Investigating the Translations of the Negated Haal Clause in Four Contemporary Translations of the Holy Quran (Mousavi Garmaroudi, Ayati, Fooladvand & Elahi Ghomshei)

IntroductionThe present research studies the translations of the negated Haal clause in four contemporary translations of the Holy Quran. In languages, the negated Haal clause has a lower frequency of usage compared to other varieties of Hall, though in the Quran it has a higher frequency. This study investigated the negated Haal clause in four translations provided by Elahi Ghomshei, Fooladvand, Ayati and Mousavi Garmaroudi. Books on translation techniques have not addressed this style as they should have, nor have they studied its details. Each of these books has presented two or three solutions for translating the Hall style, neglecting other possibilities. Each translator has also adopted a solution for translating the various forms of the negated Haal clause which is worthy of consideration, although, at times, in choosing the right equivalent for the negated Haal clause, confusion, inconsistency in style, or slippage can be seen in their works. This reveals the translator's failure in finding the right translation for the style of the negated Haal clause.
Therefore, to become familiar with the translator's solutions for translating various forms of the negated Haal clause, and to address the extant deficiencies in the translations of this style, first, the theoretical foundations of various types of state in the Arabic grammar and the rules of adverb in Persian were noted; afterwards, examples for each type of the negated Haal clause were presented, discussed, and criticized, considering the Persian grammar and the context of the verses. In cases where translations were not deemed adequate, suggestions were made.
MethodologyThis study adopts a comparative-analytical approach. Accordingly, the rules of the negated Haal clause and its various forms in Arabic were analyzed and compared with the rules of adverbs—Persian equivalents of Haal—their various forms, and translation techniques of the negated Haal clause in Persian. To this end, first, various forms of the negated Haal clause in Arabic, and their equivalents in Persian were analyzed and subsequently, in the main section of the paper, the styles of Hall in the studied translations were compared and analyzed.
DiscussionDifference in terminology and grammatical structures were the basic points of difference and distinction among languages. Translation difficulties become more prominent when translators are faced with terms that do not have an equivalent or when they are faced with varied grammatical structures lacking exact or corresponding equivalents in the target language. The translation of the negated Haal clause from Arabic to Persian is one of the difficulties emanating from the varied grammatical structures in the two languages. The translation of the negated Haal clause will be congruent with the Persian language only if the translator does not fall into the abyss of grammatical calque, abstains from verbatim translation, and utilizes the capacities and capabilities of the Persian language to translate this distinctive grammatical structure. Studying and comparing grammatical structures of the negated Haal clause in Arabic and adverbs in Persian can reveal both the translator's incorrect approach and the appropriate styles congruent with Persian standards.
After carefully reviewing the Persian grammar books, this study sought to investigate the ways translators rendered "the negated Haal clause" in the verses of the holy Quran. It was also an attempt to introduce a proper method for this structure so that it can correspond to its Persian equivalent structure and, at the same time, convey the Quaranic meanings in Persian.
A comparative study of 21 verses, based on 13 varied styles of the negated Haal clause in the translations, indicated that an accurate translation of the negated Haal clause has been of less interest and, at times, in translations renowned for accuracy and correctness, literal translation and disconnection of denotative of Haal and the subject of the state can be seen, as if adhering to these styles has not been very important to translators. Lack of proper attention in translating the negated Haal clause has not only been a disregard for linguistic rules, but, in some instances, has thwarted the transfer of rhetorical and contextual values into the target text.
ConclusionIn verses with analogous structures of the negated Haal clause, translators have used various adverbs and conjunctions, translating equivalent structures inconsistently and, at times, with confusion.
Books on Arabic translation techniques have sufficed to present two or three solutions for translating the style of the Haal, neglecting other capacities while appropriate options for translating the negated Haal clause exist.
Adverbs and relative phrases properly used by the four translators in the translation of the negated Haal clause were “singular, compound, along with adverbs and phrases such as “hich”, “bi hich” and “bi ānke”. Moreover, some of the adopted terms did not express the state accurately; for instance, the phrase “whereas” is a phrase of interdependence and condition and barely denotes state. This is also true for conjunctions “but” and “however”.
Words “and” and “that” which, in Persian, are relative conjunctions of state and convey the meaning of “while” are appropriate conjunctions for connecting main and subordinate clauses and are proper tools for translating the negated Haal clause. In Persian, adverbs such as “hich”, “bi ānke”, “na ... na”, “bi hich” along with compound adverbs comprised of a negative prefix and an adjective, such as “Na-bina [blind]” are proper tools for transferring the concept of the negated Haal clause from Arabic to Persian.