# Syllable division???



## Artrella

Hello People!!!  I know in English there are no rules as regards syllable division... How do you do it?? Are there at least some hard and fast rules for this???

Thx!!!


----------



## manuycacu

There are two ways: one is American and the other one British but I don'r remember which is which. The first one is dividing accordding to pronunciation and the other one, according to word formation


----------



## Nick

The number of syllables is never more than the number of vowels.

I don't think there is a systematic way to divide words into syllables because the number of syllables depends upon the pronounciation of the word. Consider "ratio" -- sometimes it is pronounced in two syllables (ra-sho) and sometimes in three (ra-she-o).


----------



## roxy

I'm not completely sure what Artrella is asking, I'm afraid. I understand what she (I think you're a she!) means but i don't kknow what the actual question is.



			
				Nick said:
			
		

> Consider "ratio" -- sometimes it is pronounced in two syllables (ra-sho) and sometimes in three (ra-she-o).



Is ra-sho accpetable though? There are a few examples of this though. One that springs to mind is the word "Wednesday". Some people say "wenns-day" and some say "wed-ens-day".  

Then , to confuse the issue there's the difference in emphasis between american english and british english - e.g., "_gar_age" in Britain/Ireland, "gar_age_" in America. But that's another issue!


----------



## Nick

It is definitely acceptable. In fact, American Heritage lists "ra-sho" first and "ra-she-o" second.


----------



## dave

What about the word *medicine*?

I always pronounce it with two sylables (_med-cine_), but a Welsh Professor of renal medicine that I know always pronounces it with three (_med-i-cine_).

And *camera*? _Cam-ra _ or _cam-er-a_? (I favour the two syllable version - I guess I'm just lazy!).

I'm still not entirely sure what Art is asking though!


----------



## cuchuflete

dave said:
			
		

> What about the word *medicine*?
> 
> I always pronounce it with two sylables (_med-cine_), but a Welsh Professor of renal medicine that I know always pronounces it with three (_med-i-cine_).
> 
> And *camera*? _Cam-ra _ or _cam-er-a_? (I favour the two syllable version - I guess I'm just lazy!).
> 
> I'm still not entirely sure what Art is asking though!



I'm not either Dave. She begins by saying that there are no rules, then asks what the rules are!?  Every English dictionary shows the separtions, sometimes with alternates.

Cuchu


----------



## Nick

dave said:
			
		

> What about the word *medicine*?
> 
> I always pronounce it with two sylables (_med-cine_), but a Welsh Professor of renal medicine that I know always pronounces it with three (_med-i-cine_).


I've never heard it pronounced with two. It sounds very odd; must be a UK thing. Here we say _(med-a-sin)_ or _(med-i-sin)_.


----------



## Eustache

Teacher said me:

the opportunities that a fly has to fly in your mouth this is the quantity of syllable that you have in the word...

sorry I can't wite the correct pronuciation
1 = the "i" without the dot 
medicine ['meds1n], just has 2 syllable


----------



## showcase

Nick said:
			
		

> The number of syllables is never more than the number of vowels.


 
I'm guessing "rhythm" is an exception to that rule.


----------



## Nick

Eustache said:
			
		

> medicine ['meds1n], just has 2 syllable


  Seeing as how it sounded so incorrect with only 2 syllables, I looked it up. It always has 3 syllables. *All* of these sources concur: Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Random House, MSN Encarta, Cambridge American, Cambridge British.


----------



## Edwin

showcase said:
			
		

> I'm guessing "rhythm" is an exception to that rule.



Huh?   rhythm has one syllable and one vowel (y).

On the other hand if we had a word with no vowel, then it would be an exception. Some have suggested words like Psst!  For a discussion of this see the website: http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1029289/8966.htm


----------



## Frances

It is quite a while since I felt the need to divide a written word into syllables so I put 'syllabification' into the google search engine.  The results were enough to prove that even the 'experts' who deal with linguistics for a living can't agree on the precise way that many words should be divided into syllables.  What hope do us mere mortals have?
Somewhere deep within the recesses of my mind there is a vague memory of being taught how to divide syllables e.g. what to do with a double consonant, whether the consonant stays with the previous vowel etc, but I can't for the life of me remember.  I won't be able to rest now until I find out!


