1868.] Contributions to/ Persian L&cieography. 41 



The word jasm is never used in Persian Dictionaries, suhun being the 

 usual word. 



Every alif in the beginning of a word is called *>+a ; hence in 

 spelling *>&*»!, you say &y+*> ***>, baszamm-i-hamzah, not baszamm i 

 alif. And in spelling •J-^fj y° u would say Xdj <^l> ^ uaJ| j *}+&> Jjo. 



The sign is called Xj+*> d&» shakl-i-hamzah. This explains 



the phraseology of Bh. under l^a* chihrai pwafc, where he says : — 



II kA. **oj j^ *J kAUj^ ****•; ^Li^ j 3>4J 

 " The word fj**-, when pronounced, has an alif and a ya-i-tahtani, 

 ^1^$^ but you must not write them." The sign of the hamzah 

 above the 8 cannot be left out, as Vullers has done, p. 605«. Similar 

 words are <^~J, <xLLli of the same colour as the/^M^A-pigeon, lyb, 

 &*j». The spellings t 5^ r AJ, ^,5^-J, ^^o^ are Indian, and not 

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

 Regarding the shakl i hamzah in words as 1st , 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 8, asjl^ j S«HJl>^ for j\±#j jj^jjjj^A.. This pedantry is also 

 recommended by the grammarian ' Abdul wasi' of Hansah. Another 

 absurdity of modern MSS. and prints is the spelling tXb for *£1j, 

 though Ghias approves of the former. 



The letters of the alphabet may be treated as masculines or 

 feminines ; you may say «kyii/o { ^A } or JojS^o y^i. For &loym>j±f 

 cjliair manqutak, you may say &bh<L, or ks^L. benuqat. 



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

 the Arab. ^. You say : — ■ 



eJiy^U jj^ j djtjJ cL jl AjL^ ^ 

 " 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, 

 Meninski, and Richardson, and says : — " Horuni enim operum accurata compa- 



6 



