[NTG-context] Contractions in ligature suppression word list

denis.maier at unibe.ch denis.maier at unibe.ch
Tue Jun 7 00:18:00 CEST 2022

Could you please share a complete MWE. Makes it easier to test if the problem occurs here as well.

Von: ntg-context <ntg-context-bounces at ntg.nl> Im Auftrag von Thangalin via ntg-context
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Juni 2022 23:56
An: Bruce Horrocks <ntg at scorecrow.com>
Cc: Thangalin <thangalin at gmail.com>; mailing list for ConTeXt users <ntg-context at ntg.nl>
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 = [[

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/20220606/151a03e1/attachment.htm>

More information about the ntg-context mailing list