The Translating Problems of Pro-forms from English into Persian Persian translation jobs
Home More Articles Join as a Member! Post Your Job - Free! All Translation Agencies
Advertisements

The Translating Problems of Pro-forms from English into Persian


Become a member of TranslationDirectory.com at just $8 per month (paid per year)




Chapter One

1. Introduction

Golnoosh Golestany photoIn this chapter, there is first a talk on translation in general. This is then followed by the problems of translation. The pro-forms and the related issues are also presented. There are then the objectives and research questions in the last section.

1.1. Translation

As soon as writing was invented and developed among separate nations in antiquity, the translation came to play a significant role in intercommunication. Raffle (1973.p.2), as cited in Newmark (1988), stated that "as long as the need to know (other culture) is great; the need for translation will be great". Looking at education as a general process, one believe that, with regard to the fast improvement in the world affairs, nothing but an access to translation, that is, a means to an opening to the world events plays a significant role. (Miremadi, 1991.p.22)

The first trace of translation dates from 3000 B.C, during the Old Egyptian Kingdom, in the area of the First Cataract, Elephantine, where inscription in two languages have been found. In the twelfth century, the West came into contact with Islam in Moorish Spain (Newmark, 1998. p.3). Storig (1963), as cited in Newmark (1988.p.3), stated that "the situation favored the two essential conditions for large-scale translation: a qualitative difference in culture and continuous contact between the two languages. After the Moorish supremacy collapsed in Spain, the Toledo school of translation translated Arabic versions of Greek scientific and philosophical classics. Luther Bible translation in 1522 laid the foundation of modern German and King James"s Bible (1611) had an influence on the English language and literature (Newmark, 1998. p.3). Jumpelt (1961) stated that "the twentieth century has been called the age of translation" and Benjamin (1923) used the word "reproduction" for this century (Newmark, 1988.p.3). Whereas in the nineteenth century translation was a one-way means of communication between men of letters and, to a large degree, philosophers and scientists and their educated readers (Newmark, 1998.p.4). In this situation, the translation came to play a significance role in the politics, public and private organizations and many other aspects. Because people understood their needs of translation, they looked for a way in order to have a good translation and in this part translation theory established. Translation theory derives from comparative linguistics, and within linguistics it is mainly an aspect of semantics; all questions of semantics relate to translation theory (Newmark, 1998). In fact translation theory is neither a theory nor a science, but the body of knowledge that talk about the process of translation. Translation theory goes hand in hand with translation methodology, so that it acts as a body of reference both for the translation process procedure and for translation criticism. (Newmark, 1998.p.37)

Hatim and Mundy (2004) believed that translation is a phenomenon that has a huge effect on every body"s life. We can consider the translation as a craft that consisting of the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in another language (Newmark, 1998). There is a wide agreement between the linguistics who believed that the main aim of the translator is to produce as nearly as possible the same effect on his readers as was produced on the readers of the original (Rieu, 1953). According to Miremadi (1991.p.21) it is believed that translation is a two way process: from one culture to the others; and from other cultures into one"s own culture. In other words, there is a give and take process involved.

Chute (1978), as cited in Miremadi (1991), asserted that without translation, people may walk across you, but few are aware that you are there. The term translation has several meanings: it can refer to the general subject field, the product (the text that has been translated) or the process (the act of producing the translation otherwise known as translating). One which is not unattractive is: "the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language" (Bell, 1991.p.20). It is completely obvious that we can not translate a text before "understanding" it. Newmark (1998.p.5) stated that "a translator requires knowledge of literary and non-literary textual criticism, since he has to assess the quality of a text before he decides how to interpret and then translate it." According to Newmark (1998.p.17) the translator has to acquire the technique of transferring smoothly between the two basic translation processes: comprehension, which may involve interpretation, and formulation, which may involve recreation. Bell (1991.p.83) believed that the translator may come to the conclusion that the major problem is the word; it may be that there are words in the text which are new to the translator and whose meaning he or she does not know. However, it soon becomes clear that, although the meaning of words are problematic in themselves (there is one- to- one correspondence between the items of one language and those of another), the greater problem is meaning which derives from the relationship of word to word rather than that which relates to the word in isolation.

According to Newmark (1988.p.26) "grammatical meaning is more significant, less precise, more general and sometimes more elusive than lexical meaning." He also believed that grammatical meaning is identified only as (a) a sentence, which may be a declaration in the form of a (rhetorical) question, an order, a wish or an exclamation, or (b) a clause consisting of the topic (theme), the previously mentioned information, introduced perhaps by a definite deictic ("the", "this", "that"), and the comment ("rheme"), introduced by an indefinite deictic ("a", "some", "many"), the new information. Topic and comment must not be confused with subject and predicate. Grammatical meaning can also be identified as (c) a word-group, which may comprise Nida"s (1975) entities, events, abstracts (or qualities) or relations. There are more or less standard transpositions from the Source Language to the Target Language in grammatical meaning. Basically, the grammar will have attained this fact that a sentence can have another sentence inside it, or a phrase can have another phrase of the same type inside it.

Vermeer (1986) described translation as a "cross-cultural transfer". This transfer can also imply an ideological transfer as well. Ideological transfer means the standard set of values, ideas and beliefs that govern a community; consequently, a translator must possess in-depth knowledge of the ideas, beliefs and values that connect to the languages being translated.

To use the language effectively, the translators must ensure that their language "holds together" into a coherent and intelligible whole. Many different issues are considered into the coherence, which combine to make every paragraph, every sentence, and every phrase contribute to the meaning of the whole piece. Coherence in writing is much more difficult to maintain than coherent speech because writers have no nonverbal clues to inform them if their message is clear or not. Therefore, writers must make their patterns of coherence much more explicit and much more carefully planned. Coherence can be partially achieved through pro-forms.

1.2. Problems in Translation

Regarding translation Jacobson (1959.p.223) pointed that:

״[...] translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.״

Leppihalme (1997.p.19), as cited in Newmark (1998), believed that translations were considered as derivatives, copies, and translators as mechanical devices replacing linguistic codes (equivalents) from one language into another and the translator"s autonomy was always questioned (and is still being questioned) by those who thought of him/her as a monkey, with no choice save to make the same grimaces as his master. Bassnet (1996.p.22) stresses the need for reassessing the role of the translator by analyzing his/her intervention in the process of linguistic transfer, when she argues "once considered a subservient, transparent filter through which a text could and should pass without adulteration, the translation can now be seen as a process in which intervention is crucial".

According to Miremdi (1991) in rendering texts, the translators are always surrounded by a number of problems which are to be tackled consciously and accurately. The first problem is how to get access to adequate comprehending of the original text with all its complexities. According to Kopezynski (1980.p.23) the translator should possess a transcoding mechanism to enable him:

a. To make accurate interpretation of the totality of the source and the target language.

b. To carry out an adequate conversion of the source language grammar into the target language grammar.

c. To make generalization based on intertraffic between the two languages to seek equivalents.

The second problem is the existence of lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and the world perspective imbalance between languages. Because of the differences between languages, there is no completely exact translation between any two languages. Werner (1961.p.69) stated that "the degree of similarity between the systems of the two languages determines the efficacy of the translation made."

The other problem in translation is lexical problem. Words are entities which refer to object or concepts. There is no an identical object in the two cultures. Thus in translating texts, all differences have to be taken into account and must be considered as an important factor. In this case the denotative meaning, connotative meaning and ironical meanings are so important and translator"s misunderstanding of any of these words and elements may end in a translation reality and moral sense.

Another factor which may cause problem in translation is syntactic problem. Nida (1975.p.26) argues that "in no two languages one can find exactly identical systems of structural organization based on which symbols can be related to meaning on the one-to-one correspondence basis". All languages show signs of noun phrases, events, prepositional phrases, but they show differences in their formal distributions (Miremadi, 1991). According to Nida (1975) word classes, grammatical relations, word order, style, and pragmatic features are different from language to language. A feature which may cause problems when translating is pro-forms. So the translator should be aware of these differences in order to translate accurately.

1.3. Pro-forms

A pro-form is a type of function word or expression that stands for another (expresses the same content as) word, phrase, clause, or sentence whose meaning is recoverable from the context. They are used to avoid repetitive expressions in quantification. Pro-forms are divided into several categories according to which part of speech they substitute such as: a pronoun substitutes a noun or a noun phrase with or without a determiner like "it" or "this". A pro-adjective substitutes an adjective or phrase functioning as an adjective like "that". A pro-adverb substitutes an adverb or a phrase functioning as an adverb like "how" or "this way". A pro-verb substitutes a verb or a verb phrase like "do". A pro-sentence substitutes an entire sentence or sub sentence like "yes" which replaces "that is true". In linguistics and grammar, a pronoun is a pro-form that substitutes for a noun or a noun phrase with or without a determiner, such as you and they in English. The replaced phrase is the antecedent of the pronoun. A pronoun used for the item questioned in a question is called an interrogative pronoun, such as whom. For example, consider the sentence "John gave the coat to Alice." All three nouns in the sentence can be replaced by pronouns to give: "He gave it to her." If the coat, John and Alice have been previously mentioned, the listener can deduce what the pronouns he, it and her refer to and therefore understand the meaning of the sentence (Quirk.et.al).

