If you examine a copy of the "Abbey Psalms" from Conception Abbey in Missouri you should find your answer, as that is, in fact, the psalter that will be used in the new edition of the LOTH.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

What I would do in the revised LOTH: Print the psalms in couplets, pointed to basic psalm tones, like in the Mundelein Psalter. Include Matins and the day offices. You could remove all the psalm prayers to make room. This would establish a common baseline of Psalm chant accessible to all. Those who wanted more elaborte settings with composed antiphons could then publish those separately.

The psalm collects are in a supplement to the Liturgiæ Horarum, according to the introduction, so they are an official resource, not just a US invention. Indeed it says in accordance with the traditional norm. OTOH only the US LOTH includes them in the main text, afaik.

112. Orationes super psalmos, quæ recitantes adiuvent in eorum interpretatione præcipue christiana, in Supplemento libri Liturgiæ Horarum pro singulis psalmis proponuntur et possunt ad libitum adhiberi ad normam veteris traditionis, ita scilicet ut, absoluto psalmo et aliquo silentii spatio observato, oratio psallentium affectus colligat et concludat.

CGZ: I look at it this way: use the 1961 Breviarium Romanum as the basis: if I am part of a group chanting the office I alternate verse by verse, following the Liber or Antiphonale; if I am saying it privately, it doesn't really matter whether the Psalms in the Breviary are arranged in singles, or as a strophe, or just as a block of text, because I am saying it all myself anyway.

The Problem with the way the LOTH is currently implemented is that there are two books that bear little resemblance to each other in matters of layout: the four-volume Breviary (by which I mean the actual, physical printed book) which is designed for private (or common) recitation, without note; and the Antiphonale Romanum which is designed for the public, sung, celebration of the office. When the vernacular office is sung it should be sung according to the model found in the Antiphonale, unfortunately, because the liturgical books for the music of the Novus Ordo office weren't printed until the early decades of the 21st century, 60 years too late, people invented new musical forms (e.g. Meinrad tones) to match the printed form of a text intended for private [spoken] recitation. I blame Gelineau.

Salieri,

Yes, I think you're correct that there is one set of books for the sung office and another incompatible book for the spoken office. How can this do anything but undermine the concept of a single Roman rite: even in the official form, there are two forms.

Having never set eyes on the Antiphonale, I'm a bit confused. Are the two books actually incompatible, or just different in format? Is there some radically different version out there for when the office is sung?

Not, it's an exaggeration. The Antiphonale Romanum gives the antiphons from the Gregorian repertoire that go with the for the Psalms and the Canticles. All the rest (Psalms, hymns, lectures, short responsories, etc.) are exactly the same.

Even more, the Antiphonale gives common tones on which the lectures, orations and prayers can be sung. If you're interested in singing the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin with Gregorian chant, you should get hold on a copy the Antiphonale (I & II).

Deacon Fritz, Matthew, Salieri,

I have around here somewhere a copy of a book I was supposed to use when I was a newly-minted Catholic, but I haven't used it regularly, and now use exclusively the Breviary from 1962, so (as I remarked at the beginning) I don't have a fact-based objection except as presented here by others. If (as I understood Salieri) there are two books designed to accommodate different celebrations of the Office, then how they are different is extremely important. If the distinction is (as Deacon Fritz suggested) that one is in Times New Roman and one in Comic Sans Serif, this is not a serious problem in terms of their interchangeable use. If (on the other hand) one has antiphons set to music and the other has completely or even significantly different antiphons to be used when the office is spoken, this makes the texts incompatible, even if the psalter and the Chapter are identical.

I see reasons number 10,952 to 10,968 above, for continuing to follow the Divine Office according to Divino afflatu.

the Antiphonale and the Latin text are completely compatible, except for the antiphons.

Thanks. This makes things clearer.

It seems that there is an analogy between the LOH and Antiphonale and the Missal and Graduale--i.e. in both cases the former has antiphons that often do not match up with the latter, and which seem to have been devised with the intention that they will be spoken.

I guess it's a judgment calls as to whether this constitutes "incompatability." I would be inclined not to apply that term. But I will say that I don't really understand why there was any need for a difference. Surely anything singable is speakable, so why not have the same for both?