6 ms·

> an user I guess the canonical English dialect pronounces it as "ooser"? Weird choice for us Americans. I want to try it, but if it's all manual approval, I'

> an user I guess the canonical English dialect pronounces it as "ooser"? Weird choice for us Americans. I want to try it, but if it's all manual approval, I'll never pass. I can't get a legit email address via Tor.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Must be French.
indigodaddy 4y ago
I figured it was somehow in jest— but had no basis for that feeling..
mongol 4y ago
I am not a native English speaker, but the way I learned it is that "an" is used if applied to a word that starts with a wovel. Is it not so? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/a-an-and-the https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/a-a...
- comex 4y ago
  Yes, but it's based on the word's pronunciation starting with a vowel sound, not the word's spelling starting with a vowel letter. In the word "user", the 'u' is normally pronounced as 'yu', which starts with a consonant; therefore the correct phrase is "a user", not "an user". Contrary to ReactiveJelly's speculation, this is true in both American and British dialects. Perhaps there is some other dialect where it isn't.
  - mongol 4y ago
    Interestingly enough, also y is a vowel in many languages. This is not a surprising mistake to make if you are not a native speaker.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  It’s to do with the sound, not the letter. “User” is typically pronounced “yoozer”, with a leading consonant sound, so it’s “a user”. There are all kinds of cases where this reveals interesting things about how someone pronounces things. An American will speak of “an herb” because the h is still silent there (“an ’erb”), whereas an Australian (and most other English dialects) will speak of “a herb” because it’s no longer silent. In the KJV, 1 Kings 10:29 gets two in one verse, speaking of “an horse for an hundred and fifty”, showing that in the English of the early 1600s, you had “an ’orse” and “an ’undred” by pronunciation, whereas all major dialects now sound the h. (For reading aloud, I personally say “a horse for a hundred and fifty”, having decided that a/an are the same word just with context-dependent spelling and pronunciation, like “the” has two context-dependent pronunciations (“thuh dog” versus “thee elephant”, likewise based on the next syllable’s sound), though they’re both spelled the same way.) If a Rust developer writes “an &str”, they’re probably pronouncing it “an ampersand str” or “an and str”, but if they write “a &str”, they might be pronouncing it “a str slice” or “a reference to a str”.
  - dustinmoris 4y ago
    Exactly this. It's "a user". For the same reason it would be "an honest mistake" and not "a honest mistake".
  - OJFord 4y ago
    > showing that in the English of the early 1600s, you had “an ’orse” and “an ’undred” by pronunciation, whereas all major dialects now sound the h. I don't know what I'd call (or you're calling) 'major dialects' (just RP & GenAm?) but quite large geographic chunks of England would say "an 'orse for a 'undred", in the early 2000s. (And 'a undred' is not a typo. I don't know why that's different, but 'an undred' just sounds wrong to me.)
    - chrismorgan 4y ago
      I thought it was down to a few rather small regions left in the UK (and fading), but I’m not expert in their accents. I could well be wrong, and my word choice was injudicious. I should also note that Indian English is also a bit patchy, their leading aitches are regularly silent due to it not being a common construct in their own languages; but they’re also less precise about a/an in general too.

SnowHill9902 4y ago

Must be French.

indigodaddy 4y ago

I figured it was somehow in jest— but had no basis for that feeling..

mongol 4y ago

I am not a native English speaker, but the way I learned it is that "an" is used if applied to a word that starts with a wovel. Is it not so? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/a-an-and-the https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/a-a...

comex 4y ago
Yes, but it's based on the word's pronunciation starting with a vowel sound, not the word's spelling starting with a vowel letter. In the word "user", the 'u' is normally pronounced as 'yu', which starts with a consonant; therefore the correct phrase is "a user", not "an user". Contrary to ReactiveJelly's speculation, this is true in both American and British dialects. Perhaps there is some other dialect where it isn't.
- mongol 4y ago
  Interestingly enough, also y is a vowel in many languages. This is not a surprising mistake to make if you are not a native speaker.
chrismorgan 4y ago
It’s to do with the sound, not the letter. “User” is typically pronounced “yoozer”, with a leading consonant sound, so it’s “a user”. There are all kinds of cases where this reveals interesting things about how someone pronounces things. An American will speak of “an herb” because the h is still silent there (“an ’erb”), whereas an Australian (and most other English dialects) will speak of “a herb” because it’s no longer silent. In the KJV, 1 Kings 10:29 gets two in one verse, speaking of “an horse for an hundred and fifty”, showing that in the English of the early 1600s, you had “an ’orse” and “an ’undred” by pronunciation, whereas all major dialects now sound the h. (For reading aloud, I personally say “a horse for a hundred and fifty”, having decided that a/an are the same word just with context-dependent spelling and pronunciation, like “the” has two context-dependent pronunciations (“thuh dog” versus “thee elephant”, likewise based on the next syllable’s sound), though they’re both spelled the same way.) If a Rust developer writes “an &str”, they’re probably pronouncing it “an ampersand str” or “an and str”, but if they write “a &str”, they might be pronouncing it “a str slice” or “a reference to a str”.
- dustinmoris 4y ago
  Exactly this. It's "a user". For the same reason it would be "an honest mistake" and not "a honest mistake".
- OJFord 4y ago
  > showing that in the English of the early 1600s, you had “an ’orse” and “an ’undred” by pronunciation, whereas all major dialects now sound the h. I don't know what I'd call (or you're calling) 'major dialects' (just RP & GenAm?) but quite large geographic chunks of England would say "an 'orse for a 'undred", in the early 2000s. (And 'a undred' is not a typo. I don't know why that's different, but 'an undred' just sounds wrong to me.)
  - chrismorgan 4y ago
    I thought it was down to a few rather small regions left in the UK (and fading), but I’m not expert in their accents. I could well be wrong, and my word choice was injudicious. I should also note that Indian English is also a bit patchy, their leading aitches are regularly silent due to it not being a common construct in their own languages; but they’re also less precise about a/an in general too.