| Titre : |
إشكالية ترجمة الألفاظ المتقاربة المعاني في القرآن الكريم إلى اللغة الفرنسية : دراسة تحليلية نقدية لترجمة لترجمة أبي بكر حمزة |
| Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
| Auteurs : |
أسماء زينب بن ساسي, Auteur ; رشيد قريبع, Directeur de thèse |
| Editeur : |
constantine [Algérie] : Université Constantine 1 |
| Année de publication : |
2013 |
| Importance : |
234 ورقة. |
| Format : |
30سم. |
| Note générale : |
مذكرة ماجستير
2نسخ موجودة في المكتبة المركزية |
| Langues : |
Arabe (ara) |
| Catégories : |
Arabe
الترجمة
|
| Tags : |
near synonymous words translation of the Qur’an Si Hamza Boubakeur theories of meaning traduction des parasynonymes théories linguistiques champs sémantiques ترجمة الألفاظ المتقاربةالمعاني النظريات اللسانية الحقول الدلالية أبوبكر حمزة |
| Index. décimale : |
400 اللغـــات |
| Résumé : |
The present work deals with the translation of near synonymous words into French, as it is mentioned in the title.
The methodological framework of this thesis is divided into three chapters, two of which are theoretical, and a practical one.
In the first chapter, two main issues were discussed: synonymy in language, and synonymy in The Qur’an.
In the first section devoted to the synonymy in language, many definitions of synonymy are quoted.
Al Ghazali, for instance, maintains that two words can be synonymous when they refer to the same object.
Many other Arabic language scholars, like Ar-razi and Sibawayh share the same point of view.
The French language also defines synonymy in various ways.
In the encyclopedia of Diderot and Alembert, it is said that we often find words of the same kind, and which seem to express the same fundamental idea, and the same mind’s analytic point of view, and these words are called synonyms.
In the “Vocabulaire François “, two words are synonyms when they have the same or almost the same meaning.
More recently, this phenomenon has been defined in a more detailed way.
The semantic fields theory, for example, considers that (a) and (b) are synonyms when (a) implies (b), and (b) implies (a).
For the theory of context, two words are synonyms when they are interchangeable in all contexts, without changing the meaning.
As for the theory of componential analysis, two words are synonyms when they share common and distinctive semantic features.
After these definitions comes the confrontation of the two conflicting opinions of philologists and linguists about the existence of synonymy in language.
The first group which maintains its existence gives the following justifications:
-It is undeniable that one thing can be called by many names, and many examples can be found in language.
-In order to explain a misunderstood word, it is legitimate to resort to another one having an approximate meaning.
-Synonymy is a linguistic means helping to avoid redundancy and repetition of the same word.
Amongst the ancient Arab philologists and language scholars who support this position: Ibn Jinni, Ibn Sidah, Sibawayh…and many others.
Numerous French linguists also assert the existence of synonymy in language, and this can be shown by their definitions of the phenomenon.
Dubois, for instance, claims that two words that have the same or approximate meaning and different forms are synonyms.
Otman says that two denominations are synonymous when they indicate the same notion, and can be described by the same definition.
Contrary to this position, many linguists and philologists do not recognize that synonymy exists in language, and consider that the different names given to the same notion may create ambiguities or misunderstandings during communication.
Furthermore, this diversity of appellations given to the same object is not a witness of the richness of the language, but a useless means of enlarging its vocabulary.
Abu Hilal Al-‘askari, Ibn fares, Ibn Al-a’raabi, Tha’lab and Ibn Durustawayh are some of the most hardened Arab philologists and language scholars of this trend.
Abu Hilal Al-‘askari insists on the fact that words which have approximate meanings can’t substitute for each other in all contexts without affecting the meaning, thus, words should be chosen with care.
Ibn Fares considers that the usage often makes some objects named by many qualifiers that can’ be, in any case, synonyms of the original names.
Many French linguists, as well, do not recognize the existence of synonymy in language.
Cesar Chesneau excludes the fact that two words can be synonymous and say: if there were perfect synonyms, there would be two languages in one.
As to Galisson, there are no perfect synonyms, and in this case, it would be better to talk only about near synonyms.
Bloomfield considers that the phonetic dissimilarities between words imply dissimilarities between meanings.
For F.H George, the coexistence of two words having the same meaning is useless.
As for Lehrer, if we mean by synonymy an absolute equivalence in meanings, there would be no synonyms, but a great umber of words that have a considerable similarity in meaning and that are interchangeable in some contexts.
This first section which is devoted to synonymy in language is followed by a second one, devoted to synonymy in The Qur’an.
In this part, the two conflicting opinions about the existence of synonymy in The Qur’an are exclusively exposed.
The first trend is mostly followed by a number of researchers and Arabic language specialists, like Sobhi Essaleh and Ibrahim Anis, who claim that some words of The Qur’an are synonyms, and that this is due to the fact that The Qur’an is revealed in Arabic, and thus its linguistic rules are those of this language.
The second trend is the one of Islam scholars and a great number of language specialists who exclude the existence of synonyms in The Qur’an because of its I’jaaz. The most famous are: Ibn Taymiah, Alkortobi, Ibn ‘atiyyah, and many others.
The following theoretical chapter is divided into three sections.
The first one is devoted to the three theories of meaning whereby synonymy can be analyzed. These theories are: the theory of semantic fields, the theory of context and the theory of the componential analysis.
The theory of the semantic fields is the most ancient one. Its antecedents, almost purely German, can be traced back as far as Herder; but it is especially Humboldt who can be regarded as its spiritual ancestor.
In 1910 Meyer took an important step forward in advancing the idea of ‘semantic systems’ which he defined as ‘the coordination of a limited number of expressions from some definite point of view.
In the two decades which follow, the term “field” itself emerged, and it is Saussure and Husserl who helped to crystallize it.
Many other linguists like Ipsen, Jolles and Trier contribute to the development of this theory in the twenties and thirties of the lastcentury.
The first work of Jost Trier concerned the development of words referring to cognitive facilities in German. He argued that it is mistaken to consider the development of the meaning of single words.
Rather the meaning of a word is determined by the contrasts in which it stands to other words that denote related expressions.
The basic tenets of the theory are the following:
-Every linguistic unit belongs to a determined semantic field.
-Every linguistic unit belongs only to one semantic field.
-The context in which words are put should be taken into account.
-Words can’t be analyzed independently of their grammatical structure.
Despite the undeniable contribution of the theory of the semantic fields in the scope of semantic studies, it was criticized by many linguists, who assess that it lacks of an explicit formulation of the criterion according to which semantic fields can be defined, and that the majority of the fields are not as clearly structured, nor as distinctly
separated as Trier pretend it.
The second theory is the theory of context that was advanced by another important linguistic trend of the twenties of the last century, and which was represented by the “London school” led by John Rupert Firth.
Its study of language is essentially based on the social factor; this is the reason why it attached a great importance to the role of context in determining the meanings of words.
Ammer distinguished four types of contexts, which are: the linguistic context, the emotional context, the situational context and the cultural context.
Finally, one of the most important points for which the theory was criticized is the fact that Firth has not advanced a global linguistic theory, but an exclusively semantic one, taking no account of necessary elements for this study, like syntax, lexis, phonetics…
The last theory is the theory of the componential analysis.
Leech states that the componential analysis, as a distinctive technique,first evolved in anthropological linguistics as a means of studying relations between kinship terms, but it proved its usefulness in many spheres of meaning.
In fact, the componential analysis is patterned on the phonological methods of the Prague school, which describes sounds by determining the absence and presence of features. The method thus departs from the principle of compositionality; it is then Katz and Fodor who mainly contributed to the crystallization of the concept.
