On Jan 26, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2008, at 4:57 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I'm a bit dense, I don't see how the module would grow from
>> 150K to 2000K. Can we do key linking? And that if it would be encoded
>> into the engine that the size increase would be small.
>>
>> As to adding parsing/normalization to JSword, we already do that wrt
>> Strong's numbers and also Devotional keys. It is no big deal.
>>
>> -- DM
>
> At the bottom of this email is the complete Robinson morphology code
> manual. It's not long, but it's got a lot of possibilities that can
> compound. So, for example, for any verb there are (very roughly) 11
> tenses x 9 voices x 7 moods x (5 cases x 2 numbers x 3 genders + 3
> persons x 3 genders) x 8 variant forms = 216216 total codes. (In fact
> this gets reduced by eliminating sets of impossible codes, but the
> final code count is still about 77000 total.).
>
> All of those keys include an explication of up to 8 lines. So the
> total filesize is about 15Mb before compression.
>
> Key linking isn't relevant here. There aren't duplicate entries.
>
> Parsing means you take a code like V-2RDI-2P-IRR and generate text
> like:
> Part of Speech: Verb
> Tense: Second peRfect
How PeRfEcT is that! :)
>
> Voice: middle Deponent
> Mood: Indicative
> Person: second
> Number: Plural
> Irregular or Impure form
Chris, given this I don't think that it serves much purpose to put
this into a module.
I see two advantages in encoding this:
1) It is straightforward, much simpler and much smaller. Which will
translate into very fast (no I/O).
2) It can readily be internationalized. (Which in JSword would be via
property files.)
To me the second is the greater gain.
My Hebrew is extremely rusty, but I hope that this would require very
little addition to satisfy the language differences. Perhaps if one
(i.e. you) could map the OT morph codes in the KJV to the appropriate
entry in this new morphology, then one (i.e. me) could modify the
KJV's OT to use these new codes.
A third gain is that our (I know I said two) would be that it would be
less likely to be taken by other projects. It seems that our modules
find themselves in all sorts of projects. Maybe "they" get them from
the same sources.....
If you would provide a Perl parser, I would find it very easy to
convert that into Java.
In Him,
DM
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
