Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Hello. A question to specialists, Arthur and Mojca maybe :) Is it necessary to have two sets of hyphenation rules, one in NFC and one in NFD? Or, if hyphenation patterns are written in NFC, for instance, will they be applied correctly to a document written in NFD? Regards, Yves -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 09:36, Yves Codet wrote: Hello. A question to specialists, Arthur and Mojca maybe :) Is it necessary to have two sets of hyphenation rules, one in NFC and one in NFD? Or, if hyphenation patterns are written in NFC, for instance, will they be applied correctly to a document written in NFD? That depends on engine. From what I understand, XeTeX does normalize the input, so NFD should work fine. But I'm only speaking from memory based on Jonathan's talk at BachoTeX. I might be wrong. I'm not sure what LuaTeX does. If one doesn't write the code, it might be that no normalization will ever take place. I can also easily imagine that our patterns don't work with NFD input with Hyphenator.js. I'm not sure how patterns in Firefox or OpenOffice deal with normalization. I never tested that. But in my opinion engine *should* be capable of doing normalization. Else you can easily end up with exponential problem. A patterns with 3 accented letters can easily result in 8 or even more duplicated patterns to cover all possible combinations of composed-or-decomposed characters. Arthur had some plans to cover normalization in hyph-utf8, but I already hate the idea of duplicated apostrophe, let alone all duplications just for the sake of stupid engines that don't understand unicode :). Mojca -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
On 12 Sep 2011, at 08:59, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 09:36, Yves Codet wrote: Hello. A question to specialists, Arthur and Mojca maybe :) Is it necessary to have two sets of hyphenation rules, one in NFC and one in NFD? Or, if hyphenation patterns are written in NFC, for instance, will they be applied correctly to a document written in NFD? That depends on engine. From what I understand, XeTeX does normalize the input, so NFD should work fine. But I'm only speaking from memory based on Jonathan's talk at BachoTeX. xetex will normalize text as it is being read from an input file IF the parameter \XeTeXinputnormalization is set to 1 (NFC) or 2 (NFD), but will leave it untouched if it's zero (which is the initial default). Note that this would not affect character sequences that might be created in other ways than reading text files - e.g. you could still create unnormalized text within xetex via macros, etc. Forcing universal normalization is hazardous because there are fonts that do not render the different normalization forms equally well, so users may have a specific reason for wanting to use a certain form. (This is, of course, a shortcoming of such fonts, but because this is the real world situation, I'm reluctant to switch on normalization by default in the engine.) In principle, it seems desirable that the engine should deal with normalization automatigally when using hyphenation patterns, but this is not currently implemented. Personally, I'd recommend the use of NFC as a standard in almost all situations, and suggest that pattern authors should operate on this assumption; support for non-NFC text may then be less-than-perfect, but I'd consider that a feature request for the engine(s) more than for the patterns. I might be wrong. I'm not sure what LuaTeX does. If one doesn't write the code, it might be that no normalization will ever take place. I can also easily imagine that our patterns don't work with NFD input with Hyphenator.js. I'm not sure how patterns in Firefox or OpenOffice deal with normalization. I never tested that. But in my opinion engine *should* be capable of doing normalization. Else you can easily end up with exponential problem. A patterns with 3 accented letters can easily result in 8 or even more duplicated patterns to cover all possible combinations of composed-or-decomposed characters. Arthur had some plans to cover normalization in hyph-utf8, but I already hate the idea of duplicated apostrophe, That's a bit different, and hard to see how we could avoid it except via special-case code somewhere that knows to treat U+0027 and U+2019 as equivalent for certain purposes, even though they are NOT canonically equivalent characters and would not be touched by normalization. IMO, the duplicated apostrophe case is something we have to live with because there are, in effect, two different orthographic conventions in use, and we want both to be supported. They're alternate spellings of the word, and so require separate patterns - just like we'd require for colour and color, if we were trying to support both British and American conventions in a single set of patterns. let alone all duplications just for the sake of stupid engines that don't understand unicode :). Yes, the engine should handle that. But it doesn't (unless you enable input normalization that matches your patterns). JK -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Dear Phil, You should know better. :-) In 1993 you invited me to give a talk