[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Chris, > I appreciate you helping to clear some confusion here since I think > that I helped with some of nudging. This is great news, since all Greek > modules will have a common morph reference. I think covering all the > combinations in the known works would be adequate since most of the > works are not dynamic (akin to Strong's dictionary work.)
That would work for right now. And maybe it would work well enough in the future that we don't need to worry too much. But there is the possibility that the next revision of Tisch8 or Byz will include a correction to a morph code which introduces a new code (not presented in any of the existing texts, but permissible according to the Robinson encoding). Should we worry about that possibility? Is the full set of currently attested codes good enough for us? I'll admit there's a certain attraction to the simplicity of just collating existing codes and parsing those. (It would get me to rewrite the Perl morph code parser anyway, so we could have a basis for implementing the whole module in code at a later date, if nothing else.) Your mention of Strong's dictionary is apropos. It was good enough at the time it was created. But it's no longer considered sufficient for serious work--resulting in the creation of extensions and alternatives to his system. > I was wondering if you could make a similar statement pertaining > to the Hebrew morphology as I don't suppose Robinson's codes > have been or will be used for Hebrew morphs? Like I mentioned in the other reply. Robinson doesn't work for Hebrew, but I have something in the early stages of planning to address it. --Chris _______________________________________________ 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
