Page 1 of 1
Fun with sesquisyllables
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:48 am
by Ketsuban
Elsewhere on the internet I found myself needing an example of an English two-syllable word where the two syllables are meaningless independently, and considered rhythm before deciding that rhythmic was clearer. After clicking "post" I realised I'd created a contradiction: I'd syllabified the former as rhy-thm (which implies the latter is rhy-thmic) but the latter as rhyth-mic (implying rhyth-m). Which of these is correct? Is ambiguity like this found in other languages with reduced syllables?
Re: Fun with sesquisyllables
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2025 8:36 am
by xxx
rhyth-mic /ˈrɪð.mɪk/ is correct but mic is not meaningless...
Re: Fun with sesquisyllables
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2025 9:58 am
by Lērisama
Ketsuban wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:48 am
Elsewhere on the internet I found myself needing an example of an English two-syllable word where the two syllables are meaningless independently, and considered
rhythm before deciding that
rhythmic was clearer. After clicking "post" I realised I'd created a contradiction: I'd syllabified the former as
rhy-thm (which implies the latter is
rhy-thmic) but the latter as
rhyth-mic (implying
rhyth-m). Which of these is correct? Is ambiguity like this found in other languages with reduced syllables?
I would syllabify them like you did. English syllabification is weird
Re: Fun with sesquisyllables
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2025 11:58 am
by Travis B.
Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 9:58 am
Ketsuban wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:48 am
Elsewhere on the internet I found myself needing an example of an English two-syllable word where the two syllables are meaningless independently, and considered
rhythm before deciding that
rhythmic was clearer. After clicking "post" I realised I'd created a contradiction: I'd syllabified the former as
rhy-thm (which implies the latter is
rhy-thmic) but the latter as
rhyth-mic (implying
rhyth-m). Which of these is correct? Is ambiguity like this found in other languages with reduced syllables?
I would syllabify them like you did. English syllabification is weird
As would I.
Re: Fun with sesquisyllables
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:08 pm
by Richard W
Ketsuban wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:48 am
Elsewhere on the internet I found myself needing an example of an English two-syllable word where the two syllables are meaningless independently, and considered
rhythm before deciding that
rhythmic was clearer. After clicking "post" I realised I'd created a contradiction: I'd syllabified the former as
rhy-thm (which implies the latter is
rhy-thmic) but the latter as
rhyth-mic (implying
rhyth-m). Which of these is correct? Is ambiguity like this found in other languages with reduced syllables?
Yes. Compare Greek
ănḗr 'man' (nom. s.) with
ăndrós (gen. s.) or Russian
Oleg and
Olga. And cross-linguistically, it is very common with VC suffixes, as with English
meet and
meeting, with the final consonant becoming the initial consonant of the suffixed form.
Re: Fun with sesquisyllables
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2025 4:08 am
by Darren
I think in English trochees there's no meaningful way to syllabify the intervocalic consonant, it's just ambisyllabic. If you're gonna speak it out in syllables, then it'll attach to the preceding vowel if it's lax and to the following if tense (in monomorphemic forms at least)