[XeTeX] Ligatures question

[Nicolas Vaughan]

I'm sorry, but I´ll have agree with Fr. Michael. I doesn't seem wrong,
neither aesthetically, nor grammatically, to use these kinds of ligatures.
If nowadays there have gone out of fashion, or if there doesnt seem to be
any more use for them, I don't mind at all. I have typeset several Latin
language editions using these ligatures and they seem beautiful---and the
publishers for whom I've worked also seem to like them.

And what would be the beauty of [Xe]LaTeX --- to quote Dario Taraborelli ---
without ligatures?

Best wishes.
Nicolas


On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Fr. Michael Gilmary <
FrMichaelGilmary at maronitemonks.org> wrote:

>  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/a8887f8f/attachment.html>