diff options
author | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
---|---|---|
committer | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
commit | e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch) | |
tree | 60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex | 654 |
1 files changed, 654 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..35215ed872 --- /dev/null +++ b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex @@ -0,0 +1,654 @@ +\chapter{More things you should know} +%\addtocontents{toc}{sleeve} +\section{Changing font} +Once desktop publishing arrived\footnote{Desktop publishing arrived + long before Paul Brainerd of Aldus invented the term and Apple + created the bandwagon. Xerox \textsc{Parc} had been doing all that + about 1978 with the Bravo system -- even to the extent of on-demand + immediate laser printing. \TeX\ users throughout the known world had + been publishing via their desktop terminals, and the \textsc{Unix} + world had also been using the \texttt{nroff}\slash \texttt{troff} + family and its pre-processors. The key to success is marketing.} +people expected to change font\index{fonts} at the drop of a hat. +Brought up on typewriters, with no typographic knowledge at all, they +suddenly acquired a whole new vocabulary of `Palatino', `Bookman', +`Zapf Chancery', and strongly held opinions about kerning, +letterspacing, serifs, tracking and other arcane typographical subjects +(rational views may be found in~\cite{RM80} and~\cite{PL92}). + +\section{Some history (again)} +When Knuth designed \TeX, he also designed fonts to go with it. Or +rather, he used an existing typeface, Monotype's Modern 8A, and +produced what he termed `Computer Modern'. He had some help, but +basically this `family' is the suite of fonts with which \TeX\ (and +\LaTeX) were initially tuned. That is not to say you cannot use +others, just that some work \emph{may} be needed before it will be a +success. The Computer Modern family comprises about 75 `different' +fonts. Most families comprise three or four different fonts -- medium, +bold, italic and so on. Now, 75 fonts does not mean that they are all +strikingly and immediately different: Knuth took the notion of a +`design size' rather seriously. What this means is that the font is +designed to be displayed and read at a specific size. Thus we have +several versions of Computer Modern\index{Computer Modern} Roman, +designed to be read at 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 25 +points~\cite{DEK-cm}. These are genuinely different: the proportions +change subtly as we change size. + +Contemporary digital fonts tend to be stored as `outline' information, where to +arrive at a particular size, we `merely' magnify the `prototype' outline. This +will not change the outline, just the size. Adobe encoded `hints' into their +\PS\ `Type~1' outlines, which help preserve the subtle changes. +MicroSoft's `TrueType' fonts contain similar hints -- but distinct enough +to avoid legal action. However, these hints have as much to do with +accommodating digital fonts to the various resolutions at which they may be +displayed as to modifying them for the point size at which they are +displayed. + +Returning to the Computer Modern fonts, they are usually stored as +`rather compressed' bit maps, for a given resolution. Thus a laser +printer would typically require resolutions of 300\,dpi or 600\,dpi, +and a phototypesetter perhaps 1270\,dpi. Outline fonts clearly have an +advantage here, since you would only need one font to be stored, The +rasterization of an outline takes place at print time, in the +printer's own processor. At the time, Knuth's solution seemed a good +one. It certainly assured quality, but it does require a lot of +storage space for all those bit maps. But disk space is cheap. And if +you can store the bit maps down on your laser printer or +phototypesetter, the data transmission times can be reduced. If you +are working on a network, you may have to store the bit maps on a +server, where you then have the time consuming business of shipping +them down to the printer. + +If we delve a little more into the process, we discover that Knuth +also created a `language' to describe fonts -- \MF~\cite{DEK86}. The +descriptions of Computer Modern are encoded in \MF\ (see, for +example~\cite{DEK-cm}). Some implementations of \LaTeX\ will include +\MF, and you may find that when you need particular fonts, they are +generated on the fly. Typically, you will take many years to require +all the Computer Modern fonts at all the sizes possible, and you can +afford to accumulate them over time, \MF\ generating them as required. +Since some of these fonts may only ever be required in rather +exceptional and infrequent circumstances, a common strategy is to +delete the less well used ones after use. Given the current processor +speed commonly available, this is quite a sound approach. But it does +depend on you having a suitably configured system where all these +various components can inter-communicate. + +Equally, Postscript and Truetype versions of the Computer Modern fonts are now +generally available, both commercially and within the public domain. + +For many years \TeX\ and \LaTeX\ gained a reputation of working with +only Computer Modern and unfortunately, some people, especially +publishers, did not like Computer Modern, usually preferring Times. The +reputation was unfounded, but it stemmed from two main origins: +firstly, it did take some time and effort (and sometime access to +proprietary information) to utilise other fonts; and secondly, other +fonts did not necessarily have the full range of characters which were +readily available for Computer Modern. Eventually the problem was +solved quite comprehensively by Frank Mittelbach and Rainer Sch{\"o}pf +with the introduction of the `New Font Selection Scheme'~\cite{FM89} +or \textsf{NFSS}. Although we will look at this later, if you are +anxious to eschew the use of good old Computer Modern for your +particular favourite, consult Chapter~7 of the \textsl{Companion}. + +\section{What fonts do we have?} +We won't actually use all the fonts\index{fonts} here, but just look +at the ones we get by default with \LaTeX.\footnote{These notes were + originally written with the intention that the font used would be + Computer Modern. The house style of this august organ is + Baskerville. If the \textsf{NFSS} transformations have been done + correctly, all should be well.} Depending how you count, there are +eleven types or `styles' of font available, divided into three +independent groups: the `family' group is Roman, Sans Serif and +Typewriter: the `series' group comprises Medium and Bold: while the +`shape' group is Upright, Italic, Slanted and Small Capitals. That +leaves one orphan, Normal. Normal is the style used in the `body' of +the text. But even then that only comes to ten. The eleventh is an +`emphasis' style. The results of using emphasis is to change the +appearance in some way. Note that we do not use underlining at all -- +that is a typing convention for emphasis which is +\underline{never}\footnote{hardly ever} used in typesetting. We are in +the Gutenberg tradition, not the Sholes tradition. Table~\ref{tfonts} +shows what these fonts look like on the page. If you look closely you +will note that there appears to be no difference between Upright, +Medium, Roman and Normal. At this stage, this is true; later we shall +see the distinctions in more detail. +\begin{question} + Sholes who? By now, very few people have direct experience of having + used a typewriter. For those who do, what other leftovers from the + days of the typewriter afflict us? Many word processing packages + defer to typewriting practise and may provide hints and clues. Is it + necessary to ask who Gutenberg was? or Caxton? or the cutely named + Wynkyn de Worde? or even Baskerville? +\end{question} +\begin{table*} +\begin{center} +\begin{tabular}{|llp{3in}|} +\hline +Style & instruction & example \\ +\hline +Roman &\verb|\textrm| &\textrm{The quick brown fox comes to the +aid of the Hamburgerfons} \\Upright &\verb|\textup| &\textup{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of the +Hamburgerfons} \\ +Sans Serif &\verb|\textsf| &\textsf{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of +the Hamburgerfons}\\ +Typewriter &\verb|\texttt| &\texttt{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of +the Hamburgerfons}\\ +Medium &\verb|\textmd| &\textmd{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of the +Hamburgerfons} \\ +Bold & \verb|\textbf|&\textbf{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of the +Hamburgerfons}\\ +Upright & \verb|\textup|&\textup{The quick brown fox comes to the +aid of the Hamburgerfons}\\ +Italic & \verb|\textit|&\textit{The quick brown fox comes to the +aid of the Hamburgerfons}\\ +Slanted &\verb|\textsl| &\textsl{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of the +Hamburgerfons}\\ +Small Capitals & \verb|\textsc|&\textsc{The quick brown fox comes to the +aid of the Hamburgerfons}\\ +Normal &\verb|\textnormal| &\textnormal{The quick brown fox comes to the aid of +the Hamburgerfons}\\ +\hline +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\caption{font styles\index{fonts} readily available}\label{tfonts} +\end{table*} + +To change the type `style', we use the simple, fairly mnemonic instruction given +in Table~\ref{tfonts}. \LaTeX\ has a very powerful technique available +which makes life easy -- grouping. Grouping is a notion central to the +whole existence of \LaTeX. We have already met some sorts of grouping, +where we have a \verb|\begin| and \verb|\end|. There is a simpler +grouping\index{grouping} -- \verb|{| and \verb|}|. If we, for example +say +\begin{verbatim} +The song really \emph{is} \textit{A-Sitting +On A Gate}: and the tune's my own invention. +\end{verbatim} +the parts enclosed in braces are the parts which will be emphasised (by +\verb!\emph!), or turned into italics (by \verb!\textit!). The remainder of the +passage will use whatever happens to be the font already in use. The word +\verb|is| is really `emphasised'\index{emphasis}, while the \verb|A-Sitting On A Gate| part is +a title (of sorts -- see Table~\ref{talice}). We may wish all such titles to be +represented in a particular font or style, to assist readers distinguish +this sort of information. + +It is a good idea to review the reasoning behind changing font: +presumably it is to provide the reader with visual clues to the +structure of the contents of the document. Thus headings are usually +in a different font from the text, and different levels of heading +usually have slightly different characteristics: quoted text is often +presented in a different font, and so too is emphasised material. +Given that human perception seems to work best with $7\pm2$ discrete +items at a time, you can see that you probably do not want too many +different fonts at a time. +\begin{table*} +\begin{center} +\small +\begin{tabular}{|ll|} +\hline +what the name of the song is called& Haddocks' Eyes \\ +what the name is & The Aged Aged Man\\ +what the song is called & Ways and Means\\ +what the song really {\em is} & A-sitting On A Gate\\ +the tune & I give thee all, I can no more\\ +\hline +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\caption{Carrolliginian confusion -- totally irrelevant here}\label{talice} +\end{table*} + +At last, this brings in the use of emphasis: \LaTeX\ uses the instruction +\verb|\emph|\index{emph@\texttt{emph}} to denote emphasis. Let's look again at +the last example to see that +\begin{verbatim} +The song really \emph{is} \textit{A-Sitting +On A Gate}: and the tune's my own invention. +\end{verbatim} +gives +\begin{quote} +The song really \emph{is} \textit{A-Sitting +On A Gate}: and the tune's my own invention. +\end{quote} +Here we have distinguished the two elements `emphasised text' and +`italicized text'. In this circumstance, it is hardly visible, except in the +marked up text. But let's change things a bit: +\begin{verbatim} +\textit{The song really \emph{is} \textit{A-Sitting On A Gate}: +and the tune's my own invention.} +\end{verbatim} +This time we find that the +emphasised text is in the roman font: +\begin{quote} +\textit{The song really \emph{is} \textit{A-Sitting On A Gate}: +and the tune's my own invention.} +\end{quote} +\LaTeX\ is smart enough to do that, but unfortunately is not smart +enough to change the title information. After all, you have specified +that it is italicised. The fact that you then repeat the italicisation +instruction changes nothing, although you may have wished that the +second \verb+\textit+ instruction changes to some different font so +that that part looks different. Nevertheless, this can be a useful +feature. Do not think of `emphasis'\index{emphasis} as simply +`italics', because that is not what it means. It is a function which +may be implemented in a variety of ways, depending on the +circumstances. + +\begin{question} +Take some of the earlier text material and change fonts, either over the +whole document, or just selected parts. Which fonts do you find easier to +read? Are the fonts which are easier to read on the screen also the fonts +which are easier to read on paper? +\end{question} + +\section{Bigger or smaller} +You will have observed that fonts are available in more than one size. +\LaTeX\ has a series of instructions which allow you