Chris Little писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 13 Aug
2012 21:48:38 +0400:
The other type attempts to formalize a versification system
representative of numerous Bibles within a tradition. Examples of this
include the KJV(A), NRSV(A), Synodal, Catholic, & Catholic2. KJV(A) &
NRSV(A) happen to
The ulbufnum error/warning has appeared for years. As you pointed out, it is
deep in SWORD lib. Always looked benign w/in osis2mod. Probably should be
looked into and fixed.
In Him,
DM
On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Yes. Using debug produces little of value but I
Yes. Using debug produces little of value but I will run further test in
verbose mode later today and produce output. That said, I've sen the same
errors produced by working modules, that keep working, so I'm less sure now
than earlier those errors are related.
~ A
On Thursday, August 16, 2012,
Andrew,
Some sanity checks before further work by others on the list
Are you using *osis2mod* to make a compressed module (ztext) or a raw text
module?
Do you get the same error message for both?
Have you tried any of the debug options?
David
--
View this message in context:
http://sw
Chris.
I threw the canon_lxxe.h file in ./src/sword/include/
Edited ./src/sword/src/mgr/versemgr.cpp
Added:
#include // LXXE v11n system
and;
systemVerseMgr->registerVersificationSystem("LXXE", otbooks_lxxe,
ntbooks, vm_lxxe);
recompiled and voila!
-v specify a versifi
On 08/13/2012 07:48 AM, Chris Little wrote:
> Because we don't do dynamic loading of versification systems, whenever we add
> a versification system to Sword, it takes up space in memory just to hold the
> versification tables. Accordingly, we try to be as conservative as possible
> in adding ne
On 08/13/2012 12:10 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
Actually this whole business raises another issue. In the collection
of modules I've been building up, I've added Dead Sea Scrolls texts as
OSIS (but have not yet created modules for them, pending working
though versification issues).
For biblical scr
On 08/13/2012 11:43 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
Greg wrote: "If the one you need isn't supported (I don't see LXX or
GNT at present) then you're welcome to create such a file and submit
it along with your module."
I must have mistook your earlier comments as well.. I implicitly took
them to mean yo
Actually this whole business raises another issue. In the collection
of modules I've been building up, I've added Dead Sea Scrolls texts as
OSIS (but have not yet created modules for them, pending working
though versification issues).
For biblical scrolls, versification isn't so much an issue, si
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> Because we don't do dynamic loading of versification systems, whenever we
> add a versification system to Sword, it takes up space in memory just to
> hold the versification tables. Accordingly, we try to be as conservative as
> possible in ad
That certainly explains the apparent disorder - thanks for that.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 11:23 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>>
>> I was making changes to the LXX2012 version - but then quit. I
>> decided to instead work on getting out a version with origi
Because we don't do dynamic loading of versification systems, whenever
we add a versification system to Sword, it takes up space in memory just
to hold the versification tables. Accordingly, we try to be as
conservative as possible in adding new versification systems. And once
we have released
On 08/12/2012 11:23 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
I was making changes to the LXX2012 version - but then quit. I
decided to instead work on getting out a version with original text.
I've created a versification system based upon an 1857 edition of
Brenton's book (and consulted 2 other versions, includ
Thanks Chris.
Here's an English Septuagint versification system, based upon the text
I got from Michael and compared to a number of printed version. The
Chapter order doesn't quite follow the KJV or NSRV convention, but it
does follow the Septuagints order.
I appreciate it if you could add this
I was making changes to the LXX2012 version - but then quit. I
decided to instead work on getting out a version with original text.
I've created a versification system based upon an 1857 edition of
Brenton's book (and consulted 2 other versions, including a 1900
edition). The versification doesn'
I just implemented a lot of spelling
corrections for the LXX2012 (thanks to David Haslam), so you might
want to grab a fresh copy tomorrow.
On 08/10/2012 03:40 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
Hmm, 'basons' was in my text too, so perhaps it was an
antiquate
On 08/09/2012 05:38 PM, Andrew Thule
wrote:
Michael, thanks very much. I've spell corrected the
following words:
kindreds to kindred
basons to basin
dulness to dullness.
I'm not sure which text you are using, the original Brenton or t
Too few people involved in legacy scripture preservation are aware of
Tesseract.
They struggle on using the OCR software that came bundled with their
scanner.
The results are far more error laden than they might be had they known
otherwise.
An army of touch typists would do better.
One of my TextP
It's a word, Andrew, as you can readily learn from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lictor
David
--
View this message in context:
http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Alternate-Versification-question-tp4650784p4650803.html
Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_
Indeed, and I thought Eton was exclusive!
Does the next verse contain one too "and the lictors told..." or was
lictors a word?
