# تململ - يتململ



## Josh_

*تململ صابر في سريره دون أن يستبدّ به النعاس وجعل يطوف بناظريه في أرجاء الحجرة: طاولة مخلعة صغيرة ، وكتب متناثرة على حصيرة من القش والقصب ، وإبريق من الفخار مملوء بالماء ، وبعض الملابس الرثة على أحد الجدران.*
​ I bought a book called "Thinking Arabic Translation" that gives pointers on how to translate from Arabic into English. This is one of the passages in the book. I was how you would translate it. I’ll provide the translation according to the book later and explanation.

   Also, what is *أرجاء *in the sentence?  I can’t seem to figure it out.


----------



## MarcB

Josh,
I found these  side,direction,area,space


----------



## elroy

My attempt:

Saber tossed and turned in his bed, without being overcome with drowsiness.  His gaze began wandering all across the bedroom: (he saw) a small broken table, books strewn around on a straw and bamboo rug, a pottery jug full of water, and some ragged clothes on one of the walls. 

أرجاء would mean something like all of the "parts" or "sections" of a place.  However, it is hardly, if ever, used on its own but in such expressions as في أرجاء الحجرة, في أرجاء الحديقة, في أرجاء العالم, etc.  These combined expressions mean "all over/across the room/garden/world" (not a literal translation). You're probably familiar with أنحاء, which is pretty much a synonym when used in expressions like these.


----------



## Josh_

I see, so it literally means all parts. "He gazed at all parts of the room." Of course, that doesn't sound poetic or flowing like a story should (which I assume this passage comes from).

I'll see if anyone else bites before I post the translation from the book.


----------



## ayed

Well, let me try:
*He began gazing at all the corners of the room.*


----------



## cherine

I like Elroy's translation very much. Just a little comment on 


			
				elroy said:
			
		

> ...without being overcome with drowsiness.


can't we simply say : unable to fall asleep/unable to sleep ? (of course your English is far better than mine, but this is just an opinion)
Also Ayed's suggestion for this part sounds very good to me.



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> You're probably familiar with أنحاء, which is pretty much a synonym when used in expressions like these.


I Agree here too 

P.S. I think we can also use "around" for أرجاء (around/all around)


----------



## zooz

*مخلعة *is a typo I guess. it should be *مخلوعة.*

as for *أرجاء* , I'd go for cherine's choice: around.


----------



## elroy

cherine said:
			
		

> can't we simply say : unable to fall asleep/unable to sleep ? (of course your English is far better than mine, but this is just an opinion)


 
You could say "without being able to fall asleep," but I was trying to be as close as possible to the original (without, of course, sacrificing the fluidity of the English translation).



> Also Ayed's suggestion for this part sounds very good to me.


 
You mean "at all corners of the room"?  I think that paints too specific an image.



> P.S. I think we can also use "around" for أرجاء (around/all around)


 
In this context, "all *across* the bedroom" seems to be more suitable.


----------



## cherine

zooz said:
			
		

> *مخلعة *is a typoo I guess. it should be *مخلوعة.*
> 
> as for *أرجاء* , I'd go for cherine's choice: around.


If this is an Egyptian novel as I guess it is, then it's not a typo. mikhalla3a or mukhalla3a is the word we use to describe a demantled thing, it's like مفككة mufakkaka (3ammeyya : mefakkeka)

As for أرجاء thanks for supporting my opinion 

Elroy ,
To look across the room sounds good too, but gives the feeling of looking in the opposite direction, like looking to a point in front of you. Isn't there another English word that gives the meaning of looking around ?


----------



## elroy

cherine said:
			
		

> Elroy ,
> To look across the room sounds good too, but gives the feeling of looking in the opposite direction, like looking to a point in front of you. Isn't there another English word that gives the meaning of looking around ?


 
In the expression "*all across* the bedroom" the meaning is not "straight across."

I find "all across" more appropriate than "all around" because the guy is in his bed, so the image I have is of him looking at what is visible from his current position (I don't imagine he's twisting his head around to look back ).


----------



## cherine

elroy said:
			
		

> In the expression "*all across* the bedroom" the meaning is not "straight across."


Ok, I got that. 



> (I don't imagine he's twisting his head around to look back ).


LOL, mashi 
I agree with you.


----------



## zooz

> If this is an Egyptian novel as I guess it is, then it's not a typo. mikhalla3a or mukhalla3a is the word we use to describe a demantled thing, it's like مفككة mufakkaka (3ammeyya : mefakkeka)


 
whether it's egyptian or not, the used language is the standard arabic. so 'mukhalla3a' doesn't fit here. we use it in our dialect too.


----------



## cherine

I respect your opinion zooz, but...
1- mukhalla3a على وزن مُـفَـعَّلة from the verb خلع so I don't see why it can't be fus7a.
2- again if this is Egyptian, many Egyptian writers sometimes use 3ammeyya words in their fus7a writings. And that's if the word is definitely colloquial.


----------



## zooz

if it's standard that's another issue. however, using colloquial words in novels or else is not right and rather lame, IMO.


----------



## Josh_

zooz said:
			
		

> if it's standard that's another issue. however, using colloquial words in novels or else is not right and rather lame, IMO.


Well, I think there's something to be said for using 3ammiyya in novels. Of course, coming from an American background my point of view is different. It depends on the nature of the novel or the written work. If it were a straight forward biography, novel, etc., than standard language would probably be best. But if someone wanted to give a flavor of actual life, then putting in some 3ammiyya would be a good thing. Personally, if I were reading a novel about a family, or something, and there was a 3 year old child, for example, I would be put off if that child spoke in strict Modern Standard. Likewise, in English, had Huckleberry Finn spoke in eloquent, standard English I would not have liked the novel and would not have believed that Huck was from a backward community. I would enjoy reading a novel with 3ammiyya so as to get a feel for the places and people being described and the language used. Again, just my non-Arabic perspective.


----------



## Josh_

I looked in the sources page (something I should have done when I first posted) and this is an excerpt from “*مدينة البغي*” by *عيسى بشارة *and taken from a translation project, by C. Brown, aptly titled “Translations of Extracts from “*مدينة البغي*” by *عيسى بشارة *” and used as an example in the book that I have, Thinking Arabic Translation. Is anyone familiar with this author?  I am not.

In this book (Thinking Arabic Translation) they give various pointers and ideas for getting the best possible translation. One of the things they discuss in compensation. This is the definition of compensation, as it relates to translation, given in the book:

Compensation – A technique of reducing translation loss; where any conventional translation, however literal or free, would entail an acceptable translation loss, this loss is mitigated by deliberately introducing a less acceptable one, important source text (ST) effects being approximated in the target text (TT) through means other than those used in the ST. NB Unlike an unavoidable standard grammatical transposition, for example, compensation is not forced on the translator by the constraints of target language (TL) structure – it is a free, conscious, and careful, choice.

Here is the translation offered by C. Brown:

 Saber fidgeted in his bed without feeling sleepy. Instead he let his eyes roam about the room: a small broken table, books scattered on a straw mat, a clay pitcher full of water, and some old clothes hanging on one of the walls.

The authors of this book do not say this is the best translation, but just a possible translation.

   As an example of compensation they explain that *حصيرة من القش والقصب  *was translated as ‘a straw mat,’ rather than the literal ‘straw and cane mat’ on the basis that the latter in over descriptive in English, i.e. an English (or more rather a western reader) would not care about the difference between straw and cane. 

   I probably would have translated *إبريق من الفخار *as a clay jug rather than ‘a pottery jug’ since the preposition min is used which implies made of.  Had it been *إبريق فخار**ي* I would have been more likely to translate it as ‘pottery jug.’ It did not mention this in the book, but it is also interesting because this could be a place where compensation could come into play as well -- as the western public generally does not care about the distinction of a pottery jug and a clay jug or even plastic jug. 

   Another interesting example of how we can use compensation has to do with the word *زغرد* .  I will open a new thread.

Edit:  New thread here.


----------



## elroy

With all due respect for the proponents of this theory, I think I have to disagree. My general take is that a translator should try to be as close (read literal) as possible to the original, as long as the translation is not awkward or clumsy. After all, a translator should try to transmit not only the message but, to the degree possible, the cultural value contained in the original text. If in some cultures, or even in the opinion of the writer, some distinctions are important, and they can be adequately expressed in the target language, there's no reason to avoid them or "compensate" for them. 

Some comments on the proposed translation:



			
				Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> Saber fidgeted (I like "tossed and turned" better because "fidgeted" tends to imply that one is worried or anxious - which is not suggested in the Arabic text) in his bed without feeling sleepy ("without feeling sleepy" is too much of an underdescription. My proposed "without being overcome with drowsiness" comes closer to the force of the Arabic text and at the same time sounds good in English. "Drowsiness" could have been substituted by "sleepiness"). Instead ("instead" is nowhere to be found in the original) he let his eyes roam (I like "he let" because it keeps "he" as the agent, but I like "gaze" and "wander" better than "eyes" and "roam," so I would propose a compromise: "he let his gaze wander") about ("about" sounds British to me; it's a fine translation but it wouldn't have ocurrred to me) the room : a small broken table, books scattered on a straw (see comments below) mat, a clay (see comments below)pitcher full of water, and some old clothes hanging (it seems odd to me that proponents of compensation would add the word "hanging" when there's no need for it) on one of the walls.