to change the +size of any font, very easily. The instructions used are given in +Table~\ref{tsize}. Their exact behaviour depends on the options you +have set up. The order of the sequence remains constant, but sometimes +two adjacent `sizes' may use the same sized font (without telling +you). +\begin{table*} +\begin{center} +\begin{tabular}{|ll|} +\hline +size&style\\ +\hline +\verb|\tiny| & \tiny Aa\\ +\verb|\scriptsize| & \scriptsize Aa\\ +\verb|\footnotesize| & \footnotesize Aa\\ +\verb|\small| & \small Aa\\ +\verb|\normalsize| & \normalsize Aa\\ +\verb|\large| & \large Aa\\ +\verb|\Large| & \Large Aa\\ +\verb|\LARGE| & \LARGE Aa\\ +\verb|\huge| & \huge Aa\\ +\verb|\Huge| & \Huge Aa\\ +\hline +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\caption{the sizes\index{size} available}\label{tsize} +\end{table*} +The immediate question is `are all these sizes available for all the +fonts?' + +\begin{question} +Are all these sizes available for all the fonts? Remember to try the +different size options as well as the different fonts. +\end{question} + +The way that these size-changing instructions are used is quite different +from the font-changing instructions. A font changing instruction looks like +\verb+\textrm{text}+, while to change size you say \verb+{\small text}+. +This difference is quite crucial. The size changing merely indicates a new +condition which is operational until the end of the group in which it +occurs. We could, for example, say +\begin{verbatim} +\Huge Come, \huge I'll \LARGE take \Large no +\large denial, \normalsize we must +\small have a \tiny trial +\end{verbatim} +and each change in size would take place when the instruction occurs in the +text: +\begin{quote} +\Huge Come, \huge I'll \LARGE take \Large no \large denial, +\normalsize we must \small have a \tiny trial +\end{quote} + We might be advised to enclose the whole thing in braces, lest any +succeeding text was also placed in the \verb+\tiny+ size of font. If the +size changes are not grouped, separating them out, they remain in effect. + +This different style of usage harks back to the older form of +\LaTeX\index{latex!latex2.09@\protect{\LaTeX\,2.09}}. It should not +cause too much confusion, since you would not normally want to change +size in your text. Any such size changes should be restricted to +special conditions, like section headings or new environments, which +you would not be writing as you go along, but would have been defined +separately. Later we may see how to do these. + + +\section{Accumulation} +It may come as a pleasant surprise to realise that it is possible to +combine the font changing and the size changing mechanisms, and that +something sensible happens. For example, +\begin{verbatim} +a \textsf{\Large mouses's} \textit{\tiny tail} +\end{verbatim} +will result in `a \textsf{\large mouses's} +\textit{\tiny tail}', which is presumably the effect we wished. + +Sometimes fonts are not available in all sizes: had you written +\begin{verbatim} +a \textsl{\large mouses's} \textsc{\tiny tail} +\end{verbatim} +you may find there is no \verb|\tiny| small capitals font +available. \LaTeX\ will substitute something else -- and does so +without telling you. To some extent this lack of a suitable font is +implementation dependent, since it can be possible to create or obtain the +`correct' font for use in this situation. In the current conditions it would +yield: +\begin{quote} +a \textsl{mouse's} {\tiny \textsc{tail}} +\end{quote} + +Do note that these size changing instructions are absolute, not +relative. Saying something like +\begin{verbatim} +a {\small mouses's {\small tail}} +\end{verbatim} +will not make the tail even smaller. In passing, note that if there is +any chance of the text appearing on more than one line, it would be +best to end a paragraph (by inserting a blank line) before the closing +\verb+}+ or else you may get small text on the existing line spacing. +Or if you were using \verb|\large|, the even worse case of large text +on the existing line spacing, with ungainly and uneven line spacing as +\LaTeX\ moves things around to fit. But you really ought not to +be changing size as you go along like this. The examples here are hardly +the stuff of the normal article, report or book. + +In the previous example, we would not be able to obtain a slanted small capital +font by +\begin{verbatim} +a \textsl{mouse's {\tiny \textsc{tail}}} +\end{verbatim} +But if we return to our description of fonts in three groups, a