I tried to define \th to put the letters "th" in superscript for ordinal numbers. LaTeX tells me that \th is already defined. How is it defined? Would it be really bad to redefine it?

• Not as bad as using superscript "th" if you can avoid it. – jon Oct 13 '15 at 2:30
• gonzalo has given the true answer. i just want to draw your attention to the definition of \nth in the tugboat macros (documentation here). this provides appropriate english ordinal indicators for numbers up to greater than 100. – barbara beeton Oct 13 '15 at 15:01
• @jon I agree, but my coauthor Iikes superscripts. – dejongbrent Oct 13 '15 at 22:30

If you run

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\begin{document}

\meaning\th

\th

\end{document}


you get

\th is defined in the kernel as

\DeclareTextSymbol{\th}{T1}{254}


and produces the thorn (a letter in the Old English, Gothic, Old Norse and modern Icelandic alphabets, as well as some dialects of Middle English.)

Yes, it's in general a bad idea to redefine an already defined macro and even more a kernel one (with the possible exception, in some cases, that you know exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it); that's why \newcommand (unlike \def) checks to see first if the command is already defined. I'd suggest you to choose another name for your command (\Th, for example).

If you, however, insist on redefining \th (let's say you consider that you won't need the thorn and you are sure that your redefinition won't have undesired effects beyond suppressing access to the thorn), at least I'd suggest you to save the original definition first:

\let\oldth\th


In your particular case, place "th" for ordinals, you could use the fmtcount package:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fmtcount}

\begin{document}

\ordinalnum{3}, \ordinalnum{4}

\end{document}


• @dejongbrent In this concrete case I could've used \newcommand\oldth{\th}, but \let is more general. – Gonzalo Medina Oct 14 '15 at 1:52