Pronunciation watch

[Lateralthinking1]

Lovely! Presumably it's the (very conservative) language of the 1611 version.

The thing though is that "an heap" or "an help" would more likely have been pronounced "an 'eap" or "an 'elp" in 1611 - hence the "an", which reflects an older pronunciation of the noun rather than an unusual use of "an". Alan Bennett's (very good) joke is more than likely based on a misunderstanding.

While the dropped 'h' might be grammatically correct, its use raises contextual questions which arguably impede the objective of clarity. I have written before about family who always said 'a norange' etc. They also said 'an 'ouse'. They did so in the context of a South London accent that was very close to cockney and in generations now deceased there was only very basic literacy.

I didn't speak like them. In interviews for independent schools, I am in no doubt that the dropping of an 'h' in that dialect would have indicated backwardness or at least difference in class background. It would not have been the case that assessors would have deducted marks for every dropped 't' at the end of a word and awarded marks for every dropped 'h' at the beginning of one.

So is 'a house' merely a lower middle class affectation or can the language be said to have developed to a different point as classes began to work together from the late 19th century and required common ground in communication? At what point do we say that much earlier roots of language are essentially an anachronism as the high point of development was democratisation?

I tentatively suggest that some changes of this kind occurred to place the accent on new shared forward-looking pronunciation?

[Serial_Apologist]

While the dropped 'h' might be grammatically correct, its use raises contextual questions which arguably impede the objective of clarity. I have written before about family who always said 'a norange' etc. They also said 'an 'ouse'. They did so in the context of a South London accent that was very close to cockney and in generations now deceased there was only very basic literacy.

I didn't speak like them. In interviews for independent schools, I am in no doubt that the dropping of an 'h' in that dialect would have indicated backwardness or at least difference in class background. It would not have been the case that assessors would have deducted marks for every dropped 't' at the end of a word and added marks for every dropped 'h' at the beginning of one.

So is 'a house' merely a lower middle class affectation or can the language be said to have developed to a midway point as classes began to work together from the late 19th century and required more common ground in communication? At what point do we say that much earlier roots of language are themselves an anachronism because the high point of development was democratisation?

I've got a couple of books on this, being interested in dialects, which I really ought to check tommorow. A bit late now!

[gurnemanz]

While the dropped 'h' might be grammatically correct, its use raises contextual questions which arguably impede the objective of clarity. I have written before about family who always said 'a norange' etc. They also said 'an 'ouse'.

Misdivision. That's a whole nother matter.

[Pabmusic]

While the dropped 'h' might be grammatically correct, its use raises contextual questions which arguably impede the objective of clarity. I have written before about family who always said 'a norange' etc. They also said 'an 'ouse'. They did so in the context of a South London accent that was very close to cockney and in generations now deceased there was only very basic literacy.

I didn't speak like them. In interviews for independent schools, I am in no doubt that the dropping of an 'h' in that dialect would have indicated backwardness or at least difference in class background. It would not have been the case that assessors would have deducted marks for every dropped 't' at the end of a word and added marks for every dropped 'h' at the beginning of one.

So is 'a house' merely a lower middle class affectation or can the language be said to have developed to a different point as classes began to work together from the late 19th century and required common ground in communication? At what point do we say that much earlier roots of language are essentially an anachronism as the high point of development was democratisation?

I tentatively suggest that some changes of this kind occurred to place the accent on new shared forward-looking pronunciation?

I suspect that 'house' was never pronounced 'ous' in formal English, since it's from a Germanic root, where the H is always pronounced.

Here's the (very much simplified) history. Two strains fed into pre-Conquest English: West Germanic (Anglo-Saxon mainly - cf modern Frisian or maybe Dutch), and Northern Germanic ('Danish' - ancestor of modern Danish and Norwegian). When the Normans arrived, they spoke a dialect of French (not the Frenssh of Parys, from which modern French is descended) that was, of course, very un-Germanic. They had the upper hand now in matters of learning, government and administration. They changed many things, introducing new letters into the alphabet (like K and QU, to replace C and CW - their C was usually soft) and dropping others. In particular, they heralded several centuries when English gorged itself on French vocabulary. The syntax remained Germanic, although the presence of at least three language groups led to our dropping most inflected endings. We even adopted French verbal tricks, translating them literally (these are called 'calques') - mother-in-law, Astronomer Royal, beforehand, to make moan.

