[sword-devel] osis2mod output (Bisaya-Inunhan NT)
Peter von Kaehne
refdoc at gmx.net
Wed Apr 29 13:04:02 MST 2009
Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> No, there really *is* a 3John 1:15 in the source Word document. Looks
> like it splits what KJV and NIV consider 3 John 14 into two verses, at
> the sentence break. Could this be a translator error?? If not, what
> versification schemes do have that verse, but are otherwise compatible
> with KJV versification?
Not an error but simply the opinion of the translator I would presume.
We talk about versification schemes as if this is something cast in
stone but really there are families of schemes and endless variations
> Yes, so it comes down to whether the re-versification "can be trusted",
> or not, and my sense is that for most input data it cannot, because
> seeing any such messages at all indicates that an incorrect
> (mismatching) versification has been selected, and so osis2mod should be
> rerun with a different versification?
I think there has to be a compromise - particularly if we want to
(later) support mapping between different schemes. So if everything is
KJV but for a small number of extraneous verses, it should be KJV and be
done with it. The matter will only ever be relevant for a small number
of chapter ending verses and the best solution would be if frontends
react appropriately by going back to the last verse present of a
reference is given which "overshoots". Not sure how they behave, but
this is my view of correct behaviour.
> See http://www.catb.org/~esr/fetchmail/fetchmail-man.html for an example
> of a well known Unix utility that generates a wide variety of exit
> codes, not all of which indicate total failure or an untrustworthy
> result (exit codes 1 and 9 in particular).
>>> (3) Enhancement request #3: If these messages could include a line
>>> number from the original OSIS input file, or a line or two of it at
>>> the point of the info/warning/error, that would really help.
But fetchmail is _weird_ in so many endless ways..... :-)
Personally I use getmail which appears much cleaner and less weird to me.
> Since the original documents have the "extra" verses, but only a couple,
> my suspicion is that either they are a mistake in the original, or they
> are using a versification no-one else uses.
> In either case, for real faithfulness to the original text, presumably
> one "should" create a versification scheme to exactly match that
> document, and use that. Right now (as far as I know!) the printed copy
> of this particular NT has 3John 1:15 -- so for fidelity to that
> original, the SWORD module should have a 3John 1:15. Logically it
> should not force things and stuff that verse into 3John 1:14, since that
> is not what the original text does.
Correct, if you want to be 100% correct.
> But this kind of thing would need the ability for the library to accept
> dynamically generated custom versifications, which at the moment it does
> not seem able to handle? Is this something planned for a future
> release? Or am I looking at this "all wrong"?
No. And there is a partial implementation of a separate entity - GenBook
bibles already in the engine, which would do just this. Things are
progressed but put on ice for 1.7. But it has been acknowledged that
there is a limit for what could be supported dt mapping difficulties.
I think as a rule though - right now, until the whole versification
stuff is settled down - it makes sense to hold on to one's OSIS files
and re-issue the module if there is movement with regard to better
More information about the sword-devel