Language desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 25

"adopted"

I'm reading a short story (I think it takes place in the 1970s) where an Englishman comes home and excitedly tells his wife "I've been adopted!"

She asks him, "Whatever for?".

And he replies, "As liberal candidate in North Zero" which he then explains is near Cornwall (he will have to move).

What does "adopted" mean in this context? Does it mean nominated for some political candidacy? What do you think this character is running for?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is going to run for Parliament for the Liberal party (now part of the Lid Dems) in that constituency (fictional). So in a sense he has been adopted by the party like a parent would adopt a child. It is not standard usage though. 'Selected' would be normal here. Fgf10 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edition, has "to choose formally (e.g. a candidate)" among the meanings of adopt. I have to say, to my ear adopted sounds more normal than selected in this sense. DuncanHill (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree, but "selected" may imply that some sort of procedure, such as a vote, has been used to choose the candidate from a group; whereas "adopted" is less transparent and leaves it open as to the method used and the number of candidates to choose from. (For accuracy, the party referred to in the typo above is Lib Dems (Liberal Democrats).) Bazza (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Selected" does not imply any such thing. DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand Bazza's point. We sometimes say "drafted" in USA in this context. Maybe you use it in UK. But all synonyms have different connotations to different people. Selected, for some people, might have subtle connotations that some objective process such as counting votes, picking the person with a highest rating of some kind, or even randomly drawing a name out of a hat was employed. But drafted (although a loose synonym of select) does not connote such a process to the degree that "select" does, at least to me.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a look at Liberal Party (UK) for more context. Marco polo (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard terminology. There is a "selection meeting" at which the constituency party members hear the candidates (and possibly their wives) and then vote. The candidate with the most votes is selected, and then is formally adopted as the prospective parliamentary candidate for the constituency by motion, which the Secretary will record in the minutes. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is standard - see Gerald Vernon-Jackson adopted as Candidate, Sophy Gardner formally adopted as Labour's candidate and Maria Caulfield adopted as Conservative candidate selected randomly from hundreds of similar articles. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In Australia it's always "pre-selected". Never just "selected" and never "adopted". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French translation

Pendant que j'étais à Taravai, après les funérailles de Joseph Gregorio II, la Reine mère s'avisa, de concert avec le Régent, de briser ce corps du vénéré Grégorio Ier si bien conservé pour le mettre dans une malle destinée à contenir des effets ! Ce fait est regrettable, et il prouve une fois de plus que les indigènes ne peuvent pas marcher seuls dans le maniement des affaires. A la mort du jeune Roi, le peuple, voyant la dynastie éteinte à cause qu'à Mangaréva le sceptre ne tombe jamais en quenouille, eut diverses pensées. Les uns voulaient qu'on se mit en Régence, en attendant un héritier de la part des deux filles survivantes, et ce fut le sentiment qui fut suivi ; mais d'autres songeaient à se mettre en république, à la façon des grandes nations.

Can someone please help translate this passage better than google translate?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Taravai, after the funerals of Joseph Gregorio II, the queen mother told me, together with the regent, to break up the corpse of the hallowed Gregorio I that had been so well preserved, and to place it into a trunk designed to contain personal effects ! This fact is regrettable and proves once again that the natives cannot be left alone to handle matters. When the young king died, the people, seeing that the dynasty was extinguished because in Mangaréva, the scepter never falls to the distaff (meaning, because the throne can only pass to a male heir), had many thoughts. Some wanted a regency to be proclaimed while waiting for a male heir to be produced by one of the two surviving daughters, and that was the notion that prevailed. But others thought that they should become a republic, as other great nations had done." --Xuxl (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That google translation was actually not bad - I only read it after producing my own. --Xuxl (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "la Reine mère m'avisa" but "la Reine mère s'avisa". You seem to have translated as if it was the former. So for that bit my translation would be "the queen mother decided/conceived/got into her mind, together/in cooperation with the regent, to break up the corpse etc." Contact Basemetal here 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal, You are correct; I was working too fast. "The Queen Mother decided, together with the regent, to break up the corpse..." would be a straightforward translation (the original text's style is somewhat stilted, which is nos surprising for formal writing from the 19th century". --Xuxl (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're so right. The French of this text is certainly "désuet". All the more surprising then that the Google translation was (at least relatively) so good. Are they getting closer to a really useful translation engine, at least for French? Or is this a one off? What's the general experience with French? How about Spanish? I think everyone agrees that for languages such as Japanese what comes out is still almost unusable gibberish. Contact Basemetal here 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The distaff and male heir part portion was the most crucial in understanding the succession.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What accent is this?

I am listening to an audiobook narrated by noted English actor Reece Shearsmith.

He's a great performer, but one quirk I find distracting is every time there an "s" in the middle of the word (never the beginning) immediately followed by any type of "u" sound, he very clearly turns the "s" into a "sh" or a "zh".

To give two examples, there's one major character in the book named Ursula. Every time he says her name, he very distinctly pronounces it "Ursh-a-la". Also, the verb "resume" is pronounced "ree-zhoom".

I'm American, and no English people I've seen on TV or met in person or spoken to on the phone use this pronunciation. Or maybe they do, and I have never noticed until now.

