[sword-devel] Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)
dsmith555 at yahoo.com
Wed May 3 07:24:42 MST 2006
Just my thoughts as one who doesn't know Portuguese.
I have followed this thread and the prior ones for some time.
If we continue to leave the current PorAA online, we should fix the
technical difficulties in it. In doing so, it should not be compared to
any version. That is textual problems such as missing verses,
misspellings, truncated words, wrong verse breaks and the like should be
ignored. The result will be a module that performs better in the various
SWORD apps, but has exactly the same content as before. The copyright
and naming issues will be exactly as they are today: still unsolved.
I also think that it is a good thing to seek permission to get a good
version online, perhaps replacing this one.
Jónatas Ferreira wrote:
> Em 2006/05/03, às 11:01, Sergio Queiroz escreveu:
>>> 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 "Ã ". But that it is a
>>>> corrupted copy of a copyrighted work is the personal opinion of
>>>> Leandro Dutra.
>>> No, it is not.
>> Yes It is (I will not extend this discussion).
> I must agree with Leandro that the module is misnamed. I had access to
> a paper copy of Almeida Atualizada and it is NOT the same. Even if
> Unbound guys say it is OK to distribute, they must provide where they
> got it from. Besides, even if it is the Almeida Atualizada, that
> version is NOT Public Domain.
>>>> 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 VersÃ£o Revisada.
>> This means nothing, as they come from the same translation.
> This has some meaning. It is theoretically possible that two versions
> from the same source end up exactly the same, but can you believe
> that? It is almost like believing evolution brought us here... And not
> even evolutionists would agree on that.
>>>> 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 doesnâ€™t fail me), and then the siteâ€™s
>>> administrators never answered requests for clarification.
>> Read the message by Chris Little here
> I have read the Chris Little's message and the rest of the tread and
> he doesn't say nothing against Leandro's position. I think everyone is
> just washing hands. I know the President of the Portuguese Bible
> Society personally and I will contact him to know if I can evaluate
> the copies and, if needed, obtain the necessary permission. (If they
> don't hold the copyright they can help me to contact with the holder.
>>>> 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.
>>> So what?
>> So you say that it is the version by the IBB when it is not. They may be
>> almost the same as they came from the same public domain sources.
>>>> 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.
>>> SÃ©rgio, it is quite interesting how you phantasize the past to fit
>>> your world view. Problem is, it amounts to a lie, if unintentional.
>> Refer back to the aforementioned message.
>>> I didnâ€™t â€˜update the text to reflect the copyrighted work that
>>> mention(ed)â€™. I just fixed typos and missing text. Do a diff
>> We cannot adding "missing text" based on a copyrighted version and keep
>> the module free.
>>>> 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 havenâ€™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
>> Show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain source.
> Can I suggest that we start writing to the list every time we
> encounter errors?
>>>> So, I think that you can use the PorAA without fears of having a
>>> Problem is, you â€˜thinkâ€™ too much but never check the facts.
>> That is also your personal opinion.
>>>> And it is much better to have a free portuguese module with some
>>>> technical problems than no portuguese module at all.
>>> Not â€˜some technical problemsâ€™ only. Real missing text, real
>> Again, show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain source.
>>>> I have at home a small shell script that I have used to correct the
>>>> problems with the "Ã " and the "Ã€" 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 canâ€™t be bothered to diff it against my files
>>> and see for yourself PorAA is actually a corrupted Revisada?
>> It is not worth the effort to compare with a copyrighted work, as we
>> cannot adopt the differences. And comparing with other Almeida will just
>> show that they are "Almeidas". You can compare with the Almeida
>> e Fiel, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, if you want to. Maybe you can
>> conclude we also have a "corrupted Almeida Corrigida e Fiel" too.
>>> Please please please stop this nonsense!
>> Again, in your opinion.
> It is true that we cannot accept the differences if they come from a
> copyrighted work, but it seams that NO ONE has access to the Public
> Domain source. The only ones that should be able to do that are the
> Unbound guys and they don't know or don't bother.
> But, again I say, the module is missnamed. I can give you the opinion
> of a scholar on that: my greek's professor at the theological seminar.
> He has been in several groups of translators for several portuguese
> bible versions and he told me that the version I have IS NOT
> Atualizada. If you compare several Almeida modified Bibles you will
> conclude the same that I did: you cannot read through without
> encountering differences at least in 1/3 of the verses.
More information about the sword-devel