I know we've discussed this before, but on OEDILF (in a Workshop) I was asked why "fire," "world," and "swirled" all have 1 syllable to me. Can you help? I want to provide him with a more cogent answer than I was able to give.

Obviously, those 3 words are not monosyllabic in the same way that "cup" is, correct? Yet, they are different from "outdoor," for example. What is that difference?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

There's a short article here that might help. Nobody has a problem saying that cup or dog, but the sounds l and r are more problematic. They are a bit more like vowels than like other consonants, e.g., stops, in that they can be lengthened. Same with fricatives, e.g., s.

Regarding the syllable-count of words like 'swirled', I apply a simple pragmatic test:

If, in writing a limerick (say), the word fits metrically into a single beat, as 'cup' does, then it's a 1-syllable word -- but if you try to shoehorn 'shoehorn' into a single beat of a limerick line, you'll end up with, at best, a humorously galumphing line.

David

This is a discussion that goes on endlessly over at the OEDILF and is tied up intricately with accent. The pragmatic test falls down for a couple of reasons.

One is that different people prononce the same word differently so that while I consider "swirled" to rhyme with "world" and that both have one syllable, others think they rhyme but have two syllables (and in their accents they are right wor-uld swir-uld) and others disagree that they rhyme at all. The best anyone can say is that when they say them they rhyme/don't rhyme and have one/two syllables...

except for point two. When writing a poem (be it a sonnet, a two thousand line narrative epic or a limerick) people adapt the syllables of something like "fire" to fit the line. If it needs to be two it can be, if it needs to be one, well that's OK two. The sound that finishes the word can be lengthened or shortened.

Which brings me to point three - connected speech.

How many syllables is

The kitchen is on fire!

6 or 7? If you said seven then "fire" is two.

What about

There's a fire in the kitchen!

7 or 8.

Here "fire" and "in" are, in most accents run together to form two syllables overall. So "fire" must be one.

Personally I find the whole concept of a word having a fixed number of syllables rather dubious.

It just isn't as easy as your pragmatic test suggests- the same word can sit comfortably in a single beat or in two depending on the accent of the reader, the need of the writer and the position of the word in the line.

Kalleh, thanks for bringing up the subject as it is, or was, of great interest to me. I wrote an entire book--77,000 words--in words of one syllable. Entitled "The World--as told to the young man in short words", it purported to explain the Universe to the male youngster

I was trying to show that if you can't explain something in monosyllables, it might not be worth saying

It took four years to write, and another four just to get over the habit of thinking in monosyllables

Unfortunately nobody was interested; and so I remain yours truly, the Country's Most Resoundingly Unpublished Writer. However, if you know of a publisher who might tumble with this, I am dalehileman@verizon.net

quote:

but if you try to shoehorn 'shoehorn' into a single beat of a limerick line, you'll end up with, at best, a humorously galumphing line.

Yes, with "shoehorn;" but what about "world?"

I really wasn't asking as much about syllables in limericks (I RFA'd Judah's limerick which considered "whirled" to be 2 syllables) as I was in wondering what the definition of a "syllable" is. Zmj's link helped.

I wonder if instead of it being a matter of accent, it really is a matter of what you consider a syllable to be. Surely those monosyllablic words with "l" or "r" (like "world" or "swirled") sound differently to every English speaking person than do "cup" and "cat." When I was in England and I still considered "world" to have 2 syllables, I asked Bob to say "world" for me, as he always had said that it had 1 syllable. Well, we say it exactly alike. Yet, what he considered to be 1 syllable, I had considered to be 2 syllables.

Dale, what an interesting concept for a book! I can't imagine a whole book being monosyllablic!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
How many syllables is

The kitchen is on fire!

6 or 7? If you said seven then "fire" is two.

What about

There's a fire in the kitchen!

7 or 8.

Here "fire" and "in" are, in most accents run together to form two syllables overall. So "fire" must be one.

Personally I find the whole concept of a word having a fixed number of syllables rather dubious.

Not for the first time with this group, I have been persuaded to change my opinion by a cogent argument. I now agree with BH about the dubiosity (sic) of the fixed-syllable-count concept.

I particularly like the "fire" samples sentences, in part because they reminded me of my Texas years; in Texas, "fire" always and forever has only a single syllable: "fahr". Texans also refer to the low-tech cattle-containment fencing material as "bobwar". One the other hand -- to continue the syllable-count thang -- in the Lone Star State, "yes" is a 2-syllable word: "yey-us".

And as the final nail in the coffin of my now-abandoned opinion, your posting made me remember limericks in which I have finagled words into being one syllable more (or less) than their "official" count, without undue violence to the pronunciation of the line.

We humans so much want rules to be clear and unambiguous, with definite boundaries, but the world seems ill-disposed to oblige us in this regard, n'est ce-pas?

And, once again, my sig (below) is singularly appropriate -- until, of course, I change it. Speaking of which, I'd like to remark that I find it very weird how changing one's sig is applied retroactively to all one's old postings; it's kind of "re-writing history". Does this bother anyone else? Is there any venue to petition to have this changed?

David

kalleh: Monosyllabic except for the footnotes

If you'd like to see it (of course no obligation to read the whole thing) and if you're not afraid of opening an attachment, I am dalehileman@verizon.net

quote:

Originally posted by dalehileman:
kalleh: Monosyllabic except for the footnotes

If you'd like to see it (of course no obligation to read the whole thing) and if you're not afraid of opening an attachment, I am dalehileman@verizon.net

With regard to monosyllabism (is that a real word?), there is supposedly a version of Alice in WOnderland in monosyllables. It's cropped up on e-bay a couple of times and I';ve bid unsuccessfully. However I have googled it and found a few pages on line and some of the words "rabbit" for example are still in there as two syllables albeit written as "rab-bit". Seems to be cheating to me.

I can find out who the publisher is if you like dale. Who knows, having done it once they might want to try it again. (Assuming that it isn't a really old version with a defunct publisher.)

Yes I certainly would, thank you

Incidentally, I had approached the Guiness Book of Records about listing my book as the longest of its kind but they rejected it on the basis that it had no competition. But now evidently it does, and so I shall approach them once more

Seems it's an oldie, published 1908

Sorry to get your hopes up but I believe there are other books of single syllables out there. Try a bit of internet searching

Bob: I had hoped I woldn't have to make a tedious search

Being a lazy fellow I'm always hoping against hope somebody else will have an immediate answer

Edited to remark that apparently it now costs $250 to register a potential record with Guiness. Heck with it

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,