1.3.1. Pronouns in English

In linguistics and grammar, a pronoun is a pro-form that substitutes for a noun or noun phrase with or without a determiner, such as "you" and "they" in English. Traditional grammar explained a category of pronoun (abbreviated as PRN) to stand for a class of words which are said to "stand in place of" (the meaning of the prefix pro-) or to "refer back" to a noun expression. There are a number of different types of pronoun found in English (Dechaine and Wiltschko2002). One such type is represented by the word one.

John has a red car and Jim has a blue one.

From a grammatical perspective, one behaves like a regular countable noun here (Radford, 2004). A pronoun used for the item questioned in a question is called an interrogative pronoun. Pronouns usually show the basic distinction of person and number (the most common system distinguishing between first, second and third person, and singular and plural number), but they may also feature other categories such as case (nominative "we" vs. "us" in English), gender (masculine "he" vs. feminine "she" in English), and anemic or humanness (human "who" vs. nonhuman "what" in English).

1.3.2. English Personal Pronoun

Ordinary English has seven personal pronouns: first – person singular (I), first-person plural (we), second-person (you), third-person singular masculine (he), third person singular feminine (she), third person neuter (it), and third-person plural (they). Each pronoun has a number of forms: a subjective case form (I/we/etc.), used when it"s the subject of a finite verb; an objective case form (me/us/etc.), used when it"s the object of verb or of a preposition; two possessive case forms (my/our/etc.) and (mine/ours/etc.), used when it"s the possessor of another noun _ one that"s used as a determiner, and one that is used as a pronoun or a predicate adjective: and a reflexive form (myself/yourselves/etc.), which replaces the objective-case form in referring to the same entity as the subject. Demonstrative pronoun: points out or identifies a noun without naming the noun. Example: this was a great idea; that was a nightmare. Interrogative pronoun: asks a question. Example: who wants to go?

1.3.3. Other Pro-forms

A pro-sentence is a function word or expression that substitutes for a whole sentence whose content is recoverable from the context. Pro-sentences are a kind of pro-forms and therefore anaphoric. In English yes, no, okay and amen are common pro-sentences. In response to the question "Does Mars have two moons?" the sentence "Yes" can be understood to abbreviate "Mars has two moons." In some languages, the equivalents to yes and no may substitute not only a whole sentence, but also a part of it; either the subject and the verb, or the verb and a complement, and can also constitute a subordinate clause.

The Portuguese word sim (yes) gives a good example:

Q: Ela está em casa? A: Acredito que sim. — Q: Is she at home? A: I believe that she is (literally, that yes).

Ela não saiu de casa, mas o John sim. — She didn't leave home, but John did (literally, John yes).

 In some languages, such as English, yes denies a negative question, whereas no affirms it. However, in Japanese, the equivalents of no (iie, uun, (i) ya) rebut a negative question, whereas the equivalents of yes (hai, ee, un) affirm it.

Q: Wakarimasen deshita ka (Did you not understand?)

A: Hai, wakarimasen deshita (No, I didn't – Literally that"s right, I didn't understand)

 Some languages also have a specific word which denies a negative question. German has "doch"; French has "si" (not to be confused with the Spanish word "si" meaning "yes"). Neither has a clear translation.

Q: Bist Du nicht müde? (Aren"t you tired?)

A: Doch. Ich gehe bald schlafen. (Yes. I"m about to go to sleep.)

A pro-verb is a pro-form that substitutes for a verb or a predicate.

 Example: He likes cheese and I do, too.

An interrogative pro-form is a pro-form that is used in question to stand for the item questioned. It is a pro-form denoting the (unknown) item questioned in a question, and may itself fall into any of the above categories. Interrogative words can also be used as relative pro-forms in English.

