On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 11:05, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
[snip my .02]
> > So you mean "ghaltak" means "abzaar-e ghalt-zadan"??
> I'm sorry, but language is not that exact, neither I am an expert in
> these. "ghaltak" means "abzaar-e ghalt-zan". "neshaanak" may mean
> "abzaar-e neshaan-zan" (not exactly, yes).
> Also, these suffixes do not exactly bring a meaning with themselves,
> contrary to what we've been learning in high school. The "-ak" in
> "sorkhak" and "zardak" is just a suffix that creates a noun out of an
> adjective. In "ghaltak" and probably "kaardak", it just makes a tool out
> of something else. Just don't try to be productive in the old sense,
> trying to assign exact meanings to each postfix and prefix.
Well, you're probably right, but then the suffixes are going to
lose all their meaning as a suffix. After a while there would be
no common sense between words ending with "ak"... (and yes, there
would be no suffix, some new words).
> > Unfortunately I'm loosing my last hopes on them. I can't fight
> > for all these silly funny words (just a few of them are quoted):
> > * database -> "daadegaan"
> The relationship of "base" and "-gaan" is existing, I guess "-gaan"
> should have been a widely used postfix in Pahlavi. "paadegaan"?
"-gaan" is not anything special, it's just "aan" for plural,
joined to a word ending with "hah-e naamalfooz". Just like
"saadegaan". So it means "datas". But again AFAIK "data" and
"daade" are both plurals. Don't know about "paadegaan".
> > * ftp -> "ghaap"
> That's an abbreviation: FTP = "gharaardaad-e enteghaal-e parvande":
> "gheyn", "alef", "pe". If you have problems with abbreviations, don't
> use them.
And write "gharaardaad-e enteghaal-e parvande" everywhere? I
like Omid Milani's transliteration for "HTML" as "echtemel", and
"XML" as "iksemel" (I prefe "eksemel" myself though).
> > * redo -> "az no"
> This is the translation of the "Redo" menu, not the action of
> "redo"-ing. I agree that it's not that good, but I've not seen many good
> ones. Your suggestion?
"az no" reminds me of "reset" in forms. "dobaare" and "tekraar"
may have the same meaning as "az no", but do it better, again
> > * scroll -> "navardidan"!
> The problem? Your suggestion?
"navardidan" is completely another word, isn't? It do not hold
the feeling of rolling in a single direction, and it contains a
sense of a challenge, that cannot be ignored. My suggestion?
> > And their inconsistencies:
> > * interface -> "vaaset, miaanaa"
> > * Graphical User Interface -> "miaanaa-ye ..."
> > (miana is the second choice for interface)
> There is still a debate going on over that. "vaaset" was already
> approved for a term in the Electricity Word-Choosing Group, but the
> Computer group wanted "miaanaa". That is not finalized, so they are
> listing both candidates for feedback.
"vaaset" is so common. The problem should be kind of Arabic vs
> > * output (device) -> "khorooji"
> > (Isn't "khorooji" also a noun in Persian?)
> It's *only* a noun in Persian, as far as I can tell. I'm not getting
> what you mean. Would you explain? From what I get, is that they are
> translating the "output" of a program as "boroon-daad", but an "output"
> device as "dastgaah-e khorooji".
> > They never bothered themselves to identify nouns and verbs in
> > their list.
> They do, in the final published list. They are assuming it's evident
> from the translation. But in this certain case, I agree that they have
> not translated "output" in the verb sense.
The problem is that, they are misusing their power to decide for
the language! You and I could have been decide on many
technicall matters, and spread it all around the world by coding
that here and there. But we have never done that so to decide
for others. Better the propose words and wait some 5 or 10
years, and decide if that can be settled. "rayane" is setteled
down. But the way they do it, they force many bodies to follow
FarsiWeb mailing list