----------



## dave

Nick said:
			
		

> Seeing as how it sounded so incorrect with only 2 syllables, I looked it up. It always has 3 syllables. *All* of these sources concur: Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Random House, MSN Encarta, Cambridge American, Cambridge British.



Well my Collins Concise gives both the 2 and 3 syllable options. I think the most commonly used in BrE is with 2 syllables.


----------



## Artrella

Eustache said:
			
		

> Teacher said me:
> the opportunities that a fly has to fly in your mouth this is the quantity of syllable that you have in the word...
> 
> sorry I can't wite the correct pronuciation
> 1 = the "i" without the dot
> medicine ['meds1n], just has 2 syllable





Hi Eustache!!!    A correction    it is *"say something to somebody" * or *"tell somebody something"*
So...* Teacher told me * or *Teacher said this to me*


Kissies!!!


----------



## mylam

Edwin said:
			
		

> Huh? rhythm has one syllable and one vowel (y).


 
Main Entry: *rhythm*


Pronunciation: 'ri-[th]&m
\&\ as *a* and *u* in abut
Source:© 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 

Myla


----------



## Edwin

mylam said:
			
		

> Main Entry: *rhythm*
> 
> 
> Pronunciation: 'ri-[th]&m
> \&\ as *a* and *u* in abut
> Source:© 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
> 
> Myla



Myla, I suppose, you are implying that contrary to what I wrote *rhythm* has two syllables.   I see the dash in the _pronunciation_ of the word, but there are no dots in the _main entry_.  I think that traditionally dictionaries indicate syllabification by centered dots in the entry words. For example, if you look up *rhythmic* in Merriam-Webster Online you find:

Main Entry: *rhyth·mic*
Pronunciation: 'ri[th]-mik
Variant(s): or *rhyth·mi·cal* /-mi-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : marked by or moving in pronounced rhythm
2 : of, relating to, or involving rhythm
- *rhyth·mi·cal·ly* /-mi-k(&-)lE/ adverb 

I couldn't find Merriam-Webster's explanation of how they indicate syllabification, but I did find a statement in an old copy of Webster's New World Dictionary saying that they indicate syllabification by centered dots in the entry words using syllabification adopted by printers in the 18th century and in general use since then.  They  say that they are aware of i_ts inconsistencies and failure to conform to any scientific principles_. But-- they go on to say that it is essentially too late to change things now.  It seems likely that the whole question of syllables is be a bit murky.


----------



## mylam

Edwin said:
			
		

> I couldn't find Merriam-Webster's explanation of how they indicate syllabification


 
I didn't either, but I did find (under "help, entries" on the left-hand side of the page)
* 
** End-of-Line Division
     The centered dots within entry words indicate division points at which a
     hyphen may be put at the end of a line of print or writing. 

So the dots don't strictly represent syllabification (think, for example, of a one-letter final syllable). 


I also looked up "syllable" in Britannica's online encyclopedia, and found the following:

     Segment of speech usually consisting of a vowel with or without 
     accompanying consonant sounds (e.g., a, I, out, too, cap, snap, check).

     A syllabic consonant, like the final n sound in button and widen, also    
     constitutes a syllable. Closed (checked) syllables end in a consonant,
     open (free) syllables in a vowel. Syllables play an important role in the 
     study of speech and in phonetics and phonology.

That second paragraph really surprised me!

Myla
*


----------



## gaer

I'm perplexed by "ra sho". I see it is listed as first choice by Merriam-Webster too. Cambridge clearly shows three syllables, making it seem that most Americans use two, most in the UK three. But I use three, and I think a touch of the "i" is in there, even when the word is spoken quickly.

Then the word "doppelgänger", coming directly from "Doppelgänger", is incorrectly shows as 'dä-p&l-"ga[ng]-&r, -"ge[ng]-. The first pronunciation is aboslutely WRONG.

Cambridge has the correct pronunciation (closest approxmiation anyway).

I don't trust pronunciation guides in American dictionaries for these reasons.


----------



## showcase

Nick said:
			
		

> Seeing as how it sounded so incorrect with only 2 syllables, I looked it up. It always has 3 syllables.


 
_Reading_ and _glance_ do too. 

So does _look_ and _book_ and everything else that rhymes with that. So I don't think that rule stating that "The number of syllables is never more than the number of vowels" works.


----------



## Edwin

mylam said:
			
		

> I didn't either, but I did find (under "help, entries" on the left-hand side of the page)
> *
> ** End-of-Line Division
> The centered dots within entry words indicate division points at which a
> hyphen may be put at the end of a line of print or writing.
> 
> So the dots don't strictly represent syllabification (think, for example, of a one-letter final syllable).
> 
> 
> I also looked up "syllable" in Britannica's online encyclopedia, and found the following:
> 
> Segment of speech usually consisting of a vowel with or without
> accompanying consonant sounds (e.g., a, I, out, too, cap, snap, check).
> 
> A syllabic consonant, like the final n sound in button and widen, also
> constitutes a syllable. Closed (checked) syllables end in a consonant,
> open (free) syllables in a vowel. Syllables play an important role in the
> study of speech and in phonetics and phonology.
> 
> That second paragraph really surprised me!
> 
> Myla
> *




This is getting to be more than I ever wanted to know about syllables.  I found several places on the web that purport to explain the concept, but I must admit that neither is easy going and I am no wiser when it comes to syllables.

I am content to leave the cutting off of words at the end of a line when necessary to word processors and editors.


----------



## Nick

showcase said:
			
		

> _Reading_ and _glance_ do too.  So does _look_ and _book_ and everything else that rhymes with that. So I don't think that rule stating that "The number of syllables is never more than the number of vowels" works.


reading = 3 vowels, 2 syllables
glance = 2 vowels, 1 syllable
look = 2 vowels, 1 syllable
book = 2 vowels, 1 syllable

None of these break the rule.


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> Myla, I suppose, you are implying that contrary to what I wrote *rhythm* has two syllables.


 
Question, Edwin: is there any doubt that when you pronounce it there are two syllables, regardless of how *rhythm* is broken up in any dictionary?

I'm wondering how many other words there may be like this? Surely this can't be the only one that MIGHT break the rule that there can't be more syllables than vowels? And does seem that this rule almost always does work.


----------



## Tabac

Edwin said:
			
		

> Huh? rhythm has one syllable and one vowel (y).
> 
> On the other hand if we had a word with no vowel, then it would be an exception. Some have suggested words like Psst! For a discussion of this see the website: http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1029289/8966.htm


 
American Heritage lists 'rhythm' as two syllables, accent on the first.  It also lists 'nth' as a word, meaning 'utmost'.


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> Question, Edwin: is there any doubt that when you pronounce it there are two syllables, regardless of how *rhythm* is broken up in any dictionary?




I'm not sure I understand what a syllable is. But I do pronounce rhythm as if it were spelled rithum. But going by the British pronunciation of medicine (two syllables), one might also pronounce rhythm as rithm (one syllable).  If it is pronounced rithum it really has two vowels.  It is just that one is hidden. The same goes for ''words'' like n-th which are pronounced as if written enth. 

Of course, we all know that English spelling is pretty bad anyhow. I guess the point is that the way a word is cut at the end of a line doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how it is divided into syllables. I see that in Merriam-Webster Online there are two things to go by: the main entry and the pronunciation code.  According to what I previously read, places where a word may be cut are indicated by centered dots in the main entry. Perhaps the dashes in the pronunciation code separate the syllables? 

For example in Merriam-Webster Online we have

Main Entry: rhythm
Pronunciation: 'ri-[th]&m

Main Entry: syl·lab·i·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation: s&-"la-b&-f&-'kA-sh&n

In neither case are the centered dots in the same locations as the dashes. So I'm not sure what those dashes mean--not to mention the other symbols!

What we need is an expert to tell us about such matters.


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> What we need is an expert to tell us about such matters.


 
I agree, although in this case if you used rhythm as the last word in a line of poetry and rhymed it, wouldn't you definitely have to use another two-syllable word?