Is this a recognized accent in English, or some idiosyncrasy (or even speech impediment) of the actor? --Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English and the only thing I can think of is Steve McClaren's notorious attempt to ingratiate himself to the Dutch public by speaking English with a comedy Dutch accent ("I am very exshited to manage thish football cloob"). To properly answer your question, not as far as I know. It may be an idiosyncrasy of the actor, perhaps a self-conscious attempt to avoid lisping. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the steady degradation of the language. In Elizabethan times we got the word "nation", for example, from Latin natione (or Old French, as some say). The pronunciation was NAY-SEE-ON - we know that from the metre of Elizabethan verse. Then the vowel disappeared and it became NAY-SHUN. "Alicia" became Alysha, "sure" became shore, "measure" became mezher and so on. People shouldn't pronounce "Ursula" and "resume" that way, but they do, and the language is the worse for it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language is different for it. There is no moral value in linguistic variation. --Jayron 32 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the language has been degraded by not saying NAY-SEE-ON? Presumably, the Latin would be NAT-ee-own-ay. So it's the French who started it. I bet you don't pronounce the e in words like rained. Or stress revenue on the second syllable. Myrvin (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I hear someone carefully say "sek-syu-əl" rather than "sek-shu-əl", I have the impression the speaker has a theoretical idea of what sex is, but has never done it. Or has, but found it icky and unpleasant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common to realise the sequence /sju/ (as in sue, issue, assume) as [ʃu] in British English, by a normal process of assimilation (and /zju/ similarly as [ʒu], in resume). I think that for some people this assimilation is found even in careful speech, but I may be wrong about this.

I don't hear that regularly in British English. Perhaps it's regional? Dbfirs 16:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All but the most patrician American accents also use the "sh" sound in issue, but I haven't heard anyone use that sound in sue, assume, resume or Ursula. When you explain it those terms, it makes sense how and why the transformation occurs, but it still sounds very unfamiliar to my ears.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled for years by Tom Lehrer's crack about "Sessyu Hayakawa" until it hit me that he mispronounced Sessue by analogy with issue. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And later I learned that his stage name in Japanese was indeed Sesshū ~ Sessyū. Wow. —Tamfang (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Urshula" reminds me of Sean Connery, if that helps. μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Yod-coalescence (version of 02:18, 9 May 2015).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And [1] Myrvin (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For issue, the OED gives Brit. /ˈɪʃ(j)uː/ , /ˈɪsjuː/ , U.S. /ˈɪʃ(j)u/ The first seems to be the sh sound. Myrvin (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country names

Why do we anglicise the names of countries? For instance, Germany, in German, is Deutschland; in Portuguese Brazil is Brasil, yet in English it's Brazil. Surely it's more respectful to simply refer to countries as the inhabitants of those countries choose to do so. Thanks in advance --Andrew 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be respectful? Do Germans and Brazilians enjoy hearing their vowels mangled? Would Germans and Brazilians be expected to reciprocate? And what about countries with many languages? Do we impose our choice of which language to regard as correct when naming the country? DuncanHill (talk) 14:53,

Well the overwhelming majority of countries have an official language, and even in those where there are two,the language with the largest number of speakers should be used; if we were taught in school what those names were and how to say them in the correct tongue, I don't see why pronounciation would be an issue? And of course they'd be expected to reciprocate, it would make learning the names of countries across the world much easier if there were no English, German, Portuguese etc. equivalents of what to call them--Andrew 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same principle for people too; why should, for example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, be Isabel II do Reino Unido in Portuguese. That might be her name and title if she were Portuguese, but she isn't so why not call her by the name of her native language? There doesn't seem to be any obvious logic to it--Andrew 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any logic to it. Language doesn't ask permission. --Jayron 32 05:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have some coverage of this issue at Exonym_and_endonym#Controversies_and_complications. You might also be interested in reading about how some of the English exonyms came about at List_of_country-name_etymologies. Not all of them are simply "anglicised." You are certainly correct that many people prefer to be referred to by their own endonyms. For instance the Romani people seem to generally prefer that term to the pejorative gypsy, for perhaps obvious reasons. Going the other way, there are probably many Canadians and Mexicans (and Brazilians, Panamanians, etc) that get annoyed when people from the USA refer to themselves as "Americans", despite the fact that there are about 20 other sovereign countries in The Americas. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Mexicans, but I think most other Canadians would agree with me that it's annoying to be told we should have that attitude. We need a demonym and adjective for the US much more than we need one for the Americas, and we have one: "American". So please don't try to take it away from us. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typical selfish Canadian attitude! μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 other sovereign countries? Americas says: "There are 35 sovereign states in the Americas, as well as an autonomous country of Denmark, three overseas departments of France, three overseas collectivities of France, and one uninhabited territory of France, eight overseas territories of the United Kingdom, three constituent countries of the Netherlands, three public bodies of the Netherlands, two unincorporated territories of the United States, and one uninhabited territory of the United States." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

