[tex-hyphen] Names of files in OFFO

[Claudio Beccari]

I am sorry to say that you have a minimalista vision of the two 
languages; Actually Latina variants are theree: modern (or neolatin), 
medieval and classic.
Modern and medieval are manages by ONE hyphenationa pattern set that 
takes care of the differences in u/v, and this seems to be your view of 
the situation, where from the very beginning the two varaint spellings 
were treated with ONE pattern file. Their common approach for 
hyphenations, besides the different spelling u/v is a phonetic approach, 
that apparently was also adopted by the Vatican Typography after the 
second Vatincan Council in the sixtiees.

Classic Latin has the same dicotomy u/v as medieval spelling, but the 
hyphenation is essentially etymological; why then classic latin should 
have twice as mani patterns compared with medieval latin? It is not the 
questiono of u/v that is already dealt with by hyph-la.tex for both 
neolatin and medieval latin. It is due to the plethora of prefixes that 
cause the break points to shift in different positions. Not only: it is 
not sufficient to identify the start of a word, becaise for example the 
initial string "re" nay be a prefix or may belong to the root of the 
word; hyphenatin in these instances are different.

I am sorry to be severe in these statements, but I have perfectly 
understood the problem. Mojca commented very wella bout the opportunity 
of not worrying about classical Latin in OFFO, because presumably there 
are non OFFO compliant web sites were classical latin  is dealt with.

If you really want to implement classicla hyphenation in OFFO, you 
should use a different language name, for example va_VA, connecting the 
language name to the only  state where the "Vatican" latin dialect is 
used with classical spelling AND hyphenation.

Claudio


On 11/03/2016 10:25, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Claudio Beccari wrote:
>> No, hyphenation patterns for Modern Latin are phonetic while for classic
>> Latin are etymological.
>    That's exactly what I said: these are two different hyphenation
> strategies, the differences between the languages you call "Modern
> Latin" and "Classical Latin" are actually minimal since they're mostly
> about the u/v convention; I wouldn't even call that a different
> language, it's just a different spelling.
>
>    We support these two options in TeX, by considering them two different
> language variants, but that doesn't reflect the situation very well.
> Therefore, for external projects that can't support these types of
> languages variants, it seems best to pick one of the two files and drop
> the other; since the phonetic one (the one we tag "la") has been around
> for a much longer time, it's probably that one they should choose.
>
>> I'd have hard time to say that a pattern set of approximately 335 patterns
>> (modern/medieval Latin) is practically the same as another set of
>> apporximately 655 patterns  (classic latin).
>    You're not trying to understand what I said.  The hyphenation is very
> different, the languages are essentially the same.
>
> 	Best,
>
> 		Arthur