about hyphenation at RHBNC. I started out my lecture by demolishing the old chestnut that British is hyphenated etymologically while American isn't. Reality is much more blurry. Hugh Williamson got it right, as so often: The customs of word-division derive partly from etymology, partly from meaning, partly from pronunciation, and partly from tradition. Effective communication depends upon conventions, in word-division as elsewhere, and the best conventions are those the reader is likely to expect. The first part of a divided word should not mislead the reader about the pronunciation or meaning of the second part. Word-division for the benefit of the reader, however, is best determined by a reader’s perceptions; different customs apply to different words, and a few simple rules are not enough to find the right place. -- Methods of Book Design, pp. 48, 89. You are perfectly right, though, that a single set of patterns couldn't support British and American hyphenation at once. Their hyphenation points differ in approximately 30% of cases, that is for words that are spelt the same. Dominik On 12 September 2011 12:09, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Jonathan Kew wrote: On 12 Sep 2011, at 08:59, Mojca Miklavec wrote: Arthur had some plans to cover normalization in hyph-utf8, but I already hate the idea of duplicated apostrophe, That's a bit different, and hard to see how we could avoid it except via special-case code somewhere that knows to treat U+0027 and U+2019 as equivalent for certain purposes, even though they are NOT canonically equivalent characters and would not be touched by normalization. IMO, the duplicated apostrophe case is something we have to live with because there are, in effect, two different orthographic conventions in use, and we want both to be supported. They're alternate spellings of the word, and so require separate patterns - just like we'd require for colour and color, if we were trying to support both British and American conventions in a single set of patterns. It may be that you are intentionally putting up a straw-man argument here, but if you are not, may I comment that trying to support both British and American conventions in a single set of patterns would (IMHO) be impossible, since British English hyphenation is based primarily on etymology whilst American is based on syllable boundaries. I wish I understood more about the duplicate apostophe problem, in order to be able to offer a more directly relevant (and constructive) comment : Google throws up nothing relevant. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: I wish I understood more about the duplicate apostophe problem, in order to be able to offer a more directly relevant (and constructive) comment : Google throws up nothing relevant. Users type ' (U+0027) and expect the proper apostrophe (U+2019) to show up in final PDF. Knuth just replaced the character (you cannot get U+0027 in pdfTeX, except in typewriter font). In XeTeX mapping=tex-text does that, but not all users use that one, so we need to support both variants. Mojca -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
I've just had a stimulating conversation about this with my friend and
fellow Sanskritist, Alessandro Graheli (who also reads this XeTeX list, and
is doing critical editions of Sanskrit texts with XeTeX).
Alessandro was concerned that I overstated the case. He has used the
existing Codet/Kew hyph-sa.tex patterns, and prefers them even for romanised
Sanskrit. Word-division after a vowel fits with the forms of recitation and
caesura that Alessandro learned when he was a student in India working
extensively with traditional Sanskrit pandits. He also said that Italian
typesetting of Sanskrit in romanisation hyphenates this way, rather than in
the etymological manner that I was asserting.
We need more study to sort out some of these issues, but it looks prima
facie as if both styles of hyphenating romanised Sanskrit should be
preserved, since there are different usage-groups out there. While the
hyphenation style for romanised Sanskrit that I describe below reflects
widespread usage in good printing over the last century or more, mainly in
British texts and journals, and may be required in future too, there are
also people who are comfortable with Devanagari-style hyphenation in
Romanised text too.
Best,
Dominik
On 11 September 2011 20:40, Dominik Wujastyk wujas...@gmail.com wrote:
Sanskrit is hyphenated differently in Devanagari and in Roman script. If
you use the hyph-sa.tex patterns, you get Roman hyphenated *as if it were
Devanagari,* which is not acceptable in scholarly circles. The last 150
years of European writing on Sanskrit, using Romanisation, has developed
hyphenation rules based on Sanskrit etymology, paying attention to compound
words, internal sandhi, etc. (i.e., like German in some respects). The
Devanagari hyphenation uses a much simpler idea, basically hyphenate after
almost any vowel.
To get appropriate hyphenation in Romanisation, we need to go down the
Patgen path. So we need to develop a large lexicon of
appropriately-hyphenated romanised Sanskrit words in UTF8 encoding, and when
that list is reasonably long, process it through Patgen to make patterns.
I am slowly developing such a list, but it would be great to collaborate.
While the list is in the making, it can still be used, by using
\hyphenation.
Thus:
\documentclass{article}
polyglossia, xltxtra, whatnot
...
\setotherlanguage{sanskrit} % for transliterated Sanskrit
\newfontfamily\sanskritfont{TeX Gyre Pagella}
% Define \sansk{} which is the same as \emph{}, except that it causes
appropriate hyphenation
% for Sanskrit words. Use \sansk{} for Sanskrit and \emph{} for English.
\newcommand{\sansk}[1]{\emph{\textsanskrit{#1}}}
...
\begin{document}
\input{sanskrit-hyphenations.tex} % see attached file.
Blah English blah. \sansk{āyurveda, avicchinnasampradāyatvād}.
\end{document}
Best,
Dominik
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Mojca Miklavec wrote: Why do you type Ret'd they're helico-pter instead of Ret’d they’re “helico-pter” ? You are unicode-aware, aren't you? Mojca Unicode-aware, but not Unicode-typing. This (like my earlier reply) is typed on an IBM Model M keyboard (the real thing, clicky, dating from circa 1985 : see Exhibit `A' https://picasaweb.google.com/110725905659537251822/IBMModelMKeyboard?authkey=Gv1sRgCMbhqKypi57lNw#5651442526952322114), and is used to compose strictly ASCII text. If I want Unicode, I copy and paste it from the web. ** Phil. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Gasp! A CRT! -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Dominik Wujastyk wrote: Gasp! A CRT! Sir. You have the honour to be communicating with (in the words of my former manager, David Sweeney) a DINOSAUR. What else would you expect a dinosaur to use but an IBM Model M clicky keyboard and a 19 CRT monitor ?! ** Phil, still wondering what changes the 20th century will bring :-) -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] bug using \underbrace with unicode-math package
Hi Philip,
Thank you very much for your suggestion. I did try what you said, but
it doesn't fix the problem on my system. I now get three rotated
question marks under the xyz and still no underbrace.
My test file and output can be downloaded from here:
http://banyan.cm.nctu.edu.tw/~dgreenhoe/groups/test_underbrace.tex
http://banyan.cm.nctu.edu.tw/~dgreenhoe/groups/test_underbrace.pdf
Dan
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Sorry, the message became double-spaced (copy-and-paste
from TeXworks) -- I will try a second time.
\documentclass{article} \RequirePackage{amsmath}
\RequirePackage{unicode-math} \setmathfont{xits-math.otf}
\def\midshift#1{
\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\dimen0=\ht0\advance\dimen0by+\dp0\advance\dimen0by-1ex
\lower.5\dimen0\box0 }
\def\rotatebrace#1{%
\leavevmode\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\rlap{%
\kern.5\wd0\dimen0=\ht0\advance\dimen0by-\dp0%\advance\dimen0by+1ex%
\raise.5\dimen0\hbox{\special{x:gsave}\special{x:rotate 90}}}%
\box0\special{x:grestore}}
\XeTeXmathchardef\bracelu = 0 3 `\⎧
\XeTeXmathchardef\bracemu = 0 3 `\⎨
\XeTeXmathchardef\braceru = 0 3 `\⎩
\XeTeXmathchardef\bracebar = 0 3 `\⎪
\XeTeXmathchardef\braceld = 0 3 `\⎫
\XeTeXmathchardef\bracemd = 0 3 `\⎬
\XeTeXmathchardef\bracerd = 0 3 `\⎭
\def\upbracefill{%
\setbox0=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\bracemu$\ht0=.1\wd0\dp0=0pt%
\setbox1=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\bracelu$}}\kern-.2em}}\ht1=.1\wd0\dp1=0pt%
\setbox2=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\bracebar$\ht2=.1\wd0\dp2=0pt%
\setbox3=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\kern-.2em\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\braceru$\ht3=.1\wd0\dp3=0pt%
\box1\cleaders\copy2\hfill\box0\cleaders\box2\hfill\box3}
\def\downbracefill{%
\setbox0=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\bracemd$\ht0=.1\wd0\dp0=0pt%
\setbox1=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\braceld$}}\kern-.2em}}\ht1=.1\wd0\dp1=0pt%
\setbox2=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\bracebar$\ht2=.1\wd0\dp2=0pt%
\setbox3=\hbox{\lower.64ex\hbox{\kern-.2em\rotatebrace{\midshift{$\bracerd$\ht3=.1\wd0\dp3=0pt%
\box1\cleaders\copy2\hfill\box0\cleaders\box2\hfill\box3}
%
\setmathfont {XITS Math}
\begin {document}
$$ \underbrace{xyz} $$
\end{document}
Philip Taylor
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Thanks to Dominik for presenting my needs for hyphenating romanised
Sanskrit according to the syllabic division of Sanskrit traditional
phonetics. For a number of reasons, in my philologically-oriented
work I prefer to typeset Sanskrit words as faithfully as possible to
the sources, and the hyph-sa.tex fulfils this need.
