[XeTeX] Ligatures question

[Fr. Michael Gilmary]

John Was wrote:


> I meant to add that ct, st, sh, Qu, and whatever other kind of 
> ornamental ligs, swash caps, etc. are available are indeed just a 
> matter of taste, and if you want a flamboyant effect, by all means go 
> ahead (*trying* not to over-egg the pudding - it is the 
> word-processor's disease to use every trick available, 
> while typographers should exercise restraint).  But as should be 
> clear, use of the ae/oe glyphs in Latin would diminish the edition in 
> the eyes of those who are in a position to read the Latin in the first 
> place.



Thanks to John and David for the update for us non-classicists! The 
edition of the Nova Vulgata that I use doesn't use those lig/digs, nor 
do the various editions of the Sisto-Clementine Vulgate.  But an early 
20th century edition of St. Thomas (ST and SCG as well as his 
commentaries on Scripture) /do/ use them.

It's interesting what David said about the confusion of the two ae/oe 
... I've often wondered about that (coelum vel caelum ?) Personally, I 
like the archaic look.

As for the exceptions list, it proves helpful at least for enabling the 
use of the diaeresis for correct pronunciation (mostly, it's for proper 
names, as mentioned).
 
>

-- 
United in adoration of Jesus, 



fr. michael gilmary, mma

Most Holy Trinity Monastery
67 Dugway Road
Petersham, MA 01366-9725


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20090602/b948b360/attachment.html>