Ron Howard's Changeling project falls through?
Shabaz
gets distracted") makes it seem; that as far as Howard is concerned the
project is not going through, at least for now. You can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/m664p
Some quotes directly relating to the project not going forward:
"J. Michael Straczynski's 'Changeling' caught Ron Howard's eye, but
then another project pulled Howard's focus."
"So it has gone with Oscar-winning director Ron Howard ("A Beautiful
Mind"), who has long been interested in making "Changeling" but who
recently committed to direct the feature version of Peter Morgan's
political play "Frost/Nixon," ... "
"At one point Howard was smitten enough with "Changeling" to meet with
Straczynski, a longtime TV writer ("Babylon 5," "Murder, She Wrote")
eager to have his first produced feature. Says Straczynski: "There are
all kinds of circumstances that can affect whether or not something
goes forward.... I've gotten very Zen about the whole thing.""
I hope we still get to see it someday, with or without Howard's
involvement. But it's too bad we won't see it for now, the article
makes the plot sound pretty intense, and I do love a good psychological
thriller. Don't know how much the rights are tied up with Howard now,
or if JMS can still shop it around in other places, if he would want
to.
-Shabaz
Jon
Oh man! I was really excited to see JMS's work get the recognition it
was due. Perhaps it just means Howard is devoting more of his time to
the other screenplay than the Changeling...I mean Ron Howard doesn't
have to have only one project, right? Let's hope this isn't
conclusive as the language seems to be somewhat vague.
Jon D.
Greg Bryant
involve an A-List director, an A-list actor, and must have a huge opening
weekend.
Whatever happened to smaller films that do well without being required to
being attached to someone?
Joe, find some good talented smaller director, some good independent
financing and make the film!
.
Jan
says...
It may simply be that Howard may not direct it himself. As for shopping it
elsewhere, I think that JMS said that they bought it outright, not just optioned
it.
Jan
--
We are the voice of the universe, the soul of creation,
The fire that will light the way to a better future.
We are One.
IA Declaration of Principles
(J. Michael Straczynski)
Greg Bryant
un-produced screenplays.
I'm really curious to know just how many screenplays are floating around
today that have been optioned or bought, but never produced?
If I'm right the number must be high. That might explain why scripts have
gotten so bad lately. The good writer's feel they have no hope of their
script getting produced, so they give up. The only ones who continue to
write scripts are in it only for the money and don't care if their script
ever gets produced.
.
Joseph DeMartino
> Oh man! I was really excited to see JMS's work get the recognition it
> was due. Perhaps it just means Howard is devoting more of his time to
> the other screenplay than the Changeling...I mean Ron Howard doesn't
> have to have only one project, right? Let's hope this isn't
> conclusive as the language seems to be somewhat vague.
Taking a film from script, through production, post production and into
distribution and promotion basically takes at least a year of a
producer-director's life - a year that mostly consists of 18 hour days.
They tend not to be very hands on with anything apart from that main
project, regardless of how many irons they theorectically have in the
fire.
At the very least this either means that he isn't going to direct it
but will produce and hand it off to someone else or that it isn't going
to get made for another two to four years because he has several other
projects scheduled in the interim. At worst he doesn't make the film
at all. What happens to the script after that will depend on the
contract.
Regards,
Joe
jms...@aol.com
Shabaz wrote:
> At least, that's the way an article in the L.A. Times ("The big name
> gets distracted") makes it seem; that as far as Howard is concerned the
> project is not going through, at least for now. You can find it here:
> http://tinyurl.com/m664p
>
> Some quotes directly relating to the project not going forward:
>
> "J. Michael Straczynski's 'Changeling' caught Ron Howard's eye, but
> then another project pulled Howard's focus."
>
> "So it has gone with Oscar-winning director Ron Howard ("A Beautiful
> Mind"), who has long been interested in making "Changeling" but who
> recently committed to direct the feature version of Peter Morgan's
> political play "Frost/Nixon," ... "
Just to clarify before the wrong impression gets out there....the
project has not been back burnered. First, Imagine owns the script,
they bought it, they want it, they want to see it made, so does
Universal. When Ron decided to go with the Frost/Nixon thing first,
one option would have been to hold onto Changeling until he was free to
direct it. But with the Forst/Nixon thing going first, Changeling
couldn't be shot until 2007...so Ron is going to produce, with Imagine,
and they're going to get another a-list director to come on board and
shoot this thing asap. The only thing that got back-burnered was Ron,
Imagine still wants to make this, and Ron has been gracious enough to
allow another director in, but still produce it, so it can get filmed
this year.
