Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
The objects which participate in events are classified into animate vs. inanimate, honoured vs. common and, in some languages, dead vs. alive. The classification of objects into animate vs inanimate may result in miscomprehension and misinterpretation. In English access is made to a limited category of animate vs inanimate in the use of 'who' vs. 'which' and 'what', and in 'he' and 'she' vs. 'it'. Arabic is undoubtedly more resourceful in this classificational system of animate vs. inanimate. Gender classes as masculine, feminine or neuter seldom offer serious problems to translators. They are too arbitrary to allow for alternatives. However, some genders in one language are muddled up with their counterparts in another language. The sun, for instance, is feminine in Arabic, whereas it is masculine in English.. On the other hand, the moon which is masculine in Arabic is feminine in English. S T Coleridge in his poem, 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner', talks of the sun as 'He': "Out of the sea came He; and He shone bright, And on the right, went down into the sea." On the other hand, a 'ship' which is neuter, is referred to as 'it' or 'she'. Gender distinctions in both Arabic and English have to be closely observed to avoid formal and semantic miscorrespondence. 124
B. SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE Anyone who attempts to examine word-for-word translations will not be surprised to discover an incredible number of word combinations which either make no sense or give precisely the opposite meaning of the original. Syntactic miscorrespondences in word-for-word translations are ascribed mainly to the failure in grasping structural relationships between constituent elements in word combinations. NIda (1964) classifies word combinations into three major groupings: (1) phrase, (2) clause and sentence, (3) discourse. On the phrasal level distinctions in word formation may cause serious structural problems for translators. Co-ordinate phrases, such as the introduction to and the conclusion of the opening chapter of the Koran and the Lord's Prayer, if translated word-for-word into English and Arabic respectively, may result in syntactically erroneous mismatches. In Arabic, the preposition literally means 'with', is used to indicate the instrument with which the action is fulfilled, eg. 'Arabs eat with their right hands'. If 'with' was substituted for 'in', a word- for-word translation of the co-ordinate phrase 'In the name of Allah' would be meaningless. Similarly, the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, if rendered word-for-word into Arabic, would certainly lose its semantic load, that is, the trinitarian concept implicit in the co-ordinate phrase would not be sufficiently explicated. Therefore, the Arabic translation becomes 'B IS* al-Abb wal-Ibn wal-Rouh al-Qudus. Ila'hun wa'hid. Ameen'. 'Ila'hun Wahid' has been inserted in the Arabic translation of the conclusion to 125
- Page 85 and 86: Moreover, the ability of both child
- Page 87 and 88: he understands the cultural pattern
- Page 89 and 90: to translation is unilaterally mean
- Page 91 and 92: to be considered translations? Is a
- Page 93 and 94: purposes. The transfer operation fo
- Page 95 and 96: In political discourses, however, p
- Page 97 and 98: language. Translations of medical,
- Page 99 and 100: are pragmatically a single text but
- Page 101 and 102: and 'relations' in terms of non-eva
- Page 103 and 104: dependent layers of pragmatic, semi
- Page 105 and 106: What matters more is the ways and m
- Page 107 and 108: (texte) is open, mobile, vibrating
- Page 109 and 110: Post-war linguists shifted their fo
- Page 111 and 112: personalities. He attributed this c
- Page 113 and 114: is interpretable form its language,
- Page 115 and 116: potential' of the source text be pr
- Page 117 and 118: Hatim's arbitrary distinction betwe
- Page 119 and 120: accessory meaning structures. Oblig
- Page 121 and 122: semantics and the speech act theory
- Page 123 and 124: Premised on a rigorous committment
- Page 125 and 126: implemented, will help him achieve
- Page 127 and 128: etween the translator as TL text-or
- Page 129 and 130: The rhetorical model sets out to re
- Page 131 and 132: SL text will have to be dismantled
- Page 133 and 134: consists of two words: 'istaktabtuh
- Page 135: The question of tense, which marks
- Page 139 and 140: specific clause type in the recepto
- Page 141 and 142: lexical items in any language devel
- Page 143 and 144: The translator's exhaustive and pai
- Page 145 and 146: this is achieved, semantic equivale
- Page 147 and 148: agreement, and the verb/adverb prox
- Page 149 and 150: object. If, in English, the adverb
- Page 151 and 152: extracted from the text-supplied (l
- Page 153 and 154: identifiable in terms of its contri
- Page 155 and 156: In a literary text, the translator
- Page 157 and 158: as impressive or forceful as it is
- Page 159 and 160: The rhetorical model is primarily a
- Page 161 and 162: apprehension, repulsiveness, or dis
- Page 163 and 164: (5) Once completed, leave the trans
- Page 165 and 166: literary, literary, and hybrid or f
- Page 167 and 168: I have mentioned earlier that textu
- Page 169 and 170: The second stanza opens with a nega
- Page 171 and 172: perceived. Only extensions of the o
- Page 173 and 174: one to whom the message is addresse
- Page 175 and 176: flies and horse-flies fill the air
- Page 177 and 178: The same meaning is further develop
- Page 179 and 180: emember a friend of my son's", the
- Page 181 and 182: The same meaning is extended in the
- Page 183 and 184: immediately answered. The reader is
- Page 185 and 186: incident known in Islamic history a
The objects which participate in events are classified into<br />
animate vs. inanimate, honoured vs. common and, in some languages,<br />
dead vs. alive. The classification <strong>of</strong> objects into animate vs<br />
inanimate may result in miscomprehension and misinterpretation. In<br />
English access is made to a limited category <strong>of</strong> animate vs<br />
inanimate in the use <strong>of</strong> 'who' vs. 'which' and 'what', and in 'he'<br />
and 'she' vs. 'it'. Arabic is undoubtedly more resourceful in this<br />
classificational system <strong>of</strong> animate vs. inanimate.<br />
Gender classes as masculine, feminine or neuter seldom<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer serious problems to translators. They are too arbitrary to<br />
allow for alternatives. However, some genders in one language are<br />
muddled up with their counterparts in another language. The sun,<br />
for instance, is feminine in Arabic, whereas it is masculine in<br />
English.. On the other hand, the moon which is masculine in Arabic<br />
is feminine in English. S T Coleridge in his poem, 'The Rime <strong>of</strong><br />
the Ancient Mariner', talks <strong>of</strong> the sun as 'He':<br />
"Out <strong>of</strong> the sea came He; and He shone bright,<br />
And on the right, went down into the sea."<br />
On the other hand, a 'ship' which is neuter, is referred to as 'it'<br />
or 'she'. Gender distinctions in both Arabic and English have to<br />
be closely observed to avoid formal and semantic miscorrespondence.<br />
124