[NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list

Thangalin 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...
URL: <http://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/attachments/20220606/9aaa045e/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the ntg-context mailing list