Index talk:The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882).pdf

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fairer images[edit]

Comparing the scan we have to multiple available on the web, the following seem to be somewhat better scans to check, in case of difficult text:

our source?

Also looking for better vol. 1 (greek) copies.

  • [2] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), Cambridge/London, 1881
  • [3] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), Cambridge/London, 1881
  • [4] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), American edition, 1882
  • [5] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), American edition, NYNY, 1882 Greek only
  • [6] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), American edition, NYNY, 1882 - oh, Greek and English on facing pages!
  • [7] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1) Cambridge/London, 1885 Greek only
  • [8] Vol. 1 (greek) 1891 Greek only
  • archive.org vol. 1 (greek) 1914 ? Greek only
  • [9] Cambridge/London, 1892 Lexicon?
  • [10] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), NYNY, 1925 Greek only
  • [11] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), American edition, NYNY, 1882 - oh, Greek and English on facing pages! "Revised English Version"
  • [12] The New Testament in the original Greek (Vol. 1), Cambridge/London, 1890 Greek only

Augh! There's even more at archive.org!

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm using this transcript to check this text rather than the automated transcript provided by Wikisource. This transcript is much more accurate and needs only minimal editing (especially the 'W' is made 'Av', 'li' is made 'h' etc.), but it does get very confused by the cursive Greek. When there's a lot of Greek, I'm not correcting it all manually, but mark the page as 'problematic' instead. Greek experts (or perhaps Greek Wikisource) can better fix those pages than I. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is obvious[edit]

"btw is https://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor82west/page/242/mode/1up a higher quality scan than the one we are presently using?"

Oh yes! Yes! The scan we have is ~700px resolution image (not good) and I think I'm seeing image file compression artifacts (i.e. it is not the original scan, but compressed). The archive.org scan is *much* better. (First item on the list at Fairer_images.

Try this. Open in a new browser window at archive.org p. 241. Scroll to bottom of page ("James v 7 and greek), and use the '+' key 7 or 8 times to make it bigger, then wait some seconds for the good magnified image to arrive.

Now compare with our WS scan of p. 241. Open in new window and scroll to bottom and use '+' 7 or 8 times to make same size.

Which Greek would you rather read? I'm not good because I'm good, I'm good because I cheat!

(I'm seeing the same problem at other projects, like Index:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu and other volumes, where the scan is very old from when there was only one scan available, and there are now 20-30 available and much better public domain scans! One recent project I did was notable because the scan was good enough that there were less than 5 scan errors in the whole book!)

A good quality scan really makes life easier!! Shenme (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay! Thanks for explaining this. Honestly, I didn't see the difference at first. Also, confession time: I tried uploading a .djvu version of the book, but I couldn't do it for some technical reason beyond my understanding (perhaps my pc doesn't recognise .djvu files?), and so I went for a .pdf file instead. If you know of a way we can substitute our .pdf file for the .djvu file without messing up the work we've done (I'm thinking especially about page titles, all of which now contain ".pdf", like "Page:The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882).pdf/295"; hopefully these can all be corrected with a bot or something?), I would love that! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation[edit]

Indentation is rendered using:

{{left margin/s|1em}}
{{lh2/s|110%}}

{{lh2/e}}
{{left margin/e}}

The following notes have been identified as indented:

  • 60–61 (pages 47–49) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 68–72 (p 54–57) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 85–95 (p 66–72) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 97–128 (p 73–90) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 140–147 (p 99–104) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 201–223 (p 148–162) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 244–255 (p 179–186) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 304 (p 226–227) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 321–323 (p 241–244) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 335–339 (p 254–256) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 353–355 (p 269–271) – Yes check.svg Done
  • 393–422 (p 302–322) – Yes check.svg Done

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List completed. Now we'll have to indent all those paragraphs (notes). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Incidentally, I haven't got a clue why Hort indented some groups of paragraphs and not others. Sometimes it seems like a frame story, or a couple of anecdotes that he doesn't want to distract the reader with for too long? In other cases I don't a reason for a smaller, indented text. It wouldn't have been to save paper, otherwise the whole text would have been in a smaller font, and make full use of the margins instead of randomly enlarging them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indentation complete. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ahead at subdividing text for publishing to main space[edit]

Looking ahead, and trying to figure out how this text can be divided into manageable subdivisions. Texts are divided to create smaller 'chunks' that can be displayed in browsers without stressing them.

There are 4 Parts.

A Part may be subdivided further into Chapters, Sections, or Chapters and Sections.

Part
Part, Chapter
Part, Section
Part, Chapter, Section

All text is in numbered Paragraphs with sometimes Groups of Paragraphs.

There are 425 Paragraphs.

This work is subdivided systematically, but not evenly. It does not have nicely chapter-sized 'chunks'. It is hard to see how to organize compared to the usual novel.

Part III is 2/3 of the text!