Among these immigrants were dozens of words beginning with an unpronounced H (we still pronounce some in this way - hour, honour). These were in conflict with Germanic words like house and horse, where the H was pronounced - a recipe for misunderstanding. We now know that the Germanic pronunciation would usually triumph and that most of the French silent aitches would be pronounced eventually. But it took ages, and it didn't happen at once. Early imports like hospital/hospice (from the time of the Crusades) succumbed earliest, but there was little rhyme or reason about it. When I said earlier that help and heap would probably have been pronounced elp and eap, I don't know that. Rather, it's the sort of thing that would explain the irregular use of "an" before H, and certainly the sort of thing that the compilers of the KJ Bible would have concerned themselves with. It is actually a mistake anyway, since both help and heap are Anglo-Saxon words (helpan and heap) and would originally have had sounded aitches.

Since those times, we have become accustomed to the irregular use of "an", so much so that some commentators (but not all) accept it as grammatical. But it has grown up only because of the mistaken assumptions of earlier generations, and the fact that the pronunciation of 'silent H' words has been changing - a process that's still happening a bit.

[aeolium]

When the Normans arrived, they spoke a dialect of French (not the Frenssh of Parys, from which modern French is descended) that was, of course, very un-Germanic.

Why was that, given that they were in part descended from Norse Vikings (the Latin Nortmannus meaning Norseman or Viking) and the Normandy region was settled by Viking raiders in the C9 and C10, the duchy being founded by a Norse leader Rollo?

[Pabmusic]

Why was that, given that they were in part descended from Norse Vikings (the Latin Nortmannus meaning Norseman or Viking) and the Normandy region was settled by Viking raiders in the C9 and C10, the duchy being founded by a Norse leader Rollo?

Odd isn't it? I read somewhere that the Vikings were often quick to adopt the local language - around Moscow, for instance, or in Sicily. I've no idea why, though.

[Edit]

Vikings were a pretty mixed lot, no doubt speaking a variety of dialects/languages. Perhaps it was easier for them - and more in their interest - than for most to adopt a common tongue when they settled down. Presumably most of their females were locals, anyway.

[french frank]

Why was that, given that they were in part descended from Norse Vikings (the Latin Nortmannus meaning Norseman or Viking) and the Normandy region was settled by Viking raiders in the C9 and C10, the duchy being founded by a Norse leader Rollo?

But the inhabitants of so-called Normandy would hardly have all been Vikings. Some would have been the earlier French population. And they did speak - and bring to Britain - a distinctive form of French which differed from what became standard French.

[vinteuil]

Some of the names of William the Conqueror's companions look French, others more Nordic...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_de_Guillaume_le_Conqu%C3%A9rant

[Lateralthinking1]

I suspect that 'house' was never pronounced 'ous' in formal English, since it's from a Germanic root, where the H is always pronounced.

Here's the (very much simplified) history. Two strains fed into pre-Conquest English: West Germanic (Anglo-Saxon mainly - cf modern Frisian or maybe Dutch), and Northern Germanic ('Danish' - ancestor of modern Danish and Norwegian). When the Normans arrived, they spoke a dialect of French (not the Frenssh of Parys, from which modern French is descended) that was, of course, very un-Germanic. They had the upper hand now in matters of learning, government and administration. They changed many things, introducing new letters into the alphabet (like K and QU, to replace C and CW - their C was usually soft) and dropping others. In particular, they heralded several centuries when English gorged itself on French vocabulary. The syntax remained Germanic, although the presence of at least three language groups led to our dropping most inflected endings. We even adopted French verbal tricks, translating them literally (these are called 'calques') - mother-in-law, Astronomer Royal, beforehand, to make moan.

