Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to produce a bilingual edition with Latin on the left and English on the right using ledmac and ledpar. I cannot compile even the most minimal example as I receive the error message

! Undefined control sequence.

l.36 \ledRcolfalse

Here is the code I'm trying to compile:

\documentclass[a4paper,twoside]{article}
\usepackage[latin,english]{babel}
\usepackage{ledmac,ledpar}

\listfiles

\lineation{page}
\linenummargin{inner}
\sidenotemargin{outer}

\firstlinenum{5}
\linenumincrement{5}

\newcommand{\E}{\emph{E} }

\begin{document}
\begin{pages}
\begin{Leftside}
\beginnumbering
\pstart
\textbf{$\slash$\E 47vB$\slash$} Tantum verum opponitur falso. Quaeritur de hoc sophismate.  Quod probatur sic.  Verum opponitur falso et nihil aliud quam verum opponitur falso, ergo tantum verum opponitur falso.  Et videtur ibi esse locus ab expositione vocabuli scilicet ab expositione huius dictionis `tantum'.  Improbatur sic.  \edtext{Contra.}{\Afootnote{\emph{Sic}.}}  Tantum verum opponitur falso, ergo tantum verum et falsum opponuntur.  Et videtur ibi esse locus a convertabili.  Probatio sequitur si verum opponitur falso, ergo verum et falsum opponuntur et e converso. Verum et falsum opponuntur, ergo verum opponitur falso.  Sicut sequitur Socrates et Plato sunt similes, ergo Sortes est similis Platoni, et e converso.  Unde ista relatio quae est oppositio fundatur supra ista duo extrema quae sunt verum et falsum.  Sicut a parte illa similitudo fundatur supra illos duos terminos qui sunt Sortes et Plato.  Convertuntur ergo ista verum opponitur falso.  Et verum et falsum opponuntur.  Igitur eodem addito utrobique adhuc convertentur.  Et sic addita hac dictione tantum.  Ad utrumque adhuc convertentur.  Et sic sequitur tantum verum opponitur falso, ergo tantum verum et falsum opponuntur et e converso.  Sit haec est falsa ut probabo tantum verum et falsum opponuntur.  Ergo et haec tantum verum opponitur falso.  Quod autem sit falsa patet quoniam si haec esset vera tantum verum et falsum opponuntur sequeretur quod nulla alia opponerentur.  Et sic sequeritur quod album et nigrum non opponerentur quod falsum est.  Igitur haec est falsa tantum verum et falsum opponentur, ergo et prima.  Haec scilicet tantum verum opponitur falso.  Igitur prima falsa.
\pend
\endnumbering
\end{Leftside}

\begin{Rightside}
\beginnumbering
\pstart
\textbf{$\slash$\E 47vB$\slash$} Only true is opposed to false.  It is inquired concerning this sophism, which may be proved thus.  True is opposed to false and nothing other than true is opposed to false, therefore only true is opposed to false.  And here is seen to be a locus of the exposition of words namely from the exposition of this word `only'.  It is proved negatively thus.  Only true is opposed to false, therefore only true and false are opposible.  And here is seen to be a locus from conversion.  The proof follows if true is opposed to false, therefore true and false are opposed and conversely, true and false are opposed, therefore true is opposed to false. In the same way it follows Socrates and Plato are similar, therefore Socrates is similar to Plato, and conversely.  From which this relation, which is opposition, is established between those two extremes which are true and false, in the same way, partly, the former likeness is established between those two terms which are Socrates and Plato.  Therefore this is converted, `true is opposed to false', and `true and false are opposed'.  %Igitur eodem addito utrobique adhuc convertentur.  Et sic addita hac dictione tantum.  Ad utrumque adhuc convertentur.  Et sic sequitur tantum verum opponitur falso, ergo tantum verum et falsum opponuntur et e converso.  Sit haec est falsa ut probabo tantum verum et falsum opponuntur.  Ergo et haec tantum verum opponitur falso.  Quod autem sit falsa patet quoniam si haec esset vera tantum verum et falsum opponuntur sequeretur quod nulla alia opponerentur.  Et sic sequeritur quod album et nigrum non opponerentur quod falsum est.  Igitur haec est falsa tantum verum et falsum opponentur, ergo et prima.  Haec scilicet tantum verum opponitur falso.  Igitur prima falsa.
\pend
\endnumbering
\end{Rightside}
\Pages
\end{pages}

\end{document}

I added the \listfiles command at Jon's suggestion, to see what version of ledmac/ledpar I'm using, and I get the error message before this information is provided:

