Why do we use the word "an" before words like historic or other "h" words? Isn't that improper english?
445745
In the case of "historic" it is not necessary, but it's not improper either.  There are good historical and phonological reasons for it.\n\nBASIC 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 (as opposed to vowels made further back -- o, u)\n\nSo, if the first syllable HAS an accent (especially the MAIN accent of the word) 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 by 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, go, sit, etc.] are COMMON words.
346904
I sent AN email. You use an before a word that begins with a vowel.
905503
you would say 'an' hour because in this crazy language, "an" precedes words that begin with vowel sounds...and since the "h" in hour is silent, it sounds like the vowels "ou", kind of like you would san an herb instead of a herb here in the US\n\nHope that helps!
467642
In the U.S. the preferred past tense is "spelled," although "spelt" is not incorrect. "Spelt" is chiefly British.
898947
It is correct as part of a 'dialect' such as cockney, North-Norfolk or Scouse. This is used when chatting informally to friends etc'. These dialects are a vital part of British culture and should be kept alive to prevent bland 'MTV' speak taking over our nation. \n\nThe use of the double negative is an integral part of the dialect; dialects being the adjustment of words or word order depending on region. They have NOTHING to do with levels of education, bar the fact that up till the 1950s, grammar schools beat local dialects (and left handedness) out of kids through snobbery. People (myself included) are perfectly able to switch from dialect to standard English with ease; I would be interested to compare my academic achievement with that of many language-snobs, many of whom make their own errors (my favourite being the over use of '...and I' when in fact, for statements where the root would be 'me', '...and me' is correct).\n\nThey are INCORRECT when written down in anything other than fiction (to show a regional character) or personal writing. Any formal writing should be in Standard (coming from standard meaning flag- as in army) English. This was invented so clear messages could be communicated anywhere in the English speaking world without confusion- so double negs are wrong in essays, schoolwork, business letters, memos and formal emails...
398658
there is a very sligh difference between the two \nthe two mean that some thing happened in the past and still happening but the past perfect continous tense gives more emphasis on this point .however,the matter depends on the dialect whether American or British.
900160
Because it is plural.  In spanish if you abbreviate something in plural you double the initial.
625163
Yes, people in the UK use 'ain't'!!\n\nBut I think you'll have trouble proving that it's an American expression - cockney kids have been saying it for centuries!!
949497
Hey, Americans know how to speak English too.  (Well, some of us.)\n\nIt is correct to pronounce the word "the" as "thee" before a vowel.  "Thee" apple sounds better and is easier to say than "thə" apple.\n-MM
420663
In Engilish it's actually Pre-Columbian (not Columbia)\n\nIt's refering to something that happened before the first europeans came to the America's. For example, the Mayan and Aztec histories are pre-columbian.
316898
As others have noted, the letters WERE pronounced when the spellings originated.  And had the printing press come a century later, such things might be spelled the way we now pronounce them.\n\nThere is, however, some value in all this.  It is possible to see how words are related (to see something of their history) both within English and between English and the languages it grew out of.  Thus the spelling of word may show us connections with Germanic, French and Latin words\n\nI remember that it made it a lot easier to learn German, since I could recognize some of these words as related.  (Modern German, which DOES pronounce such sounds, has "Knecht" for "knight", "Nacht" for "night", etc.) I think it also helped with things like SATs.  Similarly, when I had to pick up a reading knowledge of French, I recognized a lot of related words (though I can't pronounce French worth a lick!)  I would think this is some help to Europeans learning English as well.\n\n------------\n\nSome more thoughts on the unstated (implied?) question -- why don't we fix it?!\n\nIncidentally, one of the things that has KEPT English from thorough spelling reforms is the fact that its vocabulary has been so freely borrowed from so many sources for centuries that there would be A LOT to try change and relearn.  (German and many other European languages did see such reforms in the past couple of centuires, but they had a lot less changing to do!)   And with the wide variety of regional pronunciations among just NATIVE English speakers, which ones would be adopt for the "standard"?  And if there were multiple versions what kind of mess would that make?! (The differences that now exist between British and American spelling are quite minor, hardly a barrier to reading each others' writing.)\n \nThink too what this change would do for reading anything in slightly older English!   We wouldn't be able to read documents and letters of the last several centuries without 'translating' them!
520414
I don't think it necessarily is, however, I do think that the word used above (starts with N) should not be used by anyone.  Black or white, it is still a racial term.  Sy what you will, the simple fact that it's groundings are where they, says it is not a word that should be used anywhere, by anyone.
186165
it's not words beginning with a vowel, it's words beginning with a vowel SOUND. so, like honor..."It was an honor" because it sounds like an "o". Also, it's "I type slowly." It's an adverb. IT's only used as slow when it's an adjective or noun" Like, Slow and Steady wins the race." But, with the H, it's only if it sounds like a vowel, not necessarily if it is a vowel. So...examples:" That's a house. (sounds like an "h")", "It's spelled with an "h"(sounds like an "a"). Sorry, these are confusing sentences...but, do you get what I'm trying to say? :) Hope it helps
262857
You use "a" if the very next word begins with a consonant like "a dollar".\n\nYou use "an" if the very next word begins with a vowel like "an angel".
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.
773895
You asked a rhetorical question here - what do you want answered?  The African-American community as a whole is hypocritical on the use of this word - that's all.\n\nGood Luck!!!
116773
no. "ain't" is not a real word in the English vocabulary. But it is still used. Different places make up and use new words, but they are not proper English.