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> I agree, although in this case if you used rhythm as the last word in a line of poetry and rhymed it, wouldn't you definitely have to use another two-syllable word?



How about this?

*She's got rhythm.
And sure can hum.

While drinking rum,
and chewing gum.

That's my mum!*



Surely hum, rum, gum, and mum have only one syllable each? 
If you don't agree with that these words rhyme with rhythm you can argue with http://www.rhymer.com/cgi-bin/rhymer.cgi  which was of some help here.


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> How about this?
> 
> *She's got rhythm.*
> *And sure can hum.*
> 
> *While drinking rum,*
> *and chewing gum.*
> 
> *That's my mum!*
> 
> 
> 
> Surely hum, rum, gum, and mum have only one syllable each?
> If you don't agree with that these words rhyme with rhythm you can argue with http://www.rhymer.com/cgi-bin/rhymer.cgi which was of some help here.


 
For me rhythm can never be one syllable. I'm a musician, so I hear things in beats, in time. Do you know the very famous song, "I've Got Rhythm", by Georgr Gershwin? Rhythm is set to different pitches, two notes. If you check other songs that use the word "rhythm", I think you will find most if not all use two notes. I suppose what I do and what I teach may have prejudiced my thinking. 

Gaer


----------



## lsp

Edwin said:
			
		

> How about this?
> 
> *She's got rhythm.
> And sure can hum.
> 
> While drinking rum,
> and chewing gum.
> 
> That's my mum!*
> 
> 
> 
> Surely hum, rum, gum, and mum have only one syllable each?
> If you don't agree with that these words rhyme with rhythm you can argue with http://www.rhymer.com/cgi-bin/rhymer.cgi  which was of some help here.


That doesn't really speak to the syllable question, though, does it? "Rhythm" rhymes with "can hum" like marigold rhymes with button-holed. As the site you cite says, "*final syllables* (stressed or unstressed) that rhyme with the word..." or maybe I missed the point?  (well, maybe)


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> For me rhythm can never be one syllable. I'm a musician, so I hear things in beats, in time. Do you know the very famous song, "I've Got Rhythm", by Georgr Gershwin? Rhythm is set to different pitches, two notes. If you check other songs that use the word "rhythm", I think you will find most if not all use two notes. I suppose what I do and what I teach may have prejudiced my thinking.



Gaer, I was not denying that rhythm has two syllables I was giving a counter-example to your statement:



			
				gaer said:
			
		

> I agree, although in this case if you used rhythm as the last word in a line of poetry and rhymed it, wouldn't you definitely have to use another two-syllable word?



My ditty shows that a one syllable word can rhyme with the two syllable word rhythm. In the above quote you seem to be saying that cannot happen.  (In one of my previous posts I already confessed that I pronounce rhythm as rithum (two syllables)) Maybe I misunderstood your statement about having to use another two-syllable word.

But back to music --of which I am pretty ignorant--isn't it possible to compress a two syllable word so that it can be sung in the space of one note. After all the British take the three syllable word medicine and compress it into two syllables.


----------



## Edwin

lsp said:
			
		

> That doesn't really speak to the syllable question, though, does it? "Rhythm" rhymes with "can hum" like marigold rhymes with button-holed. As the site you cite says, "*final syllables* (stressed or unstressed) that rhyme with the word..." or maybe I missed the point?  (well, maybe)



lsp:  at the Online Rhyming Dictionary  they describe six types of rhymes.  *rhythm* and *hum* have an  end rhyme  according to this website.  There is no requirement for such rhymes that the rhyming words have the same number of syllables--at least not for end rhymes.  

(To verify that, in the opinion of this dictionary, rhythm and hum have an end rhyme, just type in rhythm and set the search on end rhyme. You will be given a list of one and two syllable words that form an end rhyme with rhythm.)


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> Gaer, I was not denying that rhythm has two syllables I was giving a counter-example to your statement:


 
Edwin, I think we are talking about two different things. I think we might agree if we could talk instead of write. The problem is that we are talking about sound.

Yes, I know I wrote this: I agree, although in this case if you used rhythm as the last word in a line of poetry and rhymed it, wouldn't you definitely have to use another two-syllable word?

