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

"Wat een historisch jaar!"

Translation:Such a historic year!

November 3, 2014



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


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


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.


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".


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].


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.


Generally, "an historic" is preferred in British English, "a historic" in US English, where the h is pronounced.


That seems to imply that all British English drops the "h" in historic, which couldn't be further from the truth.


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)?


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


As a native English speaker well-grounded in grammar, "an historic year" is absolutely correct, although "a historic year" is probably more common now. But back when I was in school several decades ago, the use of "an" was taught and preferred. It certainly should be accepted as correct!


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.


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


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.


"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!"


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


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.


On the other hand, something can very easily be "historical" without being either "remarkable" or "historic".


"Such" at the beginning of this sentence seems strange to me. Not: It's / It was such a historic year!


The "a" v "an" debate...what a silly waste of time. Both a and an are correct and understood as such in England and a third common spoken and understood version is "uh nistoric". Who knows if in 200years that will be the common usage and spelling?


"An historical year" was termed a typo. It is not a typo or an error in received English.

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