While there's some tendency to do that (e.g. Côte d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast, or the fact that Beijing has become more common than Peking, even though the English pronunciation of that name is hardly identical to its Chinese pronunciation) that can't be done systematically. Many of those names have in the original languages sounds that do not even exist in English. Would you want, for example, to force all English speakers to use tones when they pronounce the names of Chinese cities? Besides those names are part of the English language (or the French language or the German language, which do the same, like all other languages) just like any other word. And there's nothing disrespectful about them unless the name in English is somehow insulting, a situation of which I know no common example. So what you're proposing is both impractical and unnecessary. Contact Basemetal here 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note: there's a difference between really and imaginarily insulting. I've once met a Turk who insisted English-speakers used "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey" because he didn't like the association with the Thanksgiving bird. But the name of the country was not designed in English to suggest the bird. It's the other way around: the bird (originally actually the guinea fowl, not the common turkey) was named after the country. Contact Basemetal here 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peking/Beijing is not really a name difference, just a matter of Romanization_of_Chinese method - in other words, the name is the same, we just have a few ways of writing it. More definite examples would be Persia/Iran, and Ceylon/Sri Lanka, both of which asked nicely that the world use their own endonyms, rather than exonyms. I'm pretty sure it's more respectful to obey a countries publicly stated preference, and even if I can't say "Sri Lanka" the way that Sri Lankan's do, it's better than saying "Ceylon". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But the OP's examples (Brasil vs Brazil) are not of that order. However you're right there are other more legitimate cases than the examples adduced by the OP. Contact Basemetal here 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples: Myanmar vs Burma, Thailand vs Siam, Benin vs Dahomey, Burkina Faso vs Haute Volta, Zaire (when it was Zaire) vs Congo (now it reverted back to Congo), etc. Again what the OP was talking about was a bit different. Contact Basemetal here 15:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not realistic to expect people to master the pronunciation of multiple foreign languages just so that they can pronounce the name of each country as it is pronounced in the language with the most speakers in that country. As it is, most English speakers fail to pronounce even the most commonly used foreign words as they are pronounced in their language of origin. It is the standard practice, and universally accepted, that each country's name differs from one language to another. Hardly anyone takes offense at the different names for his or her country in foreign languages. In those few cases, such as Sri Lanka or Benin, where a country's government has adopted a different name as the country's official name, I agree that we should show respect by coming as close as we can to that name without attempting vowels or consonants that don't occur in English, but in the cases of Germany or Brazil, those governments have not made such a request, and I suspect most Germans would prefer that we don't use English phonemes to pronounce Doichland. Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1917 there was a spelling reform in Portugal, and a very similar one in Brazil. In the velha orthographia (old spelling) the word was "Brazil" - it appears on century - old postage stamps. In the nova ortografia (new spelling) it's "Brasil", but as pointed out above English doesn't change its spelling conventions easily. Some of these are quirky - auto da fe is a Portuguese term used by the English to denote the Spanish inquisition. "Mozambique" is the Spanish spelling adopted into English for what was a Portuguese colony - maybe they couldn't get their tongues round the cedilha. The word "Seychelles" is an attempt to transliterate the name of this Portuguese colony - seis ilhas (six islands). Monsoon, Cameroon and Ceylon are very good renditions of the originals - I suspect "typhoon" is a Portuguese word as well. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are well made, but the OED says typhoon comes through the Portuguese from Urdu ṭūfān (a violent storm of wind and rain); and the Chinese tai fung (big wind). Myrvin (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think speakers of a language always adapt foreign words to their own standards--even proper nouns. By the way, this is not one-sided: other languages do the same with English-language names: England is Angleterre in French, London is Londra in Italian, etc. There are plenty of official foreign websites that offer English versions, and they tend to use the "English" versions of their own names. For example, on the German government's English-language page, they will talk about "Germany," not "Deutschland," though they have the discretion to do that if they want. Herbivore (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are many examples of place names being adapted around the world. The tendency is to use a more local versin of the name where possible but not (yet?) where a name is very well entrenched, like Germany for Deutschland. Vietnamese, for example, had a whole set of words derived from Chinese for various countries. Many of those remain, like Anh for Britain and Phap for France, but for other places the native name or English name is used straight, even though it is quite different from Vietnamese spelling conventions, and to older generations may seem completely unpronounceable. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An hypothesis

