[sword-devel] Chinese Strongs markup

David Instone-Brewer Technical at Tyndale.cam.ac.uk
Thu Apr 12 01:16:08 MST 2012

I'm starting work on correcting some errors in the Chinese Strongs markup,
but I want to step carefully cos I'm new to this.
I couldn't find a Wiki page outlining what the rules are for Strongs markup.
There's a note at 
pointing out one problem, but there are many, though it is basically 
a very good markup.
It appears to be based on the free KJV markup, though it also notes 
every occurrence of the Hebrew article eth
This isn't very useful, but it shows that they were keen to include 
everything and that they did a lot of work on it.

In order to make sure they include every Hebrew word, they often 
combined words in one entry,
eg: Gen.1.2:  <w lemma="strong:H5921 strong:H6440">[on the surface of]</w>

Sometimes this becomes complicated when one or more of the words is a verb,
eg: Gen.2.2: <w lemma="strong:H4480 strong:H3605 strong:H834 
strong:H6213" morph="StrongsMorph:H8804">[rested him from all the]</w>
    - the numbers represent the words for  "from" "all" "eth" and "working"
- in this case the morphology goes with the last lemma (H6213) but 
this isn't always the case.
eg: Gen.3.8: <w lemma="strong:H8085 strong:H853 strong:H3068" 
    - the numbers represent: "hear" "eth" "LORD" and "Qal Imperfect"
  -in this case the morphology relates to the first of the three 
lemmas listed.

I can sort this out, but I'd like to know how to record it
- ie how can I indicate in correct coding that a morphology links 
with a particular lemma when more than one lemma is translated by a 
single word?

I notice that the same thing happens in the KJV strongs (though less often),
eg Gen.6.3 <w lemma="strong:H07683 strong:H01571" 
morph="strongMorph:TH8800 strongMorph:TH8677">for that he also</w>

Is it OK to mark such occurrences as follows?
    Gen.6.3 <w lemma="strong:H07683" morph="strongMorph:TH8800" 
lemma="strong:H01571" morph="strongMorph:TH8677">for that he also</w>
This isn't good XML, but perhaps it is allowable?
Or is there some other way to indicate which lemma the morphology belongs to?

David IB

///   Dr David Instone-Brewer
dib   Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament
  ^    Tyndale House, 36 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge, CB3 9BA, UK
\=/   Rabbinics at Tyndale.cam.ac.uk      www.TyndaleHouse.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20120412/ad141e5a/attachment.html>

More information about the sword-devel mailing list