Reposted from @KimB
Thank you, anon044949. We have been using Match based on stems since before PT9. My problem is not how to do interlinearizing in PT; it is that PT now seems to be sharing its existing morphology and gloss data with FLEx—bidirectionally. Which is definitely not what we want, because we have been deliberately (and systematically) underspecifying morpheme breaks in PT to avoid bogging PT down, make it faster to do, and provide glossing that is more understandable by translation consultants, many of whom do not want to wade through a text with cryptic, linguistic paper-type morpheme glosses. We are now starting to enter our old Toolbox texts into FLEx and analyze them for linguistics work.
So now I seem to have a bunch of PT-style word morphology and gloss data in FLEx (only recent analyses from PT9 since the new PT–FW routines became active.) I had been assuming that the FW–>PT sharing was in one direction. I guess it makes sense to send PT analyses to FW, but it was added to PT9 without a warning to watch for unforeseen consequences. I have interacted with many other people who also “do” PT interlinearization like we do—targeting translation consultants rather than linguists, so I’m thinking there will be others interested in this topic as well.
Note for PT9 users: If you do not have a FLEx database attached to your Paratext project this won’t apply to you at this time.
So it would be helpful if someone could give us a description of what exactly happens during interlinearization in PT9, with an associated FLEx database. For example,
Do parsing rules defined in FLEx apply in PT?
Is it possible to turn off PT sending parsing and glossing info to FW?
Is the PT interlinear updated on the fly when FLEx morpheme breaks/glosses have been edited?
What happens when I edit some words in a PT interlinear verse (but ignore words that I’m not interested in today), and then re-approve the verse? Are old morpheme breaks/glosses sent to FW in this case?
Thanks in advance for any insights.
