Liturgicallatin versus latinHyphenation about babel-latin

[wehro]

You mix up ecclesiasticlatin, which is a babel language, and liturgicallatin, which is a set of hyphenation patterns. I have to admit that this wording may be misleading, but these terms are used for historical reasons.
I know that the hyphenation in historical liturgical books (and even modern ones) may follow different conventions. It is up to you to choose the hyphenation patterns you prefer. The liturgicallation patterns follow the conventions used by Solemnes in recent (post A.D. 2000) publications.
Please read section 3 of the babel-latin manual and also this page and then let me know if you have further questions.

[MRoth1910]

Sorry, but I didn't mention the babel language at all, I don't think, I don't think. From what I understand, the two distinct hyphenation rules are classicallatin and liturgicallatin. Other forms would use latin by default (or you could specify this if you were so inclined).

Yes, I've read the documentation as well as that for Latin hyphenation. To say that it is confusing is putting it mildly.

[MRoth1910]

Oh now I see what you mean, re: the spacing. I know that the liturgicallatin hyphenation is based on that of the 2000s editions of Solesmes.

So to put it another way: some hyphenation choices are already controlled by the gabc file. To be consistent with those and the sources from which I'm taking the text (the preconciliar Liber antiphonarius and the Liber Usualis), I'm following, as best I can, the same divisions. Two differences are in ps. 120, v. 3 (cu-sto-dit in the Liber Usualis, cus-to-dit in Antiphonale Romanum II) and v. 6 (no-ctem and noc-tem respectively).

(This isn't just chant, for what it's worth. Cf. this comment

What is the best way to achieve such division of syllables?

Part of the trouble seems to be that neither the LU nor AR II have many actual hyphens in the psalms. The pointing is the major indication, whereas the two-column format of the LA requires more hyphens, but the psalms are not pointed, though there are some in the collects and Scriptural texts that would be hyphenated differently based on the practice of the time, as far as I have been able to discern.

[wehro]

The best for you is to keep the default (“modern” hyphenation style/latin hyphenation patterns). You could have find this advice here: https://github.com/gregorio-project/hyphen-la/tree/master/doc#modern-and-medieval-hyphenation
The modern style hyphenates cre-sco, ho-stis, ve-sper, cu-sto-dit opposed to cres-co, hos-tis, ves-per, cus-to-dit in the “liturgical” style.
You should however note that both styles hyphenate noc-tem, rec-tor, om-nis, sol-lem-nis as Latin words cannot begin with ct or mn. Hyphenations like no-ctem, re-ctor, o[-]mnis, sol-le-mnis were postulated by Roman grammarians of the late antiquity based on Greek and can sometimes be found in liturgical books. But they do not fit the structure of Latin and there are currently no hyphenation patterns supporting them.

Even if there are no hyphens in the psalms in the chant books, there are always some syllables in the end marked by italic type and bold face for chant purposes. It is possible to reconstruct hyphenation from this partly. E. g. AR II has on page 3:

Dómine, clamávi ad te, ad me festína

It’s clear from this, that the hypenation is fes-ti-na and not fe-sti-na in this book.

[MRoth1910]

Even if there are no hyphens in the psalms in the chant books, there are always some syllables in the end marked by italic type and bold face for chant purposes.

Yes. I mentioned the pointing already and that the syllable division is different.

Regarding the documentation, I've read it, but clearly I didn't sufficiently understand it, which is why I'm asking.

As I noted, however, it's not just chant, and a whole host of books would have been published with the split based more on Greek than Latin. Alas.