From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Sep 23 18:30:56 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 23 Sep 1992 18:30:55 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4678; Wed, 23 Sep 92 18:29:40 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 4601; Wed, 23 Sep 92 18:29:38 EDT Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 17:30:28 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Tex version of Ckafybarja Papers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Erik Rauch's message of Wed, 23 Sep 1992 17:15:02 EDT Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <5z7xRlIxE3J.A.yuC.X90kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> >Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 17:15:02 EDT >From: Erik Rauch >A small remark about the tex version of the Ckafybarja papers. Whenever >I have seen lojban tex-ed or otherwise laser-printed, it's always been >in courier or some other non-proportional font to make it stand out >from the English text. I found this too much like the practice for >program statements or computer output. Veijo has used a proportional but >sans-serif font, which I think is the best solution. It stands out, but >it doesn't look like a programming language. As I think I mentioned before, I think Lojban looks very good in a monospaced, typewriter-like font. This is so particularly because the apostrophes are less likely to get lost in reading, whereas that's more likely in most proportional-spaced fonts. "Too much like computer output"? I've seen books I've absolutely detested printed in Helvetica, but that doesn't mean I won't use Helvetica anymore. Just because it happens to be used for purposes that aren't quite convergent with the one we want doesn't mean that a given font should be avoided like the plague. It's also fairly common practice in some books to give the computer text in roman font and the user input, or variable parts, in italics. Does that mean we should print exclusively in italics to avoid associations with programming languages? What have computer-textbook printing conventions to do with how we should print our text, one way or another? ~mark