Re: khaat e Farsi
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: >As far as I know, more are returning > to the Persian codes since standard software support is getting better. My point was that they are using the Arabic counterparts of Persian letters when that is not *technically* absolutely necessary right at this moment. So, on a happy note, one can say that religious/political motives have taken a back seat in favor of ease of communication/web accessibility issues. -Connie ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 00:46, C Bobroff wrote: > How do you account for the preference for Arabic Yeh and Kaf by 99.9% > of the populatation. How is that percentage estimated? As far as I know, more are returning to the Persian codes since standard software support is getting better. The transition is hard, yes, but they are coming. roozbeh ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Hooman Mehr wrote: > Assuming the > heated reaction we saw here is an indication of the possible general > public reaction, How do you account for the preference for Arabic Yeh and Kaf by 99.9% of the populatation. Do you think they're even going to read the draft? -Connie ___ 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, 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 12:14, Hooman Mehr wrote: > c) The phrase does not need to be a literal translation of "Arabic > Script" I don't necessarily agree. Nor does Behdad, it seems. > I vote against using "arabi" to name the family of > scripts that our script belongs to. We thank you for your stance, but the FarsiWeb project is not a democratic institution, nor you are a member ;-) Honestly, you should try to convince me and Behdad to get the thing changed. It's us who need to defend the text in several circles, and we can't do that if we are not convinced. > I am personally inclined towards a new and unfamiliar (but sounding > familiar) term without using the word "Khatt". That may work. 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 20:09, 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. They perhaps wish to write it with two "t"s, but miss and type two "a".s > In my > opinion, this by itself makes Kufi a different 'script' than modern > Arabic. Then you may also wish to differentiate Gothic from normal Latin. But sorry, Unicode doesn't differentiate these, nor should good software. The logic is the same, the semantics are the same, so we can call it the same "script" (in Unicode terms). > 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 No, Nastalig is OK for Persian, so is Tahriri. We shouldn't require Naskh, or restrict Persian writing to Naskh. 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 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 "adib"s, which sometimes have different opinions. Some of the "adib"s 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
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
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
Re: khaat e Farsi
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 of ordinary people in western world still think that we 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 worry about other similar languages. Peyman Here in Europe, many people think that Iran is an Arabic country. One of the reasons, and not the only one, is the name of the country, Iran, which is similar to Iraq, Liban and maybe some others when it's pronounced in western languages (for example in French and English). About Avecina and almost all other persian scientists (Kharazmi, Kashi, ... who are called Al-Kharazmi, Al-Kashi, ...) they are known as Arabs, even when people don't forget to mention that they were born in Iran (Persia). As the scientific language of that time was Arabic, they wrote their research results in that language, but the nationality doesn't depend on the language that you speak. Also, we shouldn't forget that their mother tongue was Persian. What is strange is that this mistake is also done in academic areas, such as schools and universities, and not only by ordinary people. Sorry if I was off-topic. Sina _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
Re: khaat e Farsi
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 > >
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 "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.sh
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 were redundant (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. There can't be a term distinguishing 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 of ordinary people in western world still think that we 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 worry about 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: 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
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
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 âkhaat e farsiâ. 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, 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 âkhaat e farsiâ. 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
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 same>Arabic 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 adopted by 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 why kids 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
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
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
I may be able to clarify a few points:
We are talking about the name of a script in a very specific context. In a general context, especially in Iran, when we are talking about how we write our language we call it Khaat-e-Farsi and it is the only correct word for the specific variation of Arabic Script that we use.
We usually don't talk about the common family of writing systems (scripts) that have common origin and share a great deal of common characteristics (all being primarily right to left, using cursive connection and position dependent glyph shapes, a couple of dozens of common characters, etc.) The target of the locale document prepared by Roozbeh's team is referring to the general name of this common root (which determines almost all of the key properties of our writing system)
In English, they call it Arabic Script, which correctly identifies its geographical origin and has nothing to do with nationalistic propaganda of any nation. They also have something called Extended-Arabic Script but it refers to more distant relatives of Arabic Script common in Africa. Our script is a close relative of Arabic Script, with only a few extra letters and rarely used marks plus the concept of compound word.
Unfortunately, in common Persian we rarely talk about the above concept and hence we don't have a common, well recognized term to convey the same meaning. 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.
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.
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.
- Hooman Mehr
On Jun 9, 2004, at 9:37 PM, 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 Zakar
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