Yet, I think I understand Dominik on the need for a reader-friendly
hyphenation of Sanskrit, particularly in texts with less strict
philological needs, and in English essays with occasional Sanskrit
terms. In this regard, Dominik's suggestion of adopting the customs
of the academic tradition makes sense. But how consistently are such
customs applied? And, how many of them are the informed choice of
scholars, and not the product of typographers' tastes, dictionaries
of modern languages, or software-specific algorithms? In any case, I
think that readibility judgements on hyphenation of Sanskrit are
largely influenced by one's own habits in hyphenating English,
Italian, or any other language, so it is difficult to set a universal
standard other than the Devanagari-conforming one.
As for Italian typesettingt, hyphenation of Sanskrit words is
probably as irregularly applied as in English literature. It is just
that, in respect to English, some consonantic clusters commonly found
also in Sanskrit (pr, pl, st etc.) are not broken in Italian
hyphenation (e.g. ca-sti-tà vs. chas-ti-ty); thus, by adopting
Italian hyphenating patterns, one probably gets slightly better
results as far as traditional syllabic division of Sanskrit.
Best,
Alessandro Graheli
Il giorno 12/set/11, alle ore 12:58, Dominik Wujastyk ha scritto:
I've just had a stimulating conversation about this with my friend
and fellow Sanskritist, Alessandro Graheli (who also reads this XeTeX
list, and is doing critical editions of Sanskrit texts with XeTeX).
Alessandro was concerned that I overstated the case. He has used the
existing Codet/Kew hyph-sa.tex patterns, and prefers them even for
romanised Sanskrit. Word-division after a vowel fits with the forms
of recitation and caesura that Alessandro learned when he was a
student in India working extensively with traditional Sanskrit
pandits. He also said that Italian typesetting of Sanskrit in
romanisation hyphenates this way, rather than in the etymological
manner that I was asserting.
We need more study to sort out some of these issues, but it looks
prima facie as if both styles of hyphenating romanised Sanskrit
should be preserved, since there are different usage-groups out
there. While the hyphenation style for romanised Sanskrit that I
describe below reflects widespread usage in good printing over the
last century or more, mainly in British texts and journals, and may
be required in future too, there are also people who are comfortable
with Devanagari-style hyphenation in Romanised text too.
Best,
Dominik
On 11 September 2011 20:40, Dominik Wujastyk wujas...@gmail.com wrote:
Sanskrit is hyphenated differently in Devanagari and in Roman
script. If you use the hyph-sa.tex patterns, you get Roman
hyphenated as if it were Devanagari, which is not acceptable in
scholarly circles. The last 150 years of European writing on
Sanskrit, using Romanisation, has developed hyphenation rules based
on Sanskrit etymology, paying attention to compound words, internal
sandhi, etc. (i.e., like German in some respects). The Devanagari
hyphenation uses a much simpler idea, basically hyphenate after
almost any vowel.
To get appropriate hyphenation in Romanisation, we need to go down
the Patgen path. So we need to develop a large lexicon of
appropriately-hyphenated romanised Sanskrit words in UTF8 encoding,
and when that list is reasonably long, process it through Patgen to
make patterns.
I am slowly developing such a list, but it would be great to
collaborate.
