necessary Arabic, Persian and Turkish words," especially those which occur in such Persian authors as are read in schools. The dictionary is therefore a very useful book; it is in fact "The Student's Dictionary." Hence also its general use among the natives of India. Embodied with the dictionary are several small treatises, as on lilä, we, jegys, the various eras (vide has), on geography (video), and also grammatical notes (vide :,), a description of Hindústán, &c. The work is accompanied by several astronomical and geometrical designs, and a few maps, which shew that the compiler was not unacquainted with western science. A large number of scientific terms are also explained.

No Persian dictionary ought to be in future compiled without the words of the practical Ghiás; but compilers will do well to remember that Ghiasuddin is not a native of Persia. Of all Indian dictionaries

it contains the largest amount of those peculiarities which belong to the Isti máli Hind. Hence for the pronunciation of words the Ghiás is not always the best authority. Even among the meanings of the words, Ghiás enters occasionally an Indian meaning, taking it for Persian. In some cases, from a comparison of several dictionaries, his attention is forcibly drawn to the Indian usage of words, as will appear from the following extract :

شمیدن بوئیدن و این از جمله لغات عربیه است که فارسیان دران تصرف نموده اند از عالم طلبیدن و فهمیدن زیراچه ماخوذ است از شم بمعني بوئيدن * ليكن بعد نوشتن بتحقیق پیوست که شهيدن بمعني بو کردن نیامده بلکه باين معني هم شنیدن بنون است و بهیم تحریف است. از سراج . مگر شمیدن در اصل فارسی بمعنی رمیدن و بیهوش شدن و پریشان شدن و ترسیدن آمده چنانکه در مؤید و جهانگیری |

"The word

means to smell, and belongs to those Arabic roots which the Persians have adopted and altered according to the genius of their language, as us, sl, &c., because the word is

derived from the Arabic

examination that not

to smell. After writing this, I found on has the sense of to smell, but

with the nun, and that the form with the mim is wrong. Thus in the Siráj. But, as an original Persian word, means to be frightened, to be perplexed, to be afraid, as mentioned in the Farhang i Jahángírí and the Muayyid."

There exist two lithographed editions of the Ghiás, one together with the Chiraghi Hidayat, and another printed in 1847, by one Mír Hasan, from a MS. corrected by the compiler.

لطائف المغات 27.

The name of the compiler is Abdullaṭíf ibn i 'Abdullah Kabír. His object was to write a special dictionary for the Masnawi of Maulaví Rúm. Hence he says

و این فرهنگی است مشتمل بر لغات غريبة عربية و الفاظ عجيبة فارسية مثنوي مولوي معنوی

He has also written a commentary to the Masnáwí, entitled Lataif ul Ma'nawi, of which our Society possesses a very good MS. (No. 846, 220 leaves, small 8vo.), bearing the muhr of 'Abdulwahhab Khán Bahadur Nuçratjang.

The compiler lived during the reign of Sháhjahán; but the FJ. is the latest dictionary consulted by him.

The Catalogue of our Persian MSS. calls him Gujrátí.

IV.

I subjoin a few notes on the Isti'mál i Hind. Those who wish to study this important subject, ought to make themselves acquainted

and چهار شربت شجرة الاماني with the writings of Mirza Qatil, entitled

äoloëllμ3; and a treatise by Anwar 'Alí on the spelling of Persian words, entitled Risalah i Imlá i Fársí. These works have been lithographed and are easily obtainable.

The change in spelling, form, meaning and construction, which an Arabic word, apparently without any reason, undergoes in Persian, or which an Arabic or a Persian word undergoes in Hindustani, is called taçarruf. The taçarrufat of Persian words are included in the isti mál i furs, the usage peculiar to the Persians, and the tagarrufát of the Hindustani language, and of the Persian written in India, in the ais e isti'máli hind. A knowledge of the latter is of great importance, not only for those who read Persian books written or printed in India, but also for every Hindustani scholar; for although the Isti'mál i Hind is looked upon with suspicion by learned natives, we have to bear in mind that its peculiarities are generally adopted and therefore correct. So at least

غلط عام صحيح و فصيح for the Hindustani, according to the proverb

In its relation to Persian the Isti'mál i Hind will of course in most cases appear as something faulty; for the peculiarities may no longer be a natural form of development, or a pls ble, but the result of ignorance, a plys bl. Nevertheless the Isti'mál i Hind is visible in every Persian book written by Indians, from the works of their excellent historians down to a common dinner invitation (li) of the daily life. Even the works of a writer like Abulfaszl, "the great Munshí," shew traces of it. Hence the truth of Mons. Garcin de Tassy's remark that every Persian scholar ought to be acquainted with Hindustani. If this be true for the Persian scholar, it is much more true for the compiler of a Persian dictionary; for a good dictionary ought to be based upon a thorough knowledge of the language in all its forms of development, and must be a history of the language as well as a vocabulary.

But if we only understand by Isti'mál i Hind the influence of the Hindi and Hindustani upon the Persian, we would almost identify the term with "the usage of the Persian writers since the establishment of the Mogul dynasty." This would be wrong; for the Isti’mál i Hind includes peculiarities which once belonged to the Persian, as spoken in Persia, but which the modern Irání, in the course of its progress, has entirely discarded. In early times Persian had become the court language of Túrán, and from Túrán it was carried to India by the waves of the Túránian immigrants and invaders. Hence on the whole the Persian of India is Túránian. As Latin in the Middle Ages, so was the Persian in Túrán, and subsequently in India, the language of the learned. The works of the pre-classical and classical periods were studied and imitated, and peculiarities have thus been preserved which have long since disappeared in the Irání Persian. The difference between the pre-classical and the modern Persian is, of course, not so great, as between Latin and any of the Romanic languages, because the pre-classical Persian had already attained that logical simplicity to which our modern European languages happily tend; and though representing the growth of the Persian language during nine centuries, it is scarcely greater than the difference between the English of Fletcher and Beaumont and the English of our century. The Persian language has been compared to a bare tree, stripped of all its leaves. This stripping process, however,

is going on in every spoken language, and shews that the copious and beautiful forms of languages like Sanserit, Gothic, Greek, and many modern savage languages, are as many illogical incumbrances. The sequences of events and the order of things which the imitative genins of the modern languages expresses by the order of the words, are expressed in the ancient languages by the annexation of words and particles rather than by a logical order of the words, as if the speaker was afraid that the hearer could only understand those ideas for which there was an audible equivalent. Whilst many are apt to look upon stripping off the leaves as a matter of regret, I would consider it as a step towards delivering the human mind from the fetters of form. Perhaps I tread upon contestable ground. But a fact remains; it is this, that of all nations whose languages are preserved to us, the Persians are the first Arians that pitched the tent of speech on the elevated tableland of logical thought.

Simplified then as the Persian language is, further change in terminations being impossible, the growth, as in modern English, is only visible in the pronunciation, the spelling and the meanings of words. For the study of this development a comparison of the works of the older writers with those of the modern, is essential; and as the Persian written and studied in India has hitherto been imitating the pre-classical and classical Persian of the early invaders, the importance of the Isti'mál i Hind is easily recognised.

The following peculiarities are said by native writers to be common to the Persian of Túrán and India.

a. Many words end in the Túránian Persian in (káf), whilst the a kind of partridge, in Túr.

Iránian has a

(gáí); as

b. Also in the beginning of certain words; as est, in Túr.

;

;

coriander گشنیز ; as every Muhammadan in India pronounces) کشادن

seed, in Túr..

becomes

This difference between the Túránian S and the Iranian very apparent in Dictionaries arranged according to the first and last

,فصل الف مع كاف فارسي stands in the اشگ letters. Thus in Sariri .. فصل الف مع كاف تازی whilst in the Madar in the

C. The Túránian has preserved a clear distinction between the (ó, é) and i,o (ú, í). The modern Iránian has

and, when J

only

forms (í, ú). The words which have a majhúl letter must

be learned from the Dictionaries; Indian Persian grammars specify

معروف is pronounced ی the cases, when the ending

The نون غنه d. The Túranian has in all cases preserved the

are pronounced in Iran هر آنچه آن گاه راندماندم forms like ,.

Iranian has given it up in some, especially after an alif. Thus

mundam, rúndam, úngúh, harŭnchi, but in India still mándam, rándam, &c.

e. The Túránian never adopted the interchange of dál (s) and

.(ذ) dzal

f. Certain words are peculiar to the Túránians. Exampleshe for the Iranian ; son for;

side for

;

husband,

یزنه بلي for اری شام evening for بیگاه ; صبح daron for پگاه ; شوهر for : برادر زن or sister-in-lao for ینگاه ; شوهر خواهر brother-in-lao for خسر مادر زن mother-in-law for خوش دامن و برادر brother for دادر to کافتن and پالیدن برادر زن for خسر پوره پدر زن father-in-law for انداختن to throw the arrow for تیر را برتافتن جستن search for ان دینه روز و برخاستن to rise for خاستن و نشستن to sit for شستن ; تیر را to sell (water) for سوار شدن آب : دیروز yesterday for ( شبانه روز فوت شدن و گذشتن روز to pass atay (day) for سوار شدن روز ; زیاده شدن آب the, رفتن, خوابیدن to sleep for خسپیدن قرار نمودن for پائیدن ; to die for پائین شدن ; I am thy sacrifice قربانت رو شدن same as to put نهادن the same as .. ماندن ; گائیدن for خلانیدن و فرود آمدن I چیز را بر طاق ماندو ام . . to leave behind گذاشتن the same as ...

le is a Túránian form for

have left the thing on the shelf, where

the same as .3 ; ) بگذارید ( leave this house این خانه را بمانید or ; مانده to leave be نهادن ; گائیدن to divorce; 4. the same as طلاق دادن

hind; &c.

Although several of those words do occur in Iránian authors, yet we generally find them used in peculiar places, as in rhyme, where it was difficult to avoid them; or in order to prevent repetitions, &c. The following peculiarities appear to be limited to the Persian spoken and written in India.

a.

Words have peculiar meanings. Examples-8, the same as

misla مثل ; غیبت absence for پس غیبت ; leavings پس خورده ; satisfied سیر