Palmer says that the total meaning of a word can be seen in terms of a number of distinct elements or components of meaning which have a distinguishing function and serve to distinguish the meaning of a
lexeme from that of semantically related lexemes, or more accurately, they serve to distinguish the meanings of lexemes among those of lexemes in the same semantic domain.
Componential analysis can only be done within the same semantic domain by following these basic steps:
-Gathering words belonging to the same semantic field, since they share common semantic features.
-Choosing the most general word whose meaning encompasses those of other words belonging to the same semantic field.
-Determining the apparently relevant distinctive features, by resorting to contexts in which these words appear.
-Putting all the features in a graphic representation (tree diagram or matrix) and determine their presence and absence.
Finally, the theory of the componential analysis has been criticized for many points, among which its inability to analyze grammatical words such: as, for, but, with…and besides this, it does not differentiate
homonymous words from polysemic ones.
The second and third sections of this chapter deal with the inimitability of The Qur’an and the translation of its meanings.
Since the revelation of The Qur’an, Muslim scholars made considerable endeavors in the field of qur’anic studies among which the inimitability of The Qur’an and its idiosyncrasy.
Amongst those scholars, we can cite: Aldjordjani, Albakillani,Alkhattabi, Ar-roummani, Ar-rafi’i, Az-zerkani and many others.
By way of an example, Alkhattabi states that one of the aspects of the particularity of The Qur’an lies in the way its letters, words and sentences are organized.
As for Ar-roummani, one of the aspects of the particularity of The Qur’an lies in the fact that the message of Allah surpasses the human language, even though it is revealed in Arabic.
Several sides of that subject were approached by numerous Muslim scholars and researchers.
Even western translators and researchers who looked into subjects concerning Islam and Qur’an recognized that The Qur’an is inimitable and that its idiom is perfectly sublime.
Arthur John Arberry declares that The Qur’an has its own extremely individual qualities and that these qualities disappear almost totally in the skillfullest translation.
T.B Irving says that The Qur’an is literally untranslatable and that each time one returns to it, he finds new meanings and discovers new treasures. At last, all these factors and others show how impossible is the transmission of the qur’anic message, and how much difficult is the task of the translator of its meanings.
After this second chapter comes the practical one, which is devoted to the analysis and critique of the translation of four binary groups of near synonyms, which are: “rayb” and “chak”, “chouhh” and “boukhl”, “houlm” and “rou’aya” and finally “jouhoud” and “inkar”.
Concerning the first one, we can sum the analysis and critique up as follows:
-translating the word “rayb” by the French word “doute” is an approximate translation, because the semantic feature “uncertainty” is common between the words “rayb” and “chakk”, thus the translator took no account of the distinctive features of the word “rayb”, and this will make the reader of the translation think that only one word is used in The Qur’an.
-The word “rayb” has a distinctive feature which is “suspicion”; this is why I consider it would be better to translate “rayb” by “soupçon” rather than by “doute”.
-The word “chakk” has been translated by the words “doute”, “incertitude” and “scepticisme”; the meaning of the last one differs from the meaning of the original one;
-The word “incertitude” is not a perfect synonym of the word “doute” and the two words are not interchangeable in all contexts.
-The word “chakk” would be better translated by the word “doute”.
The second binary group of near synonyms is “boukhl” and “chouhh”.
The analysis and critique can be summed up as follows:
-The translator used the intransitive verb “lésiner” to translate the verb “bakhila” where this verb was intransitive, for stylistic necessities.
-He also used “se montrer avares” to translate the verb “bakhila” where it was transitive, to avoid a bad structure of the sentence.
-“Se montrer avares” was also used to translate the verb “bakhila” where it was intransitive, but the translator would better use in this case the verb “lésiner”.
-The noun “boukhl” was translated by the noun “avarice”, though “lésine” or “lésinerie” have more approximate meaning to the word “boukhl” than “avarice”.
-He translated the word “chouhh” by the word “avarice” whose meaning is close to the meaning of the original word.
-The word “ladrerie” who was also used to translate the word “chouhh”, has connotations resulting from its etymology, this is why it can make the reader think that the original text contains the meanings that this word has.