I stated it badly. The site you mentioned (http://www.rhymer.com/) is very clever, and also useful. But I don't think the one syllable words shown, such as mum and rum, are meant to rhyme with rhythm. I think they are meant to rhyme with that last SYLLALBE of rhythm.



> My ditty shows that a one syllable word can rhyme with the two syllable word rhythm.


 
I don't think so. There are two problems, as I see it. First, I don't believe "hum" rhymes with "rhythm". I think you're trying to make two words, "can hum", rhyme with two syllables, and that does not work for me, for a very good reason. The first syllable of rhythm is STRESSED. But if you say, "And sure can hum", you will stress the second word, "hum", and that throws off the meter. "While drinking rum" has a similar problem. While DRINK ing rum. You'd have to line up "ing rum" with "rhythm", but there it would be DRINK ing rum, with ing and rum unstressed.

If you look at the list of words given on the site, most have a stressed first syllable followed by an unstressed second syllable: adam, album, alum, angstrom, anthem, anum, ashram, atom, autumn, awesome, etc. And the reason the final vowel differs is that an unstressed vowel is often represented by a special syllable showing that almost any vowel will work.

For instance, RHY them, RHY tham, RHY thim, RHY thom, RHY thum. The exact sound of the vowel, if it existed, could be any of those. There is a name for such an unstressed vowel, but I'm not sure of it or the spelling. Could it be a "schwa"? A teacher told me the term, and I have no idea of the spelling, or if I even have the sound right.



> But back to music --of which I am pretty ignorant--isn't it possible to compress a two syllable word so that it can be sung in the space of one note.


 
Tough to explain. You could NOTATE it that way, showing one note with two syllables over it, but no one will hear it that way with a word such as rhythm, because the th sound causes a partial stop. Simply try saying "the-the-the" while singing one note. It will be perceived as three notes, all the same pitch. But the opposite is done all the time. One syllable is stretched over two or more, even many notes

After all the British take the three syllable word medicine and compress it into two syllables.

But that's an entirely different thing. If it is PRONOUNCED as two syllables, it could be just two notes, like "MED-sin". I think you are thinking too much about spelling and not enough about sound. Ratio needs three notes, three syllables, if you pronounce that way. If you say "RAY sho", which apparently is very common the US, then it would require only two notes. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Milja

Some languages, as for example Finnish, have very strict rules of how the words are divided into syllables (hyphenation) permiting the language user (writer) to cut the word at the end of a line and continue to the next line. To my recollection however it is very rarely done anymore in Finnish at least. Perhaps cause most of the writing is done these days by computers and they automatically avoid hyphenation. I have also read that some research shows that hyphenation impairs readability of a text.
 

So Cuchu and Dave, perhaps this is what Artrella was asking: Do you and how do you hyphenate English words into syllables in writing? 
 

As far as I have been taught at school, it is not recommended in English to hyphenate the words and there isn’t really need for it either because English words are shorter than the words in many european languages. I have however read somewhere that in English the writers have the freedom to break words where they wish. Is that true? And is it actually ever done?


----------



## lsp

> But I don't think the one syllable words shown, such as mum and rum, are meant to rhyme with rhythm. I think they are meant to rhyme with that last SYLLALBE of rhythm.


That's what I was so awkwardly trying to say. But I thought E's reply meant that he agreed. It's so confusing. This time I understand the 2 sides of a debate, but not who is defending which position!!


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> ----, I don't believe "hum" rhymes with "rhythm". I think you're trying to make two words, "can hum", rhyme with two syllables, and that does not work for me, for a very good reason. The first syllable of rhythm is STRESSED. But if you say, "And sure can hum", you will stress the second word, "hum", and that throws off the meter. "While drinking rum" has a similar problem. While DRINK ing rum. You'd have to line up "ing rum" with "rhythm", but there it would be DRINK ing rum, with ing and rum unstressed.



Okay, Gaer, so one question is: can a one syllable word *rhyme* with a two syllable word?

Obviously it depends on the definition of rhyme. 

