Book Of Mormon Primer

[cursor]

SO happy that you're "done here." What a cheesy bow-out. Actually, how you can suggest that you made no antagonistic posts is entirely unclear to me. Language is delivered talk, and structured thought. My delivery is clearly different from yours (Scott). Your accusation that I am trying to be educationally presumptuous is more than just a bit off the wall (and totally unnecessary).

 

I'm happy to move on with this topic, as it develops (despite any individually perceived language faux pas).

Edited November 12, 2014 by cursor

[Scott Lloyd]

SO happy that you're "done here." What a cheesy bow-out. Actually, how you can suggest that you made no antagonistic posts is entirely unclear to me. Language is delivered talk, and structured thought. My delivery is different clearly from yours (Scott). Your accusation that I am trying to be educationally presumptuous is more than a bit off the wall.

 

I'm happy to move on with this topic, as it develops (despite any individually perceived language faux pas).

I really was done. But darn it, now I have to respond.

 

You are reading me totally wrong. I did not say or mean that you were trying to be "educationally presumptuous," only that use of an historic might sound or look that way, intended or not. Again, no antagonism or personal slight intended. I might have implied that you are an academic, but if anything, you ought to be flattered by that.

 

But since I've been goaded into one more post, let me add another link, this one from the Oxford Dictionaries website, (one of numerous sources that might have been selected) that explains the matter even more clearly and explicitly than did my prior link.

 

People often believe that they should use the indefinite article an in front of words like historic, horrific, or hotel. Are they right or wrong? Should you say ‘an historic event’ or ‘a historic event’?

An is the form of the indefinite article that is used before a spoken vowel sound: it doesn’t matter how the written word in question is actually spelled. So, we say ‘an honour’, ‘an hour’, or ‘an heir’, for example, because the initial letter ‘h’ in all three words is not actually pronounced. By contrast we say ‘a hair’ or ‘a horse’ because, in these cases, the ‘h’ is pronounced.

Let’s go back to those three words that tend to cause problems: historic, horrific, and hotel. If hotel was pronounced without its initial letter ‘h’ (i.e. as if it were spelled ‘otel’), then it would be correct to use an in front of it. The same is true of historic and horrific. If horrific was pronounced ‘orrific’ and historic was pronounced ‘istoric’ then it would be appropriate to refer to ‘an istoric occasion’ or ‘an orrific accident’. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, people often did pronounce these words in this way.

Today, though, these three words are generally pronounced with a spoken ‘h’ at the beginning and so it’s now more logical to refer to ‘a hotel’, ‘a historic event’, or ‘a horrific accident’.

 

And now, I think I really am done here.

 

But then, who knows?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cursor]

I have now reconciled the various historical versions of sections 1 through 4 of the BofM Primer ... and am moving forward.

[cursor]

Scott ... I can supply references to any number of technical sources in support of my usage of "an historic," but I will not. What it comes down to is how I was taught to speak and write. Really, how can you reasonably argue with that? AND, I was taught by REALLY knowledgeable and REALLY smart parents. 

 

Your out of tune complaint of my "an historical" usage is nuts, and should never have been expressed.

 

Please ... don't answer back.

Edited November 12, 2014 by cursor

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott ... I can supply references to any number of technical sources in support of my usage of "an historic," but I will not.

I think you would have to search a lot harder for them than I did for mine.

 

What it comes down to is how I was taught to speak and write. Really, how can you reasonably argue with that? AND, I was taught by REALLY knowledgeable and REALLY smart parents. 

 

 

There is no intention at all on my part to reflect on your parents.

 

But sometimes, as in other areas of life, linguistic conventions outlast their usefulness and take a long time to die out. Their survival can be attributed more to the inertia of habit than to logic or good sense. As pointed out in my last link, historic was formerly pronounced without voicing the h, and it would have made sense back then to precede it with the indefinite article an. It no longer makes sense to do that, as the h is generally pronounced today.

 

Your out of tune complaint of my "an historical" usage is nuts, and should never have been expressed.

 

 

Whatever it is, it is not "nuts." Oxford Dictionaries, among many other sources, is with me on that.

 

So is the Chicago Manual of Style.

 

 

Q. Is it an historical novel or a historical novel?

A. In Chicago style, it’s a historical novel. Please see CMOS 5.72: “With the indefinite article, the choice of a or an depends on the sound of the word it precedes. A comes before words with a consonant sound, including /y/, /h/, and /w/, no matter how the word is spelled {a eulogy} {a historic occasion} {a Ouachita tribe member}. An comes before words with a vowel sound {an LSAT exam room} {an X-Files episode} {an hour ago}.”

 

 

 

Please ... don't answer back.

