# מְמִשׁקָ



## airelibre

The nikkud looks like it's gone crazy here. What is the correct pronunciation for this word, meaning interface?


----------



## origumi

Mimshaq.

Some pronounce it mi*n*shaq. This makes sense because the root is נשק.


----------



## airelibre

Ok, thanks. So the hirik and schva were the wrong way round and the kamatz was too far to the left. Strange


----------



## arielipi

origumi said:


> Mimshaq.
> 
> Some pronounce it mi*n*shaq. This makes sense because the root is נשק.



You sure the root is נשק? http://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A7 contradicts you, though https://www.safa-ivrit.org/form/minshak.php supports you.


----------



## airelibre

נ-ש-ק means "to meet/interface", while the only meaning I can find for ש-ק-ק is teem/bustle, so I would agree with origumi.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> You sure the root is נשק? http://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/ממשק contradicts you, though https://www.safa-ivrit.org/form/minshak.php supports you.


Interesting issue, thanks.

ממשק or מנשק is a relatively new word. The question is what the inventor had in mind. Following the Academia - ממשק is a non-word, there's only מנשק (or מִשָּׁק), and the root is definitely נ-ש-ק. Yet, almost everybody says ממשק, except maybe some university professors and surprisingly many in the dati-leumi communities. For such informal word with no apparent lingual justification, any reasonable root can be attributed.

This is the Academia definition:

מִנְשָׁק, מִשָּׁק [הקשר בין שתי יחידות תפקוד, כגון במחשבים - הקשר בין  תכנוֹת או בין הציוד ההיקפי למחשב. את המִישק אפשר להגדיר על ידי פקודות,  על ידי התחברות פיזית, על ידי אותות ועוד. שורש המילה: נ-ש-ק, והוא מציין  את המגע שבין דבר לדבר. השימוש במילה 'ממשק' לצורך זה הוא שימוש מוטעה]


----------



## amikama

arielipi said:


> http://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/ממשק


The shoresh is ש-ק-ק? How come? If it were the shoresh, the word would be משקק and not ממשק, because the mishkal is מקטל of גזרת השלמים. There is no such mishkal as ממקל (of גזרת הכפולים).

Wiktionary is clearly wrong here.


----------



## arielipi

origumi said:


> Interesting issue, thanks.
> 
> ממשק or מנשק is a relatively new word. The question is what the inventor had in mind. Following the Academia - ממשק is a non-word, there's only מנשק (or מִשָּׁק), and the root is definitely נ-ש-ק. Yet, almost everybody says ממשק, except maybe some university professors and surprisingly many in the dati-leumi communities. For such informal word with no apparent lingual justification, any reasonable root can be attributed.
> 
> This is the Academia definition:
> 
> מִנְשָׁק, מִשָּׁק [הקשר בין שתי יחידות תפקוד, כגון במחשבים - הקשר בין  תכנוֹת או בין הציוד ההיקפי למחשב. את המִישק אפשר להגדיר על ידי פקודות,  על ידי התחברות פיזית, על ידי אותות ועוד. שורש המילה: נ-ש-ק, והוא מציין  את המגע שבין דבר לדבר. השימוש במילה 'ממשק' לצורך זה הוא שימוש מוטעה]



Well, as a CS student myself i can tell you theres no sense in minshaq, interface is simply an abstract concept meant to be a bridge between two [concrete] objects.
think of it as food interface, vegetables extends food, tomato family extends vegetables, israeli tomato concretes tomato family.
would you say theres a minshaq between israeli tomato and spanish orange?

EDIT: by the academy's reasoning it wouldve been better to call interface qosher/meqasher/covlan/mekhaber or something from that area; concepts are not mathematics, and they do not noshkim one to another.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> Well, as a CS student myself i can tell you theres no sense in minshaq, interface is simply an abstract concept meant to be a bridge between two [concrete] objects.


_Interface_ of a _class_ in OOP (Object Oriented Programming) is not everything _interface_ means. As the Academia correctly wrote, interface can be for example the actual implementation of whatever needed to work with a hardware device or external stuff. Think of NIC, Network Interface Card, a piece of hardware used as interface between the computer and the network.


> Think of it as food interface, vegetables extends food, tomato family extends vegetables, israeli tomato concretes tomato family.
> would you say theres a minshaq between israeli tomato and spanish orange?


I suspect you're mixing here the OOP concept of _inheritance _with the one of _interface_. Saying (in English) "there's an interface between two different derivations of the same base interface" makes no much sense. So I wouldn't say (as in your example) "there's an interface/מנשק between Israeli tomato and Spanish orange" simply because it misses the meaning of _interface_, thus of מנשק.


> Bby the academy's reasoning it would've been better to call interface qosher/meqasher/covlan/mekhaber or something from that area; concepts are not mathematics, and they do not noshkim one to another.


Root ק-ש-ר is used in technology mainly for _communications_. כ-ב-ל is for cable. ח-ב-ר for addition. I guess that whoever invented the term מנשק tried to pick a different root, against confusion.

