[sword-devel] question on possible update to ChiUns
chrislit at crosswire.org
Mon Jan 14 23:36:41 MST 2008
I suspect we could come up with a way to merge the existing featureful
ChiUns with a corrected underlying text, but some of the issues raised
here could be solved by simply going back to the original source. It has
correctly divided words.
I don't know how to judge any other corrections since no others are
mentioned, but I have a suspicion that WordProject isn't the primary
source of their Chinese Bibles. I suspect theirs ultimately go back to
fhl.net, like ours do.
Redoing the module leads to traditional vs. simplified issues. Not being
a Chinese reader, I don't know the full set of difficulties, but it is
my understanding that mapping between the two is non-trivial (it is
definitely not one-to-one). I only find traditional fhl.net (but not
knowing Chinese makes it difficult to navigate). I definitely don't want
to disunify the two modules.
I'll get to work converting from the source so this user can check the
updated text, but I'd like to finish putting together a new morphology
module first. fhl.net uses OLB-style TVM codes, which I would like to
convert over to our new Robinson-style codes.
Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> A couple weeks back, someone asked on sword-support for a Chinese Pinyin
> module, providing the public domain source reference, and in an hour or
> so I had hacked up a basic version which the requestor has been using.
> He has since asked if an update to ChiUns would be possible, because
> evidently he sees (being a Chinese speaker) that the ChiUns has many
> errors and the new source reference he gives (from same site as Pinyin)
> is much better.
> Unfortunately, the new, improved text is lacking Strong's and morphology
> markup. So we either have featureful errors (now) or bland correctness
> (if I gen up a new module).
> Honestly, the new module's script would be close to a no-brainer, given
> that its markup from the source site will be nearly identical to the
> Pinyin markup.
> Would it be sensible to have both? Or could the older module's
> Strong's/morph markup be applied to the new content?
>> I understand not wanting to go backward in terms of features. But the
>> advantage of having a text without errors (or at least markedly less
>> errors) is of inestimable value. The updated text also includes the
>> removal of all the spaces between every Chinese character which is not
>> the way Chinese is meant to be written (see the difference in the way
>> the Chinese NCV text is displayed which is the correct way).
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel