Using the apa6 class with the option man or doc, and using [dutch]babel, \texttt drops the "ij" of \appendixname.

(The Dutch word for "Appendix" (that babel uses) is "Bijlage".


%Run with pdflatex
\appendixname; \texttt{\appendixname}; \texttt{Bijlage}\par

\renewcommand\appendixname{Bijzonder dit}
\appendixname; \texttt{\appendixname}; \texttt{Bijzonder dit}\par

\appendixname; \texttt{\appendixname}; \texttt{Bijlage}

Output of MWE: Output of the above MWE

At first I thought it could be because the "ij" is a ligature, bij after redefining it works fine. This only happens in apa6 class (not jou-mode).

Can someone explain this remarkable behaviour to me?
And, is it a bug?

  • 1
    With T1 font-encoding that apa6.cls chooses automatically \ij is a separate glyph, but the lmodern typewriter font doesn't seem to have it. The solution depends on your use case. If you must have ij in \texttt you may get away with writing ij instead of \ij/"y, or you just don't use \texttt. Or you get a font that has a typewriter \ij. – moewe Jul 8 '18 at 12:32
  • @moewe That's it. Could you make an answer out of your comment so I can accept. – gebruiker Jul 8 '18 at 12:46
  • Add \renewcommand{\ttdefault}{cmtt} – egreg Jul 8 '18 at 16:01

Your intuition that this is about the ij ligature is correct. If you look at the definition of \appendixname (with \show\appendixname) you'll find that it is


The shorthand "y is \ij{} in text mode, so that you are typesetting


in the first line of your MWE.

The apa6 class loads fontenc with the T1 encoding and lmodern. In the T1 encoding \ij{} is a glyph in its own right and not just a kerned combination of i and j (as it is in OT1: \nobreak\hskip\z@skip i\kern-0.02em j\nobreak\hskip\z@skip). But it seems that the typewriter font of Latin modern does not have the ij-glyph and so you just see nothing in its place.

Depending on your use case you can

  • Typeset \appendixname in a font different from \ttfamily.
  • Change \appendixname to Bijlage instead of B"ylage.
  • Use a typewriter font with the ij glyph.

If you write ij instead of "y/\ij in the rest of your document, the second solution might be the preferable for consistency's sake. You may also want to closely inspect \listfigurename and \listtablename (L"yst vs Lijst) \proofname and \glossaryname. Maybe it would be easier to just redefine \ij then...

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.