LL-L: "Online resources" LOWLANDS-L, 22.DEC.2000 (01) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 22 22:41:56 UTC 2000
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 22.DEC.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================
From: Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk
Subject: LL-L: "Online resources" LOWLANDS-L, 21.DEC.2000 (05) [E]
> From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
> Subject: "Online resources"
>
> I get a problem with the PDF files - I get an error saying it can't
> find or create the font. As a result I can't see the IPA symbol for
> the sound of the letter "l" or for the sound of the letter "j".
> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Online resources
>
> The latest version is 4.05. But I don't know if you would not have had
> the problem with it. I used someone elses computer with version 3.0 to
> view the pages and had the same problems you reported. The reason is
> that for some characters (i.e., the "thick" l, and the d3 digraph) I
> had used a different font, or a different set of the same Lucida IPA
> font. On someone else's computer the viewer gave me an error message,
> saying that it could not display that font because it was not
> available. And here I was naively believing that PDF files are a kind
> of postscript file and that one of their advantages is that they are
> independent re font inventories at the reading end, that they are
> electronic prints, so to speak, that do not need to load fonts!
The issue here is that Acrobat Reader knows about "standard" fonts
(essentially the standard PostScript set) which are named in the PDF
file, whereas non-standard fonts either need to be avialable as a
non-default resource on the "reading" computer, or need to have their font
definitions embedded in the PDF file (just as in a PostScript file). This
would apply to IPA fonts, on the vast majority of computers!
If Reader fails to recognise a font which is named in the file, it may
try to find a substitute font which more or less matches what it
thinks the requested font should look like or, failing that, may
substitute a default font (often Helvetica).
You can find out what Reader thinks is going on when it displays
a PDF file by clicking on File->Document Info->Fonts, which throws
up an info panel. Under "Original Font" is a column of the font
names requested in the document; under "Used Font" is a column
of the font names that Reader is displaying, For standard fonts
these should be the same. Otherwise it's pot-luck.
If the reading computer's installation of Reader has the requested
fonts available, then there should be no problem, but this cannot
be assumed for a PDF file posted on a Web page for anyone to read.
The moral is that, when the PDF file is created, precautions need
to be taken to ensure that non-standard font definitions are included
in the PDF file. If the file was converted to PDF from a PostScript file
which had the fonts embedded (so that the PS file could be viewed as
intended on any PS viewer/printer) it may still happen that the
converting software will not automatically include them -- it depends
on the converting software, and also on how this has been set up.
You are correct, Ron, in a general way that "PDF files are a kind
of postscript file and that one of their advantages is that they are
independent re font inventories at the reading end, that they are
electronic prints, so to speak, that do not need to load fonts!".
They don't -- provided the fonts are either standard, or else embedded
(exactly as for PostScript). In fact they tend to go one better
in that _something_ will be substituted for an unrecognised font,
which will at least be readable, though aesthetically wrong, for
text in a Latin alphabet; but for other alphabets and symbols the
result would of course not even be readable. Most PostScript
viewers will not substitute anything, and will either fail to
display the document at all, or will display blanks.
I hope this clarifies it!
Best wishes to all for Happy Christmases, Hanukkas, New Years,
or whatever else applies!
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 284 7749
Date: 22-Dec-00 Time: 16:15:05
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
.
Time: 16:15:05
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
----------
From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Online resources"
> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Online resources
>
> Thanks again for your valuable input and also for your help by
> providing the SAMPA version.
Aha! Oops :|
If you used an old SAMPA version of mine it would explain a
few things I was puzzled about! One is in the way you write
the short diphthong as [Ei] - this is how I used to write it
but I now believe that [@i] is a better representation.
It also explains why the IPA transcription is in Central
dialect! Although it is fairly conservative the way I wrote
it, if I were to suggest a "universal" pronunciation for
learners, I would write "guid" with the more conservative
pronunciation [güd] rather than [gId] (although the latter
is how I pronounce it) - perhaps (or perhaps not, depending
on the audience) supported by a brief explanation of how
this highly variable diaphoneme is pronounced in different
dialects, eg:
Conservative: [ü]
Central: [I] when short, [e:] when long
North East: [wi] after [k] or [g], otherwise [i]
I think you really need some input from John Magnus and Andy
before finalising it!
Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
- C.W.Wade,
'The Adventures o McNab'
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Online resources
Thanks for the help, Ted and Sandy!
Sandy, I have changed the Scots phonetics accordingly. The [@I] option goes
with what I have heard too. I have chosen the "conservative" option [y] for
"ui".
I don't mind changing things again in case input from John Magnus or anyone
else warrants it. Hopefully it will be all correct and in place before the
first New Year's Eve of the coming millenium, and I mean the the second
millenium C.E.
Thanks again, both of you. And happy holidays to everyone.
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
"Auld Lang Syne"
http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/auld_lang_syne.htm
To see the latest versions, don't forget to refresh the pages if you viewed
them recently.
==================================END===================================
You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
as message text from the same account to
<listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
* Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
* Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list