-finally, the translator used the word “cupidité” to translate the word “chouhh”, and this translation was based on the exegesis done by Tabari.
The third binary group of near synonyms is “houlm” and “rou’aya”.
The analysis and critique of the translation can be summed up as follows:
-The translator used the word “songe” to translate the word “rou’aya”.
These two words designate the dream, which happens during sleep,and the French language does not distinguish between the meaning of “rou’aya” and the one of “houlm”, it is for that reason that the word “songe” is used to express both of them. This implies that the translator finds himself compelled to translate both “rou’aya” and “houlm” by the same word “songe”.
-The word “rou’aya” has also been translated by the word “vision” which designates the eyesight which happens effectively, and this meaning is in stark contrast with the meaning of the original word.
-The translator used the word “reve” to translate the word “houlm”, and both of them happen during sleep. Furthermore, the semantic features of the word “reve” are not in contrast with those of the word “houlm” and the French language uses the word “reve” to designate any dream that happens during sleep, whether it has the meaning of “rou’aya” or of “houlm”.
-The word “reverie” was also used to translate the word “houlm”, though it designates a state of mind which happens during waking, so its meaning is in contrast with the meaning of the word “houlm”.
-The only difference that exists between the words “songe” and “reve” is that they belong to different registers of language. So, the only reason for which I approved the translation of the word “rou’aya” by the word “songe”, and that of the word “houlm” by the word “reve”, is that the French language makes no difference between the meaning of “rou’aya” and the one of “houlm”.But it is necessary that the translator explains this approach by a note or a comment for example,
to make the reader know that the use of two words belonging to different registers of language, doesn’t mean that such a thing can be found in The Qur’an, and to make him know that The Qur’an used two different words to designate what a person sees during sleep, and since the French language does not make any difference between the
meaning of “houlm” and “rou’aya”, he used the words “songe” and “reve” which have the same meaning to designate different words.
The last binary group of words is “jouhoud” and “inkar”.
The analysis and critique can be summed up as follows:
-The verb “nier” which means saying that something does not exist, or that it is not true, means also saying that something is untrue in spite of recognizing the opposite, this is why I consider it is possible to translate the word “jouhoud” by the word “nier”.
-The verb “récuser” which is a speciality term, and which has a different meaning from the meaning of the word “jouhoud” can not be used to translate it.
-Using two different words to translate one word, when there is no reason which compels the translator to do it, makes the reader think that the original text also used two words.
-The word “inkar” was translated by the word “nier” in the translation of the meanings of two verses, where this qur’anic word means denying something in spite of recognizing the opposite of what it is denied; this is why I assess that this translation is acceptable.
-The word “inkar” was also translated by the word “rejeter” in the translation of the meaning of one verse, according to the analysis done in the practical chapter; I consider this translation is acceptable.
-The translator also translated the meaning of “inkar” by “ne point reconnaitre” which means being unable to recognize someone or something that we have already seen or known, thus the meaning of the word used in this translation is near from the meaning of the original word.
-He also translated “mounkiroune” which means: to deny in spite of recognizing the opposite of what is denied, by “refuser de reconnaitre”.
-The word “renier” was also used to translate the word “mounkiroune”, which is an acceptable translation.
-The translator used the adjective “négateurs” to translate the word “mounkiratoune” which is an acceptable translation too.
-Finally, another acceptable translation is the translation of the word “mounkaroune” by the adjective “inconnus”.
