On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:12:57AM -0700, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > (But, what this implementation gets wrong is that is does not
> > distinguish the situations
> > \emph{aaa \emph{bbb} ccc}
> > and
> > \emph{aaa} bbb \emph{ccc}
> > which are visually identical but logically _vastly_ different)
>
> Hmmmmm. If a double negative is a positive, shouldn't a double positive be a
> negative?
Hmmm... what I find amusing is our sawing back and forth on
this in some previous threads, where our routine assumption was
that we wanted to 'un-emph' something inside existing emphasis.
And now it turns out that, while doing so is a little more
legwork in the inset paradigm, the alternative semantic
'emph-within-emph' cannot even be unambiguously expressed in
the ranges paradigm, whereas it is trivial for insets... perhaps
I also should have gone to bed at the proper time ;-/
> Angus. Time for bed. It's been an exciting day for an expat Brit ;-)
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7030422.stm)
Poor you. Sweet dreams!
- Martin
