The page at http://tug.org/tex-hyphen/#languages lists the "languages" for which hyphenation patterns are available (as the package hyph-utf8).

I would have expected more. For example, Some other software systems use "locales" like "en_US", "en_UK", "en_AU", "en_CA", etc. Here, among English variants, only English in GB and USA are listed, and the languages listed use a dash instead of underscore and all lowercase.

Why do so very few variants appear to exist?

  • 2
    Austrian and Swiss varieties of German use the same hyphenation rules as standard German, so there is no need for different pattern files. The situation is similar to English for Canada or Australia. – egreg Jan 18 at 23:01
  • 3
    Canadian English uses American hyphenation rules, and Australian and NZ English use British rules, so at least for English, things are covered. – Alan Munn Jan 18 at 23:41
  • 1
    I would guess the vast majority of UK users use the US patterns as they make so little difference most users don't think to add a language package and switch language. – David Carlisle Jan 19 at 0:33
  • 2
    your question is worded rather strangely in that you refer to the locale of the reader but what matters is that of the writer so unless your magazine is going to be re-worded with local spellings and re-typeset then why does it need different hyphenation? – David Carlisle Jan 19 at 1:26
  • 1
    I have edited the question and voted to reopen it. As a reminder, closing a question is not supposed to be used for "this question is phrased poorly", but for "this question is fundamentally unanswerable and not a good fit for the format of this site", which I don't think is the case here (as the excellent answer shows). – ShreevatsaR Jan 19 at 14:11

Getting hold of a proper resource for generating patterns is not just a matter of volunteer effort.

The U.S. and British patterns were derived from commercially published dictionaries. The source of the U.S. patterns is identified in Frank Liang's dissertation (a copy of it is on the TUG web site), and the British patterns are based on an Oxford mini-dictionary. In both cases, extensive negotiation, non-disclosure agreements, etc., etc., were involved, which took several years. Negotiations are still underway regarding an updated version of the British patterns; the discussion started more than two years ago, involving the same dictionary publisher and the individual who produced the original patterns.

Since you are producing a magazine, you may have or be able to develop contacts within the world of dictionary publishers in the English-speaking areas you mention.

The primary resource necessary to generate patterns is a reliable database with hyphens embedded. Permission must be obtained, which will require assurance (probably contractual) that the database will not be used for anything else or shared with anyone else. There may be monetary considerations, although I believe access to the sources used for the current U.S. and British patterns were negotiated for free. Ambiguous entries must be weeded out (e.g., "pro-duce" (verb) vs. "prod-uce" (noun)), and other editing applied as described in Liang's dissertation.

This is not an exercise for the faint of heart.

In the end, unless the regional hyphenation is substantially different from the existing U.S. and British usage, such work may not result in any significant differences, and not be worth the effort involved.

|improve this answer|||||

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.