Hi Mike,
Thanks for the link and the info.
On Apr 12, 2013, at 5:44:59PM, Mike Hart <just_mik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The KJV1611 needs to be experienced as it was originally laid out to be fully
> understood how different it is from the "King George" version of the "King
> James Bible" It included Paragraphs ( marked with capitulums ยข), Sections
> (listed at the start of each Chapter), and Topical page headers, as well as
> translation footnotes(+), crossreferences(*), and alt readings(||). Not to
> mention the maps, and introductory materials like daily readings, perpetual
> calendar, etc. The 1769 version of this text is stripped of much that was
> present in the original edition.
I ordered a KJV 1611 about 20 years ago from CBD for 10 or 15 bucks. It used
Roman faces, so it probably didn't meet your standards. But reading it was a
joy. The way the words were presented with the spellings of the day caused the
text to come alive to me. It was a very visual and aural experience. It put me
in another mode of reading where one word flowed to the next, verse to verse,
paragraph to paragraph, chapter to chapter. I ended up reading it from cover to
cover.
>
> Since the KJV1611 was typeset in not-very-repeatable black letter font, no
> good digitization of this text exists to my knowledge. I've studied the
> roman text versions out there, and they are all much closer to the 1769 than
> the 1611 edition, including some that claim to be 'facsimile' editions except
> for the font. ALL of the digital versions take liberty with spelling,
> changing the f's into S's and V's into U's, and many even keep much of the
> vocabulary adjustment you see in the "King George" 1769 ("cattle" instead of
> cattell, etc.)
I don't recall that with the hard-back version I read. While the Roman typeface
made u+017F look like an 'f', it seemed to follow the spellings you suggest.
>
> A true facsimile of the 1611 King James Authorized Version can be seen here:
Sigh. When I tried enlarging it, it froze.
What do you think about this one from U Penn's library?
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/
So it looks like it would be a tremendous effort to digitize. I think the face
could be loosely matched with one of the Gothics and substitutions for glyphs
could be done without much effort, but getting the font exact would be a lot of
work. And getting the hyphens and spacings exact would be very difficult. Is
there such a thing as good enough?
You wouldn't know the code point of the 'r' at the end of "for" in Genesis 1
would you?
Blessings.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
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