For example in WordRef.com's English dictionary it says:
*rhyme*, be similar in sound, especially with respect to the last syllable;

At the website Online Rhyming Dictionary  they give *six (6) different ways* that words may be said to rhyme.  The first is the 

*End Rhyme*: Words with _ending rhyme_ have the same final vowel sound and following consonant sound(s). 

This is true for hum and rhythm since they both end with *&m* using the pronunciation from Merriam Webster.

Main Entry: rhythm
Pronunciation: 'ri-[th]&m

Main Entry: hum
Pronunciation: 'h&m

I agree that if you stress the first syllable of rhythm the word doesn't make a very good rhyme with hum, rum, gum, etc. But with poetic license you can say rhythm with stress on the second syllable:  ri-THUM?  

The Online Rhyming Dictionary also mentions:  last syllable rhymes , double rhymes, triple rhymes, beginning rhymes, and first syllable rhymes.  The rhyme of rhythm and hum doesn't fit any of these types of rhyme--it fits only the end rhyme.

I guess there are also good rhymes and bad rhymes. This is a silly argument, but it is forcing me to learn something about rhyming.  I'll admit that probably Dr Seuss would never have rhymed rhythm with hum.


----------



## gaer

Edwin, to keep clear "who said what", so that *I* don't get mixed up… 



			
				Gaer said:
			
		

> ----, I don't believe "hum" rhymes with "rhythm". I think you're trying to make two words, "can hum", rhyme with two syllables, and that does not work for me, for a very good reason. The first syllable of rhythm is STRESSED. But if you say, "And sure can hum", you will stress the second word, "hum", and that throws off the meter. "While drinking rum" has a similar problem. While DRINK ing rum. You'd have to line up "ing rum" with "rhythm", but there it would be DRINK ing rum, with ing and rum unstressed.


 
That was about the stress of syllables used in rhyming, and I have no idea what the correct terminology is in poetry. I've read things like "iambic pentameter", but as a musician, I think of poetry as "even" and "swing".

Straight rhythm: 
Twin kle twin kle lit tle STAR
How I won der what you ARE.

You could march to it. 

Swing:

JACK and JILL ran UP the HILL 
to FETCH a PAIL of WA -- TER



			
				Edwin said:
			
		

> Okay, Gaer, so one question is: can a one syllable word rhyme with a two syllable word?
> 
> Obviously it depends on the definition of rhyme.


 
Well, I think it can, and according to the definitions you found, that seems to be accepted. 

The only thing that seems very curious to me is this:



> Main Entry: rhythm
> Pronunciation: 'ri-[th]&m
> 
> Main Entry: hum
> Pronunciation: 'h&m


 
I don't understand the meaning of "&", because the sound we use for "thm" will vary in a way the sound for "hum" will not. You could not rhyme "hum" with "hem", but you could would rhyme these with rhythm: anthem, atom, adam, although some people might consider that "cheating a bit"!

The reason is that the second syllable of these words are "throw-away-vowel-sounds", unstressed, and there is a proper name for such things. But I don't know it.



> I agree that if you stress the first syllable of rhythm the word doesn't make a very good rhyme with hum, rum, gum, etc. But with poetic license you can say rhythm with stress on the second syllable: ri-THUM?


 
To me that stresses poetic license to the max. 



> I guess there are also good rhymes and bad rhymes. This is a silly
> argument, but it is forcing me to learn something about rhyming. I'll admit
> that probably Dr Seuss would never have rhymed rhythm with hum.


 
Argument?  I don't look at it that way. Almost everything we talk about is probably of no importance at all, but it's fun to think about things. As for Dr. Seuss, I don't think he has anything to worry about from either one us. Or Ogdan Nash:

"What a wonderful bird is the pelican,
Whose beak can hold more than his belly can. "


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> I don't understand the meaning of "&", because the sound we use for "thm" will vary in a way the sound for "hum" will not. You could not rhyme "hum" with "hem", but you could would rhyme these with rhythm: anthem, atom, adam, although some people might consider that "cheating a bit"!