Example:

· Who

· What

· When

· Where

· Why

· Where (location)

· Whence (source)

· Whither (goal)

· When (time)

· How (manner)

· Why, wherefore (reason)

· Whether (choice between alternatives)

One of the most outstanding features of many modern Indo-European languages is that relative pro-forms and interrogative pro-form, as well as demonstrative pro-forms in some languages have identical forms. Consider the two different functions of who in "who"s the criminal who did this?" or the meanings of that in "that"s the movie that you saw back home." Most other language families do not have this ambiguity.

1.4. Anaphora

The purposeful repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of several successive verses, clauses, or paragraphs; for example: "We shall fight on the beach. We shall fight on the landing grounds.

This is one definition of the anaphora, but it has another definition:

Linguistics: The use of a linguistic unit, such as a pronoun, to refer to another unit, as the use of her to refer to Anne in the sentence Anne asked Edward to pass her the salt.

Also we can say those anaphoras are the words or phrases like pronouns when they point backwards to something earlier in the text:

Helen needed the book and asked me to hurry up with it.

Here, it is anaphoric because it refers back to the noun book.

Under this definition, forward references are instead named cataphora, and also exophora names situations where the referent does not appear in the utterance of the speaker, but instead in the real world.

In other words, anaphora is co-reference of one expression with its antecedent. The antecedent provides the information necessary for the expression"s interpretation. The term anaphora is also sometimes used to include both anaphora, as defined here, and cataphora. When it is used that way, it becomes synonymous with endophora. Example:

A well-dressed man was speaking; he had a foreign accent.

In this example the relationship of the pro-noun he to the noun phrase a well-dressed man is an example of anaphora. (Quirk.et.al)

1.5. Cataphora

Words or phrases like pronouns are cataphora when they point forwards to something later on in the text:

As he was unaccustomed to it, Jack found the pressure very hard to deal with.

Here, it is cataphoric because it refers forwards to the noun pressure. So cataphora is a co reference of one expression with another expression which follows it. The following expression provides the information necessary for interpretation of the preceding one.

In the following example, the relationship of one to a towel is an example of cataphora.

If you need one, there"s a towel in the top drawer.

1.6. Endophora

The usage of a word or phrase to refer to something either preceding it or following it within a text or discourse is anaphora or cataphora. In other words, words phrases like pronoun are endophora when they point backward or forwards to something in the text:

As he was late, Harry wanted to phone his boss and tell her what had happened.

Here, "he" is endophoric because "it" refers forward to the proper noun "Harry" and "her" refers back to the noun boss.

1.7. Exophora

Exophoric language points to something outside the language of the text, which is understood in the context.

Take a look at this.

Here, this refers to something that the speaker and the listener can see and understand, but which has no meaning inside the context.

Exophora is a reference of an expression directly to an extra linguistic referent.

1.8. Objectives and Significance of the Study

This piece of research is a contrastive study of pro-form substitution in English and Persian based on translation practice. For contrastive analysis, some English sentences and some Persian translations of them are subject to pro-form substitution analysis. More specifically the purpose of this study is a) to investigate the pro-form translation from English into Persian b) to investigate the problems in the translation of pro-forms c) to provide an appropriate way for translating these forms. During the translation of the pro-forms, the translators will face many problems so the researcher tries to first highlight these problems and then to find out the appropriate ways for translating them. The significance of this study is to highlight the problems which are in the translation of the pro-forms and to make the translators aware of these problems, and sometimes to provide a way for translating these pro-forms. It will be useful for the translators in order to have an acceptable translation.

1.9. Research Questions

1. What is the typical pro-form substitution practice from English into Persian?

2. Can translated texts be improved by other pro-form devices?

Chapter Two

2. Introduction

This chapter deals with data for study, data collection procedure and data analysis procedure.

Methodology

2.1. Data Sources

 The data sources in this study involve "Rebecca" by Daphne Du maurier, "Sherlock Holmes" by Arthur Conan Doyle and "The Remains of the Day" by Kazuo Ishiguro, all of which are selected randomly. "Rebecca" is translated by "Nazgol Nikooei" and covers ninety five pages. "Sherlock Holmes" which is translated by "Moniro sadate Seyed Kordestany" has seventy pages. "The Remains of the Day" is translated by "Najaf Daryabandary" contains only two pages.

2.1.1. Data Collection Procedures

The data that are going to be analyzed are different sentences which include various types of pro-forms from the above stated sources. In this study the researcher has used one English version of the above books as well as one Persian translation translated by the translators.

2.2. Materials

The researcher chose the samples from the following books named:

· "Rebecca", written by "Daphne Du maurier" and was translated by "Nazgol Nikooei".

· "Sherlock Holmes", written by "Arthur Conan Doyle "and translated by "Monir sadate Seyed Kordestany".

· "The Remains of the Day" written by" Kazuo Ishiguro" and translated by "Najaf Daryabandary".

2.3. Data Analysis Procedure

The data which was chosen randomly from the above mention books was compared and contrasted with the Persian versions. Then the researcher focused on the problems of translation of pro-forms and at last she tried to have a better translation of them.

Chapter Three

3. Introduction

This chapter presents the contrastive analysis of the chosen samples. The objective has been to compare and contrast the sentences in order to find the similarities and differences between the Persian and English languages with regard to different types of pro-forms.

 Analysis

 3.1. Samples

 Here there are some sentences from the book "Rebecca", which was written by "Daphne Du maurier" and was translated by "Nazgol Nikooei" and also some other sentences from the book "Sherlock Holmes", which was written by "Arthur Conan Doyle "and translated by "Monirol sadate seyed Kordestany"which was not translated correctly.

·  Pro-verb → noun phrase

1. We can never go back again, that is certain. (Rebbeca.p.2)

_ haghighat-e mosalam inast ke maa digar be Maanderly baaz

 Fact certain is that we no longer Manderly back won"t

nakhaahim gasht.

go.

/haqi:qat/ /mosalam/ /i:n/ /ast/ /ke/ /ma:/ /di:gar/ be/ /ma:ndrli:/ /ba:z/ /naqa:hi:m/ /gašt/.

حقیقت مسلم اینست که ما دیکر به ماندرلی باز نخواهیم گشت.

 There are two pro-forms in this part, "we" and "that is certain". "We" is a "subjective pronoun"; there is no problem in its translation. In "that is certain", "that" is a "pro-verb", which substitutes the first part of the sentence which is an NP consisting of a noun and an adjective. The English pro-form is referring anaphorically to the immediate co-text which is a verb-phrase, but the Persian translation is referring exophorically to a noun phrase. And it is translated as "haghighate mosalam."

Proposed version: Az inke hargez nemitavaanim baaz gardim motmaenam.

Object pronoun (us) → Subject pronoun (m)

2. The past is still all close to us. (Rebbeca,p.2)

_ hanuz gozashte raa az yaad nabordeh-im.

  Still past from memory haven"t removed we.

/hanu: z/ /gozašte/ /ra: / /az/ /ya: d/ /nabordehi: m/

هنوز گذشته را از یاد نبرده ایم.

 "Us" in the English sentence functions as the object of preposition. This is rendered as "m" (we), an inseparable subject pronoun attached to a verb that does not exist in the original text. This kind of translation is, obviously, partially free as only two main words have one-to-one correspondence with the original.

Proposed version: gozashte hanuz be maa nazdik ast.

Reciprocal pronoun (each other) → Prepositional noun phrase (beine ma)

3. But we have no secrets now from each other. (Rebecca. p.2)

_ dar haal-e haazer hich raaz-e nagoftei beyn-e maa nist.

 In now present no secret unsaid between us isn"t.

/dar/ /ha: le/ /ha: zer/ /hi: č/ /ra: ze/ /nagoftei: / /beyne/ /ma: / /ni: st/.

در حال حاضر هیچ راز نگفته ای بین ما نیست.

There are three pro-forms in the original sentence. The pro-form "we" and "now" are rendered appropriately so the remaining pro-form "each other" merits some discussion. "Each other" is categorized under reciprocal pronouns. In other words, it refers to a reciprocal relationship between the elements in the text.

The translated version has used "bein-e ma nist" (between us). This translation is meaningful for the Iranian readers. However, if one wants to stick to the original, "each other" has to be rendered as "yekdigar" .So there is no one to one correspondence between the original and the translated text.

Proposed version: Amaa, alaan digar chizi ra az yekdigar makhfi nemikonim.

In this proposed version, the sentence "will have no secrets" is translated as "makhfi nemikonim" which is nearly a free translation of the original. But the researcher thinks that this version is more appropriate. But as it is clear "each other" which is a "reciprocal pronoun" has been rendered similarly in the proposed translation. So here we can have a one to one correspondence between the original and the translated version.

