> > I always thought that the difference concerning the use of "a" or "an" in front of an "h" was mostly between American and British English. The British seem to have a tendancy to leave the 'h' silent more than is done in American English, causing "an" to be used more often in front of a word starting with that letter.

Dropping the /h/ at the beginning of words is a common feature in most parts of England and Wales -- so speakers who omit pronounication of the /h/ at the beginning of "'istory" would only find it natural to say "an historical". When it comes to writing the phrase formally, however, they seem to be aware that the "standard" upper-class pronounciation is with the /h/ intact. In other words many British editors would write "a historical".


> Wait a cotton-pickin' minute...
>
> That should be American English and English English. In fact, I don't think you should class American English as English at all.

Sorry. American English is still English, all right. Nevertheless in the linguistics courses I took, there are sufficient vocabulary and grammatical differences such that we used to refer to the two as "British English" (BE) and the other as "North American" (NA) as spoken by Canadians/Americans.


> So, please stop refering to the blasphemy of Samuel Webster as English - it is, in fact, American.

Oh well you mean, NOAH Webster the American lobbyist and indefatigable compendiumist. Samuel Webster on the other hand was a Canadian, and despite Noah's best efforts we canucks still generally spell 'honour' with a /u/. :-)