[sword-devel] 1.7.2 release

[Daniel Owens]

On 1/16/14, 3:50 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 3:51 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:
>> I agree. From a strategic point of view, I think it makes sense to place
>> a priority on mapping between KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad, but then LXX is
>> important too. Even if it is only approximate, there are some places
>> where it is very simple (most of the Psalms are offset by one chapter,
>> for example), and when it can be done, accurate (though maybe not
>> precise) parallel display should be sought after to make it easier for
>> the user. It does not have to be perfect, and certainly such mapping
>> does not need to reorder verses like the German Bible Society's Synopsis
>> of the Gospels. The user just needs to see in a parallel display that
>> the two Bibles are roughly lined up.
>
> Sure, and the KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad can be mapped between with good 
> accuracy. Furthermore, the data is readily available and there's no 
> variability to account for or work around.
>
> Mapping between the LXX versification system and another versification 
> is impossible because there's no single LXX versification. 
> Specifically mapping between Rahlfs' LXX and a KJV/NRSV or 
> MT/Leningrad versified translation will work fine (and the data for 
> that is available). Applying the same mapping between Brenton's LXX 
> translation and the KJV/NRSV or MT/Leningrad versified translation 
> will fail spectacularly. The versifications of Rahlfs' and Brenton's 
> LXXes, despite using the same versification system definition in 
> Sword, have about as much in common as either of them and the KJV.
>
> So this reduces to the point I keep making: translation to translation 
> mapping will work well-enough; system to system mapping (as they're 
> defined in/by Sword) will not.
>
> The data for all the LXX editions & translations used to create 
> Sword's LXX versification definition can be found at 
> https://crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/versification/lxx_v11ns/ 
> and everyone is welcome to do their own comparisons to see the wide 
> variability of versifications among texts using the same versification 
> definition.
>
> --Chris
I think in the flurry of emails I missed the distinction you were making 
between mapping between translations and mapping between systems. That 
is a useful distinction. I think I was hasty in reading you to be saying 
that all mappings were a ridiculous waste of time—who would want them? 
The answer many in the thread gave was, we all want them! I suspect we 
were talking about different things (though I could be wrong). I hope we 
can all agree that the end-user experience with parallel texts is 
something we want to improve.

Having said that, mapping between the most important Bible modules is 
what I hope can happen. In my mind this means the ability to 
successfully read KJV/ESV-kind-of-texts in parallel with Leningrad and 
Rahlfs' LXX. Brenton's LXX is much less important. Perhaps what I missed 
is whether everyone else was advocating mapping between systems or 
mapping between texts. But I would think that if mapping works well 
between the four texts listed above, that would make a large number of 
the texts in the module repository work with them as well. And that 
would be a fantastic start.

Daniel