Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: divisione in sillabe

Giò
A man has dreams of walking with giants,
to carve his niche in the edifice of time.
Before the mortar of his zeal
has a chance to congeal
the cup is dashed from his lips,
the flame is snuffed aborning.

 me-ri ku-ri-su-ma-su
meli kalikimaka
Joe from Massachusetts

Giň


 ha
| scritto:
| 
| >> me-ri ku-ri-su-ma-su
| >meli kalikimaka
| 
| che è, greco?
| 
| -- 
| 
| >Giò


Giņ


 ha scritto:
| 
| >hawaiian
| 
| ah, lì mi fermo a 'mohana' ed ad 'aloha' ...
| 
| -- 
| 
| >Giò


Giņ


 here in Italy for Italian.
I don't remember doing this, but then I have very
limited memories of what I did at Primary School in general,
and don't much remember what we did in English until about 16,
except for some of the the literature bits from 11 onwards.
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Giò


 learnt? If you don't remember, it must have been in Primary School...
I'm not particularly aware of what the rules are. I'd have to look
it up in the Oxford style guide, or something. Obviously you can't
change
the pronunciation of a word, so you can't do bat-house, unless you're
talking about a house for bats. I think you split in the middle of a
pair
of double letters. Er...
I remember lots of spelling tests. I don't remember learning
about splitting things into syllables.


 learnt? If you don't remember, it must have been in Primary School...
Division of words into syllables isn't taught in English schools. 
Words are only split in printed documents, books, etc.
There are certainly rules for typographers about how to split words, but
they're fairly complicated, and the US and GB rules are different (for
example the Americans split "people" into "peo-ple", whereas we don't
split the word at all).
Monolingual dictionaries show where to split words, but there's no point
in learning the rules - what would you use them for?
-- 
Mary

about splitting things into syllables.
maybe it's because in English it's not felt so compelling at all,
maybe as there no useful way of applying it to reality.


Giņ


 maybe as there no useful way of applying it to reality.
Maybe the words to songs are split into syllables on sheet music.


A word like "care", "pane" or "cave" can't be split at all.
Yes, I found that a little 'disturbing', being not able to divide the
words into tiny little syllables like in Italian.
For instance queue it's a syllable, so it is for quarrel, I think, and
also for carve.
It's that what I meant when I said, there up, that the division is
mostly based on sounds that on letters.


 aknowledgements a-know-ledge-ments
"a *c* knoledgement".
[...]
[1]
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf
Bye, FB
-- 
Locked from the inside. That can only mean one thing, and I don't know what
it is.
(Murder by Death)


Each dictionary has its own rules for splitting words, so I guess to
you this means you will have multiple founts (or fonts, in the case of
the printed word ? ) of knowledge from which to drink.   :>)
Joe from Massachusetts

 great efforts defenetly unproportional to the result achieved.
This paragraph was sufficiently bizarre that I thought I'd offer you some 
corrections in the hope that they're appreciated.
I just thought that _was_ a nice thing to know.
I thoughT that _was_ taught...
I also think I've already gotten to...
...definitely disproportional to... (although unproportional is acceptable) 

 in learning the rules - what would you use them for?
Knowing the rules of syllabication becomes most necessary whenever a (good) 
teacher would need an objective "readability" formula as an efficient way to 
measure text difficulty. The formulas used to measure readability are often 
based on the number of syllables , and number of sentences. 
It would result quite inefficient to rely on a dictionary to calculate the 
number of syllables of a given text. 
ciao,
alessandro

 Grazie per ogni eventuale suggerimento.
questa e' molto semplice:
http://www.createdbyteachers.com/syllablerulescharts.html

Giņ


the printed word ? ) of knowledge from which to drink.   :>)
I own two monolingual vocabularies and one bilingual dictionary, in a
paper shape. Also I own 2 cd-rom bilingual dictionaries , and then I
have two links for two online monolingual vocabularies. I'm afraid to
tell you since this may be bad for my reputation, but none of it shows
split words. Or maybe I don't know where to look and what to look for.
for instance
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
or
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/


Giò


 ...definitely disproportional to... (although unproportional is acceptable)
In BrE neither is correct; it's "disproportionate".
-- 
Mary

 
The online Merriam-Webster's shows syllable division with a dot between
each syllable:
http://www.m-w.com
The smaller monolingual dictionaries maybe don't, but the medium-sized
ones, such as the Collins Dictionary (not the Concise version), do.
But I wouldn't worry about it, as you're never likely to need it in
practice unless you're a typographer or editor dealing with
English-language texts. 
-- 
Mary

 In BrE neither is correct; it's "disproportionate".
"Disproportionate" is even more common than "disproportional in American
English, but I try to keep corrections as close as possible to the original
text.