 


> As an example of compensation they explain that *حصيرة من القش والقصب *was translated as ‘a straw mat,’ rather than the literal ‘straw and cane mat’ on the basis that the latter in over descriptive in English, i.e. an English (or more rather a western reader) would not care about the difference between straw and cane.


 
I disagree. I do not find "straw and cane" over-descriptive in English. Also, the reason I chose "bamboo" is that most rugs/mats that are made out of cane would probably be made out of bamboo (at least in my experience), but yes, "cane" is a more precise translation.



> I probably would have translated *إبريق من الفخار *as a clay jug rather than ‘a pottery jug’ since the preposition min is used which implies made of. Had it been *إبريق فخار**ي* I would have been more likely to translate it as ‘pottery jug.’


 
I don't see why that should make a difference , putting aside the fact that I don't think إبريق فخاري would really be said/written.


----------



## Josh_

> a translator should try to transmit not only the message but, to the degree possible, the cultural value contained in the original text.


Exactly. And that's what the authors of the book say. Sometimes compensation is required due to the differences in culture. Sometimes ideas have to be explained or put into a way that the target audience would understand (and possibly identify with). In fact there are times when compensation is necessary, like when translating hyperonyms-hyperonyms such as 3amm and khaal into English as uncle or translating idiomatic language.  

What I have laid out here is a very terse, simplistic, and partial explanation -- and it may not even be a very good explanation at that. This is what you have responded to. I may not have chosen the best example, either. The book explains it much more accurately and in more detail. By the way it is a book that delves into many issues of translation, compensation is just a small part. 

I showed it to Dr. Abdullah and after reviewing it for a week or so told me that it was a very good book -- one that he would be interested in buying. Please don't let my poor explanation skills mislead you about compensation or this book in general. I don't believe compensation is some off the wall theory, but is a part of translating courses.

I hope you have not misunderstood my intention. It is not my intention to prove anybody wrong or prove any theories, nor am I necessarily advocating for compensation. My intention is to engage in some thought provoking discussion (maybe by discussing translation difficulties. 

You do not need to defend your translation to me.  I believe it is as good as, if not better than, the other one provided. 


> (it seems odd to me that proponents of compensation would add the word "hanging" when there's no need for it)


I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. By the way, this translation was done by someone not connected with the book. The authors only chose this translation and only commented on the example of the إبريق for their discussion of this aspect of compensation.


----------



## cherine

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> I looked in the sources page (something I should have done when I first posted) and this is an excerpt from “*مدينة البغي*” by *عيسى بشارة *and taken from a translation project, by C. Brown, aptly titled “Translations of Extracts from “*مدينة البغي*” by *عيسى بشارة *” and used as an example in the book that I have, Thinking Arabic Translation. Is anyone familiar with this author? I am not.


He's Palestinian. Here's a link about him. This is his only novel.


> Here is the translation offered by C. Brown:
> Saber fidgeted in his bed without feeling sleepy. Instead he let his eyes roam about the room: a small broken table, books scattered on a straw mat, a clay pitcher full of water, and some old clothes hanging on one of the walls.


Back to the word مخلعة : first, I think broken is not the right translation. What about dismantled or something like that ?
Again zooz, even after finding out the book isn't Egyptian  I still believe the word is not that bad. The root of this adjective is خ - ل - ع it's built على وزن مفعّلة so even if it's not commonly used in fus7a, it still is fus7a  (and I don't mean to be stubborn) 



> I probably would have translated *إبريق من الفخار *as a clay jug rather than ‘a pottery jug’ since the preposition min is used which implies made of. Had it been *إبريق فخار**ي* I would have been more likely to translate it as ‘pottery jug.’


I agree with Elroy that إبريق فخارى sound bad and is not used.
So the way to translate it won't differ much, it's just a structure matter, not linguistic/grammtical nor cultural one. (just my opinion).


----------



## elroy

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> Exactly. And that's what the authors of the book say. Sometimes compensation is required due to the differences in culture. Sometimes ideas have to be explained or put into a way that the target audience would understand (and possibly identify with). In fact there are times when compensation is necessary, like when translating hyperonyms-hyperonyms such as 3amm and khaal into English as uncle or translating idiomatic language.


