On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:14:40 +0430, Hooman Mehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
I personally do not mind using the same term for these two concepts. > > 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 noticed that an old Persian word for Script is 'dabeere' spelled dal be ye r ye heh We can use that as well to call Arabic script, 'dabeere ye faarsee',. > 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 > _______________________________________________ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