~A
On Friday, August 10, 2012, David Haslam wrote:
> For the most amusing howler caused by an OCR error, install the Anderson
> (NT)
> module and read Acts 16:37
>
> btw
Hmm, 'basons' was in my text too, so perhaps it was an antiquated word
chosen by Brenton. Regardless, I'm working with your LXX2012 text, which
has already had some of the more archaic language improved, so will stick
with the change.
~A
On Thursday, August 9, 2012, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Michae
Yes from the CLI (initial training is painful - though skillful Internet
searches can often get you training files for particular fonts that are
close). I tried using Qtesseract, but the compilation was somewhat
problematic, and felt the time investment (to get the thing to work) was
little worth
Andrew,
Are you using Tesseract from the command line, or did you also install a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract_%28software%29#User_interfaces GUI
for Tesseract ?
If so, which? and any comments worth sharing?
David
--
View this message in context:
http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.co
For the most amusing howler caused by an OCR error, install the Anderson (NT)
module and read Acts 16:37
btw. If you're British, you'll find this even more amusing than the rest of
you.
David
--
View this message in context:
http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Alternate-Versification-quest
Michael, thanks very much. I've spell corrected the following words:
kindreds to kindred
basons to basin
dulness to dullness.
Otherwise the text looks very good.
I've turned it into a sword module, and will keep working on improvements,
including comparing it to the text I had. Let me know and I
Yes, please do feel free to use the
text I have posted on eBible.org, if you like. If you find errors
in it, please let me know so that I can correct them. I have found
some by comparing a couple of different sources, but there may
still be a few typos/OCR errors.
Now that I've seen Michael has place his text in the public domain, really
appreciate you pointing out these links.
This is going to make things go much quicker. Though I have already spent
some effort building source text, haven't pride enough to stop me from
using Michaels text instead, which
Thanks for the links. Yes LXXE is Brenton which I'm in the process of
throwing at Tesseract, albeit with some effort.
No I wasn't aware of Michael Johnson's efforts so should make some effort
to contact him. I appreciate your comments.
~A
On Thursday, August 9, 2012, David Haslam wrote:
> I
Yes I found that to be true (CCELs versification was, by the authors own
admission, error ridden). Regardless, with a bit of work was able to
create one that wasn't, which the CCEL one helped validate.
~A
On Thursday, August 9, 2012, Chris Little wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 07:05 PM, Andrew Thule wr
In addition to what others have said:
The list that osis2mod -h produces is not hard copy, but rather it asks the
SWORD library for the list. If osis2mod is statically compiled then the list is
fixed at compile time. Otherwise it is fixed with the build of the SWORD
library.
Either way, when y
I expect that LXXE does indeed mean the English Brenton.
If so, then Andrew should be made aware that Michael Johnson is working on a
modernized English LXX.
See these two links:
http://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/
http://ebible.org/eng-lxx2012/
David
--
View this message in context:
http://sw
On 08/08/2012 06:25 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
However, this following page list others (such as LXX and GNT):
http://svn.crosswire.org/wiki/Alternate_Versification/System_Identification
Observe that this page is intended as an aid for figuring out which
versification is employed in a particular
On 08/08/2012 07:05 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
Thanks Greg .. I've done that, and compared what comes with Sword to
what's listed here:
https://crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/versification/basicv11ns/
The only difference, as far as I was able to tell was canon_gnt.h does
not appear to ship wit
I guess you're saying that's what essentially defines a versification
.. (I wasn't sure if there was more to it ..).
Thanks.
~A
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>> Thanks Greg .. I've done that, and compared what comes w
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Thanks Greg .. I've done that, and compared what comes with Sword to
> what's listed here:
> https://crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/versification/basicv11ns/
>
> The only difference, as far as I was able to tell was canon_gnt.h does
> not
Thanks Greg .. I've done that, and compared what comes with Sword to
what's listed here:
https://crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/versification/basicv11ns/
The only difference, as far as I was able to tell was canon_gnt.h does
not appear to ship with sword. I assume it was pruned or included
w
Some have been pruned in the past because they were either duplicates
or similar. It is also possible that some of the documentation is out
of date. The best way to know for sure is to look at the installed
header files, if you're on Linux, to see which ones are included. Each
versification is list
osis2mod -h lists the following versifications supported:
-v specify a versification scheme to use (default is KJV)
Note: The following are valid values for v11n:
Catholic
The SWORD module *Mal1865* (for the Malagasy Bible) would have been better
had it been made with a suitable alternate versification.
It would seem that it has a closer match to the versification found in
French translations.
It is one of the translations covered by the page that Seb linked to
ear
Thanks Seb.
Very useful page, though as he states in the header paragraph,
"The comparison below of the various versions of the Bible in terms of
divisions into chapters and verses was made on a selection of Bibles
somewhat arbitrary, some quite common translations were not analyzed."
No mention
Here is a french page describing versification for some translations, mostly
french. There nothing about psalms headers.
http://bibliquest.org/Bibliquest/Bibliquest-Discordances_de_numerotation_des_versets.htm
Some points from the header of this page:
- Versification came from english bishop Ste
Chris,
Yes - I'm talking about each single translation in its own right.
See also
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traductions_de_la_Bible_en_fran%C3%A7ais
My own printed French Bible is Version Synodale 1962, but I'm pretty sure it
is in a long line of tradition that follows the same v11n, which in
On Jul 15, 2011, at 0:21, David Haslam wrote:
> Given my careful observations about the *canonical Psalm titles* in French
> Bibles, that they can occupy either
> (a) only part of verse 1, or
> (b) all of verse 1, or
> (b) both verses 1 & 2
>
> The questions arises as to how this should be prope
Given my careful observations about the *canonical Psalm titles* in French
Bibles, that they can occupy either
(a) only part of verse 1, or
(b) all of verse 1, or
(b) both verses 1 & 2
The questions arises as to how this should be properly marked up in a USFM
source text?
i.e. Using the tags *\d*
The v11n of the Psalms in some French Bibles is not that simple!
I explain as follows: where CT denotes Canonical Title.
In French Bibles, there are four categories of Psalms ...
1. Without a CT
2. With a CT, but normal text starts within verse 1
3. With a CT, but normal text starts
Using the cited example from Ezekiel chapters 20-21, how should one mark this
in USFM?
The examples in the USFM manual using tag pairs *\ca_#\ca** and *\va_#\va**
do not seem to fully cater for the situation where the chapter division is
the essential difference in the alternate versification.
i.
Just taking one of these passages as a further example, it is clear that for
one location in the book of *Ezekiel* the chapter division differs between
the French Martin and the KJV.
EnglishFrench
=====
Ez 20:45-49
Peter,
Using either
Versification=Luther
or
Versification=German
wreaks far more mischief on the French Martin translation than leaving the
default v11n.
Setting aside (for the moment) the wider issue of Psalms with canonical
titles, these are the extra verses.
Numbers 13:34: Nous y avons vu
On 08/07/11 12:49, David Haslam wrote:
> Is there a case for having a new versification scheme called *French*, just
> like we already do for *German*? I believe there is.
IIRC French Bibles are - just like German ones rather disparate in their
versification and either conform to a KJV tradit
Since my student days in the late 1960s, I have had a lifelong interest in
evangelical missionary work in France, which gives the personal background
for writing this memo.
Is there a case for having a new versification scheme called *French*, just
like we already do for *German*? I believe there
Chris's approach seems very reasonable.
Peter has expressed what I would have added much more succinctly than I
could have done.
For most Slavic languages, the Orthodox NT book order has the General
Epistles before the Pauline Epistles.
This is so commonly encountered, that it merits early cons
On May 3, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Chris Little wrote:
In general, I'm planning for the addition of versification systems
to progress slowly and conservatively. So I've recommended to Troy
that we release 1.6.0 with the current set (KJV(A), NRSV(A)
supersets, Leningrad, & MT).
The main reason f
Peter von Kaehne wrote:
Chris Little wrote:
Does that all sound reasonable?
In principle, yes and particularly wrt the conservative approach you
suggest. It would be easy to go overboard with enthusiasm and then
create a mess which will be impossible to clear up.
But wrt the protestant Russia
Chris Little wrote:
> Does that all sound reasonable?
In principle, yes and particularly wrt the conservative approach you
suggest. It would be easy to go overboard with enthusiasm and then
create a mess which will be impossible to clear up.
But wrt the protestant Russian Synodal versification -
In general, I'm planning for the addition of versification systems to
progress slowly and conservatively. So I've recommended to Troy that we
release 1.6.0 with the current set (KJV(A), NRSV(A) supersets,
Leningrad, & MT).
The main reason for this is that a v11n definition must remain stable
Bible translations for Central Asia generally follow the same versification
scheme as the Russian Synodal Translation (RST), as is exemplified in the
SWORD based Holy Bible program (MK) developed for the Institute of Bible
Translation (IBT) for Russia/CIS. Moreover, most Slavic language
translatio
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Kahunapule Michael Johnson
wrote:
> DM Smith wrote:
>> A good place for this would be:
>> www.crosswire.org/wiki/Alternate_Versification.
>>
>> Just add a section that gives:
>> The name of the versification, the description of the versification
>> and the date tha
Kahunapule Michael Johnson wrote:
DM Smith wrote:
A good place for this would be:
www.crosswire.org/wiki/Alternate_Versification.
Just add a section that gives:
The name of the versification, the description of the versification
and the date that it was added to the SWORD engine.
O
DM Smith wrote:
> A good place for this would be:
> www.crosswire.org/wiki/Alternate_Versification.
