Was Donald Trump’s indictment a historic event, or an historic event?

When the 37-count federal indictment against Donald Trump landed, the country immediately divided into two fervent, irreconcilable camps:

Those who thought it was “a historic” event, and those who thought it was “an historic” event.

And the battle lines were drawn.

The New York Times called it “a historic development,” while the National Review called it “an historic indictment.” NPR: “A historic indictment.” The Mirror: “An historic indictment.” CNN was a house divided against itself, using both “a historic and unprecedented court appearance” and “an historic indictment” at different times.

This cannot stand.

To understand which one is right — or even if one is right — it helps to know a little history on historic.

The typical a vs. an rule is one of the most basic: a precedes a consonant sound, while an precedes a vowel sound: “a baby,” but “an infant.” “A chicken,” but “an egg.” If you’re 150 words into a grammar column — which you are — you don’t need someone to explain that to you.

But the letter H is one shifty character. It can be silent, as in hour or honest; saying “it was a honest mistake” is the height of dishonesty. But H changes its pronunciation depending on where you are. Fancy some herb seasoning? In America, the H in herb is silent, but in England, they pronounce the H, voicing herb seasoning the same as Herb Alpert (who is decidedly not silent). If you’re just learning English, the dictionary will help you navigate which H is silent and which one isn’t.

The letter H is one shifty character.

Sometimes, anyway. On historic, no such luck.

The pronunciation guides in Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and the Oxford English Dictionary all voice the H in historic; where they go into deeper explanation, it’s mostly helping users differentiate between historic (something big and momentous) and historical (something that happened in the past). But Merriam-Webster equivocates on whether “a historic” or “an historic” is better, saying only that a is more common by about four to one (hardly a blowout). The OED, meanwhile, is silent on H’s silence but gives valid usage examples of both “a historic” and “an historic.”

Language guides don’t offer much more help. The Associated Press lightly prefers “a historic,” but its historic entry is focused on the historic/historical distinction.

Bryan Garner’s Modern American Usage spends more than half a page on the question. He points out that though some consider “a historic” to be a more modern adaptation, and think of “an historic” as both old-timey and British, stylists who are both old (Mark Twain, 1882) and old and British (H.W. Fowler, 1926) wrote strongly in favor of “a historic.” But even Garner hesitates to be too prescriptive about it.

So which one is right?

Much to many grammarians’ chagrins, written English sometimes differs from spoken English, so neither is definitively “correct.” “Experts” lean slightly toward “a historic.” I would, too; it saves you a single character, and every bit of concision is worthwhile.

» READ MORE: Chestnut Hill is fighting over ‘a’ vs ‘an’. Which goes before SCH? | The Grammarian

But none of those experts would look askance (in the case of Twain and Fowler, they’re not looking anywhere) at “an historic” in conversation. That’s how a lot of people speak, and it’s not even considered nonstandard, so it’s honestly not worth fighting over.

Besides, with two Trump indictments in just over two months — and more probably on the way — don’t we have enough to fight about already?

The Grammarian, otherwise known as Jeffrey Barg, looks at how language, grammar, and punctuation shape our world, and appears biweekly. Send comments, questions, and historic infinitives to jeff@theangrygrammarian.com.