2009/5/6 Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>:
> #4 appears to be the runaway favorite. I like it best too. The only problem I have with it is the accented "i" is really hard to distinguish from the non-accented "i" in many fonts, especially small ones.

What you could do is what is, apparently, common on Irish signs: they
use a dotless i. This nicely distinguishes  and , with the latter
being unambiguously accented.

> How about the dictionary entry? Should it just show the accent, or should it show syllabification, maybe with the accented syllable in bold?
> (imagine the upper case is actualy BOLD in the dictionary)
> btora -vs- BA*to*ra
> ayda -vs- a*YU*da
> chnabe -vs- CHI*na*be

IME, dictionaries differ in what they show depending on the
requirements of the language.

For example, English-language dictionaries typically give the
pronunciation for each lemma, whereas I'd be rather amused to see,
say, a Finnish or Esperanto dictionary do so. And my German Duden only
marks stress (with an underdot for a stressed short vowel and an
under-macron for a stressed long vowel) for most words, with an IPA
transcription only for words where the pronunciation is not obvious
from spelling + stress (typically loan-words), and then only for the
portion of the word which is doubtful.

And in German, words were typically hyphenated according to morphemes,
which meant that for loanwords, you'd need to know Greek and Latin to
hyphenate He-li-ko-pter, Pd-ago-ge, and Lin-ole-um correctly. (But
this was changed in the recent spelling reform: words which are not
felt to be compounds any longer or which are not recognised as
compounds any longer may now be hyphenated according to spoken
syllables, so now He-li-kop-ter, P-da-go-ge, and Li-no-le-um are also

So if your hyphenation rules follow speech syllables, then you may not
need to show syllables, since they're typically fairly intuitive.

Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>