ISSN: 1579-9794

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations

from English, German, and Hebrew

Tipos de equivalencia sintáctica en traducciones coránicas

del inglés, alemán y hebreo

YEHUDIT DROR

judror@gmail.com

University of Haifa

Fecha de recepción: 1 de noviembre de 2019

Fecha de aceptación: 17 de julio de 2020

Abstract: Generally, there is little expectation for linguistic equivalence in

translations because languages are linguistically and semantically

incongruous. Though this premise is basically correct, here it is argued that

syntactic equivalence is at times possible and that the translation process can

involve a matching at the syntactic level even when some components or

structures appear untranslatable. In this article, sets of examples from three

Qurʾānic translations (English, German, and Hebrew) are examined. It is

shown that the translators in some cases failed to generate an equivalence

although syntactic equivalence may have been possible. These inaccuracies

may arise from insufficient syntactic knowledge of the SL or the translator may

maintain minimal similarity to the source language for no apparent reason.

This can lead to misinterpretation of the intended meaning of the source

language.

Keywords: Syntactic equivalence, Qurʾānic translations, Meaning,

Misinterpretation, Syntactic knowledge

Resumen: Por regla general, existen pocas expectativas de equivalencia

lingüística en las traducciones debido a que los idiomas son lingüística y

semánticamente incongruentes. Aunque esta premisa es básicamente

correcta, en este trabajo se argumenta que la equivalencia sintáctica es, en

ocasiones, posible y que el proceso de traducción puede implicar una

coincidencia a nivel sintáctico incluso cuando algunos componentes o

estructuras parecen intraducibles. En este artículo se examinan conjuntos de

ejemplos de tres traducciones coránicas (inglés, alemán y hebreo). Se

demuestra que los traductores, en algunos casos, no lograron generar una

equivalencia, aunque la equivalencia sintáctica puede haber sido posible.

Estas inexactitudes pueden deberse a un conocimiento sintáctico insuficiente

del SL o a que el traductor puede mantener una similitud mínima con el idioma

92 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

de origen sin motivo aparente. Esto puede dar lugar a una interpretación

errónea del significado previsto del idioma original.

Palabras clave: Equivalencia sintáctica, Traducciones coránicas,

Significado, Mala interpretación, Conocimiento sintáctico.

INTRODUCTION

When “average” individuals read one of the many Qurʾānic translations

without comparing it to the original text they may consider them to be coherent

and adequate works that render the message of the Qurʾān in a very eloquent

way. However, when the original texts are assessed for equivalence by

professional translators, academics or bilingual specialists, the shortcomings

of the translations tend to come to the surface.

In the literature, the definition of equivalence is flexible, fuzzy and

controversial, and involves semantics, grammar, phonology and pragmatics.

Typically, there are four main types of equivalence: (a) Pragmatic, where

information and content are merely conveyed; (b) Aesthetic, which is applied

to poetic texts where an expressive and stylistic equivalent to the author's

work is produced; (c) Ethnographic, aiming to reconstruct the cultural

background, usually through scholarly commentary; (d) Linguistic, which

involves an interlinear word-for-word or even morpheme-for-morpheme

translation (Newman, 1980, pp. 62-63)

. This article focuses on linguistic

equivalence,

or more precisely on equivalence at the syntactic level, while

discussing the factors and strategies that guide the actual translation process

of syntactic units appearing in the Qurʾān.

Although there are classes of words such as verbs, nouns and

adjectives, and universal grammatical rules across many languages, the

fundamental premise is that there are linguistic differences between the

source language (henceforth SL) and the target language (henceforth TL)

such that a translator's choices are conditioned by the grammatical rules of

the SL. However, are these differences the only ones that can affect the

translatability or equivalence of syntactic structures? Here, I argue that even

when a full grammatical equivalence can be achieved, translations can still

deviate. Some of these departures cannot be explained, whereas others are

rooted in the complexity of syntactic structure. Rather than an in-depth

Newman’s explanation is based on Casagrande (1954, pp. 225-340).

As shown below, linguistic equivalence overlaps with semantic equivalence, i.e., the

word/structure in both the source language and the target language has the same meaning. If the

syntactic structure is encoded differently from the original structure, the semantic equivalence is

usually no longer preserved.

Yehudit Dror 93

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

investigation of the syntactic structure, the translator may simply draw on

basic explanations in grammatical treatises. The aim of this study is not only

to shed light on the reasons for inaccuracies in Qurʾānic translations but also

to underscore the need to read translations with a critical eye.

This article is divided into four sections:

(a) Theoretical background: Since this study deals with the syntactic

aspects of Qurʾānic translations I first discuss several theories on the concept

of equivalence developed long ago by linguistic theorists such as Nida (1964)

and Catford (1965). The concept of equivalence is a topic of heated debate

among scholars. The theories developed by Nida and Catford have been

criticized

and several recent definitions of translation equivalence have been

put forward.

Nevertheless, I find that Nida's and Catford's arguments are still

relevant, for the analysis of the translation of holy scriptures such as the

Qurʾān.

(b) Examples: As a scholar of the syntax of the Qurʾān, I am called

upon to render the syntactic structure to the best of my ability. Over the years

I have become familiar with all types of translations in various languages and

have concluded that there is no such thing as a fully equivalent

linguistic/syntactic translation of the Qurʾān. The representative examples

discussed here have been collected over the course of my ongoing research

on the translation of a variety of syntactic phenomena such as particles,

agreement, word order, pronouns, tenses, and aspects. Some have syntactic

equivalence in the TL, but others do not.

First, the translations of each example were carefully examined, and I

indicate whether the syntactic structure was fully or only partially recovered

and the possible reasons for the choice of translation. This process enabled

me to classify the examples into four types of syntactic equivalence. The

analytical methodology was based on a comparison of the source text with the

translations in terms of word class and sentence/clause. In her study, Van

Leuven-Zwart (1989, pp. 155-156) used the term transeme for a

comprehensible textual unit. There are two types of transemes: state-of-affairs

transemes and satellite transemes. The first type consists of a predicate (verb

or copula) and its argument, whereas the second type lacks a predicate and

might be described as an adverbial specification or amplification of the state

See for example Snell-Hornby (1988, pp. 22), who argues that the notion of equivalence is

“imprecise, ill-defined, and representing an illusion of symmetry between languages.” This is also

quoted by Kashgary (2011, p. 48).

See: Saldanha (2011, p. 148-152).

94 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

of affairs. For some examples I also divided the Qurʾānic verse into

transemes, in which case the boundaries of the state-of-affairs transemes are

indicated in Roman numerals.

(d) The translations: The examples are taken from three

contemporary translations in three different languages: German and English,

which belong to the family of Indo-European languages, and Hebrew, which

belongs to the Semitic group of languages. These translations were chosen

because in my opinion, they are good exemplars of modern 20

century

works. The language of these translations is clear and easy to understand as

compared to earlier translations characterized by archaic language.