 

I've signaled more than once now my willingness to end this conversation.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

OK, y'all. Lets stop the language lessons/arguments, no one wants the thread closed or people banned over something this silly- no matter how right y'all feel you are.

 

I am anxiously awaiting more of the BoM Primer 

[cursor]

I will respond no further to Scott Lloyd on the usage of "an history" vs. "a history" (and seriously wish that he'd never brought up the useless topic). How absolutely silly.

 

Further posts regarding my BofM Primer project will continue ... hopefully without nonsensical interruption. Smart comments and responsible feedback are, however, appreciated. Thanks.

Edited November 12, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

I've signaled more than once now my willingness to end this conversation.

 

Then why the hell would you ever have 1) initiated it, 2) then inflated it, and then 3) unnecessarily-stimulated it?

 

Again please don't respond, based on whatever your selective grammatical rules might require.

 

If necessary (and how UNnecessary) I will create another thread regarding my BofM Primer, that hopefully will advance without your unnecessary grammatical commentary, Scott. 

[cursor]

I am now through section 5 of 12. I hope to share soon.

Edited November 12, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

Pawing through the current version, of the latest typed manuscript, I have to chuckle at the technological advantages that we have now (or the disadvantages that we used to own). As I recall, in the mid to late [19]seventies I typed now less than four manuscript versions (with plenty of "white-out") — initially on an old manual Royal typewriter, then later on an IBM Selectric (which sported multiple fonts on spherical balls that one would manually interchange ... cool). The Royal typewriter I got from my dad, as I can best recall. The IBM unit was one that I used at Hercules Aerospace (where I worked for 10+ years), before business hours. I hated having to stop working on the Primer and having to actually go to work. I feel some of that same excitement level now that I've resurrected the project. And this time with substantially improved technology, and substantially improved personal skills.

[cursor]

May I suggest you create the entire document, and then link to it for those of us who might want to download for use off line? 

 

I intend to, rpn. =)

[Tacenda]

Pawing through the current version, of the latest typed manuscript, I have to chuckle at the technological advantages that we have now (or the disadvantages that we used to own). As I recall, in the mid to late [19]seventies I typed now less than four manuscript versions (with plenty of "white-out") — initially on an old manual Royal typewriter, then later on an IBM Selectric (which sported multiple fonts on spherical balls that one would manually interchange ... cool). The Royal typewriter I got from my dad, as I can best recall. The IBM unit was one that I used at Hercules Aerospace (where I worked for 10+ years), before business hours. I hated having to stop working on the Primer and having to actually go to work. I feel some of that same excitement level now that I've resurrected the project. And this time with substantially improved technology, and substantially improved personal skills.

This reminds me of a time in the early 80's when I decided to put together a family history.  I gathered all of my parents histories along with their parents and relatives, that had been in a box or container, not yet compiled.  Oh, and some that my siblings wrote.  For Christmas I gave each of my siblings and parents the family history books. 

 

I remember using an old typewriter along with my white out.  It was a big project, not exactly like the one you've undertook here though Cursor .  But having to retype all of the histories and putting in a table of contents and page numbers wasn't always easy and it didn't look very professional, but was happy to know that all of us had these histories at our fingertips that were at one time hidden away in a closet at my parent's home.  It does give me a good feeling that I accomplished it, just as you should have Cursor.  Are you planning on putting this in book form one day?  Oops, just noticed that you replied to RPN that you're putting it online to link to, yay!       

Edited November 14, 2014 by Tacenda

[cursor]

I'm not sure if it will be available in print or not.

 

Digital formats (well handled) are so much more dynamic (and currently popular) than printed texts ... although I love them (printed texts, that is).

 

Distribution is also SO much easier (and cost-effective) ... as is the dynamic ability to handle cross-references, footnotes, graphics, maps, and other stuff. On top of that, digital documents can be very efficiently updated ... a benefit to even previous buyers. I'm immediately reminded of changes to my dad's Mormon's Codex. When it became clear that there were some errors in a couple of the historical tables in the printed book, I made graphical changes, then uploaded those changes to Deseret Book. They then modified the digital (ebook) version so that everyone who purchased access would have the latest and greatest. 

 

Additionally, when the ebook version of Mormon's Codex was first published, the maps that I had authored were too small (and in a resolution that was nearly unreadable). I recommended to my dad (and consequently to Deseret Book) that a very simple solution would be to host large resolution graphics for each of the maps, then provide reader access through simple hyperlinks embedded in the text (or attached to the graphic itself). That was later (and is now) implemented. Digital solutions are so much more dynamic. Yet, I love the feel of a book in my hand, coupled with the manual flipping of pages. I guess I might even say the same of that rotary dial that used to be on my home phone. The application of body weight on the rolled edge of a shovel blade (via the bottom of my foot) feels good too.