historic or historical centre of the city
- Thread starter sunnymood
- Start date
I'd prefer historic although I believe both are correct to use in this sentence.
Further discussion can be found on one of the existing threads (also available through pob14's link):
A <history, historic, historical> book.
a HISTORIC/HISTORICAL BUILDING
historic & historical
historic or historical?
Historical/historic festivals
My history/historic/historical teacher
Cagey, moderator.
A <history, historic, historical> book.
a HISTORIC/HISTORICAL BUILDING
historic & historical
historic or historical?
Historical/historic festivals
My history/historic/historical teacher
Cagey, moderator.
Last edited:
Added to previous thread.
Cagey, moderator
Hello,
My niece is studying big cities of Ukraine in English and I noticed that her teacher describing the centre of Lviv used "historical". I think it is a mistake.
"Lviv is a big city in Ukraine. It has narrow old streets.
Its historical centre makes Lviv the best place in our country".
I think better to use "historic" as it is likely to be important in history. "Its historic centre makes Lviv the best place in our country"
Historical is related to history, e.g. historical events.
Is it correct?
Thank you.
Cagey, moderator
Hello,
My niece is studying big cities of Ukraine in English and I noticed that her teacher describing the centre of Lviv used "historical". I think it is a mistake.
"Lviv is a big city in Ukraine. It has narrow old streets.
Its historical centre makes Lviv the best place in our country".
I think better to use "historic" as it is likely to be important in history. "Its historic centre makes Lviv the best place in our country"
Historical is related to history, e.g. historical events.
Is it correct?
Thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it is. 
I'll quote the relevant usage note from Oxford Dictionaries for you:
Historic and historical are used in slightly different ways. Historic means ‘famous or important in history’, as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means ‘concerning history or historical events’, as in historical evidence: thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past.
I'll quote the relevant usage note from Oxford Dictionaries for you: Historic and historical are used in slightly different ways. Historic means ‘famous or important in history’, as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means ‘concerning history or historical events’, as in historical evidence: thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past.
Thank you.
Interesting! The adjective historical appeared about 1495, 100 years before the adjective historic. Historic had appeared as a noun (a book about history) around 1560. They started to be confused, as adjectives, almost immediately.
The distinctions, if there were/are any, have been chiefly lost and may depend on whether either adjective is used attributively or predicatively and even then, the use is not regular.
One possible distinction might be in:
The two presidents came to an historic (one that creates history) agreement.
The historical (relating to the past) agreement had been that both countries could fish in the river which formed the border, the new agreement divided the river north and south with the northern country having the northern part of the river.
It is less clear (if it exists) in
The historic landscape (that exists in the present as it did in history) before you is exactly as it would have appeared to a man in the 10th century
The historical landscape (that existed only in history), which was rural, has long since gone and is now replaced by houses and factories.
The above landscape example is how I would probably use the two words, but I'm not sure that I would raise an eyebrow if they were exchanged.
(If you want another word, there is historial (belonging to history, or of history) - fortunately, it is very rare.)
The distinctions, if there were/are any, have been chiefly lost and may depend on whether either adjective is used attributively or predicatively and even then, the use is not regular.
One possible distinction might be in:
The two presidents came to an historic (one that creates history) agreement.
The historical (relating to the past) agreement had been that both countries could fish in the river which formed the border, the new agreement divided the river north and south with the northern country having the northern part of the river.
It is less clear (if it exists) in
The historic landscape (that exists in the present as it did in history) before you is exactly as it would have appeared to a man in the 10th century
The historical landscape (that existed only in history), which was rural, has long since gone and is now replaced by houses and factories.
The above landscape example is how I would probably use the two words, but I'm not sure that I would raise an eyebrow if they were exchanged.
(If you want another word, there is historial (belonging to history, or of history) - fortunately, it is very rare.)
I think the simple answer is that historical is widely (mis)used to mean the same as historic, even though that’s not its “official” definition.
Should Egypt be called a historic or historical country then?
Based on the discussion above, I think Egypt should be called a historic country because the country is important in the history of mankind. It's not historical, in the strictest sense of the word, because Egypt still exists.
Is my analysis correct?
Based on the discussion above, I think Egypt should be called a historic country because the country is important in the history of mankind. It's not historical, in the strictest sense of the word, because Egypt still exists.
Is my analysis correct?
Should Egypt be called a historic or historical country then?
Based on the discussion above, I think Egypt should be called a historic country because the country is important in the history of mankind. It's not historical, in the strictest sense of the word, because Egypt still exists.
Is my analysis correct?
Describing a country as 'historic' sounds strange to me.
'Historical' would, as you noted, imply that Egypt no longer existed.
My question actually stems from a grammar workbook which doesn't have model answers:
I'm now in Egypt! I had planned this trip for so long and I was so thrilled to be able to visit this ____ (history) and mysterious country..
We are required to change the part of speech of "history" and I'm not entirely sure which to use.
Unless you’re allowed a little leeway in how you write it, in which case it would be nice to say something like …
thrilled to be able to visit this mysterious country, steeped in history / this mystery- and history-rich country