<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><LINK media=all
href="/webmail/static/deg/css/wysiwyg-3933289048.css" type=text/css
rel=stylesheet>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I must be a non-resident classicist then! But
thanks for fleshing out the details.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=hospes.primus@verizon.net
href="mailto:hospes.primus@verizon.net">David Perry</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=xetex@tug.org
href="mailto:xetex@tug.org">xetex@tug.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:10
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [XeTeX] Ligatures
question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As the resident classicist on this list, let me chime in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ae and oe were ligated because they both developed into the sound /e:/,
whereas earlier they had represented distinct diphthongs (as in the English
words "high" and "oil" respectively). During the middle ages and
Renaissance, one not infrequently finds confusion between the two--oe printed
for ae or vice versa.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Vulgate is nowadays usually not printed with these ligatures, and
classical authors never, ever are (except, as others have noted, if one
wishes to reproduce exactly the text of an old edition). Using the
ligatures suggests to the reader that the two are to be pronounced the same
(as some people do). But those of us who want to pronounce as the
ancient Romans did don't use them. For religious works, I suppose it
comes down to an aesthetic issue, but their use will give the text a
definitely archaic look. Even Latin textbooks designed for use in
Catholic schools (the ones I know, anyway) haven't used these ligatures for a
very long time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David<BR><BR><BR>Jun 2, 2009 06:16:57 PM, <A class=parsedEmail
href="mailto:xetex@tug.org" target=_blank>xetex@tug.org</A> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(102,153,204) 3px solid">I am typesetting
a bilingual Latin-Spanish work. For the Latin, I am using old-style
ligatures ("st", "ct", etc.) and dypthong ligatures. I believe they look
beautiful---even in a modern edition.<BR>I agree with Fr. Michael: of course
not all combinations of "ae", "oe", etc., are
dypthongs.<BR><BR>Nicolas<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>