On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:24:42 -0400, DM Smith wrote:
> If we continue to leave the current PorAA online, we should fix the
> technical difficulties in it. In doing so, it should not be compared to
> any version. That is textual problems such as missing verses,
> misspellings, truncated words, wrong verse breaks and the like should be
> ignored. The result will be a module that performs better in the various
> SWORD apps, but has exactly the same content as before. The copyright
> and naming issues will be exactly as they are today: still unsolved.
If you are really going to do that, please take my module and
remove the restored text. You will have PorAA as good as it gets
without adding any *more* infringing text than it has already.
> I also think that it is a good thing to seek permission to get a good
> version online, perhaps replacing this one.
If you happen to know of such a version, please tell us here.
I don’t think any such thing exists, unless it is from Portugal.
Problem is, most Portuguese speakers nowadays are from Brazil, so an
European Portuguese version will be quite confusing if not unreadable.
Just to give some background, the most recent public domain
versions are Revista e Atualizada 1ª edição, Revista e Corrigida and
Versão Brasileira. All of them are not nearly as good as Revisada or
Revista e Atualizada 2ª edição, which are under copy rights.
With the channel I have opened in IBB, we could still get
permissions to Revisada, if they don’t get in trouble again (they are
recovering from bankruptcy now). For commercial reasons, it is highly
unprobable one will get permissions on Atualizada or the more recent
NVI, or any of the other modern texts.
One could probably get permission on any of the several minor
revisions of Revista e Corrigida, but they are mostly misguided
revisions based on the KJV-only or Majority texts or Text Receptus
myths. They would still be better than the original Revista e
Corrigida, which has grown so old as to be misguiding. Revista e
Atualizada 1ª edição would be somewhat better, but not good enough,
and it is a text hard for common people to read.
If one gets access to it, the best alternative to Revisada
would probably be Versão Brasileira. It is a Minority Text type, thus
of high quality. It is still in the old orthography, but its language
for the time was very clear and modern, and thus it is still readable;
and if one would want to modernise it as a free text, one could hardly
choose a better foundation to build on. Problem is, how to get a
digitized version of it. I have a paper copy, and probably could
procure a copy (another one or mine, if I find one in better shape for
myself) to someone who would commit to digitize it and put it through
an effort such as Project Gutenberg’s Distributed Proofreaders.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA +55 (11) 5685 2219
http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +55 (11) 9406 7191
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BRASIL
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
