Grammer Question

[whit838 0]

which way is correct cause in the constitution it says "an united" and ive never heard it said that way

an united army of blablabla
or
a united army of blablabla

[Duke87 1,070]

Strictly speaking it should be "an united", since "united" begins with a vowel, but that's fallen out of favor since despite beginning with a vowel, it does not begin with a vowel sound. Indeed, one may consider "a united" to be correct now and "an united" to be archaic grammar. Just like "an historic". Nobody says that unless they're trying to sound like a complete nerd, although it is technically correct.

I would make the argument that grammar does change with time and the way that's correct is merely the way most people do it nowadays. 

So go ahead and say "a united". You'll get looked at funny if you say "an united".

[coolotter88 2]

I'd say, any long U beginning word is 'a' and any short U is 'an'

[Zelgadis 638]

Stand back! M.A. Applied Linguistics coming through!

It's not often I get to brag about my credentials because linguistics usually puts people to sleep, so forgive me if I brag a bit.

First of all, you might want to think about changing the title and spelling "grammar" right.

Now, as for your query, it has always been, at least for as long as everyone on this planet has been alive, that the articles "a" and "an" are wholly dependent not on the letter proceeding them, but the sound proceeding them.

"United," is pronounced "you-nited," to use a familiar sound. Therefore, the correct article to use is "a." It is the same for words like "university," and "European." The same also holds true for acronyms. Since, for example, the letter "M" is pronounced "em," one must say "an MBA."

Short "u" requires "an." Such as "an understanding."

And for the record, it is not now, nor has it ever been in any living person's lifetime, acceptable to say "an united." I'm going to hesitate for now to say that this has never been the case in English history, but I'm not going to go that far just yet. While I did not study specifically the evolution of articles in English, I cannot recall at this time any example, in anything I've ever seen, anyone writing something like "an united" and it being considered correct.  Then again, I haven't read the constitution.  And I speak Middle English. Pretty far back.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

 And I speak Middle English.

quote>

Not often, I hope. 

Seriously, zel, thanks for the info.  One of my former co-workers used to call herself the "Goddess of Grammar" and everyone went to her with these kinds of question.  

[Explodingsims 3]

Huh..I would have said An...Thanks for sharing your knowledge Zel!

Ski- I have one of those kinds of people at my school...Except we call him the Grammar Nazi

[Zelgadis 638]

English has always been a very fluid language. Shoot, it didn't even have spelling rules in Chaucer's time. We get our current grammatical structure from Shakespeare and (mostly) our current spelling rules from those who transcribed Shakespeare's plays.

So it wouldn't surprise me if, at some point, the articles "an" and "a" changed. It happens. And when it's an accepted rule, the old way no longer exists. Usually takes many decades though.

A very new development I've noticed recently is the placing of punctuation outside of quotation marks. I reckon that one appeared in the last 10 or 15 years or so. I refuse to do that though. I don't mind the alteration of English for practical purposes, as long as it makes sense. However, this one appears to be occurring out of sheer laziness. In other words, from people who simply don't feel like following the rules.

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

A very new development I've noticed recently is the placing of punctuation outside of quotation marks. I reckon that one appeared in the last 10 or 15 years or so. I refuse to do that though. I don't mind the alteration of English for practical purposes, as long as it makes sense. However, this one appears to be occurring out of sheer laziness. In other words, from people who simply don't feel like following the rules.quote>

Well, I can't speak for others, but I do it to signify that the punctuation is not part of the quote. For instance:

She said, "hi".quote>

is punctuated like that because the period belongs to the sentence as a whole, not the quotation. On the other hand:

He said, "Go away!"quote>

is punctuated as such because the exclamation point is part of the quotation (and, being at the end of the sentence, also serves as the end punctuation for the sentence).

So, I don't do it out of laziness. I do it for a specific purpose: avoiding potential ambiguity.

Example where there is actual ambiguity:

I said, "go away!"quote>

versus

I said, "go away"!quote>

In the first sentence, "go away!" is being yelled. In the second sentence, "go away" is merely being said, but the sentence overall is an exclamation. And if I didn't put the exclamation point outside of the quotes, it would look like it said something it didn't. See the point?

[Zelgadis 638]

Again, Duke, that's a new thing. When I was growing up, all my teachers and all my books said the same thing: never, ever put punctuation outside of the quotation marks. I never started seeing people doing that until recently and I still find it weird to look at. I think it's been that way since there really isn't a major ambiguity issue here. It would be an extremely rare case indeed that you shouted that you said "Go away" without actually having shouted "Go away."

My primary reference is "The Blue Book of Grammar," which still lists that punctuation must go on the inside of the quotes.

ISF

[coolotter88 2]

unless if there is a parenthetical citation, then the period follows the citation.

an history has never been correct either then. it is an aspirate 'h', therefore the article is "a".

The wikipedia page on A and An provides some interesting information. I never knew it was "a ewe"

[Zelgadis 638]

Well, for once, Wiki is right. It's pronounced "yew," so it has to be "a ewe."

First time for everything.

ISF

[coolotter88 2]

Duke follows the NYTimes rule, question marks and exclaimation marks can be inside or outside of a quote. Commas and periods are always inside the quote. semicolons and colons are never inside of a quote

[confused04 14]

I only put the punctuation outside the quotation marks if I'm using a sentence or fragment as a non-dialogue piece. I can't think of a good example, but usually its when the phrase is not standard vernacular but no one is actually saying it either. Not sure if that made much sense....

In terms of citations, you still need to put a comma inside the quotes, then your citation, then a period.

I'd dare say that the "outside the quotation mark" thing is even newer than 15 to 10 cause when I was going through school we ALWAYS put punctuation for ANY dialogue. If the the sentence that a person speaks is complete and the end of the dialogue, the period goes inside. If its not the end of the sentence, then there's a comma.

If as Duke puts it, the sentence (and not the dialogue) is being exclaimed, I was taught that it was not proper to put the exclamation point at the end. In order to emphasize that the its not the dialogue but the sentence that requires exclamation, then the proper technique is to choose a different word other than "said".

So instead of "I said, 'Go away'!" it would be "I yelled 'Go away.'" Whatever the case, if the dialogue is the end of the sentence, the punctuation had to go inside.

Is it weird that I still put an in front of words like "historic". (There thats what I meant... its not dialogue so I put the period after, thats the only time I put punctuation marks outside.) It just seems weird to say  "a historical event." Just seems right to say "An historical event ..."

[toxicpiano 125]

I got off of the bus LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Ski- I have one of those kinds of people at my school...Except we call him the Grammar Naziquote>

I can understand that.  But my co-worker had a good way of making us laugh about it.

About the punctuation and quotes issue . . .

If it is correct to write:

She screamed "Go Away!" as she ran out the door.

Why is it wrong to write:

She screamed "Go Away!"

[manman99 2]

i think we solved the problem, but the real irony of this thread is that the title of it says "GrammEr Question" lol

[coolotter88 2]

you can say an historical event if you talk like a british person. (I'm not sure if it's true that all british people drop their aspirate 'h')

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

you can say an historical event if you talk like a british person. (I'm not sure if it's true that all british people drop their aspirate 'h')quote>

In Hartford, Hereford, and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly happen 

No, not all British people have that particular accent.

[toxicpiano 125]

what is the correct way to say the letter H? some people say haych and some people say aych!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano what is the correct way to say the letter H? some people say haych and some people say aych!quote>

I've never heard anyone say "haych".

[Zelgadis 638]

"Haych?" That's an entirely new one to me... I'm guessing that's a relatively small dialect area.

ISF

[krbe 193]

Isn't it supposed to be "aitch"?

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: krbe Isn't it supposed to be "aitch"?quote>

Same pronunciation, different transliteration.  If the forum software allowed me to type IPA, then I could give you the "real" version. 

Unless...  you mean "a" as "ah."  Then that would be an Aussie pronunciation.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: toxicpiano what is the correct way to say the letter H? some people say haych and some people say aych!quote>

I've never heard anyone say "haych". quote>

My dad says "haych".   I've always thought it was odd because he's the only one I've heard say it that way.

Originally posted by: zelgadis

"Haych?" That's an entirely new one to me... I'm guessing that's a relatively small dialect area.

quote>

Probably.  My dad is from northeastern Pennsylvania.  Very close to Dalai, in fact.

Where's Dalai?   How does he say it?

That could help narrow down whether it's regional, generational, or both.

[confused04 14]

"Haych" is British pronunciation for "H". Much like how they say "zed" for "Z".

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: confused04 "Haych" is British pronunciation for "H". Much like how they say "zed" for "Z".quote>

jay zed lolol

One of the only things I remember in primary school is when we were all about six and the girls in my class were having a massive argument over how to pronounce H.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: confused04

 "Haych" is British pronunciation for "H". Much like how they say "zed" for "Z".quote>

British?  I don't see where my dad would have gotten that.  He is the grandson of eastern European immigrants and grew up in an area populated mostly by other descendants of eastern European immigrants.

[psander5 195]

I usually say 'haych'. I'm English. I also say 'ouse, 'ammer, 'amster, 'undred, 'idden, 'ungry etc. (house, hammer, hamster, hundred, hidden, hungry) How wierd is that!

Correction: 'ow wierd is that!

Don't get me started on the Yorkshire accent though. Grammar guz aht o't winda up 'ere!

I should also add that those words beginning with 'h' above are in no way connected to one single event or story.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: psander5 I usually say 'haych'. I'm English. I also say 'ouse, 'ammer, 'amster, 'undred, 'idden, 'ungry etc. (house, hammer, hamster, hundred, hidden, hungry) How wierd is that!

Correction: 'ow wierd is that!

Don't get me started on the Yorkshire accent though. Grammar guz aht o't winda up 'ere!

I should also add that those words beginning with 'h' above are in no way connected to one single event or story.quote>

I've never understood how some areas in the north can't say 'the'.