[sword-devel] Alternate Versification question

[Chris Little]

On 08/13/2012 11:43 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Greg wrote: "If the one you need isn't supported (I don't see LXX or
> GNT at present) then you're welcome to create such a file and submit
> it along with your module."
>
> I  must have mistook your earlier comments as well.. I implicitly took
> them to mean you're normally not open to having versifications
> submitted, but because you were already working on one be open to
> having an LXXE versification submitted.  I wouldn't have not wasted my
> time working one out if I had know there was not chance of influencing
> these things.

In saying "in general I would not accept any submissions of 
versification systems" I was trying to discourage any efforts expended 
towards creating a new versification system. We accepted a versification 
system submission of sorts under very special circumstances, but have 
since removed it since it went unused. I cannot foresee any 
circumstances under which we would accept a versification system 
submission, but I wouldn't rule it out categorically.

> Given that you have to be extremely careful as to which versification
> systems you include in the library, how do I go about incorporating it
> privately?  Is it a matter of including the canon_xxx.h file
> somewhere?  Whether the one I submitted gets distributed or not, I
> still require it for an English version of Brentons text for the LXXE
> module I've created.

I suppose you could add your .h file to include and add your system to 
the versification manager. If you grep the source for 'leningrad' add 
add your system to all of the same structures where that appears, you 
should get a functioning library with your versification system. The 
modules you build using this versification system would only be usable 
by persons with the same patch to Sword, though.

> Perhaps the Septuagint (in English) isn't significant enough to
> warrant such treatment .. but users willing to generate their own
> versification systems, especially ones based upon historic documents,
> should still be able to influence module creation shouldn't they?
> Module creation presupposes a versification system, and it seems (to
> spectators at least) there's been pressure last few revisions to open
> up support for more.  Personally, I don't care one way or the other if
> Crosswire is not interestd in the one I just submitted.  I am
> interested though (as a module creator) that every time I OSIS2MOD my
> LXXE it appends ridiculous amount of verses onto chapters in a
> versification system neither the underlying Greek, or the English
> translation employ.
>
> So restricting module creation to versification system 'officially
> sanctioned' by Crosswise, however sound the logic behind imposing
> distribution restrictions, seems arbitrary.  Either provide an
> official Septuagint versification system close, or allow the user to
> specific their own.

Rest assured that I am absolutely committed to defining a versification 
system that satisfies your needs for a Brenton text. Getting a working 
Rahlfs versification implemented is a slightly higher priority because I 
would really like to get a polytonic Rahlfs ready for release after the 
next version of Sword is out. But doing a Rahlfs versification should 
get us most of the way to a more general LXX versification that can be 
used for Brenton.

Allowing module creators to define their own versification systems would 
be great, but it would require a facility for dynamic loading of 
versification systems or a transition to GenBook Bibles (which would 
allow out-of-order verses and possibly repeated verse numbers). If 
you're up to the task of coding these, we can discuss their formal 
requirements a little more. As it stands, though, it's just not 
technically possible to use versification systems other than those that 
are part of Sword in modules for distribution to others.

> Respectfully, I disagree.   I made every effort to confirm Brenton's
> English versification matched the typical underlying Greek LXX's
> formats; and that the underlying Greek format he matched was
> widespread.  By virtue your own comments explaining my observations
> about the mess in Sirach 30-36 shows that I've largely matched the
> underlying Greek (except where the Greek is inconsistent).
>
>   This hows that I've done this diligently.  Otherwise, if the LXXE
> versification system doesn't match the broad versification tradition
> of LXX, I'd happy to amend any errors you see.  If you look at it,
> you'll see this is a widespread LXX versification.  Or are you saying
> LXX isn't a broad versification tradition?

I'm in no way criticizing your diligence or accuracy, but it's not 
possible to represent Brenton's versification in Sword using SWText. 
Sirach chapter 30 has verses number 1-24 followed by verses 16-31, 
without gaps, meaning there are verses 16-24 followed by another set of 
verses 16-24. It's conceivable we could implement that using a GenBook 
Bible, but those are still experimental and generally unsupported.

And I'm not saying I won't look at your .h file. I'll absolutely consult 
it when broadening Rahlfs to support other LXX-tradition texts. I'm just 
saying that I don't need to look at it to know that it can't accurately 
represent the versification employed in my printed copy of Brenton for 
the above cited technical reasons.

--Chris