Index ← 3534 CFJ 3535 3536 → text
==============================  CFJ 3435  ==============================

      In the below quoted message, a CFJ was initiated on the phrase 
      'أدعو إلى إصدار حكم بشأن البيان التالي'.

========================================================================

Caller:                       Quazie                       

Judge:                        ais523
Judgement:                    TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Quazie:             28 Jun 2017         
Assigned to ais523:           29 Jun 2017       
Judged TRUE by ais523:        29 Jun 2017
  
========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 16:16 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

I call for judgement on the following statement : أدعو إلى إصدار حكم بشأن البيان التالي

========================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

The arguments so far have hinged on the message in question being
ambiguous, but is that really the case? I believe that, given the
method via which it was sent, the original message cannot reasonably be
interpreted as being in Arabic.

What's notable here is that an encoding of text can convey the meaning
of the text in two different ways; either using a visual ordering, in
which the sequence of bytes is corresponds to the positions of the
individual characters on the page; or a logical ordering, in which the
sequence of bytes corresponds to the order in which the characters they
represent have meaning (i.e. bytes that appear earlier in the byte
stream correspond to letters closer to the start of words, words closer
to the start of sentences, and so on). A visual ordering would not help
resolve the ambiguity in respect to the CFJ. A logical ordering would,
though, as the bytes are conveying not only the appearance of the text
in this case, but also the intended reading order.

The standard referenced in the message for the understanding of the
bytes it contains is ISO-8859-6 (which cannot be obtained from ISO
without payment, but Ecma have a standard Ecma-114 which they claim is
equivalent). The body of the standard contains no opinion on whether
the text it's used to represent is in logical or visual order. However,
email clients in practice appear to interpret it as being in logical
order; in my client, the bytes , corresponding to the
Arabic letters «أ» then «د» then «ع» then «و», are rendered as the
Arabic word «أدعو» (in other words, they're rendered right to left, the
normal logical order of Arabic, and the opposite order that they appear
in the bytestream).

The word in question is a real Arabic word, translating to "I invite" /
"I call" / "I appeal". If we reverse the order of the letters, to get
«دعوأ», this is no longer a real Arabic word, strongly implying that
the message was meant to be in logical order; if the message were meant
to be in visual order, the Arabic text would therefore have been
written backwards (i.e. left to right, when right to left is the
language's normal writing order).

I can also see how my email client interprets the message by asking it
to word-wrap it:

I call for judgement on the following statement : أدعو إلى إصدار حكم
بشأن البيان التالي

This word-wrapping is clearly incompatible with an Arabic
interpretation of the message, as it would have split the Arabic in
half with some English text in the middle.

In other words, I'm not seeing any sensible way to interpret the
English text as coming "after" the Arabic text. The message itself
contains an indication that the Arabic text comes second.
}}}

I judge CFJ 3534 ("In the below quoted message, a CFJ
was initiated on the phrase 'I call for judgement on the following
statement'") FALSE, and CFJ 3535 ("In the below quoted message, a CFJ
was initiated on the phrase 'أدعو إلى إصدار حكم بشأن البيان التالي'")
TRUE.

Given that I've now determined the existence of a CFJ in G.'.s original
message, I number it CFJ 3536, assign it to myself if I haven't already
done so, and judge it DISMISS (it machine-translates to "I call for a
ruling on the following statement", is clearly intended to mean "I call
for judgement on the following statement" from context, and it has no
following statement to refer to, given that it's the last statement in
the original email).

========================================================================