[sword-devel] Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
leandro at dutra.fastmail.fm
Tue May 2 20:05:46 MST 2006
Em Tue, 02 May 2006 11:23:44 +0200, Sergio Queiroz escreveu:
> Indeed, the PorAA has some problems with strange characters at each
> verse ending and with some accents, like the "à". But that it is a
> corrupted copy of a copyrighted work is the personal opinion of
> Leandro Dutra.
No, it is not.
> It is normal that you cannot find any bible in print with the exact
> text of this version, as the brazilian bible editors have changed a
> bit the translation over the years to ameliorate it and also to have
> copyright rights over the new text (and in this way preserve their
> commercial interests).
Please stop spreading misinformation. Just compare the PorAA with
the Versão Revisada.
> If you look at the history of this list, you will see a message (I
> think that by Chris Little) where he affirms that Crosswire Society
> knows where this version traces to, and that it has no copyright
More misinformation. All we know is the website it comes from
(UnBounded Bible if memory doesn’t fail me), and then the site’s
administrators never answered requests for clarification.
> Notice that the translation by Joao Ferreira de Almeida is very old
> (dates from the XVII century--for the new testament at least), so it
> has multiple revisions by different bodies, some free of copyright,
> some others not.
> The modifications of Leandro could not be accepted because he has
> not only solved the technical problems of the module, he has also
> updated the text to reflect the copyrighted work that he
> mentions. So it could no longer be distributed without the
> authorization of the copyright holders of that version.
Sérgio, it is quite interesting how you phantasize the past to fit
your world view. Problem is, it amounts to a lie, if unintentional.
I didn’t ‘update the text to reflect the copyrighted work that (I)
mention(ed)’. I just fixed typos and missing text. Do a diff
> Saying that this version is corrupted is a very far cry. I use it
> frequently in a small group study group, where we are from different
> nationalities, and we normally use the PorAA, the King James
> (english) and the Louis Segond (french) at the same time, to study
> the same text. I've never found a "corruption" in the PorAA text
> (I'm brazilian but also fluent in english and french). In fact, it
> is often almost the same as the King James version.
So you haven’t read enough. There are quite some missing passages,
sometimes starting or finishing at mid-sentence or even truncating
words. Even passing PorAA thru a spellchecker will show you corrupted
> So, I think that you can use the PorAA without fears of having a corrupted
Problem is, you ‘think’ too much but never check the facts.
> And it is much better to have a free portuguese module with some
> technical problems than no portuguese module at all.
Not ‘some technical problems’ only. Real missing text, real garbled
> I have at home a small shell script that I have used to correct the
> problems with the "à" and the "À" as well as the strange characters
> at the end of verses
If you could be bothered to write a shell script to fix the errors
you see, how come you can’t be bothered to diff it against my files
and see for yourself PorAA is actually a corrupted Revisada?
Please please please stop this nonsense!
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA +55 (11) 5685 2219
http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +55 (11) 9406 7191
mailto:leandro at dutra.fastmail.fm
xmpp:leandrod at jabber.org BRASIL
More information about the sword-devel