Anyway, think of the term משיק as in geometry. Two circles are משיקים, so there's a מנשק between them. If each circle represents a component, the thing right in between is the מנשק or מישק.


----------



## arielipi

origumi said:


> _Interface_ of a _class_ in OOP (Object Oriented Programming) is not everything _interface_ means. As the Academia correctly wrote, interface can be for example the actual implementation of whatever needed to work with a hardware device or external stuff. Think of NIC, Network Interface Card, a piece of hardware used as interface between the computer and the network.


But that is just it - if you have many types of NIC  and each works differently and expects different things, then the interface is a lock guarantees all will expect the same thing and send same thing.
The interface here is a concept of network interactions, but the concept itself has no value without a card[=concrete object, implementation]



origumi said:


> I suspect you're mixing here the OOP concept of _inheritance _with the one of _interface_. Saying (in English) "there's an interface between two different derivations of the same base interface" makes no much sense. So I wouldn't say (as in your example) "there's an interface/מנשק between Israeli tomato and Spanish orange" simply because it misses the meaning of _interface_, thus of מנשק.


Youre approaching interface from the reasoning the academia gave it, do not so; think in english, and of interface in english. ----->



origumi said:


> Root ק-ש-ר is used in technology mainly for _communications_. כ-ב-ל is for cable. ח-ב-ר for addition. I guess that whoever invented the term מנשק tried to pick a different root, against confusion.
> 
> Anyway, think of the term משיק as in geometry. Two circles are משיקים, so there's a מנשק between them. If each circle represents a component, the thing right in between is the מנשק or מישק.


That is exactly what im saying, משיק is a concrete(through representation) object of a trait - its something that touches something else on one spot only; A hardware doesnt touch the computer on one spot; it doesnt touch it at all; it communicates with the computer.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> Youre approaching interface from the reasoning the academia gave it, do not so; think in english, and of interface in english.


Talking about the dictionary meaning of _interface _- Merriam Webster's first definition is: _ a surface forming a common boundary of two bodies, spaces, or phases_. Looks similar to what Hebrew root נ-ש-ק (as in geometry) says.

Talking about English etymology - _interface _is built of _inter _+ _face_, where _inter _means in our context _between_ and _face _means _front, seen part_. So again it's like נ-ש-ק, even as what happens during a kiss, 
נשיקה.

Talking about technology, interface may be abstract or concrete, software or hardware, with wide range of implementations. It's not necessarily a connector, a socket, a communication unit, and alike. With such vague meaning, root נ-ש-ק seems at least as good as ח-ב-ר, ק-ש-ר, or other.


----------



## arielipi

origumi said:


> Talking about the dictionary meaning of _interface _- Merriam Webster's first definition is: _ a surface forming a common boundary of two bodies, spaces, or phases_. Looks similar to what Hebrew root נ-ש-ק (as in geometry) says.
> 
> Talking about English etymology - _interface _is built of _inter _+ _face_, where _inter _means in our context _between_ and _face _means _front, seen part_. So again it's like נ-ש-ק, even as what happens during a kiss,
> נשיקה.
> 
> Talking about technology, interface may be abstract or concrete, software or hardware, with wide range of implementations. It's not necessarily a connector, a socket, a communication unit, and alike. With such vague meaning, root נ-ש-ק seems at least as good as ח-ב-ר, ק-ש-ר, or other.



As rubik rosental likes to remind people - language is not mathematics, and on one occasion a word will be used as X and another occasion as Y.
Interface (in CS) is strictly used as a concept[=abstract], therefore n-sh-q is not a good translation. http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/interface 5.
If i were to invent, i would combine pan with meqasher with mishql maktel = mafner.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> As rubik rosental likes to remind people - language is not mathematics, and on one occasion a word will be used as X and another occasion as Y.
> Interface (in CS) is strictly used as a concept[=abstract], therefore n-sh-q is not a good translation. http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/interface 5.
> If i were to invent, i would combine pan with meqasher with mishql maktel = mafner.


I think that the Academia, and apparently every language authority since Ben Yehudah, is rather reluctant to invent new roots.

If I am not mistaken the other Semitic language in the neighborhood, Arabic, attempts to do the same - take a European term and find the native way to represent it (unless the original European word is maintained, and then it's pronounced in local accent). So this seems like a reasonable habit, not breaking the language walls while trying to fit-in foreign terms.


----------



## arielipi

origumi said:


> I think that the Academia, and apparently every language authority since Ben Yehudah, is rather reluctant to invent new roots.
> 
> If I am not mistaken the other Semitic language in the neighborhood, Arabic, attempts to do the same - take a European term and find the native way to represent it (unless the original European word is maintained, and then it's pronounced in local accent). So this seems like a reasonable habit, not breaking the language walls while trying to fit-in foreign terms.



Thats plain stupid, because a language constantly evolves whether you like it or not.
This one just adds up to the things i dont think the academia is right about.


----------