Gaer, I don't know what *&* means either, but I notice that the pronunciation in Merrian-Webster Online has all these words (rhythm, hum, anthem, atom, and adam) ending with &m.  I guess &m is the sound um in hum. And Merrian-Webster is saying that all these words end in that sound.  If we had a rational spelling system for English I suppose we would write them as: rithum, hum, anthum, atum, adum.  Then they would at least be ''eye rhymes''. 



			
				gaer said:
			
		

> The reason is that the second syllable of these words are "throw-away-vowel-sounds", unstressed, and there is a proper name for such things. But I don't know it.



I spoke to my friend (a "published'' poet) today.  There seems to be more to rhyming than given in the Online Rhyming Dictionary that I mentioned.  He seems to agree with you that you usually don't just rhyme words but you must rhyme phrases. And that stress is important. Looking around some more I found that Wikipedia #rhyme link has a nice discussion of different kinds of rhymes. It includes the following categories of rhymes.



> * masculine: a rhyme in which the stress is on the final syllable of the words. (rhyme, sublime, crime)
> * feminine: a rhyme in which the stress is on the penultimate syllable of the words. (wiki, tricky, sticky)
> * dactylic: a rhyme in which the stress is on the third-to-last syllable (accident, president)
> * triple: a rhyme in which all three syllables of a three-syllable word are stressed equally.
> * perfect: a rhyme between words that are identical in sound. (sight, site)
> * oblique (or slant): a rhyme with an imperfect match in sound.
> * consonance: matching consonants. (her, dark)
> o half rhyme is consonance on the final consonants of the words involved
> * assonance: matching vowels. (shake, hate)
> * sight (or eye): a similarity in spelling but not in sound. (cough, bough)
> * imperfect: a rhyme between a stressed and an unstressed syllable. (den, siren)
> * identity: a rhyme that starts at a consonant instead of a vowel, or rhyming a word with itself. (gun, begun)
> * semirhyme: a rhyme with an extra syllable on one word. (bend, ending)



I conclude that *rhythm and hum* fall into the category of *imperfect rhyme*. 

I like the Odgen Nash *Pelican*, another  favorite of his is:

Candy
Is Dandy
But liquor
Is quicker.


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> Gaer, I don't know what & means either, but I notice that the pronunciation in Merrian-Webster Online has all these words (rhythm, hum, anthem,
> 
> atom, and adam) ending with &m. I guess &m is the sound um in hum. And Merrian-Webster is saying that all these words end in that sound. If we had a rational
> 
> spelling system for English I suppose we would write them as: rithum, hum, anthum, atum, adum. Then they would at least be ''eye rhymes''.


 
I think I just figured it out:



> cou·ple
> Pronunciation: 'k&-p&l


 
So any word that has this "u" sound, cup, tough, love, etc. is given this & symbol. Therefore the ending syllables that have no clear vowel sound are arbitrarily 

assigned the same phonetic symbol. I don't think that's 100% accurate, but it's a common-sense approach. In fact, it's so useful, I think I'll suggest it to a teacher who tutors young children in reading. The school system was using some weird name and made it confusing.

And using this idea, any two words with unstressed endings and rhyming first syllables will rhyme very well.



> I conclude that rhythm and hum fall into the category of imperfect rhyme.


 
I think so. Look at all those terms! Did you ever think rhyming could be so complicated? But I'll bet many people are great at it and don't know any of those terms. And I think only some of those ways of rhyming are normally used in rhyming poetry.


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> I think I just figured it out:
> So any word that has this "u" sound, cup, tough, love, etc. is given this & symbol. Therefore the ending syllables that have no clear vowel sound are arbitrarily assigned the same phonetic symbol. I don't think that's 100% accurate, but it's a common-sense approach. In fact, it's so useful, I think I'll suggest it to a teacher who tutors young children in reading. The school system was using some weird name and made it confusing.
> 
> And using this idea, any two words with unstressed endings and rhyming first syllables will rhyme very well.



Gaer, it seems you were right about the term *schwa* which you mentioned earlier. It's what *& * is called in this context according to Merriam-Webster: 

Main Entry: *schwa*
Pronunciation: 'shwä
Function: noun
Etymology: German, from Hebrew schewA'
1 : an unstressed mid-central vowel (as the usual sound of the first and last vowels of the English word America)
2 : the symbol & used for the schwa sound and less widely for a similarly articulated stressed vowel (as in cut)

There is also a link to *schwa* at Wikipedia  However, according to Wikipedia schwa is denoted by the rotated ''e'' or sometimes also by what appears to be ''@''. I didn't find the & anywhere but in Merrian-Webster.

