Allegory in Arabic Expressions of Speech and

Silence
(A Stylistic-Translational Perspective)

by Hasan Ghazala, Ph.D.,

Department of English, College of Social Sciences,

Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

There have been many insightful studies of allegory in

Classical Arabic. The writers' concerns have mostly been with
the aesthetic, rhetorical, semantic and eloquent aspects of
allegory. However, a great deal of work is still to be done on
its stylistic structure and implications, and translatability into
English, which sheds more light on these hardly trodden paths
to uncover their mysteries. This in turn gives further
enlightenment about allegorical expressions in general, and
the way this can be reflected in translation into English.

This paper, therefore, has the twofold aim of studying

allegorical expressions from a stylistic perspective, and then
demonstrating the importance of that in translating them into
English. For achieving these two objectives, the whole study
concentrates solely on allegorical expressions of silence and
speech from different stylistic and translational perspectives.
Several interesting and sometimes surprising findings have
been declared below about these expressions and the
relationships, functions and effects they produce, to be as
much expressive as impressive to the audience, magnificently
or mysteriously, and how all that can be taken (or not taken,
or mis-taken) into consideration in translation into English.

here have been many insightful and formidable studies of allegory in

Arabic. At the top of the list of classic figures of this field are Al-
Jurjani (1982 and 1983); Ibn Jinni (1980); Ath-tha'alibi (1981); Az-
zamakhshari (1990); El-Yaziji (1970); and there are many others.
The writers' concerns have mostly been with the aesthetic,
rhetorical, syntactic/grammatical, semantic and eloquent aspects of
allegory. Therefore, little can be added to these studies in this
respect. However, a great deal of work is still to be done on its
stylistic structure and implications and translatability, which in my
view sheds more light on these untouched aspects, and to uncover
their mysteries, which gives more enlightenment about allegorical
expressions in general, and how this can be reflected in their
translation 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 the

first place? And is it legitimate to translate in the opposite direction
as is done normally, that is, from L1 (mother tongue) into L2
(foreign language) instead of from L2 into L1? As to the first
question, some theoreticians like Quillard (1998) regard the
translation of puns, ambiguities and humour as impossible (maybe
in imitation of Nobokov's firm belief in the impossibility of translating
poetry-see Connolly 1998 for more details and objections), which is
quite a strange claim, for in practice these are translated from and
into all live languages almost daily, however questionable the
degree of acceptability and accuracy. I side with Newmark that
"...everything without exception is translatable; the translator
cannot afford the luxury of saying that something cannot be
translatable." (1988, 6). Admittedly, the comprehension and thus
the translation of allegory is quite difficult, for it can be mysterious,
elusive, opaque, or misleading (see also Baker 1992, 68-69 for more
details on the difficulties of translating idioms), but certainly it is not
impossible. I believe that it is possible to translate allegory
successfully, and that this is confirmed by thousands of good
translations of poetry in particular and other types of allegorical text
in 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 language

rather than into one's mother tongue, it is true that translators
"...can translate naturally, accurately and with maximum
effectiveness" (op. cit., 3), and-I add-legally into their native
language, their language of habitual use, for they control it more
than any other language; yet, the actual situation almost
everywhere in the world is that they are sometimes obliged to
reorient their translation in the opposite direction to produce some
good translations (see also Rioss and Weatherby 1998). It is hoped
that this study will prove a point in this respect.

In comparison to English, allegorical Arabic expressions of speech

and silence are amazingly rich with all kinds of meanings, styles and
stylistic relationships, effects, implications and functions. Among the
central relationships are the stylistic (especially lexico-grammatical
and phonological) relationships of harmony, disharmony, ironical
paradox, integration, disintegration, praise and condemnation of
speech and silence considered individually, and speech and silence
considered together by way of juxtaposition and comparison.
Understanding and communicating such stylistic relationships in a
translation into English is sometimes crucially important to the
message.

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 implications
created by the different stylistic relationships brought about by
subtle, spellbinding allegory in Arabic at the levels of lexical choice
and grammatical structure in particular, which must be transmitted,
one way or another, into English in the translation. After all, style is
taken here to be primarily a matter of choice made from all
language features (see Leech and Short 1981, Carter and Nash
1990, Ghazala 1994, Toolan 1998 and many others for more
illustrations). This choice, being intuitive and unfelt by language
users, should not be disregarded by analysts and translators, for it is
of critical importance to the message, and has considerable effect on
the reader. It is irrelevant whether this choice is intentional or not,
although any choice in language is supposed to be conscious and
intended.

Allegory, on the other hand, is used here as a superordinate term,

subsuming all figures of rhetoric in language, including mainly
metaphors, similes, puns, metonyms, personification, wordplay,
symbolism, irony, synecdoche, antimetabole, anadiplosis, etc. (see
Nash 1980, Wales 1989 and Ghazala 1996). In his distinguished
book Rhetoric (1990), my Ph.D. co-supervisor, Professor Walter
Nash, offers a comprehensive, profound, detailed and unique study
of rhetoric and figurative language. In his discussion of the
importance 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 the
manner to the matter) is a voucher of the author's sincerity.
Therefore, "figurative language ... has a more than decorative
purport, it is meant to have an effective power, to raise the
emotions associated with a subject and correspondingly to evoke
emotional responses from an audience" (see pp. 10-13 in
particular). The last point about the response of the audience is
quite important and recurrent in any discussion about allegorical
expressions, as recipients are the target of such expressions. In
other words, the expressions have powerful stylistic effects which
impress readers and should, therefore, be part and parcel of their
meaning, and these effects have to be taken into account in
translation, exactly as done below.
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. They
are transcribed phonetically, and then bitranslated, first literally and
then more freely, to make the point(s) sharper and clearer.

Silence

Silence, to begin with, is, surprisingly, commended and

recommended strongly and straightforwardly in many figurative
phrases, but criticised in others, however indirectly. This creates
really interesting stylistic relationships, as the following discussion
may confirm.

1."‫[ "خير الخلل حفظ اللسان‬khayru l-khilaali hifzu l-lisaan] Lit.: "The best
characteristic is to keep one's tongue": "The best thing to do is to
hold your tongue". The metaphorical image reflected by "‫'"حفظ‬hold'
recommends keeping the tongue literally inside the mouth, which
means not to use it at all. The equivalent English word 'hold' has this
sense of preventing the tongue from talking by literally holding it,
which is certainly understood but not done by language users. To
have some power of persuasion, the phrase makes tongue-holding
the best characteristic of man, which is spiritual encouragement and
a comparison that would show high regard for people as social
beings. It may be noted that the same expression can also be
interpreted as a reference to saying little, just the necessary, useful
and important words, especially in everyday use of language. Yet, I
believe the former implication is the overwhelming sense of the
phrase. On the other hand, the half rhyme between 'khilaal' and
'lisaan' and the repetition of the letter 'kh' in the first two words
reflect the popularity of rhyme in such popular phrases, and serve
as an aid in memorising and remembering.

Similar phrases are: "‫[ "احفظ )عليك( لسانك‬ihfaz ('alayka) lisaanak] and

"‫[ "أمسك )عليك( لسانك‬amsek ('alayka) lisaanak]. Both mean: "Hold your
tongue." Both can be used as a strong reaction to someone else's
statement, 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 maintaining
the superlative form to demonstrate the functional exaggeration
aimed at by the Arabic original.
2. "‫["ربما كان السكوت جوابًا‬rubbama kana s-sukootu jawaaban] Lit.:
"Perhaps silence is a reply": "Silence could be sometimes an
answer". The allegorical part of this phrase lies in silence, which is
itself symbolic of a good answer, which could be more expressive
than a spoken utterance. Usually silence is literally no answer at all,
when a spoken statement is demanded. Yet to keep silent in such a
situation is considered symbolic and expressive enough of the
intended 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 be
attended 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 be
an 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' does
not refer strictly to the past; but to a timeless present. Hence its
translation into 'is'.

3. "‫["إذا تم العقل نقص الكلم‬ithaa tamma l-'aqlu naqusa l-kalaamu] Lit.:

"When reason becomes perfect, speech lessens": "More wisdom less
talk". This is a hint to the value of keeping silent most of the time,
as wisdom regards silence precious. Also, 'less talk' is more an
insinuation to silence than to less words, although the latter sense is
not uncommon. The antithesis suggested between 'perfect
mind/wisdom' and 'less talk/silence' (i.e., 'less talk more wisdom'
vs. 'more talk less wisdom' / 'more wisdom less talk' vs. 'less
wisdom more talk') is another sign of respect for silence. Such a
strong link between 'reason' and 'silence' is a big incentive for
people to refrain from talking, for this would indicate their 'perfect
mind', as it were. In transmitting this expression in English, care is
taken on two main levels: the level of syntactic structure of contrast
between the two verbs 'become perfect' and 'lessen' (in the TL it is
reflected in 'more' and 'less'), and the level of conciseness of form,
imitating-or perhaps superceding-the original (i.e., four words in
English vis-à-vis five in Arabic), for it meets the requirements of
rhetorical allegory perfectly. One final important point is the
translation of 'aql' 'reason/mind' into 'wisdom' 'hikmah' which is an
inductive translation for 'perfection/completion of mind means
wisdom'. Thus, we understand the expression as follows: 'Be wise,
keep quiet'.