The draft is now ready to go, there are five a-list directors who have
said they want to come on, it's been budgeted, and the president of
Imagine called today *specifically* to say that they want to put this
thing into high gear now that Ron's made up his mind. They'd like to
see this thing going before the cameras by Spring.
jms
Shabaz
That's good to hear. The article seems to really make the status of the
project sound really negative, but based on a limited set of facts, so
thank you for clearing that up.
Still looking forward to it then. :)
-Shabaz
Jan
jms...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
>Just to clarify before the wrong impression gets out there....the
>project has not been back burnered. First, Imagine owns the script,
>they bought it, they want it, they want to see it made, so does
>Universal. When Ron decided to go with the Frost/Nixon thing first,
>one option would have been to hold onto Changeling until he was free to
>direct it. But with the Forst/Nixon thing going first, Changeling
>couldn't be shot until 2007...so Ron is going to produce, with Imagine,
>and they're going to get another a-list director to come on board and
>shoot this thing asap. The only thing that got back-burnered was Ron,
>Imagine still wants to make this, and Ron has been gracious enough to
>allow another director in, but still produce it, so it can get filmed
>this year.
>
>The draft is now ready to go, there are five a-list directors who have
>said they want to come on, it's been budgeted, and the president of
>Imagine called today *specifically* to say that they want to put this
>thing into high gear now that Ron's made up his mind. They'd like to
>see this thing going before the cameras by Spring.
>
>jms
Thanks for the straight scoop, JMS.
Joseph DeMartino
> Just to clarify before the wrong impression gets out there....
Too late, but I'm sure folks will do what they can about putting the
toothpaste back in various tubes around the 'net.
Thanks for clearing that up. The LAT piece really did make things
sound a lot worse.
Hmmm. Sounds like a good night to watch "The Ilusion of Truth" again.
<g>
Regards,
Joe
Amy Guskin
(in article <1160616893....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Yeah. Reading between the lines, and based on what you'd said about this
earlier (that Imagine had bought the script outright), this is what I figured
was going on. I have to wonder, then, why the LA Times article seemed so
determined to obscure the point that the film was _still being made by
Imagine_.
Glad to hear that it's going ahead sooner rather than later, in any case!
Amy
Shabaz
Well, I think the title of the article might be telling: "The big name
gets distracted". They might've thought that a quick story about "The
Big Name" who is seemingly led by his fancy -- "flirting" with scripts
he's "smitten" by -- and is easily distracted, made for a more
interesting story. Instead of "The big name can delegate", or something
like that.
-Shabaz
Iva
news:1160616893....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Just to clarify before the wrong impression gets out there....the
> project has not been back burnered. First, Imagine owns the script,
> they bought it, they want it, they want to see it made, so does
> Universal. When Ron decided to go with the Frost/Nixon thing first,
> one option would have been to hold onto Changeling until he was free to
> direct it. But with the Forst/Nixon thing going first, Changeling
> couldn't be shot until 2007...so Ron is going to produce, with Imagine,
> and they're going to get another a-list director to come on board and
> shoot this thing asap. The only thing that got back-burnered was Ron,
> Imagine still wants to make this, and Ron has been gracious enough to
> allow another director in, but still produce it, so it can get filmed
> this year.
>
> The draft is now ready to go, there are five a-list directors who have
> said they want to come on, it's been budgeted, and the president of
> Imagine called today *specifically* to say that they want to put this
> thing into high gear now that Ron's made up his mind. They'd like to
> see this thing going before the cameras by Spring.
>
> jms
Fabulous news! Thanks for the update.
-----
Iva
Henrik Herranen
> Too late, but I'm sure folks will do what they can about putting the
> toothpaste back in various tubes around the 'net.
Sorry for this useless message, but I just want to tell you
how glad I am that I wasn't drinking tea at the exact moment
I read that sentence. Mental note: "Must remember to use this
phrase somewhere at an appropriate moment."
> Hmmm. Sounds like a good night to watch "The Ilusion of Truth" again.
"... good NIGHT to WATCH ..." Could we have some more
subliminal messages, please? :)
Kind regards,
- Henrik
--
Good signatures never die, they just fade away
Dan Dassow
Henrik Herranen wrote:
> "Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > Too late, but I'm sure folks will do what they can about putting the
> > toothpaste back in various tubes around the 'net.
>
> Sorry for this useless message, but I just want to tell you
> how glad I am that I wasn't drinking tea at the exact moment
> I read that sentence. Mental note: "Must remember to use this
> phrase somewhere at an appropriate moment."
>
BE WARNED:
As a general rule one should not eat or drink or ingest any other
substances when reading messages from those whom the Narn Bat Squad
(NBS) pay frequent visits. Joseph, Wes, Methuselah, Amy, Jan and I have
accumulated many frequent NBS points over the years. :-)
>
> > Hmmm. Sounds like a good night to watch "The Ilusion of Truth" again.
>
> "... good NIGHT to WATCH ..." Could we have some more
> subliminal messages, please? :)
>
Psi!
Dan Dassow
Methuselah Jones
Shabaz of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> jmsa...@aol.com wrote:
>> Shabaz wrote:
>> > At least, that's the way an article in the L.A. Times ("The big
>> > name gets distracted") makes it seem; that as far as Howard is
>> > concerned the project is not going through, at least for now. You
>> > can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/m664p
>>
>> Just to clarify before the wrong impression gets out there....the
>> project has not been back burnered.
>>
> That's good to hear. The article seems to really make the status of
> the project sound really negative, but based on a limited set of
> facts
Typical press.
--
Methuselah
"[Mankind] is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It
suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that
makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes
wrong, but no matter, the crowd follows it."
-- Mark Twain
Methuselah Jones
> "Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>> Too late, but I'm sure folks will do what they can about putting the
>> toothpaste back in various tubes around the 'net.
>
> Sorry for this useless message, but I just want to tell you
> how glad I am that I wasn't drinking tea at the exact moment
> I read that sentence. Mental note: "Must remember to use this
> phrase somewhere at an appropriate moment."
>
>> Hmmm. Sounds like a good night to watch "The Ilusion of Truth"
>> again.
>
> "... good NIGHT to WATCH ..." Could we have some more
> subliminal messages, please? :)
Of corps.
--
Methuselah
"Time's fun when you're having flies."
-- Kermit
Methuselah Jones
Guskin of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:34:53 -0400, jms...@aol.com wrote
> (in article <1160616893....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>> Shabaz wrote:
>>> At least, that's the way an article in the L.A. Times ("The big name
>>> gets distracted") makes it seem; that as far as Howard is concerned
>>> the project is not going through, at least for now. You can find it
>>> here: http://tinyurl.com/m664p
>>
>> Just to clarify before the wrong impression gets out there....the
>> project has not been back burnered.
>
> Yeah. Reading between the lines, and based on what you'd said about
> this earlier (that Imagine had bought the script outright), this is
> what I figured was going on. I have to wonder, then, why the LA Times
> article seemed so determined to obscure the point that the film was
> _still being made by Imagine_.
99% of press is sensationalist. The tabloids are at least open about it
(which, of course, doesn't stop those with reversed polarity on their BS
detectors, but there you go).
--
Methuselah
"Canada is a country so square that even the female impersonators are
women."
-- Richard Brenner
Amy Guskin
(in article <1160737658.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Henrik Herranen wrote:
>> "Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>> Too late, but I'm sure folks will do what they can about putting the
>>> toothpaste back in various tubes around the 'net.
>>
>> Sorry for this useless message, but I just want to tell you
>> how glad I am that I wasn't drinking tea at the exact moment
>> I read that sentence. Mental note: "Must remember to use this
>> phrase somewhere at an appropriate moment."
