On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Arthur Reutenauer <
arthur.reutenauer@normalesup.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 06:06:49PM +0200, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
> > On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
> > > > But does ConTeXt have \la different from \ala because of the Holy
> See?
> > >
> > > See my reply to your earlier email.
> >
> > I agree with you that classical or ancient vs. modern are misleading
> > adjectives when referred to Latin.
> >
> > In my opinion, etymological or phonetic vs. syllabic should be preferred.
>
>   There are two layers, actually (at least in LaTeX; not sure how much
> of this is reproduced in ConTeXt): 1. Spelling conventions, 2. Hyphenation.
> For the latter, a classification by historical periods clearly makes no
> sense, but there is some truth to the fact that an orthography with no
> u/v or i/j distinction is closer to the way Latin was written in
> classical times (if only very slightly); while using both u and v, and
> especially i and j, in contrastive distributions, clearly are modern
> conventions -- it would be nice to have a vocabulary for that that
> doesn't rely on periods of the evolution of Latin, since those cover
> much more than simple differences in spelling.  The LaTeX packages
> (Babel and Polyglossia) currently have four options, actually:
> classical, medieval, modern, and liturgical, such that "classical" will
> for example yield "Nouembris" (and all the other ones "Novembris");
> "medieval" uses æ and œ and will thus have "Præfatio", etc.
>
>         Best,
>
>                 Arthur
>
>
liturgical latin  uses œ́ from 1894 (Missale romanum:
en decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini
restitutum.
https://archive.org/details/missaleromanume01churgoog)
It seems the first time it appears.




-- 
luigi