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

What is the easiest way to superscript text outside of math mode?

For example, let's say I want to write the $n^{th}$ element, but without the math mode's automatic italicization of the th. And what if I still want the n to be in math mode, but the th outside?

share|improve this question
See this column in TUGboat for information about not using a superscript "th" – egreg Mar 8 '12 at 22:41
@Bernhard My summary is: it is an abbreviation style unique to English, people stopped using it because of the spread of typewriters where it looked bad and was cumbersome to produce and then Microsoft decided to bring it back. Thus we shouldn't use it. It seemed like a non-sequitur to me. – Eponymous Apr 14 '14 at 17:20
this is so typical of this community, you ask for vertical lines in tables or superscripts and people step up to tell you DONT because style. the writer of the TUGboat article is wrong in claiming superscript ordinal suffixes are solely a 'Victorian fetish' peculiar to English; his text, confessedly a 'rant', is riddled with loaded words like 'obscenity' and 'ilk'. in fact, superscript used to be common in many languages. The rant gives not a single reason, it's just a rant. – flow Dec 22 '14 at 14:51
@flow: I fully agree, in particular because the authors' claims about multi-letter suffixes and endings derived from the alphabetic form being unique to English are rather baseless. – O. R. Mapper Mar 6 '15 at 11:01
@flow I agree too. What I read in the article is: we used superscript form, until we started using clunky devices that couldn't handle it properly. My opinion: now that we have devices that can render superscript beautifully, let's use them again! – Sybren Apr 2 '15 at 13:52
up vote 266 down vote accepted

You can use \textsuperscript{th}. It sets its contents in text mode and can be used in math or text mode.

share|improve this answer
Actually, this only really works outside math mode. If I try $n^\textsuperscript{th}$, the superscript gets raised too high, creating an awkwardly large space between lines. But $n$\textsuperscript{th} works great--thanks! – jamaicanworm Mar 9 '12 at 0:49
@jamaicanworm: You should use $n\textsuperscript{th}$. – Werner Mar 9 '12 at 0:50
$n^\textsuperscript{th}$ is a double superscript. – Philipp Mar 9 '12 at 0:51
Right! Silly mistake... :) – jamaicanworm Mar 9 '12 at 0:52
@Werner: What is the difference between $n$\textsuperscript{th} and $n\textsuperscript{th}$? Is it the spacing at the end of the inline math environment or why, if else, do you prefer the second one? – strpeter Apr 30 '14 at 8:44

For 99% of applications, Werner's answer is good enough. But since Marienplatz has offered a bounty, there presumably is interest in other ways to do this. So here, I show it done with a stack over a null entry. My preamble definition (output on the second line) appears to give the exact same result as \textsuperscript (output on the first line).

But then, I show how both the size of the script as well as the height of it can be simply changed with my stacking approach, shown in \footnotesize (and lowered) in the 3rd line of output, and in \tiny (and raised) in the last line.

While I stick just to the standard text font sizes, it would be trivial to instead use a \scalebox to get exactly the size of script text desired.

If there is a desire to place the script, not at a fixed elevation, but relative to the height of the character being scripted, that is easy too (just ask).


enter image description here

share|improve this answer
I am very very sorry for disappointing you. The bounty target has been set in advance. It is for Werner's answer. :-) Anyway, +1 for your solution. – kiss my armpit Oct 26 '13 at 6:53
@Marienplatz Oops. No problem. Thanks for the consideration. – Steven B. Segletes Oct 26 '13 at 12:32

In ConTeXt, you can use


to get the superscripts in text mode.

share|improve this answer

The old-school solution:


(TeXbook, Chapter 11)

share|improve this answer

I use $n^{\text{th}}$. It seems to work okay for me.

share|improve this answer
@PaulGessler: Agreed, I was too fast in reading... I'll remove my comment – Christian Hupfer Jun 23 '15 at 12:07

It also worked for me to just put in math mode the part that we don't want to be text:


Another solution would be simply using the \text{} command:


Thanks everybody for the answers! :)

share|improve this answer
Unless you want your subscripts to be italicized, this doesn't look as nice. – Arun Debray Apr 22 at 16:30
Furthermore the spacing is wrong. pleas compare Text\textsubscript{effect} with Text${}_effect$. – Tobi Apr 22 at 18:05

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.