Somatismos con el lexema “pelo”

This translation was done by the researcher. The source text is an existing English translation of the Arabic Qur’an. The source text contained footnotes and the translator had to decide whether to translate this as well. The translator decided against translating the footnotes because in the English source text the footnotes explain the context of some terms in Arabic.

44

When the English was translated into isiXhosa, the words Merciful, Sustainer, worship and

show (words with footnotes in the English source text) have a clear meaning and can be

understood unambiguously.

In the first verse Egameni lika-Allah, Kakhulu oZukileyo, Kakhulu oneNceba, the word-for- word method is used with the term Allah, borrowed. As in the word-for-word translation from Arabic into isiXhosa the target audience is familiar with this term. Borrowing leads to foreignisation whereby “an author is left at peace and the reader is brought to the author”. In this strategy (foreignisation), it is noted that the translator aims to preserve the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, but only as it is perceived in the translation by a limited readership, an educated elite (Venuti 1991:130). Foreignisation, which may involve lexical and syntactic borrowings and calques, reflects the source language norms and reminds the target culture readers that they are dealing with a translation, thus in some ways bringing them closer to the experience of the foreign text (Munday 2009:189). It is noted that foreignisation may make a text more cryptic and thus harder to access by target readers (Munday 2009:190).

In the second part of the sentence, a literal method of translation is used whereby the text

Most Gracious, Most Merciful is translated as Kakhulu oZukileyo, Kakhulu oneNceba. This is

a literal translation because the syntax of the source text is kept unchanged but this leads to an ungrammatical sentence in isiXhosa.

The second verse Udumo malube ku-Allah, uMlondolozi noMgcini wamaHlabathi, conveys the message of the source text. Though there is borrowing and literal translation (wamaHlabathi), a target reader would still understand the message. In isiXhosa the word

wamaHlabathi is slightly confusing because it is not known that there is more than one world

as suggested by the translation. However, a Muslim target reader would know that the deeper meaning of the world wamaHlabathi is ‘various nations’.

The third verse is translated literally (same as for the second part of the first sentence) and the

word-for-word translation in this sentence has resulted in a sentence construction that is

ungrammatical. The word Kakhulu is a descriptive adjective qualifying the word oZukileyo. Therefore, by having such a sentence, it is suggested that the descriptive adjective is

oZukileyo rather than Kakhulu, whereas in a grammatical sentence, it would have been oZukileyo Kakhulu.

45

The fourth verse, Nkosi yoSuku loMgwebo, kept the syntax of the target language although a word-for-word translation method was used which could lead to a confusing target text. The message conveyed by the translation in the source text is also conveyed in the target language. The translation of this sentence is acceptable as it can be understood, is not misinterpreted and is structurally grammatical (Vinay & Darbelnet 1995:87).

The opposite can be said for the fifth verse, Wena senza thina ukunqula Kwaye Lwakho

uncedo thina funa. The reason for that is because a literal translation procedure is used in the

verse above and as a result the sentence construction in the target language is incorrect. The message conveyed in this verse is confusing and meaningless. The verse creates a lack of cohesion in the text as a whole. Cohesion is defined as the use of grammatical or structural devices to guarantee text integrity and coherence is defined as the conceptual or semantic network that glues the parts of a text together (Fawcett 1997:91). There is no cohesion because here Wena, an absolute pronoun, is an object and grammatically, in the target language, the object is placed at the end of a sentence since an object indicates to what or whom a particular action is directed. The two words senza and thina should not have been used together: the word thina is already suggesting who the subject is and thina is an absolute pronoun in a plural form of the subject of the sentence. The two last words thina and funa imply that Allah should seek the people instead of the people seeking Allah or Allah’s help. The sixth verse, Bonisa thina ethe tye indlela is a direct translation and though the sentence construction is that of the source text and quite foreign in the target language, the meaning of the translation is acceptable as it can be interpreted correctly (Vinay & Darbelnet 1995:87). However, the verse sounds more like a command to Allah than a plea from the believers to

Allah to guide them. This is suggested by the word Bonisa that is used in the verb stem when

giving a command to one person (Riordan & Mathiso 1969:76)

The seventh verse is “meaningless”. The word-for-word translation method does not convey any message because the translation does not make any sense:

Indlela yabo phezu bani

Wena onike Lwakho uZuko,

Abo zabo (isabelo)

46

Kwaye abo bahamba hayi lahlekileyo

It is just a collection of words thrown together. In most languages, and especially in the target language, a simple sentence usually has a subject, verb and an object. In the third phrase of the translation, the word in brackets (isabelo) being the noun, does not correspond with its possessive pronoun, zabo. Here isabelo is in the singular form whereas the possessive pronoun zabo is in the plural form. It is suggested that there is no link or cohesion between the phrases, for instance the fourth phrase is not linked to the third phrase. The fourth phrase

Yiyo hayi ingqumbo, suggests a contradiction. Yiyo is a copulative that when translated

loosely would be ‘it is’ but, the next word hayi is a negative form in the target text and when translated means ‘no’. There is no cohesion between the last verse of the paragraph and the verse immediately before it. Furthermore, Kwaye abo bahamba hayi lahlekileyo has an incorrect sentence construction in isiXhosa.

In the target language, a sentence cannot start with And that when translated is Kwaye. The word Kwaye is a joining word which means that its purpose is to join two or more sentences in the target language. Therefore, this analysis suggests that it is more problematic to translate the English version of the Qur’an into isiXhosa using the word-for-word strategy. A reason for this might that the English version of the Qur’an is a translation from Arabic and in a translation of a translation, the message and the meaning of the text will be even further removed from those of the source text.

The back translation of the word-for-word isiXhosa into English reads as follows:

1. In the name of Allah, Greatly Gracious, Greatly with Mercy.

2. Praise must be with Allah

The Protector and Keeper of the Worlds;

3. Greatly Gracious, Greatly with Mercy;

4. Chief of the Day of Judgement.

5. You we are doing worship,

And Your help we want.

47

7. The way of those above anyone

You gave yours Grace,

Those whose (share)

Is no anger

And those who walk no lost.

From the back translation it is evident that the word-for-word strategy is not a feasible option when translating the Arabic Qur’an into isiXhosa because the back translation seen here is meaningless as it does not convey the same message that is written in the Arabic Qur’an.