Closing this, as some editors keep treating this thread as if it was meant to result in a binding decision on a style issue on Wikipedia. This is not the place to make such a decision, hence this discussion is disruptive. If you think there is something to be decided, please take it to WT:MOS. However, I highly doubt a thread there would be constructive either. It is obvious that both "a hypothesis" and "an hypothesis" are an accepted part of careful formal English; hence both are legitimate on Wikipedia, and any attempt by any editor or group of editors to impose their own preference at the expense of others in such a matter would be ipso facto inacceptable and disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am involved in a discussion in Talk:Scientific method about the use of 'an' in front of 'hypothesis'. Some early editor wrote 'an hypothesis' and recently it was turned into 'a hypothesis' with the edit comment: '"An" is used for words which are pronounced with an initial vowel, thus "a history" vs. "an honor", "A hypothesis" is correct, not "An...")". I reverted the edit because I found evidence that the stated rule was not always valid and there were words such as 'hypothesis' and 'hotel' that could be preceded by 'an'. Another editor has reverted my revert with the comment: "Correct based on a minority use, about 25% in British English, but both the rules of std North Am. Eng and 94% of users prefer "an"." and I have reverted again - partly because the comment was confusing. I would welcome comments on this usage. Myrvin (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be somewhat surprised to hear someone say "an hypothesis" with the h sounded. Native speaker of British English. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've never heard the "h" omitted from hypothesis here in careful speech in England. This might be a "pondian" issue like "herb" where Americans would correctly write "an herb" (pronounced "a nerb") but in British English it would be "a herb". If you pronounce it as "an i-pothesis", then you might use "an", but is this standard in the US? Wiktionary suggests not. Dbfirs 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is about the pronunciation without the aitch sound. If you read my comments on the Talk page, you will see that 'hotel' and 'hypothesis' are often preceded by 'an', without dropping the 'h'. Myrvin (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this. "An hotel" carefully pronouncing the "h" would be a German - type pronunciation which we don't do in England. It always comes out anotel. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit comment is correct. And ^{[citation needed]} on "94% of users prefer "an"". Interestingly, prior to ~1920, "An hypothesis" was used more that "A hyptothesis" in Google's corpus of books [2], but of course today "a hypothesis" is much more commonly used. I don't know if people were pronouncing the 'h' back then, but we certainly mostly do now. It's not like this is analogous to "an herb" in AmEng compared to "a herb" in BrEng. I've checked OED [3], Miriam Webster [4], and Wiktionary [5], none of them even give an h-less pronunciation for 'hypothesis' as an option. Heck, as far as I can tell even the ancient Greeks would have pronounced an initial 'h' sound - ὑποτίθημι. Anyway, as a scientist who reads and writes this sort of thing quite often, "a hypothesis" is usually the more common phrase in the modern academic literature, though "an hypothesis" does still occur. English_articles#Distinction_between_a_and_an as well as these two English guides [6] [7] both support "a hypothesis" as the preferred form. There might be some mention of the article usage at WP:MOS but I didn't see it at a glance. The point is, while 'an hypothesis' might strictly be defensible, it sounds weird to most speakers, and adds unnecessary confusion over the pronunciation. Why bother? Just use the far more common form. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In WP, 'an hypothesis' appears about 200 times, and 'an hotel' about 300. That Google thing is amazing! Should we be altering another editor's preference because we think it sounds weird, even though it is defensible? Myrvin (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ngrams are cool, and so are general google searches. But WP usage isn't WP:RS, because WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. See my additional evidence below. Anyway, if you do want to use WP usage as a guide, note that "a hypothesis" occurs in over 5,000 WP articles [8]. An no, you should ignore my preference, and ignore your preference, and use the standards of the academic publishing industry. I shouldn't have said "sounds weird", that is irrelevant. I would encourage you to fight for your right to prefer "an hypothesis" in school papers, work reports, or even if you submit to academic journals. In this case though, you are not the sole author, and so what you or I prefer doesn't matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence that 'a hypothesis' should be the preferred form on WP: "an hypothesis" occurs in 45k academic papers published 2000-2015 (google scholar [9]), while "a hypothesis" occurs in 749k articles [10]. So this much is clear: In modern academic publishing, "a hypothesis" is preferred to "an hypothesis" by a factor of about 16 to 1. Why go against the standards that the academic publishing world uses? Just use "a hypothesis", it's the most correct thing to do. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regional variation, but does follow the the "'an' before vowel" rule for both variations. In some dialects, many words starting with 'h' but strongly accented on the second syllable are sounded without the initial 'h' in connected speech; thus: "an hypothesis" vs "a hypothetical result"; or "an historical account" vs "a history", "a historicity argument". -- Elphion (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. It is something to do with unstressed aitches. There's also 'an heretical'. I think the aitch is not so much unsounded as sounded less. My comments on WP were not supposed to be evidence for correctness, more an idea of what is going on and how much work there would be to alter it all. I don't think a mere 16:1 preference makes one correct and the other not. It's not much o a standard if so many do not follow it. It suggests that a minority (and we don't know who they are) would prefer a valid alternative. By the way, this is not about MY preference. I don't know which I prefer and I suspect I have used both. I checked my PhD thesis, which was all about theories and hypotheses. I never used 'an hypothesis', always 'a hypothesis'. The question is, should we ban 'an hypothesis'? Myrvin (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we probably shouldn't "ban" using "an hypothesis", but even if we wanted to, this isn't the place to try. 16:1 is reflective of the style guides used in academic publishing. I don't think we need to embark on an entire mission to make WP go all one way or the other, but when an editor changed the article to make it more consistent with the rest of WP, as well as more consistent with the academic publishing world, you chose to revert that change. I have to wonder why, if not your preference? I've given tons of evidence that "a hypothesis" is preferred, while admitting that "an hypothesis" is tolerated. You have given no evidence that "an hypothesis" is preferred by any style guide or publishing body. So why fight for using a less common and possibly confusing form in this article? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have to become personal. I think it's something to do with fighting for their right to say it. If something is tolerated, that means we don't change it. I reverted the edits because I disagreed with the reasons given for them. We could also alter all split infinitives because some style guide says they shouldn't exist. Myrvin (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like a challenge. Here are some style guides that use 'an hypothesis': [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]. Bored now!.Myrvin (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making it personal, it seemed to me that it was personal to you, since you were involved in the initial dispute (and I of course was not.) I just got interested, wondering why on Earth anyone would revert an edit like that, making it seem as though you were preferring a rare and confusing form over a common and widely used form. Anyway, none of those style guides says that "an hypothesis" is to be preferred. Rather, they are just talking about hypotheses while they themselves are using what I think is an antiquated "rule." Not one of them discusses the issue in the light of "an historical" as-compared-to "a historical." See my OED quote below. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, a book that calls itself a guide to writing that actually uses 'an hypothesis' is to be disregarded just because it doesn't say "I prefer to use it"? Myrvin (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, but I do think it's less compelling than if it were explicitly addressed. It's sort of a Use–mention distinction issue. There's something different between saying "'an hypothesis' is the way to refer to hypotheses" and "An hypothesis can be supported but not proven", don't you think? Also many of them aren't really about style per se, but moreso guides on how to structure your paper, build paragraphs, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's either "an" with the following aitch being silent, or "a" with the following aitch being pronounced. Any other option is absolutely ungrammatical, no matter whether it's "hotel" or "hypothesis", so whoever says "an hotel" (or "an hypothesis") - while pronouncing the aitch - is simply wrong. I wonder how such an issue can ever be controversial.

