The Question of Archaism in the Persian Historical Lexicography

According to Ladislav Zgusta, the historical dictionary of a language, along with its etymological dictionary, is one of the two facets of its diachronic dictionary. In other words, to rephrase the definition asserted by Hartmann and James, a historical dictionary is a kind of reference source in which one can follow the stages of development of lexicon in a language at the level of form and meaning in the course of time. But one should also bear in mind that a historical dictionary, in addition, offers a thorough description of contemporary lexicon of the language. Thus, it may, in Osselton’s words, be called a ‘hybrid’ work. What may, potentially, pose a difficulty in making a historical dictionary are certain texts whose authors somehow deviate from the use of contemporary vocabulary of a language and employ elements from the vocabulary of earlier periods in different levels and with different intentions. To be sure, those texts that tend to archaism, do not, as a rule, reflect the natural course of development in the respective language. Therefore, from this point of view, such texts can not be trusted as evidence. As far as contemporary texts are concerned, it is not difficult to detect the deviation. In the case of non-contemporary texts, however, the circumstances may be somewhat complicated for those not well-informed relative to the stages of development in a given language in the course of time. A good case in example is Persian language and its contemporary and non-contemporary texts, and the way they should be put to use in making a historical dictionary.