In English, foreign words and phrases such as per se and ibid. should be italicized, as shown here. There might be a number of ways to accomplish this in LaTeX:
- with
\emph{per se}
- with
\textit{per se}
- with
\newcommand\foreign[1]{\textit{#1}}1
Of these, the first option seems semantically incorrect, the second seems un-LaTeXy, and the third seems a bit verbose (though probably the most correct). Which is the most common practice in LaTeX documents?
Best Answer
There are two relevant differences between the first two commands.
\textit
puts its argument in italics, whereas\emph
can be told which form of typographic emphasis to use: italics (the default), slanted roman (cf. the TeXbook!), bold, bold italics, underline (shudder), small caps, etc.\emph
can handle cases of "nested emphasis". For instance, the "words"jkl mno
inwill be set in the upright font to differentiate them from their immediate, italicized surroundings.
I wouldn't say that
\emph
is either more or less "LaTeXy" than\textit
. Which one to use depends importantly on what you need to achieve. If the command's argument must be typeset in italics, then\textit
is definitely the way to go. This is true, in particular, if there's a chance that the\emph
macro has been modified -- perhaps by some LaTeX package that you've loaded -- to render its argument in, say, small caps.Clearly, though,
\foreign{...}
is the most LaTeXy method, as it provides an additional layer of abstraction between the text and the way it ends up being typeset.If you provide the definition
you can even handle cases of nested foreign words -- a couple of German words in a passage consisting of French words in a document that's mainly in English?! -- without special effort. And, should you change your mind in the future regarding how "foreign words" ought to be typeset, you needn't mess with the definitions of the lower-level macros
\textit
and\emph
: You can simply redefine the macro\foreign
to suit your changed typographic needs.