Timeline for Where should one place word division dots in "Schroedinger" (with "oe" instead of "ö")?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2023 at 18:51 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @Anton While I now do agree with the final conclusion, I still don't think that the argument you stated settles the issue on its own. We know that pronunciation is just one of several considerations that dictionaries take into account when deciding where a written line can break. Consider this: herisson is probably right that splitting duplicate consonants has to do with (possibly historical) gemination; but the fact remains that there is just one l sound in chan·cel·lor, represented by two letters, which we split. It is not a priori clear to me why Schro-edinger is any worse. | |
| Apr 27, 2023 at 16:51 | comment | added | Anton | This is a discussion about nothing. "ö" is a letter in German that represents a single and particular vowel, distinct from the vowels "o" or "e". It therefore cannot be split. Style or restricted character sets sometimes necessitate the use of "oe" to replace ö, This no reason to think of the vowel as splitable. | |
| Apr 27, 2023 at 15:58 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 27, 2023 at 14:52 | vote | accept | linguisticturn | ||
| Apr 26, 2023 at 23:59 | comment | added | herisson | @linguisticturn: even though the "tt" in "committee" is pronounced as one phonetic consonant in present-day English, it is possible to interpret it historically or abstractly as representing a geminate consonant /tt/ which is split between two syllables as /t.t/. There is no comparable principle of splitting diphthongs between syllables--much less digraphs representing a monophthongal vowel. | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 23:57 | answer | added | herisson | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 22:20 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @alphabet This is indeed consistent with the poker (the game) example: absent multiple morphemes, it is divided according to the positions of its phonetic syllables. | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 22:18 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @YosefBaskin If this rule for vowels is valid, then it's hard to see why a more general rule wouldn't be valid as well: that one shouldn't put a division dot in the middle of letters that together denote the same phoneme. But the example of com·mit·tee seems to invalidate that more general rule. So then the question becomes, why should the rule hold for vowels but not for consonants? | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 22:12 | answer | added | The Photon | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 22:06 | history | edited | linguisticturn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 26, 2023 at 21:54 | comment | added | alphabet | In this case, you really need to divide the word based on syllables, since typically you wouldn't try to decompose proper names into morphemes, particularly morphemes in another language. | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 21:52 | comment | added | Yosef Baskin | Isn't the oe one vowel sound and not even a diphthong? So the opening syllable ends after that, as it does after a single o. | |
| Apr 26, 2023 at 21:50 | history | edited | Heartspring |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 26, 2023 at 21:47 | history | asked | linguisticturn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |