<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I have posted my replies in-line...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi Matthew,<br>
<br>
You can find the bible for Android that uses JSword at<br>
<a href="http://code.google.com/p/and-bible/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/and-bible/</a>. There was another bible for Android<br>
based on Sword called Bishop and it appears that Gary at CrossConnect has<br>
continued development of that code and has a beta release but I don't really<br>
know much about that.<br>
<br>
I use an old G1 which is a very low spec mobile and it runs fine. I used to<br>
have Android 1.6 but upgraded to 2.2 and both versions were fine. The bible<br>
has not yet been put on App Market so that is why you can't find it there.<br>
<br>
It would be useful if you could give feedback regarding how the Chinese<br>
bibles work on the Android bible s/w. I did install a Chinese module but<br>
can't read Chinese. Also if you do some testing on and-bible can you raise<br>
(or fix) any issues.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks very much, I will try that asap. I can certainly test and-bible and try out the Chinese text. I am familiar with some basic coding, but I don't think I could fix any issues.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I do have a question regarding the Chinese text used in the Sword Project over all, however. I am curious where you got the text, because there are some anomalies in it. For instance, a very common character (means 'have') - 有 - always shows up as a similar looking, but entirely different character - 冇. This character shows up probably at least once every other sentence, at least, and sometimes more than once per sentence. Never (say using Xiphos or BibleTime) have I seen the correct character in the text. When I copy/paste (for developing messages or teaching material...), I always first paste the text into Gedit or a different program, and do a find/replace for that character, and any other that might be a problem. That one character is the most frequent.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Another issue is with the Simplified Character CUV (the text I am referring to, called in the repositories CUVS), that there are a few characters that still show up as their complex forms, instead of simplified. I am curious as to where you got the text you use. Actually, your text is not the only one like that. Other software seems to use the same Chinese text.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I previously figured someone swapped out the two characters above due to visual restraints since the only thing missing is the two bars inside, but no other characters have had that done to them. (The character that the text uses, actually occurs nowhere in the Chinese Bible itself, so it is easy to always read the "冇" as a "有" - but obviously that is not the best option.)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Some people contribute ui translations to and-bible by translating<br>
strings.xml and arrays.xml. Thomas has proposed doing a translation of all<br>
languages using a Google tool but I don't know how well the Google tool<br>
would handle Chinese, so it would be good to have a manual translation of<br>
the ui in Chinese.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'll look into that. I have done some of that with my company's website, for the Drupal theme that I use - there was oddly no Chinese translation for the theme I preferred... </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
There does not seem to be a Mongolian bible available on CrossWire but you<br>
may be able to help out in that respect. There are a few comments regarding<br>
a potential Mongolian bible here:<br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Module_Requests" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Module_Requests</a>. It would be great to have a<br>
Mongolian bible available for download so that could be an area you could<br>
help out. David Haslam seems to have looked into this.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I will comment more on the question below, but to directly address your question... I know a young man who a few years ago was living in Mongolia at the same time as I was, and claimed that they had developed a sword module for the main Mongolian translation in use, the one linked to in the link above. But that was some 5 or more years ago now, and nothing has shown up in the repositories, so I have no idea what happened. He seemed to think at the time that one was going to be available soon, but I don't know what the deal was with that, and I have lost all contact with him. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Best regards<br>
Martin<br>------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:57:49 -0700 (PDT)<br>
From: David Haslam <<a href="mailto:d.haslam@ukonline.co.uk">d.haslam@ukonline.co.uk</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] question regarding Android front end<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:1285765069269-2718944.post@n4.nabble.com">1285765069269-2718944.post@n4.nabble.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
<br>
Matthew,<br>
<br>
I would suggest you subscribe to the CrossWire mailing list called<br>
mobile-devel.<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-devel</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-devel</a><br>
<br>
Martin Denham is developing the SWORD front-end for the Android OS.<br>
>From what I read in the emails, this is coming along fine.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Thanks, will do that. :)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
We already have good contacts for Chinese Bible translations.<br>
<br>
Do you have any suitable contact for Mongolian Bible translation[s]?<br>
e.g. Whereby CrossWire could begin to discuss permissions with the copyright<br>
owners.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am actually one of the translators for a Mongolian translation team that is going from the KJ/TR/Mas texts into Mongolian, however, it is a slow progress. I am quite sure though, that once we are ready for it, we would gladly help get it together into a Sword module. :) I do mean slow progress, though. Only several books of the NT have been finished, and only one is polished to the extent that it can be put out.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
