Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Python When There Is Perl?
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:02:07 -0500
Organization: Modern Human
Message-ID: <uuhrof$2f8q$1@solani.org>
References: <17be420c4f90bfc7$63225$1585792$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <utd86u$1ipcj$1@solani.org>
 <17be75acfaf8f0f4$2017$3384359$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <utfol0$1k8j7$1@solani.org>
 <17bebbae334656b9$74345$2906873$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <utiopt$2i4i5$1@dont-email.me>
 <17bf321f9c15028e$2$2218499$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <utlbto$38pmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <17bf5ce92e8c43b4$672$1351842$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <l68nhdFoi1bU4@mid.individual.net> <utnpao$1o32m$6@solani.org>
 <l6a00fFtmmgU4@mid.individual.net> <utqa6m$klt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <l6cb59Fal3tU2@mid.individual.net> <utt23i$1qnhe$1@solani.org>
 <utt3mu$1qnhe$2@solani.org> <uttbjl$1qr2p$1@solani.org>
 <uugcco$32hhs$6@dont-email.me> <l72hofFnhlqU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 21:02:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="81178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bf/8Rryt/7CNAYi+IHG/FmCh01Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <l72hofFnhlqU1@mid.individual.net>
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXYNJWzhGR/09YgkXnVRAMDIb71MxJ5bMkZEsX9QUdvV/jNs2zLV/FF2pK1eaoCJRx/UvdFOA=
Bytes: 3796
Lines: 48

On 4/2/24 09:07, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 07:33:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> Semitic languages are part of the Indo-European family, too.
> 
> Only in the minority view of some linguists. The majority view is Proto-
> Afroasiatic and Proto-Indo-European are not related.


Arabic is fundamentally different from Persian. Arabic cannot create new 
single words. It does it by using two or more existing words instead of 
a single new word. This is its shortcoming. But in a pinch, its power as 
well.

In Persian (and all Indo-European languages), you can _correctly_ create 
new single words by combining different roots. But it takes time for the 
new word to get popular. So it is, just like Arabic, its power as well 
as its shortcoming.

That's why Iranians, 1000 years back, in a pinch to describe their 
scientific activities chose Arabic language because all the words were 
already in existence and by using different combinations of them you 
could describe new concepts with it, totally understood by other readers.

Iranians eventually when they got time began _creating_ new correct 
Persian words by combining roots of different words, not the words 
themselves.

Example:

In Arabic the word for temperature is "darajeye haraarat" which uses two 
existing words. One meaning "the degree of" and the other meaning 
"warmth giving".

In Persian the word for temperature is simply "damaa" which combines two 
different words at their _root_ levels.

And as you see (if you compare the English translation I provided), the 
Arabic word is already understood by reading the two words, while the 
Persian one has to get popular before the meaning of it is discerned.

This type of differences between languages point to sources quite 
different from each other. Because it has to do with very old structures 
first built into the language; i.e., features that developed as the 
ability to vocally express in words itself were developing. So Persian 
and Arabic have been different from the day human began speaking.