Personally, I say "a hypothesis" in a slow speech (while pronouncing the aitch of course), but (perhaps not sure) I may also say "an hypothesis" in a fluent speech (with a silent aitch of course). I assume everybody agrees that when writing proffesional articles, one should prefer the style of the slow speech. Really this does not mean the style of fluent speech should be ruled out in Wikipedia's articles, but still - the style of slow speech should be recommended (e.g. "I have" should be recommended and preferred to "I've" - in Wikipedia's articles, although "I've" shouldn't be ruled out in them). Anyways, I'm not going to tell anybody whether they should pronounce the aitch in a slow speech. HOOTmag (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read Common English usage misconceptions and English usage controversies. Myrvin (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which section(s)? I hope you didn't intend to send me to the whole article(s). Btw, I added another section to my previous response. HOOTmag (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just the general bits about how usage myths abound, and the Prescription and description part. You seemed to have a strong prescriptive feeling about such things. Apparently, there are over 45,000 academic authors ~~that~~who disagree with you. Linguistic prescription says "Linguistic prescription (or prescriptivism) is the practice of elevating one variety or manner of language use over another. It may imply some forms are incorrect, improper, illogical, lack communicative effect, or are of low aesthetic value". Myrvin (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong twice: first of all - when you claim there are 45,000 academic authors that disagree with me, second - when you consider me as a prescriptivist - although I'm absolutely not. As for the first mistake: can you give me one (not 45,000 but only one) academic article that uses "a hypothesis" with a silent aitch, or uses "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch? As for the second mistake: If I had been a prescriptivist, I would have ruled out - in a slow speech (or in academic articles) - "an hypothesis" with a silent aitch, but I've never done that (as you can realize by reading the first section of my previous response) - because I'm not a prescriptivist. If I had been a prescriptivist, I would have ruled out academic articles written in a style of fluent speech, but I've never done that (as you can realize by reading the second section of my previous response) - because I'm not a prescriptivist. Anyways, you don't have to be a prescriptivist in order to think that there are some ungrammatical forms of style, e.g. "You is a person". Would you accept such a sentence in Wikipedia's articles?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did write " Any other option is absolutely ungrammatical, no matter whether it's "hotel" or "hypothesis", so whoever says "an hotel" (or "an hypothesis") - while pronouncing the aitch - is simply wrong.". That looks very prescriptive to me. What would an article with silent aitches look like? Another contributor found over 45,000 articles that had 'an hypothesis'. Myrvin (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated in my previous response, you don't have to be a prescriptivist in order to think that there are some absolutely ungrammatical forms of style, e.g. "You is a person" (or "a hypothesis" with a silent aitch or "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch). Would you accept "You is a person" in Wikipedia's articles? As for the 45,000 articles: Again, I've never ruled out "an hypothesis" in academic articles (I've only ruled out "a hypothesis" with a silent aitch and "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch). As for your question: "What would an article with silent aitches look like?" I don't think there are academic articles from which we can infer whether their authors pronounce the aitch - as long as they don't tell us whether they do. HOOTmag (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not turn this in to a discussion of the relative merits of linguistic decriptivism vs. prescriptivism. We have WP:MOS, and when you come to the ref desk asking about language usage, you can pretty much assume you'll get answers from a more prescriptive vein. I did make it a point to also cover the descriptive side as well, indicating that one form is clearly preferred in academic publishing and on WP itself. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the OED

“

Is it ‘a historical document’ or ‘an historical document’? ‘A hotel’ or ‘an hotel’? There is still some divergence of opinion over which form of the indefinite article should be used before words that begin with h- and have an unstressed first syllable. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people often did not pronounce the initial h for these words, and so an was commonly used. Today the h is pronounced, and so it is logical to use a rather than an. However, the indefinite article an is still encountered before the h in both British and American English, particularly with historical: in the Oxford English Corpus around a quarter of examples of historical are preceded with an rather than a.

”

[18], emphasis mine. So we have predominance of academic usage and the OED itself weighing in favor of "a hypothesis" over "an hypothesis". I would additionally suggest that "an hypothesis" is confusing, because, by analogy to "an honor", it may indicate an incorrect pronunciation of "hypothesis". Look, I'm no one to blindly follow prescriptive rules for no reason. But writing "an hypothesis" is bordering on hypercorrection. Logic and consistency support "a hypothesis." OED says 'an [h-word]' was only used when words were pronounced h-less. So those are all my reasons for thinking "a hypothesis" is actually better. Do you have any reasons that "an hyptothesis" is better? If not, then I'd think this would be a simple and uncontroversial change. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OED is just wrong in proclaiming that haitch-less hypotheses are history. I hear them all the time. I have no idea how prevalent they are in English world-wide, but they're not dead. -- Elphion (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE

We have kicked this around a lot, so I think it's time for a vote:

When reading an article, should we alter 'an hypothesis' to 'a hypothesis'?
If we spot an edit that changes 'an hypothesis' to 'a hypothesis', are we justified in reverting that edit?
Should there be a Wikipedia guideline that says 'a hypothesis' is preferred to 'an hypothesis'?
Should there be a WP guideline that allows 'an hypothesis'?
Should there be a WP guideline that suggests that it is not a good idea to alter one for the other?

Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a democracy. So we can "not vote ~ !vote" on your options, but they're not binding to anything. Are you planning on editing WP:MOS? If so, I'd think it would be appropriate to discuss on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style as well. Anyway, my !votes are:

yes
no
probably, don't really care
No. Anything not disallowed is allowed, no need. Also WP:NORULES
maybe? I wonder how many times similar conversations have been had before. But I still think no.

This is in some ways parallel to some of the edit wars that happen over gendered pronouns, singular "they", etc etc. You might want to look around for some of that to see how it's been resolved in the past. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with S-M above. Dbfirs 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on 2, and I'm not quite sure I agree on 1 either. When two versions are equal, the status quo ante should be preferred. It is justified to revert an edit that is not an improvement, even if that edit doesn't make anything worse. Edits should make things better, or they should be reverted. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I misread. I thought the hypothesized edit was the other direction. In that case, yes, I agree on 2, but still not sure about 1. --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 Already exists. It's called WP:ENGVAR. It has been settled policy for a decade or more. This is not the forum to change it. --Jayron 32 22:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comment

Except that ENGVAR refers to "national varieties of English" and the leading standard references for the British and USAmerican varieties of English agree that it is "a hypothesis". "An hypothesis" is a subnational variant in some regional varieties of British English. Isn't Wikipedia meant to be written in one national standard version of English or another? Of course, if "an hypothesis" turned out to be standard in New Zealand, which would be surprising, I guess we would have to let New Zealanders use that form. Marco polo (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of ENGVAR is "don't edit war over acceptable variations within the English language". If "an hypothesis" is an acceptable and recognized formation in English, one should not demand its change (and neither should one demand the change of "a hypothesis" if it also is an acceptable and recognized formation). English does not have an official authority on usage, and while we should stick to widely-held standard forms and dialects, and avoid forms which carry colloquial, slang, or non-standard connotations, where there exists an acceptable form, we need not change from it to another acceptable form. That's what ENGVAR is trying to do, not limit the "officially endorsed" lexicons of various varieties of English to a closed and immutable set of "acceptable" words and phrases and grammars, which of course don't exist. --Jayron 32 05:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question now, is not whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the expression "an hypothesis" is acceptable, but rather whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the initial aitch of "hypothesis" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech (which is of course the model of academic style). If there is such an acceptable variety (just as there is an acceptable variety in which the initial aitch of "historic" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech), then editors - should be allowed to use in Wikipedia their acceptable variety which avoids sounding the aitch in a careful slow speech and - are consequently allowed to write "an hypothesis" in the academic articles of Wikipedia. However, if there's no acceptable variety in which the initial aitch of "hypothesis" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech (just as there is no acceptable variety in which the form "I don't have no idea" is acceptable in any careful slow speech), then articles in Wikipedia should avoid using expressions like "an hypothesis" - which prevents the readers from sounding the initial aitch. Anyways, I think it's quite easy to answer the relevant question mentioned above, by looking up on acceptable dictionaries which give the pronunciation of words in acceptable varieties of English. HOOTmag (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what I say and inserting a few inconsequential words is not disagreement. I have not said anything which could possibly be construed as needing for you to disagree with me over what you have chosen to represent as a disagreement. I'm not registering an opinion as to the validity of "an hypothesis" or "a hypothesis", just merely on whether or not reliable sources indicate a usage is acceptable. That's all. Adding words "careful" and "slow" doesn't actually change what written reliable sources say anyways. --Jayron 32 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why one should invent disagreements that have not existed. Note that I've never intended to express any disagreement with your opinion that had dealt - with the meaning of "variety of English" - rather than with what I dealt with later about the "relevant question". I've just presented my own opinion about what the relevant question is, so if you share with me the same opinion about what is relevant and what is not - while I share with you the same opinion about how the concept of "variety of English" should be interpreted, then I can't see how any disagreement can evolve from that. HOOTmag (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am, of course, with User:Jayron32 here. Wikipedia is a written work based on written sources. It doesn't matter how various sources choose to pronounce words, just how they write them. It has been shown that there are at least 45,000 modern, written, reliable sources that use the construct 'an hypothesis'. The fact that there may be a whole load of other sources that do not, would appear to be irrelevant. The 'an' construct is acceptable and should be left alone. Myrvin (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am, of course, with User:HOOTmag (i.e. with myself) here... :-)

Look, if we want to write an academic article about the hair gel, and somebody finds - not 46,000 - but rather 346,000 modern written reliable sources containing the expression "an gel", as opposed to some millions modern written reliable sources containing the expression "a gel", then you will probably claim: "Those 346,000 sources are sufficient for using 'an' before 'gel' in our academic article about the hair gel", whereas I will add: "unless we prove those sources - have meant 'angel' - while mistakenly inserting a blank space between the 'an' and the 'gel'...".

Similarly, if somebody finds 46,000 modern written reliable sources containing the expression "an hypothesis", as opposed to to some millions modern written reliable sources containing the expression "a hypothesis", you will probably claim: "Those 46,000 sources are sufficient for using 'an' before 'hypothesis' in our academic article about the Scientific method", whereas I will add: "unless we prove the authors of those sources pronounce the initial aitch of hypothesis; Once we prove that, we can easily prove that those authors have mistakenly added an "n" after the 'a'...".