(1) German: Bobzin (2010). In the appendix to the translation, he first

gives the background to the Qurʾān and then notes some of the translation

strategies he applied. He also states that he tried to preserve the Qurʾānic text

as much as possible, but that there were cases where he had to depart from

it to adapt the German translation and make it comprehensible. For example,

he could not always keep the same word order, even if in Arabic a specific

word order was used for purposes of emphasis. Another important

grammatical issue raised by Bobzin is the particle wa- (or wāw al-isti’nāf “wāw

indicating the start of a new clause”), which precedes the fawāṣil “the final

words in the verse” (lit. “partition”). Bobzin explains that this particle is a well-

known feature in Semitic languages that indicates the beginning of a new

sentence. He chose, however, not to translate this particle in most cases.

Halima (2014, 124) noted that every translation has a rationale.

Translators usually claim that there are only poor translations and that their

translation of the Qurʾānic text captures the meaning much better. Several

translators have made this explicit.

(2) Hebrew: Adawi (2015). This translation was initiated by the Center

of Qurʾānic Studies, the Bayyināt, located in Amman. In the preface it is stated

that the professional translation team encountered numerous difficulties

relating to the lexicon, grammar, and morphology. For example, there are 7

verb-stem patterns in Hebrew, whereas Arabic has 12 (awzān). This

translation was verified by a team of professionals including experts in the

fields of Hebrew, Arabic and Qurʾānic exegesis to ensure that the translation

would be as reliable and accurate as possible.

(3) English: Fakhry (1998). In the introduction he writes:

A large number of English translations have appeared in modern

times, the best known of which are those of Rodwell, Pickthall,

Dawood, Bell and Arberry. These translations vary in point of

conformity to the Arabic text and are not entirely free from error or

deliberate departure from the original, for purposes of literary fluency

Yehudit Dror 95

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

or elegance. In the present translation, we have attempted to give

as faithful an English rendering of the Arabic text as possible and to

correct the errors or lapses of the above-mentioned translations.

Since equivalence is a key concept here, I turn first to some of the

definitions proposed in the research literature.

1. CONCEPTS OF EQUIVALENCY

To produce a (good) translation, the translator must be highly proficient

in the source language. It is not enough to be able to consult dictionaries: he

or she must first understand the content of the message in the SL. The next

step is to find the correct words and the stylistic features that best convey the

concept expressed in the SL (Nida, 1964, pp. 145, 150). The starting point of

every translation theory is that no two languages are identical in the meaning

ascribed to symbols (the significant) or in the ways in which they are ordered

in phrases and sentences (Nida, 1964, p. 156).

The literature tends to define

two types of equivalence, termed formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence is

centred on the message itself, in both form and content. Here, the translator

looks for the appropriate correspondence of words, sentences, and concepts

so that the message in the TL will adhere to the message in the SL as closely

as possible. Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, is not concerned with

finding “a perfect match” between the SL, but rather with a dynamic

relationship where the message of the original text is so well transported into

the TL that the response of the reader is essentially the same as that of the

original receiver (Nida, 1964, p. 159).

To determine the original message, formal-equivalence translations

attempt to reproduce equivalent grammatical units, and use the same word

classes as in the SL; in other words, to translate a noun with a noun, a verb

with a verb, a particle with a particle, etc., to preserve the meaning expressed

in the SL. However, in many cases finding an equivalence for certain formal

elements in the SL such as word order is fraught with difficulties. In this case

the translator can add marginal notes to explain the syntactic structure in the

SL and its contribution to the message (Nida, 1964, p. 165).

By contrast, the appropriate dynamic correspondences do not require

every structure present in the SL to be duplicated in the TL (Nida, 1964, p.

224). The question is whether this flexibility will distort the intended meaning

of the SL. Nida argued that the primary aim of translation is to reproduce the

message, which requires many grammatical and lexical adjustments to be

Compare: Nida and Taber (1969, p. 3); Bassnett (1991, pp. 24-25); Kelly (1979, p. 24); Newmark

(1981, p. 17).

96 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

successful. But what is the nature of these adjustments? Are they really

required to reproduce the meaning of the SL?

Catford (1965, p. 20) defined translation as the replacement of textual

material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another

language (TL). However, there are examples of translations in which

equivalent material is replaced by non-equivalent TL material. Consider, for

example, Fakhry’s (1998, p. 5) translation of Q 1:6-7 ihdinā ṣ-ṣirāṭa l-

mustaqīma ṣirāṭa llaḏīna anʿamta ʿalayhim ġayri l-maġḍūbi ʿalayhim “Lead us

to the right path, the path of those You have favored, not those who have

incurred Your wrath.” While most of the verse in English follows the syntax of

the original text, the phrase ġayri l-maġḍūbi ʿalayhim is replaced by a non-

equivalent structure. al-maġḍūb is a definite passive participle form in the

masculine singular, followed by the prepositional phrase ʿalayhim. However,

there is no trace of this form in Fakhry's translation; rather, he replaces the

passive participle with a verbal form.

These examples suggest that the binary

division into formal and dynamic need to be revisited. Below I suggest

differentiating between four types of syntactic equivalence.

2. FOUR TYPES OF SYNTACTIC EQUIVALENCE IN QURʾĀNIC TRANSLATIONS

2.1. Full Grammatical Equivalence

Type I corresponds to what Nida meant by formal equivalence where

the translator seeks to match each syntactic component and syntactic

structure to its appropriate counterpart. Specifically, the translation aims to

use the same part of speech (verb, noun, adjective, adverb, conjunction,

preposition, pronoun, etc.) and the same syntactic structure (e.g., relative

clause), although the translator is clearly aware that specific features

characterizing Arabic are manifested by different linguistic devices in other

languages, such as definiteness. For example, in Arabic and Hebrew, the

definite article is prefixed to the noun, whereas in English and German the

definite article is a word preceding a person or thing that is identified or

specified, e.g., al-kitāb

(Q 2:2)

is rendered as “the book” or “das Buch”.

Arabic also has an extensive case system, by contrast to English and Hebrew

that have largely abandoned the inflectional case system. For example, in

mina s-samāʾi (Q 2:22), the word samāʾ is in the genitive case in Arabic; but

in English (“from the heavens”) or in Hebrew (“םימשה ןמ” min ha-shamayim)

the genitive case is not used. A similar problem arises for the use of the

Gadalla (2010) discussed how the passive participle forms are rendered in Qurʾānic translations.

He found that they can appear as adjectives, nouns, verbs (passive and active) and adverbs.

For the transliteration system of Hebrew and Arabic see Table 1.

Q is the abrevation of the word Qurʾān. (Q 2:2); the parentheses refer to the chapter and verse

number in the Qurʾān.

