From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 23:01:29 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 24 Sep 1992 08:56:16 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7618; Thu, 24 Sep 92 08:55:01 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 9395; Thu, 24 Sep 92 08:54:59 EDT Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 13:51:38 BST Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: TECH: Some thoughts on using fonts + uuencoded demo.dvi To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: VILVA@FI.HELSINKI.VIIKKI21's message of Thu, 24 Sep 1992 08:15:52 -0500 <8237.9209241213@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 24 08:56:18 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: > Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 08:15:52 -0500 > From: VILVA@FI.HELSINKI.VIIKKI21 > > When I was preparing a LaTeX formatted gismu list I found > out that using typewriter font for the entry word gismu > produced a quite pleasing result as all the gismu are > exactly 5 letters long Glad to see my point remade. In my opinion this is the main reason for using monospace for Lojban. > Lojban only text is more enigmatic. Somehow I don't like > to use roman font. Typewriter font is OK but it is, well, > like typewritten. Not necessarily. Not unless your interword spaces are equally wide, so the letters come out aligned in columns as well as rows. Many printers (the NEC Pinwriter I used while at Brandeis comes to mind) combine monospace founts with stretchable/shrinkable interword space, and that doesn't look typewritten, yet gives you the benefit of suggestive word box width. Ivan