family, a series +and a shape, we will find that these three are truly indpendent. That is to say I +can ask for a bold sans serif \textbf{\textsf{mouse's tail}} by +\begin{verbatim} +\textbf{\textsf{mouse's tail}} +\end{verbatim} +or for a typewriter medium small caps \texttt{\textmd\textsc{{mouse's tail}}} by +\begin{verbatim} +\texttt{\textmd\textsc{{mouse's tail}}} +\end{verbatim} +This is an example that fails in the current font set up. +If you examine the log file closely enough, you will find +that you have been told, and also told what substitute has been chosen. +This is a topic we'll look at in more detail later. + +In principle, you may combine any family with any series with any shape and +expect to see something sensible. +\begin{question} +Try some of these combinations. How would you make the mouse's tail {\small +progressively +\scriptsize smaller}? +\end{question} + +\section{Accenting the positive} +Now it is time for something even more frivolous. One of the nice +features of \LaTeX\ (although of marginal real use in English), is its +excellent support of diacritical\index{diacriticals} marks and foreign +letters. Naturally there is an ulterior motive for introducing these +now. + +First the special letters. \LaTeX\ recognises instructions for the +diphthongs\index{diphthongs} \OE, \AE, \oe\ and \ae\ (commonly used in +Latin and in some Scandinavian languages, among others). It also +recognises the German `\ss' (ess-zet) symbol. It will handle the \AA, +\aa, \O\ and \o\ of some Scandinavian languages. And lastly, it copes +with the Polish suppressed-L, \L\ and \l. + +How do we get these into our text? Follow the \verb+\+ +by a special instruction as shown in Table~\ref{tnatchar}. +\begin{table*} +\begin{center} +\begin{tabular}{|cl|} +\hline +instruction&explanation\\ +\hline +\verb|\ss| & gives the German \ss \\ +\verb|\OE| & gives the \OE\ diphthong \\ +\verb|\oe| & gives the \oe\ diphthong \\ +\verb|\AE| & gives the \AE\ diphthong \\ +\verb|\ae| & gives the \ae\ diphthong \\ +\verb|\O| & gives the letter \O\ \\ +\verb|\o| & gives the letter \o\ \\ +\verb|\AA| & gives the letter \AA\ \\ +\verb|\aa| & gives the letter \aa\ \\ +\verb|\L| & gives the letter \L \\ +\verb|\l| & gives the letter \l\ \\ +\hline +\verb|?`| & gives the symbol ?` \\ +\verb|!`| & gives the symbol !` \\ +\hline +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\caption{the so-called `national'\index{national characters} +characters}\label{tnatchar} +\end{table*} +How do you use these new instructions? The `recommended' way for beginning +\LaTeX-users is to enclose them in braces\index{braces}. This never fails. Thus +to write \OE dipus in \LaTeX, you actually write +\verb|{\OE}dipus|. + This helps to distinguish \verb|{\OE}dipus| from \verb|\OEdipus|, which +\LaTeX\ would assume was a new (probably unknown) instruction. + + +There is another, briefer, way, which you will encounter frequently: leave +a blank space between the instruction and the rest of the word +\begin{verbatim} +\OE dipus +\end{verbatim} +Note that in this form any extra spaces between +\verb|\OE| and +\verb|dipus| will be ignored, as far as creating the output is concerned. +Since all extra spaces are ignored, leaving a few extra, or even writing +\begin{verbatim} +\OE +dipus +\end{verbatim} +will not leave a space between the diphthong and the rest of the word +which follows when the passage is set. In other words, a line break (a `carriage +control') is just another space to \LaTeX. This gobbling up of extra +blanks\index{space} is a normal feature of \LaTeX. If we group\index{grouping} +the instruction, there is no need to follow it by a space, and in fact +\verb|{\OE} dipus| will give the result `\OE{} dipus', which is not what was +required. + +\begin{question} +In what ways are the following different? +\begin{verbatim} +{\OE }dipus, {\OE} dipus, \OE {dipus}, +\O{E}dipus +\end{verbatim} +And what other `useful' possibilities are there? +\end{question} +What implication does this shorthand method have for instructions which come at +the end of words? Consider trying to write: +\begin{verbatim} +the Schlo\ss of the Rhine valley +\end{verbatim} +The word `Schlo\ss' would appear as we +require, but the spaces which follow would be ignored, +and the next word would begin immediately after the \ss. This is +generally not what we want. In order to solve this problem, there are a +variety of solutions. We could have used \verb+{\ss}+ (the grouped +instruction), as