4."‫[ "السكوت من ذهب‬assukootu min thahab] Lit.: "Silence is from gold":

"Silence is gold". Here silence is materialised into gold, the most
precious metal to people everywhere. This comparison aims at
showing the great value of silence, and we are urged to look at it as
being valuable as gold. So the harmony and perfect identification
between gold and silence gives more evidence that silence is highly
recommended. Some would object to comparing the immaterial
silence to the material gold, for it could be depreciation rather than
appreciation of silence to materialise it in such way. Maybe this is
true, but the fact of the matter is that a comparison like this is quite
popular among language users, especially in everyday conversation,
and is intended only to confirm the value of something, and that is
all. The TL version is stronger than the SL text for it makes silence
perfectly correspondent to gold in form of immediate, full
identification with it. That is, Silence = Gold. But the original makes
silence 'made of'-rather than perfectly identical with-gold, which can
imply that the former is superior to the latter, and that other metals
or 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 any
silence, any time, any where, and for any reason (cf., the first
example above and the next example).

Again, phonologically speaking, the consonant bilabial, voiced stop

'b' in 'thahab' is suggestive of closed lips and stopping talking
completely, that is, 'as-sukoot'.

5."‫[ "رب كلمة سلبت نعمة‬rubba kalimaten salabat ni'mah] Lit.: "One word
may steal a bounty": "One word could cost you a fortune","A word
can be costly". It is a phrase that recommends investing silence in a
situation where saying something, even one word, could be costly
enough to deprive someone of a valuable thing. So allegorically
speaking, 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 mouth
shut. The 'word' meant here is primarily one that might be bad, or
undesired; but any word of any kind is inadvisable. The
metaphorical word that relates silence to fortune, 'salabat'
'steal/rob', is a subtle lexical choice which is functional and
suggestive of a person's right ripped away him by uttering one
single word, although it is not really one of his own possessions by
origin or by law. As such, it invites a feeling of regret for wasting
such a hypothetical right.

Syntactico-stylistically speaking, 'rubba' implies certainty rather

than probability in the sense that such a word, if said, is sure to
have an effect. However, the indefinite form of 'kalimaten' is again
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 with
soft, low intonation and full pronunciation of the glottal fricative 'h'
(as in the final sound of 'ah') which is indicative of something that
has evaporated. And this is exactly what the phrase wants to
communicate.

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

6."‫[ "رب رأس حصيد لسان‬rubba raasen haseedu lissan] Lit.: "Maybe a head
is the price for a slip of the tongue": "A slip of the tongue could get
a man killed". This expression is an outright threat that a word, even
one that is unintentional, might cause a person his life, the highest
price that a man can pay. This is an indirect piece of advice for
people 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 before
saying something in certain situations, before certain people. It is a
connection that relates tongue to head in such a manner that the
latter survives only on the condition that the former behaves itself.
This shows the serious consequences of talking, and at the same
time implies the unparalleled value of silence. The use of 'rubba'
(implying certainty rather than probability) invites the notes made
above on its use in such expressions.

Related to this are proverbial expressions and adages like:

"‫[ "لسانك حصانك إن صنته صانك وإن خنته خانك‬Lissanak hisaanak in suntahu
saanak 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 will
betray you": "Beware of your tongue (if you don't hold it)";

"‫[ "الندم على السكوت خير من الندم على القول‬annadamu 'la s-sukootu khayron mina
n-nadami 'ala l-qawl] Lit.: "Regretting silence is better than
regretting saying": "Better to regret silence than utterance"; "‫ما أوردني‬
‫لقد أوردتني المهالك‬/‫[ "المهالك إل أنت‬maa awradani l-mahaalika illaa ant/laqad
awradtani l-mahaalek] Lit.: "O, my tongue, nothing has ruined me
but you": "You ruined me, tongue!;"‫س على وجوههم في النار إل حصائُد‬ َ ‫ب النا‬
ّ ‫وهل يك‬
‫[ "ألسنتهم؟‬wahal dkubbu n-naasa alaa wujoohihem fi- n-naari illa
hasaaedu alsinatihem] This is a part of a tradition by the Prophet
Muhammad (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 dire
consequences of bad talk. At the same time, it has the implication
that remaining silent is to be on the safe side. Another saying by the
prophet which reflects the same sense is a word of advice for a
believer to say good things, or else keep silent: "‫"فليقل خيرًا أو ليصمت‬
[falyaqol khayran aw liyasmot].

It should be pointed out that all the foregoing phrases and sayings
do not recommend absolute, everlasting silence. Their main
message is to prefer silence to talking, listening to speaking, to be
extra careful when saying something, and to remain quiet in critical
situations and moments in the company of certain people.

The English translations of all these expressions lean heavily on the

transference of their literal meaning as closely and faithfully as
possible. The closest to English proverbial structure is 'Better to
regret silence than utterance,' for it is an attempt to mimic the form
of proverbs like 'better late than never,' 'better safe than sorry,'
etc., which is more effective than an ordinary form.

7. "‫طِبق‬
ْ ‫[ "صمت ُم‬samton mutbeq] Lit.: "Closing silence": "Absolute
silence", "Complete silence", "A ton of silence". This metaphor is
suggestive of a stone-dead person. It is an exaggeration aimed at
reflecting a psychological and/or mental state of deep thinking,
contemplation, utter carelessness, or dissatisfaction, the latter being
dominant. 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 in
question, it is introduced here as something external, dumped on
him from the outside, like a speech-resistant suit, as it were. It is a
kind 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 on

original metaphors: 'A ton of enforced silence was dumped on Mr.
Eaton' (1988: 113), where the word 'dump' is suggestive of the
image claimed above. Yet, 'absolute silence' is a good version.

8."‫[ "ما نبس ببنت شفة‬maa nabasa bibinti shafah] Lit.: "He did not whisper
one daughter of a lip": "He buttoned his lips", "He was as quiet as
the grave", "He kept a quiet tongue". 'The daughter of a lip' is a
metaphor that stands for 'a word'. It is an exaggeration meant to
stress the state of absolute silence of a person whose mouth is
completely shut. Also, 'whisper' emphasizes the person's absolute
silence, that he did not open his mouth to produce one single word,
or even one sound. 'Daughter of a lip' completes the picture of a
person who does not even whisper, let alone produce words off his
mouth. The context of this expression is positive, praising a person
for keeping completely quiet, by way of defending him for saying
nothing whatsoever. 'Bint' can also be understood as a reference to
the bilabial sound 'b' the first to be produced by the closed lips when
opened. This will be quite clear if we practice it by closing lips and
opening them a little in the middle to pronounce 'b'. We can hardly
feel that we have pronounced something, which is what could be
implied here by the Arabic 'bint'. Adding to this sense is the second
set of sounds of the final word 'shafah'. The sound cluster 'fah' is
again one of the simplest shortest and easiest to produce when just
opening the lips.

As regards the English translation, three equally accepted versions

are available in the English language, the first of which is the closest
and the most identical with the Arabic original, as far as the
allegorical image is concerned. What is exactly meant by the SL
expression is that someone had his lips completely buttoned, which
is expressed in another informal Arabic phrase, "‫[ "خّيط فمه‬khayat
famah]: "He sewed his mouth", "He had his mouth sewed."
Nevertheless, there are two differences between the original and the
translation: one concerns the absence of the phonological effect of
the former in the latter; another is the use of two culturally different
allegorical images, but with the same implication and effect.

9."‫[ )بيعنا سكوتك!")عا‬bee'na skootak (col.)] Lit.: "Sell us your silence!":

"Keep your quiet", "Stop talking!". This is a popular colloquial
expression that could be somehow confusing, for, first of all, how
can one sell one's silence? And secondly and more importantly, how
are we to understand that this is said to interrupt somebody, to get
him to stop talking? It is understood as an indirect, but impolite way
of abruptly cutting off someone's speech. What it really means is
that silence is valuable whereas speech is not. Therefore, that
person 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 indirect
way to pass the message to a person to stop talking, especially
when he expresses an uninteresting view. Again, the matter is to
convince people to keep silent. A very important feature of this
phrase is its sarcastic implication, since no one really sells or buys
silence except ironically. What helps us understand this sense is the
falling-rising serious intonation in the question form.
The English translation contains no allegory or sarcasm, but
transfers the sense perfectly. There is a way, however, to convey
this sense of ridicule stylistically by means of a rather pragmatic,
free, less context-bound, and more creative version (with
appropriate ironical intonation) like: "Isn't it interesting to listen to
this man!", "How nice to listen to you Mr. Talker!" etc.