While the list is in the making, it can still be used, by using
\hyphenation.
Thus:
\documentclass{article}
polyglossia, xltxtra, whatnot
...
\setotherlanguage{sanskrit} % for transliterated Sanskrit
\newfontfamily\sanskritfont{TeX Gyre Pagella}
% Define \sansk{} which is the same as \emph{}, except that it causes
appropriate hyphenation
% for Sanskrit words. Use \sansk{} for Sanskrit and \emph{} for
English.
\newcommand{\sansk}[1]{\emph{\textsanskrit{#1}}}
...
\begin{document}
\input{sanskrit-hyphenations.tex} % see attached file.
Blah English blah. \sansk{āyurveda, avicchinnasampradāyatvād}.
\end{document}
Best,
Dominik
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
[XeTeX] Is this a bug in xelatex/xdvipdfmx ?
Hi All,
Few years ago, I have bought few fonts type 1 from Bitstream. Even,
if they are only type 1, they are sufficient for most of the documents
I have to write.
When I want to use them with all the TeX engines (pdflatex, lualatex,
latex+dvips+ps2pdf)
I get normal results. But when I try to use them with xelatex (and dvipdfmx), I
get
the following error message and the accented characters are not displayed.
Error message:
** WARNING ** Obsolete four arguments of endchar will be used for Type 1
seac operator.
In attachement, you will find a short example allowing to reproduce the
problem, with
few result (pdf files produced by the running of pdflatex, latex, xelatex,
lualatex).
In the attachment, only, the commercial type 1 font is not provided. I will
give it however if needed
to correct the problem, but I prefer not to distribute it too widely now.
regards,
rhino64
---Example of
document
\documentclass{article}
│···
\usepackage{chianti} %this load a nice bitstream type1 font
│···
│···
%\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} %for pdflatex
│···
│···
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
│···
\begin{document}
│···
Une baleine, cétacé ? Non merci, c'est trop.
│···
\end{document}
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Is this a bug in xelatex/xdvipdfmx ?
2011/9/12 rhin...@postmail.ch:
Hi All,
Few years ago, I have bought few fonts type 1 from Bitstream. Even,
if they are only type 1, they are sufficient for most of the documents
I have to write.
When I want to use them with all the TeX engines (pdflatex, lualatex,
latex+dvips+ps2pdf)
I get normal results. But when I try to use them with xelatex (and dvipdfmx),
I get
the following error message and the accented characters are not displayed.
A few days ago the very same error was reported in the TeX Live list
even for free Charter Bitstream and latex + dvipdfm. AFAIK there is no
solution yet.
Error message:
** WARNING ** Obsolete four arguments of endchar will be used for Type 1
seac operator.
In attachement, you will find a short example allowing to reproduce the
problem, with
few result (pdf files produced by the running of pdflatex, latex, xelatex,
lualatex).
In the attachment, only, the commercial type 1 font is not provided. I will
give it however if needed
to correct the problem, but I prefer not to distribute it too widely now.
regards,
rhino64
---Example of
document
\documentclass{article}
│···
\usepackage{chianti} %this load a nice bitstream type1 font
│···
│···
%\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} %for pdflatex
│···
│···
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
│···
\begin{document}
│···
Une baleine, cétacé ? Non merci, c'est trop.
