I was shocked to hear the news of the death of Dr. Mohammad Heydari Malayeri. My thesis was about the method and approach he used in word selection. He was also a member of Parsi scholars’ Association. For these two reasons, I would study his works, but in addition to that, there was another source of attachment to his works.
Dr. Heydari Malayeri loved Iran and the Persian language. Unlike many people whose speech and writing are full of foreign words, he tried to empower the Persian language with a conservative (purely Persian) approach. Heydari Malayeri continued the path of Mahmoud Hesabi and Shamsuddin Adibsoltani in choosing words; that is, he had a mathematical view of language. Due to the knowledge that he had in this field, Heydari also was aware of the linguistic deficiencies of the Persian language in scientific knowledge and tried to make Persian more capable of conveying scientific concepts by taking advantage of the abilities of Parsi and create compound words. In this respect he was committed to the rules of word selection; but in dealing with the manner of word selection, he worked with an open mind. He would pick a root word from the ancient languages or their family of later languages of Iran, such as Kurdish, Mazani, Gilaki, etc., and add an infinitive suffix to it, thus create a new verb like the following examples.
Azdayidan: To Inform
Parzhanidan: To Criticize
Taamidan: To Faint
He was also keen on the role of prefixes and suffixes in the dynamics and reproduction of word in a language and tried to revive the old suffixes and prefixes. He used the negation prefix and made the prefix porva equivalent to proto. The output of the method he had taken became an extensive dictionary full of new words which, although they sometimes seem very unfamiliar and strange, are accurate and efficient.
Heydari Malayeri had a strong desire to create Persian words. Still, wherever a Persian word could not convey the exact meaning of a word, he would give up an idiom in favor of linguistic precision. The following example clearly shows how much he was careful about the exactness of the words:
These four words have different meanings; Therefore, Heydari Malayeri has created a different word for each one. Meanwhile, sij and ape are pure Persian words, danger is Arabic, and risk is English. Some think that Heydari Malayeri has disregarded the grammar framework of words in some cases, or he has given less importance to the aesthetic side of word formation. In spite of it all my opinion is that if the Persian language is going to be a language of science and easily and precisely create equivalent in Persian, there is no way in front of us other than the way which Heydari was one of those who represented.
