The tex there has the Greek letter chi instead of Latin x at the end and is supposed to be reminiscent of a Greek root from which we derived the word technique: techne or τέχνη. The tex there is just pronounced tech usually. The original intention I believe was for it to sound like the ch in loch or bach but that sound isn’t seen in modern English(generally even in the examples I gave). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_uvular_fricative
For all the star Trek nerds: that’s close to what the Klingon word gagh ends with. Gagh has a voiced uvular fricative, so just do the same without voice and just air and you’ll get chi.
I guess I’m one of them. I’ve never used LaTeX, but I don’t know how else I’d pronounce that.
Lay-tech or Lah-tech is how I’ve been told it’s pronounced, don’t ask which one is correct, I don’t know
The tex there has the Greek letter chi instead of Latin x at the end and is supposed to be reminiscent of a Greek root from which we derived the word technique: techne or τέχνη. The tex there is just pronounced tech usually. The original intention I believe was for it to sound like the ch in loch or bach but that sound isn’t seen in modern English(generally even in the examples I gave). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_uvular_fricative
For all the star Trek nerds: that’s close to what the Klingon word gagh ends with. Gagh has a voiced uvular fricative, so just do the same without voice and just air and you’ll get chi.
Uvular fricative somehow reminds me of friction of the vulva.
They’re nor related, are they?
Vulva or uvula?
Yes.
The ‘X’ at the end of \LaTeX is actually a uppercase chi, so it pronounced with a ‘k’ sound.
It’s actually a ch-sound, as in Bach. But Knuth also thinks the k-pronunciation is fine.