│···
\end{document}
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
Alessandro and I agree to disagree about the issue of philological correctness. I think that hyphenating following etymology, lexicon and morphemic boundaries is *more* philological than break after a vowel. I think what Alessandro means by philology in this case is that he is influenced by the usage of manuscript scribes and recitation. But these are both traditions in which hyphenation was not theorized at all. However, in the end, I don't really think it's about philology at all, but mere precedent. The fact is, there's a huge body of printed work out there, books and journals, that has accumulated since about 1850, in which Sanskrit is commonly presented in roman transliteration and is routinely hyphenated according to compound-breaks (dharma-cakra) and morphemic boundaries (bhav-a-ti). A lot of people have got used to this kind of hyphenation, often subliminally, and want it in their own printed work. Normally, they don't get it. Authors of indological journal articles frequently have to re-hyphenate Sanskrit words manually in their page proofs. There is a continuing demand this kind of hyphenation. (Surely you can hear the thunder of Sanskritists clamouring for etymological hyphenation hyphenation? :-) Since it's not that hard for XeTeX, we can eventually provide it as a service for those who wish to use it. I'm not being prescriptive about this. Others can use the existing patterns. Let a thousand flowers bloom. I'm quite taken by the concept that Alessandro has raised about different hyphenation traditions for the same language and script in different countries. I.e., English (or Sanskrit) might be differently hyphenated in Italy. Very interesting. Best, Dominik (coffee later, Alessandro?) On 12 September 2011 14:55, alessandro graheli a.grah...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to Dominik for presenting my needs for hyphenating romanised Sanskrit according to the syllabic division of Sanskrit traditional phonetics. For a number of reasons, in my philologically-oriented work I prefer to typeset Sanskrit words as faithfully as possible to the sources, and the hyph-sa.tex fulfils this need. Yet, I think I understand Dominik on the need for a reader-friendly hyphenation of Sanskrit, particularly in texts with less strict philological needs, and in English essays with occasional Sanskrit terms. In this regard, Dominik's suggestion of adopting the customs of the academic tradition makes sense. But how consistently are such customs applied? And, how many of them are the informed choice of scholars, and not the product of typographers' tastes, dictionaries of modern languages, or software-specific algorithms? In any case, I think that readibility judgements on hyphenation of Sanskrit are largely influenced by one's own habits in hyphenating English, Italian, or any other language, so it is difficult to set a universal standard other than the Devanagari-conforming one. As for Italian typesettingt, hyphenation of Sanskrit words is probably as irregularly applied as in English literature. It is just that, in respect to English, some consonantic clusters commonly found also in Sanskrit (pr, pl, st etc.) are not broken in Italian hyphenation (e.g. ca-sti-tà vs. chas-ti-ty); thus, by adopting Italian hyphenating patterns, one probably gets slightly better results as far as traditional syllabic division of Sanskrit. Best, Alessandro Graheli Il giorno 12/set/11, alle ore 12:58, Dominik Wujastyk ha scritto: I've just had a stimulating conversation about this with my friend and fellow Sanskritist, Alessandro Graheli (who also reads this XeTeX list, and is doing critical editions of Sanskrit texts with XeTeX). Alessandro was concerned that I overstated the case. He has used the existing Codet/Kew hyph-sa.tex patterns, and prefers them even for romanised Sanskrit. Word-division after a vowel fits with the forms of recitation and caesura that Alessandro learned when he was a student in India working extensively with traditional Sanskrit pandits. He also said that Italian typesetting of Sanskrit in romanisation hyphenates this way, rather than in the etymological manner that I was asserting. We need more study to sort out some of these issues, but it looks prima facie as if both styles of hyphenating romanised Sanskrit should be preserved, since there are different usage-groups out there. While the hyphenation style for romanised Sanskrit that I describe below reflects widespread usage in good printing over the last century or more, mainly in British texts and journals, and may be required in future too, there are also people who are comfortable with Devanagari-style hyphenation in Romanised text too. Best, Dominik On 11 September 2011 20:40, Dominik Wujastyk wujas...@gmail.com wrote: Sanskrit is hyphenated differently in Devanagari and in Roman script. If you use the hyph-sa.tex patterns, you get Roman hyphenated *as if it were
[XeTeX] Longtable package
Dear Mr Vafa:
Longtable package doesn't want to work in RTL mode do you know a way that I
can let it do. Your quick reply will be highly appreciated.