>>
>
> BE WARNED:
> As a general rule one should not eat or drink or ingest any other
> substances when reading messages from those whom the Narn Bat Squad
> (NBS) pay frequent visits. <<
Actually, that should either be "from those TO whom the Narn Bat Squad (NBS)
payS* frequent visits," or simply "from those who the Narn Bat Squad (NBS)
FREQUENTLY visits."
:-D
(That felt good; I haven't nitpicked in a really long time!)
Amy
krueg...@hotmail.com
Amy Guskin wrote:
> Actually, that should either be "from those TO whom the Narn Bat Squad (NBS)
> payS* frequent visits," or simply "from those who the Narn Bat Squad (NBS)
> FREQUENTLY visits."
Why is it who in the second cae, but whom in the first?
Rob Perkins
> Actually, that should either be "from those TO whom the Narn Bat Squad (NBS)
> payS* frequent visits," or simply "from those who the Narn Bat Squad (NBS)
> FREQUENTLY visits."
>
> :-D
>
> (That felt good; I haven't nitpicked in a really long time!)
I challenge you to a grammar-off.
It can be either "from those to WHOM the NBS pays frequent visits," or
it can be "from those WHOM the the NBS frequently visits," but it cannot
be "from those who the NBS frequently visits," because that third one
conflates NBS and the object of the visit; "who" is a subject pronoun.
"Whom" belongs to the direct objects or prepositional objects.
The fact that we let it slide in sentences like "Who do you serve? Who
do you trust?" is out of acknowledgement of common speech patterns. Sort
of like never noticing any longer that "John went out with Mary and I"
is cringe-worthy.
Dontcha think? Prove me wrong!
Rob, lunging for the strainer
Stefan
nitpi <err>:
Now what's "cae"?
Wait. googlegooglegoogle
Definitely this is Anti-NBS: CAE = Center for Anti-Violence Education
http://www.cae-bklyn.org/
Ste ;-) fan
--
Always hoping for more.
More what?
B5. Of course
Amy Guskin
(in article <1160750564....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Generally you can always use "who" in place of "whom," while "whom" should be
applied only in certain cases. Usually, you'd use it in the case of a direct
object (like "whom did you say owns the car?") or a preposition (like
"...from those TO whom the NBS pays frequent visits"). Since this (the
second version) was neither, "who" was more correct. In the first case,
however, since there was a preposition there, "whom" was more correct.
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <4p9nkfF...@individual.net>):
Eh, I'm not that wedded to whether it's who or whom, so I'm happy to let you
have this one. But as I said in my reply to Barbara, in almost every case,
it's accepted that "who" may be used in place of "whom" (although not the
reverse). Probably that's grown out of usage, though, so you may be
strictly, by-the-(older)-book correct.
Amy
krueg...@hotmail.com
Amy Guskin wrote:
> >>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:54:09 -0400, Rob Perkins wrote
> >
> > It can be either "from those to WHOM the NBS pays frequent visits," or
> > it can be "from those WHOM the the NBS frequently visits," but it cannot
> > be "from those who the NBS frequently visits," because that third one
> > conflates NBS and the object of the visit; "who" is a subject pronoun.
> > "Whom" belongs to the direct objects or prepositional objects.
> >
> > The fact that we let it slide in sentences like "Who do you serve? Who
> > do you trust?" is out of acknowledgement of common speech patterns. Sort
> > of like never noticing any longer that "John went out with Mary and I"
> > is cringe-worthy.
> >
> > Dontcha think? Prove me wrong! <<
>
> Eh, I'm not that wedded to whether it's who or whom, so I'm happy to let you
> have this one. But as I said in my reply to Barbara, in almost every case,
> it's accepted that "who" may be used in place of "whom" (although not the
> reverse). Probably that's grown out of usage, though, so you may be
> strictly, by-the-(older)-book correct.
Ah, but that's the rub when it comes to this stuff: if language
_didn't_ grow, it would be useless, wouldn't it?
I'm pretty sure Rob is correct if you want to get technical. That's
what I thought you did with your nitpicking, though. LOL
Here's another question for you language lot:
eons ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was a child, the
word "an" instead of "a" would be used in front of certain "h-" words.
Like was was trained to say:
"an honorable decision"
"an hyperbola is what we're graphing now"
"an historical note"
I am seeing in common usage now, the use of "a" instead of "an".
Does that make me wrong now? LOL
Should it be "an historical note" or "a historical note"? Or will
either do, like the who and whom thing?
Have I mentioned lately that I'm soooooooooo glad that I teach
mathematics. :p
Amy Guskin
(in article <1160761628.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>):
This is an easy one. If the "h" is voiced, never use "an." So, "a
historical," "a hyperbola," and "a helium-filled balloon is good for making
silly voices." If the "h" is silent, use "an." So, "an hour," "an honorable
decision," etc. It was always that way, but there has been an inclination
toward using the more pretentious-sounding "an" in front of voiced "h"s.
Amy
Methuselah Jones
Guskin of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:42:44 -0400, krueg...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article <1160750564....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>> Actually, that should either be "from those TO whom the Narn Bat
>>> Squad (NBS) payS* frequent visits," or simply "from those who the
>>> Narn Bat Squad (NBS) FREQUENTLY visits."
>>
>> Why is it who in the second cae, but whom in the first? <<
>
> Generally you can always use "who" in place of "whom," while "whom"
> should be applied only in certain cases.
Oh no! Not true! Your detail below is partially correct, though.
"Whom" is the objective case; "who" nominative. The objective case is
used when the word is the object of a verb or preposition. The nominative
case is used when it's the subject of a sentence or clause.
Any time you're uncertain, just check whether you would substitute "he"
or "she" (nominative) into its place, or "him" or "her" (objective).
Nominative:
Who threw the ball?
He threw the ball.
(Subject of the sentence)
Tell the boss she is here.
Tell the boss who is here?
(Subject of the clause)
Objective:
Throw the ball to whom?
Throw the ball to her.
(Object of "to")
Whom did the ball hit?
The ball hit him.
(Object of "hit")
You gave whom the ball?
I gave her the ball.
(Indirect object of "gave")
In this case (no pun intended :), Dan's usage was correct, as "whom" is
the indirect object of "pay":
: As a general rule one should not eat or drink or ingest any other
: substances when reading messages from those whom the Narn Bat Squad
: (NBS) pay frequent visits.
The whole thing from "whom" on is a modifying clause, modifying "those".
As for the plurality of "pay", Dan's usage was (IMO) questionable. The
use of a plural verb with a singular noun naming a group appears to be
largely a British usage which has started to spread somewhat. I mentioned
it to Paul Brians about a year ago, and I see he now has a page up about
it:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/collplural.html
I'm not fond of the usage at all, except in rare cases such as the sports
team examples he uses, but if you're going to use it, do it properly:
The band is playing.
The band are signing autographs.
::End of Lecture::
> Usually, you'd use it in the case of a direct object (like "whom did
> you say owns the car?") or a preposition (like "...from those TO whom
> the NBS pays frequent visits"). Since this (the second version) was
> neither, "who" was more correct. In the first case, however, since
> there was a preposition there, "whom" was more correct.
--
Methuselah
There are ways but the Way is uncharted;
There are names but not nature in words:
Nameless indeed is the source of creation
-- Lao Tzu
Methuselah Jones
Guskin of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:54:09 -0400, Rob Perkins wrote
Of course, common usage establishes proper grammar, and you are correct
that using "who" in the objective case, especially when it's not directly
following its verb or preposition (e.g. "Who do you serve?"), has become
common. However, the proper usage of "whom" has been increasing somewhat
lately, by my observations.
--
Methuselah
"I spent a lot of money on wine and women and like a fool I squandered
the rest."
-- Benny Hill
Methuselah Jones
plain:
> Here's another question for you language lot:
>
> eons ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was a child, the
> word "an" instead of "a" would be used in front of certain "h-" words.
>
> Like was was trained to say:
>
> "an honorable decision"
> "an hyperbola is what we're graphing now"
> "an historical note"
>
> I am seeing in common usage now, the use of "a" instead of "an".
The rule is to use "a" before a vowel *sound*. Thus, "hour" gets "an".
While "h" is a consonant, it's silent, and the word begins with a vowel
sound when spoken.
