Accentuation

Question

Textbooks and dictionaries have finally started printing accents on "prohíbe", búho" but shouldn't "rehacer" in the preterite require an written accent on " rehíce, "rehízo?
How about " rehuir" in present indicative and subjunctive? "rehúyo" - "rehúya"?
Why written accent on Reír(se), third person, singular in preterite? Ella se "rió".

Answer 1

Why would those words need an accent? Doesn't the presence of the H eliminate the need for an accent mark? That is, while "proibe" would form a diphthong, "prohibe" does not.

Answer 2

There was a whole thread about rio; you should be able to find it in the "Search Forum" box.

As for the others, I cannot see why they need a (written) accent.

Answer 3

Vowels can be strong (A, E, O) or weak (I, U).
Two strong vowels together, or two weak vowels together belong to different syllables: a-o, a-e, o-a,....
The combination of a weak vowel and another vowel gives a diphthong: ai, au, ei, ia, iu,...

"buho" without the accent would be one syllable (I'll ignore the h): "buo", and the accent would be on the "o". This would be a diphthong. If you want to stress the "u", you have to break the diphthong: "bú-ho".

"Rehacer" and "rehuir" follow the same rule: they require the accent to break the diphthong.

"phohibe" would be "proi-be", with a diphthong on "oi". If you want to stress the "i", you have to break the diphthong: "pho-hí-be".

"Rio" has a diphthong, and in this diphthong the accent should be on the strong vowel (o), so it doesn't require an accent.

Answer 4

lazarus1907 said:

Vowels can be strong (A, E, O) or weak (I, U).Two strong vowels together, or two weak vowels together belong to different syllables: a-o, a-e, o-a,....The combination of a weak vowel and another vowel gives a diphthong: ai, au, ei, ia, iu,..."buho" without the accent would be one syllable (I'll ignore the h): "buo", and the accent would be on the "o". This would be a diphthong. If you want to stress the "u", you have to break the diphthong: "bú-ho"."Rehacer" and "rehuir" follow the same rule: they require the accent to break the diphthong."phohibe" would be "proi-be", with a diphthong on "oi". If you want to stress the "i", you have to break the diphthong: "pho-hí-be"."Rio" has a diphthong, and in this diphthong the accent should be on the strong vowel (o), so it doesn't require an accent.

So are iu and ui dipthongs? I always thought they were.

ruina, ciudad, ruido, etc.

If we were to put an accent on any of these, would it change the pronunciation'

Answer 5

James Santiago said:

Why would those words need an accent? Doesn't the presence of the H eliminate the need for an accent mark? That is, while "proibe" would form a diphthong, "prohibe" does not.

No, the H makes no difference whatsoever, because it is a phonetic phenomenon, and the H is mute. Both "proibe" and "phohibe" have diphthongs.

Answer 6

lazarus1907 said:

James Santiago said:

Why would those words need an accent? Doesn't the presence of the H eliminate the need for an accent mark? That is, while "proibe" would form a diphthong, "prohibe" does not.

No, the H makes no difference whatsoever, because it is a phonetic phenomenon, and the H is mute. Both "proibe" and "phohibe" have diphthongs.

Gee, and all this time I was thinking how logical it was to use the H in such words, but now it's just useless.

Answer 7

Lazarus, is this universally accepted? I'm just asking because to my recollection I have never seen the words written this way.

Answer 8

It is accepted but many people do not know it. Just look how long it took for fui, dio, vi, etc to be accepted without the written accent. It is the responsiblity of textbooks and teachers. Change is very, very slow in education. I am new to this site but I am really pleased with the intellectual exchange. Thanks, látigo.

Natasha said:

Lazarus, is this universally accepted? I'm just asking because to my recollection I have never seen the words written this way.

>

Answer 9

Natasha said:

Lazarus, is this universally accepted? I'm just asking because to my recollection I have never seen the words written this way.

Well... that's the way people are normally taught in schools, and the way serious books and dictionaries are normally written, according to the international norm for Spanish. I've studied and memorized these rules very careful, so, yes, I am sure.

I have books published in Colombia, Argentina and Mexico (novels, linguistics, grammars,...) and they all write exactly the same way.

Answer 10

látigo said:

It is accepted but many people do not know it. Just look how long it took for fui, dio, vi, etc to be accepted without the written accent. It is the responsiblity of textbooks and teachers. Change is very, very slow in education. I am new to this site but I am really pleased with the intellectual exchange. Thanks, látigo.

Natasha said:

Lazarus, is this universally accepted? I'm just asking because to my recollection I have never seen the words written this way.

OK, here's a dumb question. How does the RAE notify the world when they're going to change a rule? Do they have a newsletter? Or a big party? Really, how are we supposed to know that somebody changed the rules and vi doesn't take an accent anymore'

Answer 11

Well the RAE must be behind the times then.

prohibir.

(Del lat. prohib're).

1. tr. Vedar o impedir el uso o ejecución de algo.

MORF. Conjug. modelo.
Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

La palabra prohíbir no está registrada en el Diccionario. Las que se muestran a continuación tienen una escritura cercana.
' prohibir

Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

Answer 12

Natasha said:

OK, here's a dumb question. How does the RAE notify the world when they're going to change a rule? Do they have a newsletter? Or a big party? Really, how are we supposed to know that somebody changed the rules and vi doesn't take an accent anymore?

I don't know how they do it, but certainly not with a big party. The "rio/rió" thing is pretty recent (9 years ago), but the accent on "rehíce" has been used for over a century. In any case, the new accent rules are more consistent than before.

Answer 13

lazarus1907 said:

Vowels can be strong (A, E, O) or weak (I, U). Two strong vowels together, or two weak vowels together belong to different syllables: a-o, a-e, o-a,.... The combination of a weak vowel and another vowel gives a diphthong: ai, au, ei, ia, iu,...

"buho" without the accent would be one syllable (I'll ignore the h): "buo", and the accent would be on the "o". This would be a diphthong. If you want to stress the "u", you have to break the diphthong: "bú-ho".

"Rehacer" and "rehuir" follow the same rule: they require the accent to break the diphthong.

"phohibe" would be "proi-be", with a diphthong on "oi". If you want to stress the "i", you have to break the diphthong: "pho-hí-be".

"Rio" has a diphthong, and in this diphthong the accent should be on the strong vowel (o), so it doesn't require an accent.

Would you care to provide some examples of words that do have an "h" separating vowels but are, nonetheless, pronounced as having a diphthong'

Answer 14

Prohibir does not carry an accent since it is the infinite form but when it is conjugated it does require the use of a written accent to destroy the diphthong in the present indicative and subjunctive (except "nosotros"), commands (Ud., Uds,, tú, nosotros).
On the same subject- Freír is just like reír- Preterite Ella frio, not frió.

tad said:

Well the RAE must be behind the times then.prohibir.(Del lat. prohib're).1. tr. Vedar o impedir el uso o ejecución de algo.MORF. Conjug. modelo.Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservadosLa palabra prohíbir no está registrada en el Diccionario. Las que se muestran a continuación tienen una escritura cercana.' prohibirReal Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

>

Answer 15

látigo said:

Prohibir does not carry an accent since it is the infinite form but when it is conjugated it does require the use of a written accent to destroy the diphthong in the present indicative and subjunctive (except "nosotros"), commands (Ud., Uds,, tú, nosotros).
Whoa! Since when does the definition of a diphthong include making exceptions for the word's being an infinitive? To paraphrase Lazarus' earlier comment "a diphthong is a phonetic phenomenon" while being an infinitive is a grammatical categorization. Or to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "a diphthong is a diphthong is a diphthong".