On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Eeli Kaikkonen <eekai...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote: > Quoting Daniel Owens <dhow...@pmbx.net>: >> I have a technical question, though. We will be using SIL's MDF markers >> (similar to USFM) for the source file which can then be transformed >> into TEI or other formats for various uses. I am thinking that each >> entry should include Strong's number(s), the lexical form, and >> Goodrick-Kohlenberger number(s). The G-K numbers seem to be a modern >> replacement for Strong's. > > My guess is that G-K must be forgotten because it's copyrighted. The list of > number/word connections is a creative work. > > The whole idea of using Strong's or other numbers with computer software is > strange. We have discussed about this before, but I repeat that numbers are > needless because computers are able to do the searches and to show correct > entries in a dictionary without numbers. The problem in getting rid of them > is that people are so used to them that they think they give some extra > value to software/modules, and some people are used to reading the numbers > and can't live without them. > > Numbers are of course good if you need to use external material, too > (printed books). Therefore they are useful and even necessary in > electronical resources. But you shouldn't use G-K without asking the > copyright holder.
Also, if you are using a module like our KJV it is using Strong's Numbers internally (though you are welcome to then display the word rather than the number, which BPBible does though I doubt it does it perfectly). Another problem that you will probably run into with the Greek is that the different texts have a different vocabulary. The KJV and the NKJV are based on the Textus Receptus, and as a result Strongs Numbers are also based on the Textus Receptus vocabulary. If you look at the introduction to a version of Thayer's Lexicon keyed to Strongs Numbers but based on a different text you will find some words not present at all, and others added with numbers like (1234a), meaning that it is a word not in the Textus Receptus, but in whatever text is used as the basis of Thayers. This might make it harder to use Strong's Numbers or something similar as a universal keying standard (we really need multiple keys for such dictionaries - maybe Strong's Numbers for programmatic lookup (and people if they really insist), as well as Greek and probably transliterated Greek like Strong's Dictionary has). Jon _______________________________________________ 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
