|This page is no longer active. It is being kept for historical interest.|
|No discussion is needed to revive this page; simply remove the
(maybe this belongs better in Wiktionary talk:Template?)
I've noticed that Wiktionary is exceptionally sparse on hyphenation information. (Clarifying, by "hyphenation" I mean only how hyphens are placed when breaking a word at the end of a line, and not "syllabification", which is a pronunciation issue.)
I think this is good dictionary information (other dictionaries don't hesitate to include it) but I'm not sure of the best way to do it. My first instinct was to put it in the citation form, thus:
- === Adjective ===
—with bullets instead of hyphens, as English dictionaries put it, but this might interfere with other languages—such as Catalan with its l·l digraph, or languages that modify spelling when hyphenating, e.g. changing a digraph like ck to c·c, or decomposing ligated characters such as ß to s·s (I remember a rule like the first exist[ed] in some language; I don't know if the second was ever practiced but it may be).
Alternatively there might be a === Hyphenation === section but that feels a bit ... ostentatious for what is possibly a dying art anyway. Opinions? —Muke Tever 18:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, the dots work the best for me. To overcome the problem regarding languages that include the dot as part of their writing system, I would encourage using the dots but putting them in a different color. — V-ball 20:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is only necessary to list hyphination points that don't work with the standard algorithm. However, the algorithm is different for each language. If using a forign word in an English document, and it needs breaking, do I use the English conventions or the conventions for that word? If the latter, than a standard link to "hyphinate this word" pointing to a program which does it would be fine. It can check for a === Hyphenation === section under the == Language == section for the word, and if absent, use the generic procedure. —Długosz
I tend to consider hyphenation as adjunct to the pronunciation issue. By limiting it to that section we aren't misleading anybody into believing that these hyphens are a part of the normal spelling of the word. Hyphens elsewhere would only appear if the word is regularly spelled with a hyphen. A foreign word in a text should follow the rules of its own language when being hyphenated, not the rules of the host language.
I always view the kind of program that does anything like automatic hyphenation or spell-checking with extreme suspicion. We need to be able to override any automatic procedure. Eclecticology 00:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that automatic hyphenation is not the way to go. I never trust MS Word or Corel WordPerfect because they often get it wrong. I always check in either a "real" dictionary or an online dictionary run by a company like Oxford or Merriam-Webster (sp?).
- I also agree that such information should be included in the Wiktionary. It would make it just that much more helpful and that much better of a resource.
- V-ball 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)