Yehudit Dror 97

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

pronominal suffix in Arabic, whereas in English, Hebrew, and German it is

rendered as a separate pronoun. For example, aḫrağahumā (Q 2:36) can be

rendered in German as “(und Satan) trieb sie” or in English as “(Satan)

expelled them/got them out.” However, despite these differences, the

translators can take steps so that all the key features of the syntactic

component are reflected in the LT, as shown in example 1:

(1) wa-llāhu yuḥibbu ṣ-ṣābirīna (Q 3:146)

And Allah loves the steadfast (Fakhry, 1998, p. 46)

Gott liebt die Geduldigen (Bobzin, 2010, p. 62)

םינלבסה תא בהוא הללאו ve-allah ohev et ha-savlanim (Adawai, 2015,

p. 68)

Here, the translators had no difficulty finding an equivalent translation

since in Arabic, SV is the marked word order, while in English, German and

Hebrew SV is the unmarked word order. Furthermore, each word and its

syntactic features have an equivalent translation in English and Hebrew:

I. The subject Allāh is rendered by the equivalent noun “God” or “Allah.”

II. The verbal predicate yuḥibbu “loves” is in present tense, indicating

the habitual present. This verbal aspect is also found in English and Hebrew,

where it is similarly expressed by a verb in the present.

III. In Arabic the direct object aṣ-ṣābirīna “the steadfast” takes the form

of a definite active participle. In English and German, it is rendered as a noun,

while in Hebrew the form of active participle is preserved.

Example 2 illustrates a more complicated unit:

(2) fa-kayfa iḏā ǧamaʿnāhum li-yawmin lā rayba fīhi wa-wuffiyat kullu

nafsin mā kasabat wa-hum lā yuẓlamūna (Q 3:25)

But how will they fare when We gather them together on a day which

is undoubted, and each soul shall be paid in full for whatever it has

earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly? (Fakhry, 1998, p.

37)

Wie aber, wenn wir sie sammeln zu einem Tage, über den kein

Zweifel herrscht, und jeder Seele zurückerstatted wird, was sie

erbracht hat, und niemandem Unrecht angetan wird? (Bobzin, 2010,

p. 50).

התשעש המב הלומג אולמ שפנ לכל םלושיו ,וב קפס ןיא ,םויל םפסאנ םא ,דציכו

וקשעי אל םהו

98 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

ve-keyẓad im neʾasfam le-yom ein safek bo ve-yeshulam le-kol

nefesh mlo gmula be-ma she-ʿasta ve-hem lo yeashku (Adawi,

2015, p. 56)

Q 3:25 can be divided into six transemes:

I. fa-kayfa: this interrogative particle is accurately rendered in all three

languages. However, according to Rāzī (2000, vol. 7, p. 190) there is a

deletion, and this utterance should be reconstructed as fa-kayfa ṣūratuhum

wa-ḥāluhum “how is their manner and their condition (when)…”. Arab

grammarians and rhetoricians have defined ellipsis as having linguistic and

technical features. Linguistic ellipsis refers to leaving out a word or a phrase

from a particular construction. The technical aspect refers to the partial or

complete deletion of a construction, if there is evidence justifying the deletion

(i.e., the grammaticality of the sentence and/or its meaning is retrievable from

the linguistic or non-linguistic contexts) (El-Shiyab, 1998, p. 41). According to

Rāzī, the deletion in Q 3:25 was done for brevity and/or stylistic reasons,

because the deleted components are retrievable from the context. Of the three

translators of Q 3:25, Fakhry alone refers to the underlying structure of this

unit, translating it as “how will they fare.” El-Shiyab (1998, p. 48) noted that

although ellipsis occurs in all languages, the specific patterns or structures

that allow particular words to be omitted are not equivalent or alike. Therefore,

an elliptical expression that is obligatory in one language may not be in

another. In translations of religious books such as the Holy Qurʾān or the Bible,

certain words and structures can be omitted from the text, but it remains

meaningful. When this same text is rendered into another language, the

translator may not adhere to the same strategy used in the source language

text. S/he may add information for clarity or may change text structure to fit

the construction patterns of the TL.

Note that for native Arabic speakers who read the Qurʾān in Arabic or

its translation, it is not difficult to identify where a deletion has occurred

because they are aware of this grammatical/stylistic/rhetorical feature.

However, as El-Shiyab (1998, p. 50) pointed out, even if the translator

maintains the deletion in the translation, it is not clear how/whether the reader

will understand it because this depends on the reader’s linguistic competence,

knowledge of Arabic in general and the Qurʾānic text. Take, for example, Q

3:25. The Hebrew or German reader will immediately notice that the question

particle needs completion. But if the translator does not add any explanation

in the footnotes, the reader will be confronted with a unit that is not cohesive.

Deletion is an integral feature of Qurʾānic text which deserves study in

its own right. The most crucial instances are cases where retrieving the

Yehudit Dror 99

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

deleted components is obligatory (e.g., to avoid ambiguity) in the translation

and cases in which they may be left out.

II. iḏā ǧamaʿnāhum li-yawmin: This temporal clause belongs to the

eschatological Qurʾānic descriptions of Judgment Day. The particle iḏā

followed by a verb in the perfect can be used as a temporal demonstrative or

as a conditional particle. When used as a temporal demonstrative it follows a

verb in the perfect indicating the future (Dror, 2013a, p. 47), as manifested in

the translations of Q 3:25.

The prepositional phrase li-yawmin is correctly rendered in German (“zu

einem Tage”) and in Hebrew (“םויל” le-yom), whereas the English translation

(“on a day”) is incorrect. As Rāzī (2000, vol. 7, pp. 190-191) noted, li-yawmin

rather than fī yawmin is used because the underlying structure should be

(ǧamaʿnāhum) li-ḥisābi yawmin “(we gathered them) for the day of Judgment”,

but the nomen regens was deleted.

III. lā rayba fīhi. This transeme functions as a relative clause. However,

in Arabic there are two types of relative clause: ṣila, the “conjunctive clause”

and ṣifa, the “qualifictive clause”. The latter type is preceded by an indefinite

noun without a conjunctive noun (Wright, 1971, third part, p. 317). In English

and in German this must be rendered using a relative pronoun (“(über) den”

and “which”). In the Hebrew translation, like the Arabic, the relative pronoun

is absent, although it could have been rendered as “)וב ןיא( ש” she-(ein bo).

Additionally, the negation particle lā is located at the head of the clause and

when it is immediately followed by an indefinite noun whose existence it

emphatically negates, it causes the noun to be in the accusative. The negation

is also expressed in the translation, where all three components are

preserved: lā the negation particle; rayba the negated noun; fīhi the

prepositional phrase).

IV. wa-wuffiyat kullu nafsin mā kasabat. This clause has four

components, all preserved in the three translations:

wa-

wuffiyat

kullu nafsin

mā kasabat

conjunctive

particle

verb

in passive=verbal

predicate

annexation=subject

relative

clause=direct object

and

shall be paid

each soul

whatever it has

earned

und

zurückerstatted wird

Jeder Seele

was sie erbracht hat

100 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

ו ve-

םלושי

yeshulam

שפנ לכל

le-kol nefesh

התשעש המב

be-ma she-ʿasta

V. wa-hum lā yuẓlamūna: the final transeme is a clause where all four

components are only rendered correctly in the German and Hebrew

translations:

wa-

hum

lā

yuẓlamūna

conjunctive

particle

independent

pronoun=subject

negative

particle

verb in passive=verbal

predicate

and

they

shall not

be dealt with unjustly

und

niemanden

unrecht angetan wird

ו ve-

םה hem

אל lo

וקשעי

yeʿashku

Example 3 has two central syntactic structures: the superlative (ḫayra

z-zādi) and the vocative (yā-ulī l-albābi); both are retained in the translations:

(3) fa-inna ḫayra z-zādi t-taqwā wa-ttaqūni yā-ulī l-albābi (Q 2:197)

I. fa-inna

ḫayra z-

zādi

t-taqwā

II. wa-

ttaqūni

yā-ulī l-albābi

fa=

conjunction

inna=

emphatic

particle

superlative=

subject

definite

noun=

nominal

predicate

wa=

conjunction

followed by

a verb

imperative

vocative

yā=

interjection

the

best

provision

is the fear

of Allah

so fear me

O, people of

understanding!

der

beste

Reisevorrat

ist

Gottesfrucht

mich

fürchtet

ihr

Einsichtsvol-

len!

Yehudit Dror 101

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

הנה

hine

הדיצה בטימ

meytav ha-

ẓeyda

הללא תארי

yirʾat allah

ינוארי )ןכל(

(lakhen)

yirʾuni

!הניבה ילעב

baʿaley ha-

bina

2.2. Partial equivalence due to language limitations in the system of the TL

In some cases, the linguistic elements of the SL cannot be replaced

appropriately in the TL because it does not have these features. This can lead

to partial equivalence, which in the literature is called shifts. Both Catford

(1965) and Van Leuven-Zwart (1989) drew up a series of categories for the

classification of the differences in shift as a function of the syntactic, semantic,

stylistic and pragmatic levels for example. Clearly, shifts in lexemes,

sentences, clauses, and phrases can affect the meaning and the pragmatics

of these components, as shown in the following examples:

(4) wa-yamkurūna wa-yamkuru llāhu (Q 8:30)

They schemed and Allah schemed (Fakhry, 1998, p. 110)

Ja, sie schmieden Ränke, und auch Gott schmiedet Ränke (Bobzin,

2010, p. 153)

הללא םממוזו םיממוזו ve-zomemim ve-zomemam allah (Adawi, 2015,

p. 155)

The translation of the syntactic unit in Q 8:30 presents two syntactic

shifts. In the first, in Arabic and in Hebrew the pronoun can be implicit, but in

English and German the pronoun is usually explicit, so that the verb

yamkurūna is expressed as “they schemed” or “sie schmieden Ränke.” In the

second, the clause wa-yamkuru llāhu in Arabic has a VS word order. This

word order is preserved in the Hebrew translation but not in English and

German, where the translator had to use the unmarked word order SV.

(5) wa-mā ulāʾika bi-l-muʾminīna (Q 5:43)

Those people are not believers (Fakhry, 1998, p. 71).

Das sind keine Gläubigen (Bobzin, 2010, p. 98)

םינימאמ הלא ןיאו ve-ein ele maʾaminim (Adawi, 2015, p. 103)

The preposition bi- in Arabic may have several referents for example,

bāʾ li-l-qasam (bāʾ denoting swearing), bāʾ li-l-muṣāḥaba (bāʾ denoting

companionship and connection) or bāʾ li-l-taʿwīḍ (bāʾ denoting the

recompense) (Wright, 1971, part three, p. 164). Examples 5 and 6 exemplify

the so-called bāʾ al-zāʾida “the appended preposition bāʾ”. Ibn Yaʿīš (2001,

102 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

vol. 5, pp. 77-78)

states that this particle is appended (zīdat) for emphasis

without affecting the meaning of the utterance. This particle can be appended

to components that are considered in Arabic grammar to be faḍla (lit.)

“residue”; i.e., all components other than the subject and the predicate. It can

also be appended to the predicate, as for example when mā al-ḥiğāziyya is

involved; namely, a negation particle which is used with the same signification

as laysa and also causes the predicate to be in accusative (al-Murādī, 1983,

p. 53). According to Ibn Yaʿīš (2001, vol. 5, p. 78), bāʾ al-zāʾida “the appended

preposition bāʾ” preceeds the subject to emphasize the negation.

As shown in the three translations, there is no indication of the

existence of the particle bi. In other words, an explicit component in the SL

becomes implicit in the TL simply because in German and English there is no

equivalent component so that this particle is untranslatable.

In Hebrew the

same particle with the same pragmatics does exist. Goshen-Gottstein (2006,

p. 179)

mentioned the existence of the so-called essentiae/pleonasticum

which is introduced after a negation particle, for example “רשפאב הז היה אל” (lo-

haya ze ba-efshar). Thus here, the Hebrew translation should have been “ ןיאו

םינימאמב הלא” (ve-ein ele be-maʾminim). There are two possible reasons why

Adawi omitted this particle in the Hebrew translation: he was familiar with the

essentiae/pleonasticum ב but might have thought that this translation would

be rejected by the reader as an archaic or even incorrect, because this particle

does not exist in Modern Hebrew. Alternatively, he may not have been

acquainted with the essentiae/pleonasticum

, and his competence (see

Section 2.4) in the TL was weaker than his competence in the SL. However,

Example 6 shows that this assumption does not hold up:

(6) wa-kafā bi-llāhi šahīdan (Q 4:79)

Allah is the All-Sufficient witness! (Fakhry, 1998, p. 58)

Und Gott genügt als Zeuge! (Bobzin, 2015, p. 79)

דע הללאב ידו ve-day be-allah ʿed (Adawi, 2015, p. 85)

Traditional grammarians

mention Q 4:79 as an example of bāʾ al-

zāʾida “the appended preposition bi”, which precedes the subject, although

they agree that the underlying structure should be wa-kafā llāhu šahīdan “God

is sufficient as a witness.” Once again, this particle does not appear in the

Compare: Fidā (2000, p. 24)

For the term untranslatable, see Kashgary (2011, p. 48).

Compare: Gesenius (1846, p. 219)

See, for example: Sībawayhi (1980, vol. 1, p. 92); Ibn Yaʿīš (2001, vol. 5, pp. 78-79). Fidā

(2000, p. 453) however mentions that according to Suhaylī (n.y., p. 355) the particle bi is not

appended but rather governed by the verb kafā, which means taktafī bihi šahīdan “you are content

with God as a witness.”

Yehudit Dror 103

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

English and the German translations, whereas it is preserved in the Hebrew

translation. It may be the case, however, that the Hebrew particle

is not

equivalent to “the appended preposition bi”. This is due to the choice of

translating the verb kafā by the adverb “יד” (day), which in this context requires

the particle

(be) before its complement.

