Table Of Content

Babel 49:3 203-228 © Fédération des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation: Stylistic, Aesthetic and Connotative Considerations Hasan Ghazala Introduction One of the most intricate topics in the field of translation is idioms. Although the difficulty of translating idioms is underlined by translators in the course of translating a text of some type, it has been neglected in translation studies and writing, especially from English into Arabic. Apart from hints and minor points (c) John Benjamins raised here and there in passing by a few writers on translation (but see Bak- er 1992: ch.3; and GhDazealali 1v9e95r:e cdh.2 b), tyh eI lnitegraetunret oan the subject has been mainly confinoedn t:o Slexaicto,l o1gy8 a nNd aoppvli e2d 0lin0g6uis t0ic0s(s:e5e 3fo:r1 ex8ample, Carter, 1987; Cowie 1981; and Richards 1970). In translation studies, the concentra- to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign tion has been on the translation of Metaphor and metaphorical language, espe- IP: 130.126.32.13 cially literary language. But idioms as they are traditionally known and classified have yet to receive the due attention. This paper is an attempt to bridge the gap to some extent in the translation of idioms and idiomaticity illustrated with examples of translation of English Language idioms into Arabic. It investigates the main problems and difficulties encountered and the extent to which idiomaticity is retained, distorted or lost, and why; and what solutions and procedures may be available to keep losses to a minimum, and become creative in translation. The translator’s task here ranges from evasion to invasion in his or her attempts to transfer the idiomaticity of the SL into the TL to achieve equivalent sense, implications, connotations, cultural aspects and effects. The dictionary meaning of an idiom, to start with, is “a phrase, construction or expression that is recognized as a unit in the usage of a given language and either differs from the usual syntactic patterns or has a meaning that differs from the literal meaning of its parts taken together” (Webster’s New World Dic- tionary, 670, sense 3); “a group of words whose meanings cannot be predicted 204 Hasan Ghazala from the meanings of the constituent words” (Collins English Dictionary, 760, sense1); “... metaphorical rather than literal ... also more or less invariable and fixed in form or order ...” (Longman Dictionary of English Idioms, viii); “... the sense of the whole cannot be arrived at from a prior understanding of the parts” (Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, vol. 2, x); and to “... understand every individual word in a text and still fail to grasp what the text is all about” (A Dictionary of American Idioms, iv). Five points are common among these definitions: 1. Idioms are all in all metaphorical and cannot be understood directly. 2. Th ey should not be taken literally; in the sense that their meanings are not the outcome of the individual meanings of their constituent words taken collectively. 3. Th eir syntactic form is usually fixed and cannot be changed or described as ungrammatical. Moreover, no word can be added, deleted or replaced(see also Baker 1992: 63). 4. Their meanings ar(e cal)s oJ inovahrinab lBe.enjamins 5. (Not included in those definitions) They are mainly cultural and informal Delivered by Ingenta (see also Longman Dictionary of English Idioms, op. cit.). on: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:53:18 Thus, idioms are special, metaphorical, fixed phrases whose meanings and to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign forms are not negotiable. Their most special and essential component is idi- IP: 130.126.32.13 omaticity, namely, their metaphorical aspect. Hence its crucial importance in translation, to the extent that the success of a translation of an idiom stands and falls with the degree to which idiomaticity is retained or distorted. Types of Idioms Idioms are of different types. They are also classified differently by writers and standard reference books. In the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, for example, the types of idioms are based on a certain understanding of idiomaticity: “A view of idiomaticity which does full justice to the rich diversity of word combinations in English must recognize that the meaning of a combination may be related to those of its components in a variety of ways, and must take account also of the possibility of internal variation, or substitution of part for part.” According to this bilateral view, idioms are categorized into four main types: (a) Pure idioms: full, perfect idioms that are established through constant re-use, then undergo figurative extension and finally petrify Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 205 (aptly used of various types of meaning-development) or congeal (no longer undergo change / become fixed and well-established in language): e.g. ‘kick the bucket’. (b) Figurative idioms: The idioms of this category hardly accept variation and pronoun substitution. They are purely figurative idioms and their literal senses do not stand side by side with their figurative ones in normal, everyday use of language. In this sense, this type is not dissimilar to the previous one: e.g. ‘burn one’s boat’. (c) Restricted collocations: These are also categorized as ‘semi-idioms’. They are usually two word combinations, in which one has a figurative sense, while the other has a literal and familiar sense: e.g. ‘jog one’s memory’ (‘jog’ is figurative, whereas ‘memory’ is not). (d) Open collocations: These are more specific, normal and flexible combinations of words (Adj.-N, V-N; N-N, etc. See Newmark 1988, 212; Ghazala 1993, 1995 and 2001; Cow- ie 1981, Carter 1987, Ch.3; Baker 1992, 47-9, Morton Benson et al. 1986; Hill et al. 1997; and others) rather than fixed idioms of invariable form and sense: e.g. ‘fill the sink’. Another clearer, more specified, extensive, but looser categorization of idi- (c) John Benjamins oms is introduced by Longman’s Dictionary of English Idioms(op.cit.). Twelve types are distinguisheDd:elivered by Ingenta on: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:53:18 (a) Traditional idioms: are the well-known, most popular idioms, that are al- to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign most full sentences, only a subject to be provided: e.g. ‘spill the beans’. IP: 130.126.32.13 (b) Idioms in which actions stand for emotions or feelings: Cultural idioms of actions in appearance, but emotions or feelings by cultural implication; e.g. ‘throw up one’s arms / hands’ (culturally, the action here is a sign of an- noyance, not of happiness). (c) Pairs of words: idioms in which two words are joined by and / or, many of which cannot be reversed: e.g. ‘cats and dogs’; ‘spick and span’, ‘hammer and tongs’, etc. (d) Allusions: words or phrases of special cultural significance and reference: e.g. ‘Westminster’ (the British Parliament and Government); ‘catch 22’. (e) Sayings: informal popular sayings and metaphorical proverbs in complete sentences: e.g. ‘There’s always (a) next time’; ‘A rolling stone gathers no moss’. (f) Typical conversational phrases: fixed conversational phrases whose meanings are not literal: ‘How do you do?’; ‘Now you’re talking!’. (g) Similes: these are popular and cultural phrases with ‘as ... as’ structure, or the use of like: e.g. ‘as quick as a flash’; ‘work like a horse’. 