Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > I'm way out of my depth here, but looking at the entry for Syriac > in Daniels & Bright;s "The World's Writing Systems" is seems to > me that it would be a major deviation from the intended and > apparent meaning of \ttfamily, \slfamily or \itshape > if one were to try to use them for switching between Estrangelo, > Serto, Nestorian & Jacobite. Are there no more better hooks > that can be used for switching between related scripts that do > not fall into the categories that Ulrike proposes ?
I agree with you that these categories that are logical to Latin typefaces, and can be extended to Greek and Cyrillic, are less than helpful in describing other scripts. Yes, we are faced with the awfulness of 'italic' Arabic and Syriac, which is little more than an ugly borrowing from Latin faces. These scripts have their own ways to give emphasis. We don't use the names 'Nestorian' or 'Jacobite' to refer to script styles in Syriac, as they are derogatory. Even so, many books continue this use. We use 'Estrangela/o' to refer to the classical script, 'Serto' to refer to western script and 'Madnha' to refer to eastern script. That said, I've seen manuscripts use mixtures of these styles in the same work, even within the same word! Gareth. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