This is a sample TeX file:
\documentclass{amsbook}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[silent,quiet,no-math]{fontspec}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{bidi}
\setmainfont[Script=Arabic]{YakoutLinotypeLight-RegularKH.ttf}
\begin{document}
\setRTL
\begin{longtable}{rr}
١ كردان\\
٢٤ عربة ماهور — (نهفت) \\
٢٣ تيم ماهور \\
٢٢ أوج\\
٢١ عربة عجم — (نيرز) \\
٢٠ نيم عجم \\
١٩ حسيني\\
١٨ تيك حصار (شوري) \\
١٧ عربة حصار \\
١٦تيم حصار \\
١٥نوا \\
١٤ تيك حجاز (صبا) \\
١٣ عربة حجاز \\
١٢ تيم حجاز \\
١١ جهاركاه \\
١٠ عربة بوسلك — (عشاق) \\
٩ نيم بو سلك \\
٨ سيكاه \\
٧ عربة كردي \\
٦ نيم كردي — (نهاوند) \\
٥ دوكاه \\
٤ تيك زير كوله \\
٣ عربة زير كوله \\
٢ تيم زير كوله \\
١ راست \\
\end{longtable}
\end{document}
Thanks,
Heba
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
[XeTeX] Fwd: Longtable package
-- Forwarded message --
From: Heba Soliman heba.soli...@afec.org
Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Longtable package
To: xetex@tug.org, v...@users.berlios.de
Dear Mr Vafa:
Longtable package doesn't want to work in RTL mode do you know a way that I
can let it do. Your quick reply will be highly appreciated.
This is a sample TeX file:
\documentclass{amsbook}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[silent,quiet,no-math]{fontspec}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{bidi}
\setmainfont[Script=Arabic]{YakoutLinotypeLight-RegularKH.ttf}
\begin{document}
\setRTL
\begin{longtable}{rr}
١ كردان\\
٢٤ عربة ماهور — (نهفت) \\
٢٣ تيم ماهور \\
٢٢ أوج\\
٢١ عربة عجم — (نيرز) \\
٢٠ نيم عجم \\
١٩ حسيني\\
١٨ تيك حصار (شوري) \\
١٧ عربة حصار \\
١٦تيم حصار \\
١٥نوا \\
١٤ تيك حجاز (صبا) \\
١٣ عربة حجاز \\
١٢ تيم حجاز \\
١١ جهاركاه \\
١٠ عربة بوسلك — (عشاق) \\
٩ نيم بو سلك \\
٨ سيكاه \\
٧ عربة كردي \\
٦ نيم كردي — (نهاوند) \\
٥ دوكاه \\
٤ تيك زير كوله \\
٣ عربة زير كوله \\
٢ تيم زير كوله \\
١ راست \\
\end{longtable}
\end{document}
Thanks,
Heba
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
[XeTeX] Traditional poem
Dear All:
I have a traditional poem with one line that has two short verses then one
long centered verse, the package measures the longest one and makes the
short verses as long as it.
Is there a way to prevent such work so all the poetry will be justified with
kashida and ignores the one centered verse.
\begin{traditionalpoem}
بالله يا سيد الغزلان أملا ودير \\
على رياحين البستان جنب الغدير \\
واترك تحاميل الهجران يا فنان يا منصان \\
ليش هجرتني — ما رحمتني \\
يا بدر لا تهجرني من وصلك لا تحرمني \\
واترك ما مضى — واملأ الكأس — للجلاس
\end{traditionalpoem}
Thanks,
Heba
tex5.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
Comparative dinosaurism Completely by chance today, I came across one of my old files that had a bunch of 8 floppies in it. Hah! (And I've got a slide rule too.) I win! Dominik On 12 September 2011 15:00, maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:46:11 +0100, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) Sir. You have the honour to be communicating with (in the words of my former manager, David Sweeney) a DINOSAUR. What else would you expect a dinosaur to use but an IBM Model M clicky keyboard and a 19 CRT monitor ?! Floppies? Myself, I'm still stuck in the Devonian. I have a slide rule. Electronic calculators will be introduced in the Permian. Mike Maxwell -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I mean, the natural numbers and the peano axioms are nature given / god given (choose whatever you like) and every human before homo sapiens had only the cognitive capabilities to use the unary system: “Hey, I saw | deer, let's go hunt them.” “Oh no, I saw ||| lions, they would kill us.” Slide-Ruler? Calculator? Hole cards? -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:40:57 +0200, Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com wrote: Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I believe binary arithmetic was introduced somewhere in the pre-Cambrian. This was because when you add two digits, both of which are 1, you have to carry into the next column; hence the name, You Carry It, since corrupted to Eukaryote. Mike Maxwell -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
Tobias Schoel wrote: Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I mean, the natural numbers and the peano axioms are nature given / god given (choose whatever you like) and every human before homo sapiens had only the cognitive capabilities to use the unary system: “Hey, I saw | deer, let's go hunt them.” “Oh no, I saw ||| lions, they would kill us.” Are you sure ? My understanding of palæoanthropology is that, long before man was able to differentiate | deer from deer, he could tell | deer from || deer from || deer, and that was the limit of his calculating ability. ** Phil. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