As a conclusion, it is essential to remind that the translation of the meanings of The Qur’an can never convey the entire qur’anic message, because this Book is imitable, and an accurate translation of
its meanings is impossible. |
| Diplôme : |
Magistère |
| En ligne : |
../theses/traduction/ABEN3948.pdf |
| Format de la ressource électronique : |
pdf |
| Permalink : |
https://bu.umc.edu.dz/md/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=9429 |
إشكالية ترجمة الألفاظ المتقاربة المعاني في القرآن الكريم إلى اللغة الفرنسية : دراسة تحليلية نقدية لترجمة لترجمة أبي بكر حمزة [texte imprimé] / أسماء زينب بن ساسي, Auteur ; رشيد قريبع, Directeur de thèse . - constantine [Algérie] : Université Constantine 1, 2013 . - 234 ورقة. ; 30سم. مذكرة ماجستير
2نسخ موجودة في المكتبة المركزية Langues : Arabe ( ara)
| Catégories : |
Arabe
الترجمة
|
| Tags : |
near synonymous words translation of the Qur’an Si Hamza Boubakeur theories of meaning traduction des parasynonymes théories linguistiques champs sémantiques ترجمة الألفاظ المتقاربةالمعاني النظريات اللسانية الحقول الدلالية أبوبكر حمزة |
| Index. décimale : |
400 اللغـــات |
| Résumé : |
The present work deals with the translation of near synonymous words into French, as it is mentioned in the title.
The methodological framework of this thesis is divided into three chapters, two of which are theoretical, and a practical one.
In the first chapter, two main issues were discussed: synonymy in language, and synonymy in The Qur’an.
In the first section devoted to the synonymy in language, many definitions of synonymy are quoted.
Al Ghazali, for instance, maintains that two words can be synonymous when they refer to the same object.
Many other Arabic language scholars, like Ar-razi and Sibawayh share the same point of view.
The French language also defines synonymy in various ways.
In the encyclopedia of Diderot and Alembert, it is said that we often find words of the same kind, and which seem to express the same fundamental idea, and the same mind’s analytic point of view, and these words are called synonyms.
In the “Vocabulaire François “, two words are synonyms when they have the same or almost the same meaning.
More recently, this phenomenon has been defined in a more detailed way.
The semantic fields theory, for example, considers that (a) and (b) are synonyms when (a) implies (b), and (b) implies (a).
For the theory of context, two words are synonyms when they are interchangeable in all contexts, without changing the meaning.
As for the theory of componential analysis, two words are synonyms when they share common and distinctive semantic features.
After these definitions comes the confrontation of the two conflicting opinions of philologists and linguists about the existence of synonymy in language.
The first group which maintains its existence gives the following justifications:
-It is undeniable that one thing can be called by many names, and many examples can be found in language.
-In order to explain a misunderstood word, it is legitimate to resort to another one having an approximate meaning.
-Synonymy is a linguistic means helping to avoid redundancy and repetition of the same word.
Amongst the ancient Arab philologists and language scholars who support this position: Ibn Jinni, Ibn Sidah, Sibawayh…and many others.
Numerous French linguists also assert the existence of synonymy in language, and this can be shown by their definitions of the phenomenon.
Dubois, for instance, claims that two words that have the same or approximate meaning and different forms are synonyms.
Otman says that two denominations are synonymous when they indicate the same notion, and can be described by the same definition.
Contrary to this position, many linguists and philologists do not recognize that synonymy exists in language, and consider that the different names given to the same notion may create ambiguities or misunderstandings during communication.
Furthermore, this diversity of appellations given to the same object is not a witness of the richness of the language, but a useless means of enlarging its vocabulary.
Abu Hilal Al-‘askari, Ibn fares, Ibn Al-a’raabi, Tha’lab and Ibn Durustawayh are some of the most hardened Arab philologists and language scholars of this trend.
Abu Hilal Al-‘askari insists on the fact that words which have approximate meanings can’t substitute for each other in all contexts without affecting the meaning, thus, words should be chosen with care.
Ibn Fares considers that the usage often makes some objects named by many qualifiers that can’ be, in any case, synonyms of the original names.
Many French linguists, as well, do not recognize the existence of synonymy in language.
Cesar Chesneau excludes the fact that two words can be synonymous and say: if there were perfect synonyms, there would be two languages in one.
As to Galisson, there are no perfect synonyms, and in this case, it would be better to talk only about near synonyms.
Bloomfield considers that the phonetic dissimilarities between words imply dissimilarities between meanings.
For F.H George, the coexistence of two words having the same meaning is useless.
As for Lehrer, if we mean by synonymy an absolute equivalence in meanings, there would be no synonyms, but a great umber of words that have a considerable similarity in meaning and that are interchangeable in some contexts.
This first section which is devoted to synonymy in language is followed by a second one, devoted to synonymy in The Qur’an.
In this part, the two conflicting opinions about the existence of synonymy in The Qur’an are exclusively exposed.
The first trend is mostly followed by a number of researchers and Arabic language specialists, like Sobhi Essaleh and Ibrahim Anis, who claim that some words of The Qur’an are synonyms, and that this is due to the fact that The Qur’an is revealed in Arabic, and thus its linguistic rules are those of this language.
The second trend is the one of Islam scholars and a great number of language specialists who exclude the existence of synonyms in The Qur’an because of its I’jaaz. The most famous are: Ibn Taymiah, Alkortobi, Ibn ‘atiyyah, and many others.
The following theoretical chapter is divided into three sections.
The first one is devoted to the three theories of meaning whereby synonymy can be analyzed. These theories are: the theory of semantic fields, the theory of context and the theory of the componential analysis.
The theory of the semantic fields is the most ancient one. Its antecedents, almost purely German, can be traced back as far as Herder; but it is especially Humboldt who can be regarded as its spiritual ancestor.
In 1910 Meyer took an important step forward in advancing the idea of ‘semantic systems’ which he defined as ‘the coordination of a limited number of expressions from some definite point of view.
In the two decades which follow, the term “field” itself emerged, and it is Saussure and Husserl who helped to crystallize it.
Many other linguists like Ipsen, Jolles and Trier contribute to the development of this theory in the twenties and thirties of the lastcentury.
The first work of Jost Trier concerned the development of words referring to cognitive facilities in German. He argued that it is mistaken to consider the development of the meaning of single words.
Rather the meaning of a word is determined by the contrasts in which it stands to other words that denote related expressions.
The basic tenets of the theory are the following:
-Every linguistic unit belongs to a determined semantic field.
-Every linguistic unit belongs only to one semantic field.
-The context in which words are put should be taken into account.
-Words can’t be analyzed independently of their grammatical structure.
Despite the undeniable contribution of the theory of the semantic fields in the scope of semantic studies, it was criticized by many linguists, who assess that it lacks of an explicit formulation of the criterion according to which semantic fields can be defined, and that the majority of the fields are not as clearly structured, nor as distinctly
separated as Trier pretend it.
The second theory is the theory of context that was advanced by another important linguistic trend of the twenties of the last century, and which was represented by the “London school” led by John Rupert Firth.
Its study of language is essentially based on the social factor; this is the reason why it attached a great importance to the role of context in determining the meanings of words.
Ammer distinguished four types of contexts, which are: the linguistic context, the emotional context, the situational context and the cultural context.
Finally, one of the most important points for which the theory was criticized is the fact that Firth has not advanced a global linguistic theory, but an exclusively semantic one, taking no account of necessary elements for this study, like syntax, lexis, phonetics…
The last theory is the theory of the componential analysis.
Leech states that the componential analysis, as a distinctive technique,first evolved in anthropological linguistics as a means of studying relations between kinship terms, but it proved its usefulness in many spheres of meaning.
In fact, the componential analysis is patterned on the phonological methods of the Prague school, which describes sounds by determining the absence and presence of features. The method thus departs from the principle of compositionality; it is then Katz and Fodor who mainly contributed to the crystallization of the concept.
Palmer says that the total meaning of a word can be seen in terms of a number of distinct elements or components of meaning which have a distinguishing function and serve to distinguish the meaning of a
lexeme from that of semantically related lexemes, or more accurately, they serve to distinguish the meanings of lexemes among those of lexemes in the same semantic domain.