Examples 7 and 8 show shifts in number. In both examples the noun

ayyām “days” occurs. However, in Example 7 it is followed by an adjective in

the feminine singular, whereas in Example 8 it is followed by the same

adjective but in the feminine plural:

(7) lan tamassanā n-nāru illā ayyāman maʿdūdatan (Q 2:80)

The fire will only touch us for a few days” (Fakhry, 1998, p. 12)

Das Höllenfeuer wird uns nicht erfassen ‒ mit Ausnahme weniger

Tage (Bobzin, 2010, p. 17).

םירופס םימי אלא שאה ונב זחאת אל lo-teʾeḥoz banu ha-esh ela yamim

sfurim (Adawi 2015, p. 23)

(8) lan tamassanā n-nāru illā ayyāman maʿdūdātin (Q 3:24)

The fire will only touch us for a few days (Fakhry, 1998, p. 37)

Das Höllenfeuer wird uns nicht berühren es sei denn eine Zahl von

Tagen (Bobzin, 2010, p. 17).

םירופס םימי אלא שאה ונב זחאת אל lo-teʾeḥoz banu ha-esh ela yamim

sfurim (Adawi, 2015, p. 55)

There are various types of agreement in classical Arabic,

including

nouns in the feminine plural that designate the non-human by putting their

adjective in feminine singular (Example 7) or the plural (Example 8). The

literature discusses several explanations for the existence of these two types

of agreement. In the structure ayyāman maʿdūdātin (Q 3:24), the adjective in

the plural form indicates paucity; namely, the number does not exceed ten

(Dror, 2013b, pp. 64-65). According to Ibn Kaṯīr (n.y., vol. 1, p. 355), ayyāman

maʿdūdātin means that the unbelievers thought that the fire would only touch

them for seven days. However, the translation shows no traces of the two

different types of agreement, and both types (adjectives in singular and in

plural) are expressed similarly. This is because a literal translation of ayyāman

maʿdūdatan in Hebrew would have generated an ungrammatical structure

Fakhry's translation of Q 2:80 can be classified under the third type because he completely

changes the original syntactic structure, as though the original structure were *innamā tamassanā

n-nāru ayyāman maʿdūdatan. He could have easily rendered it by keeping the original syntactic

structure and translating “The fire will only touch us for a few days.”

See a list of agreement types in Reckendorf (1921, pp. 89-90).

104 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

(“הרופס םימי”* yamim sfura); in English the quantifier few is fixed and in German

the adjective weniger is in the plural

2.3. Partial equivalence without a good explanation

Identifying shifts in translations may be easy, but what is the rationale

for them? What are the reasons dictating the translator's choice? In some

cases, the translator discusses strategies in an introduction, but these

comments will never provide comprehensive insights into the translation

process. For instance, the structures are almost identical in Examples 9 and

10, with one exception: the position of the prepositional phrase min aqṣā l-

madīnati “from the farthest part of the city.” In Example 9 the prepositional

phrase follows the noun raǧulun “a man”, whereas in example 10 it precedes

this noun:

(9) wa-ǧāʾa raǧulun min aqṣā l-madīnati yasʿā (Q 28:20)

And a man came from the farthest part of the city (Fakhry, 1998, p.

242)

Ein Mann kam hergelaufen vom Äußersten der Stadt (Bobzin, 2010,

p. 337)

זפחנ ריעה הצקמ שיא אבו u-ba ish mi-ktẓe ha-ʿir neḥpaz (Adawi, 2015,

p. 322)

(10) wa-ǧāʾa min aqṣā l-madīnati raǧulun yasʿā (Q 36:20)

Then a man came from the farthest point of the city runnning (Fakhry,

1998, p. 36)

Da kam, vom Äußersten Ende der Stadt, ein Mann gelaufen (Bobzin,

2010, p. 386)

זפחנ ריעה הצקמ שיא אבו u-ba ish mi-ktẓe ha-ʿir neḥpaz (Adawi, 2015,

p. 365)

Despite the contextual and syntactic differences between the two

verses, the translation in Hebrew and English is identical.

Bobzin however

identifies the difference and expresses it in his translation. Qurʾān translators

The case of wāw al-istiʾnāf should be mentioned in this context (see Dror, 2015, pp. 22-42).

This particle is often used to begin a new sentence. Though this particle does not have an English

or German equivalent, this does not mean that it is untranslatable since in some cases it is

translated as a function of the translator’s view of its cohesive function in the SL verses. See also

Stewart (2000, p. 34), who refers to the translatability of this particle.

This type could also be classified as SL syntactic structures inappropriately superimposed on

TL. See Newmark (1981, p. 123).

The only difference in the English translation is that the verb yasʿā in Q 36:20 is missing, for

no good explanation.

Yehudit Dror 105

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

are expected to know that word order can change the syntactic structure, and

hence the meaning of the utterance. Bayḍāwī (1996, vol. 4, pp. 287-288) for

example stated that in Q 28:20 the verb yasʿā “running” can function as an

adjective of the noun raǧulun “a man,” or can serve as a circumstantial clause

where it depends on the function of the prepositional phrase min aqṣā l-

madīnati “from the farthest part of the city,” as the following analysis shows:

wa-ǧāʼa

raǧulun

min aqṣā l-madīnati

yasʿā

1. Verbal

predicate

subject

adjective

Circumstantial clause

2. Verbal

predicate

subject

Adverb of place connected to

the verbal predicate

Adjective (of “a man”)

In Q 36:20 the prepositional phrase is preposed for rhetorical reasons;

namely, to emphasize that the messengers' invitation reached the most

remote parts of the city, and attracted a man who is identified as Ḥabīb the

woodworker (Rāzī, 2000, vol. 26, p. 48). According to this explanation, Q

36:20 should be rendered word for word in English as “Then came from the

farthest point of the city a man, running” and in Hebrew “ שיא ריעה הצקמ אבו

זפחנ אוהשכ” (u-ba mi-ktẓe ha-ʿir ish k-she-hu neḥpaz). This modification shows

that both Fakhry and Adawi should not have experienced any difficulty

translating Q 36:20, so word order should not have been ignored. It could be

argued that to communicate the message of the source text, the translator

changed its structure and word order patterns, but in so doing failed to

communicate the real message. Thus Examples 9 and 10 illustrate what

Beekman (1965, p. 88)

meant when noting that when there is

correspondence of form but not of function, the meaning is wrong or at best

obscure.

In Example 11 the shifts in the verb-aspect system are the focus, where

the relative clause includes perfect forms. However, they are usually rendered

in the present:

(11) fa-ammā llaḏīna āmanū wa-ʿamilū ṣ-ṣāliḥāti fa-yuwaffīhim

uǧūrahum (Q 4:173)

But as for those who believe and do good deeds, He will give them

their rewards in full (Fakhry, 1998, p. 66).

Beekman is mentioned by Kelly (1979, p. 24).

106 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

Doch denen, welche glauben und gute Werke tun, wird er ihren Lohn

in vollem Maße geben (Bobzin, 2010, p. 90).

םלומג אולמ הללא םהל םלשי ,םיבוטה םישעמה תא ושעו ונימאהש ולאו ve-elu

she-heʾeminu ve-ʿasu et ha-maʿasim ha-tovim yeshalem lahem

allah mlo gmulam (Adawi, 2015, p. 96).

Alsaif (2017, p. 127) indicated that translating tense and aspect from

Arabic into English can be a challenge because of the major differences

between the two languages. Tense and aspect in Arabic are difficult because

there is almost no reference to this issue in Arabic grammar treatises, and

there are few Western studies on tense and aspect in Arabic. However, it

would be erroneous to claim that there are many shifts in translating the verbs

that occur in the Qurʾān. Translators are familiar with the use of aspects such

as the prophetic perfect, the historical narrative, and the habitual present, and

they usually render them accurately (see Examples 1 and 2). Fakhry and

Bobzin render the verbs āmanū and ʿamilū in Q 3:173 in the present. In

English, one of the functions of the present tense is to express a durative

action. However, the two verbs in Q 3:173 do not indicate a continuous action,

but rather describe actions that occurred in the past and will last until a specific

time in the future, which is Judgment Day. On this day the people’s actions

will be examined retrospectively, and God will give those who believed and

did good deeds their rewards in the Hereafter. Thus, Adawi renders the

meaning accurately by using the past tense. Furthermore, if Q 4:137 meant to

indicate habituality and durativity, a verb in the imperfect would have been

used, as for example in Q 6:92.

2.4. Partial equivalence as a result of basic syntactic competence

Clearly the three translators mentioned in this article have excellent

grammatical and linguistic backgrounds in the languages from which they

translate. However, as Nida (1964, p. 241) noted, translators often show their

greatest weaknesses in syntactic structures. They may understand the

meaning of the words and phrases quite well but are often woefully lacking in

a fundamental appreciation of the meaning of a specific syntactic structure.

Specifically, although their translation of particles and verbs adheres for the

most part with grammatical treatises, many translators misinterpret these

particles and verbs or use them inaccurately. Erroneous use of these particles

definitely exerts an influence on meaning.

In Example 12 my primary concern has to do with the structure type of

kāna llāhu ʿalīman ḥalīman, and in particular the use of the verb kāna “was.”

According to traditional Arab and Western grammarians, kāna in clauses of

the kāna llāhu ʿalīman raḥīman type express an action in the present or at no

specific time, that started in the past and continues to this day. Some

Yehudit Dror 107

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

grammarians

even argue that it is zāʾida “redundant” (lit. an “appendix”) and

is used li-taʾkīd “for emphasis.” For example, the sentence kāna zaydun

munṭaliqan “Zayd is going” (lit. “was going”) is semantically equivalent to

zaydun munṭaliqun: the verb kāna appended to the sentence has no effect on

its meaning (Dror, 2017, pp. 37-39). This might explain why kāna in the above

clause type is always rendered in present tense, indicating an action that is

not limited in time and does not relate to any specific time: it started in the past

and continues in the present, as extends into the future. However, a more in-

depth examination of the exegetical literature shows that in some cases kāna

indeed has a perfective meaning, which does not necessarily contradict God's

infinity because kāna has two references: to a past action (mentioned in the

verse or implied by Qurʾānic exegetes) and to the circumstance that enabled

this action to take place.

(12) wa-lā taqtulū anfusakum inna llāha kāna bikum raḥīman (Q

4:29)

Do not kill yourselves. Allah is indeed Merciful to you! (Fakhry, 1998,

p. 54)

Und tötet euch nicht selbst! Siehe, Gott ist euch gegenüber voll

Erbarmen (Bobzin, 2010, p. 74)

םוחר םכילע הללא הנה ,םכיתושפנ תא ולטקת לא

al-tiktelu et nafshotekhem hine allah ʿalekhem raḥum (Adawi, 2015,

p. 79).

With respect to Q 4:29, Zamaḫšarī (1995, vo. 1, pp. 492-493) says that

God was merciful/has shown mercy to you when He did not impose those laws

(verses 1-29) that would be difficult to obey. Bayḍāwī (1996, vol. 2, p. 177)

suggested that the verse means that God was merciful to you, the believers,

when he commanded the Children of Israel to kill each other, whereas He

forbids the Muslims from doing so. However, in contrast to Zamaḫšarī, Ṭabarī

(1992, vol. 4, p. 38) replaces the verb kāna with lam yazal “still” (God still

shows his mercy towards the people), indicating that this clause does not have

a perfective but rather a durative meaning (Dror, 2017, p. 46). Thus Q 4:29

should be translated as “Do not kill yourselves, Allah was Merciful to you!” and

a brief explanation in the footnotes should be added.

In Examples 13 and 14 the clause is identical save for one difference:

in Example 14 the particle an follows the temporal conjunction lammā “when”:

For a detailed discussion on explanations of kāna in the traditional Arab grammarians and

Western grammarians see Dror (2017).

For more issues concerning the translation of kāna see Al-Khawalda (2004).

108 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

(13) wa-lammā ǧāʾat rusulunā lūṭan sīʾa bihim wa-ḍāqa bihim

ḏarʿan wa-qāla hāḏā yawmun ʿaṣībun (Q 11:77)

And when Our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved by them

and felt unable to protect them. He said: This is a dreadful day

(Fakhry, 1998, p. 138).

Als unsere Boten zu Lot kamen, wurde er ihretwegen ganz

bekümmert, geriet durch sie in Bedrängnis uns sprach: Das ist ein

Tag, der schwer zu ertragen ist! (Bobzin, 2010, p. 196).

!השק םוי הז :רמאו ושפנ םהב הרצקו ,םהב ול ערוה טול לא וניחילש ואב רשאכו

ve-kaʾasher baʾu shlikhenu el lot huraʿ lo bahem ve-kaẓra bahem

nafsho ve-amar ze yom kasha (Adawi, 2015, p. 194)

(14) wa-lammā an ǧāʾat rusulunā lūṭan sīʾa bihim wa-ḍāqa bihim

ḏarʿan (Q 29:33)

And when Our emissaries came to Lot, he was troubled and

distressed on their account (Fakhry, 1998, p. 250).

Als unsere Gesandten zu Lot gekommen waren, bekümmerte er sich

ihrentwegen und geriet durch sie in Bedrängnis (Bobzin, 2010, p.

196).

ושפנ םהב הרצקו ,םהב ול ערוה טול לא וניחילש ואב רשאכו

ve-kaʾasher baʾu shlikhenu el lot huraʿ lo bahem ve-kaẓra bahem

nafsho ve-amar ze yom kashe (Adawi, 2015, p. 194)

Examination shows that the Hebrew and English translations do not

translate the particle an. In the German translation, however, both verbs ǧāʾat

and sīʾa in Q 11:77 are rendered in the präteritum “Als unsere Boten zu Lot

kamen, wurde er ihretwegen ganz bekümmert”, whereas in Q 29:33 the verb

ǧāʾat is rendered in the Plusquamperfect (“gekommen waren”) and the

second verb sīʾa is rendered in the präteritum (“bekümmerte er sich”).

