186S.] Contributions to Persian Lexicography. 41 



The word, jazm is never used in Persian Dictionaries, sulcun being the 

 usual word. 



Every alif in the beginning of a word is called %y+& ; hence in 

 spelling d&>»\, you say 8j-*& **£>->, baszamm-i-hamzah, not baszamm i 

 alif. And in spelling ^»^1, J ou would say Xtj ^> ) »-ft-J| j $j+& J&>. 



The sign is called $j+& (J£<& sliakl-i-liamzah. This explains 



the phraseology of Bh. under \j%*? chihrai^>m&, where he says : — 



" The word f/«^-, when pronounced, has an alif and a ya-i-tahtani, 

 ^IXj^a.j but you must not write them." The sign of the hamzah 

 above the % cannot be left out, as Vullers has clone, p. 605#. Similar 

 words are & *^>, <>&i>lj of the same colour as the fd/chtah-^'xgeon, f^aJ, 

 &■*,*>. The spellings ^j&, t5^*"J, (J^j+» are Indian, and not 

 considered good. This corrects several mistakes in Vullers' Lexicon. 

 Regarding the shakl i hamzah in words as t= r*, j-*^> &c., vide the 

 author's Prosody of the Persians, p. 14. 



In Lucknow and Delhi prints we often find a shakl-i-hamzah above 

 the silent *, asjIOJJ j !^[j^ for j\^j XdMjjs*. This pedantry is also 

 recommended by the grammarian 'Abdulwasi' of Hansah. Another 

 absurdity of modern MSS. and prints is the spelling cJUj for &£ij, 

 though Ghias approves of the former. 



The letters of the alphabet may be treated as masculines or 

 feminines ; you may say &isj.ai/o ^j^, or Jy-ai/o w Jj«>. For &dsjS>x>o^xe 

 ghair manqutaJi, you may say &iaaJ^_, or kajj_ benuqat. 



The word *jU^ Icinuyah is followed by the prep, jl, in imitation of 

 the Arab. ^. You say : — - 



&\j£l$> jjM> j iij^J d&)\ *J^ ^ 

 " The sorrowful heart of a poet is compared to the plaintive nai." 



VI. 



Among the Dictionaries printed in Europe, I shall only mention 

 Johnson's Dictionary and Vullers' Lexicon Persico-Latinum Etymo- 

 logicum. 



It is difficult to make a comparison between the two, as the objects 

 of the compilers are different. In point of usefulness, Johnson's work is 

 the better of the two ;* it is eminently " the translator's dictionary." It 



* Vullers does not think much of Johnson. He classes him with Castelli, 

 Heninski, and Richardson, and says : — " Horum enim operum accurata compa- 



6 