Really, I've never claimed that those authors really pronounce the initial aitch of 'hypothesis', however I do claim that - the examples mentioned above prove that - the relevant question here is whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the initial aitch of "hypothesis" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech (which is of course the model of academic style), rather than whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the expression "an hypothesis" is acceptable.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep leaning on that, without mentioning the 16:1 preference for "a hyptohesis". If hits on google scholar are support for little-used forms, then shall we also not change "intensive purposes" [19], or "agressive" (58k hits [20]), or "accross" [21], "existance" [22], etc? Some of these have more hits than "an hyptothesis", but I don't think anyone would argue that "agressive" is an ENGVAR issue. If I see "agressive" in an article, I will change it to "aggressive." This matter is not so different. I certainly agree with Marco Polo that "an hypothesis" is not a part of any national variety of English. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "loads". I was really buoyed up by those figures. I expected 'an' to be used by many fewer. Myrvin (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever says "an historical" does not sound the aitch. HOOTmag (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really true. Americans almost always pronounce the h (at least, as you say, in careful speech), but nevertheless sometimes say "an historic event" when speaking in a sufficiently formal context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your "OED" quote: "However, the indefinite article an is still encountered before the h in both British and American English, particularly with historical: in the Oxford English Corpus around a quarter of examples of historical are preceded with an rather than a." This suggests that it is in use, and not some sort of mistake. By the way, the quote doesn't seem to be from the actual OED (I couldn't find it there}, but from the Oxford Dictionaries website - easy mistake. The OED does have 'an hypothesis' in a recent quote for 'hypothesis' (1951), and it has (in the def's for 'a'): "1947 M. E. Boylan This Tremendous Lover (new ed.) iv. 35 They could be understood in an heretical or in a pantheistic sense. 2006 Lancs. Life Feb. 75/2 An historic family estate in Little CrosbyMyrvin (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a preference, doesn't make the opposite wrong. Minorities should also be heard.Myrvin (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now becoming very suspicious of the use of those Google stats. The idea is that, because 'a hypothesis' appears many times more often than 'an hypothesis', we should alter 'an hypothesis' to 'a hypothesis'. If you try those Google ngram stats with 'applesauce' and 'apple sauce'[23], you'll find that the former is preferred to the latter. Does this mean that we should alter all examples of 'apple sauce' to 'applesauce'? There must be tons of other examples. [24] [25] [26] What your stats did show is that 'an hypothesis' is definitely in use. For 'a historical' versus 'an historical', the Google scholar search [27] [28] shows them not that much different (about 1.6:1). What does this say about the 'a' before a sounded aitch theory?Myrvin (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally look at stats from Google Scholar in a totally different light than ngrams or regular google. In ngrams, we don't really know anything about the sources, other than that they were scanned or acquired by google at some point. I wouldn't use normal google hits to support or deny anything. I normally wouldn't even put much weight on google scholar, but in this case I felt that it would reflect usage in academic, peer-reviewed publications (as certainly most (but not all of GS hits are for peer-reviewed journal articles)). I also never said that we should alter on to the other, I said that we should prefer on form -- there's a difference. As you said, preferring one doesn't make the other "wrong". I totally agree that it's not worth edit-warring over. I'm still not convinced it comes under WP:ENGVAR, but perhaps in this case it's easier to just act like it does. I do still fear that "an hypothesis" leads to the false inference that "hypothesis" is commonly and correctly pronounced aitchlessly (there's a word I never through I'd write). Even if we acknowledge that the aitchless pronunciation exists, nobody has yet to show any dictionary that lists it as a viable alternate pronunciation. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The peculiar expression "an hypothesis", as with expressions like "an historic" only work if you treat the "h" as silent or nearly so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

I think that this question is a real and important dispute within WP. I propose we ask for a resolution on WP:DRN. Myrvin (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's really even a dispute like that. It's mostly just you and I discussing, with a few other comments from others thrown in. It's not like we are actually edit warring over it (I still haven't touched the article, have you?). If this gets taken anywhere else, I'd think Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style would be the place, as I've said above. You could also post at WP:3O to get more eyes on it. It's not just one instance, it's a whole style issue, a could in principle affect many articles, so any consensus clarification or resolution would have to go to MOS to have any lasting impact. If the MOS discussion goes sour, then maybe DRN would be called for. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on a/an before "hypothesis"

We should consult professionally compiled sources on this matter. I've noted 1) whether the source covered "hypothesis" specifically or just a/n before h and 2) the national variety of each source (if any) so we can see if there really is a British/American split on this matter. Anyone who wants to may add to any of these lists. ~~If a source says that both are acceptable, I would put it in both lists.~~ Since allowing both is among our options, I've added a category specifically for sources that do both. I like to put the most reliable sources on top. Both style guides (ACS says "do this") and actual publications (Nature does this) are relevant. Do not feel obliged to follow my exact format; it's a starting point, not a requirement. I'm acting under the assumption that, because the first syllable of "hypothesis" is unstressed, a source that uses "an" for "historian" or other unstressed examples would also use it for "hypothesis." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Because people have said that the "an hypothesis" rule is antiquated, I've given the year of publication of guides that use it. My own opinion is that anything written before the rise of the internet might be outdated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that use "a" before "hypothesis"

Oxforddictionaries.com (not strictly the OED, general) US [29] and British [30]
American Heritage Dictionary [31] (American) (general)
Nature uses "a hypothesis" exclusively - no instances of "an hypothesis" in Nature are indexed by Google Scholar [32] (British)
Science uses "a hypothesis" exclusively - no instances of "an hypothesis" in Science are indexed by Google Scholar [33] (American)
PloS ONE uses "a hypothesis" exclusively - no instances of "an hypothesis" in PloS ONE are indexed by Google Scholar [34]
Purdue Online Writing Lab (general, specifically discusses "an honor") [35]

