allegory in arabic expressions of speech and silence

8/8/2019 Allegory in Arabic Expressions of Speech and Silence

1/37


2/37

their mysteries, which gives more enlightenment about allegoricalexpressions in general, and how this can be reflected in theirtranslation into English. This paper is an attempt in this direction,concentrating on allegorical expressions of speech and silence in

Arabic, investigated stylistically and translationally.Two questions beg answering here: Is allegory translatable in thefirst place? And is it legitimate to translate in the opposite directionas is done normally, that is, from L1 (mother tongue) into L2(foreign language) instead of from L2 into L1? As to the firstquestion, some theoreticians like Quillard (1998) regard thetranslation of puns, ambiguities and humour as impossible (maybein imitation of Nobokov's firm belief in the impossibility of translatingpoetry-see Connolly 1998 for more details and objections), which isquite a strange claim, for in practice these are translated from andinto all live languages almost daily, however questionable thedegree of acceptability and accuracy. I side with Newmark that"...everything without exception is translatable; the translatorcannot afford the luxury of saying that something cannot betranslatable." (1988, 6). Admittedly, the comprehension and thusthe translation of allegory is quite difficult, for it can be mysterious,elusive, opaque, or misleading (see also Baker 1992, 68-69 for moredetails on the difficulties of translating idioms), but certainly it is notimpossible. I believe that it is possible to translate allegorysuccessfully, and that this is confirmed by thousands of goodtranslations of poetry in particular and other types of allegorical textin general, and that it is also demonstrated by the translations of the examples in this article.

As regards the legitimacy of translation into a foreign languagerather than into one's mother tongue, it is true that translators"...can translate naturally, accurately and with maximumeffectiveness" (op. cit., 3), and-I add-legally into their nativelanguage, their language of habitual use, for they control it morethan any other language; yet, the actual situation almost

everywhere in the world is that they are sometimes obliged toreorient their translation in the opposite direction to produce somegood translations (see also Rioss and Weatherby 1998). It is hopedthat this study will prove a point in this respect.

In comparison to English, allegorical Arabic expressions of speechand silence are amazingly rich with all kinds of meanings, styles andstylistic relationships, effects, implications and functions. Among thecentral relationships are the stylistic (especially lexico-grammaticaland phonological) relationships of harmony, disharmony, ironical

paradox, integration, disintegration, praise and condemnation of speech and silence considered individually, and speech and silence


3/37

considered together by way of juxtaposition and comparison.Understanding and communicating such stylistic relationships in atranslation into English is sometimes crucially important to themessage.

What I mean by 'styles' here are the styles of politeness, harshness,indirectness, directness, passivity, positivity, threat, temptation, etc.As to functions, they are the hidden stylistic effects and implicationscreated by the different stylistic relationships brought about bysubtle, spellbinding allegory in Arabic at the levels of lexical choiceand grammatical structure in particular, which must be transmitted,one way or another, into English in the translation. After all, style istaken here to be primarily a matter of choice made from alllanguage features (see Leech and Short 1981, Carter and Nash1990, Ghazala 1994, Toolan 1998 and many others for moreillustrations). This choice, being intuitive and unfelt by languageusers, should not be disregarded by analysts and translators, for it isof critical importance to the message, and has considerable effect onthe reader. It is irrelevant whether this choice is intentional or not,although any choice in language is supposed to be conscious andintended.

Allegory, on the other hand, is used here as a superordinate term,subsuming all figures of rhetoric in language, including mainlymetaphors, similes, puns, metonyms, personification, wordplay,symbolism, irony, synecdoche, antimetabole, anadiplosis, etc. (seeNash 1980, Wales 1989 and Ghazala 1996). In his distinguishedbook Rhetoric (1990) , my Ph.D. co-supervisor, Professor WalterNash, offers a comprehensive, profound, detailed and unique studyof rhetoric and figurative language. In his discussion of theimportance of style in rhetoric in the past, he finds that it is the"patterns of wording that enforced the structures of persuasion".Also, stylistic propriety or decorum (i.e., the relevance of themanner to the matter) is a voucher of the author's sincerity.

Therefore, "figurative language ... has a more than decorativepurport, it is meant to have an effective power, to raise theemotions associated with a subject and correspondingly to evokeemotional responses from an audience" (see pp. 10-13 inparticular). The last point about the response of the audience isquite important and recurrent in any discussion about allegoricalexpressions, as recipients are the target of such expressions. Inother words, the expressions have powerful stylistic effects whichimpress readers and should, therefore, be part and parcel of theirmeaning, and these effects have to be taken into account in

translation, exactly as done below.


4/37

This paper is based on a number of diverse Arabic expressions of different types: idioms, proverbs, semi-proverbs, catch phrases,adages, collocations and even everyday and colloquial phrases. Theyare transcribed phonetically, and then bitranslated, first literally andthen more freely, to make the point(s) sharper and clearer.

Silence

Silence, to begin with, is, surprisingly, commended andrecommended strongly and straightforwardly in many figurativephrases, but criticised in others, however indirectly. This createsreally interesting stylistic relationships, as the following discussionmay confirm.

1." " [khayru l-khilaali hifzu l-lisaan] Lit.: "The bestcharacteristic is to keep one's tongue": "The best thing to do is tohold your tongue". The metaphorical image reflected by " "'hold'recommends keeping the tongue literally inside the mouth, whichmeans not to use it at all. The equivalent English word 'hold' has thissense of preventing the tongue from talking by literally holding it,which is certainly understood but not done by language users. Tohave some power of persuasion, the phrase makes tongue-holding

the best characteristic of man, which is spiritual encouragement anda comparison that would show high regard for people as socialbeings. It may be noted that the same expression can also beinterpreted as a reference to saying little, just the necessary, usefuland important words, especially in everyday use of language. Yet, Ibelieve the former implication is the overwhelming sense of thephrase. On the other hand, the half rhyme between 'khilaal' and'lisaan' and the repetition of the letter 'kh' in the first two wordsreflect the popularity of rhyme in such popular phrases, and serveas an aid in memorising and remembering.

Similar phrases are: " ) ( ihfaz ('alayka) lisaanak] and] "

" ) ( amsek ('alayka) lisaanak]. Both mean: "Hold your] "tongue." Both can be used as a strong reaction to someone else'sstatement, as well as advice for everybody to be careful and quiet.

The English translations of the last two are perfect equivalences,while the first is semi-equivalent, with concentration on maintainingthe superlative form to demonstrate the functional exaggerationaimed at by the Arabic original.


5/37

2. " "[rubbama kana s-sukootu jawaaban] Lit.:"Perhaps silence is a reply": "Silence could be sometimes ananswer". The allegorical part of this phrase lies in silence, which isitself symbolic of a good answer, which could be more expressivethan a spoken utterance. Usually silence is literally no answer at all,when a spoken statement is demanded. Yet to keep silent in such asituation is considered symbolic and expressive enough of theintended message, which could be of satisfaction, dissatisfaction,anger, consent, malice, fear, hesitation, 'don't know', etc. Silence,then, has very significant stylistic implications, which must beattended to by analysts and translators alike.

There is nothing fantastic about the TL equivalence of meaning.Here 'rubbamaa' 'perhaps' is a probability that two counter-possibilities are equally feasible. That is, silence could/could not bean answer. The same sense is expressed in English. This means that'rubba' is more probable and closer to certainty than 'rubbamaa',although on the face of it, the two would mean'could/might/perhaps', etc. On the other hand, 'kaana' 'was' doesnot refer strictly to the past; but to a timeless present. Hence itstranslation into 'is'.

3. " :.ithaa tamma l-'aqlu naqusa l-kalaamu] Lit]""When reason becomes perfect, speech lessens": "More wisdom lesstalk". This is a hint to the value of keeping silent most of the time,as wisdom regards silence precious. Also, 'less talk' is more aninsinuation to silence than to less words, although the latter sense isnot uncommon. The antithesis suggested between 'perfectmind/wisdom' and 'less talk/silence' (i.e., 'less talk more wisdom'vs. 'more talk less wisdom' / 'more wisdom less talk' vs. 'lesswisdom more talk') is another sign of respect for silence. Such astrong link between 'reason' and 'silence' is a big incentive forpeople to refrain from talking, for this would indicate their 'perfectmind', as it were. In transmitting this expression in English, care is

taken on two main levels: the level of syntactic structure of contrastbetween the two verbs 'become perfect' and 'lessen' (in the TL it isreflected in 'more' and 'less'), and the level of conciseness of form,imitating-or perhaps superceding-the original (i.e., four words inEnglish vis--vis five in Arabic), for it meets the requirements of rhetorical allegory perfectly. One final important point is thetranslation of 'aql' 'reason/mind' into 'wisdom' 'hikmah' which is aninductive translation for 'perfection/completion of mind meanswisdom'. Thus, we understand the expression as follows: 'Be wise,keep quiet'.

