Talk:Syllabification

Italian
Ehi, stop saying nonsense in Italian you can syllabify any word if you follow the rules (they are taught in the very first years of elementary school and revised during the following 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.194.237 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can, and that's exactly what the article said (although it said it for both Italian and Finnish), if you cared to actually read it. I'm restoring it. LjL (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Title of the article
I can see that it's useful to have an article on syllabification, but (at least wrt English) this is mostly about written syllabification. Since the division of speech into syllables is also called syllabification, I feel the title of the article should be changed, or the treatment of syllabification of spoken language within it greatly expanded. RoachPeter (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. (And within over five years, nobody seems to have disagreed.) --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 11:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes
This article as it stands has incorrect facts about English hyphenation. There are definite rules for breaking words into syllables for hyphenation in English which dictionaries follow. And these definitely depend on pronunciation. Some of these are: And if the above rules leave more than one acceptable break between syllables, use the Maximal Onset Principle: There are several problems with these rules. The main problem is that for many words they conflict, and you have to break at least one of them. This is one of the times that dictionaries disagree. The other problem is that sometimes the pronunciation of a word varies. This is another case where dictionaries disagree. There are many cases of words where British and American pronunciations lead to two different hyphenations. And sometimes, there are two different American (or British) pronunciations of a word (e.g. vapid) and some dictionaries choose one pronunciation to determine the hyphenation, while some choose another. I'd edit the article, but I worked out these rules by myself, by looking at what dictionaries did, so I don't actually have a source for them. Peterwshor (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to break words at morpheme boundaries (inter-face).
 * Try to break words between doubled consonants (bat-tle).
 * Never separate an English digraph (e.g., th, ch, sh, ph, gh, ng, qu) when pronounced as a single unit (au-thor but out-house).
 * Avoid breaking a word before a string of consonants that cannot begin a word in English (jinx-ing and not jin-xing).
 * Avoid breaking a word after a short vowel in an accented syllable (rap-id but stu-pid).
 * If there is a string of consonants between syllables, break this string as far to the left as you can (mon-strous).

syllabification in other languages
while it seems that syllabification in english is not a very important skill for the average folks, other languages may look at it differently. eg in hungarian it carries quite a social stigma if one fails to use it correctly. probably it has to do with its relatively simple rules. (the next syllable always starts with one consonant, except when a wovel is followed by another wovel. notable exception: composite words break up at the connection between their forming-words which can be broken down further using the first rule. any syllable must contain exactly one wovel. consonants marked with 2 letters count as one (not divided). stressed versions of the previously mentioned two-letter consonants are marked by three letters but count as two pieces of two-letter consonants, eg "nny" in "mennyei" breaks up as "meny-nye-i". just in case you want to go into more details on the rules of syllabification in different languages. 80.99.38.199 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC).

This sentence makes no sense to me
"A space is possible but with zero probability (e.g., syl la ble)." The literal meaning would be, "you can use spaces, but no one does and no one ever will". Tulpabug (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary
Since syllabication is one of the most prominent features of the American Heritage Dictionary, I'd add information about it and a link to the rules followed for syllabication --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Syllabification → Hyphenation – better corresponds to the content of the article, because it is about breaking up lines in writing; syllabification as separation of words into syllables is treated at Syllable. Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 11:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 02:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 12:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit nervous about doing this one. I think perhaps it should be discussed, to give linguists a chance to have their say. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can understand this, of course. However, the proposal to move this article was made five years ago (not by me), and no-one ever objected. So I thought it might be time to just do it. It’s not as if people interested in the article didn’t have time to say something against it. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Technical query, will Syllabification need to redirect to Syllable with some modification of hatnotes post move? Polyamorph (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Turning it into a dab page may be a better option. That way people wouldn't inadvertently link to it when they mean hyphenation. Nardog (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I support moving the page and setting up a dab page for "syllabification", but not the proposed target. Both "syllabification" and "hyphenation" are ambiguous. The latter to me usually means writing anti-Semitism or long-distance runner. Unfortunately I can't think of a better article title. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see that. I often come across this issue in the context of computer algorithms, and there the word hyphenation is used more or less universally to refer to this (as one can see in Syllabification). But The Free Dictionary suggests word division as a synonym of hyphenation in this sense. Should we move the article there then (something I can even do without Administrator rights, because the lemma is conveniently still free), and have both Hyphenation and Syllabification as dab pages? Would that be a good solution? --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 08:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Daniel Bunčić Unfortunately, "word division" has other meanings in linguistics. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I’m aware of that use in linguistics. But I guess it’s not the first thing that comes to the mind of non-linguists when they hear word division. So it seems like any term that has ever been used to describe the subject of this article also has a different sense. Well, that’s quite normal in a natural language actually. So the options for the lemma would be:
 * Syllabification with a hatnote redirecting to Syllable for a different sense (but I consider this term very unfortunate because breaking words at the end of lines really does not have much to do with syllables)
 * Hyphenation with a hatnote redirecting to Hyphen for a different sense
 * Word division with a hatnote redirecting to Word for a different sense
 * The other two lemmas would then be disambiguation pages. Does anyone have a preference? Or a fourth idea which is completely unambiguous? --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 13:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.