RE: Persian or Farsi?

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 15:21:17 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?"

    At 12:53 -0500 2003-05-22, Brian Doyle wrote:
    >This discussion is remarkably similar to the Gaelic/Irish debate.

    No it isn't.

    >It's curious to me, however, that Michael's position in that
    >discussion (purposeful or not) was opposite the prescriptive
    >normative stance.

    No, my position was that the *particular* argument offered (that the
    Irish constitution "permitted" only the use of a particular term) was
    particularly bogus. I did not offer an opinion as to the *relative*
    merits of "Irish" or "Irish Gaelic" or "Gaelic" in that particular

    >In fact, in discussing normatives and ISO 639, Michael was quick to
    >point out that the two-letter codes are the normalized data in ISO
    >639--not the language names.

    That's true. :-)

    >From a purely descriptive perspective, these facts would seem to indicate that
    >both names are acceptable variants.

    That doesn't mean that Persian isn't to be preferred in
    Internationalized software, which, we have heard from Roozbeh, it is.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 22 2003 - 16:43:20 EDT