According to Arab grammarians the particle an in Q 29:33 is the so-

called an al-zāʾida: “the appended an” that functions as an emphatic

particle.”

As mentioned when discussing bāʾ al-zāʾida not all zawāʾid

particles exist in languages such as English, German and Hebrew, so they

tend not to be translated , as shown in the English and the Hebrew translations

of Q 29:33. However, here, there is a difference between Q 11:77 and Q

29:33, which should be expressed in the translation. In his explanation of Q

29:33 Zamaḫšarī (1947, vol. 1, p. 502)

noted that the particle an emphasizes

See, for example, Ibn Yaʿīš (2001, vol. 5, pp. 67-68). Cf. Fidā (2000, p. 622-623); Brockelmann

(1966, vol. 2, p. 601); Lipinski (1997, p. 530).

This explanation is also mentioned by Fidā (2000, pp. 624, 628-629).

Yehudit Dror 109

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

that the verbs ǧāʾat and sīʾa are connected in the sense that the two actions

are roughly simultaneous; namely, at the moment the messengers came to

him (i.e., at the moment he saw them), he was troubled. Thus, Q 29:33 in

Hebrew םללגב םהל ערוה טול לא םיחילשה אוב םע ʿim bo ah-shliḥim el lot huraʿ lo

biglalam.

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Since we are dealing with the holy scriptures, a book that guides

approximately 1.8 billion of Muslims who speak or read Arabic, and one that

has attracted the attention and interest of millions of non-Muslims, questions

regarding the type of translation are important. How far should the translator

go in translating the SL into the TL? Should translators abandon equivalence

at the microstructural level to communicate the basic concepts of the text?

What makes translators prefer one type of translation over another?

According to Nida and Newmark, the nature of the translation is

determined by the target audience. Nida (1964, p. 156) argues that differences

in translations can generally be accounted for by three basic factors: (1) the

nature of the message, (2) the author's purpose, (3) the type of audience. In

keeping with point (3), Newmark (1981, p. 10) pointed out that the translator

should produce a different type of translation (formal vs. dynamic) of the same

text for each type of audience.

The question is whether translators can really know their audiences.

For example, the Hebrew translations by Adawi (2015) and Rubin (2015) are

read by students, researchers, and “ordinary” people. Furthermore, if

translators aim their translation at readerships who know little or nothing about

Islam and Arabic, should the translation be freer, and at times not replicate

the syntactic features of the Qurʾān? My own view is that when translators

distance themselves from the syntactic structure of the SL they may fail in

their quest for equivalence or communicative effectiveness.

This article suggested that full grammatical equivalence does exist in

Qurʾānic translations. Syntactic equivalence occurs when the SL and the TL

are related to the same syntactic features; for example, a passive verb in the

SL will be rendered as a passive verb in the TL. I also classified cases in this

category in which there are several correct alternatives for translating a

syntactic structure; often these are also mentioned by grammarians and

Qurʾānic commentators, such as innakum la-taʾtūna r-riǧāla šahwatan min

dūni n-nisāʾi (Q 7:81). Zamaḫšarī (1947, vol. 2, p. 125) explains the accusative

of the verbal noun šahwatan as mafʿūl lahu (adverb of cause and reason) by

paraphrasing the verse as “Verily you come to the men instead of women

This suggested translation can be applied in Q 28:19 and Q 12:96, where lammā an occurs.

110 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

because of your lust for men.” The verbal noun functions as a circumstantial

accusative, with the meaning “Verily you come to men instead of women,

when you desire them.” Fakhry (1998, p. 99) chose to render this as an adverb

“You approach men instead of women lustfully.”

However certain shifts in the translations were classified as follows:

(a) Partial equivalence, i.e., partial syntactic equivalence when the TL

does not have the same syntactic features as the SL. This can be seen in the

example of the so-called bāʾ al-zāʾida “the appended bāʼ”. When it is left in

the English or German translation it can be regarded as an equivalent

translation, though the pragmatic/rhetorical effect of this emphatic preposition

is not expressed in the TL.

(b) Partial equivalence, for which no explanation can be provided.

Consider the new example Q 24:2. Halima (2014, pp. 125-126)

refers to this

Qurʾānic verse in a section where he discusses the translation of the Qurʾān

from a linguistic perspective:

az-zāniyatu wa-z-zānī fa-ǧlidū kulla wāḥidin minhumā miʾata ǧaldatin.

The first part was translated by Dawood (1956) as “The adulterer and the

adulteress shall each be given a hundred lashes.” Although the above

example lacks metaphor, the translators seem to have made serious mistakes

because of their inability not only to find the right equivalent of the word ǧlidū

but also to understand the significance of the word order in the Qurʾān as a

whole. Halima refers to the fact that Dawood (1956) puts the male before the

female (“the adulterer and the adulteress”). In fact, it is the only place in the

Qurʾān where the female is mentioned before the male.

I also argue that the word order SV in Q 24:2 is used as a discourse

marker to indicate the transition to a new rule; however, the pragmatics of this

word order is lost in translation.

In terms of syntax, Q 24:2 should be viewed considering structures

similar to those found in Q 4:15, Q. 5:38, Q. 24:2, Q. 24:6 and Q. 24:33, where

the subject is preposed.

Thus clearly, in the case of Q 24:2 keeping the word order of the SL is

the correct choice. Dawood's translation cited by Halima - “The adulterer and

Word order in Qurʼānic translation is also mentioned by Abdul-Raof (2001, pp. 22-24, 43-44).

It should be mentioned that Ibn Hišām explains that Q 24:4 should be reconstructed as mimmā

yutlā ʿalaykumu ḥukmu z-zānī wa-z-zāniyati “from the things you were told is the law of the

fornicator and the fornicatress.” It is followed by a new clause stating the law and formulated as

a command, i.e., the verb in the imperative preceded by the particle fa. As a rule, the particle of

fa cannot be introduced before a verbal predicate, so the verb ǧlidū

cannot function as the

predicate of a preposed noun. See Ibn Hišām (1991, vol. 2, p. 163).

Yehudit Dror 111

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

the adulteress shall each be given a hundred lashes” - is incorrect, because it

distorts the concept motivating this verse. In this case Nida (1964, p. 54) is

wrong to state

that changes in the text, the words, or the metaphors are of

no concern and are allowed as long as the target language text functions in

the same manner as the source text.

that are caused by a lack of syntactic competence on the part of the translator,

and distort the intended meaning of the SL. For example, in many cases,

issues of tense and aspect and the function of particles require an in-depth

investigation.

REFERENCES

Abdul-Raof, H. (2001). Qurʾān Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegeses,

Richmond: Curzon.

Adawi, Ṣ. (2015). ha-Koran be-Lashon Akher, Haifa: Gestlit Haifa.