Among these immigrants were dozens of words beginning with an unpronounced H (we still pronounce some in this way - hour, honour). These were in conflict with Germanic words like house and horse, where the H was pronounced - a recipe for misunderstanding. We now know that the Germanic pronunciation would usually triumph and that most of the French silent aitches would be pronounced eventually. But it took ages, and it didn't happen at once. Early imports like hospital/hospice (from the time of the Crusades) succumbed earliest, but there was little rhyme or reason about it. When I said earlier that help and heap would probably have been pronounced elp and eap, I don't know that. Rather, it's the sort of thing that would explain the irregular use of "an" before H, and certainly the sort of thing that the compilers of the KJ Bible would have concerned themselves with. It is actually a mistake anyway, since both help and heap are Anglo-Saxon words (helpan and heap) and would originally have had sounded aitches.

Since those times, we have become accustomed to the irregular use of "an", so much so that some commentators (but not all) accept it as grammatical. But it has grown up only because of the mistaken assumptions of earlier generations, and the fact that the pronunciation of 'silent H' words has been changing - a process that's still happening a bit.

Thank you for the time and trouble you have given to this interesting explanation. I think it makes sense.

Does it support the argument I put forward that it is an aspect of the language that is characterised more by development than specific identifiable moments in time?

If so, would reference based arguments on the pronunciation of specific h words be less appropriate and less dependable than they are in respect of many other words?

Can we even be sure that mistaken assumptions of earlier generations were not decisions made to improve broader communication (as with i and j though not dictionary led)?

[JFLL]

I think OED (3rd ed., 2008) sums up the whole business rather nicely:

“The phonetic tendency to lose initial h- in inherited words, especially in unstressed syllables, and uncertainty about the pronunciation of initial h- in borrowed words led to a widespread, originally hypercorrect, practice of writing an before initial h- even when it was not silent … [thus presumably an heap in the Authorized Version]

In current standard English, an is used before a vowel (including words spelt with silent h, as an hour) and a before a consonant (including h and eu-, u- with the sound of /ju/, as a host, a one, a eunuch, a unit). But in unaccented syllables, many (perhaps most) writers down to the 19th cent. retained an before sounded h and some even before eu, u, as an historian, an euphonic vowel, an united appeal, though this was all but obsolete in speech, and in writing a became increasingly common in this position (a tendency endorsed by most 20th-cent usage guides, although the use of an before h in an unaccented syllable is still preferred by some writers) …“

So it seems that, as so often, written usage lagged somewhat behind (majority) spoken usage in retaining the n in an before sounded h in words like historian.

[Pabmusic]

...Does it support the argument I put forward that it is an aspect of the language that is characterised more by development than specific identifiable moments in time?

If so, would reference based arguments on the pronunciation of specific h words be less appropriate and less dependable than they are in respect of many other words?

Can we even be sure that mistaken assumptions of earlier generations were not decisions made to improve broader communication (as with i and j though not dictionary led)?

You may be right, except that your final point is too optimistic. I think that people more readily make mistakes in pronunciation (and indeed in meaning) than do it as a considered strategy.

[Pabmusic]

I think OED (3rd ed., 2008) sums up the whole business rather nicely:

“The phonetic tendency to lose initial h- in inherited words, especially in unstressed syllables, and uncertainty about the pronunciation of initial h- in borrowed words led to a widespread, originally hypercorrect, practice of writing an before initial h- even when it was not silent … [thus presumably an heap in the Authorized Version]

In current standard English, an is used before a vowel (including words spelt with silent h, as an hour) and a before a consonant (including h and eu-, u- with the sound of /ju/, as a host, a one, a eunuch, a unit). But in unaccented syllables, many (perhaps most) writers down to the 19th cent. retained an before sounded h and some even before eu, u, as an historian, an euphonic vowel, an united appeal, though this was all but obsolete in speech, and in writing a became increasingly common in this position (a tendency endorsed by most 20th-cent usage guides, although the use of an before h in an unaccented syllable is still preferred by some writers) …“

So it seems that, as so often, written usage lagged somewhat behind (majority) spoken usage in retaining the n in an before sounded h in words like historian.