4." :"assukootu min thahab] Lit.: "Silence is from gold] "


6/37

"Silence is gold". Here silence is materialised into gold, the mostprecious metal to people everywhere. This comparison aims atshowing the great value of silence, and we are urged to look at it asbeing valuable as gold. So the harmony and perfect identificationbetween gold and silence gives more evidence that silence is highlyrecommended. Some would object to comparing the immaterialsilence to the material gold, for it could be depreciation rather thanappreciation of silence to materialise it in such way. Maybe this istrue, but the fact of the matter is that a comparison like this is quitepopular among language users, especially in everyday conversation,and is intended only to confirm the value of something, and that isall. The TL version is stronger than the SL text for it makes silenceperfectly correspondent to gold in form of immediate, fullidentification with it. That is, Silence = Gold. But the original makessilence 'made of'-rather than perfectly identical with-gold, which canimply that the former is superior to the latter, and that other metalsor things could be involved in its essence. The equating form 'ls-sukootu thahab' 'silence is (=) gold' does not exist in Arabic.Furthermore, the definite article of 'al-sukoot' is indicative of anysilence, any time, any where, and for any reason (cf., the firstexample above and the next example).

Again, phonologically speaking, the consonant bilabial, voiced stop'b' in 'thahab' is suggestive of closed lips and stopping talkingcompletely, that is, 'as-sukoot'.

5." " [rubba kalimaten salabat ni'mah] Lit.: "One wordmay steal a bounty": "One word could cost you a fortune","A wordcan be costly". It is a phrase that recommends investing silence in asituation where saying something, even one word, could be costlyenough to deprive someone of a valuable thing. So allegoricallyspeaking, such a word could steal, or rob him of something that is(or would be) his otherwise, that is, if only he would keep his mouthshut. The 'word' meant here is primarily one that might be bad, or

undesired; but any word of any kind is inadvisable. Themetaphorical word that relates silence to fortune, 'salabat''steal/rob', is a subtle lexical choice which is functional andsuggestive of a person's right ripped away him by uttering onesingle word, although it is not really one of his own possessions byorigin or by law. As such, it invites a feeling of regret for wastingsuch a hypothetical right.

Syntactico-stylistically speaking, 'rubba' implies certainty ratherthan probability in the sense that such a word, if said, is sure to

have an effect. However, the indefinite form of 'kalimaten' is again


7/37

indicative of sometimes, not always (see the previous example).

Reading the expression with two stops on 'kalimah' and 'ni'mah'consecutively, we discover a sense of irony in this soft rhyme withsoft, low intonation and full pronunciation of the glottal fricative 'h'(as in the final sound of 'ah') which is indicative of something thathas evaporated. And this is exactly what the phrase wants tocommunicate.

Two English translations are provided for this expression; the first isa full translation in a precise literal sense, but too long and tooliteral, while the second is shorter, more English, more effective andgeneric, yet looser and less specific. Both translations, however,have failed to produce a phonological effect similar to that of theoriginal.

6." " [rubba raasen haseedu lissan] Lit.: "Maybe a headis the price for a slip of the tongue": "A slip of the tongue could geta man killed". This expression is an outright threat that a word, evenone that is unintentional, might cause a person his life, the highestprice that a man can pay. This is an indirect piece of advice forpeople to be extra careful and keep quiet. Such a straightforward,sharp connection between a word (i.e., tongue) and one's life (i.e.,head) as the price is so frightening that one must think twice beforesaying something in certain situations, before certain people. It is aconnection that relates tongue to head in such a manner that thelatter survives only on the condition that the former behaves itself.This shows the serious consequences of talking, and at the sametime implies the unparalleled value of silence. The use of 'rubba'(implying certainty rather than probability) invites the notes madeabove on its use in such expressions.

Related to this are proverbial expressions and adages like:

" " [Lissanak hisaanak in suntahusaanak wa-in khuntahu khaanak] Lit.: "Your tongue is your horse: if you take care of it, it will take care of you, and if you betray it, it willbetray you": "Beware of your tongue (if you don't hold it)";

" annadamu 'la s-sukootu khayron mina] " n-nadami 'ala l-qawl] Lit.: "Regretting silence is better thanregretting saying": "Better to regret silence than utterance"; " / maa awradani l-mahaalika illaa ant/laqad] "awradtani l-mahaalek] Lit.: "O, my tongue, nothing has ruined me

but you": "You ruined me, tongue!;" wahal dkubbu n-naasa alaa wujoohihem fi- n-naari illa] "


8/37

hasaaedu alsinatihem] This is a part of a tradition by the ProphetMuhammad (peace be upon him). It roughly means: "The people of Hellfire are thrown there mostly because of their wicked tongues."The last one is the strongest warning possible of the direconsequences of bad talk. At the same time, it has the implicationthat remaining silent is to be on the safe side. Another saying by theprophet which reflects the same sense is a word of advice for abeliever to say good things, or else keep silent: " "[falyaqol khayran aw liyasmot].

It should be pointed out that all the foregoing phrases and sayingsdo not recommend absolute, everlasting silence. Their mainmessage is to prefer silence to talking, listening to speaking, to beextra careful when saying something, and to remain quiet in criticalsituations and moments in the company of certain people.

The English translations of all these expressions lean heavily on thetransference of their literal meaning as closely and faithfully aspossible. The closest to English proverbial structure is 'Better toregret silence than utterance,' for it is an attempt to mimic the formof proverbs like 'better late than never,' 'better safe than sorry,'etc., which is more effective than an ordinary form.

7. " " [samton mutbeq] Lit.: "Closing silence": "Absolutesilence", "Complete silence", "A ton of silence". This metaphor issuggestive of a stone-dead person. It is an exaggeration aimed atreflecting a psychological and/or mental state of deep thinking,contemplation, utter carelessness, or dissatisfaction, the latter beingdominant. This phrase is an excellent image of perfect silence,turning the original image upside down. That is, instead of describing silence as being internal, coming out of the man inquestion, it is introduced here as something external, dumped onhim from the outside, like a speech-resistant suit, as it were. It is akind of expression used usually in a context of passivity and/or

confusion and puzzlement on the part of the hearer.

The English translation is borrowed from Newmark's example onoriginal metaphors: 'A ton of enforced silence was dumped on Mr.Eaton' (1988: 113), where the word 'dump' is suggestive of theimage claimed above. Yet, 'absolute silence' is a good version.

8." " [maa nabasa bibinti shafah] Lit.: "He did not whisperone daughter of a lip": "He buttoned his lips", "He was as quiet asthe grave", "He kept a quiet tongue". 'The daughter of a lip' is a

metaphor that stands for 'a word'. It is an exaggeration meant tostress the state of absolute silence of a person whose mouth is


9/37

completely shut. Also, 'whisper' emphasizes the person's absolutesilence, that he did not open his mouth to produce one single word,or even one sound. 'Daughter of a lip' completes the picture of aperson who does not even whisper, let alone produce words off hismouth. The context of this expression is positive, praising a personfor keeping completely quiet, by way of defending him for sayingnothing whatsoever. 'Bint' can also be understood as a reference tothe bilabial sound 'b' the first to be produced by the closed lips whenopened. This will be quite clear if we practice it by closing lips andopening them a little in the middle to pronounce 'b'. We can hardlyfeel that we have pronounced something, which is what could beimplied here by the Arabic 'bint'. Adding to this sense is the secondset of sounds of the final word 'sha fah '. The sound cluster 'fah' isagain one of the simplest shortest and easiest to produce when justopening the lips.

As regards the English translation, three equally accepted versionsare available in the English language, the first of which is the closestand the most identical with the Arabic original, as far as theallegorical image is concerned. What is exactly meant by the SLexpression is that someone had his lips completely buttoned, whichis expressed in another informal Arabic phrase, " " [khayatfamah]: "He sewed his mouth", "He had his mouth sewed."Nevertheless, there are two differences between the original and thetranslation: one concerns the absence of the phonological effect of the former in the latter; another is the use of two culturally differentallegorical images, but with the same implication and effect.

9." !"( ) [bee'na skootak (col.)] Lit.: "Sell us your silence!":"Keep your quiet", "Stop talking!". This is a popular colloquialexpression that could be somehow confusing, for, first of all, howcan one sell one's silence? And secondly and more importantly, howare we to understand that this is said to interrupt somebody, to gethim to stop talking? It is understood as an indirect, but impolite way

of abruptly cutting off someone's speech. What it really means isthat silence is valuable whereas speech is not. Therefore, thatperson is advised to give up talking, which is valueless, in favour of silence, which is precious to such an extent that people would buy it.Certainly no one would pay a penny for it, but it is just an indirectway to pass the message to a person to stop talking, especiallywhen he expresses an uninteresting view. Again, the matter is toconvince people to keep silent. A very important feature of thisphrase is its sarcastic implication, since no one really sells or buyssilence except ironically. What helps us understand this sense is the

falling-rising serious intonation in the question form.


