NAMEH FARHANGESTAN
Year:2024 | Volume:23 | Issue:2|Papers Count:7

Dictionaries have traditionally employed various methods to represent different types of phonetic information, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Today, general dictionaries provide more phonetic information in addition to the phonetic form, such as alternate pronunciations, stress patterns, syllabic structure, and phonetic processes. This article examines the types of phonetic information presented in English and Persian general dictionaries, with a focus on two newer Persian dictionaries, Farhang-e Fārsī and Farhang-e Rūz-e Sokhan, analyzing how they represent phonetic information.

In reference books and contemporary research, “santūr” is often introduced as an ancient Iranian instrument, with evidence and images provided to support this claim. Reviewing these pieces of evidence as well as other documents and sources, we examine the validity of such claims. We will also estimate the historical timeline of santūr in Persian texts based on thorough research and analysis of reliable evidence.

halim (classical Persian: halēm) is a thin food prepared from meat, alternatively spelled as ḥalim. This note attempts to determine which of the two spellings is older and more authentic. To achieve this aim, previous sources are reviewed and the (in)validity of perspectives presented in them are evaluated. Additionally, we highlight the usages of this word in classical texts and trace its evolution and etymology.

Rawdh-ul-J̌inān wa Rawḥ-ul-J̌anān fī Tafsīr-il-Qurʾān (commonly known as Tafsīr-e Abulfutūḥ) is among the most important and prominent Shiite commentaries on the Qurʾān in Persian. The high significance and value of this work have led to its influence on other works, such as the Qurʾānic commentary J̌ilāʾ al-Adhhān wa J̌alāʾ al-Aḥzān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān (otherwise known as Tafsīr-e Gāzur). Although Persian commentaries are heavily influenced by Arabic and the Qurʾān itself, they also incorporate numerous Persian words, some unique to these texts and others less commonly used in other periods. It is widely believed by many researchers and bibliographers that Tafsīr-e Gāzur is a summary of Tafsīr-e Abulfutūḥ. Therefore, this article introduces these two commentaries briefly and aims to highlight differences in words and expressions used within their texts.

This article examines the meanings of the words “ʿarūs” and “ḥāǰeb” in the contexts of “kaštī-ye ʿarūs” and “ḥāǰeb-e xoršīd” in Farhang-e Bozorg-e Sokhan. These compounds are attested in Tārīx-e Bayhaqī and Dīvān-e Šams. By presenting additional evidence and providing reasons and observations, this study reveals another meaning of these two words.

In many ancient Persian lexicons, numerous verses are cited as examples under specific words and compounds, attributed to their respective poets. This valuable tradition, beyond its linguistic significance, has often preserved verses from lost collections of ancient Persian poets, thus safeguarding them as a precious repository for us. Labībī is one such poet whose verses are extensively quoted in lexicons. This study examines a verse attributed to him in lexicons and proposes a new textual edition based on both internal and external evidence.

The Tafsīr of Sūrābādī (Sūrābānī), also known as the Tafsīr al-Tafāsīr, is a concise Persian commentary on the entire Qurʾān authored by Abu-Bakr ʿAtīq Neyšābūrī around 470 to 480 AH. Various sections, stories, manuscripts, and ultimately the entire work have been published in different forms, with the complete version printed in five volumes by Ali Akbar Saeedi Sirjani in 1381 AH (2002 CE). This article attempts to highlight the shortcomings and errors of this edition, emphasizing the need for a re-edition. To this end, in addition to Sirjani's edition, three manuscripts are also utilized: Konya (dated 723-725 AH), India Office (730 AH), and Leiden (769 AH). This article demonstrates that the primary problems with this edition include the unknown status of the base manuscript(s), lack of an introduction and description of the manuscripts and their characteristics, unclear method of edition, non-critical approach, incomplete recording of variant readings, disregard for phonetic changes and diacritized words, omissions, misreadings, and errors in the correction of some less common words. These issues are significant enough to alter the meaning of some words, differing from what the author intended to convey.