Problem of elision

[fradec]

the following code

% !TEX TS-program = LuaLaTex+se
\documentclass{article} %%
\usepackage[autocompile]{gregoriotex} %%
\begin{document} %%
\gabcsnippet{(c4) sal(d)vúm(d)qu<e>e</e> ab(d) hos(dh)tis(h) ím(h)pe(g)tu(hvGFgwh/GFED.) (;)}
\end{document}

gives this

but should give this

I known I can obtain this with qu<e>e</e> {a}b(d) but it would be good that the elision of a vowel preceded of 'qu' that can be correctly recognized.

[rpspringuel]

I believe the intended usage of the elision tags is to encapsulate the whole elided syllable, not just the vowel in it. <e>que</e> ab does get the neume position right, but italicizes (i.e. applies the elision format to) que not just e. Is it common for people to want just the vowel in the elided syllable formatted?

[eroux]

The initial elision feature request actually comes from @fradec, so I think he knows how it should be used

[fradec]

The elisions concern only the vowels since the consonant must be pronounced, vocalized with the vowel of the following word, so it's not good to insert the entire syllable in the tags. See for example this hymn from Liber Hymnarius p.38

[henryso]

Question: in general, putting aside elision, for Latin, if you have "que", should this be equivalent to q{ue} or qu{e}?

[rpspringuel]

From here:

U preceded by Q or NG and followed by another vowel as in words like qui and sanguis, keeps its normal sound and is uttered as one syllable with the vowel which follows : qui, quae, quod, quam, sanguis. But notice that cui forms two syllables, and is pronounced as koo-ee. In certain hymns, on account of the metre, this word can be treated as one syllable.

From another place:

after Q, pronounce QU like KW, then pronounce the 2nd vowel

It thus seems to me like either interpretation is valid from a pronunciation stand point.

[eroux]

It should be equivalent to qu{e}

[rpspringuel]

Looking in the Graduale Simplex (2007 edition from Liberia Editrice Vaticana) I find:

and

and

all of which seem to lean towards considering the u part of the vowel.

In the Hebdomadae Sanctae: Iuxta Ritum Monasticum (1957 edition) I find the following examples:

and

and

all of which seem to be going the other way (u is part of the qu).

[eroux]

Well, in my exchanges with abbeys, I never encountered anyone who would consider semi-consonants (like u in qui or i in cuius) as part of the vowel when it comes to centering notes... that's a very strange idea, to me it looks like the Graduale Simplex is not particularly well crafted (which is no big surprise)

[rpspringuel]

That's a possibility. I'm no expert and simply used those two reference because I happen to have files for them on my computer.

[eroux]

In terms of typography, the best books are the Solesmes books before 1975 (Antiphonale Monasticum, Graduale Romanum, etc.), they consistently use qu{e}

[henryso]

If we agree that "qu" should be considered a consonant, which would solve the original problem, then I will change the default vowel rules to consider it so.

[henryso]

Actually, looking at code, I think it's actually a bug rather than a rule change.