Linguistic studies can be divided into two categories: Scientific studies, which are usually based on a theory of language and explicatory in nature; and traditional studies that are prescriptive. In the first instance, the researcher first observes the language in question and then proceeds to describe it systematically. In the traditional studies, especially the more rigid ones, a criterion is first laid out primarily based on the language of classics, literary figures, the ruling classes, or even foreign language sources. […]

If we consider the writing of dictionaries as a linguistic undertaking, then such writings can also follow the pattern mentioned above, even though those of the prescriptive kind are not as common. In traditional dictionaries, the act of prescription is usually a by-product of editing. It shows up in the garb of ignoring some lexical elements of a language and its most obvious instance is limiting the research to written language, usually chosen from the language of the learned or classics. The pronunciation of entries (if recorded) is such that in the best case scenario only the learned would benefit from it. Interestingly, though, all such dictionaries claim general applicability and none mention special offshoots of the Persian language simply because they don’t see them suitable for inclusion and consideration.

A Persian Dictionary of Argot is an attempt to study un-official Farsi language. This is a little book in appearance, but it is a major step in a time when the common property of Persian speakers has been kept with complete success and as such every change requires the majority’s approval. In the name of protecting that language no single law or governmental decree can appropriate our language as a state property in such a way that they would be the only authority over its changes (and that only in the realm of words). Therefore, any study of the language of a group of people, who may not have official appeal, is a valuable undertaking. […]

In the introduction of A Persian Dictionary of Argot, we read that “Hidden Language” [the transliterated Persian title] corresponds to the word “argot,” used in French and English dictionaries. “Hidden language” here is defined as a language that a particular group employs and that its understanding is difficult or impossible for other people (p. 6). According to the book, hidden language is invented by two groups… first offenders… and second groups that go against social norms” (p. 6). Hidden vocabularies, the book states, are invented primarily to keep other people from understanding them (p. 6-7). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, on the other hand, offers a few more reasons that the author fails to mention [including, entertainment, playing with words, and to keep the conversation a secret [David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, (Cambrige: Cambridge University, 1987)]. […]

One of the fundamental questions that any study on human knowledge must answer or at least face is the reasons for such a study. It is possible to ask the logic of doing research on a set of words that don’t even appear in writing and that are generally short in lifespan. The author of A Persian Dictionary of Argot mentions a few reasons for his book: Its use by Persian teachers abroad, writers and translators who deal with this language, a study of social relationships by studying special languages of each social group, and, finally, using the word construction capacity of a hidden language to construct other words in a different language form (p. 11). Even though the second and third reasons are acceptable, I have no choice but to question the first reason. […]

At the end, we again wish success for the author and the publisher of A Persian Dictionary of Argot, and hope that minor problems in the first edition can be dealt with in the future. This is a book that has been successful in bookstores and will no doubt be useful to researchers of the Persian language.