Troppo semplice.
Note the frequent use of the word "usually" qualifying many of these
rules, suggesting that the "rules" are arbitrary and subjective,
determined by the writer of the rules, which is further implied by
the fact that no sources or references are given.
According to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, and the Cambridge
Online Advanced Learner's dictionary, the adjective "approximate"
would be broken down as: &-prňk-s&-m&t.
Could you point out which one of these rules you cite indicates how
this word should be broken down into syllables? Broken down, would it
be a-pprox-i-mate, or ap-prox-i-mate? The first agrees with how the
word is pronounced. The second looks better. Which one shall it be?
Joe from Massachusetts

in learning the rules - what would you use them for?
Writing Limericks or Haiku? :)
On Venus, where love's an addiction,
An orgasm's brought on by friction
Of toes against toes,
Or nose against nose,
And that's what I call science fiction.
I. Asimov
Furuike ya
Kawazu tobikomu
Mizu no oto 
Matsuo Basho
'bye

 Writing Limericks or Haiku? :)
But you don't need to split words with a hyphen for that purpose, which
is what I was getting at.
A native speaker can tell by the pronunciation how many syllables there
are in a word without necessarily knowing the rules about exactly where
you can split them at the end of a line.  
As I said earlier, nobody needs to know these rules in practice apart
from printers and copy editors.
-- 
Mary

 the fact that no sources or references are given.
Right.
For example, that site says (Rule 18):
"the suffixes able and ible form their own syllable"
This isn't true; they're two syllables when the word is pronounced, they
just aren't split for typographical purposes.
They also suggest the split supermar-ket, which is very clumsy:
super-market looks much better.
-- 
Mary

 word is pronounced. The second looks better. Which one shall it be?
ap-prox-i-mate : each part of the word is pronounced with a single sounding 
of the voice (which is the very definition of  a "syllable). Pprox needs TWO 
(see also rule # 7 "two or more consonants..."). Don't  you agree?
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
ciao,
alessandro

ones, such as the Collins Dictionary (not the Concise version), do.
I have the Longman Active Study, which is small, but also the
medium-sized Oxford Concise. Neither of which do.


Giò



http://www.createdbyteachers.com/syllablerulescharts.html
grazie del collegamento.
molto interessante.


super-market looks much better.
Why not "super-mar-ket" ? After all a "ket" is something, isn't it?
And "mar" seems a good candidate for a syllable :-)


 just aren't split for typographical purposes.
I agree. Print-a-ble : an exception to the rule for which a compound word is 
divided in the root word and the suffix/prefix. That rule, however, is very 
important for word recognition.

 habit.
Non dovrebbe un problema se parlasse col accento britanncio.

 I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
I think you are missing the point. The "syllabification" of which you
are so enamored has little to do with phonology. The number of
syllables in a "syllabified" word on the printed page will be equal to
the number of syllables in the phonetic representation of the word,
but the "syllabified" word is not necessarily an accurate phonetic
representation of the word, as the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary,
the American Heritage Dictionary,  the Cambridge Online Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary all clearly show, as
regards the adjective "approximate".
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=approximate
http://www.bartleby.com/61/48/A0384800.html
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=3689&ph=on
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/approximate?view=uk
The "syllabification" rules which you cite only add to the confusion,
by creating some sort of pseudo-phonetic rules out of whole cloth,
giving phonetic weight to written double consonants, where none
exists. For example, what is the phonetic difference between "a
proximate cause" and "approximate cause"? There is none, giving the
lie to the importance of the double consonant "pp" in the
pronunciation of the word.
Phonetically, the "schwa" represents the first syllable (phonetically)
in the adjective "approximate", but when "syllabified" for desktop
publishing and hyphenation, the first "syllable", typographically
speaking, is generally conceded to be "ap", which is not at all in
agreement with how the word is pronounced.
Desktop publishing syllabification (hyphenation) algorithms which the
print media use have no knowledge of phonetics, and are unconcerned
with phonetics. Their sole object is to separate words into parts, in
a manner pleasing to the eye, not to the ear.
Joe from Massachusetts

 are so enamored has little to do with phonology. 
whatever. You could have just said that you don't know the rules of 
syllabication and what they're used for.  I mean,  you actually said it : 
"fra poco rispondo". We're still waiting.
ciao e buon anno,
alessandro

>>> "Got to" is correct in BrE; "gotten" is only used in AmE.

Di chi e con chi stai parlando?


> are so enamored has little to do with phonology. 
try this (maybe give a look at the standards, and the reflections, too) :
http://www.gse.uci.edu/cli/language4videos.html

 Di chi e con chi stai parlando?
La bellezza della lingua italiana, l'oggetto č cosě ambiguo.
Scherzo.