>
> Just add a section that gives:
> The name of the versification, the description of the versification
> and the date that it was added to the SWORD engine.
The number of versification schemes tha
Hi there ...
DM Smith wrote:
I think there are a few different audiences and perhaps different needs
I've been following this thread with interest, and some excitement!
Alternate versification has been on my wish list for years. During that
time, I've been taking the Sword support list
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Interesting idea, but I personally can't think of what that information
> might be or what name would better and still accurately represent what a
> specific v11n system represents. I tried brainstorming from your
> suggestion, but concl
DM Smith wrote:
> I think there are a few different audiences and perhaps different needs:
> 1) The module developer -- I think such a person needs help identifying
> which of the plethora of av11n to use. I'll be changing osis2mod to
> output the different versifications. If the developer runs t
On Apr 25, 2009, at 10:04 AM, DM Smith wrote:
I'd like to make a change to osis2mod to have it report the
supported alternate versifications that can be used as an argument
to -v. Ideally, I'd like the flag value and a short description.
How would I go about doing that?
Troy supplied a m
On Apr 26, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
I think that the versification should be shown as part of the module
information (after all, it is part of the module configuration), and
possibly it should have a more presentable name or more information
about a ver
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> I think that the versification should be shown as part of the module
> information (after all, it is part of the module configuration), and
> possibly it should have a more presentable name or more information
> about a versification. If so, this should also be available
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Troy A. Griffitts
wrote:
> Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>>
>> I think that the versification should be shown as part of the module
>> information (after all, it is part of the module configuration),
>
> Thanks for the comments Jon. It does currently kindof work as you
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
I think that the versification should be shown as part of the module
information (after all, it is part of the module configuration),
Thanks for the comments Jon. It does currently kindof work as you
describe; you can get it from the VerseKey of a Bible or commentary
m
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> DM Smith wrote:
>
>> I'd like to make a change to osis2mod to have it report the supported
>> alternate versifications that can be used as an argument to -v. Ideally,
>> I'd like the flag value and a short description.
>>
>> How would I go
DM Smith wrote:
> I'd like to make a change to osis2mod to have it report the supported
> alternate versifications that can be used as an argument to -v. Ideally,
> I'd like the flag value and a short description.
>
> How would I go about doing that?
Edit utilities/osis2mod.cpp around line 1200
I'd like to make a change to osis2mod to have it report the supported
alternate versifications that can be used as an argument to -v.
Ideally, I'd like the flag value and a short description.
How would I go about doing that?
In Him,
DM
_
Thanks for the review DM. Appreciate the second set of eyes.
It sounds like you have understood the new code perfectly, save:
the c-tors or the lower level Bible/Commentary drivers now include an
optional 'versification' parameter when being constructed. SWMgr reads
a Versification property
DM Smith wrote:
If I am understanding this correctly, this leads me to believe that
GenBooks are not going to be used, but rather regular Bible modules. If
this is true, it is a boon to commentaries as well, as commentaries are
structured internally as Bibles. And it gives us compressed modul
DM,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> I've been looking at the code regarding Alternate Versification (aka av11n
> and v11n; I've seen these abbreviations by Troy, Chris and others).
>
> It looks solid. The purpose of this note is to give it a big thumbs up.
>
> Basically here i
I've been looking at the code regarding Alternate Versification (aka
av11n and v11n; I've seen these abbreviations by Troy, Chris and others).
It looks solid. The purpose of this note is to give it a big thumbs up.
Basically here is what I see: (Chris, Troy, correct me where I am off
base! Ple
Hi Chris ..
Chris Little wrote:
> The treekey/GenBook module access should be fairly straightforward and
> fast. Just try doing mod2imp on a GenBook
I see what you mean! I'll take a look at the api when I've completed
the SwordReader Module Installer and see if I feel up to doing thi
> Chris Little wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Barry Drake wrote:
>> I'm not aware of their being slow. What's your basis for saying that?
>
> Under BibleCS, it seems faster than it used to be, But even now,
> BibleCS takes some four or five seconds to load up the Summa
> Theologica.
>
> I
Hi Chris ..
Thanks for your reply. I get the general idea, and will keep it in mind
while taking a deeper look at the api. The more I look at the api, the
more I realise how little I know about the workings, so I won't be doing
anything much until I've played around a lot with simple
On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Barry Drake wrote:
> Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> If you look in the archives of this mailing list you can see some
>> things that people have been persistently asking for (alternate
>> versification sprints to mind...)
I don't want to be discouraging, but given the cont
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> If you look in the archives of this mailing list you can see some
> things that people have been persistently asking for (alternate
> versification sprints to mind...).
The recent thread on flexible versification seems to have died. I had
hoped that Chris would point us
79 matches
Mail list logo
