Let me clarify my stand on this issue, our disagreemnt concerns TWO terms. One the English name of the script Iranian use to write Persian, and one the Persian name of the same script.
In the English I like to call the script: Arabic Script, and I do not have problems with calling it Perso-Arabic Script either. Although I prefer using "Arabic Script". All other suggestion of calling it "Persian Script" or "Farsi Script" are wrong in my opinion. In the locale document where we are talking about the name of script for local users of the system, that is the Iranian Persian speakers, and in Persian language, I believe, "khatt e farsi" is the best choice, though I can also live with "khatt e naskh". However, I have never ever used the term "khatt e arabi" in Persian and do not even remember hearing or reading it until the CLDR document came up. (not that I claim I have not done so, i just do not remember) Hooman's argument that calling the script "naskh" in Persian causes confusion could as well be applied to calling the script "arabi". Hooman's objection is that naskh is also the name of a calligraphy style, well 'arabi' also refers to the name of an ethnicity or nationality. So, how come having confusion which is fact technically correct is bad for "naskh", but is OK for "arabi"? I think a problem here, is that we (at least I) are not clear on the purpose of the entries in the CLDR document. Are they going to be used by Iranian-Persian speaking linguists or Iranian-Persian speaking common people? Do we try to achieve technical correctness or try to achieve acceptance of software created by the document? -- ODC On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:40:27 +0430, Hooman Mehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ODC, > > Nice observation, I have been just repeating the typo without paying > attention. I felt something is weird about the spelling but didn't > notice the typo! Thank you. I have never been good at "Penglish". > > On the other hand, Your arguments about the "current generation" of > Arabic Script is valid and correct, but still misses the point: > > In the context of the locale document that has been the initial > starting point for this discussion, Arabic Script is not considered > from a linguistic history and evolution point of view. In that respect > Kufi and Naskhi distinctions are quite valid. But it is not what we are > talking about here. > > Let me give a concrete example. > > Russian and Tajik are written in Cyrillic script [1]. > English and Turkish are written in Roman script. > Persian and Arabic are written in (fill this with the correct word) > script. > > So far, we have these suggestions (in Penglish): "Farsi", "Naskh", > "Arabi". > > I disagree with "Farsi" because it does not cover other family members. > I accept that as a common mistake, informally people would call any > script that resembles theirs as being Persian, but I don't know whether > this should be accepted as the formal name as well. Also, some people > argued that Arabic and Persian are different scripts. I don't want to > go into that argument. From a pragmatic point of view, I am pointing > out that the locale document is talking about a name that can be > correctly used in the above context (when we are talking about the > similarity of Arabic and Persian not their difference). > > I disagree with "Naskh" because it is easily confused with calligraphic > style (the word is mostly used in that context if it appears after the > word "Khatt"). Also it identifies the script from a different > dimension/perspective than what is intended here. > > I can live with "Arabi" [2] but I don't really like it. Look at the > other two examples above, Roman or Cyrillic on themselves are > identifiable as being script names but Arabic is not. That is why I am > still asking people to bring up new ideas. > > - Hooman Mehr > > [1] Script covers more than just alphabet (things like writing > direction, baseline, etc) but should never be confused with language. > Languages written with the same script may be totally unrelated. Also > the same language may be written using different scripts in different > regions, like Persian and its close cousin Tajik. > > [2] "Arabi" qualifies because it is the name of the language whose > script is the root of the script used by the intended family of > languages. > > > On Jun 11, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Ordak D. Coward wrote: > > > I am confused! Why people spell "khaat" with two a's? First I though > > it is a typo, but it seems everybody is writing it like that. > > > > Anyway, > > I think most people in Iran call the writing sytem "khatt e faarsi" > > even if to refers to an Arabic text. > > > > Furthermore, I still believe that "khatt e koofee" is not just a font, > > as it was very different from later "khatt"s. There are lots of real > > samples at: > > http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/english_version/html/e_islamic.htm > > What makes "khatt e koofee" different from the current writing system > > is the number of characters. Another way of looking at it is to > > consider Kufi script a script where letters do not have dots. In my > > opinion, this by itself makes Kufi a different 'script' than modern > > Arabic. > > > > Now, I guess my original suggestion of "Naskh" is technically correct, > > if the following can add any weight to that choice: > > http://www.ancientscripts.com/arabic.html > > http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=56293 > > > > Notice that "khatt e naskh" is called "Naskhi script" in English. > > > > -- > > ODC > > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:46:37 +0430, Hooman Mehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 11, 2004, at 9:01 AM, Peyman wrote: > >> > >>> Conclusion: You can say that the origin of our alphabet is Arabic but > >>> you can not claim that our writing system is Arabic. Our writing > >>> system is Persian "khaat e farsi". It is what my teacher Dr. Safavi > >>> as > >>> a linguist says in his book and what I also say as a linguist. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, sure. There is no argument with that. The only argument is what > >> "Arabic Script" means in the context of Locale document. In that > >> context, we are not talking about "Khaat e Farsi" but the name of the > >> family of writing systems which are based on Arabic alphabet and its > >> rules. Anybody with access to linguist know of a short common Persian > >> term to use for "the family of writing systems that use and extend > >> Arabic alphabet and its basic rules". I don't think they call the > >> quoted phrase "Khaat e Farsi". "Khaat e Farsi" is a member of that > >> group. > >> > >> - Hooman Mehr > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PersianComputing mailing list > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > PersianComputing mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing > > > > _______________________________________________ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