Alsaif, Ebtisam A. (2017). Tense and Aspect in Translation from Arabic into

English: Azazeel by Youssef Ziedan as a Case Study. Arab World

English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies, 1(1), pp. 127-143.

Bassnett, S. (1991). Translation Studies, London, and New York: Routledge.

Beekman, J. (1965). Notes on Translation with Drills, Santa Ana, California:

Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Bobzin, H. (2010). Der Koran: Neu übertragen von Hartmut Bobzin, München:

C.H. Beck.

Brockelmann, C. (1966). Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der

semitischen Sprachen, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Casagrande, J.B. (1954). The Ends of Translation. International Journal of

American Linguistics, 20(4), pp. 335-340.

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London: Oxford

University Press.

Dawood, N. J. (1956). The Koran: Translated with Notes, London: Penguin

Books.

Dror, Y. (2013a). The Suffix-Conjugation Designating Eschatological Events

in the Qurʾān. Bibliotheca Orientalis, 70(1-2), pp. 41-52.

Compare: Gentzler (1993, p. 54).

112 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

—. (2013b). Adjectival Agreement in the Qurʼān. Bulletin d'études orientales,

62, pp. 51-76.

—. (2015). Is Each Particle in the Qurʼān Translatable? The Case of wāw al-

istiʾnāf Preceeding the Fawāṣil. Babel: International Journal of

Translation, 61(1), pp. 22-42.

— (2017). The Perfective Indication of kāna in Clauses of the wa-kāna llāhu

ʻalīman raḥīman Type. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 3(1),

pp. 34-56.

Fakhry, M. (1998). The Qurʼān: A Modern English Version, Reading: Garnet

Publishing.

Gadalla, H.A. H. (2010). Syntactic Classes of the Arabic Passive Participle

and How They Should Be Rendered into English. Babel: International

Journal of Translation, 56(1), pp. 1-18.

Gentzler, E. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New

York: Routledge.

Gesenius, W. (1846). The Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius. Translated by

Benjamin Davies, Conant, London: Samuel Bagster and Sons.

Goshen-Gottstein, M. (2006). Takhbira ve-milona shel ha-lashon ha-Ivrit,

edited by Shraga Asif and Uri Melamed. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute

for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East.

Halima, A.M. (2014). Translation of the Holy Quran: A Call for Standardization.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(1), pp. 122-133.

Kashgary, A.D. (2011). The Paradox of Translating the Untranslatable:

Equivalence vs. Non-Equivalence in Translating from Arabic into

English. Journal of King Saud University –Languages and Translation,

23, pp. 47-57.

Kelly, L.G. (1979). The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and

Practice in the West, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Al-Khawalda, M. (2004). The Deterioration of the Usage of Kaana in the Holy

Quran via Translation. Babel, 50(3), pp. 215-229.

Lipinski, E. (1997). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar,

Leuven: Peeters Publishers.

Newman, A. (1980). Mapping Translation Equivalence, Leuven: Academic

Publishing Company.

Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Yehudit Dror 113

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

Nida, E.A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: Brill.

— and Taber, C. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation, Brill: Leiden.

Reckendorf, H. (1921). Arabische Syntax, Heidelberg: Carl Winter's

Universitätsbuchhandlung.

Rubin, U. (2015). ha-Qurʾān, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.

Saldanha, G. (2011). Linguistic Approach. In Baker M. and Saldanha G.

(Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 148-152).

London and New York: Routledge.

El-Shiyab, S. (1998). Ellipsis in Arabic and its Impact on Translation. al-

ʾArabiyya, 31, pp. 39-54.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies. An Integral Approach,

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Stewart, D. (2000). Understanding the Quran in English: Notes on Translation,

Form, and Prophetic Typology. In Ibrahim Z. et al. (Eds.), Diversity in

Language: Contrastive Studies in Arabic and English Theoretical and

Applied Linguistics (pp. 31-48). Cairo and New York: The American

University in Cairo Press.

Van Leuven-Zwart, K.M. (1989). Translation and Original: Similarities and

Dissimilarities, I. Target, 1(2), pp. 151-181.

Wright, W. (1971). A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd revised edition by

W. Robertson Smith and M.J. Goeje, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Arabic Sources

al-Bayḍāwī, ʿAbdillāh Ibn ʿUmar. (1996). Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-taʾwīl,

Bayrut: Dār Fikr.

Fidā, Hayfāʾ ʿUṯmān ʿAbbās. (2000). Ziyādat al-ḥurūf: Bayna al-taʾyīd wa-l-

manʿ wa-asrārihā al-balāġiyya fī l-Qurʾān al-karīm, Cairo: Maktabat al-

Qāhira li-l-kitāb.

Ibn Hišām, Ǧamāl al-Dīn al-Anṣārī. (1991). Awḍaḥ al-masālik ilā alfiyyat Ibn

Mālik, Beirut: Dār iḥyāʾ al-turāṯ al-ʿarabī.

Ibn Kaṯīr, al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿImād al-Dīn Abū al-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl. (n.y.). Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-

ʿaẓīm, Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī.

Ibn Yaʿīš, Muwaffaq al-Dīn. (2001). Šarḥ al-mufaṣṣal, Beirut: ʿĀlam al-kutub.

114 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

al-Murādī, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan Ibn Qāsim. (1983). al-Ǧanā al-dānī fī

ḥurūf al-maʿānī, Beirut: Manšūrāt dār al-āfāq al-ǧadīda.

al-Rāzī, Muḥammad Faḫr al-Dīn. (2000). Mafātīḥ al-ġayb, Beirut: al-Nāšir wa-

l-kātib al-ʿarabī.

Sībawayhi, Abū Bišr ʿUmar Ibn ʿUṯmān. (1980). al-Kitāb, Cairo: Maktabat al-

Ḫānǧī.

al-Suhaylī, Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Rahmān Ibn ʿAbdillāh. (n.y.). Natāʾiǧ al-fikr

fi l-naḥw, Cairo: Dār al-iʿtiṣām.

al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ǧaʿfar Ibn Ǧarīr. (1992). Ǧāmiʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān,

Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya.

al- Zamaḫšarī, Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad Ibn ʻUmar. (1947). al-Kaššāf, Beirut:

al-Nāšir wa-l-kātib al-ʿarabī.

— (1995). al-Kaššāf, Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya.

Yehudit Dror 115

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

TABLE 1

Brill’s Arabic Transliteration System Encyclopedia Judaica's Transliteration System

Arabic

Roman letter

Hebrew

Roman letter

in the initial

position

ʾ in the middle

position

בּ

ṯ

ḥ

ḫ

ḥ

ḏ

כּ

ṣ

ḍ

ṭ

ẓ

פּ

ẓ

116 Types of Syntactic Equivalence in Qurʾānic Translations […]

Hikma 19 (2) (2020), 91 - 116

w, ū

y, ī

*Initial hamza is

not transliterated