Re: khaat e Farsi
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
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 10:26, Hooman Mehr wrote: If we don't like the Arabic word, we may substitute something like Islamic and call it Islamic Script. I don't mean to give it any religious weight, but just substituting the physical origin (Arabia) by culture that carried along this script into our country and a lot of other countries and caused a single writing system to become a family of closely related writing systems. Well, usually the script is religion-based. Currently, Latin usually means christian or secular, Cyrillic means communist, Arabic means Muslim, Hebrew means Jewish, ... But sorry, we don't want to invent anything here. I suggest Roozbeh ask more expert (linguist) opinion to see if they have a Persian term for the above concept -- at least within their professional linguist circles. Already done. They prefer to call this the Arabic script, to differentiate it with writing the language in the Latin script, for example. BTW, experts don't necessary mean linguists here. There are also the adibs, which sometimes have different opinions. Some of the adibs may prefer khatt-e faarsi, I'm sure. This confusion among some potential audience of the document also indicates that you may need to add a footnote to explain the meaning of Arabic Script as intended in the locale document. Thanks to the finding of Ali Khanban, we will put that footnote, also referring to the text of the constitution and clarifying the context. roozbeh ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Farsi vs Persian (Re: khaat e Farsi)
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 12:32, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: Don't know why, but it reminds me of the Persian vs. Farsi problem... BTW, I just got my hand on the proceedings of The First Workshop on Persian Language and Computer, which took place on May 25 and 26 in the Faculty of Literature and Humanities of Tehran University. Most of the articles contain the word faarsi in the Persian title, and not a single one of the 58 refers to it as Farsi in the English title. They all call it Persian. This is good news. Almost no one is *that* ignorant. roozbeh ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 20:31, C Bobroff wrote: I believe Roozbeh, while typing the document was attempting to translate Perso-Arabic script into Persian. Not an easy job. No, I was translating Arabic script into Persian. roozbeh ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 09:01, 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. Well, I wish to emphasize that our writing system should be described as Arabic in certain contexts, like when used in internationalized computer systems. Since you are a linguist, I wish to refer you to a linguistic text, Daniels and Bright's The World's Writing Systems, Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0195079930. Please read Section 50, Arabic Writing. Dr Bateni proposed a minor change to our writing system long ago in order to better serve the Persian language; and they ignored him and fired him from the Tehran university because of political and religious red lines. Please provide details. Linguistic details, at least. roozbeh ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 19:04, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: Since you are a linguist, I wish to refer you to a linguistic text, Daniels and Bright's The World's Writing Systems, Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0195079930. Please read Section 50, Arabic Writing. ... and section 62, Adaptation of Arabic Script. roozbeh ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, 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. We have been all talking about the script (which you call it alphabet), not writing system. And if they call both of them khat-e farsi in Persian, that may be the source of the problem. Just let me know if more linguists are needed to testify :) however, what linguists believed and struggled to say has been ignored extensively during past years. Dr Bateni proposed a minor change to our writing system long ago in order to better serve the Persian language; and they ignored him and fired him from the Tehran university because of political and religious red lines. Peyman --behdad behdad.org ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
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
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Ordak D. Coward wrote: I am confused! [snip] Gang, I'm afraid this conversation is like a boat which has come loose from its moorings and is now lost on the high seas straying where the four winds will take it. I believe Roozbeh, while typing the document was attempting to translate Perso-Arabic script into Persian. Not an easy job. I recommend for the final draft, you say khatt-e 'arabi and then in parentheses or footnote, just put the English (Perso-Arabic script). I don't think that for the purposes of this draft you need to get into the history of the calligraphic styles and orthographic conventions. -Connie ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
Hooman Mehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 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. Let me put it in another way. Iranians who used Aramic writing system in middle Persian era,invented a new writing system which had 32 glyphs,7 of which wereredundant (with no pronunciation differences). They also invented a writing rule similar to Arabic. We call it "khatt e farsi". Arabic script itself was not an original script and it was also an adaptation of Aramic script. Therecan't be a termdistinguishing a single name for such variant spectrum of systems because of the language nature. If you use Arabic script, the word "Arabic" has the cultural notion of a nation. It is not a neutral name.While It doesn't add any thing new to the locale information, it will give this notion that our culture and language is the same.The wast majority ofordinary people in western worldstill think thatwe are Arabs, we have the same language and culture, Ave sina was an Arab and etc. Please consider a national identity for our language and culture and don't worryabout other similar languages. Peyman Do you Yahoo!?Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khatt e Farsi -- was khaat e Farsi
C Bobroff wrote: I believe Roozbeh, while typing the document was attempting to translate Perso-Arabic script into Persian. Not an easy job. I recommend for the final draft, you say khatt-e 'arabi and then in parentheses or footnote, just put the English (Perso-Arabic script). I don't think that for the purposes of this draft you need to get into the history of the calligraphic styles and orthographic conventions. Well, I am afraid that may cause some problems in the future, especially some ugly political ones. Let me tell you a story. The first time we tried to approach High Council of Informatics showraaye aaliye anformaatik to discuss a Unicode proposal, they were against using Unicode, just because the letters were named Arabic letter They were of course mistaken, and it took a long time and effort to achieve their support. I am sure Roozbeh still remembers those times. Now, first of all, we do not talk about script family. Everyone agrees that Persian script belongs to the Arabic scripts family. We just say Persian script, and in a note we explain that this script belongs to the Arabic scripts family. Please note that unlike western scripts that can be called Latin script, there are many national and political barriers and dilemmas, which prevent the nations on this side of the world to call their script Arabic script. Choosing a very liberal, and somehow radical, approach at the moment doesn't solve all of them! Secondly, as I mentioned before, we clearly have in the constitution that the name of both language and script are Farsi. If we provide a document that will become official and in which refer to our script as Arabic (no matter how we explain it in a note), that surely will have some side-effects. Best -ali- -- || Ali Asghar Khanban || ||Research Associate in Department of Computing ||| Imperial College London, London SW7 2BZ, U.K. || Tel: +44 (020) 7594 8241 Fax: +1 (509) 694 0599 ||| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~khanban ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khatt e Farsi -- was khaat e Farsi
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Ali A Khanban wrote: The first time we tried to approach High Council of Informatics showraaye aaliye anformaatik to discuss a Unicode proposal, they were against using Unicode, just because the letters were named Arabic letter They were of course mistaken, and it took a long time and effort to achieve their support. Really? Amazing story. Thank you for the bit of history. Well, if it is too unpalatable to say khatt-e 'arabi, then just say Perso-Arabic script in English or don't say it at all. I don't think there is too much danger of people thinking we're speaking of Cuneiform (khatt-e mikhi) which is what in other contexts may spring to mind if you say khatt-e farsi. By all means, get the draft written so that the technical problems may be solved! I think Behdad is sitting somewhere right now wondering if he should add this topic to the Persian vs. Farsi war! -Connie ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
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 khatts. 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
Re: khaat e Farsi
The book can very easily be biased. The sentence ... dastkhosh-e taghiraati besiaar jaaleb shod, ke neshaangar-e aagaahi-e iraaniaan az daanesh-e zabaansheniaasi ast. is far from justified. Don't know why, but it reminds me of the Persian vs. Farsi problem... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Peyman wrote: The attached .jpg is a text from the book pishineye zabane farsi written by Dr. Safavi. Peyman --behdad behdad.org ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
Thanks a lot Hooman for clarification. Also about the attachment we saw, note that Naskh, Nasta'liq, Koofi, etc are all different calligraphic styles of the same Arabic script. So even the attachment saying khatt-e naskh ... khatt-e faarsi naam gerefti is completely non-sense here. There are much more important things that define the script, not the number of letter, calligraphic styles, pronounciations, etc. The fact that you can read what's written in those 20 countries without any training, and that there exist situations that you simply can't tell between them, is what matters IMO. And note that it's quite natural that most of us have not ever heard such a grouping before, but all linguists will tell you this is the Arabic (or Perso-Arabic) script. behdad --behdad behdad.org ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
