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
_______________________________________________
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
