[Forwarding from osis-core list from a couple months ago, where I don't 
think it was noticed.]

What are the semantics of the <divineName> element? My understanding of
where we stood as of the last time <divineName> was brought up at a
meeting was that it should be used for tagging translations of the
tetragrammaton (or conceivably the tetragrammaton itself) exclusively,
since it is largely a signal to do things like small-caps "Lord". All
other divine epithets (e.g. "El Shaddai") or small-caps text (e.g.
small-caps "Branch" and "Jesus") would thus need to use another element
(e.g. <name>). This decision was part of the reason for not giving any
types to <divineName>.

DM Smith pointed out that the manual specifically includes
"<divineName>El Shaddai</divineName>" as an example usage of
<divineName>. And another example includes "<divineName
type="x-yhwh">Lord</divineName>".

I think we either need to limit <divineName> to the tetragrammaton (and
note this in the manual) or add (potentially many, but I think DM Smith
can supply us a list) registered types for Yahweh, El Shaddai, etc.
Otherwise there is ambiguity since we can't depend on everyone to just
assume that "x-yhwh" is the right way to type a <divineName>
corresponding to the tetragrammaton.

--Chris

In an effort to elaborate on the reasoning for <divineName> being 
specific to YHWH-- besides appealing to the fact that practically all 
modern literal translations small-cap this anomaly--  I have attempted 
to detail and defend their practice, below.

I believe the history of the anomaly is that even as far back as the 
LXX, YHWH has been left untranslated from the Hebrew, out of reverence.

I believe Jews were not permitted to pronounce aloud YHWH ever, and only 
in prayer and reading of Scripture do they even come close by 
substituting for יְהוָה (YHWH), אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) ("the Lord"
(Divine 
Plural)).  Some have suggested that the exact pronunciation was not 
known, and rather than guess and be wrong, it remained 
untranslated/unspoken.  In any case...  The LXX either leaves YHWH 
completely untranslated or substitutes the Greek κύριος (Lord).  And our 
modern translations have followed suite.

http://crosswire.org/study/parallelstudy.jsp?del=all&add=KJV&add=WLC&add=LXX&key=Gen.2.8#cv

Bibles desiring to indicate where they have done this substitution 
almost always use small caps.  Without the small caps, it would be 
ambiguous if "Lord" was from the Hebrew אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) or was
substituted 
for the Hebrew יְהוָה (YHWH).

http://crosswire.org/study/parallelstudy.jsp?del=all&add=KJV&add=WLC&add=LXX&key=Gen.15.2#cv

Sorry to be so verbose, but this issue has lingered since the 1.0 days 
and I'm hoping a more detailed explanation might clear things up.


	-Troy.



Patrick Durusau wrote:[...][...]
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delayed response! I picked up your original post
after 
>>> seeing you mention it again.
>>>
>>> Agree, the current situation at least as represented in the manual
is 
>>> ambiguous.
>>>
>>> DM, can you send a list of the types that we would need on
<divineName> 
>>> to cure this problem?
>>>
>>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> Chris Little wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>
>>>> What are the semantics of the <divineName> element? My
understanding 
>>>> of where we stood as of the last time <divineName> was
brought up at a 
>>>> meeting was that it should be used for tagging translations of
the 
>>>> tetragrammaton (or conceivably the tetragrammaton itself)
exclusively, 
>>>> since it is largely a signal to do things like small-caps
"Lord". All 
>>>> other divine epithets (e.g. "El Shaddai") or small-caps text
(e.g. 
>>>> small-caps "Branch" and "Jesus") would thus need to use
another 
>>>> element (e.g. <name>). This decision was part of the
reason for not 
>>>> giving any types to <divineName>.
>>>>
>>>> DM Smith pointed out that the manual specifically includes 
>>>> "<divineName>El Shaddai</divineName>" as an
example usage of 
>>>> <divineName>. And another example includes
"<divineName 
>>>> type="x-yhwh">Lord</divineName>".
>>>>
>>>> I think we either need to limit <divineName> to the
tetragrammaton 
>>>> (and note this in the manual) or add (potentially many, but I
think DM 
>>>> Smith can supply us a list) registered types for Yahweh, El
Shaddai, 
>>>> etc. Otherwise there is ambiguity since we can't depend on
everyone to 
>>>> just assume that "x-yhwh" is the right way to type a
<divineName> 
>>>> corresponding to the tetragrammaton.
>>>>
>>>> --Chris
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> osis-core mailing list
>>>> osis-core(at)bibletechnologieswg.org
>>>> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>[...]

I believe Troy is right on this. I recall some long discussions about 
the scope of <divineName>, and I think in the end we did settle on it 
being used only for the tetragrammaton. At one point we talked about 
having types on personal names to take care of the rest, but I forget 
what we decided on that. I kind of like the idea of having a separate 
tag for non-tetra references to God, but I remember losing that 
one.... :)

S[...]

Steve,

Steven J. DeRose wrote:
[...]

1. Incorrect/inconsistent usage: Note that several years after the 
discussion when I was writing the users manual, I assumed the divineName 
was just that, divineName. Not a shorthand for a single typographical 
tradition for one word in the text. Even if the manual is corrected, how 
many others are going to make that mistake? Noting that it is not 
possible to test for that mistake given the number of languages into 
which the Bible is being translated.

2. What else will users think to use with El Shaddai, etc.? <name>? With 
inconsistent x- attributes?

3. Loss of ability to search for all divine names including the 
tetragrammaton. With Chris's proposal, slightly modified, we could do 
that as well as preserve the usage that Troy is contending for.

What if tetragrammaton is the default value for type on divineName? And 
we insert the list of other divine names?

No loss for Troy's use case and it enables other users to use what is 
the natural element for other divine names and to do so consistently.

That seems like a net win to me.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

[...]

[...]

Patrick,
	I'm sorry to disagree again with you.  I like you... Really... :)

	I'm not looking for how to make our chosen name apply most logically 
for someone not familiar with marking Bibles.  If I were, I would 
whole-heartedly agree with your proposal.

	My desire, years ago when proposing this tag, was specifically to 
handle the existing anomaly in practically all literal translations of 
the Bible.  We all talked about the best name for this anomaly, and 
<divineName> was chosen.  Using this tag for any other reference to God, 
like El-Shaddai, or for any other pseudo-divine entity like Allah, Baal, 
Asher, or any other usage, would not be for what this tag is designed.

	Now, to address the logic of the currently selected tag name...

	YHWH IS THE DIVINE PROPER NAME THE ONE TRUE GOD HAS CHOSEN FOR HIMSELF. 
  There is no ambiguity.  Any other reference to God is like calling 
Patrick Durusau, The Master of All Things "Topic Maps".  Though 
naturally everyone will truly understand this as a reference to Patrick 
Durusau, no one would ever consider this your proper name.  Just the 
same, YHWH is God's proper name.

	Again, back to the issue of OSIS...  Scriptural markup, as it exists 
today in typeset Bibles, requires only a few core tags to represent. 
One of these core tags is <divineName>, is a very specific anomaly 
(detailed in my last email), and needs a very intentional, unambiguous 
tag for this purpose.

	It's not just any 'Divine Name', it is very specifically: YHWH in the 
Hebrew, purposely modified to something other than YHWH in a translation.

	-Troy.




Patrick Durusau wrote:[...][...][...][...][...]

I only need YHWH markup but would be happy to have additional tag allowed.
So <divineName>YHWH</divineName> works
with <divineName meaning="Almighty" >El Shaddai</divineName>
or
with <divineName source="El Shaddai" >Almighty</divineName>

This would allow a popup on the word. 

but the default for <divineName> should be YHWH.
If this is not appropriate then I suggest:
<YHWH>Lord</YHWH>
As few will confuse the use of this in markup.
and then you can drop <divineName> and just use <name> for any
other 
useage.

Jim Albright
704 843-0582
JAARS, Speeding Bible Translation
Wycliffe, Partners in Bible Translation





Patrick Durusau <patrick(at)durusau.net> 
06/17/2006 03:42 PM
Please respond to
osis-user(at)whi.wts.edu


To
osis-user(at)whi.wts.edu
cc

Subject
Re: [osis-user] Re: [osis-core] semantics of <divineName>?






Steve,

Steven J. DeRose wrote:
[...]

1. Incorrect/inconsistent usage: Note that several years after the 
discussion when I was writing the users manual, I assumed the divineName 
was just that, divineName. Not a shorthand for a single typographical 
tradition for one word in the text. Even if the manual is corrected, how 
many others are going to make that mistake? Noting that it is not 
possible to test for that mistake given the number of languages into 
which the Bible is being translated.

2. What else will users think to use with El Shaddai, etc.? <name>? With 
inconsistent x- attributes?

3. Loss of ability to search for all divine names including the 
tetragrammaton. With Chris's proposal, slightly modified, we could do 
that as well as preserve the usage that Troy is contending for.

What if tetragrammaton is the default value for type on divineName? And 
we insert the list of other divine names?

No loss for Troy's use case and it enables other users to use what is 
the natural element for other divine names and to do so consistently.

That seems like a net win to me.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

[...]

[...]

Patrick,
 
I guess I'll put my two cents into this discussion.  It seems to me  that the 
YHWH plays such an important part, not only in so many textual  traditions, 
but historically and currently to the Jews.  As I understand  it, a really 
orthodox Jew will not even destroy a book or manuscript that  contains 'the
name'. 
 It has to be buried.  And to me, the phase  'divineName' suggests nothing 
else.
 
El Shaddai, etc., are not really divine names, they are names of  God.  They 
could easily be coded by adding a 'God' value to the type  attribute of the 
name element.  To too many people, this is an important  distinction.  I don't 
think it's simply a matter of markup.  Hope  these suggestions help.  

Peace,

David

Patrick,
[...]

	Thank you helping me start once again with a smile :)
[...]

No, I am not suggesting this.  I am suggesting that our tetragrammaton 
tag be used ONLY for the tetragrammaton.  If that means changing the 
name to something like Jim Albright has suggested, I'm fine with that, 
but would rather not.  We all had official debate and finally buyin at 
one point about this need and about the name of the tag-- and I remember 
your hesitation at the time, and also your concession.  You don't get to 
retract!  :)  I think the manual should be fixed to reflect the team 
buyin, and if you still have a heartfelt disagreement, you can bring 
that up at the next OSIS meeting with your suggested changes, and use 
cases that demonstrate the need for modification.

[...]

"such as scholars" :)  I'll leave the exoneration of historic Bible 
translator scholarship for a personal debate.

We are markup and computer science experts, and I can only speak for 
myself, but I only consider myself an amateur Bible scholar.

I know how to capture what the experts have declared in their 
introductions throughout the centuries.  The tetragrammaton markup is 
one of these entities they have historically attempted to annotate.

Using the same tag for other references to God is directly opposed to 
the purpose the scholars declare for their markup (small-caps).  Their 
goal was to mark the tetragrammaton apart from other references to God. 
  Their goal was NOT to mark references to God.

IMPORTANT: Also, I am still fighting for an entry level of core OSIS 
software support which, very basically, is able to define simple 
behavior for a tag, ignoring the plethora of attribute modifications. 
For the most part, this is possible to do and not get 'wrong' results-- 
maybe not the best results, but at least not erroneous results.

Back to your original complaint-- that we are making "it difficult for 
users to find all the names for the same God."  You have a wonderful 
suggestion which will allow users to not only find all the references to 
the only true God, but also will allow users to find all references to 
Mary (specifically, the birth mother of the incarnate God), and Joseph 
(her husband), and Paul (of Tarsus), and to disambiguates all other 
entity references in the Bible.  I believe your suggestion was to use a 
<name> tag attribute unique value in conjunction with a defined database 
of explicit entities.

Maybe <divineName> should inherit <name> and supply the correct 
attribute value for Almighty God.

Yeah, when are we going to finally get this functionality?!

	-Troy.


[...][...]
>>>
>>> Steven J. DeRose wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>> I believe Troy is right on this. I recall some long
discussions about 
>>>> the scope of <divineName>, and I think in the end we did
settle on it 
>>>> being used only for the tetragrammaton. At one point we talked
about 
>>>> having types on personal names to take care of the rest, but I
forget 
>>>> what we decided on that. I kind of like the idea of having a
separate 
>>>> tag for non-tetra references to God, but I remember losing
that 
>>>> one.... :)
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>> Several problems:
>>>
>>> 1. Incorrect/inconsistent usage: Note that several years after the

>>> discussion when I was writing the users manual, I assumed the
divineName 
>>> was just that, divineName. Not a shorthand for a single
typographical 
>>> tradition for one word in the text. Even if the manual is
corrected, how 
>>> many others are going to make that mistake? Noting that it is not 
>>> possible to test for that mistake given the number of languages
into 
>>> which the Bible is being translated.
>>>
>>> 2. What else will users think to use with El Shaddai, etc.?
<name>? With 
>>> inconsistent x- attributes?
>>>
>>> 3. Loss of ability to search for all divine names including the 
>>> tetragrammaton. With Chris's proposal, slightly modified, we could
do 
>>> that as well as preserve the usage that Troy is contending for.
>>>
>>> What if tetragrammaton is the default value for type on
divineName? And 
>>> we insert the list of other divine names?
>>>
>>> No loss for Troy's use case and it enables other users to use what
is 
>>> the natural element for other divine names and to do so
consistently.
>>>
>>> That seems like a net win to me.
>>>
>>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>> S
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>    
>>>[...]

I think (as I often do) that there is more than one issue here....

I see two separate reasons we might give the privilege of a special 
tag just to the tetragrammaton:

1: well-established conventions dictate typesetting it specially; it 
has to be marked up to do that (you can't scan the content for it, 
because you don't know how it's translated/transliterated in language 
X). It *could* be just an attribute value, but that would mean 
somewhat more work for stylesheet/processor writers, and somewhat 
more work for typical users (especially because attribute defaults 
are a little iffy in XML).

2: This one word has a far longer and far deeper meaning in religious 
history -- this word is unlike any other word. Presumably, this is 
why #1 arose in the first place. Our giving it the exalted status of 
being a tag (ooooooo) merely reflects it's status in the real 
(linguistic, cultural, and spiritual) world.

I think I hear Patrick saying that #1 is a lame reason for a separate 
tag -- and I tend to agree, although it might be a convenience for 
enough people to be worth it on mundane pragmatic grounds.

#2, however, seems to me *a* *big* *deal*. The extraordinary special 
honor/respect/treatment this word is given seems to cry out for quite 
special treatment.

<digression>I think it is a basic principle, that we should *not* 
assign any tag or attribute value spelled by those 4 letters. Doing 
so would raise a objections (and some fascinating rabbinic questions) 
that we needn't enter into. Probably it would lead to wholesale 
rejection of OSIS in the Jewish community.</digression>

Patrick raises a good point about confusion. Now in general I think 
the argument that if Patrick is confused, most others will be too, is 
generally sound. In this case, however, I suspect that the confusion 
may not arise from the question itself, but from the extent to which 
we fiddled around with this and went back and forth early on. Even 
more important, from the fact that we never solved the question of 
"what about all other names for divine and pseudo-divine entities. 
Remember the suggestion of <entity>? *That* would confuse xml people: 
"the entity element".

I think that if we lay out clearly what the intended usage is, it 
won't be so confusing, because:

(a) we'll be mirroring a familiar practice exactly, and

(b) we'll have said specifically what to do with the other cases one 
could get confused over.

The main other cases are:

1: other descriptors for God Himself

2: descriptors for angels, demons, idols, Greek titans, and so on

I think if we state best practice for these cases, we can avert the 
confusion in the future, and help sort out whatever confusion we may 
already have created (my apologies, I should have spotted this and 
raised the question way earlier).

Anyways, I would suggest:

<divineName> *only* for the tetragrammaton.

<name type="..."> for everything else -- perhaps best because it 
requires *no new tagses* (say that fast -- it could become a 
political slogan). But I think for clarity it is incumbent on us to 
recommend types. For example:

      deity, messiah, angel, demon, idol...

Just FYI, Roget's kicks in: God's messenger, archangel, celestial 
being, cherub, divine messenger, guardian, heavenly being, holy 
being, seraph, spirit, spiritual being, sprite, supernatural being

not to mention some amusing ones based on peripheral meanings like 
"angel investors", "little angels" , and the like.

by the way, can "a golden calf" be tagged <name type='idol'>?

I forget, have we provided name types for person, place, object, etc. already?

S[...]

In response to this whole thread:
There is a need to have a tag, perhaps distinguished via an  
attribute, which can unambiguously be rendered as small caps for the  
very purpose of continuing the tradition of rendering YHWH as Lord.

YHWH is also used as a compound name, e.g. Jehovah Jirah, Jehovah  
Nissi .... I think that these single words may need to have an  
appropriate level of tagging as a divine name and not simply a name  
of God. There should be a mention on how these are to be handled.

I think that there is a scholarly value in tagging all the names of  
God as distinct from names of god or people. It would serve for  
research purposes. This purpose is distinct and different from the  
rendering tradition of YHWH as Lord. As Chris noted, we can come up  
with a fairly exhaustive list of the various scriptural names of God.  
While this would be a fairly large list, it is better than having x-  
renditions that are non-standard. I would suggest adding it if  
someone were to exhaustively catalog the names and apply them to a  
particular OSIS Bible (i.e. perhaps suggest a mechanism and pattern,  
having the first implementation become the standard set of attributes.)

On Jun 18, 2006, at 12:55 AM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
[...][...]
>>> I believe Troy is right on this. I recall some long discussions  
>>> about the scope of <divineName>, and I think in the end we
did  
>>> settle on it being used only for the tetragrammaton. At one point 

>>> we talked about having types on personal names to take care of  
>>> the rest, but I forget what we decided on that. I kind of like  
>>> the idea of having a separate tag for non-tetra references to  
>>> God, but I remember losing that one.... :)
>>>[...]
>>> S[...]

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:[...]

It's a bit older than that, even. Many Hebrew manuscripts (Qumran
scrolls, e.g.) were written in square Hebrew script, but record the
tetragrammaton in the archaic Phoenician script. See p. 14 of the
Phoenician script Unicode proposal, linked below, for a photo of an
example. P. 13 includes some LXX manuscripts with Greek text but
Phoenician tetragrammata.

http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2746.pdf

--Chris