How To Hyphenate Latin Words (Break into different syllables)

“Where the best authorities differ so widely it would be absurd to pretend to offer a final solution.” — Fr. Adrian Fortescue (The Mass, 1912)

CLICK TO ENLARGE N THE ORDINARY FORM, there are Spoken Propers (for Masses without music) and Sung Propers. Sometimes they’re identical, sometimes not, and the same holds true for Latin hyphenation. There is “spoken” hyphenation (a.k.a. “written”) and “sung” hyphenation … and they’re not always the same.

Professor John F. Collins gives basic rules of syllabification in his Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin (CUA), but these are intended for “written” Latin. Even there, leeway exists, because ancient manuscripts divide words depending on spacing issues. Of course, going back even further, the words were all written together without any spaces!

For the Edmund Campion project (website), we spent hours studying hyphenation issues. I share some of our findings below. Fr. Xavier Lasance (†1946) is not always consistent. For instance, he sometimes writes FRU—CTÍFERA but in other places writes FRUC—TÍFERA. The following document explains what a “true error” is:

* * Notes about the Translations for the Campion Missal

LET US CONSIDER the Latin word omni. Latin grammarians say it should be broken as OM – NI. However, Pustet’s 1888 Breviary breaks it surprisingly as O — MNI And in 99% the Solesmes books, it is divided as O – MNI for “sung” Latin. Any time Solesmes has “OMN” they divide it this way, e.g. O – MNIS. Perhaps they do this to help singers pronounce it correctly. It doesn’t appear to be a “French thing” since the 1953 German Graduale follows suit, e.g. O – MNI – BUS. However, for “written” Latin, the Solesmes Liber Usualis uses OM – NES.

Moving on, let’s consider how words like “SANCTE” are broken:

Official 1962 Missale Romanum: SAN – CTE • SANC – TAM

Fr. Xavier Lasance: SANC – TA

1975 Missale Romanum of Paul VI: SANC – TAM

Solesmes Liber Usualis: SAN – CTUÁRIUM • SAN – CTUM • SAN – CTO

Pothier’s Liber Gradualis (1884): SAN – CTUS

You can see that each publisher follows his own policy. The most important thing is to be consistent. (You’ll notice the official 1962 Missal is not.) It would be fascinating to go through all the old books at the St. Jean de Lalande Library and see what different publishers did over the years. Feel free to add hyphenations from books you own in the combox. Here are some notable ones I found:

Fr. Lasance: COG – NÓSCO • Solesmes: CO – GNOVÍSTI 02 • 03 • 04

Solesmes 1942 Breviary: dixerámus = DI — XERAMUS instead of DIX — ERAMUS

Díxero and Dixérunt: DI — XERO not Díx — ERO

Likewise: DI — XERUNT instead of DIX — ERUNT :

Yet look at this: “dixísti” is DI — XISTI whereas “Exeúnte” is EX — EUNTE

Fr. Lasance: FAC – TUM

Fr. Lasance: SUS – CÉPTOR

Fr. Lasance: PROP – TER

Fr. Lasance: ACCÉP – TAM

Solesmes 1903 Manuale: ACCÉ – PTA

Fr. Lasance: CHRIS – TUS

Solesmes books: EXSPÉ – CTANT

Most “sung” versions by the monks of Solesmes have OMNÍ – POT – ENS, yet the 1903 Solesmes Manuale has OMNÍPO – TENS

But others do not agree with Solesmes and write OMNI – PO – TENS

Similarly, the word potéstas is broken as POT – E – STAS not PO – TESTAS …… because they like to preserve TO BE (“estis”)

But for some reason, potéstas—normally broken as POT-E-STAS — in 1957 Solesmes does PO-TE-STAS which is remarkably inconsistent

Solesmes = “Excidístis” is broken as EXCIDI — STIS instead of Excidis — tis

Most written versions prefer NOS-TRIS, yet the Solesmes 1903 Manuale has NO – STRUM

Solesmes: ÉT – I – AM

Vatican Press: DI – GNERIS & BAPTÍ – SMI

ABUNDANS = ab—UN—dans not a—BUN-dans

Here are some more examples commonly found in “sung” Latin (as opposed to “written” Latin):