Sources that use "an" before "hypothesis"

Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words [36] (specific) (2010)
Student's Guide to Writing College Papers Fourth Edition [37] (specific) (2010)

Sources that allow or use both "a" and "an" with "hypothesis"

Proceedings of the Royal Society (British) has only used "an" once in Google Scholar's index [38] (British)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences allows "an" (80 "a" to 3 "an) [39] (American)
NASA [40] [41] (American)
Grammarly [42] (specific)
LinguistLaura [43] (specific)

The heart of the matter

This is a simple question. As for myself, I speak traditional RP with silent Hs, as in "an otel", "an ereditary", "an ypothesis", &c. However, when I write, I write in the most common form today, which is "a hotel", &c. There are British dialects that hold onto the silent Hs, which were once much more common. However, modern orthography and most modern dialects of British English (along with other English varieties) have essentially standardised on the voiced H with "a". Therefore, per WP:COMMONALITY, the "a" form should be preferred. I do not think that people should go around mass changing "an" to "a", as is the case with most things on Wikipedia. We certainly do not need a guideline on this matter. For a note of amusement, I would like to present the fact that this very question has plagued even Her Majesty's Peers of the Realm. Despite being a bastion of traditional pronunciation, e.g. "an h", the Lords rejected an amendment to use "an hereditary" in legislation. If the "a h" spelling has found victory in the Lords, it is quite clear that "an h" has been defeated. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting the COMMONALITY section of WP:MOS. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the aspirate is a red herring. Also, WP:COMMONALITY, seems to be about words rather than grammar. The Lords debate is quite interesting. I see that about a half of the peers voted for 'an'. I suppose they have to make a decision of whether to allow it or not. We can have both. Myrvin (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Proc. Roy. Soc. and PNAS both have allowed "an hypothesis", but both seem to prefer "a hypothesis" judging frequency of use. That says this might not be a pondian split, as these are two of the leading general science journals in the world, UK/USA respectively. Conversely, the origin of the journal does not tell us the origin of the authors. I know that many British journals (e.g. any published by BES [44]) will demand British spellings, even if all authors are non-UK. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A red herring too. If these publications/organizations did not allow 'an' there would be hardly any of them. The fact that there are lots suggests that they do not have a rule and are happy to allow either. So am I.Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more sources presented here, but if there are indeed two legitimate and widespread options, then I'd use the principle of internal consistency and allow an article to use either "a" or "an" based on the first major contributor. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A useful piece of work Darkfrog24. SM and I differ in the importance of preference when it comes to deciding acceptability. I say that just because more people use 'a' rather than 'an' is no reason to stop those who wish to from using 'an'. I think SM thought that it is. I am happy to leave 'a hypothesis' alone, but I want to leave 'an hypothesis' alone as well. I don't even mind if they are mixed in the same article. I see that Karl Popper - who knew a thing or two about hypotheses - used them interchangeably.[45] [46]Myrvin (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now even more suspicious of those Google stats. This search[47] suggests that 'an hypothesis' has been used many times in Nature; and this [48] that it has been used in Science; and this [49] that it is in PiosONE (whatever that is). Myrvin (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add Cambridge journals allow 'an'[50]. Myrvin (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Oxford journals [51].Myrvin (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier allow it and use it in their Author Guide. [52][53][54] Myrvin (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatry [55] Psychology [56] Wiley [57]. BMJ [58] AMJ [59]; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [60][61]; Jstor shows a lot [62] Myrvin (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this usage must mean that an hypothesis is in common use everywhere. The use is not a mistake, nor the result of hoards of people dropping their aitches. It is an acceptable form of English - albeit a minority form - and, as such, should be left alone in Wikipedia. Myrvin (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what else is decided here, we should definitely not allow both in the same article. Internal consistency at the article level is a longstanding rule on Wikipedia. We do need some uniformity or else everything will look sloppy, and then the readers will not view the content with respect.
Karl Popper's opinion is not of particular relevance here. This isn't a debate about the philosophy of science. It's a debate about correct English. The most authoritative sources on that are professionally compiled style guides. Consult Stephen Hawking for physics, but consult Chicago Manual of Style and AMA and MLA for how to write about physics for general audiences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only threw Karl in as a humorous aside, and show that his publishers can allow both forms in the same work. I didn't mean to upset anyone. I think this is a debate about acceptable English and the way 'an hypothesis' is used in the English writing world. You seemed to be happy to allow both forms - so am I. Stephen Hawking seems to use it once [63] - maybe it slipped through. Myrvin (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the question

I think that this discussion has extended from 'an hypothesis' alone to many more aitch words. We have also mentioned 'historic/al/ity', 'hotel', 'heredity', and doubtless there are many others. I think the 'an' usage of these words should be left alone too. Myrvin (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inscription

What's written in this Gerome's painting on the wall? Either Ottoman Turkish or Arabic, maybe some source has the translation. Brandmeister^talk 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the inscription that gives the name of the architect (or the donor) and the date of the construction. Readable words are "in the year", "... hundred and two", "bath","finished". It is a muddle of Arabic and Persian words. Omidinist (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [64] seems to be a clearer version (or copy) of the same painting. The painting name seems to be wrong here. This [65] calls it "Moorish Bath". Myrvin (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]