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 just stumbled upon the fact that the font lmtt (latin modern typewriter) seems to exist in

  • italic
  • slanted
  • bold
  • bold slanted

but not

  • bold italic

At least the file t1lmtt.fd contains the lines

     {<-> ec-lmtti10}{}
     {<-> ec-lmtto10}{}
{<-> ec-lmtko10}{}

which, upon naïve use, leads to the rather unpleasant result

sl vs it

At the moment, my clumsy fix for this is

     {<-> sub*lmtt/m/sl}{}

which means I get slanted typewriter (instead of italic) everywhere.

What would be a better alternative?

Mind you, I'm not complaining the bold italic font seems to be missing.

AFAICS the family cmtt doesn't really have any bold fonts anyway, so another obvious alternative would be to map bold italic to medium italic also for lmtt.

share|improve this question
I think using slanted everywhere for monospace italic is OK. italic typewriter is a distinctly odd concept anyway:-) – David Carlisle Oct 2 '12 at 9:58
@DavidCarlisle So this seems to be the way to go. Now that I worked with this setting a bit, I rather like it :-) Could you turn your comment into an answer? Maybe you have some advice for how to achieve this in a more canonical way than I did? – Stephan Lehmke Oct 3 '12 at 5:39
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I think using slanted everywhere for monospace italic is OK. Italic typewriter is a distinctly odd concept anyway:-) The substitution in the font shape is as good a way as any to achieve this.

share|improve this answer

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.