The other usage has been kicking around for some time, and seems to go
back and forth in popularity. The rule for it is to use "an" before a
word starting with a voiced "h", if the accent is on the second syllable.
Thus "An historical occasion," and "A history book."
--
Methuselah
"A Spring wind is like wine, a Summer wind is like tea, an Autumn wind is
like smoke, and a Winter wind is like ginger or mustard."
-- Chang Chou, Chinese scholar
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
Great minds and all that...
(and thank you, JMS for the straight poop)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
Of course, unless I'm using it by itself (or the noun form) I tend to
"drop" the h from words like historical. So, it IS correct for me to
say "an historical novel" - I drop the "h" and then "an" becomes the
proper term. As a noun, though, I do say "a history", since I don't
drop the "h"...
Go figure.
Wesley Struebing
Of core? Oh, actually, corps is both singular and plural, isn't it?
Amy Guskin
(in article <Xns985BCADE9A848me...@216.196.97.131>):
> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of Amy
> Guskin of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:42:44 -0400, krueg...@hotmail.com wrote
>> (in article <1160750564....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>
>>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>> Actually, that should either be "from those TO whom the Narn Bat
>>>> Squad (NBS) payS* frequent visits," or simply "from those who the
>>>> Narn Bat Squad (NBS) FREQUENTLY visits."
>>>
>>> Why is it who in the second cae, but whom in the first? <<
>>
>> Generally you can always use "who" in place of "whom," while "whom"
>> should be applied only in certain cases.
>
> Oh no! Not true! Your detail below is partially correct, though.
>
> "Whom" is the objective case; "who" nominative. The objective case is
> used when the word is the object of a verb or preposition. The nominative
> case is used when it's the subject of a sentence or clause. <<
Well, thank you! Even a nitpicker can learn something... It's funny,
because even though I remembered the rules about it incorrectly, I generally
_use_ "who" and "whom" correctly.
Amy
John W. Kennedy
> This is an easy one. If the "h" is voiced, never use "an." So, "a
> historical," "a hyperbola," and "a helium-filled balloon is good for making
> silly voices." If the "h" is silent, use "an." So, "an hour," "an honorable
> decision," etc. It was always that way, but there has been an inclination
> toward using the more pretentious-sounding "an" in front of voiced "h"s.
Actually, "an" before /unaccented/ voiced "h" has been around for ages,
especially, but not exclusively, in British use. "An house" would be
wrong in present-day English, but "an historic [x]" or "an hotel" is
quite acceptable.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
krueg...@hotmail.com
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Actually, "an" before /unaccented/ voiced "h" has been around for ages,
> especially, but not exclusively, in British use. "An house" would be
> wrong in present-day English, but "an historic [x]" or "an hotel" is
> quite acceptable.
Well, I'm glad that got cleared up.
LOL
:)
Methuselah Jones
It was fun to stretch my grammar legs a bit. I used to teach an ACE class
in grammar and communication.
--
Methuselah
Fear not the evil men do in the name of evil, but heaven protect us from
the evil men do in the name of good.
Wesley Struebing
We try! (in fact, I think some of us have been told we're VERY
trying...<G>)
Jon Schild
But for some reason, about half the news people in the US have decided
that you should say an before the word historic, which is correct in
British English, but flat wrong in American English. It grates my teeth
every time I hear it.
.
Jon
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Amy Guskin wrote:
> > This is an easy one. If the "h" is voiced, never use "an." So, "a
> > historical," "a hyperbola," and "a helium-filled balloon is good for making
> > silly voices." If the "h" is silent, use "an." So, "an hour," "an honorable
> > decision," etc. It was always that way, but there has been an inclination
> > toward using the more pretentious-sounding "an" in front of voiced "h"s.
>
> Actually, "an" before /unaccented/ voiced "h" has been around for ages,
> especially, but not exclusively, in British use. "An house" would be
> wrong in present-day English, but "an historic [x]" or "an hotel" is
> quite acceptable.
Now I've heard this before "historic" but hotel? I don't think I've
ever heard it other than "a hotel."
John W. Kennedy
"The cab entered a long village street, and near its end stopped at an
hotel."
-- John Galsworthy: "Flowering Wilderness"