Open DavidHaslam opened 6 years ago
Unless the qa tag is only ever supposed to be used in psalm 119 and will never be used anywhere else with any other language other than hebrew, then this is not something I'm comfortable doing.
There are other parts of the Hebrew OT which have acrostic poems.
Several other Psalms, Lamentations 1-4, Proverbs 31.
All of them are acrostics in the Ancient Hebrew!
Do you imagine that a translator would ever be able to mimic the acrostic pattern with 22 letters of another language and still provide a faithful translation ?
Or did you have some other use in mind for \qa
?
Is the qa tag only ever supposed to be used for hebrew acrostic titles?
The example of \qa_text...
in the USFM User Reference is for Psalm 119.
cf. The example for the character level marker pair \qac_#\qac*
is Lamentations 1.1,2 (Spanish TLA),
yet to me at least it doesn't make sense!
This is defined as:
The letters thus marked are simply NOT acrostics in the Spanish text !
They are letters in the Latin alphabet used by the Spanish language that "merely happen to be" at the same initial location as a Hebrew letter is in the original text for each of the poetry lines in Lamentations 1.
I don't see there's any point in marking them like this, but that's just my view, and I've not discussed this with anyone involved in the UBS ICAP team.
Even so, the issue is really only about \qa_text
and my observations about \qac_#\qac*
don't really change that.
USFM is for Scripture. The only part of Scripture with Acrostic poetry is the Hebrew OT. There's no such acrostic in the Greek NT.
For the record this is what my
u2o2.py
does currently:Any thoughts?