206 Hasan Ghazala (h) Archaisms: old phrases that are not in frequent use now: e.g. ‘to and fro’; ‘kith and kin’. (i) Jargon: phrases or words confined to special and technical use: e.g. ‘para- phernalia’ (i.e. procedure). (j) Foreign phrases: French or other foreign idiomatic phrases that are in popular use: e.g. the French phrase ‘bête noire’ (black beast), used to describe a bad person. (k) Common phrases and terms: phrases that are common in use but do not present a metaphorical problem: e.g. ‘on strike’; ‘fish and chips’; etc. (l) Phrasal verbs: Combinations of verbs and one or two adverbial particles or prepositions that cannot be understood literally: e.g. ‘look up’; ‘read through’; ‘watch out’; etc. Carter (1987: 60), on the other hand, labels different categories of idioms under types of fixed expressions as follows: (a) Idioms: (c) John Benjamins 1. irreversible binomials / compound idioms: e.g. ‘huff and puff’; ‘spick Delivered by Ingenta and span’; etc. on: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:53:18 2. full idioms: e.g. ‘fit the bill’; ‘smell a rat’; ‘to be in the doghouse’; etc. to:3 U. n seimvie-idrisomitsy: ea.gt. ‘gIllalsinsyo stiasre ’a; ‘fta tU sarlabrya’; n‘daea-dC drhunak’m; etpc.aign (b) Proverbs: e.g. ‘to adIdP in: su1lt3 to0 i.n1ju2ry6’; ‘.a3 w2at.c1he3d pot never boils’; etc. (c) Stock phrases: e.g. ‘a vicious circle’; ‘a recipe for disaster’; etc. (d) Catchphrases: ‘is it cold up there?’; ‘the name of the game’; ‘get lost’; etc. (e) Allusions / quotations: e.g. ‘we are not amused’; etc. (f) Idiomatic similes: e.g. ‘as ... as’ constructions. (g) Discoursal expressions: 1. social formulae / clichés: e.g. ‘how do you do’; ‘long time’; etc. 2. connectives; structuring devices: e.g. ‘once upon a time’; ‘in sum’; etc. 3. conversational gambits: e.g. ‘guess what’; ‘forgive my curiosity’; etc. 4. stylistic formulae: e.g. ‘ladies and gentlemen’; ‘looking forward to hearing from you’; etc. 5. stereotypes: e.g. ‘we’re just good friends’; ‘I thought you’d never ask’; etc. A final, slightly different but more consistent categorization of idioms is pro- posed in the introduction to A Dictionary of American Idioms (1984: iv-viii): Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 207 (a) Lexemic idioms: idioms which correlate with the familiar parts of speech (i.e. verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc.): e.g. 1. bear the brunt; pull one’s socks up; pass away; write off; get away with; etc. (i.e. phrasal verbs) (verbal) 2. cold feet; rat race; change of heart; etc. (nominal) 3. pepper and salt; alive and kicking, spick and span; etc. (adjectival) 4. like blazes; heart and soul; hammer and tongs; etc. (adverbial) (b) Phraseological idioms: invariable longer idioms and entire phrases that do not correlate with a certain grammatical part of speech: e.g. bear the brunt, kick the bucket; be up in the cheek; etc. (c) Well-established proverbs and sayings: e.g. boys will be boys; on pins and needles; bats in one’s belfry; etc. (d) Set phrases: e.g. just in case; how about a drink?, just to be on the safe side; etc. (e) One-word idioms: individual words used with surprisingly different meanings: e.g. bottleneck (overcrowded traffic / big crisis; in a difficult situa- (c) John Benjamins tion; dig (like); dog (disappointing date, or tough exam); etc. Delivered by Ingenta Comments oon nth:e sSe Caatt,e g1or8iz aNtioonsv: 2006 00:53:18 to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The following comments can be made on the previous four categorizations of IP: 130.126.32.13 idioms: 1. Th ey reflect the diversity and complexity of English(British or American) idioms. 2. Th ey have some types in common, like full/pure idioms, semi-idioms, idiomatic similes, and proverbs. 3. Th ey all recognize idioms as fixed, invariable and metaphorical (Oxford’s ‘open collocations’ is an exception). 4. Th ey lack systematicity and consistency of classification, especially the first two categorizations which confuse grammar and semantics. 