[sword-devel] How about the OT's standard versification at Sword ?

[Jonathon Blake]

Chris Little wrote:

> don't think I could have made the hedge more clear.

> This is incorrect.

What you appear to have forgotten is that verses end in different
places. What is one sentence in one translation, with one v11n scheme
could be two or three sentences in another translation,
[I'm transitioning between computers, otherwise I would copy an
example from a Chinese translation showing two or three sentences,
where the KJV has one sentence.

> Douay-Rheims. I don't think I understand the question.

It uses a v11n scheme that is somewhat different from that of the KJV.
 It takes some getting used to, but people can adapt.

In a like manner,  people can adjust to a different v11n scheme in
their Bible study software, if the differences are explained in the
documentation.

> My argument is that it is better to use the CORRECT v11n than a mutilated Bible with a foreign v11n.

Which come back to no translation is better than a possibly mutilated one.  

> The process isn't the same for any two documents.

It isn't ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Maybe that explains why I have found as many errors in Sword Module
Bibles as I have.

Every module creator has to create the process anew.

For the Bible modules I've made, the hardest part has been proof
reading them.  Comparing the e--text with hard copy, and then
rechecking the text is the Bible Study Software it is for, with the
hard copy.

>. You can use ANY reference scheme, but you should make some effort
to identify what it is,

OSIS has provisional tags for marking the v11n scheme to be used. 
[The current issue is how to tag things so that a text can be easily
switched between v11n schemes.  When that is done, the v11n schemes
will no longer be considered to be "provisional".]

> Well, that's a nice thought, but transcriptional errors were still made.

a) The difference between the Yemeti text and the standard  text was 9
characters, for the 1000 or so years that the Yemeti text was not
checked.

b) You still have to do the proof reading by hand.   Scripts can only
do basic sanity checking.

> > And the timeline for this conversion is?
> When it's done.

The Debian Philosophy.

> V11n mappings are not necessarily one-to-one and onto. 

I _know_ that they are not one to one.  

That gets back to my statement that one has to know at least basic
vocabulary, and grammar, when creating the v11n scheme.

>Therefore they are not reversible.

If the text has the markup for for two or more v11n schemes, it is
reversible.  The issue is whether or not the software can correctly
handle text with multiple v11n schemes.

xan

jonathon
-- 
A Fork requires: 
   Seven systems with:
       1+ GHz Processors
       2+ GB RAM
       0.25 TB Hard drive space