[sword-devel] Synodal versification & IBT modules?
gpl.programs.info at gmail.com
Sun May 12 04:47:12 MST 2013
On 05/12/2013 02:19 PM, David Haslam wrote:
> Thanks friends.
> I wasn't trying to muddy the waters at all, but I myself had wondered
> whatever had happened after the detailed discussion about "scope" in .conf
Yes- The Scope param, if properly implemented, can solve many problems.
I would agree with others that a v11n like the proposed SynodalP, which
is a simple a subset of Synodal, is not necessary IF a way is provided
for front-ends to easily and quickly determine which books, chapters,
and verses are included in (or purposely excluded from) a module's
On the other hand, if SWORD will assume that module makers who choose an
alternate v11n are thus required to fill that v11n in order to be
"complete", then there definitely is a need for SynodalP. IBT, as an
organization, is composed of both Protestant and Orthodox believers. But
it is very likely that few, if any, of IBT's translation teams have any
plans to ever translate the Apocryphal books. Russian Baptists and other
historical Protestant groups in Russia and surrounding areas do not
consider the Apocryphal material as Scripture. Russian Orthodox Bibles
do include the Apocryphal books/chapters/verses but they are not, as an
institution, pursuing translations of the Bible into minority languages
to my knowledge. Therefore, it is certainly incorrect to assume that all
Synodal versified translations should include the entire Synodal
"canon". If this is the assumption by SWORD, then SynodalP (a correct
SynodalP) is definitely required.
The original SynodalP was incorrect. The IBT canon.h which was used for
SynodalP did have books in KJV order, but that was never the actual
intent of IBT, as the front-end ordered the books differently depending
on locale and most people use their program in Russian (which presented
Synodal book ordering when locale was set to Russian). In reality, a
subset of Synodal is really what IBT's translations themselves use.
Either that or they use KJV. To make matters even more complicated,
there are several translation teams which have decided to use the
Synodal verse system in the Old Testament, but use the KJV in the New
Testament! Thankfully, Synodal and KJV only differ by a few verses in
the NT and so it's pretty painless to work around this (stuff a couple
verses into a single v11n verse slot here, and leave another v11n verse
slot there empty- usually with a footnote to explain this).
So implementing a good Scope feature would be a solid solution which
will minimize the number of v11ns, reduce future mapping overhead, and
provide more flexibility which is required by the real world. But it
must also be understood by SWORD that a chosen alternate v11n does not
necessarily represent a translation's canonical repertoire.
> If you can come to a consensus as to the best way forward, I'm sure I can
> persuade our friend at IBT to take advantage of it, once it's been
> implemented for both SWORD & JSword based apps.
IBT modules all currently have a "Scope" .conf parameter which shows
exactly which books, chapters, and verses are included in any module.
I totally agree that we need a consensus on how to move forward with its
> Now that my wife has an iPad Mini, I'm trying to see what I can report as
> possible ways to improve user experience for PocketSword.
> Best regards,
> View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Synodal-versification-IBT-modules-tp4652282p4652288.html
> Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel