الفهرس 
- The Concept and meaning of the Ever Blessed and Bounteous Qur’anOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 186 |  |  |
| | | from | 186 | | |
Abstract
On the level of denotation, the study attemps to highlight how, to SOlue extent, each translator reached the best TL equivalent. The study, in con1paring the three concerned versions of translation, depends on the crteria of translation role .It agreed with Newmark’s rule which states that :
~
giving the closest TL equvalent, is
the best translation procedure when the SL and TL referential and
pragmatic
luatching, when this is not the case.the translator is advised to use
other translator procedures such as
synonymy, analysis,or coupling.
componential
(see p 81-83)
Using such procedures when literal translation is possible is a n1ark of poor translation. For exan1ple, in many cases, the translator luay luismatch the TL lexen1e and not
literally translate it in the TL text whenever it is possible to find direct and literal TL lexelTIe.This case is applied to the lexeJne lahsanl ~\in surat Joseph Abdullah Yussfs TL lexeme as ”most beatiful” and not the best as the translation of Dr. Ahmad & Dr. Dina Zidan is an
indication of his literal Jnisn1atching while there is the TL leXelTIe ; ”the best” which n1atches the SL lexenle.
Another exan1ple is the SL lexen1e Nasr~ . Both pickthal and Abdullah Yussufs TL lexeme as ”help ”and ”succor” is also an indication of the poor style they resort to represented in the direct literal translation as don~ by Dr. Ahn1ad Zidan who directly translated it directly as” victory” .
On the level of transference, nearly all of the three concerned translations succeeded in transferring Arabic proper names existed in the SL text.But,they did not transliterate it. The case is applied to the proper nalTIe ”Ahmed” , ”TasnilTI”. ”QUI ran”. they have to transliterate such proper names . Yet, MuhalTImad Marmaduck Pickthal transliteration of the proper nan1e ”Ahmad” as the” praised one” has to be added in the footnotes and not in the TL text. Yet, he successfully translated the proper name Allah as Allah.ili\ by the way of transference, while both Dr. AhlTIed Zidan and Abdullah Yussuf IS as GOD and God
cannot conveniently render the true term except by the way of transference.
Yet, all the three concerned interpretations did not resort to use cOluponential analysis. They n1ay resort to use TL equivalent instead of using close or near TL equivalent. this case is apparent in the translation of the TL lexeme fath ~. Dr Ahmed & Dr. Dina Zidan succeeds to give its close TL equivalent which is conquest.
On the other hand, both Abdullah Yussuf and Muhmllillad Manlladuck pickthal render TL lexemes with less linguistic cOluponents to fulfill the SL equivalent. their translation comes as ”victory” and ”triuluph”, which, if componontially analyzed, will not give the close TL equivalent of conquering a country, but luerely winning a war against an enemy .
Another lexeme on the level of cOlllponential analysis, is /illubinnaa / ~. Both Abdullah Yussuf and Dr Ahmed Zidan soundly translated it as ”manifast”, which if cOlllponentially analyzed, will give the sense of being clear and apparent . Yet, Muhan1111ad Pichkal translates it as ”signed” which does not render the full linguistic
fmagery
This part of this chapter is concerned with translating SL Qur’anic illlageries into TL Qura’nic text. the study atten1ps to reveal, to what extent, interpreters can translate SL in1ageries into TL in1ageries without any source of under or overtranslation. it is apparent that, in n10st of the verses under study, the three concerned interpreters succeeds in reading SL Qur’anic illlageries into TL imageries, the 11latter that gets the translation to be faithful, in1agistic, aesthetic, vocational and expressive 11leaning .
It obvious that the three concerned interpreters, in n10st cases, resort to translate the SL 11letaphors into TL n1etaphors. This is apparent except in few cases in the concerned verses under study. For example, in verse 57 ,surat al A’raf, the three concerned translations render the SL 11letaphor into TL illlagery which is ”light”. in certain other cases, the three concerned interpreters adopted such an attitude by translating the SL illlagery into TL in1agery. Again, this approch is obvious, too, in the san1e verse. They translated the SL illlagery Imina zulun1ati ila nnurl ..J..iJI~) uLJ.b.1\ LJ--a into TL imagery successfully and
succinctly. They ,thereby, adhere to all levels of meanings in translating such verses.
Yet, SOine certain pitfalls occured
by the three
concerned interpreters when they resort to literaiity which directly led to undertranslation in such figurative verses. This occurs only in few cases when TL ilnagery is hard to be found. For eXalnple, they resort to literality or to convert the SL imagery into sense in verse 48 al Maida, when they translate the SL in1agery/ lin1a bain jadaihi /
4..:!~ ~ Uinto sense by translating it as ”that comes before it”. It seems that they adopt such a literal attitude because there is no TL imagery suitable to such a SL in1agery, the Inatter that leads to· ”undertranslation” that distors the aesthetic and expressive Ineaning of the metaphor.
Finally, the three concerned translation, in n10st cases, succeed perfectly to convert the SL imagery into TL imagery except in few cases. this proves how cOlnpetent they are in selecting TL in1ageries suitable to the SL ilnageries existed in the SL text. On the other hand, the study suggests that the Qur’ anic text’s interpreters have to, in translating SL Qur’anic imageries, search for suitable TL imageries in order to adher to the aesthetic,expressive and vocative meaning of the SL Qur’anic ill1ageries .
Polysymy
The study attelupts to reveal how each translator traces the different seluemes of each polyseme , and how the translator had understood each seluenle correctlY and
.J
soundly . It suggests that each senlelue of each polysetue has to be traced and studied in the part or the sura he translates and in the holy qur’an in general .. fhen , the translator can select the sound and proper denotative lueaning of each sememe in the one polysenle .
The study , therefore, is concerned with revealing how far each translator managed to grasp the denotative and the contextuallueaning of each seluenle and translate it both correctly and soundly. For example, the polyselue
~..)/da’aa/ appears under different sememe like” to call,
to nanle , or saying” .
It is apparent that some sort of discrepancy, what is not general in the study, occurred in understanding each selueme .In surat Ghafer verse 60, both Dr. Ahtnad & Dr. Dina Zidan and Adullah Y ssuf grasped the contextual .lueaning of this senleme , and directly render it as ” call on or upon ”, while Muhamluad Marmaduck Pickthal translates it directly as ”pray” that tniSluatches the SL seluenle . He, thereby, undertranslated the contextual meaning or sense of this sememe.