The first metaphor in this poem occurs in the line:
ﻲﻣﺎﯾأ ّوﺣﺗ م ﺎﮭﻟوﺣ ...
ﺎﮭﻟﺎﯾﺣو
Here the pronouns suffixed to both لوﺣ and لﺎﯾﺣ refer to the poet’s mother. Here, the poet likens days to flying birds through the verb موﺣﺗ which literally means ‘move around’ and usually collocates with birds and insects. This verb is used metaphorically in the line above, collocating with ‘days’. The poet deploys this verb to express the relationship between his everyday life in prison and that of his mother, with the hope that he will be ‘released’ soon.
In Arabic, this metaphor is known as implicit since the topic (days) is given but the vehicle (birds) is implied. The vehicle can be concluded from the verb موﺣﺗ, as a lexical item mainly relevant to birds. The ground of similarity between ‘days’ and ‘birds’ is not given, but it is probably that both of them are fast, but move monotonously. At the same time, the verb موﺣﺗ implies a regular, repeated circular pattern of flying that does not change.
This metaphor does not involve a clearly fixed meaning of ّوﺣﺗم and consequently can be classified non-lexicalised and specifically original in both Newmark’s and Dickins’
terms. In schema-related terms, this metaphor is non-schematic, as it does not fit in an overall schema. This is a single-word metaphor that specifically occurs in the verb موﺣﺗ in size-related terms.
Jeffrey Sacks translates this metaphor as:
My days hovered over her and before her And Sinan Antoon translates it as:
That my days hover around her, that my days hover in front of her.
In the original poem, the image of days is given in the domain of birds while hovering.
This image is depicted through the words ّوﺣﺗم (hover), ﺎﮭﻟوﺣ (around her), and ﮭﻟﺎﯾﺣﺎ (before her). From these words, the reader can imagine the days as a group of birds or, to a lesser extent, a storm. Both translations are as literal as the two languages allow.
The sole difference in the two translations is the use of ‘over her’ in the first and
‘around her’ in the second for ﺎﮭﻟوﺣ. In the first translation, Sacks may believe that the verb ّوﺣﺗم (hover) implies circular movement, and thus, there is no need for a word like
‘around’. He wants, rather, to emphasise that hovering occurs in the sky by using the preposition ‘over’. Unlike Sacks, Antoon may believe that hovering occurs only in the sky, and consequently, there is no need for a word like ‘over’. He, rather, focuses on the circular shape of the movement through the preposition ‘around’.
The message in the original metaphor is that the poet while in prison feels a close reciprocal relationship with his mother and believes that something serious is going to happen soon. This can be felt by the reader of Arabic from describing days as ‘hovering around’ especially because birds usually hover over a weak or dead body. This message is conveyed through the words ‘hover’, ‘over’, and ‘around’ in both translations.
However, this message may not be quite clear in the English versions as the connotations of ‘hovering’ in Arabic culture are different from those in English culture.
Both Sacks and Antoon reproduce the same image and retain the vehicle in the TL.
They do so by using ‘hover above’ and ‘hover around’, which can be regarded as semantically equivalent to the key verb موﺣﺗ in the original metaphor.
The second metaphor appears in the part of the line:
ّوﻟو تﺣ ٌبﺣﺳ ﺎﻧﻟ
Here clouds are depicted as waving with their hands to say ‘good-bye’. The metaphor in the ST is a metaphor of personification as the non-human بﺣﺳ (clouds) are given human features (wave) to express the state of separation between the poet and his mother. The topic بﺣﺳ (clouds) is given, but the vehicle (people) is not mentioned. It can be worked out through the verb تﺣ ّوﻟ (waved) as waving needs hands and is thus normally exclusive to people. The ground of similarity between clouds and people is not mentioned, either. It is obvious from the context of the poem, however, that both of them move, depart, and separate from their counterparts.
