Persian vs Farsi (half-OT)
roozbeh at htpassport.com
Sat Dec 6 03:56:42 CET 2008
Doug Ewell wrote:
> What all of this tells me is that the question of "Persian" versus
> "Farsi" is indeed controversial,
I don't agree. "Persian" vs "Farsi" is not really controversial,
"Farsi" is controversial.
I have not seen people have a major objection to the use of "Persian"
in English. I have only seen people object to use of "Farsi" in
English (sometimes very loudly).
> As far as the Registry is concerned, we basically have two choices:
> 1. Stick with only the names ISO 639 gives us, and add or change
> Description fields to mirror ISO 639 exactly.
> 2. Add the "Persian" names alongside the "Farsi" names within the
> Registry. (Again, we cannot do this until the language subtags in
> question are actually in the Registry, that is, until RFC 4646bis and
> 4645bis are approved. Trying to slip this sort of decision into
> draft-4645bis would be a supremely bad idea.)
> I favor choice 2.
> What we must NOT do IMHO is:
> 3. Add the "Persian" names and delete the "Farsi" names within the
> Registry, thereby making a partisan statement about right names/wrong
I agree that with the Registry we only have two choices, and I also
Still, be prepared for the herd of people who do not like to see
"Farsi" in English (if we can't get 639-3 to change it). I seem to be
a proponent of "Persian", but believe me, I am mostly trying to fend
off future loud protesters, of whom I'm a victim myself. (That, and
More information about the Ietf-languages