Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: regole di sillabazione

Come funzionano le regole di sillabazione in inglese?
Ad esempio, come si divide in sillabe "record"?
Grazie :)
-- 
SigiTM
Togli 'NOSPAMMM' per rispondermi.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=sigitm

 Ad esempio, come si divide in sillabe "record"?
rec-ord
Mentre invece, per dirne una, "bacon" si divide ba-con.
-- 
Tchau, -João do Sabão

 Come funzionano le regole di sillabazione in inglese?
Good luck!
Kiuhnm

 Good luck!
Io ho rinunciato da tempo a capirci qualcosa sulla divisione in sillabe. Tu 
hai provato a studiarla?
Ciao,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
-- 
She's not worth it. Or is she? 

):
"A definitive collection of hyphen rules does not exist. Therefore, the 
writer or editor should consult a manual of style or dictionary of his 
or her preference, particularly for the country in which he or she is 
writing. The rules of style that apply to dashes and hyphens have 
evolved to support ease of reading in complex constructions; editors 
often accept deviations from them that will support, rather than hinder, 
ease of reading."
Kiuhnm

 reaching an agreement about particular words.
Ops... I modified the first part of the sentence at the last moment and 
now it doesn't make sense anymore. I meant that I skimmed through the 
/book/", not the /link/ :-)
Kiuhnm

.



What do you mean in English by 'sillabazione'  - 'syllabification' or 
'hyphenation' ? The latter may be more complex , but the first thing to note 
is that it has very little to do with the former , syllabification being 
dependent on sound and hyphenation largely on meaning .
Mike 

 wrote in message 
news:470d...@newsgate.x-privat.org...

I'm afraid the page you link to exhibits exactly the confusion I warned 
against in the post I sent a minute ago !  You do NOT necessarily hyphenate 
between syllables  , as these are understood in English :
record : syllables re/cord ; hyphenated (if you must) rec-ord
Mike 

 Ad esempio, come si divide in sillabe "record"?
Si può vederlo nel vocabulario. Dipende dalla pronunzia. La parola 'record' 
può essere un verbo o un sostantivo (o un aggettivo). La pronuncia è diverse 
per il verbo dunque lo si divide in modo diverse.
v. re/cord
s. rec/ord
Per scrivere in inglese americano, si divide la parola all'estremità della 
riga (con un trattino) secondo la pronuncia. È diverse in Inghilterra.

 record : syllables re/cord ; hyphenated (if you must) rec-ord
Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition
6.44 Most words should be divided according to pronunciation (the American
system, reflected in Webster), not according to derivation (the British
system):
democ-racy (not demo-cracy)
knowl-edge (not know-ledge)
aurif-erous (not auri-ferous)
antip-odes (still better antip-des, not anit-podes)
Consequently, words such as the following, in which the second "syllable"
contains only a silent e are never divided:
aimed        helped        spelled
climbed     passed        vexed
Nor are word endings...
[it continues]

.
Thanks, I'll give it a look.
Kiuhnm

 riga (con un trattino) secondo la pronuncia. È diverse in Inghilterra.
We use "diversO", in this case.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message 
news:13gqui4...@corp.supernews.com...

You're quite right , of course , to point out that foreigners need to know 
that the American and British systems of hyphenation are different in the 
way you describe (allowing for the fact that derivation , though the first 
principle , isn't the only consideration in the British system) .
My point was that reference to 'syllables' is confusing , as is talk about 
'written' and 'spoken' syllables ; if  'written syllables' are the parts 
into which when necessary a word may be divided by a hyphen , then to say 
that a hyphen is placed between syllables is merely tautologous , unless by 
'syllable' you mean 'spoken syllable' - in which case it is unhelpful and 
often simply wrong , at least in Brit English . So , when you say the 
Americans divide according to pronunciation , does that mean the same as 
'according to the spoken syllables' (syllabification) or not ? If so , can 
you explain the American system of syllabification (i.e. dividing words into 
phonetic syllables ) . In the UK , for example , the words you quote would 
be syllabified thus : an-ti-po-des /au-ri-fe-rous / re-cord (whether noun or 
verb) , climbed etc. (That is , in simplified terms , a syllable is a 
vowel-sound (ie non-mute) with one or more consonants attached ; initial 
consonants go with the succeeding vowel ; single consonants between vowels 
go with the following vowel ;  two consonants between vowels split between 
the preceding and following vowel) .Obviously in British English hyphenation 
based on the meaning-units which make up a word will often naturally 
coincide with syllabification , but in many cases that isn't the case , and 
therefore any reference to 'dividing according to syllable divisions' is at 
best unhelpful and unnecessary and at worst simply wrong . Presumably , 
either you in America have a different way of dividing words into (phonetic) 
syllables , so that in 'antipodes' the
'p' is heard as the coda of the second syllable and not the onset of the 
third , or it is also true for you that syllabification is not a guide to 
hyphenation (antip-odes) .
Both the American and the British systems of hyphenation have the same aim , 
to facilitate prediction , and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest one is 
better than the other - I dare say they're coming closer anyway . I just 
think that any account of hyphenation systems which uses 'syllables' as a 
criterion for placing of the hyphen is simply muddying the waters for 
non-native speakers .
Mike 

