and there is no justification for replacing them with Arabic word or made some word that have no relation to the device.
My point is only that there's no room for importation of English words. I don't advocate Arabic ones instead, nor terms unrelated to the device even though the latter objection is debatable since as said, Iranians will not know whether the English word itself is related to the device or not since they have no access to its etymological sense.
there is problem with forging non related persian word , who gave you the idea there is no problem with that.
I'm not against choosing terms with the best possible relation to the object they're designating. But the fact also remains that hardly an Iranian knows what the exact etymological meaning of the word 'television' is. Basically, they're using a word while not having the slightest idea as to how accurate a relation its two components in their original languages (Greek for 'tele' and Latin for 'visual') have or have not to the object they're describing.
So if that's not a problem, why would it then be a problem if an officially coined Persian neologism left to be desired as far as its relation to the object is concerned? After all, with the word 'television' too, it's not as if most Iranians can properly judge how well the term is or is not related to an actual TV set.
and there is problem with replacing foreign word with another foreign word as it defeat the purpose.
This I have not been debating.
he now what it imply.and as I said he don't had to knew what it means and its irrelevant to the discussion . the ones who knew what it mean knew it's meaning describe the device.
How are they supposed to know that? They can only assume but have no means to verify other than by conducting research, which practically nobody will.
After all 'television' is only one example and there exist far more metaphorical ones such as 'mouse' (the computer accessory). And this implies one cannot automatically suppose that the imported, alien word is strictly and perfectly reflective of the object it stands for.
let say for example
addressee : مخاطب instead of شنونده-روی سخن
َarithematic logic unit : واحد حساب و منطف instead of بخش خرد شمازشگری
Look at cademy word and you see it only correct if it was "Arithmetic & logic Unit " while it actually is "Arithmetic logic Unit"
authorization : اجازه instead of پروانه
benchmark : محک instead of آزمون ، سنجه
blended learning : یادگیری تلفیقی instead of یادگیری آمیزه ای
bug : اشکال instead of ایراد
and the list go on and on....
its the list of specialized word they published in last 15 year
These represent a different category altogether, since here we're not dealing with neologisms but with old words standing for older concepts, which have been around for centuries in all three languages involved (even if their area of application expanded naturally and intuitively).
I've no issue with using the Persian word instead of the Arabic-origin one in these cases, and why not, they could have listed both, since both form part of Persian vocabulary. But in these above cited cases, there's no addition of any new words to the language.
But this issue is different from technological neologisms, which is what I was talking about from the beginning. The Persian Language Academy hasn't introduced Arabic vocabs in lieu of English neologisms. In this area, their work has been commendable to me.