|
 |
Persian or Farsi | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 6951 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes  20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 57 of 99 12 October 2006 at 10:57am | IP Logged | |||||
|
The point is that by creating calques, it points to inflexibility in a certain way, because the foreign word is considered "improper" for the borrowing language. I think there is a balance between incorporating loanwords and neologisms and creating calques.
In the case of calques, they're coined by a small body of "experts" who are native speakers but who supposedly know more about linguistic harmony and aestheticism better than the vast majority of other native speakers. That's debatable at best. I truly think that this is a point of agreeing to disagree. Alijsh, the problem is that we native English speakers have never really had to deal with small minority from a linguistic academy that dictates what constitutes proper usage. You seem genuinely perplexed and frustrated by the views from some of us native English speakers. We have the Oxford English Dictionary (or Webster's in the USA), but even then, that isn't as rigid as language academies. Part of the problem is that the language keeps changing and our attitude is one of where we question why we should always change the way we use language just to satisfy some body of arbitrarily-chosen academics (or in earlier times: the nobility or upper-class). Each speaker's usage will change on its own willy-nilly with or without the "guidance" of an academy. The concept of an academy of standardization is acutally abhorrent for many of us and we sometimes laugh at it as an exercise in futility. The only time when we do change our usage is if it's criminal (e.g. it's a hate-crime now to use certain derogatory words for ethnic groups), it becomes unfashionable for whatever reason within the environment or sometimes, the word just gets replaced by something else. (The French loanwords for certain animals became the way we describe food. The Anglo-Saxon words for certain animals became the way we describe the living animal. e.g. beef (~ boeuf) vs. cow.) That's just the way it is. Edited by Chung on 12 October 2006 at 10:59am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| lady_skywalker Triglot Senior Member Netherlands aspiringpolyglotblog Joined 6685 days ago 909 posts - 942 votes Speaks: Spanish, English*, Mandarin Studies: Japanese, French, Dutch, Italian | Message 58 of 99 12 October 2006 at 11:21am | IP Logged | |||||
No, eradicating loan words that HAD been commonplace in the foreign language just because it's 'foreign' and not 'pure' *is* inflexible, in my opinion. Pizza may be a 'loan food' (as you put it) but it had been known as 'pizza' all along. It's only been this year that the Language Academy has decided to do away with the word and replace it with a Persian-derived word. While it is an exercise in creativity, it is also fairly futile. If someone told me tomorrow that I must use the term 'floppy bread' instead of 'pizza', I would definately laugh it off and carry on using the word that I've used for years. Even in France they've found it impossible to get everyone to use the 'correct' words...sometimes it's just easier to use the loan word. I can only imagine the uproar if every single loan word in English (including the ones of Persian origin) were to be replaced by something more 'Germanic'... 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| andee Tetraglot Senior Member Japan Joined 6872 days ago 681 posts - 724 votes 3 sounds Speaks: English*, German, Korean, French | Message 59 of 99 12 October 2006 at 11:45am | IP Logged | |||||
As an example, the people of ASEAN were never obliged to adopt English as their lingua franca. Of the 10 nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) only two of them (Singapore and Philippines) have English as an official language. Before it can be said that English must the lingua franca for ASEAN because of the colonisation of both Singapore and Philippines, why would the other eight nations agree to English? If it was based on national GDP, Indonesian would be the lingua franca. If it were based on population, Indonesian again would be the lingua franca (and even more compelling if you include the Malay speakers of Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore). If it were based on total land area, Indonesian again. And if it were based on the oldest nation (as in longest to have recognised independence), the lingua franca would be Thai. Any factors specific to these countries I am missing that would make English dominant? Edited by andee on 12 October 2006 at 11:48am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Alijsh Tetraglot Senior Member Iran jahanshiri.ir/ Joined 6417 days ago 149 posts - 167 votes 1 sounds Speaks: Persian*, Spanish, French, English Studies: German, Italian | Message 60 of 99 12 October 2006 at 1:56pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Nobody in Iran says airplane, airport, etc. but their meaningful Persian words. And these words have been coined and proposed (not imposed) by Academy.
All proposed words don't become commonplace. It can have various reasons. For example, being proposed late, not applicable etc. For example, we say kâmpiyuter (computer) while we have a proposed word for it: râyâne. Or we say autobahn, metro, autobus, telephone, mobile, fax, etc. while we have proposed words for them. So people are free and selective and Academy is not rigid. It just coins words. Academy can't eradicate any word. They are people who can do this by their selection. And people have eradicated many words. Words that are now only found in dictionary. Academy asks ordinary people to send them their suggestions. So People and academy are in close contact. *** As I already said, Pizza is a loanfood not a loanword to be replaced. So I don't understand why you did mention it again. If ever Academy coin a word for it, it won't be used by people. How do you think of Iranians?! *** Oxford and Webster are written by certain people. So there are people in charge with English just like Persian and French although you don't call them academics. Speaking about Persian, there's no obligation in using proposed words. Please don't call our Academy and academics rigid. *** If coining words is abhorrent for most of you it's not for us. We like it. We even have pure writers with many fans. That is, writers who don't use any foreign word (Arabic, English, French, etc.) in their writings. Such writings are better understood because all words our familiar to the reader. Persian is so powerful that even technical documents can be written in pure Persian. It's interesting to know that many of such pure writers live abroad. The phenoemon of pure writing is getting more popular. So Iranian society is different from yours. We enjoy using this unique ability of Persian. Both German and French are very interesting in coining words. I appreciate them. It has nothing to do with being racist etc. It's for the sake of meaningfulness, comprehensibility etc. For example zistšenâsi vs. biology; forudgâh vs. airport; etc. If you were familiar with Persian and its word building you would admit how better they are. Persian is in the same line as Latin and Greek. That's why we can write in pure. To see how popular this pure writing is look at http://www.parsi-l.com/. It's a software recently written by an Iranian to convert any Persian text to pure Persian. Pure writing is also found in Tajikista and Afghanistan. *** Please no more talk about Farsi or Persian. We've had enough of it. If you like, call it Farsi. Edited by Alijsh on 12 October 2006 at 3:24pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| lady_skywalker Triglot Senior Member Netherlands aspiringpolyglotblog Joined 6685 days ago 909 posts - 942 votes Speaks: Spanish, English*, Mandarin Studies: Japanese, French, Dutch, Italian | Message 61 of 99 12 October 2006 at 2:23pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Dear Alijsh,
I honestly can't agree with pretty much anything you've said in the above post but I've given up trying to argue as you're obviously very set in your ways (and no doubt I am set in mine). While you have posted some very informative posts about Persian/Farsi in other threads, you come across as a little overbearing in this thread and reluctant to understand other people's points of view. So this will probably be my last post in this thread as I have better things to do with my time than argue over a language I'm not even studying. The reason I keep bringing up the 'pizza' is because of a news article I read a few months ago. While I cannot find the original link any more, here's a link from another language enthusiast who picked up on the issue. Read it if you want...I couldn't care less. http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002433.php 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Alijsh Tetraglot Senior Member Iran jahanshiri.ir/ Joined 6417 days ago 149 posts - 167 votes 1 sounds Speaks: Persian*, Spanish, French, English Studies: German, Italian | Message 62 of 99 12 October 2006 at 2:28pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Dear lady_skywalker,
You probably haven't followed the topic. We are not arguing on Persian or Farsi. I don't have also time to argue in vain. So I'm going to follow your decision. See you in other threads, Good luck Edited by Alijsh on 12 October 2006 at 2:31pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| lady_skywalker Triglot Senior Member Netherlands aspiringpolyglotblog Joined 6685 days ago 909 posts - 942 votes Speaks: Spanish, English*, Mandarin Studies: Japanese, French, Dutch, Italian | Message 63 of 99 12 October 2006 at 2:32pm | IP Logged | |||||
I have, actually. I believe the original topic was that the use of 'Farsi' was incorrect according to the Persian Language Academy...and this then sparked a debate over the standardisation and reform of language. While the topic has veered off course a few times, I have been reading fairly avidly and I'm sure many other members have as well. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 6951 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 64 of 99 12 October 2006 at 3:16pm | IP Logged | |||||
The bit that equates the academics at a language academy with the dictionary authors at Oxford or Webster's is a real stretch at best. They definitely don't coin words, create calques, and seek "purification" of a language. All that these authors do is update their works given trends that are noticeable in English variants (usually via technological progress, or pop culture). Compare an English dictionary of today with one from 100 years ago. Words such as "synergy", "cellular phone" and even "bling-bling" definitely did not exist 100 years ago, while the most frequent meaning of words such as "gay" and "leverage" are different from what you would find out 100 years ago. The authors at Oxford and Webster's DO NOT pass judgement on the new additions. All they can do is record the changes and publish new editions. The academy on the other hand not only could create calques to coexist with loanwords right from the beginning, but if it really wanted to, it could actively discourage the use of any word that it doesn't like and put in something more amenable to its political masters. While there's nothing wrong with coining words using native constructions, maintaing that languages with strong calquing tendencies are clearly superior (as you are insinuating with writers of "pure writing") to languages that don't place such emphasis on linguistic purity is offensive to some of us. It definitely can be twisted to suit extra-linguistic policies... In the end, languages are languages. Insistence on "linguistic superiority" of one language and its culture over another based on observed phonological or morphological differences marks one more as a nationalist rather than a linguist. Here's the problem Alijsh. Let's take your example of "airport". It is a compound of "air" and "port" - both of which are loanwords from Old French and in turn Latin. All of us already know what an "airport" is. What is the point of a language academy or anyone else in creating a "native" word that reflects English's Germanic origin? As you know, German uses a calque with "Flughafen". I suppose that in English, it is possible to create a calque for "airport" using "flight-haven", but seriously, would such a calque elict a greater feeling of pride or validation than the Latinate compound "airport"? Would people quickly drop the use of "airport" in favour of "flight-haven"? It's a little late for this kind of revisionism, eh? Edited by Chung on 12 October 2006 at 3:34pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
