since a long time "function" has become one of the key terms widely applied in architectural theory, design, critics, history and education. Therefore it seems it has a clear meaning and simply can be used in different fields of architectural practice, design, education and theory. Thus function is considered as the most obvious concept in architecture and its very beginning point. But even a simple review of the concept and meaning of "architectural function" in history of architectural theory reveals many complications in the meaning and designations of "function". The concept of function in architectural theory has begun in Roman era with the introduction of "utilitas" (utility) by Vitruvius and has since been continued and in some instances replaced by other terms, mainly "commodity" and "convenience". The term "function" was introduced to architectural theory no sooner than 18th century. In this article the author has attempted to review the terms and words indicating the concept of "architectural function" throughout the history of architectural theory along with other terms that have been used to describe them, i.e. "use", "practicality", "fitness for purpose" and "necessity", in order to reach a terminological and etymological analysis of the concept. So the research can be considered as a basis for a clearer explanation of the architectural function as a fundamental term. The article has two main parts. In the first part, the related terms and words have been selected from the literature of architectural theory, and studied terminologically; i.e. in their corresponding context and etymologically, i.e. as general words. In the second part the interpretation of the terms in architectural theories are comparatively discussed. The results show that the meaning and application of these terms and words in architectural theory is related to four main interpretations of the concept of function; "Pragmatic", "Organic", "Mechanical" and "Systemic" interpretations. In "Pragmatic" interpretation, concept of function deals with the use of architecture in accordance with the human needs. "Organic" interpretation describes function as a natural interrelationship of all parts and the whole as an organism. In "mechanical" interpretation, concept of function deals with the interrelationship of all mechanical forces inside the architecture as a thing. Finally, the "systemic" interpretation describes function as the fitness for an end in architecture as a system. The multiplicity in number and origins of these four interpretations has played a main role in the complexity and ambiguity of the concept of function. Therefore, the meaning and concept of function is strongly related to the interpretations which are corresponded to the different and multiple theories of architecture. The study shows that the multiplicity of origins of the term "function" and its potentiality to correspond with different interpretations has been a strong reason for application of "function" as a general term. But the author has concluded that no clear explanation of the concept of architectural function is possible without a corresponding theory of architecture. So a single definition of architectural function is merely possible in the context of a single theory of architecture.

Two traps currently ensnare Heideggerian scholarship: the “language trap” and the “being trap”. To avoid them, the text argues we should follow Heidegger’s important indication that movement (aka ex-sistential becoming or Zeit) determines all forms of meaning (aka the significance of things or Sein). This requires a radical rewriting of the terminology and the structure of Zeitlichkeit in § 65 of Sein und Zeit. The text also argues for moving beyond Heidegger’s early and late formulations of fundamental ontology and into a meta- ontological ethics that would apply to the economic, social, and political worlds in which we live our daily lives.

Objective: terminology is an interdisciplinary and meta-disciplinary field of science that deals with its concepts and representations (terms, symbols, etc.). The purpose of this article is to analyze the term "Physical Literacy" in order to introduce the best Persian equivalent for it.Methodology: In this research, using the study method of documents and libraries, the existing texts and sources were studied. Then, by comparing themes, the use of the term "Physical Literacy" became apparent.Result: The researcher first examined the lexical and idiomatic meanings of each word that makes up the term Physical Literacy and then examined the entire nominal composition of Physical Literacy. Finally, by introducing the field of use of this term and explaining the reference authors regarding the reasons for choosing this term, the best Persian equivalent was achieved. Conclusion: The best Persian equivalent for the term Physical Literacy is " سواد جسمانی". Therefore, other equations introduced such as "Body literacy" and "Motor literacy" are not comprehensive and correct equivalents for the term Physical Literacy.

The present article is about the Zemakhshari’s Al-Kashaf commentary. In this book the author has paid a lot of attention to the literary aspects of Quran.One of the most important aspects of this commentary is it’s lexical analysis of the words.The researcher then compares these analyses with those which exist in Quran while providing reasons and explaining his views about them.

In this study, using the terminology databank (a collection of the scientific terms of the dictionaries of basic sciences) of Iran’s Research Center for Scientific Information and Documents as the corpus, and based on liEbER’S (2004) theory of morphology and lexical semantics, the writer has statistically analyzed the terms, and extracted the frequency of each compound, derivative and derivative-compound lexical item as well as the morphological patterns of the scientific terms. Next, determining the semantic relations between them, the writer has provided the grounds for designing the ontology and the lexical network of this scientific field as a step toward educational and research planning and, ultimately, designing a system of concepts for the country’s scientific network.

Kinship relations are expressed in many Quranic verses which has been raised in various jurisprudential, historical and social fields, and is the subject of many sentences regarding Maḥ ramiyyah, inheritance, charity, marriage and divorce, etc. The present study is responsible for identifying the vocabulary of the kinship domain in the Quran and explaining the implications of that vocabulary on the types of kinship relations and through the study of Quranic verses based on the words of the Quran commentators and opinions of terminologists. The vocabulary used in the Holy Quran to describe kinship relationships in terms of quantity, extent, distance and proximity are: (ahl, 'ā l, 'ashī rah, rahṭ , faṣ ī lah, qabī lah, sha'b, qawm, qurbā and arḥ ā m). The word "ahl" shows the smallest kinship unit and the word "sha'b" of the largest kinship unit. The word "ahl" has the appearance in the meaning of the family of the individual and, respectively, the terms "'ā l, 'ashī rah, rahṭ and faṣ ī lah " contain a broader range of relatives. The words " qabī lah and sha'b" refer to the vast range of kinship in Arabic ancestry. The meaning of the word "qawm" on the meaning of kinship is an Implicit implication, and is also used in the Holy Quran in the kinship sense. All of the above words describe the relative relationship in various aspects, and refer to "Close fatherly relatives".