Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!csrd.uiuc.edu!s41.csrd.uiuc.edu!eijkhout
From: eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: TeX, plain TeX, LaTeX, what's in a word
Message-ID: <1991Mar11.224923.27521@csrd.uiuc.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 91 22:49:23 GMT
References: <18193@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@csrd.uiuc.edu (news)
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Lines: 60

haccme@milton.u.washington.edu (Thomas Ridgeway) writes:

>Well now, I like LaTeX too, for some purposes; but so far as nomenclature
>goes, let us consult the Master:

>[TeXbook, preface, first words]: 
>      Gentle Reader: This is a handbook about TeX . . .

>The TeXbook, as is well known, describes TeX primitives and plain TeX macros.
>On the authority of the words of the author of TeX, we may conclude that
>TeX (unqualified) refers to TeX primitives and the plain macros. 

Well, well, well, ...

If I was allowed to prove a point in a scientific argument by
selective quoting and claiming stuff to 'well known', my
life would be a lot easier.

For one, the introduction to the TeX book also says that the
book contains lies, but that more exact information is to be
found later. In this case, take pages 10/11, where Knuth explains
for the first time that some commands are not primitives.

And if you'll allow me a quote that proves *my* point:
``When this manual says that something is part of 'plain TeX',
it means that TeX doesn't insist on doing things exactly that way; 
a person could change the rules by  ... ''
And indeed, Knuth is rather careful to say 'plain TeX' 
whenever the difference matters.

> Even worse,
>we might conclude that TeX unqualified refers to TeX with am or cm fonts,
>since many characteristics originally introduced as ``TeX'' features,
>such as the ligaturing of those cute little quotes I just used, are actually
>features of the ligtables specific to am/cm fonts, features which may not
>be present in other fonts.

And again no. Somewhere in the TeXbook Knuth makes quite
clear that all of this is a property of the fonts,
not of TeX proper. In fact I defie you to find even white lies
about ligatures in any chapter after ch 9, which is where he
first discusses fonts (I mean, let's be reasonable, you can't expect
Knuth to be explicit about this before he discusses fonts).

And in order to make my point, let me quote from chapter 9:
``The plain TeX format of appendix B is based on the
Computer Modern fonts ...''
``Let's begin with the rules for the normal roman font (\rm or
\tenrm); plain TeX will use this font for everything unless you
specify otherwise.''
And then follow the examples of ligatures.
Looks to me like he isn't deceiving anyone here.

>Eye for Eye; Quibble for Quibble.

Yeah! Let's fight!

>Thomas Ridgeway

Victor.