<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I tend to favor Doug's option 2 (add the name Persian) to the description fields since we are permitted to do so. This seems to me the safest way to avoid ruffling any feathers.<BR> <BR>However as I reread the debates (the links John sent--thanks to John; these are all excellent; also available at these links:<BR> <BR><A href="http://www.iranian.com/Features/Dec97/Persian/">http://www.iranian.com/Features/Dec97/Persian/</A><BR><A href="http://www.iranian.com/Sep96/Articles/FarsiReaction2/FarsiReaction2.html">http://www.iranian.com/Sep96/Articles/FarsiReaction2/FarsiReaction2.html</A>)<BR>(NOTE: not long after the Iranian Revolution I went to grad school where there were a number of Iranian but not Afghani students; a number of the Iranians, including the one or two women I knew, preferred the name Farsi as they--at the time--considered 'Persian' part of Western meddling with their culture; however I believe there were some Iranians at the time also who would not have been as interested in calling their language Farsi; this debate at the time seemed to have been political).<BR>
<BR>I've begun to rethink my original comments; it seems to me that what really has two names is the Persian language as spoken in Iran (Persian/Farsi are thus both English names for Western Persian?)--while maybe the larger (macrolanguage) can be referred to as 'Persian' exclusively--although there does seem to be some debate on this matter as well. <BR>
<BR>In "Teach Yourself Persian" (John Mace--but a bit dated & in my opinion rather dry), Farsi was the Persian name and Persian the western name. The language being taught in that book was Western Persian/Farsi to my knowledge.<BR> <BR>"Farsi" is as Wikipedia points out actually the Arabic pronunciation of "Parsi." "Persian" is what the English do with "Parsi" or "Persi" I guess--when trying to make it refer to a language.<BR> <BR>I'm happy to see the link on the "Academy of Persian Language and Literature"<BR><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Persian_Language_and_Literature">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Persian_Language_and_Literature</A><BR>This academy is controlled by the Iranian government so if this Academy that recommends the name Persian we will not at least get flack from the government<BR>(also please do not share <A href="http://www.topix.com/forum/ir/mashhad/TN7CK8TKPP616SL46">http://www.topix.com/forum/ir/mashhad/TN7CK8TKPP616SL46</A>).<BR>
<BR>
I also agree with Michael Everson that we had probably best not tell Iranians what we will call the name of their language.<BR> <BR>But unless I here an overwhelming 'otherwise' from Iranians and Afghanis and other speakers of the Eastern and Western Persian/Farsi, I still tend to support Doug's solution:<BR> <BR><BR>Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:39:19 -0700<BR>From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org><BR><BR>> 2. There could be a request on this list (ietf-languages) to add the "Persian" names as <BR>> additional Description fields for these subtags, in addition to the "Farsi" names taken from ISO. > Note that there are no "primary" or "preferred" names in the Registry; the ISO 639-3 reference > name (when applicable) is listed first in the Registry for ease of cross-referencing only. <BR>> Note also that this request could not be made until the subtags actually exist in the Registry, > i.e. until RFC 4646bis is approved by the IESG.<BR> <BR>
<BR>
Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR><BR><BR></body>
</html>