TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I like to use runes and letters from other non-standard alphabets as mathematical symbols. However, now the allrunes package is interfering with my other mathematical typesetting. Take this minimal example:



I get these error messages:

LaTeX Warning: Command \bar invalid in math mode on input line 6.

! LaTeX Error: Command \bar unavailable in encoding OT1.

I think that the problem lies in allrunes.sty, which redefines the \bar command:

  \DeclareTextSymbol{\bar}{#1}{33}        % !
} % end of newcommand{\DeclareRuneSeparators}

Is there a way to prevent allrunes from redefining \bar, so that I can still use it as the usual math symbol? Or any other way of recovering the functionality of \bar?

The exact same happens not just for \bar, but also for \dot.

share|improve this question
Beware that allrunes also does some other redefinitions that are quite disputable. In particular it redefines \bfseries and this can lead to severe problems. – egreg Dec 23 '13 at 12:34
up vote 13 down vote accepted

before loading the package do


Note that in some cases you may need to postpone the redoing until after \begin{document}

One might wonder why you are using runes in a documnt with math?

share|improve this answer
Thanks, that works perfectly! Runes are useful as an additional source of mathematical symbols without any predefined meaning or connotation, and they are kind of entertaining as well. – Saibot Dec 23 '13 at 12:22
I don't have enough reputation (yet) for an upvote. – Saibot Dec 23 '13 at 12:23
@TobiasFritz, I do not think that is a good idea. Inventing additional mathematical symbols often ends up giving headaches to those trying to typeset what ever the mathematician have invented. Did you have a look in the symbols list instead? – daleif Dec 23 '13 at 12:25
that's a good point which I'll have to keep in mind. In the present case, we use them only for some simple examples, so it shouldn't be harmful, but I'll reconsider it. – Saibot Dec 23 '13 at 12:28

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.