[liana@athena anonymierfordensis]$ pdflatex test.tex 
This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.40.3 (Web2C 7.5.6)
 %&-line parsing enabled.
entering extended mode
(./test.tex
LaTeX2e <2005/12/01>
Babel <v3.8h> and hyphenation patterns for english, usenglishmax, dumylang, nohyphenation, arabic, basque, bulgarian, coptic, welsh, czech, slovak, german, ngerman, danish, esperanto, spanish, catalan, galician, estonian, farsi, finnish, french, greek, monogreek, ancientgreek, croatian, hungarian, interlingua, ibycus, indonesian, icelandic, italian, latin, mongolian, dutch, norsk, polish, portuguese, pinyin, romanian, russian, slovenian, uppersorbian, serbian, swedish, turkish, ukenglish, ukrainian, loaded.
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/article.cls
Document Class: article 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/size10.clo))
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/babel/babel.sty
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/babel/latin.ldf
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/babel/babel.def))
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/babel/english.ldf)) (./ledmac.sty (./ledpatch.sty)) (./ledpar.sty
! Undefined control sequence.
l.36   \ledRcolfalse

So I'm still not sure if it's the age of the packages that I'm using or what.

share|improve this question
    
Sorry, but the only error I get is that \E is undefined: what's its definition? –  egreg Jun 20 '12 at 9:13
    
Ack, sorry, I was too minimal; add this to the preamble: \newcommand{\E}{\emph{E} } –  Sara Jun 20 '12 at 9:16
2  
Now I get no error (and no output either, because the \Pages command is missing). –  egreg Jun 20 '12 at 9:46
    
\ledRcolfalse has to do with the 'Leftside' environment in ledpar. It seems suspicious to me that you can get such an error if you load ledpar; and does l.36 \ledRcolfalse come from the minimal example you posted? –  jon Jun 20 '12 at 23:28
    
Yes, the l.26 \ledRcolfalse error message is the one I get with the minimal example (in fact, I get it with every variation of a test example that I have tried to compile, including a stripped down version of the facing-pages example at [mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ledmac/ledpar.pdf]). –  Sara Jun 21 '12 at 5:44

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

For reference:

  • New version(s) = 2012
  • Old version = 2005

A possible answer: you have a mixed set of ledpar and ledmac. (Or your system is loading a mixed set.) I can replicate your error(s) if I use an old version of ledmac with a new version of ledpar.

In the old versions of the package, the \newif\ifledRcol line was in ledpar (line 32), while in the new versions it is in ledmac (line 134).

Your error line l.36 relates to the new version of ledpar: that line reads: \ledRcolfalse. But *tex can't find where this if-switch is defined because it is defined in the new version of ledmac, which either you don't have or your system can't find.

On a GNU/Linux system (and Macs, I guess), you can check which version your system finds by using the command kpsewhere ledpar.sty and kpsewhere ledmac.sty. But note that if you have these files in the working directory, they will be the ones that are used (and kpsewhere will not find them!). Obviously, it is wise to only have one version of these two files, and to make sure that they are from the same 'release'.

share|improve this answer
    
Success! I did have the 2005 version of ledmac; I've gotten the new one, and I could compile. Thanks so much for your help. –  Sara Jun 22 '12 at 10:09
    
@Sara -- Glad it is solved! It was a strange one. –  jon Jun 23 '12 at 0:52
    
@Sara: You can accept an answer by clicking on the (light) green check mark blow the number of upvotes. (@jon: +1 for your answer.) –  Stephen Aug 1 '12 at 17:27

As egreg already wrote as comment: \Pages is missing.

After the end of the Left-/Right-Side-Double you need to say \Pages to inform the ledpar package, that there is a pair of pages to be output:

\end{Rightside}
\Pages
\end{pages}

i.e. after each \end{Rightside} place a \Pages. With ledpar 2012/04/04 v0.10 and ledmac 2012/04/04 v0.14 (ledmac) I don't get an error in that case.

Edit: Since Monday there is an update available for ledpar/ledmac, see http://www.mail-archive.com/ctan-ann@dante.de/msg04932.html. Maybe it is best to try those versions?

share|improve this answer
    
In the various test files I set up, I had versions with and without the \Pages command; it doesn't make a difference. Even with this command, I still get the undefined control sequence error, apparently being triggered by "\ledRcolfalse". I've tried blowing away the .aux files and doing a clean compile, and that does no good. I'm guessing I've got an old version of ledmac/ledpar, so upgrading those is the next thing to try. –  Sara Jun 20 '12 at 13:51
    
There is now even a newer version of both packages, please see my edited answer. –  Stephen Jun 20 '12 at 16:56
    
@Sara -- obviously, the \Pages command is not optional, so whatever files don't have it, put it in. I also doubt the age of your versions of ledmac and ledpar are at issue. I just compiled the file without error, and \listfiles gives me this in the .log: ledmac.sty 2005/03/24 v0.7 LaTeX port of EDMAC and ledpar.sty 2005/04/08 v0.3b ledmac extension for parallel texts. –  jon Jun 20 '12 at 23:17
    
@Jon, if you don't think it's the versions of the packages, do you have any suggestions for what the cause is? –  Sara Jun 21 '12 at 5:43
    
@Sara -- It is worth checking the version and posting it in your question. You can do this by adding \listfiles in the preamble; when you run (pdf)latex, it will write which versions you are using of the loaded packages. (It just seems unlikely that you are using versions older than 2005.) –  jon Jun 21 '12 at 6:15

Your Answer

 
discard

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.