5. Th ey are vague and confusing in terms of the criteria of labeling idioms. That is, the same phrases are randomly classified under different categories (c.f. ‘vicious circle’: a stock phrase to Carter, but a traditional idiom to Longman’s; ‘we’re just good friends’ is to Carter a stereotype, whereas in Partridge’s Dictionary of Catchphrases (1985), it is a catch phrase; and so forth). 208 Hasan Ghazala 6. W hile Oxford’s categorization is the shortest and most opaque, Longman’s is the loosest and least accurate. 7. Carter’s classification surprisingly ignores phrasal verbs completely. More- over, it is true that perhaps it is more transparent than the other three, yet it is quite confusing. Is, for instance, ‘once upon a time’ not a cliché too? And ‘ladies and gentlemen’ a collocation rather than a stylistic formula?. Carter himself admits as much in his commentary on these categories, de- scribing his classification as tentative, and necessarily involving structur- al overlap. Nevertheless, I agree with him that it “might, however, give an idea of the range of fixed expressions in the modern English lexicon...” (p. 59). 8. Th e fourth classification in the Dictionary of American Idioms, short as it may be, is the simplest and most transparent of all in terms of the criteria of categorization — which is grammatical — and simplification. Having said that, and to simplify such complex categorizations, we can rede- (c) John Benjamins fine idioms as ‘those phrases and expressions which are primarily fixed, and invariable in form, and Dcanenloitv bee urnedder sbtooyd Ilintegralelyn, otnaly metaphorically’ (see also Ghazalao 1n99:5 :S13a1)t. ,Th 1us8, thNeyo cvan 2be0 r0e-6ca t0eg0or:iz5ed3 i:n1to8 the following main types: to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1. Full/pure idioms; IP: 130.126.32.13 2. Semi-idioms; 3. Proverbs, popular sayings and semi-proverbial expressions; 4. Phrasal verbs; 5. Metaphorical catchphrases and popular expressions The question which begs an urgent answer now is: To what use can these categorizations be put in the translation of English idioms into Arabic? These categorizations show the richness and abundance of idiomatic expressions in language that the translator must be aware of and keen to understand properly so that he can translate properly. Also, idiomaticity is not confined only to those expressions which are traditionally identified and classified as idioms. There- fore, translators should trace it at a wider range of types of expressions. Fur- thermore, such categorization helps translators distinguish the metaphorical part(s) of an idiom which is only partly idiomatic(e.g. semi-idioms, and catchphrases). In other words, it helps them locate idiomaticity, the heart of the mat- ter of any idiomatic expression, and the focal point of this paper. Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 209 Having debated some categorizations of idioms and, hence, established the theoretical background for the whole paper, it is high time now to intro- duce the argument for the claim I make about the translation of the idiomaticity of idioms. I argue that two major procedures are overwhelmingly dominant in the translation of idioms, or more precisely, idiomaticity, the gist of any idiomatic phrase. That is, its translation ranges between evasion and invasion: evasion of translating idiomaticity altogether by way of eliminating it for reasons of the translator’s incompetence or simplification of the message for the TL readers; or invasion of idiomaticity by translating it unabashedly in a challenging spir- it in an attempt not only to match it but also sometimes to supercede it. Both, I argue, are valid procedures on the right occasion for the right reason(s). Yet, generally, I strongly go for the latter as more creative, convincing and faithful procedure than the former which is at worst an escape from translating properly, and at best an inclination to practicality. (c) John Benjamins Evasion of Idiomaticity Delivered by Ingenta By evasion I omnea:n Sthea etl,im 1in8at ioNn oofv th 2e i0di0om6a t0ici0ty: 5of3 th:e1 S8L idiom when translating it into the TL with no compensation of any kind. This elimination to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign allegedly has its justifications that can be elaborated by two main sub-proce- IP: 130.126.32.13 dures: 1. Dissuasion from idiomaticity: owing to the following reasons: (a) The translator’s incompetence: Some translators are not competent to tackle idioms, which they consider un- translatable, but which in reality are not so. Examples include: To leave no stone unturned: Unable to find an equivalent idiom in Arabic, and unsure about the validity of literal translation, an incompetent translator might resort to translations like (to do one’s best); «ﻪﻌﺳو ﻲﻓ ﺎﻣ ﻞﻛ ﻞﻌﻔﻳ» \هﺪﻬﺟ ىرﺎﺼﻗ لﺬﺒﻳ» (to exert extreme efforts); (to do the impossible); How- «اًﺪﻬﺟ لﺄﻳ ﻻ «ﻞﻴﺤﺘﺴﻤﻟا ﻞﻌﻔﻳ» ever satisfactory such translations may be as regards sense, they fail to match or reflect the idiomaticity of the original. Therefore, a better idiomatic version is (lit.: to knock at all doors / to leave no door unnocked). Although «باﻮﺑﻷا ﻞﻛ قﺮﻄﻳ» the image here is that of doors while in the original it is of stones, equivalent sense, effect and idiomaticity are perfectly achieved. Besides, an SL full idiom 210 Hasan Ghazala is translated into a TL full idiom, which means that a maximum degree of equivalence is being attained, and all stylistic and semantic effects and implications retained. To jump the gun: Fascinated by standard collocations like ءﺎﻴﺷﻷا \ رﻮﻣﻷا ﻞﺠﻌﺘﻳ» ; (to be in a hurry / to be hasty) or favourable words like ناوﻷا ﻞﺒﻗ ﻞﺠﻌﺘﻳ» \ ﻞﺠﻌﺘﻣ» (hasty), a translator might ignore any other idiomatic translation «عﺮﺴﺘﻣ \ ﻞﺠﻌﺘﺴﻣ such as (no way to be patient), or «ﺮﺒﺼﻟﺎﺑ ﻪﻟ ﺔﻗﺎﻃ ﻻ» «ﻖﻴﺿ ﻖﻠﺧ ﻮﺑأ \ ﻖﻴﺿ ﻪﻘﻠﺧ ; ﺔﻘﻴﺿ ﻪﺘﺼﻤﺣ» (lit.: to be of narrow mood(quite impatient)). Although the last three versions are colloquial, and the former is religious and literary, they are as fully idiomatic and influential as the original, regardless of the difference between the image of the English ‘jumping the gun’ and the Arabic ‘ill-temper / impatience’. To call a spade a spade: Not knowing, or perhaps unwilling to translate into an idiomatic Arabic version, a translator would prefer the good popular expression « (lit.: to call things by their names), which is not bad at all. «ﺎﻬﺋﺎﻤﺳﺄﺑ ءﺎﻴﺷﻷا ﻲﻤﺴﻳ Yet, we still have a better, purely idiomatic, more popular and effective expression that translates the English original more precisely and agreeably, although rather informally: (lit.: to tell a one-eyed man one-eyed in «ﻪﻨﻴﻌﺑ رﻮﻋأ رﻮﻋﻸﻟ لﻮﻘﻳ» the face). (c) John Benjamins I’ll eat my hat (if you do so and so): Failing to find a formal idiomatic equiv- Delivered by Ingenta alence, a translator might go for a simple version like ﻮﻟ ﺪﻳﺮﺗ ﺎﻣ ﻚﻴﻄﻋأ \ ﻞﻌﻓأ فﻮﺳ» on: S (Ia’ll td,o /1 gi8ve yNou owvha te2ve0r y0ou6 li k0e 0...):. 5Ho3w:e1ve8r, the retention of «اﺬﻛو اﺬﻛ ﺖﻠﻌﻓ idiomaticity and reflection of effective exaggeration of the SL text, an idiomatic to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign translation like (lit.: I’ll cut my hand/arm ...) in Arabic would «... ﻲﻋارذ \ يﺪﻳ ﻊﻄﻗأ» be rather advisabIleP. N:o t1 o3nly0 id.i1om2at6ici.ty3 a2nd. e1ff3ect are reflected here, but also the same stylistic implications of hypothesis, overexaggeration and impossibility are indicated by ‘cut my arm’ which is as unimaginable as ‘eat my hat’, and no one is expected to say or take either phrase literally and seriously. Both are used as a strong assertion of the impossibility of something to be done by somebody. At the same time, they can be sometimes charged with the speaker’s implied chal- lenge for the listener to have the will and courage to do something. A wild goose chase: Reluctant maybe to chase an idiomatic equivalent in Ar- abic, a hasty translator opts for such translations as (ﻰﺟﺮﺗ) ةﺪﺋﺎﻓ ﻻ \ ﻪﻨﻣ ﻞﺋﺎﻃ ﻻ ﺮﻣأ» (to no avail / to no use / hopeless); (you try in vain); «ﻪﻨﻣ سوﺆﻴﻣ \ﻪﻨﻣ «لوﺎﺤﺗ ﺎًﺜﺒﻋ» ﺐﻌﺘﻳ» (lit.: you exert yourself for nothing (col.)); (lit.: «(ﺎﻋ)ﻲﺿﺎﻔﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ ﻪﺴﻔﻧ «باﺮﺳ ءارو يﺮﺠﻳ» to run after a mirage), etc. Although sense is perfectly retained by these translations, idiomaticity is not present strongly in them as in the original and, therefore, falls short of its expressivity, effectiveness and aestheticity. A matching version is, however, available in Arabic: (lit.: the hope of the Satan «ﺔﻨﺠﻟﺎﺑ ﺲﻴﻠﺑإ ﻞﻣأ» in Paradise). It is of a religious origin, based on God’s expulsion of the disobedi- ent devil from Paradise forever. Thus, it has the connotation of no hope, despair and absurdity, which is exactly what the original connotes by a hopeless chase of wild goose. Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 211 (b) Zero Language equivalence in TL: Sometimes the translator is not to blame for non-idiomatic translation of the SL expression, as there is no such thing in the TL. In this case he has to pro- vide a satisfactory version of sense, with idiomaticity dropped unwillingly, in which case a considerable amount of loss will take place with a little chance to compensate for it(see however ‘enforced idiomaticity’ later). There are many English idioms, including the majority of phrasal verbs, that have no idiomatic equivalence in Arabic. For example: Spick and span: This idiom is taken from ship industry in English, where in a newly built ship spick stands for ‘nail’ and span for ‘a piece of wood’. Thus, it connotes a description of something as clean, neat, tidy and new. This idiomatic image is unmatchable in Arabic. Therefore the translator has to concede this and look for a good translation of sense like (neat and tidy); «ﻖﻴﻧأو ﺐﺗﺮﻣ» ﻒﻴﻈﻧ» (very clean); and perhaps preferably (in perfect dress/shape/ «اًﺪﺟ «ﺔﻠﺣُ ﻰﻬﺑأ ﻲﻓ» appearance). All of these translations render sense satisfactorily, with the last one being the better version for it compensates considerably for the loss of the idiom- (c) John Benjamins aticity of the original by means of the metaphorical word “dress”. (ﺔﻠﺣ) Delivered by Ingenta Second hand (car, etc.): There is no such idiom in Arabic, not even a metaphorical osennse: oSf aanyt k,i n1d. 8O nNly oonev n o2n-0idi0om6at i0c, 0ins:e5ns3ibl:e1 ve8rsion of sense is available, namely, (used car). A total loss of idiomaticity has taken to: University a«tﺔﻠ ﻤIﻌlﺘﺴlﻣi nةرﺎoﻴﺳ»is at Urbana-Champaign place by this translation. IP: 130.126.32.13 Bite the dust: This is an excellent idiomatic image of men killed in battle who fall to the ground with their faces in the dust. A compatible idiom does not exist in Arabic. However, a powerful standard collocation can be a perfect equivalent to the English original: (to collapse dead), which is non-idiomatic yet «ﺎًﻌﻳﺮﺻ ﺮﺨﻳ» quite an expressive image of the way a man who gets killed falls down, exactly as in the SL. Another good, well-established collocation that may translate this idiom is (get killed), which is equally accurate, effective and expressive. «ﻼً ﻴﺘﻗ ىدﺮﻳُ» A busman’s holiday: A bus driver works over weekends and national, religious and bank holidays. In other words, he enjoys no holiday at all. This also applies to Arab bus drivers, yet the idiom is not known in Arabic; only its sense can be transmitted as (lit.: job/business holiday), which is paradoxical for no «ﻞﻤﻋ ةزﺎﺟإ» one can be working and on a holiday. Nonetheless, it reflects the intended meaning of the original, and this rhetorical figure of paradox is a compensation of some kind for the absence of idiomaticity in the TL. As the crow flies: The connotation of the crow is confined to bad tidings in Ara- bic and ‘in a straight line’ is not included. Therefore, the translator has no option when translating this English idiom into Arabic, except to use a literal sense: ﻲﻓ» (in a straight line). A literal translation into , is complete- «ﻢﻴﻘﺘﺴﻣ ﻂﺧ «باﺮﻐﻟا ﺮﻴﻄﻳ ﺎﻤﻛ» 212 Hasan Ghazala ly incomprehensible in Arabic, and, hence, should be avoided despite its idiomaticity for in such case it is the second best right after sense. Hammer and tongs: are not used in Arabic to connote violence, «ﻂﻘﻠﻤﻟاو ﺔﻗﺮﻄﻤﻟا» only in English. The only way out in translating this idiom into Arabic, then, is to translate it as a one-word adverbial phrase like: (violently) (the prep- «ﻒﻨﻌﺑ \ ةﺪﺸﺑ» ositional phrase in Arabic functions here as an adverb of manner). An artificial version like (tensely and violently) which might be taken as a gram- «ﻒﻨﻋو ةﺪﺸﺑ» matical and stylistic parallel to the original, is unacceptable for it is unnecessar- ily tautological, unrecognized collocation in Arabic, and reflects the translator’s total misunderstanding of the whole English idiom as two separate words. Rath- er, it should be taken in its totality and idiomaticity to mean just one word in Ar- abic, as the first suggested version confirms. To be given the sack: ‘Sack’ is probably a reference to the workman’s tools bag that he used to bring with him when he was given a job. If dismissed from work, he would be given it on his leave. It still holds strongly in everyday English use. However, this tradition is not a part of any kind of employment in Arabic. Hence, to be understood well, the English idiom has to be translated into a non-idiom : (to be fired/dismissed from work). «ﻞﻤﻌﻟا ﻦﻣ ﻞﺼﻔﻳُ\دﺮ(َﻄcﻳُ») John Benjamins Kick the bucket: This is a humorous idiomatic phrase used to mean ‘died’. Over Delivered by Ingenta one hundred expressions are listed in El-Yaziji (1970, vol.1:189-96) to mean ‘die’, but ‘obunck:et Skicakintg,’ i1s n8ot aNmoongv th e2m0. Th0er6ef o0re,0 an:y5 o3ne: w1o8uld be justified in translating this idiomatic expression on the condition that it is equally humor- to: University at Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ous and informal like: (lit. he said farewell / he rested and let oth- «ﺢﻳﱠرو حﺎﺗرا \ عدّو» ers rest). Still forImPal :v e1rsi3on0s o.f1 no2rm6al. 3em2ot.io1na3l and religious charge such as (died / passed away / departed), can be fairly good. «ﻞﺣر \ ﻰﻀﻗ \ ﻲﻓﻮﺗ \ تﺎﻣ» As snug as a bug in a rug: Certainly there is no such idiomatic simile in Arabic, for ‘a bug in the rug’ is quite alien to its native speakers as ‘bug’ has negative, un- pleasant connotations only. The only alternative then is to give the proper sense of ‘comfortable’ in an as sensible version as possible. For example: حﺎﺗﺮﻣ \ اًﺪﺟ ﺢﻳﺮﻣ» ِ (quite comfortable). These translations have one thing in «(ﺎﻋ)ﺮﺧﻵا ﻰﻠﻋ حﺎﺗﺮﻣ \ ﺎًﻣﺎﻤﺗ common, namely, exaggeration about the state of comfort. The third is colloquial, yet, perhaps the best. An improvement on all these versions, and in a desperate attempt to bring about some idiomaticity in the TL to match at least a part of that of the original, is: (lit.: as if one is on ostrich plumage), which con- «مﺎﻌﻧ ﺶﻳر ﻰﻠﻋ ﻪﻧﺄﻛ» notes smoothness and perfect comfort. Nonetheless, it is still short of the Eng- lish idiom, phonologically (absence of rhyme), grammatically (no ‘as... as’ structure and adjectival phrase construction), stylistically (lack of rhythm and crisply short, one-syllable words, which produce a stylistic effect of as light and comfortable movement as that of a tiny, light bug), and connotatively (bugs do not have the same connotation as ostrich feathers). Phrasal verbs: Thousands of English phrasal verbs (verb+prep. / adv. with common meaning of verbs changed), which are all idiomatic and informal, have no