[sword-devel] new morphology

[DM Smith]

On Jan 26, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Chris Little wrote:

>
> On Jan 26, 2008, at 4:57 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I'm a bit dense, I don't see how the module would grow from
>> 150K to 2000K. Can we do key linking? And that if it would be encoded
>> into the engine that the size increase would be small.
>>
>> As to adding parsing/normalization to JSword, we already do that wrt
>> Strong's numbers and also Devotional keys. It is no big deal.
>>
>> -- DM
>
> At the bottom of this email is the complete Robinson morphology code
> manual. It's not long, but it's got a lot of possibilities that can
> compound. So, for example, for any verb there are (very roughly) 11
> tenses x 9 voices x 7 moods x (5 cases x 2 numbers x 3 genders + 3
> persons x 3 genders) x 8 variant forms = 216216 total codes. (In fact
> this gets reduced by eliminating sets of impossible codes, but the
> final code count is still about 77000 total.).
>
> All of those keys include an explication of up to 8 lines. So the
> total filesize is about 15Mb before compression.
>
> Key linking isn't relevant here. There aren't duplicate entries.
>
> Parsing means you take a code like V-2RDI-2P-IRR and generate text  
> like:
> Part of Speech: Verb
> Tense: Second peRfect

How PeRfEcT is that! :)

>
> Voice: middle Deponent
> Mood: Indicative
> Person: second
> Number: Plural
> Irregular or Impure form

Chris, given this I don't think that it serves much purpose to put  
this into a module.

I see two advantages in encoding this:
1) It is straightforward, much simpler and much smaller. Which will  
translate into very fast (no I/O).
2) It can readily be internationalized. (Which in JSword would be via  
property files.)

To me the second is the greater gain.

My Hebrew is extremely rusty, but I hope that this would require very  
little addition to satisfy the language differences. Perhaps if one  
(i.e. you) could map the OT morph codes in the KJV to the appropriate  
entry in this new morphology, then one (i.e. me) could modify the  
KJV's OT to use these new codes.

A third gain is that our (I know I said two) would be that it would be  
less likely to be taken by other projects. It seems that our modules  
find themselves in all sorts of projects. Maybe "they" get them from  
the same sources.....

If you would provide a Perl parser, I would find it very easy to  
convert that into Java.

In Him,
	DM