This metaphor derives from the meaning ofتﺣ ّوﻟ, i.e. ‘waved with hands’, which can be found in dictionaries. It is non-lexicalised and, in particular, original in both Newmark’s and Dickins’ terms. In schema-related terms, this metaphor is non-schematic as it does
not fit into an overall schema. In size-related terms, this is a single-word metaphor that occurs specifically in the verb تﺣ ّوﻟ (waved).
Sacks translates this metaphor as:
And clouds waved to us.
And Antoon translates it as:
Clouds waved good-bye to us.
The image of ‘clouds while waving’ is clear in the SL poem. It is depicted through the verb تﺣوﻟ, which allows the reader/hearer to imagine clouds waving with their ‘hands’.
Both translators use the verb ‘wave’ to depict the image of clouds saying ‘good-bye’.
However, the second translation adds the phrase ‘good-bye’ to emphasise that waving in this context means separation rather than ‘saying hello’ while meeting. This theme is actually clear throughout the whole poem and the term ‘good-bye’ looks rather redundant in conveying the image.
The message embedded in the original metaphor is that the poet and his mother have separated from each other and the clouds witnessing their separation also moved and separated from them. This message can be also grasped through the previously mentioned verb phrase ﺎﻧﻗرﺗﻓا (we separated). The same message can be read in both translations through the verb ‘waved’ with some more emphasis in the second through the term ‘good-bye’, which is definitely related to separation.
The procedure Sacks adopts in translating this metaphor is to reproduce the same image and retain the same vehicle in the TL. He achieves his goal through the literal translation of the verb تﺣ ّوﻟ as ‘waved’. Antoon adopts the same strategy, adding further information, i.e. good-bye. His translation works in conveying the meaning of and the message embedded in the original metaphor.
In the line:
ﺎﯾ ًﺔﯾﺑظ تدﻘﻓ كﺎﻧھ ﺎﮭﺳﺎﻧﻛ ﺎﮭﻟازﻏو
the metaphor occurs specifically in the words ﺔﯾﺑظ (a female gazelle) and لازﻏ (a male gazelle). The poet is addressing his mother referring to her as a female gazelle, who
lost her son and house together when she had to leave Palestine. This is explicitly stated through the whole stanza, which revolves around the road of exile to Lebanon in 1948. These two words are used metaphorically to refer to the mother and the son respectively. The topics (the mother and son) are not given within the metaphor, but the vehicle (female gazelle and male gazelle) are stated. Similarly, lexical items that are relevant to both the topic and the vehicle are given, i.e.ﺎﮭﻟازﻏوﺎﮭﺳﺎﻧﻛتدﻘﻓ. This is called an absolute metaphor in Arabic (Section 3.6). The ground of similarity between the topic and the vehicle in the first metaphor may be that both of them are beautiful and graceful, as it is quite common in Arabic culture to liken a beautiful or graceful woman to a female gazelle. Depending on this similarity, the son (the poet) is likened to a young gazelle.
The use of ﺔﯾﺑظ or ﺔﻟازﻏ to refer to a beautiful woman is recognizably metaphorical, and this meaning in Arabic is relatively clearly fixed. This is a lexicalised metaphor and particularly stock in both Newmark’s and Dickins’ terms, as it is widely used in everyday language. In schema-related terms, this metaphor is non-schematic as it does not fit in a certain overall schema. However, there is also a schematic aspect in that beautiful women are often likened to gazelles. In size-related terms, this is a single-word metaphor that particularly occurs in the single-word ﺔﯾﺑظ (female gazelle).
Sacks translates this metaphor as:
Oh gazelle who lost there its shelter and its mate And Antoon translates it as:
O you, gazelle that lost both house and mate.
The message expressed in the original metaphor is that ‘the beautiful mother lost both home and son on the road of exile’. This message is explicitly expressed throughout the whole stanza, by the use of the words تدﻘﻓ, سﺎﻧﻛ, and لازﻏ (lost, home, and gazelle) respectively. In the English versions, the message is conveyed through the attempt at literal translation, particularly for the words above, although both translators misunderstand the referent of the latter.
Both translators reproduce the same image and retain the same vehicle in the TL. They are literal, but the problem may be culture-specific. In other words, the significance,