[sword-devel] Alternate Versification question

Andrew Thule thulester at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 14:50:24 MST 2012


I threw the canon_lxxe.h file in ./src/sword/include/

Edited ./src/sword/src/mgr/versemgr.cpp

#include <canon_lxxe.h>         // LXXE v11n system

systemVerseMgr->registerVersificationSystem("LXXE", otbooks_lxxe,
ntbooks, vm_lxxe);

recompiled and voila!
  -v <v11n>              specify a versification scheme to use (default is KJV)
                                 Note: The following are valid values for v11n:
                                        LXXE  <-- NOW HERE

The versification shows and up, but I still get errors when I make my
module.  Specifically:
when is use it with "osis2mod -v LXXE" I get

Error reading ulBuffNum
Error reading ulBuffNum

The var ulBuffNum shows up only in src/modules/common/zverse.cpp in:
zVerse::findoffset   - Finds the offset of the key verse from the indexes

Have I missed setting a value somewhere (uIBuffNum) that defines
offsets?  Any recommendations how I can fix this?



On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

More information about the sword-devel mailing list