نقدی بر مقاله: چرا فریدون سومین است؟ رمزگشایی نام فریدون با روش تحلیل خویشکاری اسطوره بر مبنای زبان ‌شناسی تاریخی (ریشه‌ شناسی در زمانی)

در این نوشته به نقد مقاله «چرا فریدون سومین است؟ رمزگشایی نام فریدون با روش تحلیل خویشکاری اسطوره بر مبنای زبان ‏شناسی تاریخی (ریشه‏شناسی در زمانی)» از آقای فرزاد قائمی پرداخته‏ایم. از مقاله این‏گونه برمی‏آید که نویسنده در حوزه‏ای مطلب نوشته که در آن تخصصی نداشته است. ناآشنایی نویسنده با مفاهیم، مقدمات و منابعِ حوزه مورد نظر، باعث شده نظرات و تحلیل‏های ایشان نادرست از کار درآیند. علاوه بر تحلیل‏ها و نظرات نادرست، نوع ارجاع‏دهی‏ها هم در مقاله آقای قائمی عجیب است و بیشتر ارجاعات به‏گونه‏ای‏ است که نویسنده فقط خواسته نظرات نادرستش را به منبعی ارجاع دهد تا نشان دهد که حرف و نظرش مستند است. علاوه بر این‏ها نویسنده مطالبی را (بعضاً عین‏به‏عین) از پژوهشگر(ان) دیگری برداشته، اما متاسفانه به ایشان ارجاع نداده است. از آنجا که اشتباهات این‏چنینی در مقاله فراوان است می‏توان آن را نمونه خوبی برای واحد درسی روش تحقیق به‌شمار آورد، زیرا به‌طور عملی به دانشجویان نشان می‏دهد که چه کارهایی را نباید در یک مقاله علمی پژوهشی انجام داد.

ta review on: why does ferīdōn mean the third? decoding the mystery of ferīdōn’s name according to function analysis of myth: a study in historical linguistics (diachronic etymology)

the purpose of this essay is to review one of frazad qaemi’s papers: “why does ferīdōn mean the third? decoding the mystery of ferīdōn’s name according to function analysis of myth: a study in historical linguistics (diachronic etymology)”. the paper shows the writer was not specialist in the subject matter he discussed. due to his unfamiliarity with the concepts, initial knowledge and the resources of this area, made his analysis and conclusions were flawed. nevertheless, the way he refers to other works is too unaccustomed, they mostly show that the writer, qaemi, trying to refer his incorrect thoughts and analysis to reliable sources, and with this technique, he was trying to prove the audience that his incorrect analysis and ideas are correct. aside from that, qaemi, used the analysis and accomplishment of other writers, but unfortunately, he did not refer to them in his paper, implying that they were his own, which is clearly plagiarism. the paper contains many errors, making it a good example for methodology courses as it shows students what they should avoid in a journal paper. 1. introductionqaemi’s paper focus on why fereydun’s epithet is “the third”. he tried to explore connections between this title with the haoma-preesing rite and the three-brother pattern in iranian mythology. qaemi also examined other subjects and finally considered a three-part dissociation in iranian myth.these are the most important topics of the paper. there are two kind of references for supporting these analysis and ideas, 1: pre- and post-islamic text. 2- other scholars’ works.first, his reasoning and analysis for connecting fereydun to haoma-pressing function are incorrect because some scholars like mayrehofer and boyce point to vedic texts where trita appears as the first soma-presser. in iranian texts, ābtin (fereydun’s father) called the second haoma-presser and freydun’s name is not among haoma-pressing at all. secondly, the concept of three-brother pattern may be more like a pattern not a function and this idea, like the previous one, does not align with how fereydun’s myth portrayed in the texts. therefore, the texts that he used in his paper not only support his analysis and conclusions but also are against them. the texts and resources he mentioned appear irrelevant to the discussions and arguments or sometimes been referred incorrectly. needless to say conspicuously absent from qaemi’s analysis is fereydun’s well established as a dragon slayer. this review tries to show the mistakes occurred by qaemi in his paper.