Here is a dump of my notes so far on subdivisions seen in the TOC:

                                pp         #pp        groups
  INTRODUCTION                  1-324       324        
  vii     Prefatory             3                     _  
  vii     Part I                4-18         15       _ A B C
  viii    Part II               19-72        54       _ 
  viii        Section I           19-30        12     A B
  ix          Section II          30-39        10     
  ix          Section III         39-59        11     A B C D E F
  xi          Section IV          60-62         3 
  xi          Section V           62-66         5 
  xi          Section VI          66-72         7     A B
  xii     Part III              73-287      215       _
  xii         Chapter I           73-90        18     _ A B C
  xiii        Chapter II          90-186       97 
  xiii            Section I         90-119       30   _ A B C D
  xv              Section II        119-135      17   _ A B C D
  xvi             Section III       135-145      11   A B C D E 
  xvii            Section IV        146-162      17   A B C D 
  xviii           Section V         162-179      18   A B C D E F G 
  xx              Section VI        179-186       8   A B C D 
  xxi         Chapter III         187-271      85 
  xxi             Section I         187-206      20   A B C D E F G 
  xxii            Section II        207-271      65   A B C D E F G H I 
  xxvii       Chapter IV          271-287      17     _ A B C
  xxviii  Part IV               288-324      37       A B C D E F

                                              
  APPENDIX                      1-188     188 
Good point; as a book, its subdivision is rather unusual. What do you suggest we do? I've never digitised a book on Wikisource before. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing a small number of large works, I've now seen chapters of greater than 100 pages more than once. There also does not seem to be ready guidance on how to break up irregular works into reasonable subdivisions.
I suppose then we should attempt the obvious ~ < 10 subdivisions.
Leading pages as-is
Contents (25 pp ?) 
Prefatory Remarks (3 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Prefatory Remarks
Part I (15 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part I
Part II (54 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part II
Part III Chapter I (18 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter I
Part III Chapter II (97 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter II
Part III Chapter III (85 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter III
Part III Chapter IV (17 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter IV
Part IV (37 pp) The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part IV
There is much other work to be done on (all) the individual pages for publishing. I don't know when (how soon) to create the mainspace header page... Shenme (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "peculiar marks"[edit]

The "peculiar marks" the author adds to his manuscript are described in a few paragraphs, in section "Β. 378—392. Textual notation" on page 291. More specifically the marks are described in paragraphs §§ 379-383. Here is how to add in those marks.

  • [ ]     (in §§ 379, 383)
  • ⟦ ⟧ are &#x27E6; and &#x27E7;   (in §§ 379, 383, 384, 387)
  • ⊣ ⊢ are &#x22A3; &#x22A2;     (in §§ 385, 388, 390)
  • ⊤ is &#x22A4;     (in §§ 378)
  • ⌜ ⌝ are &#x231C; and &#x231D;     (in §§ 379, 380)
  • Ap.     (in §§ 379, 380, 386)
  • † and †† are &#x2020; or &dagger;     (in §§ 380)

Paragraphs at  § 378§ 379§ 380§ 381§ 382§ 383§ 384§ 385§ 386§ 387§ 388

Unicode notes:

⟦ ⟧ 27E6 ⟦ MATHEMATICAL LEFT WHITE SQUARE BRACKET and 27E7 ⟧ MATHEMATICAL RIGHT WHITE SQUARE BRACKET
⊣ ⊢ 22A3 ⊣ LEFT TACK and 22A2 ⊢ RIGHT TACK)
⌜⌝ 231C ⌜ TOP LEFT CORNER and 231D ⌝ TOP RIGHT CORNER
 ⊤  22A4 DOWN TACK
 †  2020 DAGGER (also as &dagger;) (known to author as 'obelus')

Additionally, should these notes (when more complete) be copied over to the el.wikisource Index: ? Oh, discussion at el:Συζήτηση_μεταγραφής:The_New_Testament_in_the_original_Greek_-_1881.djvu. From 2019!

Only... their list is prompted by a section in _that_ 1881 work, "INDEX TO NOTATION.". Which doesn't mention a couple marks, does describe more succinctly overall, but also where they've chosen yuckier characters for ⊣ ⊢ - there they have ⸡ ⸠

We'll have to reconcile later between 'takes' on these works. Shenme (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I think we've seen asterisks/stars that looked at bit more ornate than plain asterisks? Noting these discoveries here:

⁕ 2055 ⁕ FLOWER PUNCTUATION MARK
❋ 274B ❋ heavy eight teardrop-spoked propeller asterisk

and others seen at U2700.pdf

Work to do for publishing[edit]

Section references and anchors[edit]

There are many references in-text to various sections, e.g. (see §§ 14, 301). There are 425 sections. Unless we wish to catalogue exactly which ones are referenced we'll just have to put {{anchor}} marks on each individual section start. Then we'll have to update the in-text references to be links to the sections, as distributed among the 8 subdivisions of the work.

We see section 301 on p. 222. But a reference to this will take the form of The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter III#section301, like this: (§ 301)

It is not just the quantity of reference updates, but rather the generating the references each with the correct subdivision name link, that is the additional difficulty.

Subdivision name Sections   Base subdivision link
Prefatory Remarks 1 - 4 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Prefatory Remarks
Part I 5 - 22 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part I
Part II 23 - 95 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part II
Part III Chapter I 96 - 128 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter I
Part III Chapter II 129 - 255 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter II
Part III Chapter III   256 - 355 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter III
Part III Chapter IV 356 - 374 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part III/Chapter IV
Part IV 375 - 425 The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part IV

Hopefully tools like AWB can do the larger portion of this work?

Moving some repeated formatting into header/footer[edit]

Where a set of pages forms a contiguous group, such as a chapter, then formatting which logically spans pages should be moved into page headers/footers. For example, TOC page x should have the {{TOC begin}} moved into the header, and the {{TOC end}} moved into the footer. In main space when all the TOC pages are included together, the {{TOC begin}} in the first TOC page vii will start TOC construction, and the {{TOC end}} on the last TOC page xxxi will close out the TOC.

This moving things around is also true for the formatting accomplishing the indented compressed sections. Where multiple such sections cross multiple pages, they have the formatting instructions combined like described above. This is also true if any of our tables cross page boundaries.