RED – EM – PTOR — not re-dem-ptor
O – MNES — not om-nes
Ó – MNI – A — not om-nia
SOL – E – MNI – TATEM — not so- LEM – nitatem solemnitatem
SIC – UT — not si-cut
NO – STRIS — not nos-tris
NO – STER — not nos-ter
NO – STRÓRUM — not NOS – trórum

PRO – PTER — not prop-ter
A – GNO — not ag-no
SAN – CTO — not sanc-to
Ó – PTI – ME — not óp-time
PENTECÓ – STES — not Pentecos-tes
SE – CUS — not sec-us
Á – SPERO — not ás – pe – ro
DILE — XISTI not “dilex — isti” … same for words like abstraxísti, which would be abstra — xísti
EX – ÉR – CITUS — not e-xercitus
VE – XIL – LA — not vex-il-la
RESPE – XIT — not respex-it (but one book has “e-xultavit”)
DI – XIT — not dix-it
OB – UMBRÁBIT — not o – bumbrabit
RED – EM – PTIÓNEM — not Re-demp-ti-onem
RED – ÉMIT — not re-demit
yet Solesmes has RE – DEMIT and RE – DEMIT
AD – ORÉMUS — a-doremus
PROTE – CTÓ – REM — not protec-to-rem
RE – CTAE — not rec-tae
RED-IMENDUM not Re-Di-Men-Dum
NO – CTÚR – NO — not noc-túr-no
TE – STA – MÉNTUM — not tes-ta-mentum
IN – I – QUITÁTES — not i-niquitates but Solesmes & NOH like I – NI – micítias
SE – PTE – NÁRIUM — not sep-tenárium
POT – ENTÁTUI — not po-tentatui
CONSPÉ – CTU — not conspec-tu
SO – MNUM — not som – num
DI – GNISSIMA — not dig-nissima
CO – GNOVI — (but written is usually cog-novi)
GÉ – NITRIX — not Gen-i-trix
I – PSÍ – US — not ip-sius
SEMET – Í – PSUM — not seme-tip-sum
Í – PSE — not íp – se
But … semetipso has IP — SO not I — PSO
CAE – LE – STIS — not caeles-tis
SUS – CIPE — not su-scipe — see also Suscepísti
TEM – PLO — not temp-lo
VEL – UT — not ve-lut
E – STO — not es-to
E – RIT — not er-it
PA – TER — not Pat-er
PRO – PTÉ – REA — not prop-terea
BENEDÍ – XIT — not benedix-it
MANSU – E – TÚDINEM — not mansu-et-udinem
DEX – TERA — not de-xtera
PERMAN – SÍ – STI — not perman-sis-ti
NO – VÍS – SIME — not nov-issime
DI – É – BUS — not di-eb-us
FE – LIX — not fel-ix
BASILI – SCUM — not ba – si – lis – cum ??
CRUCIFÍ – XUS — not crucifix-us
EX – ÉR – CITUS — not e-xer-citus
SCRI – BÉN – TIS — not scribe-ntis
JU – STUM — not jus-tum
ERU – CTÁVIT — (but written is usually eruc-tavit)
RE – GNUM — (but written is usually reg-num)
ACCÉ – PTAM — (but written is usually accep-tam)
MINI – STRÓ – RUM — not minis-trorum

As you can see, sometimes numerous ways of syllabification are acceptable in Latin.

Finally, watch out for “compound” word that have actual Latin words in them, like:

IN – I – MI – CUS — not i-ni-micus

and PER – I – BUNT — not pe-ri-bunt

Yet we saw how “noster” was treated …

By the way, look how “victoriam” is treated:

Why do they do I – nimícis but at the same time IN – íquo :

NA – SCE –TUR not NAS – CE – TUR ——— and RE – GNUM not REG – NUM :

HO- SPES not HOS – PES

SOLESMES MONASTERY is inconsistent, when you look at the word ENUTRIET :

OBLIVISCERIS is broken as obli – vi – scé -ris :

SUSCIPE is done SUS – CI – PE not su – SCI – pe as shown by Solesmes 1957:

This one has many remarkable hyphenations for Latin words:

How would you break “obliviscáris” ?

(1) O – BLI – VI – SCA – RIS ? or: (2) OB – LI – VI – SCA – RIS ?

The second one is the correct one. Ob is a preposition and therefore not separated. SC always goes together, e.g. in scientia, etc. Cf. Introit for Sexagesima Sunday in Liber: ob-li-vi-sce-ris.

Look how different folks treat “vespertinum” :