Componential analysis can only be done within the same semantic domain by following these basic steps:
-Gathering words belonging to the same semantic field, since they share common semantic features.
-Choosing the most general word whose meaning encompasses those of other words belonging to the same semantic field.
-Determining the apparently relevant distinctive features, by resorting to contexts in which these words appear.
-Putting all the features in a graphic representation (tree diagram or matrix) and determine their presence and absence.
Finally, the theory of the componential analysis has been criticized for many points, among which its inability to analyze grammatical words such: as, for, but, with…and besides this, it does not differentiate
homonymous words from polysemic ones.
The second and third sections of this chapter deal with the inimitability of The Qur’an and the translation of its meanings.
Since the revelation of The Qur’an, Muslim scholars made considerable endeavors in the field of qur’anic studies among which the inimitability of The Qur’an and its idiosyncrasy.
Amongst those scholars, we can cite: Aldjordjani, Albakillani,Alkhattabi, Ar-roummani, Ar-rafi’i, Az-zerkani and many others.
By way of an example, Alkhattabi states that one of the aspects of the particularity of The Qur’an lies in the way its letters, words and sentences are organized.
As for Ar-roummani, one of the aspects of the particularity of The Qur’an lies in the fact that the message of Allah surpasses the human language, even though it is revealed in Arabic.
Several sides of that subject were approached by numerous Muslim scholars and researchers.
Even western translators and researchers who looked into subjects concerning Islam and Qur’an recognized that The Qur’an is inimitable and that its idiom is perfectly sublime.
Arthur John Arberry declares that The Qur’an has its own extremely individual qualities and that these qualities disappear almost totally in the skillfullest translation.
T.B Irving says that The Qur’an is literally untranslatable and that each time one returns to it, he finds new meanings and discovers new treasures. At last, all these factors and others show how impossible is the transmission of the qur’anic message, and how much difficult is the task of the translator of its meanings.
After this second chapter comes the practical one, which is devoted to the analysis and critique of the translation of four binary groups of near synonyms, which are: “rayb” and “chak”, “chouhh” and “boukhl”, “houlm” and “rou’aya” and finally “jouhoud” and “inkar”.
Concerning the first one, we can sum the analysis and critique up as follows:
-translating the word “rayb” by the French word “doute” is an approximate translation, because the semantic feature “uncertainty” is common between the words “rayb” and “chakk”, thus the translator took no account of the distinctive features of the word “rayb”, and this will make the reader of the translation think that only one word is used in The Qur’an.
-The word “rayb” has a distinctive feature which is “suspicion”; this is why I consider it would be better to translate “rayb” by “soupçon” rather than by “doute”.
-The word “chakk” has been translated by the words “doute”, “incertitude” and “scepticisme”; the meaning of the last one differs from the meaning of the original one;
-The word “incertitude” is not a perfect synonym of the word “doute” and the two words are not interchangeable in all contexts.
-The word “chakk” would be better translated by the word “doute”.
The second binary group of near synonyms is “boukhl” and “chouhh”.
The analysis and critique can be summed up as follows:
-The translator used the intransitive verb “lésiner” to translate the verb “bakhila” where this verb was intransitive, for stylistic necessities.
-He also used “se montrer avares” to translate the verb “bakhila” where it was transitive, to avoid a bad structure of the sentence.
-“Se montrer avares” was also used to translate the verb “bakhila” where it was intransitive, but the translator would better use in this case the verb “lésiner”.
-The noun “boukhl” was translated by the noun “avarice”, though “lésine” or “lésinerie” have more approximate meaning to the word “boukhl” than “avarice”.
-He translated the word “chouhh” by the word “avarice” whose meaning is close to the meaning of the original word.
-The word “ladrerie” who was also used to translate the word “chouhh”, has connotations resulting from its etymology, this is why it can make the reader think that the original text contains the meanings that this word has.
-finally, the translator used the word “cupidité” to translate the word “chouhh”, and this translation was based on the exegesis done by Tabari.
