Hyphenate liquid?

[Molly/CA]

The proof-reader for the fish book remarks on a "block" made by hyphenating the work "liquid" so two lines appear
... inch of liq-
... let the liq-

It doesn't seem to me that "liquid" should be hyphenated at all. Is there a rule for "qu" words?

The text width is about 62 characters and putting the words back together again wouldn't add a line as far as I can see.

I suspect some kind of robot hyphenation --how hard is hyphenation to fix? The block aside, I think the instructions are harder to read and the liq- at the end of the line obtrusive.

Thanks

Molly

[ktinkel]

The proof-reader for the fish book remarks on a "block" made by hyphenating the work "liquid" so two lines appear... inch of liq-
... let the liq-
It doesn't seem to me that "liquid" should be hyphenated at all. Is there a rule for "qu" words?There is no specific rule for “qu” words, so far as I know.

There is only one way I can see to divide liquid: li-quid

However, as you point out, it is unlikely that two skinny letters like l and i would either save or destroy the spacing of any line, so why not leave it intact?

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

There is only one way I can see to divide liquid: li-quid

I should be inclined to agree, but the conventional modern way that most dictionaries follow is liq+uid. However, that it is altered by subtleties of pronunciation is indicated by the different division of liquesce (li+quesce). It depends on where the stress is placed: most people pronounce liquid 'lick-uid'.

The answer of course is not to divide liquid, which can easily be prevented from dividing at the end of a line.

[ktinkel]

I should be inclined to agree, but the conventional modern way that most dictionaries follow is liq+uid. However, that it is altered by subtleties of pronunciation is indicated by the different division of liquesce (li+quesce). It depends on where the stress is placed: most people pronounce liquid 'lick-uid'.Normally, the sensible place to divide a word is fairly obvious (to me, anyway). But that qu combination poses a special problem.

The answer of course is not to divide liquid, which can easily be prevented from dividing at the end of a line.Obviously. But Molly’s publisher seems to dance to his own jig.

[Robin Springall]

Actually, to my eyes it's not just that the word might be split twice, rather that she could end up with two lines ending with the same word (or part of the word). Both of the following would look odd in a paragraph of justified text, though it would probably look OK if the right margin was left ragged:-

... squiggleworraworra liquid
... wigglesquorraworra liquid

or
squiggleworraworra liq-
uid wigglesquorraworra liq-
uid squiggleworraworra etc

However, this would look OK to me:-

squiggleworraworra liquid
wigglesquorraworra liq-
uid squiggleworraworra etc

Mind you, it would be damn hard to read aloud!

[Michael Rowley]

Molly:

The answer to the problem raised—quite properly by an alert proofreader—is that although liquid is quite correctly divided as liq+uid, it is best not to divide it at all. In that case, you should mark the matter to be taken over and put a 'take over' mark in the margin.

[ktinkel]

... squiggleworraworra liquid
... wigglesquorraworra liquid

or
squiggleworraworra liq-
uid wigglesquorraworra liq-
uid squiggleworraworra etc

However, this would look OK to me:-

squiggleworraworra liquid
wigglesquorraworra liq-
uid squiggleworraworra etc

Mind you, it would be damn hard to read aloud!Er — em — um —
Robin: can you explain:

:)

[Stephen Owades]

InDesign's hyphenation breaks liq-uid but li-quid-ity and li-quor. It seems to follow the "American" rule, which says that the break should coincide with the pronounciation of syllables, and I think its decisions on these words are correct. (Note that pho-to-graph and pho-tog-ra-phy hyphenate differently, also based on pronounciation.)

The split in liquid matches the lik-wid sound of the word, just as the split in liquidity matches the li-kwid-i-ty sound. (I'm a singer, so I'm used to thinking about syllables split for pronounciation.)

[Richard Waller]

Why do we have to have full justification anyway. Ragged right always seems to me to be best. And altering the kerning is worse still.

[Molly/CA]

Obviously. But Molly’s publisher seems to dance to his own jig.

Boy, have you ever got that one right. Though it's less the publisher as a whole than one person in one division, whose jig has held up our book for three (yes, 3) years now . The press as a whole has done some weird things over the past few years but not as weird as what's happening in this division.

I'm sure you're familiar with Anthony Boucher's (or maybe some other SF author's) comment that editors like the taste of a manuscript better after they've p***ed on it...

[Molly/CA]

THANKS, EVERYONE!

There are no words with which to adequately thank the members of this forum for the help and succor you've all given so generously, again and again.

[Michael Rowley]

Stephen:

It seems to follow the "American" rule, which says that the break should coincide with the pronounciation of syllables

That's no longer an 'American' view: UK practice has followed that rule for most of my life; Collins English Dictionary, which gave the division of words some years ago, gives precisely the same divisions as you did. So we can be confident that at least choirs will sing in unison if they contain American and English singers!

[Michael Rowley]

Richard:

Ragged right always seems to me to be best

Two cheers for that, but it is a fallacy that hyphenation of words at the end of lines is not needed.

[Robin Springall]

Er — em — um —
Robin: can you explainLOL! I prefer fully justified paragraph blocks rather than a ragged right, though the modern trend is for the latter. However, it looks odd having two justified lines ending with the same word (or even the same bit of the same word); on the other hand, it also looks odd having two lines starting with the same word (or bit).

So if these lines in question are part of a block of text, why not either hyphenate the end of one line but leave the other alone? Or split the first line before the word, and the second after it?

How is Molly submitting the text: in Word? If she could do the page layouts herself in Quack, PageWrecker or SinDesign, then she'd have editorial control and be able to lay the thing out however she liked.