appear before a word beginning with /h/:\n\n1) the initial /h/ IS not pronounced\n*generally in "hours" hono(u)r"\n*American English - "herb"\n*some dialects  "humble",  "hotel"\n\n2) history - that is, the /h/ USED to be silent:\nthere are a number of words whose initial /h/ was originally not pronounced,esp. those derived from (Old) French, which did not pronounce it (sometimes did not even spell it)\nSome of these (examples listed in #1) STILL do not pronounce the /h/ in many or all English dialects.   Others that have added a pronounced /h/ may still be treated as if they did not have it  -- 'historic(al)' is perhaps the best example of this\n\nBUT this is not enough -- those who say "an historic(al) event" (pronouncing the /h/) ALSO usually say "a history"!\nSo, there's one other very important factor, which is:\n\n3) The syllable starting with /h/ LACKS an ACCENT\n --Specifically, if the SECOND syllable is accented, the initial /h/ is WEAKER, perhaps only very slightly pronounced  (It seems especially weak if the following vowel is formed in the front of the mouth -- a, i, e  (vs. vowels made further back  -- o,  u)\n\nSo, if the first syllable HAS an accent (especially the MAIN accent) it is preceded by "a"   --thus we say "A HISTORY" (unless, of course, you're Cockney)\n\nTo get the sense of how this works, just try saying the word "historic" all be itself.  You may notice that you scarcely pronounce the /h/.  Even if you do, it may feel like it takes extra energy do so  (whereas when you say "history" the 'energy' is already supplied by accenting the syllable)\n\n[Some have said 'accented' or 'unaccented', but this is not quite correct.  When the SECOND syllable is accented, the first syllable has the LEAST accent; if a LATER syllable has the primary accent the first syllable may still have a SECONDARY accent, and the 'fule' just described does not apply.  Examples: 'hospitality' 'hippopotamus'] \n\nIn fact, in expressions like "an historic..." many find that the inclusion of the /n/ can actually make the words easier to pronounce (though in that case the /h/ is usually only VERY slightly pronounced). \n\nOther examples where "an" may be found (all of which have an accent on the second syllable): "an hereditary title" [vs. "a HERitage],  "an habitual liar" [vs. "a HA-bit"], cf. "an hysterical child"  \n\nNow if you were to try some of these expressions in a search engine you would likely find that "an historic" and "an historical" are much more commong (in proportion to "a historic" "a historical") than these other examples.  That leads to the FINAL(?) factor that affects pronunciation.\n\n4) HABIT! That is, we're USED to hearing it that way, and so it just seems right, even if it does not follow the "rules" we may generally us for such cases.\n\nThus, the reason 'historic' and 'historical' are far more likely to be preceded by "an" than other words that might "qualify" is that they are more COMMON words or expressions.  People are used to hearing them this way.    This is hardly unusual.  In any language the LESS common a word is in everyday speech the MORE likely it is speakers apply the "general rules" to that word.   Thus, irregular verbs in a language [forms of to be, come, hit, ] are COMMON words.
379436
In response to your first question, the use of the word "their" in this case is quickly becoming colloquially acceptable in replacement of "his or her" or "your."  This has always been an awkward point in the English language.\n\nIn the second case, the use of "since" implies that the action is still taking place, but the use of "were" implies that the action has been completed.  Therefore, if these cultures still exist and are agricultural, "have been" is correct.  If these cultures no longer exist, then "since" must be eliminated in favor of something more clear.
855794
I prefer "it isn't"\nI believe the "proper grammer" states it isn't because when you break it down\nsomething can't "not"\nlike it isn't red\nwhat's not red? it\nit's not like that\nits is a plural word it would have to be its' something like that anyway?
405129
Here are the errors:\n\nNeither refers to two things: neither "x" nor "y", you have used it for three.\n\n"that" is unnecessary.\n\nIt would be best written as:\n\nThe lessons, the paper, the subject; none remind me of you.
650718
Ya, they're right! It means, "It wasn't the coin / token" or something to that affect. The people who said, "that isn't a coin" or whatever, are wrong. The verb era is from the verb ser, which is to be. Era is in the imperfect tense, meaning that it is in a past tense, so it means was. Because there is a no in front of it, it means wasn't. Also, there is nothing saying that at all, so i don't know where they got that idea from! hope this helps!
874261
Definitely past tense. You will make statements about things that "have happened" in the past, as opposed to things that "are happening" in the future.
896262
Grammatically, they're both correct.\n\nIf you're using this sentence in some kind of composition, your biggest problem is that the sentence has an inconsistent tone. The middle of the sentence has the sophisticated "atypical dialects," while the beginning and end are much more conversational and less descriptive.\n\nBut if you're asking me to pick, I would say the second.