The third binary group of near synonyms is “houlm” and “rou’aya”.
The analysis and critique of the translation can be summed up as follows:
-The translator used the word “songe” to translate the word “rou’aya”.
These two words designate the dream, which happens during sleep,and the French language does not distinguish between the meaning of “rou’aya” and the one of “houlm”, it is for that reason that the word “songe” is used to express both of them. This implies that the translator finds himself compelled to translate both “rou’aya” and “houlm” by the same word “songe”.
-The word “rou’aya” has also been translated by the word “vision” which designates the eyesight which happens effectively, and this meaning is in stark contrast with the meaning of the original word.
-The translator used the word “reve” to translate the word “houlm”, and both of them happen during sleep. Furthermore, the semantic features of the word “reve” are not in contrast with those of the word “houlm” and the French language uses the word “reve” to designate any dream that happens during sleep, whether it has the meaning of “rou’aya” or of “houlm”.
-The word “reverie” was also used to translate the word “houlm”, though it designates a state of mind which happens during waking, so its meaning is in contrast with the meaning of the word “houlm”.
-The only difference that exists between the words “songe” and “reve” is that they belong to different registers of language. So, the only reason for which I approved the translation of the word “rou’aya” by the word “songe”, and that of the word “houlm” by the word “reve”, is that the French language makes no difference between the meaning of “rou’aya” and the one of “houlm”.But it is necessary that the translator explains this approach by a note or a comment for example,
to make the reader know that the use of two words belonging to different registers of language, doesn’t mean that such a thing can be found in The Qur’an, and to make him know that The Qur’an used two different words to designate what a person sees during sleep, and since the French language does not make any difference between the
meaning of “houlm” and “rou’aya”, he used the words “songe” and “reve” which have the same meaning to designate different words.
The last binary group of words is “jouhoud” and “inkar”.
The analysis and critique can be summed up as follows:
-The verb “nier” which means saying that something does not exist, or that it is not true, means also saying that something is untrue in spite of recognizing the opposite, this is why I consider it is possible to translate the word “jouhoud” by the word “nier”.
-The verb “récuser” which is a speciality term, and which has a different meaning from the meaning of the word “jouhoud” can not be used to translate it.
-Using two different words to translate one word, when there is no reason which compels the translator to do it, makes the reader think that the original text also used two words.
-The word “inkar” was translated by the word “nier” in the translation of the meanings of two verses, where this qur’anic word means denying something in spite of recognizing the opposite of what it is denied; this is why I assess that this translation is acceptable.
-The word “inkar” was also translated by the word “rejeter” in the translation of the meaning of one verse, according to the analysis done in the practical chapter; I consider this translation is acceptable.
-The translator also translated the meaning of “inkar” by “ne point reconnaitre” which means being unable to recognize someone or something that we have already seen or known, thus the meaning of the word used in this translation is near from the meaning of the original word.
-He also translated “mounkiroune” which means: to deny in spite of recognizing the opposite of what is denied, by “refuser de reconnaitre”.
-The word “renier” was also used to translate the word “mounkiroune”, which is an acceptable translation.
-The translator used the adjective “négateurs” to translate the word “mounkiratoune” which is an acceptable translation too.
-Finally, another acceptable translation is the translation of the word “mounkaroune” by the adjective “inconnus”.
As a conclusion, it is essential to remind that the translation of the meanings of The Qur’an can never convey the entire qur’anic message, because this Book is imitable, and an accurate translation of
its meanings is impossible. |
| Diplôme : |
Magistère |
| En ligne : |
../theses/traduction/ABEN3948.pdf |
| Format de la ressource électronique : |
pdf |
| Permalink : |
https://bu.umc.edu.dz/md/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=9429 |
|
Affiner la recherche Interroger des sources externes
إشكالية ترجمة صيغ التعجب و الهتاف في رواية آخريوم في حياة محكوم عليه بالإعدام للأديب فيكتور هوغو ترجمة فاطمة الطبال / فيروز سعيداني
