[sword-devel] question on possible update to ChiUns
dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 15 05:26:08 MST 2008
We have a couple of active developers at jsword-devel who are native
Chinese speakers and could possibly help. I'm cross posting this to
On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Chris Little wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> is much better.
>> Unfortunately, the new, improved text is lacking Strong's and
>> markup. So we either have featureful errors (now) or bland
>> (if I gen up a new module).
>> Honestly, the new module's script would be close to a no-brainer,
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> the way Chinese is meant to be written (see the difference in the
>>> 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
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel