John Cowan wrote:
>
> I don't think so. But the question has become politicized, because
> the change (in Latin transliteration only, note) was made by
> a government which many believe to be illegitimate.
>
... in every sense of the word, apparently.
> I agree that the example was a bad one for that reason.
>
Yet coming across that web page while probing the issue was
quite an eye-opener for me, and I am grateful.
> > ...advantage over the English speaker because the "C" programming
> > instructions in Hindi are in 'plain-Hindi' rather than 'tech-speak'?
>
> On the contrary, it is often worse in other languages, because most of the
> technical jargon is typically adopted straight from English.
>
Then "member variable" would be transcribed to Devanagari?
If so, how unfortunate.
> Note that I used the jargon verb "map", which is old enough in this
> sense that it does appear in dictionaries, but is still probably
> unfamiliar to many.
>
Using "map" in this fashion shouldn't be too much of a problem,
though, it's generic enough that the meaning can be derived from
context.
> > The reason it makes me uncomfortable is that these definitions
> > don't match the standard meanings of the words as contained in
> > dictionaries.
>
> So much the worse for dictionaries, then. :-)
>
And for standards? (-:
>
> Right. And note that until a decade or two ago, all transliteration
> *and* transcription was very much by hand: no machines involved.
>
Yes, and the dictionary definitions seem to derive from the
manuscript era. Perhaps a newer dictionary...
>
> Well, fine. But when someone is talking about physics, and
> uses "energy", "power", and "force" interchangeably, do we
> accept this as a "broader sense" of the terms, or do we
> explain to them that in this field, the terms are definitely
> *not* interchangeable?
>
Physics isn't my forte, but even in the vernacular the terms
aren't necessarily interchangeable: Energy shortage, power
to the people, and may the Force be with you.
Best regards,
James Kass.
