Chris, We have a couple of active developers at jsword-devel who are native Chinese speakers and could possibly help. I'm cross posting this to there. DM
On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Chris Little wrote: > I suspect we could come up with a way to merge the existing featureful > ChiUns with a corrected underlying text, but some of the issues raised > here could be solved by simply going back to the original source. It > has > correctly divided words. > > I don't know how to judge any other corrections since no others are > mentioned, but I have a suspicion that WordProject isn't the primary > source of their Chinese Bibles. I suspect theirs ultimately go back to > fhl.net, like ours do. > > Redoing the module leads to traditional vs. simplified issues. Not > being > a Chinese reader, I don't know the full set of difficulties, but it is > my understanding that mapping between the two is non-trivial (it is > definitely not one-to-one). I only find traditional fhl.net (but not > knowing Chinese makes it difficult to navigate). I definitely don't > want > to disunify the two modules. > > I'll get to work converting from the source so this user can check the > updated text, but I'd like to finish putting together a new morphology > module first. fhl.net uses OLB-style TVM codes, which I would like to > convert over to our new Robinson-style codes. > > --Chris > > > Karl Kleinpaste wrote: >> A couple weeks back, someone asked on sword-support for a Chinese >> Pinyin >> module, providing the public domain source reference, and in an >> hour or >> so I had hacked up a basic version which the requestor has been >> using. >> >> He has since asked if an update to ChiUns would be possible, because >> evidently he sees (being a Chinese speaker) that the ChiUns has many >> errors and the new source reference he gives (from same site as >> Pinyin) >> is much better. >> >> Unfortunately, the new, improved text is lacking Strong's and >> morphology >> markup. So we either have featureful errors (now) or bland >> correctness >> (if I gen up a new module). >> >> Honestly, the new module's script would be close to a no-brainer, >> given >> that its markup from the source site will be nearly identical to the >> Pinyin markup. >> >> Would it be sensible to have both? Or could the older module's >> Strong's/morph markup be applied to the new content? >> >> Opinion? >> >> --karl >> >>> I understand not wanting to go backward in terms of features. But >>> the >>> advantage of having a text without errors (or at least markedly less >>> errors) is of inestimable value. The updated text also includes the >>> removal of all the spaces between every Chinese character which is >>> not >>> the way Chinese is meant to be written (see the difference in the >>> way >>> the Chinese NCV text is displayed which is the correct way). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
