Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Dec 30, 2008 22:54
15 yrs ago
Arabic term
يرشّح
Arabic to English
Social Sciences
Social Science, Sociology, Ethics, etc.
: فجاءت موادّ هذا الميثاق وفقراته رفيعة المضمون، واضحة الأسلوب، قويمة المنهج، اتّسقت فيها أمور الأسرة وشؤونها وحاجاتها اتّساقًا يرشّح بصفاء منهلها، وثبات أصولها، ورسوخ قواعدها، وشموخ مقاصدها يرشّح بما تضمّنه من أحكام عادلة وتوجيهات فاضلة، ترمي إلى تحصين الأسرة والمجتمع
The term is used twice in this text, and I can't find the right word for it
The term is used twice in this text, and I can't find the right word for it
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
4 hrs
Selected
distills
A couple of points before I address the word itself:
- The colon in the passage appears incorrectly placed. It appears at the end of the first line of the quoted passage, when in fact it is part of the preceding passage. Until you figure it out, it can completely throw you off. I could not figure it out until I saw the same question on two different screens. The colon appeared at the end of the line on both screens, although the the last word in the line is different in each screen, based on different parameters (zoom level, resolution, font, font size, etc.). I then conducted an experiment by copying the text at the end of the first line continuing to the beginning of the second line. When I pasted that chunk elsewhere, the colon was nowhere to be found. It was not part of the copied text, because it belongs at the beginning of the line, not at the end.
- By now, I assume you have figured out that the writer of the text you are translating throws around all kinds of rhetorical flourishes here and there to give his writing the apperance of erudition, but he/she has no command of the devices that he/she employs. He/she just piles figures of speech upon figures of speech like there is no tomorrow. People who write this way have not earned the right to be taken absolutely seriously when translated. If you surrender your faith to every metaphor he/she employs, you will produce a terrible jumble in English. That is probably not a bad thing in itself, unless the idea is to produce a readable text.
Now to the word itself. This one is actually not bad at all. The figure alludes to a filtering process where a purified liquid is strained through a strainer of some kind. I believe that in this instance, the "distillation" metaphor works better in English, pointing to purification much more clearly and idiomatically.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2008-12-31 15:38:49 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
I have just noticed that. Reading through it again, I see no direct object of the verb if we construe it in the active voice, unless it appears somewhere in the continuation of this long sentence. If we construe it in the passive voice, then the most logical subject of this verb is the word اتساقاً. If that is the case, then the translation wold be "is distilled." This mixes up the metaphor even more than I had thought.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs (2008-12-31 15:59:48 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Reading through the passage once again, I believe that the writer was groping for a different word. The word that would make sense here is ينضح, not يرشح. The writer must have the same mental decrepitude that I am beginning to experience in my sunset years, especially when I do interpreting work. If this theory holds, then Nadia Ayoub's suggestion, although bereft of any explanation, was on to something. And the frustration expressed by MOODI about the incongruity of this word as written is another indication of how this sentence simply does not work with this word.
I am now more inclined towards Nadi's "exudes."
- The colon in the passage appears incorrectly placed. It appears at the end of the first line of the quoted passage, when in fact it is part of the preceding passage. Until you figure it out, it can completely throw you off. I could not figure it out until I saw the same question on two different screens. The colon appeared at the end of the line on both screens, although the the last word in the line is different in each screen, based on different parameters (zoom level, resolution, font, font size, etc.). I then conducted an experiment by copying the text at the end of the first line continuing to the beginning of the second line. When I pasted that chunk elsewhere, the colon was nowhere to be found. It was not part of the copied text, because it belongs at the beginning of the line, not at the end.
- By now, I assume you have figured out that the writer of the text you are translating throws around all kinds of rhetorical flourishes here and there to give his writing the apperance of erudition, but he/she has no command of the devices that he/she employs. He/she just piles figures of speech upon figures of speech like there is no tomorrow. People who write this way have not earned the right to be taken absolutely seriously when translated. If you surrender your faith to every metaphor he/she employs, you will produce a terrible jumble in English. That is probably not a bad thing in itself, unless the idea is to produce a readable text.
Now to the word itself. This one is actually not bad at all. The figure alludes to a filtering process where a purified liquid is strained through a strainer of some kind. I believe that in this instance, the "distillation" metaphor works better in English, pointing to purification much more clearly and idiomatically.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2008-12-31 15:38:49 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
I have just noticed that. Reading through it again, I see no direct object of the verb if we construe it in the active voice, unless it appears somewhere in the continuation of this long sentence. If we construe it in the passive voice, then the most logical subject of this verb is the word اتساقاً. If that is the case, then the translation wold be "is distilled." This mixes up the metaphor even more than I had thought.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs (2008-12-31 15:59:48 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Reading through the passage once again, I believe that the writer was groping for a different word. The word that would make sense here is ينضح, not يرشح. The writer must have the same mental decrepitude that I am beginning to experience in my sunset years, especially when I do interpreting work. If this theory holds, then Nadia Ayoub's suggestion, although bereft of any explanation, was on to something. And the frustration expressed by MOODI about the incongruity of this word as written is another indication of how this sentence simply does not work with this word.
I am now more inclined towards Nadi's "exudes."
Note from asker:
سؤال آخر: هل الفعل مبني للمعلوم أم للمجهول؟ أشعر من المعنى الذي شرحت أنه مبني للمجهول كأن الكاتب يقول إن صفاء المنهل ونبات الأصول إلخ هو الذي يصفي أو يرشح المواد التي اتسق فيها أمور الأسرة وشؤونها... هل هذا هو المقصود؟ |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Not only do I thank you for your answer and explanation, but also for the sense of validation you have given me in my frustration with this text!!! "
-1
3 mins
clear/purify
or sanctify on a different note.
10 mins
indicates
*
+1
44 mins
exudes or emanates
..
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Fuad Yahya
: Your instinct probably makes the most sense here.
16 hrs
|
Many thanks for the nice comment :)
|
7 mins
emphasizes/supports
emphasizes/supports
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 mins (2008-12-30 23:14:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
gives credibility ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 33 mins (2008-12-30 23:28:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
another suggestion
"favours"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2008-12-31 00:40:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Other verbs I suggest
consolidates/reinforces/strengthens...
I would choose as a synonym to that verb - عزز
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 mins (2008-12-30 23:14:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
gives credibility ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 33 mins (2008-12-30 23:28:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
another suggestion
"favours"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2008-12-31 00:40:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Other verbs I suggest
consolidates/reinforces/strengthens...
I would choose as a synonym to that verb - عزز
3 hrs
trickles
trickles
+1
8 hrs
Arabic term (edited):
يَـرْشَــحُ
Percolate/ Seep
الخطأ في هذه الكلمة هو وجود التشديد على حرف الشين في هذا الموضع من السياق ، والأصح أن تكون الكلمة يَرشَحُ من رَشَـحَ أي نتج صافياً زلالاً لا شائبة فيه ، والرشاحة هي ما ينزل من وسائل التصفية الحديثة أو الوسائل القديمة كالزير الذي يرشِّـح الماء أي بتشديد الشين هنا.
إذاً ، حينما تقوم الوسيلة بتصفية أو ترشيح الماء نقول رشَّحته بتشديد الشين أما لو افترضنا أن الماء هو الفاعل فنقول رَشَحَ الماءُ بدون أي تشديد ، كما أننا نشير أحياناً لنتائج الاجتماعات ونقول لم يرشح شيء بدون تشديد الشين ، ونقول كلامه يرشح بالصفاء بدون أي تشديد
والله أعلم
إذاً ، حينما تقوم الوسيلة بتصفية أو ترشيح الماء نقول رشَّحته بتشديد الشين أما لو افترضنا أن الماء هو الفاعل فنقول رَشَحَ الماءُ بدون أي تشديد ، كما أننا نشير أحياناً لنتائج الاجتماعات ونقول لم يرشح شيء بدون تشديد الشين ، ونقول كلامه يرشح بالصفاء بدون أي تشديد
والله أعلم
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Fuad Yahya
: I share your skepticism about the word as written. I would go even further and venture to say that the word the writer was groping for was ينضح
8 hrs
|
10 hrs
filters/filtrates/infiltrates/leaches/percolates
filters/filtrates/infiltrates/leaches/percolates
Discussion