نقد و بررسی اصطلاحات عرفانی در فرهنگ فارسی معین

The present study is a review of the quality and quantity of the definitions of mysticism and Sufism terms in a Mo'in's Persian dictionary. In this dictionary, about 574 mysticism and Sufism terms are defined with a brief approach. The results of the research show that despite the fact that mentioning the detailed guidelines about the term and terminology in the introduction has been neglected; but the system of phonetic transcription and marking of terms is uniform, accurate and scientific. Definitions are far from complicated expressions and are close to the language of the contemporary audience. The dictionary has its own language in the definitions and there are no extreme references and quotations to ancient prose texts. Only 51% of the definitions, in a short form, are quoted from the texts. In the definition of terms, the dictionary relies on prose texts, especially the thesauruses and works of Jafar Sajjadi, and the example of poetry is very weak and limited. Of course, the system of choosing Sufism terms is not very precise and clear. And there are words that, despite having mystical definitions, are not considered part of Sufism terms; therefore, the authors conduct a quantitative and qualitative review of Sufi terms in this dictionary with a critical attitude and by extracting terms from the dictionary, accurate statistics from the sources used, and poetic and textual evidence.
 
Extended abstract
1.Introduction
Farhang-e Farsi-ye Mo‘in is considered one of the most important Persian dictionaries after Dehkhoda’s Loghatnameh. However, critical reviews and the correction of potential shortcomings should not be overlooked, as “lexicography is a risky endeavor that, no matter how well-equipped with sound theories, is never free of deficiencies” (Anvari, 2002: 14). Critiquing general dictionaries can guide the compilation of forthcoming comprehensive works, such as a Comprehensive Persian Language Dictionary (Jafari, 2013: 77).
Previous research on Farhang-e Moʿin has largely been general and descriptive, primarily introducing and evaluating the dictionary overall; for instance, Fazilat (2005: 69-80) emphasized the need to revise the section on foreign compounds. Investigations of mystical and Sufi terminology have been limited, such as Pourjavadi’s (1997: 52-65) article analyzing only three entries (tavāle΄, lavāme΄ & lavāyeh). To date, no independent study has addressed the topic comprehensively. This research therefore assesses Moʿin’s accuracy and rigor in selecting and defining Sufi terms, his method of definition, referencing, language, comprehensiveness, utility, and comparison with specialized lexicons.
In the dictionary preface, Moʿin does not provide a clear methodology for defining and selecting Sufi and other technical terms. Since a substantial portion of dictionary entries consists of terms from various sciences, the absence of such a methodological guideline has caused inconsistencies and deficiencies in entry compilation.
Moʿin avoids excessive citations and adopts a concise approach in defining terms; unlike Dehkhoda, his definitions are not direct quotations from source texts. Only half of the entries include references, while the remainder are presented in simple and engaging language without citation. These definitions, framed within a general dictionary, are logical, practical, and broadly consistent with scientific lexicographical standards. Although the number of mystical terms differs from specialized Sufi lexicons, over half of the definitions are drawn from the philosophical and mystical works of Jafar Sajjadi.
The authors first analyzed basic information regarding the total number of entries, sources of definitions, linguistic roots, grammatical structure, and comparison with specialized lexicons. They then examined the definitions, sources, examples, entry methodology, and quality of definitions, avoiding the generalizations common in Farhang-e Moʿin.
2.Theoretical framework
Sidney Landau, in Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography, proposed criteria for evaluating dictionaries, including the preface, grammatical identity of entries, pronunciation, use of abbreviations, arrangement of entries, intended audience, usability, and quality of definitions (Landau, 1991, p.6; see also Landau, 2020). Based on these criteria, the present study examines Farhang-e Farsi-ye Mo‘in, analyzing both quantitatively and qualitatively its preface, approach to term selection, intended readership, language and quality of definitions, sources and evidential examples, and the number and scope of mystical terms.
3.Methodology
The present study employs a descriptive-analytical and critical approach. Its focus is on the relationship between mystical terms and general dictionaries. The theoretical framework is based on Sidney Landau’s principles of definition and lexicography. Initially, Sufi terms were extracted from Farhang-e Farsi-ye Moʿin. Out of an overall corpus of approximately 150,000 entries, 574 Sufi terms were identified, representing about 0.38% of all entries. The definitions of these terms and their sources were analyzed according to lexicographical evaluation criteria, assessing both quality and effectiveness. Subsequently, a quantitative examination of sources and evidential examples, including poetic and textual instances, was conducted.
 4.Results & Discussion
In Farhang-e Farsi-ye Moʿin, insufficient attention has been paid to the concept of terms and the entry of mystical terms. Unlike Dehkhoda, Moʿin uses a single marker for Sufi terms and applies precise and scientific transcription; however, inconsistencies exist in entry selection. About 11 entries with mystical definitions are not recognized as terms (e.g., Jebreil, Arba‘in, Maqamat-e Ma‘navi), whereas some words without mystical definitions are treated as terms (e.g., parcheh, ajsam, bozorg).
Compared to Dehkhoda, Farhang-e Moʿin provides limited source citation: only approximately %51 of mystical terms include references, while Dehkhoda cites sources for about %94 of entries. Moʿin gradually began citing sources from the second half of the dictionary (from the letter “ḥ”), leaving many initial entries (from “ā” to “ch”) without references. Citation practices are inconsistent; for example, simple entries like shuhud include a source, whereas more complex entries such as sharḥ and ijtibā’ lack one, despite the text clearly not being original.
Reference consistency is also lacking, with some sources cited incompletely or without page details, as in emtehān, azal, and *īḥā’. The majority of mystical definitions (around %60) are drawn from Jafar Sajjadi’s works, highlighting the significant role of specialized lexicons in shaping general dictionaries.
Definitions are generally concise and appropriate for a general audience, but the language is not uniform. Due to the nature of mystical terms, some definitions retain complex, classical expressions (e.g., abadiyat, dahash, zawq, dabur, ahad). Occasionally, the main entry is not defined and is instead cross-referenced to an antonym or related term, sometimes creating a chain of references; for instance, inqibāḍ refers to inbisāt, which refers to bast, and finally to qabḍ.
The use of poetic examples is minimal. Of the 574 mystical entries, only 33 (about %6) include poetic evidence, totaling nearly 40 verses, with over two-thirds (approximately %66) drawn from Hafez and Rumi.
5.Conclusions & Suggestions
The present study examines the quality of definitions of mystical terms in Farhang-e Farsi-ye Moʿin. Moʿin succeeds in consistent transcription, uniform marking of terms, and providing concise, practical definitions suitable for a general dictionary. However, the entry system for Sufi terms lacks clear criteria, and it is sometimes unclear how an entry is designated as a term. The detailed preface does not provide a precise methodology for defining or creating terms.
Moʿin’s citation system is inconsistent, with approximately half of the definitions lacking sources. In some cases, a simple entry includes a reference, whereas a more complex one does not. Definitions rely primarily on contemporary prose rather than classical texts or older lexicons, and poetic examples are seldom used. Overall, the definitions are adapted to the dictionary’s audience: they are mostly concise, simple, and expressed in contemporary language.
155-180.
Select Bibliography
Anvari, H.  Farhang-e Sokhan (Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary). Tehran: Sokhan; 2004. [In Persian]
Dehkhoda, A. Dehkhoda Dictionary. Tehran University, 1998. [In Persian]
Fazilat, M. The necessity of revising the section on foreign compounds in Farhang-e Farsi-ye Mo‘in. Research in Persian Language and Literature, New Series, 2005; 4: 69–80.
Goharin, S. Sharh-e Estelahat-e Tasavvuf (2nd ed.). Tehran: Zavar; 1997. [In Persian]
Jafari, Z. An overview of the category of dictionary criticism and its basics. Especial Issue of Farhangestan-e- Farhang-nevisi, 2013, 5&6.
 http://ensani.ir/fa/article/324590 /[In Persian]
Landau, S. Dictionaries the art and craft of lexicography. (Afzali, M. & Malekan, M. Trans.) Bahar book; 2020. [In Persian]
Mo‘in, M. Farhang-e Farsi-ye Mo‘in (8th ed., 6 vols.). Tehran: Amir Kabir; 1992. [In Persian]
Pourjavady, N. Sufi terms in Moin dictionary, review of the three terms tavāle^΄, lavāme^΄ & lavāyeh. Especial Issue of Farhangestan-e- Farhang-nevisi, 1997; 11: 52-65. [In Persian]
Sajjadi, J. Tahuri. Glossary of mystic terms and interpretations. Tahoori books; 2004. [In Persian]