Hi, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also about the attachment we saw, note that Naskh, Nasta'liq,Koofi, etc are all different calligraphic styles of the sameArabic script. So even the attachment saying "khatt-e naskh ...khatt-e faarsi naam gerefti" is completely non-sense here. You probably mixed the notion of the alphabet and the orthography system. The Arabic alphabet can be adoptedby the other languages and even dialects. When other dialects adopt the alphabet and its general rules (connections RTL), they can adapt those rules in order to fit to their own language needs. This rule adaptation on alphabet is called "khaat". In Persian for instance, we are not able to pronounce all 4 forms of /ze/ (ze, zA, zAd, zAl). We pronounce /zAlem/ with /ze/ not with /zAd/. That's whykids in elementary schools make a lot of mistakes (in our obligatory dictation) in writing words like /tuti/ with /te/ instead of /tA/. As you are aware, Persian language, which is an analytical language, is completely different from the inflectional Arabic language. In Persian you can make a word by adding some affixes which is not possible in Arabic. e.g. the Persian word /nA-tar-AvA-yi/ is equal to the Arabic phrase "lA emkAna qAbeliyata tarashoh/. The Iranians adopted the Arabic alphabet+ its general rules and adapted this rules to their totally different language; however, this became possible only because the origin of Arabic alphabet and the middle Persian alphabet came from the same “ArAmi” system. Even when we borrowed nearly 100,000 words from Arabic after the Tazi invasions, we adapted those Arabic words to fulfill our own language needs. E.g. the word “jAme’e” meaning “university” in Arabic has changed its pronunciation and meaning to “society” in Persian. If you still call this borrowed words Arabic, you are probably wrong because you didn't consider the live essence of language. Language is a live mechanism because it lives and grows with human mind so is the script or writing systems (for more info refer to Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind, 1968). 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. Just let me know if more linguists are needed to testify :) however, what linguists believed and struggled to say has been ignored extensively during past years. Dr Bateni proposed a minor change to our writing system long ago in order to better serve the Persian language; and they ignored him and fired him from the Tehran university because of political and religious red lines. Peyman Do you Yahoo!?Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
Well, it shows that there exists something which is called xatte Faarsi. Not everything in our constitution is fiction, is it? ;) -ali- Peyman wrote: The attached .jpg is a text from the book pishineye zabane farsi written by Dr. Safavi. Peyman */Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Hi all, Well, it depends on your point of view. Instead of bringing the Pashto or Ordu case, lets have a look at the western equivalent. They all call it Latin Script (khatte laatin), right? It's not about language or font-style. And in computer software that's what really matters. Moreover from another point of view--the Unicode standard--we are using the Arabic script, there's no such thing as Persian script encoded in the Unicode standard. behdad On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ali A Khanban wrote: Hi, The name of the script, as in attachment, seems wrong. According to the constitution, the name of the language and script is Farsi (Persian). Look at http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-2.html and http://www.moi.gov.ir/ghavanin/asasi.htm#three I know that Persian script comes from Arabic and many may know it as Arabic, but are all the scripts with their root in Arabic script called Arabic? For example Pashto or Ordu? Best -ali- Roozbeh Pournader wrote: I am glad to announce the availability of the first public draft of the specification of locale requirements of Persian for Iran. The text tries to specify the general requirements of internationalized software for the Persian language of Iran. It's available from: http://www.farsiweb.info/locale/locale-0.6.pdf Please note that this is a draft, and needs your comments in order to get improved and corrected. FarsiWeb's plan is to keep this a living and maintained document. For feedback or comments, please email us at , or call us at +98 21 602-2372. You! can also write to us at the following address: Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc. PO Box 13445-389 Tehran, Iran Also, please note that the documentation is published under a free documentation license. For the exact details, see the text of the license (and contact us or your lawyer in case of ambiguities, we are able to explain the license or relicense the text in certain conditions), but I wish to mention in short that the text is copyrighted, and free documentation doesn't mean that you are allowed to do anything you like with the text. You are allowed to use the information you learn for any purpose of course, including using them in proprietary software. The project has been funded and supported by the High Council of Informatics of Iran, and the Computing Center of Sharif University of Technology. We also wish to thank the Persian Linux project for helping in the funding. I wish to thank Hamed Malek, Behnam Esfahbod, Houman Mehr, Elnaz Sarbar, Behdad Esfahbod, Meelad Zakaria, Mehran Mehr, and the PersianComputing community for their advice and contributions to the work. But as the main contributor, every fault should only be blamed on me. Roozbeh Pournader Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc. ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing --behdad behdad.org ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing -- || Ali Asghar Khanban || ||Research Associate in Department of Computing ||| Imperial College London, London SW7 2BZ, U.K. || Tel: +44 (020) 7594 8241 Fax: +1 (509) 694 0599 ||| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~khanban ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing