Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
A somewhat more complete testfile with a couple of options is below. My context
installation is not current so please double check, but I think it boils down
to this: apostrophes seem not to be considered to be part of a word. Once I
enable wolfin under \startlanguageoptions[en] it will disable the fi-ligature
everywhere below, but adding the word variants with an apostroph doesn’t do
anything, neither to the explicit wordlist under startlanguageoptions, nor in
one of the additional goodies files.
Denis
Von: Thangalin
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Juni 2022 02:14
An: Maier, Denis Christian (UB)
Cc: mailing list for ConTeXt users ; Bruce Horrocks
Betreff: Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
Here's a short example (version 2022.05.11 11:36):
\setuplanguage[en][goodies={lang-en.llg}]
\starttext
% Expected: no ligature; actual: as expected
wolfish
% Expected: no ligatures; actual: ligature
wolfing
wolfin'
wolfin’
\stoptext
%%
%%
\startluacode
-- Testfile for fi ligature over suffix boundary
local testoversuffixboundary = {
name= "test-over-suffix-boundary",
options = {
{
patterns = {fi = "f|i",},
words = [[ wolf ]],
suffixes = [[
in'
in’
]],
},
},
}
-- Testfile for fi ligature in word with apostroph
local testwithsuffix = {
name= "test-with-suffix",
options = {
{
patterns = {fi = "f|i",},
words = [[ wolfin' wolfin’ ]],
},
},
}
-- which table do we want to test?
-- table.save("test.llg",testoversuffixboundary)
table.save("test",testwithsuffix)
\stopluacode
\setuplanguage[en][goodies={lang-en.llg,test.llg}]
% explicit suppression
\startlanguageoptions[en]
wolf|in' % this here doesn't do anything
wolf|in’ % this here doesn't do anything either
%wolf|in % this here disables the fi ligature across the board for all the
words below
\stoplanguageoptions
\mainlanguage[en]
\starttext
% defined in lang-en.llg => works
wolfish
wolfing
% Expected: no ligatures; actual: ligature
wolfin'
wolfin’
% shibboleth
wolfin
\stoptext
___
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
Here's a short example (version 2022.05.11 11:36):
\setuplanguage[en][goodies={lang-en.llg}]
\starttext
% Expected: no ligature; actual: as expected
wolfish
% Expected: no ligatures; actual: ligature
wolfing
wolfin'
wolfin’
\stoptext
___
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
Could you please share a complete MWE. Makes it easier to test if the problem occurs here as well. Best, Denis Von: ntg-context Im Auftrag von Thangalin via ntg-context Gesendet: Montag, 6. Juni 2022 23:56 An: Bruce Horrocks Cc: Thangalin ; mailing list for ConTeXt users Betreff: Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list Thanks for the response, Bruce. 1) The file you attached doesn't include the word "wolfing", nor "wolfin". I assume they need to be The suffixes section accounts for this. Wolfing and wolfish both suppress the ligature correctly. I removed the comma separators, good catch. No difference, though. Looks like I edited /opt/context/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/patterns/mkxl/lang-en.llg instead of the LMTX file. SMH. I've now tried both files, lmtx and mkxl: suffixes = [[ in in' in’ ing ]], Wolfish works fine, the ligature is suppressed as expected. Wolfing, wolfin, and wolfin' aren't suppressed. I'd have thought that defining the word "wolf" with a suffix of "ing" (and variations thereof) would suppress ligatures at the suffix boundary? Maybe that's not the case. If so, then it means having to define all the *f-ing words (heh) a few times for the different suffixes (in', in’, and ing), which seems to defeat the purpose of separating suffixes? Help is appreciated. ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
Thanks for the response, Bruce. 1) The file you attached doesn't include the word "wolfing", nor "wolfin". > I assume they need to be The suffixes section accounts for this. Wolfing and wolfish both suppress the ligature correctly. I removed the comma separators, good catch. No difference, though. Looks like I edited /opt/context/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/patterns/mkxl/lang-en.llg instead of the LMTX file. SMH. I've now tried both files, lmtx and mkxl: suffixes = [[ in in' in’ ing ]], Wolfish works fine, the ligature is suppressed as expected. Wolfing, wolfin, and wolfin' aren't suppressed. I'd have thought that defining the word "wolf" with a suffix of "ing" (and variations thereof) would suppress ligatures at the suffix boundary? Maybe that's not the case. If so, then it means having to define all the *f-ing words (heh) a few times for the different suffixes (in', in’, and ing), which seems to defeat the purpose of separating suffixes? Help is appreciated. ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
> On 6 Jun 2022, at 06:37, Thangalin via ntg-context wrote: > > Attached are tweaked endings for words like "wolf" to include contracted > endings, but they are being ignored. This makes for a minor inconsistency: > > wolfing -- no ligature > wolfish -- no ligature > wolfin -- no ligature (incorrect spelling, though) > wolfin' -- ligature > > Any ideas? I tried adding various -in suffixes without luck: > > suffixes = [[ > in, > in', > in’, > ing > ]], > > See https://wiki.contextgarden.net/Ligatures#Word_suppression for an example > usage. > > Thank you! > I'm probably missing something here but... 1) The file you attached doesn't include the word "wolfing", nor "wolfin". I assume they need to be added into the f|i section? Wolfish *is* present so I'm not sure why it's being ignored unless there is an error being generated as a result of point (2) below, causing the whole file to be ignored. 2) Your suffixes list has comma separators - all the other word lists use whitespace as a separator. 3) Lastly, dumb question but... have you checked that you edited the right file? In my ConTeXt install there are two "lang-en.llg" files - one under /context-osx-64/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/patterns/lmtx and the other under .../patterns/mkxl — Bruce Horrocks Hampshire, UK ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