That is good - initial confusion and over-compensation, and later rationalisation. A slightly different way of looking at 'an historian' might also be that the noun had come from French, but had lost (or was losing) its silent H, leading to a degree of uncertainty about pronunciation. The usual response was to over-compensate.

Interestingly, Shakespeare uses 'an' with a sounded H very much less readily than the King James Bible.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you both for your recent posts. I keep to my notion that change coincided with democratisation. The 19th Century has now been mentioned as something of an echo of one of my previous posts. There was a need for clearer communication during the industrial revolution - more people in smaller spaces, the beginnings of an increase in class interaction, the noise of machinery.

It is interesting to note that it was educated writers who worked through the initial confusion and over-compensated. The rationalisation or broad consensus, with ongoing variations, occured among those of varying intellect and to some extent through voice. Whatever the case, perhaps we should be cautious about certainty based on references to earlier inconsistencies?

One thing I wonder - is it a or an 'hypercorrection? A 20th century word if ever there was one!

[Pabmusic]

Thank you both for your recent posts. I keep to my notion that change coincided with democratisation. The 19th Century has now been mentioned as something of an echo of one of my previous posts. There was a need for clearer communication during the industrial revolution - more people in smaller spaces, the beginnings of an increase in class interaction, the noise of machinery.

It is interesting to note that it was educated writers who worked through the initial confusion and over-compensated. The rationalisation or broad consensus, with ongoing variations, occured among those of varying intellect and to some extent through voice. Whatever the case, perhaps we should be cautious about certainty based on references to earlier inconsistencies?

One thing I wonder - is it a or an 'hypercorrection? A 20th century word if ever there was one!

I'm not disagreeing with you, though I don't like 'democratisation', as I suspect the process is a little more like natural selection - what tends to work best survives best. The Industrial Revolution brought not only a growth in population but in reading material, particularly newspapers and cheap novels. They would have had a big influence on how people spoke, and themselves would have reflected the current argot. That tended towards democratisation, because commonly read writing was no longer the province of relatively few educated writers, but the process did not occur because of any sort of 'drive' towards accessibility, but it was the outcome of the growth in reading. We see a similar thing today, with the huge influence of TV and similar media on language.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not disagreeing with you, though I don't like 'democratisation', as I suspect the process is a little more like natural selection - what tends to work best survives best. The Industrial Revolution brought not only a growth in population but in reading material, particularly newspapers and cheap novels. They would have had a big influence on how people spoke, and themselves would have reflected the current argot. That tended towards democratisation, because commonly read writing was no longer the province of relatively few educated writers, but the process did not occur because of any sort of 'drive' towards accessibility, but it was the outcome of the growth in reading. We see a similar thing today, with the huge influence of TV and similar media on language.

Yes, thank you Pabmusic. I think we are on fairly similar ground here. I am not sure though that I fully agree with you that there had been no drive towards accessibility for what else, apart from temperance, was moral chartism? I am also a little cautious about over-estimating the extent of the power of the written word in the late 1800s and at least the first half of the 20th Century.

In the last years of the 1970s, I sat with someone every month. She had dropped her h's since her birth in the London slums in 1890 and she read the Bible daily. That is to say that she spoke the words she saw on a page to the best of her ability. It was a routine and that essentially was the meaning of it to her. I gave her the words' true meaning when we met. I understood her weekly letters but others would probably have needed an interpreter. I only understood them because I knew how she spoke.

Being in the south, and female, there had been no factories in her life, no trade unions, no union libraries. There were no books in her flat, there was not a television and a daily newspaper would have been a complete waste of time. Knowing her local mates, I believe the situation was very far from unique. If it was the case that she said "an 'otel" just as the highly educated said "an 'otel", it might just be that the roots of it were in an absence of political and industrial congregation where big changes had occurred.