recommended, or we can use a new instruction, \verb*|\ |, that +is, the backslash followed by a space, which introduces a `command +space'\index{space} (or a `control space' or even a +`hard space'). Thus what we probably wanted was +\begin{verbatim} +the Schlo\ss\ of the Rhine valley +\end{verbatim} + +In this approach, the `hard space' lets \LaTeX\ know where +the instruction ends. If you look at this more closely, +you will realise that there are other ways to signify +the end of a instruction. One of them was illustrated +with the \verb|{\OE}dipus| sequence. There the \verb|}| was able +to indicate the end of the instruction. Actually, \verb|\OE{}dipus| would have +had the same effect. The sequence \verb|{}| looks odd, and seems to mean +nothing, but from time to time, even nothing has its uses. In the +alternative shown with the \verb*|Schlo\ss\ | sequence, the occurrence +of a \verb|\| `obviously' begins a new instruction, and therefore indicates the +end of the previous one. + +There is an advantage to using the shorthand, which is not readily +apparent: the kerning information is used. Once we group the instructions, the +kerns\index{kern} between characters are ignored. While it is unlikely that you +will notice this in many situations (especially if you are not familiar with +French or German typography), it is perhaps an encouragement to use +the shorthand. There is always some pleasure to gained from the feeling +that you are somehow doing things `right'. + +In Table~\ref{tnatchar} the two `inverted' symbols were included as a sort of +national character. These are a little odd, and have been known to cause +confusion from time to time. If you are careless where you type +spaces and confuse your opening and closing quotes, +you could end up with something like this dreadfully forced example: +\begin{verbatim} +....oh no!`he said quite emphatically.... +\end{verbatim} + These two national +characters need not be enclosed in braces, since they are not standard \LaTeX\ +instructions, in the sense that they do not begin with the backslash. They +work rather differently. On the other hand, feel free to put +braces in if you want. Nothing untoward will occur. + +\LaTeX\ also has lots of diacriticals\index{diacriticals} (Lamport refers to +them as accents\index{accents|see{diacriticals}}, but some are not). The list is +given in Table~\ref{tdiacrit}. +\begin{table*} +\begin{center} +\begin{tabular}{|cll|} +\hline +\verb|\`| & grave & \verb|\`{e}| gives \`e \\ +\verb|\'| & acute or aigu & \verb|\'{e}| gives \'e \\ +\verb|\^| & circumflex or hat & \verb|\^{o}| gives \^o \\ +\verb|\v| & inverted circumflex (h\'a\v cek accent) & \verb|\v{c}| gives \v c +\\ +\verb|\u| & breve & \verb|\u{o}| gives \u o \\ +\verb|\=| & macron, long vowel &\verb|\={u}| gives \= u \\ +\verb|\"| & umlaut or dieresis & \verb|\"{u}| gives \" u \\ +\verb|\H| & Hungarian umlaut & \verb|\H{o}| gives \H o \\ +\verb|\~| & tilde & \verb|\~{n}| gives \~{n}\\ +\verb|\.| & dot accent & \verb|\.{y}| gives \.y \\ +\verb|\t| & tie & \verb|\t{oo}| gives \t{oo}\\ +\verb|\c| & cedilla & \verb|\c{c}| gives \c c \\ +\verb|\d| & dot under & \verb|\d{d}| gives \d d \\ +\verb|\b| & bar under & \verb|\b{a}| gives \b a \\ +%\verb|\r| & circle over (ring) & \verb|\r{u}| gives \r{u} \\ +\hline +\multicolumn{3}{l}{and although not diacriticals, we should mention}\\ +\hline +\verb|\i| & dotless i & \verb|\i| gives \i\\ +\verb|\j| & dotless j & \verb|\j| gives \j \\ +\hline +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\caption{the diacriticals\index{diacriticals}}\label{tdiacrit} +\end{table*} +By and large, the instructions are fairly logically named. + + +In order to get accents over i and j, you really ought to take the dot +off first. \LaTeX\ supports a dotless i and j, provided by \verb|\i| and +\verb|\j|. These allow you to do things like \^{\i} (from \verb|\^{\i}|), or even +\t\i\j, (from \verb:\t{\i\j}:), should you ever find a reason to do so. + +The general rule with all these sequences is -- accent first, then letter. +At first this sounds counter intuitive, after all, we say `e-acute', +or `o-circumflex'. + +None of these accents are really `fundamental' to \LaTeX, in the sense that +they are all created in much the same way, a way that is accessible. If we +knew enough we could even create our own diacriticals. For example, Polish has a +\r{u} character, where the `ring' can be defined as a diacritical symbol. + +\begin{question} +In order to demonstrate your skills with these fancy fripperies, try +setting some of the following: + +\begin{quote} +\upshape +Hs\"an Tsang, Tath\=agata, \'S\=akyamuni, Vai\'sravana; +Pi-ma-w\^en, Li Y\"uan-chi, \=Ananda K\' a\'syapa, +Manju\'sr\=\i; +V\"ain\"am\"oinen, \"Aij\"o, V\"olusp\'a; +Anne Bront\"e, Honor\'e de Balzac, Fran\c cois Rabelais; +na\"\i ve, r\'egime, fa\c cade, man\oe uvre, encyclop\ae dia; +\AE gean Sea, Ch\^ateau d'If, Gda\'nsk, \"O\H o\c z, N\^\i mes. +\end{quote} +\begin{quotation} +\upshape +Zde se v\v semo\v zn\v e sna\v z\'\i\ m\v e p\v +reluvit, abych je\v st\v e n\v ekolik +m\v es\'\i a napsal je\v st\v e jednu +oper\.