1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Wat een historisch jaar!"

"Wat een historisch jaar!"

Translation:Such a historic year!

November 3, 2014

18 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/luigipinna

Or "what AN historic year"; let's not kick people for the correct article application!


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Simius

Unless you don't pronounce the h at all, "a historical year" is correct. (reference)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/talideon

Both are arguably correct. There are plenty of dialects of English where the 'h' isn't pronounced, and even in dialects where it is pronounced (Irish English, for instance), 'an' is still used with 'historic(al)' and 'horrific', unless you're pronouncing the 'a' as stressed.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/KdPomi

Untrue for my variety of English, which requires 'an' before 'h' unless it has primary stress, but retains the /h/ if it has secondary stress. We say the /n/ and the /h/ both in 'an historical.' Normative use tends to favor 'a' but 'an' is also correct. On the indefinite article, to avoid affectation, folks should spell as they speak.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/CJ.Dennis

Where I live we say "what an hisTORic year", not "what an 'isTORic year". The "h" is weakened by the stress on the second syllable, but is still clearly audible. "an" is correctly used before such a weakened "h", but not before a strong "h".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/KdPomi

My dialect agrees with yours on this, with a phonetically unique form of 'an' which only appears before atonic /h/. Before a vowel, the /n/ is prefixed, the form before weak h has no nasalized vowel, normal for the article, and is pronounced [ɐn] as a single unit without the usual open [ɐ].


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Soglio

Does Dutch make the same distinction that English does between "historic" (meaning significant, of the past) and "historical" (meaning, essentially and more generally, anything from the past)?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Susande

Historisch can have both meanings, but you can only learn from context which meaning is meant, not from the form of the word itself.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/JeffHK

An American here who would always use "an historic". Just an observation, not sure if it's one of those "pond crossing" usages or a regionalism within the US but "a historic year" just doesn't want to come out of my mouth.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/TaylorStra5

Why does the sch at the end sound like (sh)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Lonja14

Because that is how we can make that sound. And have you ever seen our version of George? It is Sjors, or it is in all my story books.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/semaisil

"Historisch" here could be also translated as "remarkable" in the context, isnt it? "What a remarkable year!" or I never heard someone exclamating "What a historical year!"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/El2theK

Something that's historic does not have to be remarkable and vice versa.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/stationary1

I disagree. Something can be remarkable without being historic, certainly. But if it's not at least somewhat remarkable, it isn't going to be mentioned in any histories, and is therefore not historic.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Janet427540

It's "an historic year" OR "a historic year" Duolingo says it's a typo - it's not!


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Lonja14

What an historic year .... is still correct in Australia, thank you.

Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.