[sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:10:07 -0600
Would six years of undergrad and graduate Greek work come close enough that
I have your permission to comment? Not to mention two years of exegesis.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Eeli Kaikkonen
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:27 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Keith Ralston wrote:
> > I had placed the question of implied verbs to the group. No
> one responded.
> > In each of these cases, I am comfortable with my method for handling the
> > tags. I am looking for consensus in order that we might have
> Consistency is very important if we want our work to be reliable for any
> use. As far as I know KJV is famous for being consistent considering
> words and syntax. Readers have to know that we have consistent tagging
> > Myself and many others interested in the project use it for research. I
> > want it tagged correctly.
> Of course. That's why I was asking in the first place :) I just meant
> that usually the Greek/KJV relation is quite clear, but interpretations
> about meaning and shades of syntax may vary a lot. Maybe I am talking
> too much...
> > The approach taken by the KJV interpreters is
> > clear. They treated the article as a pronoun.
> Still I'm not convinced. But don't take mee too seriously, I'm stubborn.
> I left a note with this verse and you can contribute by telling your
> > > Meddling with semantics would be for experts only.
> > You keep referring to experts. What is your criteria for an expert?
> I can read Greek Testament, Moulton's grammar, BAGD lexicon etc. as you
> have seen. I have also soon done my first Greek course in university.
> Still I don't consider myself as an expert. Expert has read many books
> and articles about grammar and have understood most of what they have
> said. He also has access to specialized books and articles to solve
> questions like this. He can speak fluently about grammar and other
> things with scholarly terms.
> You have seen what kind of discussion arises when we talk about
> different interpretations of syntax. If we tried to explain Greek
> syntax (e.g. subject, object, predicative, relative clause, main clause)
> I wouldn't be able to do that. There would be too much advanced
> questions and discussion. The skills I mentioned would be needed for
> that kind of things.
> But I really don't know how "expert" you all are or how many "experts"
> there are amongst you. Maybe doing basic Greek grammar tagging is
> possible. Subordination of words and clauses might not be too
> complicated and time-consuming.
> Please notice that I'm not talking about this project here. We will have
> good usable module here if we have consistent tagging and justifications
> for our decisions. Tagging the grammar or something like that would take
> much more effort.
> Sincerely Yours,
> Eeli Kaikkonen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Suomi Finland