Open Scriptures Google Group

Re: Strong's parsing?

nbier...@calvinseminary.edu (Nathan Bierma) — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:50:48 UT

Let me hasten to say I didn't mean to make accusations; I was summarizing
what I found when I started looking into this. The information was and
remains a little murky to me, but I said it appeared that the TVM mapping
was developed by Larry Pierce and was under copyright, and another source
within the Sword community said that TVM mapping could no longer be reused.

Re: Strong's parsing?

sceptreofju...@yahoo.com (Darrell Smith) — Thu, 16 May 2013 03:14:08 UT

Thank you Chris for setting things straight. It's much better to light a candle than grumble in the dark.

!
______________________________ __
From: Chris Little <chris...@crosswire.org>
To: openscriptures@googlegroups.co m
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:38 PM

Could you be so kind as to not make accusations about copyright

Re: Strong's parsing?

chris...@crosswire.org (Chris Little) — Thu, 16 May 2013 01:38:45 UT

Could you be so kind as to not make accusations about copyright
infringement on the part of CrossWire / The SWORD Project? You're
welcome to pose questions to us about particular content as quite a few
CrossWire people are on the OS list. But when you make statements like
the above about non-'legit' content in Sword, I at least am going to

Blayney 1769 edition was Oxford Press

stevenav...@verizon.net (Steven Avery) — Fri, 10 May 2013 23:59:54 UT

Hi,

Nathan Bierma

Steven Avery
The 1769 Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801) edition from Clarendon Press
was an Oxford University Press edition, in line with the Blayney
report to Hertford College (Oxford). The 1769 Cambridge editions
were directly based on an earlier text of Francis Sawyer Parris

Re: Strong's parsing?

davidtro...@aol.com (David Troidl) — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:08:21 UT

Thanks, Nathan, for the research. Being under copyright, and used by
license, puts it outside the intent of our work. Even the CCAT texts
are touchy, because of the license terms. The basis of our efforts is
to have a truly open text.

David

Re: Strong's parsing?

nbier...@calvinseminary.edu (Nathan Bierma) — Fri, 10 May 2013 15:58:20 UT

Here is the credit that appears on the BibleWorks credits page (
[link]

" KJV, KJA, KJG - Authorized Version (KJV) - 1769 Blayney Edition of the
1611 King James Version of the English Bible - with Larry Pierce's
Englishman's-Strong's Numbering System, ASCII version. Copyright ©

Re: Strong's parsing?

nbier...@calvinseminary.edu (Nathan Bierma) — Fri, 10 May 2013 15:45:30 UT

OK, some digging in Sword forums shows that the Strong's ranges H8675-H8853
and G5625-G5944 are called TVM (as in tense, voice, and mood) and were
developed by Larry Pierce of the Online Bible. There is a Logos module
called Tense Voice Mood 2.0 , and while there are some Sword modules
available with TVM info, one module distributor says that he has stopped

Re: Strong's parsing?

davidtro...@aol.com (David Troidl) — Fri, 10 May 2013 00:06:47 UT

There was some discussion about this on the SWORD development list some
time back. The numbers appeared in the KJV module at that time. As I
recall the usage of the interpretations was restricted.

As for qbible.com, if there is no indication of who is putting it out,
or where they got their texts, I would avoid using them.

Strong's parsing?

nbier...@calvinseminary.edu (Nathan Bierma) — Thu, 09 May 2013 15:22:54 UT

I stumbled onto qbible.com, which displays (among many other things) Hebrew
text with inline verb (partial) parsing, apparently via Strong's. Verbs are
displayed with multiple inline Strong's numbers: one for the root and
another for the grammatical stem and mood. For instance, in Gen 1:2 (
[link]), the verb

Re: Call for participation for proposed SBL Global Education & Research Technology section (GERT)

randallk...@gmail.com (Randall Tan) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:56:07 UT

Even though the proposed Global Education & Research Technology (GERT)
section has not yet received long-term approval as a program unit at the
Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) Annual Meeting, GERT has been
authorized to sponsor a Global Research Technology theme session & to
co-sponsor a Global Education Technology theme session with the Academic

Re: NLTK + SBLGNT

nat...@smithfam.info (Nathan D. Smith) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:58:28 UT

I have created an sblgnt-corpus archive which can be easily loaded as a
tagged, categorized corpus into NLTK.

Repo: [link]
Blog with examples:
[link]

I think I'll take a look at working with the PROEIL corpus next.

Re: Unicode conversion of the CATSS LXXM text

nat...@smithfam.info (Nathan Smith) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:20:27 UT

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:57:22 -0700

I am in the midst of some correspondence with the folks behind this
text to submit the corrections I found and see if they are interested
in hosting the unicode version on the CCAT server.

In the meantime, I have put the script I used up in a git repo:
lxxm-convert.py in

Re: Let's talk Unicode normalization

westonru...@gmail.com (Weston Ruter) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 05:33:21 UT

Well, the normalization FAQ says in comparison with NFC, that NFKC will
“lose information and [is] thus most appropriate for a restricted domain
such as identifiers”. So just on this basis, it seems NFC is better as it
would mean no information could be lost. If the application does need an
NFKC normalization, then it would be trivial to convert the NFC text it

Let's talk Unicode normalization

nat...@smithfam.info (Nathan Smith) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:24:06 UT

. . . specifically in Python:
[link]

My feeling is that Normal Form C (NFC) is most appropriate for Biblical
texts. I see that is what Weston used in the initial API reference
implementation code.

Is there any compelling reason to use NFKC instead? More info here:

Re: Availability for use of Paratext

teusjanne...@gmail.com (Teus Benschop) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:46:57 UT

The Windows version is good. It's used by Bibles International for their
translators. Their volunteers ported it to Windows.