10/37


11/37

all of which are special metaphors aimed at glorifying the Prophet,his sayings, possessions and deeds. Added to them are phrases like" " [almus-hafu sh-shareef], referring to the Holy Qur'anand " al-haramaani sh-shareefaan], referring to the two] "Holy mosques in Mecca and Al-Medina in Saudi Arabia.

3." )" / / ) [kalaamak dahab/min dahab (col.)] Lit.:"Your speech is gold/from gold": "Your speech is gold/golden".Speech here is compared to gold, exactly as silence is (see 1above). It is a perfect metaphorical material harmony between goldand speech, aiming at rating speech highly. But it is not any kind of speech; it is a certain speech in a certain situation on a certain topicaddressed to a certain person who approves it by commenting on it,using this phrase. So, it is not speech in general.

Three stylistic points are due here. The first is the differencebetween the two versions of this phrase: 'speech is gold' and'speech is made of gold' which are apparently the same. They arenot precisely so as the latter would imply metals other than gold,and speech is not identified with gold, but made of it as its rawmaterial, while the former identifies the elements with each other:speech is gold; gold is speech (see also 1 above). Secondly,identifying speech with gold draws attention to the substance of speech which is as precious as gold. Thirdly, such comparison isdrawn on a material, not a moral basis.

The English equivalent is perfectly identical with the first versionand, therefore, achieves all the effects and functions of the original.

4. " "( ) [kalam hulu (col.)] Lit.: "Sweet talk": "Nice talk". Themetaphor here identifies talk with sweetness, the area of tasterather than substance (it should be pointed out that the Arabicsweet talk is different from the well-known English phrase 'sweettalk' with the negative sense of insincerity and hypocrisy; for this

sense, see the discussion of 'sweet tongue' in the section aboutnegative expressions about speech below). It could be a reference tothe choice of favourable words and expressions such as collocations,rhetorical figures, catch phrases and proverbs. Consequently, anagreeable message is certainly implied. Hence, speech is very muchpraised, but only good and nice speech.

Other similar expressions are " " [kalaam jameel] Lit.:"Beautiful talk": "Nice talk", whose concentration is shifted onto theagreeable, likeable part of speech alongside a favourable message; "

" [kalaam ma'qool] Lit.: "Reasonable/rational speech":"Wise/good talk", which centres on persuasive speech; " "


12/37

[husnu l-khitaab] Lit.: "The beauty of address": "Charming rhetoric",with focus on the rhetorical, aesthetic aspects of speech.

Translationally, all these expressions have equivalents of sense inthe first place. The only problematic one is the last which soundstautological in English (i.e., 'rhetorical' implies 'charming'), yet it is arelatively good translation that is faithful to the SL phrase.

5." )" ) [kalaamak; 'ala l-ayn war-raas (col.)] Lit.:"Your speech is on (my) eye and head": "I hold your opinion in highesteem". This expression is symbolic of showing respect, consent,obedience, submission and full approval by the speaker. It is aprompt response to a point of view, a word of advice, a request, aninstruction of some kind, etc. Its reference is exclusively to themessage. Although it is an expression of consent, it does not alwaysimply a wholehearted agreement: a contrastive statement-usuallybeginning with 'but'-might follow it to oppose what has been said.

The choice of eye and head is socio-cultural, connoting a high regardfor them both, maybe because they are the two highest, mostimportant and sensitive parts of the human body; hence thepopular, colloquial phrases: " )" / /) ['alaa'ayni/min 'ayni haathihi qabla haathihi/min uyooni (col.)] "OK/Withpleasure";

" )" /( ) ala raasi (min fouq)/amrak 'alaa raasi] ((col.)] "OK/Yes sir/With all my pleasure". Thus, even with only oneof the two-the eye or the head-the expression implies approval andsubmissiveness; so when both are used in one and the same phraseas connotatively homogeneous-as in our phrase here-they becomestylistically more emphatic.

The English versions are pragmatic and free, focussing on the senseand effect of the message at the expense of a literal rendition which,

if applied, would be funny and repulsive.

6." )" ) [kalaam rjaal (col.)] Lit.: "Talk of men": "Responsibleword", "A word of honour". This is either a comment on somebodyelse's statement, or a confirmation by the speaker himself. It meansa responsible saying, opinion or word given firmly by a person,usually-but not strictly-a man. It is a kind of oath or a pledge madeby him for another person that he assumes full responsibility tomeet someone. So the word 'men' here is symbolic of courage,responsibility, honour, honesty, firmness and faithfulness. This is not

unknown in English language and culture, as Lady Macbeth'squestion to her frightened, hesitant husband in Shakespeare's play,


13/37

Macbeth , "Are you a man?" (Act III, Scene 4:58) implies that shethinks he is a cowardly, weak man in the first place. At the sametime, an expression that insinuates the opposite is " " [kalaamnswaan (col.)] Lit.: "Women's talk", which has oppositeconnotations. Perhaps this made sense in English in Shakespeare'sday, but not now!

The TL translation is a functional equivalent for the original. That is,it reflects its function rather than the literal sense or description.Furthermore, 'word of honour' is a commonplace collocation.

7. " " [qawlon saa'eb] Lit.: "Hitting saying": "Right saying","Well-said". Here a saying is highly appreciated because it hits thetarget perfectly, right in the bull's-eye. Here lies the metaphor: asaying is identified with an arrow that hits the target in the heart,which means that it is right to perfection. This target is the absolutetruth about something or somebody. A similar expression is:" :"asaaba kabida l-haqeeqah] Lit.: "He hit the liver of the truth] ""He hit the heart of the matter", where 'liver' is employed tosymbolise the centre or the heart of the truth. But truth has no liveror heart, only in the allegoric sense. The image is a little bitcomplicated here. The liver is as central and essential as the heartto the human body, the origin of this image; therefore when hit,man's life terminates. By analogy, when truth is hit in the heart, itcomes to an end and becomes clear and available to everybody. Thisimage of the truth makes it a prey, when hit in the heart, it getskilled, and then we can get hold of it. Yet, this expression does nothave negative implications about truth; on the contrary, it has anoutstandingly and exceptionally positive connotation. This image of hitting is preferable, especially in classical Arabic and culture.

'Heart of the matter' and 'hitting the target' are popular collocationsin English and hit the target of the SL meaning here. To myknowledge, there is no English metaphor like the last Arabic one

about 'truth'.

8." )( ( / )" [la fudda fooka/dslam fammak (tmmak)(col.)] Lit.: "May your mouth never be unsealed", "May your mouthbe safe": "Well-said (spoken)", "How well you have spoken". Theallegory here is in the use of 'mouth' to mean speech by implication,alongside with the addressee's wishes for the addresser's mouth tobe safe and never unsealed in order to speaking nicely perpetually.These two expressions are said as a comment on an exceptionallyfavourable statement. It is a great praise of somebody who says

exactly the right and required thing.


14/37

What is interesting in the first phrase is its double allegory. That is,in addition to the previous point about the use of 'mouth' to connotespeech, the use of 'fudda' 'unsealed' suggests an image based on ametaphor comparing a mouth to an envelope that is usually closedperfectly, or, in other words, sealed, so that no one can open it. It ishoped by the addressee that the mouth never be unsealed, thuskeeping nice words safe inside, so that every time it is openedagain, it will produce nice words.

The English equivalent 'well-said' has no allegory, but transfers themessage of the original faithfully, with an eye kept on an agreeableexpression of praise. Moreover, it is crisp, concise, sharp and to thepoint; and, like the original, it connotes a praise of a favourablestatement.

9." [al-qawlu yanfuthu maa laa tanfuthu l-ibaru] "Lit.: "Speech penetrates where needles cannot penetrate": "Speechis as penetrating as a pin". This metaphor is a fact of life, for wordscan touch the heart, whereas pins cannot. Even granting the highlyhypothetical possibility of touching the heart with pins, words canstill affect emotions and feelings, but pins cannot. So the image of penetration in this comparative relationship between pins and wordsis quite precise, impressive and expressive. Penetration is normallyassociated with the concrete (i.e., pins), but here it is also attributedto the inconcrete (viz., words) which not only matches the concrete,but surpass it, as is perfectly true in reality.

One more stylistic point can be made about the word order of thisexpression. The front position occupied by 'saying/words' has threeimportant indications: The first is the emphasis on the mostimportant word in the phrase. Secondly, by foregrounding it, theantithetical appearance of 'penetrate' becomes sharper and moreostentatious. Thirdly, the whole expression is most likely taken froma line of verse from Arabic traditional poetry, and such word order is

dictated by the restrictions of foot and metre. Even if this is so, it byno means discredits the previous two significant stylistic functionsfor the fronted 'words.'

Identical with this expression is the phrase" " [rubbaqawlen ashaddu min sawlen] Lit.: "Perhaps a saying is tougher thanan assault": "Words can be as fierce as a fight/as sharp as aneedle". Words are given a power greater and more influential thanan attack in a war with a deadly weapon and the possibility of a mangetting killed. What a serious, destructive power words might have!

Certainly 'qawlen' and 'sawlen' are made to rhyme with one anotheron purpose for rhetorical reasons, and for achieving and reflecting


15/37

equality between them, with 'ashaddu' in between to givesuperiority to the first. Also, the fronted word of probability, 'rubba'-repeated in many expressions like this-has the stylistic function of stressing the hypothetical, yet not uncertain, nature of the phrase.Stylistically speaking, this expression is perfectly organised.

In English, the translation of the latter phrase into an 'as ... as'phrase of popular similes, has superbly and comfortably matchedthe Arabic original. However, the former expression is admittedly anendeavour to imitate the SL structure and allegory, by retaining thesame metaphor of pins and needles, and employing the favouredEnglish form of 'as ... as' phrases.

10." (inda t-tasreeh tureeh] Lit.: "At speaking (frankly'] "you comfort us": "Speak up to cheer us up" "You speak up we cheerup". The whole phrase is allegorical, for 'tasreeh' stands for anopen/frank opinion on the part of the addresser, and 'tureeh' fortrouble-shooting and change of the psychological state of worry onbehalf of the addressee. A strong relationship is created betweenspeaking one's mind, and another's relief as a result of that. Tosupport and reflect this, the two words are made to rhyme with oneanother, with a subtle onomatopoeic touch demonstrated by thelong 'ee' followed by the sound 'h', a combination of sounds that canbe identified with a long sigh of relief, / [tanahhod/tanaffos as-sa'daa'], produced by a man having a burdenlifted off his shoulders. Obviously, the phrase is an urgent invitationfor people to speak up and say the truth, rather than hide it fromothers who happen to be impatient to hear it.

At translating the expression into English, the concern has been inthe three most important points, rhyme, comfortable structure, andmessage. The first is achieved through the repetition of 'up' and theconsonance between the medial long 'ee' in 'speak' and 'cheer'. Thesecond is realised by the clear-cut symmetrical structure of the

whole phrase, namely between 'you speak up' and 'we cheer up'.The third is the result of the previous two aspects as much as of thelexical choice of 'speak up' and 'cheer up' in favour of several othersavailable in the language inventory (e.g., 'talk/say the truth/befrank', etc., for the former, and 'be happy/feel comfortable/be atease', etc., for the latter).

11." / ( ) alkalimu (alkalaamu) t-tayyeb/alkalimatu] "t-tayyibah] Lit.: "Delicious talk": "Good words". The reference hereis to good, agreeable, decent, dignified and philanthropic language

in general. On top of this type of talk is 'thikru Allah' (remembranceof Allah). The metaphorical word 'tayyeb' is literally used to describe


16/37

food in the sense of delicious and tasty. By analogy, it is used tomodify immaterial things like words, speech, people, countries (cf.,"al-baladu t-tayyeb"-"the good/clean country/town") and behaviour.It is also used in everyday conversation to mean OK, right, good,beautiful, alright and fine. Contrasted to it is the phrase

" / " [al-kalaamu l-khabeeth/al-kalimatu l-khabeethah] Lit.: "Disagreeable/malicious talk": "Dirty/bad talk". Itis used to mean bad, evil, dirty, wicked, vicious, obnoxious, devilish,indecent and taboo language in general. Originally 'khabeeth' isderived from the noun 'khubth' (dirt/obnoxious taste). 'Goodlanguage' is used alongside this phrase to sharpen and heighten theparadoxical relationship between them, and make prominent theadvantages of the first and the disadvantages of the second.

English has no perfect equivalent for such expressions. However,sense is certainly available, as the versions supplied confirm,although without much allegory.

These two sharply antithetical expressions pave the way for thediscussion of those phrases which condemn speech in different waysand for different reasons.

1." "( ) [kalaam kbeer (col.)] Lit.: "Big talk":"Serious/responsible talk". Usually talk is not described as big orsmall in Arabic (and the two English phrases, 'small talk', i.e., lightconversation, and 'talk big', i.e., boastfully, are false friends inArabic for they have completely different meanings andconnotations). There is some ambiguity in 'big' which is mostlypositive in many collocations. Here it seems to be positive as anadjective describing 'speech', yet it is not so in its connotations. Thatis, being allegorical, this phrase is suggestive of a serious statementby an ordinary person who either does not know its implications, oris thought to have no authority or ability to be responsible for it or

to substantiate it. It is used in a context criticising, threatening,ridiculing or expressing surprise. Therefore, it is negative and criticalof such types of statements.

The functional equivalence is given in English for there is no identicalexpression with the same implications of the SL, but there is no signof ambiguity here.

2." allisaanu markabon thaloolu] Lit.: "The tongue is] "an obedient boat": "One's tongue is under one's control". The phrase

seems to be referentially in favour of speech, but contextually it isused as a warning against the slips and hazards of the tongue. It is


17/37

easy to use the tongue to say any word, but the consequencesmight be quite costly. Therefore, this metaphor implies the tendencyof the tongue towards loose, careless, slippery and uncontrolledproduction of words, regardless of the results. It is like a boatnavigating a fast river-extremely difficult to control. Stylisticallyspeaking, this image is a good choice for expressing perfectly thenotion of uncontrollability attributed to the tongue. This expressionis, then, an indirect precaution for people to take care of theirtongues, and beware of their slips and irresponsible emission of words.

Another meaning of 'thalool' (obedient) could be suggested here inthis negative context of tongue, which is 'humiliating and causinginsult to man' (taken from 'thalla/thull' 'humiliate/humiliation'). Thissense is quite feasible and understandable for it is imposed by thegeneral style and context of the expression, which implies thetroubles a slippery tongue might cause.

In a similar context, there are expressions that urge taking care of the tongue, or else silence is highly recommended (see phrases onsilence above).

Concerning the English translation, it transmits the sense regardlessof allegory. This is usually the last resort, but it is not all that bad.

3." / " [kalaam faaregh/taafeh] Lit.: "Empty/trivial talk":"Empty/idle talk", "Trash". 'Faaregh' 'empty' is usually used withmaterial objects like pans, bags, rooms, and any vacant spaces,rather than with immaterial things like talk. The image of emptinessis borrowed here to indicate that such kind of talk is at the sametime: uninteresting, mean, useless, trivial and time-wasting for theaddressee in particular. The same can be said about 'taafeh' 'trivial',which has identical implications. From a stylistic point of view, this isa crisp popular phrase, categorically destroying somebody's talk.

Two words are enough to blast apart a whole speech. They are agood example for the sharp and to-the-point phrases: " " [khayru l-kalaami maa qalla wadall], *** the so-called

encapsulators (i.e., words with comprehensive, general reference).Although the latter phrase is positive (it is not discussed with thephrases in favour of talk for it is not allegorical), it has a generalreference to any expression, negative or positive, which is sharp andto the point.

In this context, there are some metaphorical proverbial and semi-

proverbial phrases that have similar negative implications for idletalk: " " [kalaamu l-layli yamhoohu n-nahaar] Lit.:


18/37

"Night talk is erased by day talk": "What is said at night is forgottenthe following day", which insinuates trivial talk, or else it wiould notbe forgotten; " " [kalaamuhu reehon fee qafas] Lit.: "Histalk is a wind in a cage": "His talk vanishes into thin air", whichindicates trivial talk again; " " [waba'du l-qawliyathhabu fi r-riyaahi] Lit.: "And some of the talk goes with thewind": "A part of talk evaporates in the air", which highlights againthe triviality of at least a portion of the talk;" / "[lagwu/lahwu l-hadeeth] Lit.: "Wasted talk": "Nonsense/logorrhea",to signify idle, unnecessary talk;

" asma'u ja'ja'atan walaa araa tahnan] Lit.: "I] " hear noise (of a mill) and see no grounds": "I hear wheeling withoutmilling", to stress the uselessness of noisy, pompous chatter thatstands short of action, exactly like the barking of dogs that do notbite.

The last Shakespearean proverb is possibly the origin of the Arabicone. Therefore, it poses no problem. Also, 'nonsense/trash','empty/idle talk', and 'sharp and to the point' are well-knownexpressions in English that convey completely or partly the senseand allegory of the SL counterparts.

4." " [lisaanon hulw] Lit.: "Sweet tongue": "Sweet tongue". Themetaphorical description of the tongue as sweet suggests a surface,referential meaning (i.e., the unnecessary use of a lot of nice andagreeable words) and an implied meaning (that is, hypocrisy as ameans to get something), which is the intended meaning here. Inboth languages the image of sweetness (the area of taste) isexploited to reflect the double sense of nice words. However, thisdoes not apply to the phrase, 'kalaam hulw' 'nice talk' (see above).This is a very passive expression used to describe hypocrites inwhatever situation.

Two analogous, equally popular expressions are: " " [tariyyul-lisaan] Lit.: "Soft-tongued": "Sweet-tongued"; and " "[ratbu l-lisaan] Lit.: "Wet-tongued": "Sweet-tongued". It isstylistically interesting how the metaphorical words in these threephrases (i.e., 'hulw', 'tariyy', 'ratb'-'sweet', 'soft', 'wet') have quitepopular positive connotations of politeness, friendliness, intimacyand sociability, to stand in sharp contrast with the black, uglydisgusting, abhorrent and impolite image of hypocrisy in the heart of a sweet-tongued person. Such paradoxical juxtaposition of antonyms has the function of making hypocrisy uglier. Here applies

the well-known saying: " " [wad-diddu yuzhiru


19/37

husnahu d-diddu]: "Nothing is good or ill but by comparison".

5." " [lisaanon min rutab wayadon min khashab]Lit.: "A tongue of ripe dates and a hand of wood": "A sweet tongueand a harsh hand". Allegory abounds here. The sweetness andsoftness of the tongue is drawn from ripe dates, which are thesweetest and the softest kind of dates. When words are made toresemble dates, they are meant to be identified with them perfectlywhen tasted and experienced by the tongue.

The second metaphor, 'a hand of wood', suggests the meaning of harshness and ruthlessness on the part of the same person. It is astiff and senseless hand, as wood is a hard material. Simply, thisperson is harsh, hard and ruthless.

This is some allegory. Several stylistic features have been employedhere to produce the greatest possible effect on the reader. Chief among them is the antithetical conformity created between twoopposites, 'rutab' 'ripe dates' and 'khashab' 'wood'. That is, althoughthe latter is symbolic of harshness and the former of softness, theyare made identical, as the 'soft tongue' is not soft at all, but adeceptive one, and the 'wooden hand' is not just any hand, but ahard one. This leads to the conclusion that deception and hardnessare closely related as two faces of the same coin, so to speak. Whatsupports this even more is the strong stop end-rhyme between'rutab' and 'khashab', with the same number of sounds and letters,as though the first equals the second. Also, there is a strikingsyntactic parallelism between the two parts of the expression,'lisaanon min rutab' (N+PREP+N); and 'yadon min khashab'(N+PREP+N), the rhyme between 'lisaanon' and 'yadon', and therhymed repetition of 'min' twice, which half rhymes with the othertwo words preceding it each time. The final stylistic feature thatneeds to be attended to is the coordinate conjunction of addition.Here we perhaps expect a connector of contrast (i.e., but, yet,

however, etc.) rather than of addition. But since the latter is used, acontrast between the two noun phrases has changed into addition,and only phrases of the same kind are added to one another. Thisgives further evidence for the argument for paradoxical conformityand heterogeneous homogeneity.

The translation into English has tried to produce not only themessage but also the effect of the original on the TL reader, byachieving some kind of semi end-rhyme between 'to ngue ' and'ha nd ', parallel structure (ADJ+N: 'sweet tongue' vs. 'harsh hand'),

concise structure (as few words as possible), and the use of thesame conjunction of addition, 'and', rather than of contrast, which is


20/37

common in collocations of contrastiveness like 'vice and virtue'. Thedifference is in degree and allegory which is richer on the SL side.The same translation approach is applied to the next threeexpressions.

Two more expressions of the same structure and sense can beintroduced here:

" "[kalaamon kal-'asal wafi'lon kal-asal] Lit.: "A talklike honey and a doing like sharp a instrument": "Sweet words andbad deeds", where the sweet honey is matched by a very sharpinstrument like a knife, a sword, a lance, or a razor. So the sense of sharpness of two different kinds is there, side by side with thecontrastive connotations of sweetness and agreeability for honey,and ferocity and harshness for a sharp instrument. The latter seemsto correspond with the former in this phrase, as 'honey talk' is acheating talk confirmed by the person's deeds which are wicked andaggressive. Therefore, both have surface antithesis and underlyingresemblance of message (cheating and deception for honey, andwickedness and aggression for sharp instrument). Again the samesort of syntactic parallelism-noted in conjunction with the previousexpression-is present between two remarkably and perfectly rhymedparts here: 'kalaamon kal-'asal' (N+PREP+N), and 'fi'lon kal-asal'(N+PREP+N), which also suggests that kalaamon = fi'lon, and 'asal= asal. The same can also be said of the conjunction 'and', whichreplaces a contrastive connector, to suggest the sameness of thetwo images of the expression.

Similar to this is the proverbial expression, " " [kalaamonlayyen wazulmon bayyen] Lit.: "Pliant talk and explicit oppression":"Soft talk and stark abuse", where the metaphor word, pliant, isused normally with material things which could be pliant, hard, etc.Understandably, pliancy of talk is suggestive of soft, polite, cordiallanguage, opposed as well as uprooted by a blunt, verbal oppression

by the same speaker, to invalidate pliant words. We may notice thesame stylistic points of rhyme, syntactic parallelism, functional 'and',and paradoxical conformity in this expression exactly as in theprevious three allegorical sayings. The extremely popular saying:

" " [kalimatu haqqen yuraadu bihaa baatel]: "A rightword and wrong implications" explains in short, simple terms thestructure and meaning of the four foregoing expressions.

Two stylistic points common to all these expressions are due here.

First, their initial parts deliver more or less the same message of sweet, soft tongue/talk, whereas the ending parts suggest a similar


21/37

message of ruthlessness and harshness. Secondly, the syntacticsequence of these parts cannot be reversed, as their negative endfocus would change completely, or the effect of the message wouldundergo drastic changes. That means if we start with the morenegative part of harshness, and finish with the less negative, orpositive part, the whole implication of strong passivity would beminimized. That is, if we say for example: "Harsh hand and sweettalk" (instead of 'Sweet talk and harsh hand'), or "Bad deeds andhoney/sweet talk" (to replace 'Sweet talk and bad deeds'), the endfocus will change and the phrases would accordingly change intorather more positive, or less negative ones. They would be readmore as expressions of balanced parts than passive ones, which isnot acceptable at all in the actual sequence of these expressions.This can be understood clearly from patterns of syndetic pairs of addition, alternation, equation, contrast, etc., where the ordering of words affects the focus as much as meaning (see Nash 1980: 73-75): Compare these versions of the following example (taken from awell-known British television commercial):

(a) This king burger is naughty but nice (positive end focus =positive bias).

(b) This king burger is nice but naughty (negative end focus =negative bias).

&(c) This king burger is naughty and nice (addition =equation).

(a) is positive because the last adjective is positive (that is why it isthe version used in the commercial); while (b) is negative for it endswith a negative adjective, naughty (that is why it is inappropriate fora commercial). As to (c), it equates the two epithets by means of the coordinator of addition 'and', which can be understood ascombining paradoxes in one and the same thing, or man, or making

the positive and the negative equal and identical (which is the casewith the four expressions discussed above).

6." :"ahkaa min qird] Lit.: "More talkative than a monkey] ""As talkative as a talking machine". Monkey has bad connotations inArabic, but usually not of much talking, as it does not talk in thehuman literal sense of the word. Perhaps the allegory here is thepejorative comparison of a talkative person to a culturally uglyanimal like a monkey. The proverb is critical of a person who keepstalking and gossiping all the time for whatever reason, on whatever

occasion, on whatever topic. Certainly, talkative is a bad epithetindeed, that is, socially unfavourable for the vast majority of people


22/37

everywhere.

An interesting stylistic point about the structure of the phrase is theuse of the comparative form for 'ahkaa' (more talkative) instead of the normal form of 'talkative', to emphasis the tendency in Arabictowards comparison for elucidation and exaggeration, to achieve agreater effect on language users.

The English translation is half standard, as it were, namely 'as atalking machine' is a popular simile, whereas 'as talkative' is not. Yetit is suggested to create a similar effect in the TL, because this iscrucial in the appreciation and comprehension and, therefore, thetranslation of many such expressions (Newmark's communicativetranslation, 1981 and 1988, and Nida's dynamic equivalence, 1964).The TL has a cultural equivalent for the Arabic one: 'as a talkingmachine' for 'talkative monkey', but it does not exactly possess thesame kind and degree of effect on the TL readership. People, that is,respond differently to a machine and a monkey. Nevertheless, thisdoes not prevent them from getting the message.

Similar to this is the proverb: " al-mikthaaru kahaatibi] " l-layl] Lit.: "A talkative person is like a night woodsman": " Atalkative man wastes his breath". The simile implies that awoodsman at night is wasting his time and efforts for he does notknow or distinguish what he woods, how or what he does. Therefore,he will be confused and have everything confused and in ashambles. As to the English translation, the image of 'woodsman' isnot a part of English culture or allegory in this context. Thereforeanother image is sought after to counterbalance the original, and'waste one's breath' can be appropriate here to transmit a similarmessage but in different environment. There is no other way out.

7." -istanwaqa l-jamal] Lit.: "The camel has become a she] " camel": "Listen/look who's talking", "The nobleman is henpecked".

The phrase is purely cultural and all-in-all metaphorical. It hasnothing to do with camels except for its symbolic literal sense of acamel behaving as humbly as a she-camel (see Almunjed ,

Alfayroosabaadi , and Al-waseet Arabic monolingual Dictionaries),which is culturally known to be subservient and obedient. This senseis applied to people, as the second version of the translationconfirms. But it is not our concern here. It is the first meaning of aman considered to be fragile, confused, clumsy, low and foolish. Heis bitterly criticised and ridiculed by this phrase, which is usuallyfollowed by a smile. A similar, more popular comment in such a

context is the colloquial expression, " " [hakaa badri] Lit.:"Badri has just spoken": "Listen/look who's talking!" Badri is a


23/37

proper name, a common name, like Jack or John in English; thereason for the original choice may never be known. The phrase hasexactly the same metaphorical connotations as the previous formalone. To sharpen the sense of irony , it is sometimes completed as"... !" [wansharah sadri] Lit.: "And my breast gotrelieved!": "So that I've had a sigh of relief!", which rhymes with'Badri', and implies a harsh, sarcastic implication which is quite theopposite of its surface meaning (i.e., to feel quite relieved). Theaccompanying tone of voice is in fact suggestive of that. Suchexpressions are critical of foolish, disliked, thick-witted, andopinionated people.

The translation of these two expressions are among the mostdifficult to translate into English. Yet, the catch phrase 'look who'stalking!' is perfectly expressive of the message and its connotationsof irony and disrespect.

8." " [saleetu l-lisaan] Lit.:"Vicious-and-long-tongued":"Sharp-tongued". A tongue is a tongue, a piece of flesh that cannotbe soft, sweet or sharp in the literal sense. However, allegoricallyspeaking, it can be sharp when it utters sharp words. It is one of thepopular pejorative phrases used in everyday conversation todescribe the language of a severe, harsh person, normally behindhis or her back.

An alternative for this expression is " " [taweelu l-lisaan] Lit.:"Long-tongued": "Sharp-tongued", which is similar in meaning to theprevious one, but with less effect and sharpness. Therefore, aperson who has such a tongue can be told that to his or her face.

These two expressions are easy to translate into English, and thetwo cultures, Arabic and English, meet here. The second, however,translated with the sense of 'long-tongued' is not used in standardEnglish.

9. " " [laa tahref bimaa laa ta'ref] Lit.: "Do notoverpraise (someone) with what you do not know": "Don't shower(someone) with praise unnecessarily". The referential meaning of this phrase has nothing to do with its implicit message. It intends totell someone who praises a person excessively, unnecessarily andwithout knowing exactly what he says, to refrain from that. But thespeaker knows very well that he lauds him to get somethingpersonal. These are the characteristics of a hypocrite and anopportunist. There are multiple recommendations here: Do not

overpraise someone no matter who he is; Do not say what you donot know; and Stop pretending and being a hypocrite. All these are


24/37

negative meanings, confirming the disagreeability of hypocriticallanguage and people.

Three important stylistic points are employed here to producestronger supportive effect for the message: The apparent rhymebetween 'tahref' and 'ta'ref', to aid memorisation; the close spellingof them as the key words of the phrase, which suggests a goodrelationship of identification of their message; and the parallelstructure of the 'laa tahref' and 'laa ta'ref', which gives furtherevidence for the correspondence between their implications. This isnot to conclude that the phrase recommends doing the opposite;that is, "ihref bimaa ta'ref" 'overpraise someone with what youknow'-excessive praise is not advisable in principle in any case.

The English translation reproduces only the sense, but not thestylistic-phonological features and effects of the original. However,the metaphorical 'shower' compensates for some loss here.

10." " [rama l-kalaama 'alaa 'awaahineh] Lit.: "Hethrew words as they came to his mouth": "He spoke at random".Words here are portrayed as material things that can be thrown outof the mouth. It is a good metaphor to express the production of words irresponsibly, haphazardly, and without giving them a secondthought, which is embarrassing and irrational. Words should beproduced carefully, especially in formal and serious situations, forat-random words could be quite harmful. To support this criticism, asense of sarcasm is achieved by the rhythmical, ready-to-sing end-rhyme between 'ramaa' and 'l-kalaama', alliterative rhyme between''alaa' ''waahineh', mid-rhyme-or motif-between the same sound 'h'(underlined) in the same word, ''waahineh', and the common motif among all the words, 'aa' (long 'a'). This ironical touch can besensed at its best if the expression is said aloud rhythmically inpairs. The last feature, the 'aa' motif, is suggestive of an openmouth that 'throws' words, any words, any time, as the phrase

implies.

The SL expression is superior to, and richer than the English-language translation for the reasons just pointed out. That is, theliteral sense is expressed in general terms, but it loses all its stylisticfeatures and functions. The only rhetorical aspect of the TL versionis its crispness.

11." aafatu l-hadeethi l-katheb] Lit.: "The blight of talk] "is lying": "Lying is ugly". Lying is regarded here as a blight, the

worst and most serious disease that speech can develop. Suchdisease is deadly, and therefore kills the whole speech, good or bad.


25/37

Lying is not only the worst part and kind of talk, but also thedestroyer of any talk, for one lie in a long speech is devastatingenough to discredit the whole thing, or to make the addressee(s)suspicious of it, which is another way of spoiling it. The lexical choiceof 'blight' is, therefore, brilliant for it ominously refers to a killingdisease that starts up abruptly, develops steadily, and remainspermanently, so that it keeps killing the same thing for a long time.This is what exactly lying does with talk. A liar is never believedeven when he is right. One more significant stylistic feature is thesuccinct, concise structure of the phrase: only three words, exactlythe required words, neither more nor less. They are expressiveenough and sharp enough to deliver a message as bluntly,categorically, emphatically, and effectively as required. This isindeed the original tendency of Arabic rhetoric in particular, andArabic language in general.

The main problem of translation into English is the absence of theimage of lying as a blight. However, another compensating image of ugliness is suggested for lying, to strike some kind of balance withthe allegory of the original.

In this negative context of lying, there are several popularexpressions which appreciate honesty- [as-sidq]. One of themcorresponds to the previous phrase in its allegorical sense of illness:" " [al-kathibu daa' was-sidqu shifaa'] Lit.: "Lying ismalady and honesty is remedy": "Lying is malady, honesty isremedy". In this proverb, lying is a disease for liars, whereashonesty is a remedy for the honest. What a difference! This couldmean that the latter is a remedy for the former, but not necessarily.Lying is a plague developed by liars, which could accompany themalways, whereas honesty is an antidote for honest people, whichcomforts them for life. The juxtaposition between lying and honesty,on the one hand, and malady and remedy, on the other, makes theirantithetical relationship sharper and more blatant. The conciseness

of form is also remarkable for its sharpness and straightforwardnessin delivering a clear, definite message about the brass tacks of bothlying and honesty, put together in the same context of disharmony.As for the rhyme in both languages between 'malady' and 'remedy',it has a rhetorical and stylistic function. At the same time it is an aidto memorisation.

The English translation perfectly matches, not to say supercedes, allsemantic syntactic, phonological and, hence, stylistic aspects of theoriginal Arabic. I hope this translation of my own devising will be

deemed acceptable.


26/37

12." " [silaahu d-du'afaa'i sh-shikaayah] Lit. "Theweapon of the weak is complaint": "The only weapon for the weak iscomplaining". It is remarkable how a poor, miserable and humbletype of speech like a 'complaint' is changed into a powerful weapon.At the same time, it is the only weapon of poor people who arehelpless and unable to do anything other than complain. It is a kindof indecisive metaphor as whether to classify it as negative,criticising the weak for resorting to humiliating complaint, orpositive, turning poor words of poor people into a weapon of somekind. Although it is originally intended to be a criticism of thesubmissive and surrendering nature of miserable people, itsimultaneously implies appreciating them in a sense for trying to dosomething, rather than remaining passive. It could be a matter of less passive and more passive, in which case the latter is negativewhile the former is less negative, or closer to positive. Yet, still thepassive is passive, whether more or less, which is anyway not aninvalid point.

In the English translation, the same metaphor as well as the fullsense of the original is retained. Although it is possible, stylistically,to background 'weapon' and foreground 'complaining', and say,"Complaining is the weapon of the weak", it is not advisable, for thepoint of front-focus is changed, and consequently, the bias of thewhole expression. That is, to start with 'complaining' means to startwith depreciating the vulnerable part of the weak, rather than withtheir strong part. This means that the powerful element of thephrase is undermined, if not altogether lost. For all that, it ispreferable to keep the stylistic focus and word order of the TL textexactly as the original.

13." akhbartuhu bi'ujaree, wabujaree] Lit.: "I told] "him about my all drawbacks and troubles": "I told him everything","I told him everything about the bad side of me", "I washed all mydirty linen before him". The phrase 'al-'ujaru wal-bujaru' is the plural

of ''ujra' wa 'bujra'. Although the words in the phrase mean, amongother things, nodes in the human body, they are usedmetaphorically to refer to all of one's private misfortunes andworries in general. In fact they bear no reference to their literalsense of knots/nodes, and are to be understood within one popularcatch-phrase used symbolically in a negative context of sadness onthe addresser's part, who brings relief to himself by speaking openlyabout his own troubles. The context could be that of relief to theperson speaking, in which case it is a positive context. Yet it is notexactly positive, for nobody tells his own secrets and sufferings

unless he is fed up and in distress.


27/37

It is remarkable that the sounds of the phrase are in a shambles inthe sense that they are influent, disintegrated, heterogeneous, anddifficult to pronounce, which is why in colloquial Arabic, it ismispronounced as "'jree wabjree" for reasons of convenient, easyarticulation. This conforms perfectly with the phrase'sdisharmonious, dishevelled message. The perfect rhyme betweenthese two words does not as much ease the burden of pronunciationas reflect the identical meanings and implications of one another,and insinuate a sense of irony associated with the phrase which ismade obvious by a commonplace, sympathetic comment in such asituation: " " [sharru l-baliyyati maa yudhek] Lit.: "Theworst calamity is that which makes you laugh": "Misfortunesironically invite a smile", whose sharp sarcastic sense is quiteexplicit.

All one can do when translating these two phrases into English isconvey the literal sense as closely as possible, since much of theallegory and rhetoric is lost. The same applies to the next group of identical phrases.

These are two of several similar phrases in Arabic which have thesame syntactic structure and implications. For example: " "[al-baththu wal-huznu] (from the Holy Qur'an);

" " [al-hammu wal-ghammu]; " " [al-hammu wal-hazan];

" " al-humoomu wal-ghumoomu]; and] " -al] " humoomu wal-kurubaat], all of which are used in an identicalmeaning and context, especially in supplication, as in: " God, I complain to you my troubles and distress" (an"-"

Islamic invocation). Verily this is an exceptionally positive complaint.

14. " " [sharru r-raayi d-dabariyyu] Lit.: "The worst

opinion is the late one": "Too late an opinion is too worse". Thewhole phrase is allegorical, implying sharp criticism of a person whostates his opinion too late, after something has been done. It is allthe same whether it is a right or wrong opinion, for it will then beuseless, even harmful if it is good. Here good and bad talk areequally condemned and dismissed as inept. Another implication isthat it is a warning against the social and practical inadvisability of stating one's opinion. It can also be interpreted differently-as astrong recommendation for saying something at the right time, andto avoid saying it in the wrong time regardless of its value, for at

best it would cause regret and sorrow for others.


28/37

The choice of the word 'sharru' 'the worst' is functional,demonstrating exaggeration about this kind of opinion, in anattempt to convince people of its hazards so that they may avoid it.Also, the metaphorical word, 'dabariyyu' 'too late' is a goodpolysemous lexical choice that originally means to lag behind, orcome from behind only when it is too late, and cannot get hold of somebody or something that is already in advance. In other words,it says, 'what has gone has gone' and, therefore, you cannot doanything now; so 'let bygones be bygones' and do not make thingsworse and force people to regret doing or saying something bygiving your late opinion about it.

More accentuation is assigned to this expression by a strongquadruple stress on two consecutive double 'R's in two successivewords (i.e., sharru rra'yi), and two more stresses on 'd' and 'y' of the third word (that is, d-dabariyyu). Four stresses in threeconsecutive words, and three 'R's, two stressed and one unstressedmust be emphatic and reflexive of the message.

In English, it is the message, or sense, that is the primary concernof a translator here. Any additional stylistic feature would be a gain.The version of translation provided here is an attempt to produceone or two stylistic features to create some kind of effect that issimilar-at least in part-to the original. This is done on three levels:the repetition of 'too'; parallelism between 'too late' and 'too worse';and a semi-proverbial form of the whole translation. Yet, it hasfailed on two other levels: the reduction of the superlative form of the original 'the worst' into the comparative form 'worse'; and moreimportantly the backgrounding of 'too worse' and foregrounding of 'too late' at the expense of emphasising the latter rather than theformer, as in the original.

To sum up, this sub-section brings to focus the depreciable part(s)of the negative allegorical expressions of speech, which display

several interesting versions of translation, implications, stylisticfunctions and relationships that explain the intricacies and magic of such fascinating phrases.

Having discussed the allegorical expressions of silence and speechindividually, we can now introduce discussion of some phrases whichare reciprocal, juxtaposing silence and speech in the same context.

Silence and Speech Expressions Juxtaposed


29/37

1." ithaa kaana l-kalaamu min fiddah] "fas-sukootu min thahab] Lit.: "If speech is from silver, silence isfrom gold": "Speech is silver, silence is golden", "Silence is golden".Obviously, silence is more precious than speech. However, this doesnot imply that speech is valuable, and therefore, that the differencebetween it and silence is in degree, not in quality. Rather, it isunderstood that the difference between them is big, so the phrase isproperly read as a depreciation and rejection of speech, while stillrating silver highly. So precedence is given to silence at the expenseof speech. The whole proverb is based on the comparison betweenthe two well-known metals, both of which are associated in severalverses of the Holy Qur'an and a number of everyday, popularcollocations. Thus, they have a strong relationship and are tied uptogether in positive contexts to give illustrations in material terms.We conclude from this the inevitable, natural company that silenceand speech keep in all situations. Yet, here they are juxtaposed, andpreference is given to gold, or silence. Moreover, the syntacticstructure is that of conditional sentences, the second of which (i.e.,fas-sukootu min thahab), is a sharp reply to the first (viz., Ithaakaana l-kalaamu min fiddah). This kind of structure is convenient fortwo temporally interconnected things, the latter of which is superiorto the former, exactly as the case here. This can be understood byreversing the clause order of the sentence, starting with the second,as follows: "If silence is gold, speech is silver", which is strange andunacceptable as the favourite part is expected to be logically in thesecond position, while the inferior part is to be in the first position.

There is no problem of translation here at all, for English has exactlythe same proverbial saying, with the same message andconnotations.

2." " [sakata dahran wanataqa kufran] Lit.: "He wassilent for ages and uttered atheism": "He kept silent for ages only toutter trash". Astonishingly enough, this phrase is a criticism of both

silence and speech. But it is not any silence or any speech; but along silence, and a poor, silly speech after a long time of keepingquiet. Long silence is not by nature negative, but it has become sobecause of a surprisingly bad opinion. That is, to keep quiet for along time presupposes that when one finally does speak, it will be anextremely wise, careful opinion, but that is not the case, and ourexpectations are toppled altogether. Stylistically speaking, there aretwo pairs of words made opposites in this phrase: 'sakata' 'keptsilent'-'nataqa' 'uttered'; and 'dahran' 'for ages'-'kufran' 'trash'.Normally these are not antonyms, as silence is not exactly the

opposite of speech (as several examples of the foregoing sectionsdemonstrate), but here they stand in immediate contrast to one


30/37

another, as two opposite words with different implications. Likewise,and unexpectedly, 'long time' and 'trash' contrast each other here.But the context of the phrase understandably turns them to intoopposites. On the other hand, neither 'dahran' 'for ages' nor 'kufran''blasphemy/atheism' are meant to be taken literally; they are meansof exaggeration about time and bad talk, intended to be understoodby implication and connotation. They are also chosen on purpose torhyme with one another for convenience of memorisation. As to thecoordinate connector of addition, 'and', it adds the two sentences of the phrase (i.e., 'sakata dahran' and 'nataqa kufran') to oneanother, rather than contradicting one with the other. This leads tothe conclusion that it is a conjunction of equation that makes thetwo sentences equal and exactly the same, which applies perfectlyto the message.

Another version of the same proverbial expression with the sameimplications, is:

" " [sakata alfan wa nataqa khalfan] Lit.: "He was silentfor a thousand (times) and uttered a trash": "He kept silent for agesto voice trash".

The problem of translation here is not as difficult as it might look,for the message is clear and can be rendered safely, although thesame image is not available in English. However, this does nothinder understanding or translation in any way, as the versionproposed here confirms. That is, 'for ages' and 'utter/voice trash' areperfectly expressive of the message with not much difference inconnotations, especially when we know that the Arabic 'kufran''atheism' is not meant to be taken literally, so 'trash' fits well here.

1." " [rubba sukooten ablaghu min ;kalaam] Lit.:"Silence could be more eloquent than speech": "Silence can be moreexpressive than words". Silence is strongly recommended here as it

can express a person's mind much better than speech. Here thegrammatical structure of the comparative form of 'more ... than' ispreferred to the normal form of likeness, in which case silence hasno privilege over speech. Also a contrastive relationship is broughtabout by the use of the two opposites, silence and speech in thesame phrase, to sharpen the difference between them. Perhaps thebest reading of this expression is to stop at 'sukoot' and 'kalaam' toreflect the meaning of silence with elongated 'oo' and closing nasal'm' which indicates a closed mouth. One last point is the use of 'rubba' (perhaps) to imply a style of probability and occasionality,

for sometimes speech could be more eloquent than silence.However, this word indicates a strong, likely probability, which can


31/37

be understood as modest certainty. The indefinite noun, 'sukoot''silence', however, implies sometimes rather than always. That is,silence is sometimes more expressive than speech (cf., examplesbelow).

The English version of translation renders the sense. And since theArabic 'rubba' 'could be' is usually taken more as certainty thanprobability, an assertive version like 'silence is moreeloquent/expressive than speech' is feasible, as 'is' expressescertainty. The comparative structure is retained to imply a similarstylistic function in the TL as well. However, the phonologicalonomatopoeic features disappear in English, and is therefore, a loss.Nevertheless, the hissingness of the alveolar fricative sibilant sound's' (see Gimson 1981: 185-88) in 'silence', 'speech' and 'expressive'can be an equivalent of some kind.

3." " [lisaanu l-haal abyanu min lisaani l-maqaal]Lit.: "The tongue of the person's condition is more eloquent than thetongue of speaking": "Man's condition is more expressive than hisexpression". The phrase means to say that a person's terriblecondition, appearance and countenance can say everything abouthim to the extent that he need say nothing. So remainingspeechless (i.e., silent) can be expressive enough so that words aretotally unnecessary. There are two tongues here, the literal (thesecond) and the metaphorical (the first). They are juxtaposed withone another to form a fantastic comparison, which makes thecontrast between silence and speech sharper. On the other hand,the metaphorical tongue changes man's silent condition into aneloquent expressive tongue in such a way that his normal tongue,which is supposed to be more eloquent and expressive thananything else, is not necessary. This shows the superiority of keeping quiet to speaking. The adjective, 'abyan' 'more eloquent' isused in the comparative grammatical form which implies that whatfollows is better than what precedes, although both have eloquence

in common. However, the intended meaning of the phrase is notexactly so; rather a man's appearance or condition is enough for usto understand him, without any need for words. Thus, words arecompletely unnecessary.

The rhyme between 'haal' and 'maqaal', each word associated with'lissan', makes the two words identical in sense. That is haal =maqaal: both are expressive and each has a tongue.

Perhaps the English translation is less metaphorical than the Arabic

original, but it is not less expressive of meaning. Also, the rhymebetween 'condition' and 'expression' and the retention of the


32/37

comparative relationship between the two parts of the phrase aremeant to match the original to some extent and compensatesomehow for the loss in allegory.

4." " [kaannamaa alqamahu l-hajar] Lit.: "As though hemouthed him a stone": "To strike someone dumb", "To stonesomeone's mouth". To put a stone in someone's mouth is symbolicof silencing him and shutting him up. But this is just a materialimage to illustrate the idea of a speaker who is struck dumb byanother person's quick, witty and sharp response. It is a humiliationto the former, but a triumph to the latter. This implies the powerfulforce of words on some occasions to such an extent that man can beforced to keep astonishingly silent at the time when he is in need of speaking and defending himself. So passive silence here is dumpedon somebody against his will.

The stylistic-lexical choice of 'alqama' 'to mouth' is precise andexpressive, suggesting a big mouthful. Therefore, it is sufficient perse to express the required meaning. But by the time we digest thissense we realise that the forced mouthful is nothing but a stone, orsomething stonelike. In any case, even a mouthful of any kind of food is not dissimilar to a stone. Hence the preciseness of the imageof being struck dumb by words.

The literal translation of meaning, using the same image of stone, isa safe choice in English, for it is acceptable and comprehensible bynative speakers of English-as well as by English speaking peopleworldwide, I suppose.

Another catch phrase in this context of 'alqama' is, " " [alqamtuhu uthunee fasabba feehaa kalaaman] Lit.: "I enforcedmy ear in his mouth to pour words in": "I lent him my ear towhisper in", which has a twofold metaphor: 'alqama' 'enforced ...mouth' as if words were a mouthful of food, and 'sabba' 'poured', as

though words are matter or a liquid that can be poured completelyand properly in the ear's passage-this suggests the full whispering,secret confidentiality and extreme importance of these words.

5." [as-saakitu'ani l-haqqi shaytaanon akhras] "Lit.: "He who keeps his mouth shut on the right is a dumb Satan":"To refrain from saying the truth is satanic". This is a traditionalsaying by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). A personwho keeps his mouth shut and refuses to speak the truth is likenedto a dumb Satan (with all its bad connotations), which is an ugly

image of man, especially a Muslim. He would be not only a Satanbut also dumb. Here the image works on two levels; at the level of


33/37

silence it is absolutely negative, whereas at the level of speech(namely, saying the truth) it is quite positive. There are twoantonymic, juxtaposed poles in the phrase: 'truth' on one hand; and'a silent man', Satan and dumbness on the other. This means thatsuch a person and a dumb Satan are absolutely identical, which byextension sharpens the contrastive relationship between the blackimage of devilishly passive silence and the bright image of exceptionally positive speech (i.e., saying the right thing), and givesa greater proportion of emphasis to the latter. What a big differencebetween the two!

The translatability of this saying (or Hadith) into English as a one-to-one equivalent is comparatively low for two main reasons: thereligious base and bias of the original might only be partiallyreceived by TL readers; and the image may not be understood oragreed upon completely by them. However, the version providedoffers a compromise, leaving out the metaphor of 'dumb Satan',while at the same time retaining the 'satanic' atmosphere andpresence. No too bad, I hope.

Thus, speech and silence are sometimes juxtaposed to display thesensitive fluctuating relationship between them; as one issometimes negative, the other positive, and vice versa. Although thelatter is more frequently positive and the former negative, it is notfair to always think of their relationship in this way. Rather, everysingle expression should be considered on its own terms, asgeneralisation would be harmful indeed, especially in examples likethe last one.

Conclusion

In conclusion, some notes can be drawn from the foregoingdiscussion. Only a few examples have been discussed for the

convenience of achieving the aims of this tentative paper.Otherwise, hundreds of examples could be cited and discussed, forArabic is profusely rich with such expressions. Having said that, thisdoes not undermine the value of the discussion, as the limitednumber of examples investigated are quite suggestive, symbolic andrepresentational, and, therefore, make the points raised hereexplicit.

All the phrases and expressions are proverbs, semi-proverbs, catchphrases, everyday popular phrases, adages, and collocations. They

are all allegorical, fascinatingly rhetorical, and subtly and extensively


34/37


35/37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

English References

Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation.Routledge: London and New York.

Connolly, D. 1998. "Poetry Translation." In Routledge Encyclopediaof Translation, ed. Baker, M., 70-176. Routledge: London and NewYork.

Carter, R. and Nash, W. 1990. Seeing Through Language: A Guideto Styles of English Writing. Basil Blackwell.

Cruse, D. A. 1977. "The Pragmatics Of Lexical Specificity." In Journal of Linguistics 13, 153-64.

Ghazala, H 1987. Literary Stylistics: Pedagogical Perspectives in anEFL Context. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis: University of Nottingham,UK.

---. 1994. Varieties Of English Simplified: A Textbook for Advanced University Students , 2 nd edition., 1999. Elga Publications: Valetta,Malta.

---. 1996. A Dictionary of Stylistics and Rhetoric (English- Arabic/Arabic-English). Elga Publications: Valetta, Malta.

Gimson, A.C. 1981. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English,3 rd edition. Edward Arnold, London.

The Holy Qur'an (with English translation). 1997. King Fahd Complexfor the Printing of the Holy Qur'an: Madinah Munawwarah, K.S.A.

Leech,G. and Short, M. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose . Longman: London and NewYork.

Nash, W. 1980. Designs in Prose . Longman: London and New York.

---. 1990. Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion . Blackwell: London andNew York.

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


36/37


37/37

vols.). Dar L-Kutob L-Misriyah: Cairo.

Arabic Monolingual Dictionaries

Al-Fayruzabaadi, M. 1997. Al-Qaamoosu l-Muheet, Dar Ihyaa' T-turaath: Beirut.

Al-Munjed fi l-A'laam. 1986. 29 th edition. Dar l-Mashreq: Beirut.

AlMu'jamu l-Wasseet. 1987. 2 nd edition. Amwaaj: Beirut.

Muheetu l-Muheet. 1977. 2 nd edition. Maktabatu Lubnaan: Beirut.

Copyright Translation Journal and the Author 2002

Send your comments to the Webmaster URL: http://accurapid.com/journal/20arabic.htm

Last updated on: 05/03/2003 23:07:11
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

allegory in arabic expressions of speech and silence

Documents