[sword-devel] Greek texts
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 11:57:56 +0100
On Saturday, 15 July, 2000 01:58:34, Paul Gear <email@example.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey Hoyt wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, you wrote:
>> > Guys,
>> > Is anyone aware of any effort to spruce up our Greek texts a bit?
>> > I would like to see:
>> > - standardised encoding (so that all the texts look the same in
>> > BibleTime)
>> > - breathings, punctuation, capitalisation, and maybe accenting
>> > - paragraph formatting
>> > - morphology codes
>> By morphology codes do you mean the declensions and parts of speech in the
>> Koine Greek language? If so, a good place to start is the Greek/Hebrew Key
>> Study Bible by Spiros Zodhiates, published by AMG. It has part-of-speech,
>> tense, mood, voice, etc. codes of many Greek and Hebrew words right in the
>> Bible text. (I have one).
> Yes, morph codes are the full parsing of each word. I am not looking
> for print lexicons or Bibles - i already have plenty of those. I was
> thinking of something that was already in electronic form. I know of a
> couple of parsed texts, but i'm not sure as to their copyright status
> and the like.
How accurate are these parsed texts? Whilst not Greek the available
morphologically parsed version of Biblia Hebraic Stuttgartensia (BHS) is
known to be flawed---some say seriously flawed. Gramcord invested huge
amount of effort in correcting these mistakes and errors for the version of
BHS that appears in Accordance. (One of the reason that professional
theologians etc recommend Accordance over all other products.)
If there are morphologically parsed versions of the Greek then whose going
to verify that the contents are accurate? Can't be me; I have limited Greek
Having a plain Greek module is better than a seriously flawed super-duper
one. In my book any way. Whilst I don't want to put anyone off this addition
lets not get carried away with a because it's available let's do it
>> Semi-related: Why is the "Thayer" lexicon no different from the "Strongs
>> Greek" lexicon? When I saw Thayer's was a module, I nearly went ballistic
>> with joy. I was dissapointed to find it wasn't Thayer's after all.
> I'm not an expert on this, but i believe what is provided as Thayer's
> lexicon is definitions from Thayer's, but not in the form that they were
> in the original lexicon. Chris or Jerry might know about this - any
> comments, guys?
I think that (and the other recent comments upon "Thayer") serves to
demonstrate my point quite nicely.
British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living
language. So recognise it now.
<>< Re: deemed!