Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Morning News | Reason in the Age of Posthumanism »

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Politics Historic Watch

Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:27 AM

Have said plenty about it already, but it keeps coming up. "Historic." It's so slippery/flexible/magic.

The title of a new book just published by (and advertised in) the New York Times:

Obama: The Historic Journey

Barack Obama, in an email sent out last night around dinnertime:

This is a historic step—the first of many as we work together to climb out of this crisis—and I want to thank you for your resolve and your support.

Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, today:

We are hemorrhaging jobs just now, but by historic standards, unemployment may look a little low.

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

At least they're using the proper form. I wanted to die when people kept referring to the inauguration as a "historical" event.

Posted by The CHZA on February 18, 2009 at 7:36 AM

I am going to take a dump.

Posted by Historians, please take note. on February 18, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Just because it's ubiquitous doesn't make it untrue. Why so prickly?

Posted by Andy Niable on February 18, 2009 at 8:26 AM

When did "an historic" become "a historic?"

Posted by Like word... on February 18, 2009 at 8:34 AM

@4 - "an" is used if the next word begins with a vowel sound, "a" if not. The pronounced "h" in "historic" isn't a vowel sound (for me, anyway), so "a" is perfectly reasonable. It's "an hour" because the "h" in "hour" is silent, so it starts with a vowel sound.

Posted by cdc on February 18, 2009 at 8:56 AM

@4, 5 - apparently both pronunciations of "historic" (H pronounced or silent) are correct, but American pronunciation uses the "H" sound and therefore the "a" is appropriate.

Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on February 18, 2009 at 9:06 AM

I never trip over "a historic" in writing any more. But when it's spoken, especially by someone careful with words, I usually hear it as "ahistoric" until context tells me otherwise. Not a hardship, but some speakers do adjust depending on the audience, to avoid that blip.

Jesus I'm boring.

Posted by tomasyalba on February 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM

I note that tomasyalba didn't say "not an hardship. . . .

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM

English needs a word like Spanish's 'transcendental'. It's much better to transcend the present than it is to become part of history.

Posted by kinaidos on February 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM

It's only "an 'istoric" if you're 'enry 'iggins.

Posted by brent on February 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Christopher,
the only thing that is slippery/flexible/magic is you trying to stretch more copy out of a poorly thought through thesis that Obama's election was not historical (or maybe you thought it was historical, i am not sure because the argument in your article was pretty muddled).
maybe you should cut your loses, and let this "historic" thing of yours go into the dustbin of...

Posted by Ralph on February 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM

@10,

No, if you're Eliza Doolittle.

Posted by keshmeshi on February 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Y'gotta wait another 50 years to find out what this defining moment in our history is defining???

Meanwhile, Starbucks goes into the instant coffee business. Instantly!!! That's a defining moment!

Posted by RonK, Seattle on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM