On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 12:29, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
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).
Guest what? The suffixes have already lost their meanings. This same
-ak is a good example. You want language control and mathematical
semantics, which is more than impossible with a language like Persian,
-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.
I am sorry, I am not talking about *that* -gaan. I'm *only* talking
about the -gaan in paadegaan.
That's an abbreviation: FTP = gharaardaad-e enteghaal-e parvande:
gheyn, alef, pe. If you have problems with abbreviations, don't
And write gharaardaad-e enteghaal-e parvande everywhere?
Write FTP if you like, or whatever you prefer. Go with fetepe if you
like that. Or call it chiz ;-)
You're definitely not bound by any of the requirements of the Academy.
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
At last something I can pass. I'll ask the guys.
* 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?
OK, from my Moaser Persian Dictionary: [adabi] dar mohit, mantaghe, yaa
masiri harekat kardan va az noghte-i be noghte-ye digar-e aan raftan.
I can't see the sense of challenge there. I agree that it's not
scrolling exactly, but what translation has the exact senses of its
original word? Time will give all the senses to it.
* 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.
What is the problem then?
The problem is that, they are misusing their power to decide for
They have been asked to do so. We need an authority for the language.
American English has Merriam-Webster, British English has Oxford, German
has Duden, and French has its Academie. They are trying their best to
provide authority. As far as I can tell, they are coming to a point of
Well, I could never ever think about defending the Academy, but I'm
doing that. Why? First, because they're having some good-enough output
(which, well, you don't agree to, which I can understand). But second,
because I've seen the anarchy out here, everyone considering
himself/herself the authority, without even consulting the references.
Haven't you? Aren't we on the same front exactly because of that?
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
We have never done that, since we know our work is not authoritative
enough. Because it has not been the result of a consensus of experts.
Academy's output is partially the result of such a consensus.
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
Well, these are not exactly *new* words. The words have been around and
used for a long time by some translators. ISI's word list (masterminded
by Dr Mashayekh) is the main source for these, as is Mohammadifar's
Computer Dictionary (published by Moaser), and the entrepreneurial works
of Dr Rohani-Rankoohi and Dr Badi', all of whom are members of the
computer terms committee (with a few other people). I can't say they
haven't seen all the references: they have. I've talked all of them (but
Dr Rohani-Rankoohi) on different matters, and I know they don't move an
inch in these waters without contacting every reference they can find on
It's easy to start calling them fossils, as we young people love to
do, and close their dossier so easily, but we need to separate real work
from just inventing random words (like some people we know have been
doing). I really believe you should provide feedback to the Academy, and
see what reasons they have.
I'm meeting Dr Mashayekh (the head of the computer terms committee) to
talk on exactly the same subject this Wednesday morning. I promise I