In sum, it is striking how silence is, paradoxically, considered mostly

a merit, but occasionally a demerit. This is more often made clear
indirectly than directly, through stylistic features and relationships
and their effects and functions, which sharpen, emphasise, interpret
and make prominent such implications of silence. Even more striking
paradoxical and complicated relationships are demonstrated by the
following allegorical expressions of speech, starting with those in
favour.

Speech

1."‫[ "أحلى الكلم‬ahla l-kalaam] Lit.: "The sweetest talk ever": "The best
words ever". This phrase is an exclusive reference to the Holy
Qur'an and the Prophet's traditions for Muslims, and to the language
of poetry in general, and love poetry in particular. The image is
derived from taste, but not just any taste, it is the sweetest thing
that man can taste. Here sweetness is not confined to one aspect of
speech, but is common to all aspects. It is a kind of perfect language
that is regarded as the best, the sweetest, the most beautiful,
rhetorical, aesthetic, expressive, and hence the most attractive
language ever. It is an unparalleled type of language. It displays all
the allegorical skills and prowess of language and the intricacies of
words put together. This phrase could be the one in praise of the
best part of language, written or spoken.

The precise sense and metaphor of the original are rendered

completely into English, although not with the same connotation.

2."‫[ "حديث شريف‬hadeethon shareef] Lit.: "Honourable saying (by the

Prophet Muhammad)": "A Prophet's tradition/saying". Usually a
saying is not described as honourable, only people are. But here we
have a special kind of saying by the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad
(peace be upon him). So this metaphor is borrowed to elevate and
venerate any saying by him. It has a quite affectionate, positive
effect on all Muslims. It is one of a number of phrases used to
describe the Prophet, with 'shareef' 'honourable' being a common
denominator among them: 'His honourable, face/head/hand', etc.,
all of which are special metaphors aimed at glorifying the Prophet,
his sayings, possessions and deeds. Added to them are phrases like
"‫[ "المصحف الشريف‬almus-hafu sh-shareef], referring to the Holy Qur'an
and "‫[ "الحرمان الشريفان‬al-haramaani sh-shareefaan], referring to the two
Holy mosques in Mecca and Al-Medina in Saudi Arabia.

3."‫ذهب")عا‬/‫من دهب‬/‫[ )كلمك دهب‬kalaamak 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 1
above). It is a perfect metaphorical material harmony between gold
and 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 topic
addressed 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 difference
between the two versions of this phrase: 'speech is gold' and
'speech is made of gold' which are apparently the same. They are
not precisely so as the latter would imply metals other than gold,
and speech is not identified with gold, but made of it as its raw
material, 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 is
drawn on a material, not a moral basis.

The English equivalent is perfectly identical with the first version

and, therefore, achieves all the effects and functions of the original.

4. "‫[ )كلم حلو")عا‬kalam hulu (col.)] Lit.: "Sweet talk": "Nice talk". The
metaphor here identifies talk with sweetness, the area of taste
rather than substance (it should be pointed out that the Arabic
sweet talk is different from the well-known English phrase 'sweet
talk' with the negative sense of insincerity and hypocrisy; for this
sense, see the discussion of 'sweet tongue' in the section about
negative expressions about speech below). It could be a reference to
the choice of favourable words and expressions such as collocations,
rhetorical figures, catch phrases and proverbs. Consequently, an
agreeable message is certainly implied. Hence, speech is very much
praised, but only good and nice speech.

Other similar expressions are "‫[ "كلم جميل‬kalaam jameel] Lit.:

"Beautiful talk": "Nice talk", whose concentration is shifted onto the
agreeable, likeable part of speech alongside a favourable message; "
‫[ "كلم معقول‬kalaam ma'qool] Lit.: "Reasonable/rational speech":
"Wise/good talk", which centres on persuasive speech; "‫"حسن الخطاب‬
[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 in

the first place. The only problematic one is the last which sounds
tautological in English (i.e., 'rhetorical' implies 'charming'), yet it is a
relatively good translation that is faithful to the SL phrase.

5."‫[ )كلمك على العين والراس")عا‬kalaamak; 'ala l-ayn war-raas (col.)] Lit.:
"Your speech is on (my) eye and head": "I hold your opinion in high
esteem". This expression is symbolic of showing respect, consent,
obedience, submission and full approval by the speaker. It is a
prompt response to a point of view, a word of advice, a request, an
instruction of some kind, etc. Its reference is exclusively to the
message. Although it is an expression of consent, it does not always
imply a wholehearted agreement: a contrastive statement-usually
beginning with 'but'-might follow it to oppose what has been said.

The choice of eye and head is socio-cultural, connoting a high regard

for them both, maybe because they are the two highest, most
important and sensitive parts of the human body; hence the
popular, colloquial phrases: "‫من عيوني")عا‬/‫من عيني هذه قبل هذه‬/‫'[ )على عيني‬alaa
'ayni/min 'ayni haathihi qabla haathihi/min uyooni (col.)] "OK/With
pleasure";

"‫أمرك على راسي")عا‬/(‫[ )على راسي)من فوق‬ala raasi (min fouq)/amrak 'alaa raasi
(col.)] "OK/Yes sir/With all my pleasure". Thus, even with only one
of the two-the eye or the head-the expression implies approval and
submissiveness; so when both are used in one and the same phrase
as connotatively homogeneous-as in our phrase here-they become
stylistically more emphatic.

The English versions are pragmatic and free, focussing on the sense
and effect of the message at the expense of a literal rendition which,
if applied, would be funny and repulsive.

6."‫[ )كلم رجال")عا‬kalaam rjaal (col.)] Lit.: "Talk of men": "Responsible

word", "A word of honour". This is either a comment on somebody
else's statement, or a confirmation by the speaker himself. It means
a 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 made
by him for another person that he assumes full responsibility to
meet 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's
question to her frightened, hesitant husband in Shakespeare's play,
Macbeth, "Are you a man?" (Act III, Scene 4:58) implies that she
thinks he is a cowardly, weak man in the first place. At the same
time, an expression that insinuates the opposite is "‫[ "كلم نسوان‬kalaam
nswaan (col.)] Lit.: "Women's talk", which has opposite
connotations. Perhaps this made sense in English in Shakespeare's
day, 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. "‫[ "قول صائب‬qawlon saa'eb] Lit.: "Hitting saying": "Right saying",

"Well-said". Here a saying is highly appreciated because it hits the
target perfectly, right in the bull's-eye. Here lies the metaphor: a
saying is identified with an arrow that hits the target in the heart,
which means that it is right to perfection. This target is the absolute
truth about something or somebody. A similar expression is:"‫أصاب كبد‬
‫[ "الحقيقة‬asaaba kabida l-haqeeqah] Lit.: "He hit the liver of the truth":
"He hit the heart of the matter", where 'liver' is employed to
symbolise the centre or the heart of the truth. But truth has no liver
or heart, only in the allegoric sense. The image is a little bit
complicated here. The liver is as central and essential as the heart
to the human body, the origin of this image; therefore when hit,
man's life terminates. By analogy, when truth is hit in the heart, it
comes to an end and becomes clear and available to everybody. This
image of the truth makes it a prey, when hit in the heart, it gets
killed, and then we can get hold of it. Yet, this expression does not
have negative implications about truth; on the contrary, it has an
outstandingly 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 collocations
in English and hit the target of the SL meaning here. To my
knowledge, there is no English metaphor like the last Arabic one
about 'truth'.

8."‫يسلم فمك)تمك()عا‬/‫[ ")ل فض فوك‬la fudda fooka/dslam fammak (tmmak)

(col.)] Lit.: "May your mouth never be unsealed", "May your mouth
be safe": "Well-said (spoken)", "How well you have spoken". The
allegory here is in the use of 'mouth' to mean speech by implication,
alongside with the addressee's wishes for the addresser's mouth to
be safe and never unsealed in order to speaking nicely perpetually.
These two expressions are said as a comment on an exceptionally
favourable statement. It is a great praise of somebody who says
exactly the right and required thing.
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 connote
speech, the use of 'fudda' 'unsealed' suggests an image based on a
metaphor comparing a mouth to an envelope that is usually closed
perfectly, or, in other words, sealed, so that no one can open it. It is
hoped by the addressee that the mouth never be unsealed, thus
keeping nice words safe inside, so that every time it is opened
again, it will produce nice words.