2011/9/12 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Tobias Schoel wrote: Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I mean, the natural numbers and the peano axioms are nature given / god given (choose whatever you like) and every human before homo sapiens had only the cognitive capabilities to use the unary system: “Hey, I saw | deer, let's go hunt them.” “Oh no, I saw ||| lions, they would kill us.” Are you sure ? My understanding of palæoanthropology is that, long before man was able to differentiate | deer from deer, he could tell | deer from || deer from || deer, and that was the limit of his calculating ability. I am not an expert but I have seen in some internet textbook of Sanskrit that originally there were just three numerals: one, two, many. This is probably a reason why some languages have singular, dual and plural. ** Phil. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
Ok, I'll contribute to this one. I learned programming on a IBM clone --a clone of an IBM 1620 at Oregon State University in 1960. We wrote a few programs and then were told about a fabulous new tool called SOAP, the symbolic optimum assembly program. No more memorizing the numbers of machine instructions! The optimization part was that not only would it assemble your program but it would put each instruction on the right part of the drum so that it would be under the read head when the previous instruction had executed. Slick! All input was on paper tape. The equivalent of the delete key, as I recall, was opaque tape that you could stick on the paper tape. --Barry MacKichan On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:53 PM, maxwell wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:40:57 +0200, Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com wrote: Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I believe binary arithmetic was introduced somewhere in the pre-Cambrian. This was because when you add two digits, both of which are 1, you have to carry into the next column; hence the name, You Carry It, since corrupted to Eukaryote. Mike Maxwell -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
Cool discussion! It's the first thing in years that's actually made me feel young. Peter Baker Sent from my iPad On Sep 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Barry MacKichan barry.mackic...@mackichan.com wrote: Ok, I'll contribute to this one. I learned programming on a IBM clone --a clone of an IBM 1620 at Oregon State University in 1960. We wrote a few programs and then were told about a fabulous new tool called SOAP, the symbolic optimum assembly program. No more memorizing the numbers of machine instructions! The optimization part was that not only would it assemble your program but it would put each instruction on the right part of the drum so that it would be under the read head when the previous instruction had executed. Slick! All input was on paper tape. The equivalent of the delete key, as I recall, was opaque tape that you could stick on the paper tape. --Barry MacKichan On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:53 PM, maxwell wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:40:57 +0200, Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com wrote: Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I believe binary arithmetic was introduced somewhere in the pre-Cambrian. This was because when you add two digits, both of which are 1, you have to carry into the next column; hence the name, You Carry It, since corrupted to Eukaryote. Mike Maxwell -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 Barry MacKichan barry.mackic...@mackichan.com wrote: [...] All input was on paper tape. The equivalent of the delete key, as I recall, was opaque tape that you could stick on the paper tape. Or punching all the holes in the row. My first computer was GIER http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/wydzial/zdjecia/zosk/ with 1 K RAM of 42-bit words. Regards JSB -- , Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bien - Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej) Prof. Janusz S. Bien - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department) jsb...@uw.edu.pl, jsb...@mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Dinosaurs
El sep 13, 2011, a las 3:00 a.m., Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) escribió: Tobias Schoel wrote: Shouldn't real dinosaurs (real as in MTV Real Life) calculate using only the Peano Axioms and the unary system? I mean, the natural numbers and the peano axioms are nature given / god given (choose whatever you like) and every human before homo sapiens had only the cognitive capabilities to use the unary system: “Hey, I saw | deer, let's go hunt them.” “Oh no, I saw ||| lions, they would kill us.” Are you sure ? My understanding of palæoanthropology is that, long before man was able to differentiate | deer from deer, he could tell | deer from || deer from || deer, and that was the limit of his calculating ability. I believe four is the limit to which humans can subitize even now, though idiot savants like Kim Peek (Rain Man) are claimed to be able to do many more. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6577241.stm for an item and small experiment. Regards, Shrisha Rao ** Phil. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