What can you tell us about the debate about the terminology used to<br>
translate certain terms into Mongolian?<br>
e.g. The preferred words to translate, "the Almighty", etc.<br>
<br>
David<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Did you really have to open <i>that</i> can of worms?! :) You must be aware, then of some of the issues. I won't get into them all here - not the place for it, of course - but long story short, when I went to Mongolian first (2000), I was under the impression that large groups of people were using Buddha's name to refer to God. That idea was propagated by a well meaning but very bitter translator, who has pushed that idea very hard. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pride and feelings attached to this whole thing, and it has been a big mess.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Lesson learned however, to never just believe the reports I hear without personally investigating it... After serious language and culture study, I and a number of other men working there eventually realized that the word in question was not by any means Buddha's name, and is in fact the closest thing to a generic word 'god' that exists in the language. The big issue is between a very dynamic equivalent paraphrase (they say they are reworking it into more of a translation at present), and a more formally equivalent version from the ASV, which uses what the first group considers to be Buddha's name in place of "God" (the version linked to in your module requests link). The word is in fact a very appropriate word for "god", either capital 'G', or little 'g', but the heated discussions continue. Alas!</div>
<div><br></div><div>To demonstrate (we discovered in fact that they never use the word as Buddha's actual name, but only if they are speaking about Buddha <i>as a god</i>) how the word is used, they use the word ('burkhan', if you're interested - бурхан) to refer to any foreign 'god' in direct opposition to Buddha. By the way, the word, as far as we can tell (we have access to the best historians and Mongolists in the country, as well as sources in Inner Mongolia), the word predates Buddhism (although the other 'faction' claims it just stems from an earlier excursion of Buddhism, or from Sanskrit via Tibetan) in Mongolia. In fact, the word shows up as a generic term for 'god' in most of the eastern Siberian languages as well, which never had connection with Buddhism when this fact was first known and written about in the 1800s.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, when you refer to "God" in Mongolian, unless the context is clear - which is easy, actually - a Mongol might first think you were referring to Buddha, as that is who they think of as god - the average Buddhist is unconcerned with the philosophical differences between a "buddha" and a "god". An educated Mongolian Buddhist will tell you that Buddha is in fact <i>not</i> a "burkhan" at all.</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, this is the same as if a Muslim thinks of Allah, when you use the word 'god', and similar to the fact that if you try to talk to your average American college student about God, he/she has no idea of the Biblical concept of who God really is. This all comes with teaching, and there is no way to find a term in any language that automatically describes the God of the Bible. "God" in English only describes the true God, as we associate the generic term with the knowledge we have from His Word. One Hindu who uses the word 'god' in English, is not referring to the same god as his neighboring Hindu, who prefers to believe in another one of the huge pantheon of 'gods' available to him.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The trick is in translation, where a verse might say "our God is not like unto their gods". The Hebrew behind this is the same word in both cases as well. If you believe like I do, that the Bible is inspired of God, then you have God Himself using one word (the same in Greek, by the way, to refer to both. The comparison seems to be important to Him, and with any type of formally equivalent translation, you need a generic term, not a descriptive term. In fact, the other group there has not actually fixed the problem they think they are addressing, because the new name they have given to God, has just been accepted as another "burkhan" into the pantheon! The direct opposition to the other "burkhans" created when you tell them that there is only one true "Burkhan", that one the Bible talks about, goes the farthest toward combating the syncretism prevalent there, and I wonder if the principle doesn't hold true everywhere. Syncretism is a problem inherent in the Mongolian culture: it does not stem from the terms used by the Christians and the Bible translation most of them use. This is an important distinction.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The same follows for a lot of terminology in question here. Just because a term is used by the Buddhists does not necessarily make it a Buddhist term. Don't get me wrong, there are many exclusively Buddhist terms, and we refuse to use them. However, I don't want to always translate "pray" as "talk with God" - for a number of reasons, one is that it lessons the concept - and there is a good Mongolian word that works for that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Finally (I have gone too long already), we have found that when in personal conversation with a Mongolian non-believer, if we use the phrase "Lord God" in Mongolian, there is never any confusion. No such title is <i>ever</i> used for Buddha, and the Mongols know immediately that we are not talking Buddhist concepts.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks for your concern and question.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
> Von: "Peter von Kaehne" <<a href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net">refdoc@gmx.net</a>><br>
> So, the ability to download and use a font even just for AndBible without<br>
> starting to think about rooting would be brilliant.<br>
<br>
I would think this would also be of interest to people wanting to use original language texts.<br>
<br>
Peter<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Diddos to that one. Does anyone know if better font support is in fact coming soon for Android?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Matthew</div></div></div>