Division of words in Webster

[Nonverbis]

Could you have a look at this article:

Definition of TELEVISION

an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Why before the | separator tele is not divided but after the separator it is divided.

If I'm not mistaken, after the separator we have dividion into syllables. But what is before the separator?


A more misterious example:

Definition of DEFINITELY

in a definite way : in a way free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity; —used in speech as a forceful way of expressing agreement or saying 'yes'; —used in speech in the phrase definitely not as a forceful way of expressing disagreement or saying 'no'… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Here we have 'i' as a separate entity. What does it mean?

By tye way:

Definition of DEFINITIVE

serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation; authoritative and apparently exhaustive; serving to define or specify precisely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

A similar word. But divided the other way.

I don't understand at all how they devide and what their division mean (before the separator and after that).

 

[Skrej]

The word to the left of the | with the centered dots is suggested end-line division. The syllable division on the right side uses hyphens.

From their full pronunciation notes pdf on page 2:



You can also read their notes about end-line division here.

 

[Nonverbis]

It is strange for me to know that in English words are divided for line breaks somehow othervise than into syllables. Are there any rules. For example, why television can't be broken like te-levision?

 

[jutfrank]

The tele part is a morpheme (a prefix), and as such counts as indivisible.

 

[Skrej]

In modern times, the end line break is only a feature of typesetting and print publications. For most of us who are simply writing essays, reports, letters, and stories, a modern word processor is just going to automatically move the entire word down to the next line anyway. End line breaks are more a feature of justified spacing anyway, which is rarely used outside of professional publications.

I can't ever recall having studied or learned about end-line breaks. I can't recall having ever needed to do it, either. Even back when I wrote stuff by hand instead of typing, I think I just judged whether or not the whole word would fit, and if not, move it down to the next line. If I did need to split, I probably just went by syllables.

A quick search comes up with a few sites, although I'm not sure how authoritative they really are.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000129.htm
https://www.bestessays.com/splitting_words_guide.php
http://www.editorsal.com/word_division.html
https://college.cengage.com/english/raimes/digitalkeys/keyshtml/basic_ru.htm

 

[Nonverbis]

The tele part is a morpheme (a prefix), and as such counts as indivisible.

There is more than one morpheme in the word television. So, your explanation seems like one-sided. Vision is also a morpheme.

Well, and with 'tele' not everything looks smooth.

Please, have a look at this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telemetry

te·lem·e·try | \ tə-ˈle-mə-trē \

The same 'tele' is divided. And the whole word is divided not by morphemes at all. Metr is a morpheme here. Namely the root if I'm not mistaken.

Well, I would say, this division for linebreaks is hardly worth bothering one's head. There will be no rules. And the logic behind this division is hardly understandable.

 

[jutfrank]

There is more than one morpheme in the word television. So, your explanation seems like one-sided. Vision is also a morpheme.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that tele was just one of the morphemes in the word. Also, the vision part consists of two morphemes, not one.

Please, have a look at this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telemetry

te·lem·e·try | \ tə-ˈle-mə-trē \

The same 'tele' is divided.

Yes, that goes directly against what I said about not breaking up morphemes. Honestly, these end line break rules seem really silly to me. I can barely believe Merriam-Webster think it deserves their ink.

And the whole word is divided not by morphemes at all. Metr is a morpheme here. Namely the root if I'm not mistaken.

Right.

Well, I would say, this division for linebreaks is hardly worth bothering one's head. There will be no rules. And the logic behind this division is hardly understandable.

Agreed!

 

[Tarheel]

Nonverbis, I suggest that you abandon the phrase "there will be no rules".

 

[5jj]

Also, the vision part consists of two morphemes, not one.

Really?

 

[jutfrank]

Really?

I think so, yes. First vis, and then ion. Do you disagree? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[5jj]

I am not sure that such forms as tang, aud, vis, etc (as in tangible, audible, visible) can really be considered English morphemes.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure either now you're doubting me, but I think they can. Take, say, visible, visual. They obviously have suffixation, so why do you think vision doesn't?

 

[5jj]

It's been over five decades since I spent any time on morphemes, so anything I say is unlikely to be appropriate.