 
I don't think a translation should cater to the culture of the audience, but rather maintain the cultural aspects of the original - as much as possible.  For example, translations of Homer do not exactly sound like everyday English - but that's ok.  The translation of the _Odyssey_ that I read used words I was completely unfamiliar with, but ones that were undoubtedly common in the Greek culture of the time.  As for "3amm" and "khaal," if it's important to the context, I believe that they _should_ be translated as "father's brother" and "mother's brother," respectively. 



> I showed it to Dr. Abdullah and after reviewing it for a week or so told me that it was a very good book -- one that he would be interested in buying. Please don't let my poor explanation skills mislead you about compensation or this book in general. I don't believe compensation is some off the wall theory, but is a part of translating courses.


 
Well, obviously I don't know enough about this theory to comment fully on it; you're right - I was responding to what you presented me with.  It seemed to me that in this particular example part of the original text was done away with so as to "simplify" the translation.  I do not agree with that.



> My intention is to engage in some thought provoking discussion (maybe by discussing translation difficulties.


 
I am aware of your intention.   I was only sharing my opinion regarding the approach taken to the translation you provided: I don't agree with taking out "cane" (or "bamboo" or whatever).



> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. By the way, this translation was done by someone not connected with the book.


 
Ah, I thought the authors had done the translation.  Based on this example, it appeared that they were interested in eliminating anything that was "unnecessarily" specific; adding in "hanging" seemed to contradict that.


----------



## elroy

cherine said:
			
		

> Back to the word مخلعة : first, I think broken is not the right translation. What about dismantled or something like that ?


 
We would not call a table "dismantled." Why don't you like "broken"?


----------



## ayed

What about :
*Palm frond mat*"*حصير*"


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:
			
		

> I don't think a translation should cater to the culture of the audience, but rather maintain the cultural aspects of the original - as much as possible. For example, translations of Homer do not exactly sound like everyday English - but that's ok. The translation of the _Odyssey_ that I read used words I was completely unfamiliar with, but ones that were undoubtedly common in the Greek culture of the time. As for "3amm" and "khaal," if it's important to the context, I believe that they _should_ be translated as "father's brother" and "mother's brother," respectively.


I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I agree 110% with what you wrote. I am not saying translate a foreign book into the culture of the audience, but that explanation is required for the target audience so they can more fully understand the culture that the original writing came from. Maintaining the cultural aspects is a must, but without explanation, who would understand it. Like in the other thread I just started it does no good to translate write the word dhikr in the middle of a sentence and leave it at that. The general western audience will not understand it; they won't be able to appreciate the original culture that the writing came from. There needs to be explanation that the western audience will understand so they can more fully understand the foreign culture.

When I said:


> put into a way that the target audience would understand (and possibly identify with


...I meant like making analogies or comparing the foreign culture by using an equivalent or parallel from the known culture, not to eradicate the original culture. For example when explaining the basmala I could say that it (loosely) is the Muslim equivalent of the Lord's Prayer in Christianity. This does not fully eliminate translation loss (there will always be transaltion loss), but it mitigates it and allows the western reader to get a fuller, if not complete, understanding of it.

 Edit:  Just to split hairs here , if one wanted to represent the original culture as close as possible, then I would say that jug is an inadequate word -- that does not do the actual Arabic utensil justice as Arabic pottery is an important of the culture. Consider the difference between an abriiq *ابريق*, qulla *قلة*, maHlaba *محلبة*, burma *برمة*, qidra *قدرة* among others.

Click to see picture.

 An *ابريق *has a spout whereas the others do not. This is what Saber was looking at, but this may or may not be what a western reader will visualize when reading _jug_.  So maybe a better translation, but not perfect, would be a pottery jug with a spout.


----------



## Josh_

ayed said:
			
		

> What about :
> *Palm frond mat*"*حصير*"


That could work, but this mat was made out of straw and bamboo.

I know a palm frod mat could be a *برش* bursh in in Egypt (I don't know if this is what it is called in other places) which is made of palm leaves and/or fibres.


----------



## elroy

Thanks for explaining further, Josh.  What you say makes sense.  I just don't see how it fits in the "straw and bamboo" example.

It sounded to me as though a translation with just "straw" catered to the _ignorance_ of the audience, or to their _apathy _- because you mentioned something about a Western audience's not knowing or caring about the difference.  I don't see how eliminating the specificity would help them appreciate any cultural value to be found in respecting the wording of the original.


----------

