To boldly go to the most famous grammar mistake of all time.

[jackbomb9]

No, you still pronounce the 'h'. The rule is that if there is a vowel after an 'h' at the beginning of a word, 'an' is correct, rather than 'a'. Technically, 'an hole' is also correct, but you're right, that sounds more than a little weird. This is one of those rules with lots of exceptions.

...

I think the reason the rule was made was because 'h' is more of a breath than a sound, so was regarded as such. Obviously it isn't so much like that now, but the rule still exists.

But that's just not how language works! The rules in the grammar book are supposed to reflect the standards of literate speakers, not the other way around.

The one and only practical and historic purpose of "an" is to remove awkward glottal stops. Try saying "a hour". It's like you're gagging. We don't want that, so we use "an hour".

Write it how you say it: "an hour", "an RPG", "a one-legged bird". With my American-the-way-it's-spoken-on-TV accent, I also say "a historic", so that's how I write it.

Just so we can make this entirely clear, my pet peeve is when people use 'a' when 'an' is appropriate. Obviously there are cases where it's not. In my books, 'an historian' and 'an horrendous' is correct. It sounds more appropriate to me.

Never heard of that rule. Where did you get that from? The rule I have always heard and read about is that the first letter of the following word is the one that matters. In most ( if not all ) cases the 'h' is clearly pronounced and should be preceded by an 'a'. ( <-- See what I did there? )

I don't know if you're American or not because your profile doesn't say so, so I'll just assume you are (correct me if I'm wrong), but maybe this is an English/Australian rule that doesn't apply in America. Like 'Aluminum' is the American way to say the English 'Aluminium'. Both are equally correct, but in different places. Being an Aussie, if this holds, means I find the 'an' rule more appropriate.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Honestly, I don't really care for such grammar nazi's. It sounds far cooler to say "to boldly go" than "to go boldly". Gves it a more...couragous tone rather than a school teacher tone.

And in all honesty, as long as the meaning of the sentence gets through, grammar is pretty irrelevant.

Example: "Bomb.Run.Now." works far more effectively than "There's a bomb, run away from this place as quickly as you can."

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

To play along...

"Star Trek" could be considered a correct term. In the first contact movie, Cochran's character says:

"So, you guys are like astronauts? On some kind of 'Star Trek?'"

(ok, I paraphrased the first sentence a bit, but the second part is what he actually says)

So, they are on a star trek. IMO the title works.

I never questioned the title...

 

[Snugglebunny]

Don't get me wrong, Star Trek is a wonderful show, but it has what is perhaps the most publicized grammar mistake in history. You see, a split infinitive is when one takes an infinitive, such as "to do," "to eat," or "to play," and then adds a word or term in between the word "to" and the action of the infinitive. This disrupts what is supposed to be a single term, and then causes a minor grammar fallacy. Some examples of split infinitives are "to quickly run" or "to not die," which should actually be "to run quickly" or "not to die." I have hesitated until now to bring up how common split infinitives are, but I feel that it is appropriate to make a thread on this topic. Recently I have seen far too many intelligent people, including some escapist forum members and Yahtzee, falling prey to the split infinitive. Please excuse any rudeness I may have had in making this topic.

Also, in order to make this thread discussion worthy, I must ask- are there any grammar mistakes or other linguistic fallacies that people make that are pet peeves of yours?

I'm not sure whether to strangle you or pounce and glomp to death.....body says no...but brain says yes!

 

[Jezzy54]

Okay, "tool" was a poor choice of words on my part. You just sound pretty damn uptight. I guess I should have used "wanker". I still stand by everything else I said.

 

[quiet_samurai]

The split infinitives rule is rather obscure and archaic. I also think it's regional and is not applied to some english speaking places. Either that or English was not your first language and you stick to the rule faithfully. I say that because I knew a girl from Japan and she had the most proper english i have ever heard in my life. But this goes for all languages, usually a person who becomes fluent in a second language speaks it almost too correctly. Know what I mean Vern?

