From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Re: eesAr
Organization: The Special Theory of Relativity
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:53:13 GMT

In article <llrc55INNfvg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> >>>>>> Anonymous writes:
>
>>ShahrAm, bA dorood bar to bAd (mA ghatrehAye zire pAye shomA hastim)
>
>Bavafa, dorood bar to bAd(bA-ye avval lAzem nist!!!)
>	mA khAk-e zir-e pAye shomAeem(This was the first time that I saw this
>	expression with "ghatreh")

dorood bar to bAd, ShahrAm.  Thanks for the correction.  As for the ghatreh
let me explain a little.  The point is there is no dogma about language
(no, I don't imply you said such a thing, not at all).  Let's all repeat
the expression with 'ghatreh' everyday and in any occasion may it become
part of our expressions and then the language.  I am only proposing this
to those souls who see no harm in it.  Habit and repetition brings about
behaviours that we would label as right or wrong, bad or good.

>>>Therefore, *one of* the best fArsi equivalents of the word is "bakhshesh".
>>
>>Hold it, 'kojA dAdAsh?  bilitet daste maneh.'  Moment, moment, please.
>>Where did "therefore" come from?  In Your Humble Opinion, it is one the
>>best fArsi equivalents.  If you ask me I would've chosen 'bargozidegi.'
>>At least it carries with itself the cannotation of CHOICE.  DehkhodA does
>>not at all specify which one is the best, perhaps because there is no
>>competition here.
>
>You have the right to change your words any time you want to.

Looks like you saw a change.  I didn't see it.  I am going to read on to
grasp your point.

>The reason for
>"therefore" is exactly what you have been stressing on so far(before
>typing this article) about the meaning of "eesAr".

Haven't gotten it yet.

>You choose "bargozidegi"?
>Fine with me. Now I am going to base my argument on the reason that *you*
>bring for your choice.

I see the plug now [(c) Shahrokh, 92], I hope.  You thought I meant to
choose bargozidegi to fit the sentence Mr. Ebrahimi had written.  Well,
I see why you are saying I am changing my word.  The clarification is that
(sure, I am late again) when I read through all different meanings presented
in loght-nAmeh, I chose bargozidegi as the best word if it were the only one
word.  We never disagreed about the fact that eesAr could have different
meanings under different applications in the context of the Persian
language.  I was only interested in the comparison of the WAY these two
languages function.  You point to it in your next paragraph too.

>>>The meaning of "eesAr" is a
>>>very special kind of giving. Giving or giving up something which is
>>important
>>>or crucial to you, in order to benefit someone else (of course for a good
>>>cause) without expecting anything in return. This is a modified version of
>>>what you quoted from AghA rezA. This modified version shows us only one of
>>>the many ways that we can use that word. Examples given by Deh-khodA
>>makes it more clear:
>
>>'didi hAlA!'  So 'eesAr' is so vast that no one Persian word can 'jAmeAneh'
>>[hey, this word is Arabic too - HFN] replace it.  Even DehkhodA doesn't;

The tricky word was 'jAmeAneh' in the context of the Arabic language.

You said:
>I look at it differently. "eesAr" has different meanings(I do not want to 
>argue the degree of difference), and it takes a rich language to have a
>separate word for each of those meanings. I would say that each of the
>words "bakhshesh, bargozidegi, ..." are more definitive than "eesAr". You
>call it "vast". I would say that it is a shortcoming of "eesAr" because it
>does not explain a definite concept. Don't you think that it is better and
>easier to have words that describe more specific concepts? You can call it
>"jAme'" and be proud of it. You are entitled to your opinion.

I agree with you 100% in the above, but your very well presented argument
in the above does not make sense to somebody (say an Arab speaking person)
who just happens (say by act of God) not to be Iranian and hence does not
follow your line of thinking about classification of meanings.  This
person's language and thought processes might have evolved over centuries
around the concept of defining a word as general as it can be and in the
course of the evolution of that culture learn (or acquire necessary tools)
to decipher what was exactly meant when somebody said "eesAr."

In other words, a Persian speaking person would have found it inefficient
to distinguish which meaning of eesAr was meant, perhaps because s/he
didn't know much about the culture of the other party to be able to utilize
whatever tools and guides were there to figure out EXACTLY what was meant.

Reminds me of this sci-fi story.

Earthian on Mars: I can't breathe here.  Your planet is no good.
Martian:  I don't know.  I seem to be breathing alright!

>>not because he forgot, but because as a true researcher he couldn't.  I
>>wonder why Dr. Moeen didn't 'tasarof' here. [eh, another Arabic word - HFN]
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This was my 'lopeh kalAm.' [ah, khafeh shodam of these Arabic words - HFN]

About underlined brakets:
These were trigger brackets; they worked!  As for their usage the intention
was not to confront Persian language.  I was trying to signal you that while
I was writing English (or even Persian) I was inherently feeling comfortable 
to use them because the Arabic words were meaningful to me.  The point in 
this exercise was to convey to the reader this thought that what sounds so
strange to some readers (or even intimidating at times) might not be the
case for another reader.  It all depends on how much we feel in touch with
the langauge or the words within the language.  There was never a competition
between eesAr and the collection of words within the Persian language to
cover the meaning of eesAr.

I am also very satisfied when you present the case of richness.  Isn't that
beauty is in the eyes of the beholder?  A group of people (say a culture)
may find richness in a language that has a dedicated word for each definite
concept.  In contrast, another group might find vast and jAmeAneh words
so logical, pleasing, making sense, "delneshin," and ultimately stamp the
language as rich.  The key here is that the richness in not independent of
the users.  They decide that it is rich!

I hope ShahrAm khAn I have made it more clear to convey the thought that
when I said in my first post "let our Persian friends top this one" the
challenge, at least for me, was to LEARN how people justify their richness.
The "how" would have helped to UNDERSTAND better how those people THOUGHT.
I sincerely believe one of main obstacles before human species is its lack
of understanding of cultures on top of which stands language.

Regards,
Hooshyar
bavaf@netcom.com
(415) 322-8056