[sword-devel] New Morphology
chrislit at crosswire.org
Sun Jan 27 07:54:46 MST 2008
RLRANDALLX at aol.com wrote:
> I appreciate you helping to clear some confusion here since I think
> that I helped with some of nudging. This is great news, since all Greek
> modules will have a common morph reference. I think covering all the
> combinations in the known works would be adequate since most of the
> works are not dynamic (akin to Strong's dictionary work.)
That would work for right now. And maybe it would work well enough in
the future that we don't need to worry too much. But there is the
possibility that the next revision of Tisch8 or Byz will include a
correction to a morph code which introduces a new code (not presented in
any of the existing texts, but permissible according to the Robinson
encoding). Should we worry about that possibility? Is the full set of
currently attested codes good enough for us?
I'll admit there's a certain attraction to the simplicity of just
collating existing codes and parsing those. (It would get me to rewrite
the Perl morph code parser anyway, so we could have a basis for
implementing the whole module in code at a later date, if nothing else.)
Your mention of Strong's dictionary is apropos. It was good enough at
the time it was created. But it's no longer considered sufficient for
serious work--resulting in the creation of extensions and alternatives
to his system.
> I was wondering if you could make a similar statement pertaining
> to the Hebrew morphology as I don't suppose Robinson's codes
> have been or will be used for Hebrew morphs?
Like I mentioned in the other reply. Robinson doesn't work for Hebrew,
but I have something in the early stages of planning to address it.
More information about the sword-devel