The English equivalent 'well-said' has no allegory, but transfers the

message of the original faithfully, with an eye kept on an agreeable
expression of praise. Moreover, it is crisp, concise, sharp and to the
point; and, like the original, it connotes a praise of a favourable
statement.

9."‫[ "القول ينُفذ ما ل تنُفذ البر‬al-qawlu yanfuthu maa laa tanfuthu l-ibaru]
Lit.: "Speech penetrates where needles cannot penetrate": "Speech
is as penetrating as a pin". This metaphor is a fact of life, for words
can touch the heart, whereas pins cannot. Even granting the highly
hypothetical possibility of touching the heart with pins, words can
still affect emotions and feelings, but pins cannot. So the image of
penetration in this comparative relationship between pins and words
is quite precise, impressive and expressive. Penetration is normally
associated with the concrete (i.e., pins), but here it is also attributed
to 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 this
expression. The front position occupied by 'saying/words' has three
important indications: The first is the emphasis on the most
important word in the phrase. Secondly, by foregrounding it, the
antithetical appearance of 'penetrate' becomes sharper and more
ostentatious. Thirdly, the whole expression is most likely taken from
a 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 by
no means discredits the previous two significant stylistic functions
for the fronted 'words.'

Identical with this expression is the phrase"‫[ "رب قول أشد من صول‬rubba
qawlen ashaddu min sawlen] Lit.: "Perhaps a saying is tougher than
an assault": "Words can be as fierce as a fight/as sharp as a
needle". Words are given a power greater and more influential than
an attack in a war with a deadly weapon and the possibility of a man
getting killed. What a serious, destructive power words might have!
Certainly 'qawlen' and 'sawlen' are made to rhyme with one another
on purpose for rhetorical reasons, and for achieving and reflecting
equality between them, with 'ashaddu' in between to give
superiority 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 matched
the Arabic original. However, the former expression is admittedly an
endeavour to imitate the SL structure and allegory, by retaining the
same metaphor of pins and needles, and employing the favoured
English form of 'as ... as' phrases.

10."‫'[ "عند التصريح تريح‬inda t-tasreeh tureeh] Lit.: "At speaking (frankly)
you comfort us": "Speak up to cheer us up" "You speak up we cheer
up". The whole phrase is allegorical, for 'tasreeh' stands for an
open/frank opinion on the part of the addresser, and 'tureeh' for
trouble-shooting and change of the psychological state of worry on
behalf of the addressee. A strong relationship is created between
speaking one's mind, and another's relief as a result of that. To
support and reflect this, the two words are made to rhyme with one
another, with a subtle onomatopoeic touch demonstrated by the
long 'ee' followed by the sound 'h', a combination of sounds that can
be identified with a long sigh of relief, ‫تنفس الصعداء‬/‫تنهد‬
[tanahhod/tanaffos as-sa'daa'], produced by a man having a burden
lifted off his shoulders. Obviously, the phrase is an urgent invitation
for people to speak up and say the truth, rather than hide it from
others who happen to be impatient to hear it.

At translating the expression into English, the concern has been in

the three most important points, rhyme, comfortable structure, and
message. The first is achieved through the repetition of 'up' and the
consonance between the medial long 'ee' in 'speak' and 'cheer'. The
second 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 the
lexical choice of 'speak up' and 'cheer up' in favour of several others
available in the language inventory (e.g., 'talk/say the truth/be
frank', etc., for the former, and 'be happy/feel comfortable/be at
ease', etc., for the latter).

11."‫الكلمة الطيبة‬/‫[ "الكلم)الكلم( الطيب‬alkalimu (alkalaamu) t-tayyeb/alkalimatu

t-tayyibah] Lit.: "Delicious talk": "Good words". The reference here
is to good, agreeable, decent, dignified and philanthropic language
in general. On top of this type of talk is 'thikru Allah' (remembrance
of Allah). The metaphorical word 'tayyeb' is literally used to describe
food in the sense of delicious and tasty. By analogy, it is used to
modify 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

"‫الكلمة الخبيثة‬/‫[ "الكلم الخبيث‬al-kalaamu l-khabeeth/al-kalimatu l-

khabeethah] Lit.: "Disagreeable/malicious talk": "Dirty/bad talk". It
is used to mean bad, evil, dirty, wicked, vicious, obnoxious, devilish,
indecent and taboo language in general. Originally 'khabeeth' is
derived from the noun 'khubth' (dirt/obnoxious taste). 'Good
language' is used alongside this phrase to sharpen and heighten the
paradoxical relationship between them, and make prominent the
advantages 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 the
discussion of those phrases which condemn speech in different ways
and for different reasons.

1."‫[ )كلْم ْكبير")عا‬kalaam kbeer (col.)] Lit.: "Big talk":

"Serious/responsible talk". Usually talk is not described as big or
small in Arabic (and the two English phrases, 'small talk', i.e., light
conversation, and 'talk big', i.e., boastfully, are false friends in
Arabic for they have completely different meanings and
connotations). There is some ambiguity in 'big' which is mostly
positive in many collocations. Here it seems to be positive as an
adjective describing 'speech', yet it is not so in its connotations. That
is, being allegorical, this phrase is suggestive of a serious statement
by an ordinary person who either does not know its implications, or
is 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 critical
of such types of statements.

The functional equivalence is given in English for there is no identical

expression with the same implications of the SL, but there is no sign
of ambiguity here.

2."‫[ "اللسان مركب ذلول‬allisaanu 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 is
used as a warning against the slips and hazards of the tongue. It is
easy to use the tongue to say any word, but the consequences
might be quite costly. Therefore, this metaphor implies the tendency
of the tongue towards loose, careless, slippery and uncontrolled
production of words, regardless of the results. It is like a boat
navigating a fast river-extremely difficult to control. Stylistically
speaking, this image is a good choice for expressing perfectly the
notion of uncontrollability attributed to the tongue. This expression
is, then, an indirect precaution for people to take care of their
tongues, and beware of their slips and irresponsible emission of
words.

Another meaning of 'thalool' (obedient) could be suggested here in

this negative context of tongue, which is 'humiliating and causing
insult to man' (taken from 'thalla/thull' 'humiliate/humiliation'). This
sense is quite feasible and understandable for it is imposed by the
general style and context of the expression, which implies the
troubles 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 on
silence above).

Concerning the English translation, it transmits the sense regardless

of allegory. This is usually the last resort, but it is not all that bad.

3."‫تافه‬/‫[ "كلم فارغ‬kalaam faaregh/taafeh] Lit.: "Empty/trivial talk":

"Empty/idle talk", "Trash". 'Faaregh' 'empty' is usually used with
material objects like pans, bags, rooms, and any vacant spaces,
rather than with immaterial things like talk. The image of emptiness
is borrowed here to indicate that such kind of talk is at the same
time: uninteresting, mean, useless, trivial and time-wasting for the
addressee in particular. The same can be said about 'taafeh' 'trivial',
which has identical implications. From a stylistic point of view, this is
a crisp popular phrase, categorically destroying somebody's talk.
Two words are enough to blast apart a whole speech. They are a
good example for the sharp and to-the-point phrases: "‫خير الكلم ما قل‬
‫[ "ودل‬khayru 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 the
phrases in favour of talk for it is not allegorical), it has a general
reference to any expression, negative or positive, which is sharp and
to the point.

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

proverbial phrases that have similar negative implications for idle
talk: "‫[ "كلم الليل يمحوه النهار‬kalaamu l-layli yamhoohu n-nahaar] Lit.:
"Night talk is erased by day talk": "What is said at night is forgotten
the following day", which insinuates trivial talk, or else it wiould not
be forgotten; "‫[ "كلمه ريح في قفص‬kalaamuhu reehon fee qafas] Lit.: "His
talk is a wind in a cage": "His talk vanishes into thin air", which
indicates trivial talk again; "‫[ "وبعض القول يذهب في الرياح‬waba'du l-qawli
yathhabu fi r-riyaahi] Lit.: "And some of the talk goes with the
wind": "A part of talk evaporates in the air", which highlights again
the triviality of at least a portion of the talk;"‫لهو الحديث‬/‫"لغو‬
[lagwu/lahwu l-hadeeth] Lit.: "Wasted talk": "Nonsense/logorrhea",
to signify idle, unnecessary talk;

"‫[ "أسمع جعجعة ول أرى طحنًا‬asma'u ja'ja'atan walaa araa tahnan] Lit.: "I
hear noise (of a mill) and see no grounds": "I hear wheeling without
milling", to stress the uselessness of noisy, pompous chatter that
stands short of action, exactly like the barking of dogs that do not
bite.

