3

I'm getting bitten by the unfortunate fact that most TeX fonts have an "ff" ligature, but no "tt" ligature. In my field of research, we often denote logical truth by \textbf{tt} and falsehood by \textbf{ff}. Due to the missing-ligature problem, these look quite different.

Now I could surely disable the "ff" ligature in this case, but I find that \textbf{ff} looks considerably better than \textbf{f{}f}. I can also create a poor-man's "tt" ligature by \textbf{t\hspace{-1pt}t}, but the good value of -1pt varies depending on the font size.

How can I consistently enable a ligature in \textbf{tt} so that this automatically looks good in all font sizes?

(I'm currently using lmodern, but'd prefer a universal answer.)

  • 2
    I'm certainly not a font expert, but I don't believe lmodern has a tt ligature. Unless you want to design one, I think your best bet is using a font that has the ligature. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/153071/… has an example where the questioner wants to not have a tt ligature. You could try that font. – TH. Apr 6 '18 at 6:17
  • \textbf{t$\!$t} seems to work for lmodern, but he result is poor for palatino. – corporal Apr 6 '18 at 6:26
  • 2
    One of the reasons a 'tt' ligature gives trouble in PDF is the absence of a defined unicode codepoint for that ligature. Perhaps that's also why that ligature is rare in fonts – remco Apr 6 '18 at 6:40
  • 2
    The Linux Libertine font offers a tt ligature. – Mico Apr 6 '18 at 7:08
  • 1
    Several fonts don't have an “ff” ligature, notably Palatino or Utopia. – egreg Apr 6 '18 at 7:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.