The symbol & is apparently a slightly extend version of the usual schwa since as meaning 2 indicated it is also used for some stressed vowels--whereas the schwa is normally unstressed.  Nevertheless according to meaning 2 & with this additional meaning is also called schwa, if I understand what 2 says. 

Note: after writing the above I finally was able to locate the Merriam Webster Pronunciation Guide. It is at: http://www.m-w.com/help/pronguide.htm

This Pronunciation Guide also explains the relationship between the hyphens in the pronunciation of a word and the centered dots in the main entry. Namely, it says:



> Hyphens are used to separate syllables in pronunciation transcriptions. In actual speech, of course, there is no pause between the syllables of a word. The placement of hyphens is based on phonetic principles, such as vowel length, nasalization, variation due to the position of a consonant in a syllable, and other nuances of the spoken word. The syllable breaks shown in this text reflect the careful pronunciation of a single word out of context. Syllabication tends to change in rapid or running speech: a consonant at the end of a syllable may shift into a following syllable, and unstressed vowels may be elided. The numerous variations in pronunciation that a word may have in running speech are of interest to phoneticians but are well outside the scope of a dictionary of general English.
> 
> The centered dots in boldface entry words indicate potential end-of-line division points and not syllabication. These division points are determined by considerations of both morphology and pronunciation, among others. A detailed discussion of end-of-line division is contained in the article on Division in Boldface Entry Words in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. In this dictionary a consistent approach has been pursued, both toward word division based on traditional formulas and toward syllabication based on phonetic principles. As a result, the hyphens indicating syllable breaks and the centered dots indicating end-of-line division often do not fall in the same places.


----------



## Magg

dave said:
			
		

> What about the word *medicine*?
> 
> I always pronounce it with two sylables (_med-cine_)



Dave -- that reminds me of a BBC documentary on taking vitamins. 
The woman explaining a research on the matter pronounced /'vitmin/ and that surprised me. I think yours is the same example.

That must be the schwa sound, which is almost silent in certain words and you often help it to be even more.

What about 'secretary' /'sekretri/?


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> Gaer, it seems you were right about the term schwa which you mentioned earlier. It's what & is called in this context according to Merriam-Webster…


I know. The teacher I told you about and I examined Merriam-Webster's phonetic system. The normal way of writing the "schwa" is "ə". I don't like MW's solution, because it is misleading. I like the international phonetic alphabet, (IPA), because it uses symbols that we can't confuse with our alphabet. MW uses "ä" for the "ah" sound we use in "father", but also in "hot" (hät), and it uses "A" for the sound in "day", "a" for the sound in "sat".

The teacher, Roberta, told me that the system is horribly confusing and impractical, and I agree. Teachers normally use "u" with a small curved line above it and call it a "short u" for words like "hum", "cut", etc. "ə" is different, as you have read. It has no particular sound, so the slight variation in pronunciation causes no problems with understanding, but it does change the way we speak enough to help form regional accents.

Bought is shown as "bot", and I think most of us would understand "bawt" much more quickly. I would mispronounce almost every word using this system.

This is interesting:



> Syllabication tends to change in rapid or running speech: a consonant at the end of a syllable may shift into a following syllable, and unstressed vowels may be elided.


 
I think a word like "ratio" is not truly pronounced " 'rA-(")shO ", as shown by MW. I think the "i" is "elided", using their word. When spoken quickly, it may almost disappear, but I don't think it goes away entirely. 

Hyphenating is another subject entirely.


----------



## Artrella

Hi! I'm talking to my American girlfriend right now, and we are doing an exercise, she is teaching me how to separate a word into syllables.
She tells me that when she was at school, her teacher taught her this:
"hold your hand a little under your chin and when your chin hits your hand, there is a new syllable.  For those words which have primary and secondary stress, when your chin hits your hand a little harder you have the primary stress"


----------

