More clarifications, questions and opinions:
1) Clarification: Are we talking English or Persian?
a) The English name of the concept in the locale document is "Arabic Script" and it is not up to us to discuss or change it. It is already decided and used a long time ago. (So Connie don't worry, it won't create the kind of confusion you feared)
b) We can only put a Persian phrase we standardize for referring to that concept in our own locale spec.
c) The phrase does not need to be a literal translation of "Arabic Script"
2) Observation/Retreat: Nationalistic considerations.
I confess that I underestimated nationalist feelings that the word "Arabic" carries among Iranians. So, I change my stance and think that we have to avoid anything that can hurt people's feelings. Assuming the heated reaction we saw here is an indication of the possible general public reaction, I vote against using "arabi" to name the family of scripts that our script belongs to.
3) Question: "Khatt-e Farsi" overload issue
Issue: If we use "Khatt-e Farsi" for the family of scripts and again "Khatt-e Farsi" for Persian variant of it, the two will not be distinguished. [1]
Question: Are you comfortable with this overload of concepts? Should we ignore this issue?
4) Call for fresh ideas:
a) Is there any idea besides "Khatt-e Farsi" and "Khatt-e Naskh" [2]?
b) Does anybody know of a phrase that better matches the concept at hand?
c) Can't we come up with a word other than "Khatt" to call this concept of a script family?
I am personally inclined towards a new and unfamiliar (but sounding familiar) term without using the word "Khatt".
- Hooman Mehr
Endnotes:
[1] For the information of people quoting constitution, what is called "Khatt-e Farsi" is the second concept (Persian variant of the Arabic Script) not the first one. As far as I am aware, there is no official name for the general family of scripts that encompasses ours.
[2] I still oppose "Khatt-e Naskh" for the following reasons:
1) As a script name, it is used in the context of evolution of writing systems not present day distinction among script families.
2) It is confused with calligraphic style with the same name. The name is well known to ordinary people as calligraphic style but never heard by general public as script name. So, the chance of confusion is initially almost 100%.
3) The key: I am personally inclined towards a new and unfamiliar term. Because the concept is not truly familiar for normal people. "Khatt-e Naskh" is too familiar in a different context, I don't like using it for an unfamiliar concept.
You may not find my reasons compelling but I am not trying to convince anybody, I am just saying why I am not still convinced and probably will never be because the third and the key part is mostly a matter of preference and not logic.
_______________________________________________ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