{u}. Hay\i r! \.I\c s \"oyle de\u gil. B\"uy\"u\u g\"u +k\"u\c c\"u\u g\"une takilmay\i\ pek severdi. Ce f\^ut +d'ores et d\'ej\`a une id\'ee d\'eg\'en\'er\'ee et +ambig\"ue. +\end{quotation} +\end{question} + +If you were normally writing in a language which made use of diacritical +marks or national characters, you would find this all rather tedious. You +would likely have a keyboard which had characters like (for example) \'e, +\aa, \ss, and so on. Having to insert the special \LaTeX\ sequences would, +at the very least, be error-prone. It is possible to tailor \LaTeX\ to take +account of this, so that when you type the single character \'e, \LaTeX\ +interprets it correctly. Later we'll look at some \LaTeX\ `packages' which +simplify this task. +There should be added benefits, since it will ensure that +the kerning information is also handled correctly; and the +hyphenation\index{hyphen}\index{hyphenation} should also be +correct for the language you are using. + +The default `language', which \LaTeX\ assumes it is using is American +English. Not only does this mean that other languages are hyphenated in a rather +haphazard way, it also results in words with diacriticals generated through +the instructions of Table~\ref{tdiacrit} +being hyphenated even less well (no hyphenation after the first +diacritic). This is a deliberate gloss which does not quite tell the truth. +We'll revisit this topic later. + +\section{Hy-phen-a-tion} +\LaTeX\ chooses hyphenation points by a hybrid method. It uses an algorithmic +technique which is supplemented by a small dictionary of `exceptions'. The +algorithm it uses can be taught to recognise the appropriate hyphenation +points for other languages (see Appendix~H of~\cite{DEK84}). A large number +of alternatives have been +collected or developed by Johannes Braams~\cite{JB91} and are available as a +`package' to \LaTeX\ users. If you really have to hyphenate German, or +Esperanto, or even English now, refer to Chapter~9 of the \textsl{Companion}. + +You can hyphenate words yourself as they +occur, by inserting a special command which +indicates a \emph{potential} or \emph{discretionary}. For example, in +\verb|Tyr\-rhenian| the \verb|\-| indicates a discretionary hyphen. +Note that this instruction is not followed by a space. +Declaring each potential hyphenation is tedious, and one alternative is to +declare the potential hyphenations as: +\begin{verbatim} +\hyphenation{Tyr-rhenian manu-script manu-scripts} +\end{verbatim} +That is, simply a list of hyphenated words, separated +by spaces. This has a global effect, since what happens here is +that these words are added (temporarily) to \LaTeX's `exception +dictionary'. As noted above, \TeX/\LaTeX{} hyphenates by algorithm, +but there is a small dictionary of exceptions. The best place for +this hyphenation instruction is in the preamble. + +Note that \LaTeX\ will not realize that \verb|manu-scripts| is merely a +regularly formed plural of \verb|manuscript|. Similarly, this +mechanism can know nothing about any other regularly formed +inflections. On the other hand, the standard hyphenation can cope +with many inflections. Explicitly declaring +hyphenation points will not help words which already contain +hyphens. While \mbox{`pricking'} by itself can be hyphenated to +\mbox{`prick-ing'}, `\mbox{pin-pricking'} is not hyphenated to \mbox{`pin-prick-ing}'. +If we were to say +\begin{verbatim} +\hyphenation{pin-prick-ing} +\end{verbatim} +we could easily end up with \mbox{`pinpricking'}. In this case we would +have to use \verb|pin-prick\-ing| throughout the document. +\begin{question} +One way to see the effect of hyphenation is to reduce the number of words per line. +The easiest way you know so far is to use a large font size, or to use +the \verb+twocolumn+ option. Choose some text and do so. +\end{question} + + + |