The last Shakespearean proverb is possibly the origin of the Arabic

one. Therefore, it poses no problem. Also, 'nonsense/trash',
'empty/idle talk', and 'sharp and to the point' are well-known
expressions in English that convey completely or partly the sense
and allegory of the SL counterparts.

4."‫[ "لسان حلو‬lisaanon hulw] Lit.: "Sweet tongue": "Sweet tongue". The
metaphorical description of the tongue as sweet suggests a surface,
referential meaning (i.e., the unnecessary use of a lot of nice and
agreeable words) and an implied meaning (that is, hypocrisy as a
means to get something), which is the intended meaning here. In
both languages the image of sweetness (the area of taste) is
exploited to reflect the double sense of nice words. However, this
does not apply to the phrase, 'kalaam hulw' 'nice talk' (see above).
This is a very passive expression used to describe hypocrites in
whatever situation.

Two analogous, equally popular expressions are: "‫[ "طري اللسان‬tariyyu

l-lisaan] Lit.: "Soft-tongued": "Sweet-tongued"; and "‫طب اللسان‬ ْ ‫"ر‬
[ratbu l-lisaan] Lit.: "Wet-tongued": "Sweet-tongued". It is
stylistically interesting how the metaphorical words in these three
phrases (i.e., 'hulw', 'tariyy', 'ratb'-'sweet', 'soft', 'wet') have quite
popular positive connotations of politeness, friendliness, intimacy
and sociability, to stand in sharp contrast with the black, ugly
disgusting, 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: "‫[ "والضد ُيظهر حسَنه الضد‬wad-diddu yuzhiru
husnahu d-diddu]: "Nothing is good or ill but by comparison".

5."‫طب ويد من خشب‬

َ ‫[ "لسان من ُر‬lisaanon min rutab wayadon min khashab]
Lit.: "A tongue of ripe dates and a hand of wood": "A sweet tongue
and a harsh hand". Allegory abounds here. The sweetness and
softness of the tongue is drawn from ripe dates, which are the
sweetest and the softest kind of dates. When words are made to
resemble dates, they are meant to be identified with them perfectly
when 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 a
stiff and senseless hand, as wood is a hard material. Simply, this
person is harsh, hard and ruthless.

This is some allegory. Several stylistic features have been employed

here to produce the greatest possible effect on the reader. Chief
among them is the antithetical conformity created between two
opposites, 'rutab' 'ripe dates' and 'khashab' 'wood'. That is, although
the latter is symbolic of harshness and the former of softness, they
are made identical, as the 'soft tongue' is not soft at all, but a
deceptive one, and the 'wooden hand' is not just any hand, but a
hard one. This leads to the conclusion that deception and hardness
are closely related as two faces of the same coin, so to speak. What
supports 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 striking
syntactic 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 the
rhymed repetition of 'min' twice, which half rhymes with the other
two words preceding it each time. The final stylistic feature that
needs 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, a
contrast between the two noun phrases has changed into addition,
and only phrases of the same kind are added to one another. This
gives further evidence for the argument for paradoxical conformity
and heterogeneous homogeneity.

The translation into English has tried to produce not only the
message but also the effect of the original on the TL reader, by
achieving some kind of semi end-rhyme between 'tongue' and
'hand', parallel structure (ADJ+N: 'sweet tongue' vs. 'harsh hand'),
concise structure (as few words as possible), and the use of the
same conjunction of addition, 'and', rather than of contrast, which is
common in collocations of contrastiveness like 'vice and virtue'. The
difference is in degree and allegory which is richer on the SL side.
The same translation approach is applied to the next three
expressions.

Two more expressions of the same structure and sense can be

introduced here:

"‫سل‬َ ‫["كلم كالعسل وفعل كال‬kalaamon kal-'asal wafi'lon kal-asal] Lit.: "A talk
like honey and a doing like sharp a instrument": "Sweet words and
bad deeds", where the sweet honey is matched by a very sharp
instrument 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 the
contrastive connotations of sweetness and agreeability for honey,
and ferocity and harshness for a sharp instrument. The latter seems
to correspond with the former in this phrase, as 'honey talk' is a
cheating talk confirmed by the person's deeds which are wicked and
aggressive. Therefore, both have surface antithesis and underlying
resemblance of message (cheating and deception for honey, and
wickedness and aggression for sharp instrument). Again the same
sort of syntactic parallelism-noted in conjunction with the previous
expression-is present between two remarkably and perfectly rhymed
parts 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', which
replaces a contrastive connector, to suggest the sameness of the
two images of the expression.

Similar to this is the proverbial expression, "‫[ "كلم لّين وظلم بّين‬kalaamon
layyen wazulmon bayyen] Lit.: "Pliant talk and explicit oppression":
"Soft talk and stark abuse", where the metaphor word, pliant, is
used normally with material things which could be pliant, hard, etc.
Understandably, pliancy of talk is suggestive of soft, polite, cordial
language, opposed as well as uprooted by a blunt, verbal oppression
by the same speaker, to invalidate pliant words. We may notice the
same stylistic points of rhyme, syntactic parallelism, functional 'and',
and paradoxical conformity in this expression exactly as in the
previous three allegorical sayings. The extremely popular saying:

"‫[ "كلمة حق يراد بها باطل‬kalimatu haqqen yuraadu bihaa baatel]: "A right
word and wrong implications" explains in short, simple terms the
structure 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
message of ruthlessness and harshness. Secondly, the syntactic
sequence of these parts cannot be reversed, as their negative end
focus would change completely, or the effect of the message would
undergo drastic changes. That means if we start with the more
negative part of harshness, and finish with the less negative, or
positive part, the whole implication of strong passivity would be
minimized. That is, if we say for example: "Harsh hand and sweet
talk" (instead of 'Sweet talk and harsh hand'), or "Bad deeds and
honey/sweet talk" (to replace 'Sweet talk and bad deeds'), the end
focus will change and the phrases would accordingly change into
rather more positive, or less negative ones. They would be read
more as expressions of balanced parts than passive ones, which is
not 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 a
well-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 is

the version used in the commercial); while (b) is negative for it ends
with a negative adjective, naughty (that is why it is inappropriate for
a commercial). As to (c), it equates the two epithets by means of
the coordinator of addition 'and', which can be understood as
combining paradoxes in one and the same thing, or man, or making
the positive and the negative equal and identical (which is the case
with the four expressions discussed above).

6."‫[ "أحكى من قرد‬ahkaa min qird] Lit.: "More talkative than a monkey":
"As talkative as a talking machine". Monkey has bad connotations in
Arabic, but usually not of much talking, as it does not talk in the
human literal sense of the word. Perhaps the allegory here is the
pejorative comparison of a talkative person to a culturally ugly
animal like a monkey. The proverb is critical of a person who keeps
talking and gossiping all the time for whatever reason, on whatever
occasion, on whatever topic. Certainly, talkative is a bad epithet
indeed, that is, socially unfavourable for the vast majority of people
everywhere.

An interesting stylistic point about the structure of the phrase is the

use of the comparative form for 'ahkaa' (more talkative) instead of
the normal form of 'talkative', to emphasis the tendency in Arabic
towards comparison for elucidation and exaggeration, to achieve a
greater effect on language users.

The English translation is half standard, as it were, namely 'as a

talking machine' is a popular simile, whereas 'as talkative' is not. Yet
it is suggested to create a similar effect in the TL, because this is
crucial in the appreciation and comprehension and, therefore, the
translation of many such expressions (Newmark's communicative
translation, 1981 and 1988, and Nida's dynamic equivalence, 1964).
The TL has a cultural equivalent for the Arabic one: 'as a talking
machine' for 'talkative monkey', but it does not exactly possess the
same kind and degree of effect on the TL readership. People, that is,
respond differently to a machine and a monkey. Nevertheless, this
does not prevent them from getting the message.

Similar to this is the proverb: "‫[ "المكثار كحاطب الليل‬al-mikthaaru kahaatibi

l-layl] Lit.: "A talkative person is like a night woodsman": " A
talkative man wastes his breath". The simile implies that a
woodsman at night is wasting his time and efforts for he does not
know or distinguish what he woods, how or what he does. Therefore,
he will be confused and have everything confused and in a
shambles. As to the English translation, the image of 'woodsman' is
not a part of English culture or allegory in this context. Therefore
another image is sought after to counterbalance the original, and
'waste one's breath' can be appropriate here to transmit a similar
message but in different environment. There is no other way out.

7."‫[ "استنوق الجمل‬istanwaqa 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 has
nothing to do with camels except for its symbolic literal sense of a
camel 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 sense
is applied to people, as the second version of the translation
confirms. But it is not our concern here. It is the first meaning of a
man considered to be fragile, confused, clumsy, low and foolish. He
is bitterly criticised and ridiculed by this phrase, which is usually
followed by a smile. A similar, more popular comment in such a
context is the colloquial expression, "‫[ "حكى بدري‬hakaa badri] Lit.:
"Badri has just spoken": "Listen/look who's talking!" Badri is a
proper name, a common name, like Jack or John in English; the
reason for the original choice may never be known. The phrase has
exactly the same metaphorical connotations as the previous formal
one. To sharpen the sense of irony , it is sometimes completed as
"...‫[ "!وانشرح صدري‬wansharah sadri] Lit.: "And my breast got
relieved!": "So that I've had a sigh of relief!", which rhymes with
'Badri', and implies a harsh, sarcastic implication which is quite the
opposite of its surface meaning (i.e., to feel quite relieved). The
accompanying tone of voice is in fact suggestive of that. Such
expressions are critical of foolish, disliked, thick-witted, and
opinionated people.

The translation of these two expressions are among the most

difficult to translate into English. Yet, the catch phrase 'look who's
talking!' is perfectly expressive of the message and its connotations
of irony and disrespect.

8."‫[ "سليط اللسان‬saleetu l-lisaan] Lit.:"Vicious-and-long-tongued":

"Sharp-tongued". A tongue is a tongue, a piece of flesh that cannot
be soft, sweet or sharp in the literal sense. However, allegorically
speaking, it can be sharp when it utters sharp words. It is one of the
popular pejorative phrases used in everyday conversation to
describe the language of a severe, harsh person, normally behind
his or her back.

An alternative for this expression is "‫[ "طويل اللسان‬taweelu l-lisaan] Lit.:

"Long-tongued": "Sharp-tongued", which is similar in meaning to the
previous one, but with less effect and sharpness. Therefore, a
person who has such a tongue can be told that to his or her face.

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

9. "‫[ "ل َتهِرف بما ل تعرف‬laa tahref bimaa laa ta'ref] Lit.: "Do not
overpraise (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 to
tell someone who praises a person excessively, unnecessarily and
without knowing exactly what he says, to refrain from that. But the
speaker knows very well that he lauds him to get something
personal. These are the characteristics of a hypocrite and an
opportunist. There are multiple recommendations here: Do not
overpraise someone no matter who he is; Do not say what you do
not know; and Stop pretending and being a hypocrite. All these are
negative meanings, confirming the disagreeability of hypocritical
language and people.

Three important stylistic points are employed here to produce

stronger supportive effect for the message: The apparent rhyme
between 'tahref' and 'ta'ref', to aid memorisation; the close spelling
of them as the key words of the phrase, which suggests a good
relationship of identification of their message; and the parallel
structure of the 'laa tahref' and 'laa ta'ref', which gives further
evidence for the correspondence between their implications. This is
not to conclude that the phrase recommends doing the opposite;
that is, "ihref bimaa ta'ref" 'overpraise someone with what you
know'-excessive praise is not advisable in principle in any case.

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

10."‫[ "رمى الكلم على عواهنه‬rama l-kalaama 'alaa 'awaahineh] Lit.: "He
threw words as they came to his mouth": "He spoke at random".
Words here are portrayed as material things that can be thrown out
of the mouth. It is a good metaphor to express the production of
words irresponsibly, haphazardly, and without giving them a second
thought, which is embarrassing and irrational. Words should be
produced carefully, especially in formal and serious situations, for
at-random words could be quite harmful. To support this criticism, a
sense 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 be
sensed at its best if the expression is said aloud rhythmically in
pairs. The last feature, the 'aa' motif, is suggestive of an open
mouth 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, the
literal sense is expressed in general terms, but it loses all its stylistic
features and functions. The only rhetorical aspect of the TL version
is its crispness.

11."‫[ "آفة الحديث الكذب‬aafatu 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. Such
disease is deadly, and therefore kills the whole speech, good or bad.
Lying is not only the worst part and kind of talk, but also the
destroyer of any talk, for one lie in a long speech is devastating
enough to discredit the whole thing, or to make the addressee(s)
suspicious of it, which is another way of spoiling it. The lexical choice
of 'blight' is, therefore, brilliant for it ominously refers to a killing
disease that starts up abruptly, develops steadily, and remains
permanently, so that it keeps killing the same thing for a long time.
This is what exactly lying does with talk. A liar is never believed
even when he is right. One more significant stylistic feature is the
succinct, concise structure of the phrase: only three words, exactly
the required words, neither more nor less. They are expressive
enough and sharp enough to deliver a message as bluntly,
categorically, emphatically, and effectively as required. This is
indeed the original tendency of Arabic rhetoric in particular, and
Arabic language in general.

The main problem of translation into English is the absence of the

image of lying as a blight. However, another compensating image of
ugliness is suggested for lying, to strike some kind of balance with
the allegory of the original.

In this negative context of lying, there are several popular

expressions which appreciate honesty- ‫[ الصدق‬as-sidq]. One of them
corresponds to the previous phrase in its allegorical sense of illness:
"‫[ "الكذب داء والصدق شفاء‬al-kathibu daa' was-sidqu shifaa'] Lit.: "Lying is
malady and honesty is remedy": "Lying is malady, honesty is
remedy". In this proverb, lying is a disease for liars, whereas
honesty is a remedy for the honest. What a difference! This could
mean that the latter is a remedy for the former, but not necessarily.
Lying is a plague developed by liars, which could accompany them
always, whereas honesty is an antidote for honest people, which
comforts them for life. The juxtaposition between lying and honesty,
on the one hand, and malady and remedy, on the other, makes their
antithetical relationship sharper and more blatant. The conciseness
of form is also remarkable for its sharpness and straightforwardness
in delivering a clear, definite message about the brass tacks of both
lying 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 aid
to memorisation.

The English translation perfectly matches, not to say supercedes, all

semantic syntactic, phonological and, hence, stylistic aspects of the
original Arabic. I hope this translation of my own devising will be
deemed acceptable.
12."‫[ "سلح الضعفاء الشكاية‬silaahu d-du'afaa'i sh-shikaayah] Lit. "The
weapon of the weak is complaint": "The only weapon for the weak is
complaining". It is remarkable how a poor, miserable and humble
type of speech like a 'complaint' is changed into a powerful weapon.
At the same time, it is the only weapon of poor people who are
helpless and unable to do anything other than complain. It is a kind
of indecisive metaphor as whether to classify it as negative,
criticising the weak for resorting to humiliating complaint, or
positive, turning poor words of poor people into a weapon of some
kind. Although it is originally intended to be a criticism of the
submissive and surrendering nature of miserable people, it
simultaneously implies appreciating them in a sense for trying to do
something, rather than remaining passive. It could be a matter of
less passive and more passive, in which case the latter is negative
while the former is less negative, or closer to positive. Yet, still the
passive is passive, whether more or less, which is anyway not an
invalid point.

In the English translation, the same metaphor as well as the full

sense 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 the
point of front-focus is changed, and consequently, the bias of the
whole expression. That is, to start with 'complaining' means to start
with depreciating the vulnerable part of the weak, rather than with
their strong part. This means that the powerful element of the
phrase is undermined, if not altogether lost. For all that, it is
preferable to keep the stylistic focus and word order of the TL text
exactly as the original.

13."‫جري‬ َ ‫[ "أخبرته بُع‬akhbartuhu bi'ujaree, wabujaree] Lit.: "I told

َ ‫جري وُب‬
him about my all drawbacks and troubles": "I told him everything",
"I told him everything about the bad side of me", "I washed all my
dirty linen before him". The phrase 'al-'ujaru wal-bujaru' is the plural
of ''ujra' wa 'bujra'. Although the words in the phrase mean, among
other things, nodes in the human body, they are used
metaphorically to refer to all of one's private misfortunes and
worries in general. In fact they bear no reference to their literal
sense of knots/nodes, and are to be understood within one popular
catch-phrase used symbolically in a negative context of sadness on
the addresser's part, who brings relief to himself by speaking openly
about his own troubles. The context could be that of relief to the
person speaking, in which case it is a positive context. Yet it is not
exactly positive, for nobody tells his own secrets and sufferings
unless he is fed up and in distress.
It is remarkable that the sounds of the phrase are in a shambles in
the sense that they are influent, disintegrated, heterogeneous, and
difficult to pronounce, which is why in colloquial Arabic, it is
mispronounced as "'jree wabjree" for reasons of convenient, easy
articulation. This conforms perfectly with the phrase's
disharmonious, dishevelled message. The perfect rhyme between
these two words does not as much ease the burden of pronunciation
as reflect the identical meanings and implications of one another,
and insinuate a sense of irony associated with the phrase which is
made obvious by a commonplace, sympathetic comment in such a
situation: "‫[ "شر البلية ما يضحك‬sharru l-baliyyati maa yudhek] Lit.: "The
worst calamity is that which makes you laugh": "Misfortunes
ironically invite a smile", whose sharp sarcastic sense is quite
explicit.

All one can do when translating these two phrases into English is
convey the literal sense as closely as possible, since much of the
allegory 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 the
same syntactic structure and implications. For example: "‫البث‬
ُ ‫["وال‬al-baththu wal-huznu] (from the Holy Qur'an);
‫حْزن‬

"‫[ "الهم والغم‬al-hammu wal-ghammu]; "‫حَزن‬

َ ‫[ "الهم وال‬al-hammu wal-
hazan];

"‫[ "الهموم والغموم‬al-humoomu wal-ghumoomu]; and "‫[ "الهموم والُكُربات‬al-

humoomu wal-kurubaat], all of which are used in an identical
meaning and context, especially in supplication, as in: "‫اللهم إني أشكو إليك‬
‫"عجري وبجري‬-"God, I complain to you my troubles and distress" (an
Islamic invocation). Verily this is an exceptionally positive complaint.

14. "‫ي‬
ّ ‫[ "شر الرأي الَدَبر‬sharru r-raayi d-dabariyyu] Lit.: "The worst
opinion is the late one": "Too late an opinion is too worse". The
whole phrase is allegorical, implying sharp criticism of a person who
states his opinion too late, after something has been done. It is all
the same whether it is a right or wrong opinion, for it will then be
useless, even harmful if it is good. Here good and bad talk are
equally condemned and dismissed as inept. Another implication is
that it is a warning against the social and practical inadvisability of
stating one's opinion. It can also be interpreted differently-as a
strong recommendation for saying something at the right time, and
to avoid saying it in the wrong time regardless of its value, for at
best it would cause regret and sorrow for others.
The choice of the word 'sharru' 'the worst' is functional,
demonstrating exaggeration about this kind of opinion, in an
attempt to convince people of its hazards so that they may avoid it.
Also, the metaphorical word, 'dabariyyu' 'too late' is a good
polysemous lexical choice that originally means to lag behind, or
come 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 do
anything now; so 'let bygones be bygones' and do not make things
worse and force people to regret doing or saying something by
giving your late opinion about it.

More accentuation is assigned to this expression by a strong

quadruple stress on two consecutive double 'R's in two successive
words (i.e., sharru rra'yi), and two more stresses on 'd' and 'y' of
the third word (that is, d-dabariyyu). Four stresses in three
consecutive words, and three 'R's, two stressed and one unstressed
must be emphatic and reflexive of the message.

In English, it is the message, or sense, that is the primary concern

of a translator here. Any additional stylistic feature would be a gain.
The version of translation provided here is an attempt to produce
one or two stylistic features to create some kind of effect that is
similar-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 has
failed on two other levels: the reduction of the superlative form of
the original 'the worst' into the comparative form 'worse'; and more
importantly the backgrounding of 'too worse' and foregrounding of
'too late' at the expense of emphasising the latter rather than the
former, 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, stylistic
functions and relationships that explain the intricacies and magic of
such fascinating phrases.

Having discussed the allegorical expressions of silence and speech

individually, we can now introduce discussion of some phrases which
are reciprocal, juxtaposing silence and speech in the same context.

Silence and Speech Expressions Juxtaposed

1."‫[ "إذا كان الكلم من فضة فالسكوت من ذهب‬ithaa kaana l-kalaamu min fiddah
fas-sukootu min thahab] Lit.: "If speech is from silver, silence is
from gold": "Speech is silver, silence is golden", "Silence is golden".
Obviously, silence is more precious than speech. However, this does
not imply that speech is valuable, and therefore, that the difference
between it and silence is in degree, not in quality. Rather, it is
understood that the difference between them is big, so the phrase is
properly read as a depreciation and rejection of speech, while still
rating silver highly. So precedence is given to silence at the expense
of speech. The whole proverb is based on the comparison between
the two well-known metals, both of which are associated in several
verses of the Holy Qur'an and a number of everyday, popular
collocations. Thus, they have a strong relationship and are tied up
together in positive contexts to give illustrations in material terms.
We conclude from this the inevitable, natural company that silence
and speech keep in all situations. Yet, here they are juxtaposed, and
preference is given to gold, or silence. Moreover, the syntactic
structure is that of conditional sentences, the second of which (i.e.,
fas-sukootu min thahab), is a sharp reply to the first (viz., Ithaa
kaana l-kalaamu min fiddah). This kind of structure is convenient for
two temporally interconnected things, the latter of which is superior
to the former, exactly as the case here. This can be understood by
reversing the clause order of the sentence, starting with the second,
as follows: "If silence is gold, speech is silver", which is strange and
unacceptable as the favourite part is expected to be logically in the
second position, while the inferior part is to be in the first position.

There is no problem of translation here at all, for English has exactly

the same proverbial saying, with the same message and
connotations.

2."‫[ "سكت دهرًا ونطق كفرًا‬sakata dahran wanataqa kufran] Lit.: "He was
silent for ages and uttered atheism": "He kept silent for ages only to
utter trash". Astonishingly enough, this phrase is a criticism of both
silence and speech. But it is not any silence or any speech; but a
long silence, and a poor, silly speech after a long time of keeping
quiet. Long silence is not by nature negative, but it has become so
because of a surprisingly bad opinion. That is, to keep quiet for a
long time presupposes that when one finally does speak, it will be an
extremely wise, careful opinion, but that is not the case, and our
expectations are toppled altogether. Stylistically speaking, there are
two pairs of words made opposites in this phrase: 'sakata' 'kept
silent'-'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 sections
demonstrate), but here they stand in immediate contrast to one
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 into
opposites. On the other hand, neither 'dahran' 'for ages' nor 'kufran'
'blasphemy/atheism' are meant to be taken literally; they are means
of exaggeration about time and bad talk, intended to be understood
by implication and connotation. They are also chosen on purpose to
rhyme with one another for convenience of memorisation. As to the
coordinate connector of addition, 'and', it adds the two sentences of
the phrase (i.e., 'sakata dahran' and 'nataqa kufran') to one
another, rather than contradicting one with the other. This leads to
the conclusion that it is a conjunction of equation that makes the
two sentences equal and exactly the same, which applies perfectly
to the message.

Another version of the same proverbial expression with the same

implications, is:

"‫خْلفًا‬
َ ‫[ "سكت ألفًا ونطق‬sakata alfan wa nataqa khalfan] Lit.: "He was silent
for a thousand (times) and uttered a trash": "He kept silent for ages
to 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 the
same image is not available in English. However, this does not
hinder understanding or translation in any way, as the version
proposed here confirms. That is, 'for ages' and 'utter/voice trash' are
perfectly expressive of the message with not much difference in
connotations, especially when we know that the Arabic 'kufran'
'atheism' is not meant to be taken literally, so 'trash' fits well here.

1."‫[ "رب سكوت أبلغ من كلم‬rubba sukooten ablaghu min ;kalaam] Lit.:
"Silence could be more eloquent than speech": "Silence can be more
expressive than words". Silence is strongly recommended here as it
can express a person's mind much better than speech. Here the
grammatical structure of the comparative form of 'more ... than' is
preferred to the normal form of likeness, in which case silence has
no privilege over speech. Also a contrastive relationship is brought
about by the use of the two opposites, silence and speech in the
same phrase, to sharpen the difference between them. Perhaps the
best reading of this expression is to stop at 'sukoot' and 'kalaam' to
reflect 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
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., examples
below).

The English version of translation renders the sense. And since the
Arabic 'rubba' 'could be' is usually taken more as certainty than
probability, an assertive version like 'silence is more
eloquent/expressive than speech' is feasible, as 'is' expresses
certainty. The comparative structure is retained to imply a similar
stylistic function in the TL as well. However, the phonological
onomatopoeic 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."‫[ "لسان الحال أبين من لسان المقال‬lisaanu l-haal abyanu min lisaani l-maqaal]
Lit.: "The tongue of the person's condition is more eloquent than the
tongue of speaking": "Man's condition is more expressive than his
expression". The phrase means to say that a person's terrible
condition, appearance and countenance can say everything about
him to the extent that he need say nothing. So remaining
speechless (i.e., silent) can be expressive enough so that words are
totally unnecessary. There are two tongues here, the literal (the
second) and the metaphorical (the first). They are juxtaposed with
one another to form a fantastic comparison, which makes the
contrast between silence and speech sharper. On the other hand,
the metaphorical tongue changes man's silent condition into an
eloquent expressive tongue in such a way that his normal tongue,
which is supposed to be more eloquent and expressive than
anything else, is not necessary. This shows the superiority of
keeping quiet to speaking. The adjective, 'abyan' 'more eloquent' is
used in the comparative grammatical form which implies that what
follows is better than what precedes, although both have eloquence
in common. However, the intended meaning of the phrase is not
exactly so; rather a man's appearance or condition is enough for us
to understand him, without any need for words. Thus, words are
completely 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 rhyme
between 'condition' and 'expression' and the retention of the
comparative relationship between the two parts of the phrase are
meant to match the original to some extent and compensate
somehow for the loss in allegory.

