[NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list
thangalin at gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 23:56:00 CEST 2022
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
instead of the LMTX file. SMH.
I've now tried both files, lmtx and mkxl:
suffixes = [[
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ntg-context