Advertising
LEO

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker.

Would you like to support LEO?

Disable your ad blocker for LEO or make a donation.

 
  •  
  • Forum home

    Language lab

    Hyphenation of "jewel" / Silbentrennung von "jewel"

    Topic

    Hyphenation of "jewel" / Silbentrennung von "jewel"

    Comment

    Hello,

    I have to write the lyrics to a song and have to hyphenate the word "jewel" for that purpose. I would be glad to get informations how to do that: "je-wel" or "jew-el"? In the first case it wouldn't be easy for the singers to see that the following "wel" changes the pronounciation of "je", but the second case seems to be wrong to me.

    Authorjair_ohmsford (935504) 18 Aug 22, 10:19
    Comment

    Der Merriam-Webster giibt die Silbentrennung als "jew-el" an (Hervorhebung von mir):

    jewel

    noun, often attributive

    jew·​el | \ ˈjü-əl

    , ˈjül also ˈju̇l \

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jewel

    #1AuthorMattes (236368) 18 Aug 22, 10:30
    Comment

    So this is sheet music, and there's a big gap between the notes, and you're writing half the word under one note, and half under the other?

    I think I'd be more likely to sing it JU ......... WELL, not JEW ......... ELL.

    If that's how they're singing it, then maybe write it je-wel. Unless it's karaoke and they won't have read the notes before the performance.

    #2AuthorCM2DD (236324) 18 Aug 22, 10:33
    Comment

    "So this is sheet music, and there's a big gap between the notes, and you're writing half the word under one note, and half under the other?"

    That is exactly the problem. In the original lyrics they use "jewl" instead of "jewel". But the choirmaster does not like that. So I try to write "jewel" correctly under the two notes.

    Is "JU ---- WELL" a typo?


    "Der Merriam-Webster giibt die Silbentrennung als "jew-el" an (Hervorhebung von mir):

    jewel"

    Diese Seite kannte ich bisher nicht. Danke für den Link.

    #3Authorjair_ohmsford (935504) 18 Aug 22, 10:43
    Comment

    I disagree with #2. In the many hours that I've sung with choirs, I don't recall ever seeing words divided other than they would normally be divided, and that, in this case, would be jew-el. Musicians are normally accustomed to looking a bit ahead, and the only time this might present a problem is in the first read-through.

    I also don't think a choir would pronounce the second syllable with a strongly noticeable "w" either, which makes "JU----WELL" an unnatural pronunciation. (Note to jair_ohmsford: that isn't intended to be a spelling of the word, just a way of showing pronunciation.)

    #4Authorhbberlin (420040) 18 Aug 22, 10:52
    Comment

    Thank you very much for your replies.

    #5Authorjair_ohmsford (935504) 18 Aug 22, 11:07
    Comment

    Exactly; "JU ... WELL" was how it would sound.


    #4 I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the subject regarding the spelling! I guess you're talking about a professional choir when it comes to the sound? I can imagine singing it as "JEW .... WELL", but not as "JEW... ELL". Wouldn't that involve a glottal stop at the start of ELL?

    #6AuthorCM2DD (236324) 18 Aug 22, 11:10
    Comment

    [OT] Interessierte Zwischenfrage: Jair schrieb in #3: In the original lyrics they use "jewl" instead of "jewel". Ist das eine alte englische Schreibweise für "jewel"? Oder woher kommt das?

    #7AuthorMattes (236368) 18 Aug 22, 11:19
    Comment

    "JEW... ELL". Wouldn't that involve a glottal stop at the start of ELL?


    No, why should it? Consider the rather similar, often sung No...el.

    #8Authoramw (532814) 18 Aug 22, 11:38
    Comment

    Zu #7:

    Es handelt sich um das schottische Traditional "The Water is wide". Ich habe jetzt selbst nachgesehen und im Netz gefunden, dass es verschiedene Versionen gibt. In der entsprechenden Strophe (welche, das ist je nach Version verschieden) heißt es manchmal

    "When love is gentle, and love is kind

    The sweetest flower when first it's new" (Celtic Woman)

    mit verschiedenen ähnlichen Varianten

    und manchmal

    "O love is handsome and love is kind,

    Gay as a jewel when it is new" (Joan Baez)

    mit ebenfalls verschiedenen ähnlichen Varianten.

    Die Version mit "jewl" steht offenbar nur auf meinem Notenblatt und ist wohl ein Druckfehler oder der Versuch, das "je-wel"-Problem zu umgehen.

    #9Authorjair_ohmsford (935504) 18 Aug 22, 11:50
    Comment

    I'd sing it NOW-WELL....


    Noel /noʊel/

    Owen /ˈəʊɪn/

    #10AuthorCM2DD (236324)  18 Aug 22, 11:52
    Comment

    "Jewl" could be an alternative spelling for "jew'l", which is how a poet would write "jewel" to show it has one syllable.

    Maybe they used to sing it differently, with "jewel" as one note?

    #11AuthorCM2DD (236324) 18 Aug 22, 11:55
    Comment

    To #11:

    Actually there are even three notes for the word: two connected with a tie and one seperate note. But as usually the text for the first strophe is written directly under the notes while the text of the other strophes is written seperately and the text does not always fit perfectly to the notes. So it is not quite clear how to distribute the syllables of jewel to the notes. The choirmaster decided to connect the first syllabel to the first two notes (with the tie) and the last syllabel to the seperate note. We needed some reorientation. Therefore I wanted to rewrite the music notation so that it fulfilled her requirements. That is the background for my question.

    #12Authorjair_ohmsford (935504)  18 Aug 22, 12:11
    Comment

    Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, wird "flower" auch nur auf eine Note gesungen, oder?

    Ich würde dann weder Blume noch Edelstein auf zwei Noten aufteilen, jedenfalls nicht in der Melodiestimme. Die müsste dann flow'r und jew'l behalten. Die letzte Entscheidung liegt bei Traditionals aber leider bei der Chorleitung, und die ist meist beratungsresistent.


    Mein Hintergrund: ein paar Jahrzehnte Chorsänger, zuweilen Kantatensolist, ausgebildeter Chorleiter, Arrangeur, Komponist (vorwiegend Sologesänge oder einfache Chorsätze), das alles aber immer nur nebenberuflich oder ehrenamtlich. "Falsche" englische Silbentrennung kenne ich nur von Deutschen, denen nicht bewusst ist, dass im Englischen andere Regeln gelten und nicht phonetisch getrennt wird.

    "Backe, backe Kuchen" wäre früher ja auch "Bak-ke, bak-ke Ku-chen" getrennt worden, was anderen Kriterien folgte als der optimalen Chornotation.


    Daher volle Unterstützung zu #4.

    #13Authorreverend (314585) 18 Aug 22, 12:14
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
  • Pinyin
     
  • Keyboard
     
  • Special characters
     
  • Lautschrift
     
 
 
:-) automatisch zu 🙂 umgewandelt