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fejgeb$jgm$1...@aioe.org...

I agree that syllabification is not an important part of language learning,
but neither is hyphenation. Hyphenation is not a linguistic tool, but a
publishing tool, and is useful because it conserves space in printed matter.
Publishers use software to hyphenate material before printing. Its purpose
is to conserve space, while facilitating reading. Even word processors such
as M$ Word and Open Office use software to apply hyphenation "rules" to
documents.
http://packages.debian.org/sid/openoffice.org-hyphenation-it
Joe from Massachusetts


It should be noted that the hyphenation software in both M$ Word and Open
Office is different for UK and US English.
Joe from Massachusetts

 being dependent on sound and hyphenation largely on meaning .
Argh! Peggio di quanto pensassi! So what's the difference in usage between 
those two?
Thanks!


 those two?
Not peggio at all ! Hopefully my other post will have explained more fully 
what I mean ; but as Joe from Massachusetts says elsewhere , hyphenation is 
just a publishing tool ; if a word has to be split between lines owing to 
extra-linguistic constraints , what's the best place to split it ? The 
answer has nothing to do with syllables (or at least any reference to 
syllables will confuse and mislead rather than help) - it's a matter of 
which split (consistent with the constraints mentioned) least interrupts the 
flow of meaning , best enables the reader to anticipate the continuation 
postponed to the next line , and so facilitates speedier comprehension  : if 
I split 'bi-' I am likely to 'hear' a rhyme with 'eye' and to understand it 
as the prefix meaning 'two' (maybe 'bi-polar') whereas it would be ludicrous 
to split 'bilberry' as 'bi-lberry' rather than 'bil-berry'. If you read 
'It's a mystery now , but all will be revealed in the fu-' that's not too 
helpful ; 'in the fut-' you'd almost certainly anticipate correctly ; 'in 
the full-' would immediately be read by a native speaker as 'in the fullness 
of time' (what else could it be?) Often the most desirable split will be 
between the parts of which a word is compounded (obviously so with prefixes 
, suffixes etc.) ; and this principle , extended to the root-sources from 
which a word may derive , is more of a basic habit with us than with the 
Americans . In both cases , systems of hyphenation are flexible , and have 
the same essential aims - from which it's possible to derive the detailed 
sorts of guidelines referred to elsewhere (and in none of these need the 
word 'syllable' appear) . The 'rules' are basically common-sense : there 
isn't really a rule that 'the bit before the hyphen should be at least 3 
letters , with the following exceptions...' ; common-sense tells you that 
two-letter prefixes are meaningful units which may usefully be followed by a 
hyphen , but that splitting off the first two letters of a word beginning 
'st-' is simply silly . Common-sense tells you that if you split 'lemonade' 
, the best option is 'lemon-ade' ; if you're absolutely driven to it , 
'lem-onade' ; nothing else . And so on...
Though some of you have said you've found the 'rules' difficult , I'll bet 
that in practice you don't find many problems (and probably no more 
uncertainties than any native speaker) . 'Rules' are only needed in the case 
of publications which require all their writers to maintain a rigid house 
style .
Mike
Mike 

 Ad esempio, come si divide in sillabe "record"?
Boh. Come verbo direi re-cord ; come nome rec-ord

 is just a publishing tool ; [...]
Grazie mille per la spiegazione.
;-)
