summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex')
-rw-r--r--usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/second.tex654
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}
+
+
+