Discusión:Biblia Reina-Valera 1909/Romanos/16

De Wikisource, la biblioteca libre.
Ir a la navegación Ir a la búsqueda

Colophon to the epistle - some text missing[editar]

Part of the text for the colophon is missing (verse 27). It should read:

Romans 16:27: Al solo Dios sabio, sea gloria por Jesucristo para siempre. Amén. Fué escrita de Corinto á los Romanos, enviada por medio de Febe, diaconisa de la iglesia de Cencreas.

The words highlighted in bold are missing. David Haslam (discusión) 20:27 5 may 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. David Haslam (discusión) 08:55 6 may 2018 (UTC)
@David Haslam: Mmm... the original source (https://www.bibliatodo.com/la-biblia/Reina-Valera-1909/romanos-16) doesn't show those changes. Could you please tell which source edition are you analyzing, if paper or scan, year and so on? Thanks! -Aleator 17:55 10 may 2018 (UTC)
@Aleator: I myself don't have a copy of the printed edition (or a scan), but I do have a trustworthy personal contact that does. His own RV1909 digitisation (of which I have a copy) is likely to be more accurate than that in the original cited source. Even if there are a few transcription errors in his, they are most unlikely to be the same errors as found in the one at bibliatodo. The latter has many similar transcription errors that I have observed elsewhere at various places on the world wide web. David Haslam (discusión) 09:53 11 may 2018 (UTC)
It's also highly unlikely that the reported text was missing from the original printed edition, given that Bibles such as the English KJV include the equivalent words. David Haslam (discusión) 09:57 11 may 2018 (UTC)
It would therefore be unwise to rely wholly upon the text at bibliatodo for this project, even though it was a sensible choice for the starting point. After all, the aim is to provide an accurate digitisation of the RV1909 rather than to slavishly follow one transcription thereof that has been observed to have multiple errors of various kinds. David Haslam (discusión) 10:02 11 may 2018 (UTC)
@Aleator, David Haslam: it seems that the digitisation of RV1909 found on bibliatodo.com has many errors. It seems unlinkely that the original text had sentences starting with small case. I've found another copy online on bibledbdata.org, that has the "full" text (as far as I can tell by checking the other errors David has found). Maybe we should change the source on Discusión:Biblia Reina-Valera 1909 to this page, as it contains a more trustworthy copy? The other solution I can think of, is that you David upload your copy to some permanent place like archive.org and source it from there. Regards! --Ninovolador (discusión) 20:12 11 may 2018 (UTC)
@Ninovolador, Aleator: During the last 8 days or so, I've been making corrections here of several kinds: Missing words, different words, spellings, enclitics (spurious space), and have also begun to fix punctuation marks. This activity will continue - time permitting. Even so, I will have a look at the online text you found. If it's not one I've already seen, it may be a further worthwhile comparison. NB. I'm not at liberty to upload the digital copy that I mentioned before. The work (as is) has some additonal markup features that are not public domain per se. David Haslam (discusión) 14:24 13 may 2018 (UTC)
One of the main difficulties in such a project is that so many online editions are simply revamped copies of an earlier digitisation, such that the errors in the earliest transcription are repeated in these derived editions. It's evident that the copy at bibledbdata.org is yet another that does not have italics for the words added by the translators (in the same manner as in the English KJV). The real challenge is to find two or more independent transcriptions, which has the benefit that most of the transcription errors in one are likely to be different to those in another. David Haslam (discusión) 14:32 13 may 2018 (UTC)
@David Haslam, Ninovolador: Yes, I agree to make a reference to David Haslam's trustworthy source. A digitalization remains as the best option (I searched in some digital libraries but didn't find a specific 1909 edition). Meanwhile, David's remains the best for now (IMHO). By the way, I'm also proofreading a Catalan version at ca.source and now, finally, I understand why some words are in italics! :) -Aleator 18:21 15 may 2018 (UTC)