4."‫[ "كأنما ألقمه الحجر‬kaannamaa alqamahu l-hajar] Lit.: "As though he

mouthed him a stone": "To strike someone dumb", "To stone
someone's mouth". To put a stone in someone's mouth is symbolic
of silencing him and shutting him up. But this is just a material
image to illustrate the idea of a speaker who is struck dumb by
another person's quick, witty and sharp response. It is a humiliation
to the former, but a triumph to the latter. This implies the powerful
force of words on some occasions to such an extent that man can be
forced to keep astonishingly silent at the time when he is in need of
speaking and defending himself. So passive silence here is dumped
on somebody against his will.

The stylistic-lexical choice of 'alqama' 'to mouth' is precise and

expressive, suggesting a big mouthful. Therefore, it is sufficient per
se to express the required meaning. But by the time we digest this
sense we realise that the forced mouthful is nothing but a stone, or
something stonelike. In any case, even a mouthful of any kind of
food is not dissimilar to a stone. Hence the preciseness of the image
of being struck dumb by words.

The literal translation of meaning, using the same image of stone, is

a safe choice in English, for it is acceptable and comprehensible by
native speakers of English-as well as by English speaking people
worldwide, I suppose.

Another catch phrase in this context of 'alqama' is, "‫ألقْمُته أذني فصب فيها‬
‫[ "كلمًا‬alqamtuhu uthunee fasabba feehaa kalaaman] Lit.: "I enforced
my ear in his mouth to pour words in": "I lent him my ear to
whisper 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 completely
and properly in the ear's passage-this suggests the full whispering,
secret confidentiality and extreme importance of these words.

5."‫[ "الساكت عن الحق شيطان أخرس‬as-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 traditional
saying by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). A person
who keeps his mouth shut and refuses to speak the truth is likened
to a dumb Satan (with all its bad connotations), which is an ugly
image of man, especially a Muslim. He would be not only a Satan
but also dumb. Here the image works on two levels; at the level of
silence it is absolutely negative, whereas at the level of speech
(namely, saying the truth) it is quite positive. There are two
antonymic, juxtaposed poles in the phrase: 'truth' on one hand; and
'a silent man', Satan and dumbness on the other. This means that
such a person and a dumb Satan are absolutely identical, which by
extension sharpens the contrastive relationship between the black
image of devilishly passive silence and the bright image of
exceptionally positive speech (i.e., saying the right thing), and gives
a greater proportion of emphasis to the latter. What a big difference
between the two!

The translatability of this saying (or Hadith) into English as a one-to-

one equivalent is comparatively low for two main reasons: the
religious base and bias of the original might only be partially
received by TL readers; and the image may not be understood or
agreed upon completely by them. However, the version provided
offers a compromise, leaving out the metaphor of 'dumb Satan',
while at the same time retaining the 'satanic' atmosphere and
presence. No too bad, I hope.

Thus, speech and silence are sometimes juxtaposed to display the

sensitive fluctuating relationship between them; as one is
sometimes negative, the other positive, and vice versa. Although the
latter is more frequently positive and the former negative, it is not
fair to always think of their relationship in this way. Rather, every
single expression should be considered on its own terms, as
generalisation would be harmful indeed, especially in examples like
the last one.

Conclusion

In conclusion, some notes can be drawn from the foregoing

discussion. 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, for
Arabic is profusely rich with such expressions. Having said that, this
does not undermine the value of the discussion, as the limited
number of examples investigated are quite suggestive, symbolic and
representational, and, therefore, make the points raised here
explicit.

All the phrases and expressions are proverbs, semi-proverbs, catch

phrases, everyday popular phrases, adages, and collocations. They
are all allegorical, fascinatingly rhetorical, and subtly and extensively
rich and expressive.

All of these expressions exhibit stylistic (grammatical, lexical and

phonological) intricacies and relationships of various types, with
stylistic functions, effects, implications and connotations that are
critical to our translation and interpretation of their messages, which
are made explicit in this paper, having been secret and hidden inside
the cluttered obscure and unconscious chambers, origins and depths
of words, grammar and sounds in particular.

Top among the stylistic relationships are those of contrast and

paradox in the three major combinations: silence, speech, and when
the two are juxtaposed. It is amazing how each combination can be
used in the contexts of passivity and positivity, sometimes in one
and the same expression and context. Therefore, for example, there
is no hard-and-fast rule that speech expressions, for example, are
either this or that. The same applies to the remaining two
combinations.

We also notice from the discussion above that each phrase has its
own occasion and situation, and, therefore, its particular message,
which is valid then in that certain context and environment.
However, some generalisations about similar contexts can be
tolerated, as demonstrated earlier in the classification of expressions
into negative and positive.

It is worth noting that the level of neutrality is not included, because

socially, culturally and stylistically speaking, it does not exist. Only
specification of positivity and negativity of words, style and
connotations is valid here, since words are neutral out of context,
but specified once contextualised (see Cruse 1977; Ghazala 1987:
ch.3).

As regards the translation of these expressions into English, it must

be admitted that it is far from easy for they are heavily imbued with
cultural, sociolinguistic, religious and/or linguistic/stylistic problems
and factors that resist fluent translation.

Despite the tentativeness of this paper, it is hoped that it will pave

the way for deeper and more comprehensive investigation about
allegory in phrases of speech and silence in both English and Arabic.
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 Encyclopedia

of Translation, ed. Baker, M., 70-176. Routledge: London and New
York.

Carter, R. and Nash, W. 1990. Seeing Through Language: A Guide

to 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 an

EFL Context. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis: University of Nottingham,
UK.

---. 1994. Varieties Of English Simplified: A Textbook for Advanced

University Students, 2nd 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,

3rd edition. Edward Arnold, London.

The Holy Qur'an (with English translation). 1997. King Fahd Complex
for 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 New
York.

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

---. 1990. Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion. Blackwell: London and

New York.

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

Oxford.
---. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall: New York.

Nida, E. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating with Special

Reference to Principles and Procedures of Involved in Bible
Translating. E.J. Brill: Leiden.

Quillard, G. 1998. "Translating Advertisements and Creativity." In

Translators' Strategies and Creativity, eds. Beylard-Ozeroff, A.B.,
Králová, J. and Moser-Mercer, B., 23-31. Benjamins: Amsterdam
and Philadelphia.

Rioss, S. and Weatherby, J. 1998. "A Need for Reorientation:

Creative Strategies for the Teaching of Translation into a Foreign
Language." In Translators' Strategies and Creativity, eds. Beylard-
Ozeroff, A.B., Králová, J. and Moser-Mercer, B., 213-221.
Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

Shakespeare, W. 1977. Macbeth. Longman: London.

Toolan, M. 1998. Language in Literature: An Introduction to

Stylistics. Arnold: London, New York, Sydney, Auckland.

Wales, K. 1989. A Dictionary of Stylistics and Rhetoric. Longman:

London and New York.

Arabic References

Al-Jurjani, A.Q. 1982. Dalaa'elu L-I'jaaz [Evidence for the Inimitable

in Language]. Dar L-Ma'rifah: Beirut.

---. 1983. Asraaru L-Balaaghah [Mysteries of Rhetoric]. Dar L-

Maseerah: Beirut.

Ath-Tha'alibi, A.M. 1981. Fiqhu L-Lugah [Philology]. Ad-daar l-

Arabiyah Lil-Kitaab: Tripoli and Tunis.

Az-Zamakhshari, A. 1990. Al-Mufassal fi Ilmi L-Lughah [The

Extended in Philology]. Dar Ihya'a l-Uloom: Beirut.

Elyaziji, A. 1970. Naj'atu R-raa'ed waShir'atu l-Waared fi l-

Mutaraadef wal-Mutawaared [A Thesaurus of Synonyms and
Recurrent Combinations]. Maktabatu Lubnaan: Beirut.

Ibn Jinni, A.F. 1980. Al-Khasaa'es [Language Properties] (three

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. 29th edition. Dar l-Mashreq: Beirut.

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

Muheetu l-Muheet. 1977. 2nd 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