JUNE CASAGRANDE:Grammar isn’t black and white
- Share via
blr-aword10TextG822KEUDA WORD, PLEASE
I used to shun such distinctions, especially the idea that the population can be divided into cat people and dog people. Then I got four cats. Now I can say with 100% certainty that I’m a dog person. (Cat people are out of their minds. Take it from one who wakes up most mornings at 6 a.m. with razor-sharp claws kneading her collar bone amid a cloud of wicked tuna breath.)
But when it comes to English grammar and usage, this is a dangerous way to look at the world. That’s because, in many cases, there is no absolute right or wrong. There are only armies of self-appointed experts pretending they have the authority to label things as such. And there’s no one boss to issue final rulings, either.
Of course, most people don’t know this. So we pose our language questions in terms such as, “Which is right: ‘a historic’ or ‘an historic’?” Then we go looking for answers as to which is “correct grammar” and which is “incorrect grammar.” And when we get an answer, we say “aha!” and call off the search, never considering that, had we sought out one more source, we may have gotten a completely different answer.
Eventually, however, we do run into a completely different answer, and that’s when it becomes clear just how much we invested ourselves in that first answer.
Us: “Can you believe that newspaper article contains a split infinitive? That’s wrong!”
Poor soul who has to deal with us: “Uh, actually, there’s nothing wrong with splitting infinitives.”
Us: “You’re wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Splitting infinitives is wrong.”
After this, we’re married to our position for life. It doesn’t matter how many books we open that says there’s nothing wrong with the so-called split infinitive found in phrases like “to boldly go.” (All 14 — yes, 14 — of the grammar and stylebooks in my library say there’s nothing wrong with such constructions, as I’ve reported here repeatedly.) We stick to our guns — all the way to the bitter end. (It’s kind of like shouting, “Stay the course,” even as your last troops are being airlifted off the roof of the embassy. But I digress.)
When it comes to the choice between “a” and “an” before words like “historic,” you’d be wise not to hitch your wagon to the first “expert” opinion you come across. You might find yourself overly invested in advice like this, from syndicated grammar columnist James Kilpatrick: “When the accent in the ‘h’ word is on the second syllable, ‘an’ will always sound better.”
Anyone who reads Kilpatrick knows that the guy knows his stuff. So we might be tempted to stop there. But if we read further we’d see, “The editors of the AP Stylebook disagree, but what do they know?”
This could be construed as carte blanche to ignore every contradictory piece of advice we encounter thereafter. But that would be a big mistake. Not only do lots of well-respected authorities argue that the choice between “a” and “an” is just that — a choice — but Kilpatrick himself has said so in his column many times, urging readers to understand that there is no right or wrong. “A historic” is fine, as is “an historic.” Neither is right, neither is wrong.
If only it worked the same way with pets.