(1) Ich habe in letzter Zeit viele Schriftarten recherchiert und bin auf eine Reihe von Schriftmustern gestoßen, bei denen die Designer die Silbentrennung absichtlich deaktiviert haben (als stilistischen Effekt), während sie den Wortumbruch über die Zeilen hinweg zugelassen haben. (2) Sie scheinen beim Setzen auch alle zwischen Wörtern oder innerhalb von Wörtern dehnbaren/schrumpfbaren Klebstoffe auf Null zu setzen. Ich bin auf keine Frage zu Ersterem (1) (automatischer Wortumbruch ohne Bindestriche) gestoßen und auf Letzteres (2) auf keine klare, verbindliche Antwort. Ich bin mit einer Lualatex-Lösung zufrieden, falls es eine gibt, eine generische Latex-Lösung ist auch willkommen.
Hier ist ein Screenshot eines Schriftmusters:
Antwort1
Für den ersten Teil wird als Trennzeichen ein Nullbreitenverbinder (U+200D) verwendet:
Für den zweiten Teil wurde TeX zum Verkleinern und Strecken (und damit zum Trennen von Bindestrichen) entwickelt. Sie können mit den fontdimens spielen, um die Grenzen des Möglichen zu sehen. Eine TikZ-Lösung wäre wahrscheinlich die beste Lösung.
MWE
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\setmainfont{Noto Serif}
\hyphenchar\font=8205 %zerowidth joiner
%\spaceskip=0.6em
%\raggedright
%\usepackage[document]{ragged2e}
% See: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/23921/how-to-shorten-shrink-spaces-between-words
\fontdimen2\font=1pt %space
\fontdimen3\font=0.1pt %stretch
\fontdimen4\font=0.1pt %shrink
\fontdimen7\font=1pt % extra space
\begin{document}
From Wikipedia:
\parbox{2in}{Newspeak is the language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate that is the setting of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984). To meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc) in Oceania, the ruling Party created Newspeak,[1] a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that threatens the ideology of the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who have criminalised such concepts into thoughtcrime, as contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy.[2][3][4]}
\end{document}
Antwort2
Aufbauend auf der Antwort von Cicada können Sie die Zeichenerweiterung mit hinzufügen microtype; LuaLaTeX ist erforderlich.
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[british]{babel}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage[expansion=true]{microtype}
\microtypesetup{stretch=100,shrink=0}
\setmainfont{XCharter}[
WordSpace={0.5,0.1,0.1},
Scale=0.9,
]
\frenchspacing
\prehyphenchar="200D
\hyphenpenalty=-5000 % make hyphenation more desirable, for demonstration purposes
\textwidth=0.85\textwidth
\begin{document}
\textsc{Newspeak was the official language} of Oceania and had been devised to meet
the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there
was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication,
either in speech or writing. The leading articles in the \emph{Times} were written
in it, but this was a \emph{tour de force} which could only be carried out by a
specialist. It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded
Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050.
Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak
words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech.
The version in use in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of
the \textbf{Newspeak Dictionary}, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous
words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with
the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the
Dictionary, that we are concerned here.
%
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the
world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all
other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been
adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought---that is,
a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc---should be literally
unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary
was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all
other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.
This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating
undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings,
and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single
example. The word \emph{free} still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in
such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’.
It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’
since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and
were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of
definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in
itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak
was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose
was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
%
Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many
Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly-created words, would be barely
intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day. Newspeak words were divided
into three distinct classes, known as the A vocabulary, the B vocabulary (also
called compound words), and the C vocabulary. It will be simpler to discuss each
class separately, but the grammatical peculiarities of the language can be dealt
with in the section devoted to the A vocabulary, since the same rules held good
for all three categories.
\end{document}
(Zitat aus dem Originaltext.)
