Template talk:RQ:cy:Bible 1620

Initial Review

@Mahagaja: Could you please review, and correct or improve if appropriate, this documentation. I'm assuming that you're the same Mahagaja as put the 1620 bible (for some meaning of 1620) on Wikisource. RichardW57 (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Yes, I am. Ultimately it should be possible to link directly to the specific verse, so that typing {{RQ:cy:Bible 1620|Sant Ioan|12|13}} will take you to s:cy:Beibl (1620)/Sant Ioan#12:13, but that's only the case for the pages at Welsh Wikisource that have been proofread (because the proofreading step is where I add the verse-specific anchors), and so far I've only proofread the 1620 Bible up to Numbers 4:39. But for now, only the pages at s:cy:Indecs:Y_bibl cyssegr-lan.djvu that are green or yellow have anchors to specific verses and are largely free of scannos. As for the template documentation, you might want to list all the books in their appropriate spellings since there is bound to be some variation, and people might not be sure whether to write "Sephanïah", "Seffaneia" or "Zephaniah", or exactly what name to use for the various Gospels, and so on. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I think in general that's excessive, as editors should have the name of the book before them as they enter the quotation. However, 'Sant' may easily drop off for the gospels. There is some inconsistency in the referencing already - the contents list says 'Psalmau', but the URI has 'Salmau'. I've fixed that one already. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the policies on small caps? Do Wikisource and Wiktionary convert them to uppercase? When I did corrections, I corrected 'Duw' for 'Dᴜᴡ' to 'DUW'? Or are there no policies? --RichardW57 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I'm pretty sure that the HTML convention is to use the small-cap letters provided in Unicode only where they are semantically distinct from normal letters, for example in IPA, where "ɪ" is semantically distinct from "i" and "ʁ" is semantically distinct from "r", and to use formatting markup like <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Duw</span> (or {{smallcaps|Duw}} here at Wiktionary) when the small caps are purely decorative, as it is in Duw. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

But small caps aren't purely decorative i this case; they tell you that the word refers to God, and that the cue is in the underlying Hebrew. (Though 'God' v. 'gods' isn't always unambiguous.) A quick look tells me that for 'Duw' the small caps are in the Old Testament but not the New Testament in the 1620 Bible, while the 1588 Bible doesn;t uuse small caps at all. For Wikisource, should we be marking up the small caps? What about italics?

I'm asking about precedents in the Beer Parlour. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57: They're informative, but not semantically distinct. There's no difference in meaning between Duw and Duw; it's just a convention to tell us that the former is being used to translate אלוהים and the latter to translate יהוה. (That's why it isn't used in the New Testament: the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.) For Wikisource, we follow what the source has: we use small caps (using markup, not small caps characters) when the source text uses small caps, italics when the source text uses italics, and so on. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

1. In general, no, I checked. אלוהים meaning 'God' is represented by small caps Duw while יהוה‎ is represented by yr Arglwydd - see Genesis 2:3-4 for the first example of the contrast. There is however the case of אדני יהוה, as at Genesis 15:8, which the '1620' Bible renders as Arglwydd Dduw, a rare case where the word 'Duw' is used for יהוה‎. It's also one of the rare cases where the New English Bible uses God. There's a good account of English practice at https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/god-yhwh/difference-between-lord-Lord-and-LORD.htm.
2. What is the preferred way of marking small caps and italic when correcting your first drafts? I'm only planning to do so when I find it quoted on Wiktionary. Small caps Arglwydd seems to come out as all caps; I suspect small caps Duw and Nuw may be regularly coming out as plain mixed case.
3. I now presume the italicised summary at the beginning of chapters is also to be present. I had wondered why it seemed to be omitted. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Methinks the 1620 Bible overdoes the use of Duw; at Genesis 17:1 אל שדי is rendered as Duw Hollalluog. RichardW57 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the correction re the use of Duw, but the fact remains that Duw and Duw aren't different words in Welsh even if they indicate different words in Hebrew. At Wikisource, the proofread pages (the ones color-coded in green or yellow) follow the formatting of the source, so e.g. at s:cy:Tudalen:Y bibl cyssegr-lan.djvu/22 you see oedd in italics wherever the source has it in italics, and you see Duw in small caps wherever the source has it in small caps. The pages that haven't been proofread yet (the ones color-coded in pink) haven't been formatted at all, so e.g. at s:cy:Tudalen:Y bibl cyssegr-lan.djvu/221 there are no italics at all, and small caps are rendered as all caps. The pink pages aren't actually OCR-generated from the scans; they're taken from a different online version of the Welsh Bible that follows modern spelling but also has a fair number of mistakes. So proofreading the pages requires not only fixing the formatting and correcting errors, but also adding anchors for each verse and re-archaizing (or otherwise altering) the spelling where necessary. Also, the version the unproofread pages are taken from does not include the little summaries at the beginning of each chapter, so those need to be added as well. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)