[sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?

Eeli Kaikkonen sword-devel@crosswire.org
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:04:47 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:

> ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????????...
>  >But< ALLA
>  >this< TOUTO
>  >is< ESTIN
>  >that< TO
>  >which_was_spoken< EIRHMENON
> Let me know if you'd tag it differently.

"eirhmenon" = "that which was spoken". The article tells that the thing
is something specific or known.  "eirhmenon" without the article tells
us all that "to eirhmenon" says except that it's something known, and we
have tagged the english definite article with the base word anyways.

In bad English we could translate "this is _the spoken_". But because
it's bad English, it's "_that which was spoken_". Some native English
speaker can tell me if it would be right to say "this is which was
spoken" and if "that which"  means different interpretation of the

Does this make sense and do I have enough knowledge to talk about
these things?

> >hO tags "who" and "am".  I have been tagging implied verbs with their
> >subjects.  KAI tags "also".
> >
> >I had placed the question of implied verbs to the group.  No one responded.

Can you make the question again with some examples (I probably missed
it)?. Now it is good time to make the consensus. I also want to make it
right, not just how I think it is right. (Right is how WE think it is
right, right?)

  Sincerely Yours,
      Eeli Kaikkonen <eekaikko@paju.oulu.fi> Suomi Finland