 

[Zac_Dai]

Lol its like the SS division of Grammar Nazis.

Why is it even a problem if its sounds right?

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Talking about Grammar, here's the only thing I can say:

Spoiler: Awesomeness Abound...

Well, who does?

Anyway, that's not the most famous, this is an excerpt from a speech by George Bush Jnr.:

"What we really need to ask ourselves as a country is this: Is our children educated enough?"

As for split infinitives, I don't have much reference to them except this from the start of a Jimmy Carr show:

"Before we even get started, I would just like to explain, that in my show there will be a lot of bad language. And I'm not talking split infinitives."

 

[ArcWinter]

Grammar? Hah! I do not believe in it. I'm fine with writing how you speak, unless it makes you sound like someone who failed elementary school or a 10-year old girl on IM.
And what's with that outdated picture? Everyone knows today's grammar nazis have lazerguns and ride on grizzly bears.

 

[Trivun]

Talking about Grammar, here's the only thing I can say:

Spoiler: Awesomeness Abound...

Well, who does?

Anyway, that's not the most famouse, this is an excerpt from a speech by George Bush Jnr.:

"What we really need to ask ourselves as a country is this: Is our children educated enough?"

As for split infinitives, I don't have much reference to them except this from the start of a Jimmy Carr show:

"Before we even get started, I would just like to explain, that in my show there will be a lot of bad language. And I'm not talking split infinitives."

Heh. Difference is, Jimmy Carr's a comedian and his mistake was intentional for humour. George Bush? Idiot. That's all that can be said as far as Dubya's concerned...

"They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our people, and neither do we."

[/thread_and_anti_Dubya_rant]

 

[VGStrife]

Im sure if the author could OF changed it he would OF......or at least should OF.

 

[AdamAK]

I don't know if you're American or not because your profile doesn't say so, so I'll just assume you are (correct me if I'm wrong), but maybe this is an English/Australian rule that doesn't apply in America. Like 'Aluminum' is the American way to say the English 'Aluminium'. Both are equally correct, but in different places. Being an Aussie, if this holds, means I find the 'an' rule more appropriate.

Actually, I'm of Polish origin.

I think the fact that you're an Aussie explains why your rule may apply. Australians use a different pronounciation compared to the British and American people. As far as I know, the rule I mentioned applies in Britain and to some extent to the US as well. I'm not too sure about Australia, though.

 

[Klarinette]

-"Supposively"
-"For all intensive purposes"
-Plural word's with apostrophe's
-There, their, they're, thier
-Your, you're, ur
-To, too

The list goes on like that...

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

I don't believe many people still care about split infinitives. It's a rather obscure rule, and unlike other rules the mistake occasionally sounds better ('to not die' is not one of those). Admittedly, it does make you sound infinitely smarmy when you call people on it, so that is a big plus for me.

Anyway, nothing bothers me too much besides obviously incorrect punctuation usage.

This, it's pretty much unheard of now.

 

[Inmate13]

"Press 'X' to not care"

 

[minarri]

The most amusing thing about the rule against split infinitives is that it was arbitrarily created, if memory serves, in the 19th century--it was never a rule in English or other Germanic languages. Academics who believed Latin to be the most "pure" language (by virtue of being dead, I suppose) decided to try making English more "pure" by trying to shoehorn some Latin grammatical rules into the language.

As such, I think it's perfectly reasonable to not follow the "no split infinitives" rule.

 

[Citrus]

Who here has ever said: "That's me" / "It's me" / "It was me"?

What's that? Everybody? Well, you're all technically wrong. The correct way to phrase the aforementioned sentences would be "That is I", "It is I", and "It was I", respectively.

There are rules in the English language that simply don't deserve to be mentioned anymore. The one above is an example. The one in the original post is another example.

Rules are what hold languages together, but that's not to say that they are all necessary and must all be enforced. The colloquialism of modern English doesn't leave room for some of the traditional rules of the language. Languages evolve, rules are abandoned, and as far as I'm concerned, that's okay.