Negative pronoun (nothing) → Ø

4. We ate in silence, for Mrs. Van Hopper liked to think about nothing but her food.  (Rebecca. p.2)

_ Ghazayemaan raa dar sokut khordim. Chon khaanom-e Van Hoper

 Food our in silence ate we as Miss Van Hoper wanted during

mikhaast hengaam-e ghazaa khordan tamarkoz daashte baashad.

food eating focus has she.

/ğazayema:n/ /ra:/ /dar/ /soku:t/ /khordi:m/ /čon/
/kha:nome/ /van/ /hoper/ /mi:kha:st/ /henga:me/ /ğaza/
/khordan/ /tamarkoz/ /da:šte/ /ba:šad/.

غذایمان را در سکوت خوردیم. چون خانم ون هوپر میخواست هنگام غذا تمرکز داشته باشد.

There are three pro-forms in the English text, "We", "her" and "nothing". The pronouns "we" and "her" are taken for granted as these are obvious elements in the sentence. The first pronoun however is not rendered. "Nothing" is a "negative pronoun" indicating the no existence of thing. This pronoun has not been translated in the Persian version. The non – translation of this element in the sentence has forced the translator to present it completely differently altogether. In the original text, it is clear that "Ms.VanHoper "wants to focus on her food rather than thinking about other matters but in the translated version the implication is that "Ms.Van Hoper" wants to be involved with the food and at the same time contemplate.

Proposed version: Dar sokut ghazaayemaan raa khordim ziraa ke khaanom-e Van Hoper mikhaast be hich chiz gheyr az ghazaa fekr nakonad.

Relative pronoun (who) → deictic expression (hamoni ke)

5. "It is Max de Winter", she said, "The man who owns Manderley, you"ve heard of it, of course!" (Rebbeca,p.3)

_ in hamaan Max de Winter maruf ast, hamaan ke maalek-e ghasr-e

This that Max de Winter is, that man who the owner palace Manderly

 Manderly ast.

is.

hatman raaj-e be u ziyaad shenideiei.

Surely about to him very heard.

/i:n/ /hama:n/ /max/ /do/ /vi:nter/ /ast/ /hama:n/ /ke/
/ma:leke/ /ğasre/ /ma:ndrli:/ /ast/.

این همان ماکس دو وینتر است، همان که مالک قصر ماندرلی است.

/hatman/ /ra:je/ /be/ /u:/ /zi:ya:d /šeni:dei:/

حتماً راجع به او زیاد شنیده ای.

There are five pro-forms in this sentence, "it", "she","who","you" and "it". "It" is a "dummy pronoun" which is used when grammatical rules require a noun or pronoun. "It" is translated appropriately. "She" is a "subjective pronoun" and it is omitted in the translation. "You" is a "subjective pronoun"; "it" is a "prepositional pronoun" which both are translated correctly. "Who" is a "relative pronoun" and relates back to "the man" which is translated as "hamaani ke". This is a deictic expression which anaphoric ally relates to the immediate preceding noun. This rendering, though free, seems all right.

Proposed version: Khaanom-e Van Hoper goft: in Max de Winter ast, mardi keh maalek-e ghasr-e Mandrly ast. Hatman raaje be u shenidei.

Separate sentence (you know) → Ø

6. "You know, I recognized you as soon as you walked in," she said. (Rebecca.p.3)

_ Goft: be mahz-e vorudetaan be rasturaan shomaa raa shenaakhtam.

Said: as soon as arrival your in restaurant you recognized I.

/goft/ /be/ /mahze/ /voru:deta:n/ /be/
/rastora:n/ /šoma:/ /ra:/ /šena:khtam/.

گفت:به محض ورود تان شما را شناختم.

There are five pro-forms in this sentence, "you", "I", "you", and "she". "I "and "you" are the "separate subjective pronoun" and they are obviously translated as "inseparable pronoun", according to the Persian structure. "You" which is an "objective pronoun" is translated appropriately. But "you know" and "she said" merits some discussions." You know is a "pro-sentence" which functions as a prefabricated filler in English. But the translator has omitted this pro-sentence in the translation. "She said" has been translated as "goft" in the Persian version, but "goft" itself can not show the gender of the speaker in the sentence.

Proposed version: khaanome Van Hoper goft: midaanid, be mahz-e vorudetaan shomaa raa shenaakhtam.

So in the propose version, the gender of the speaker is obvious.

Pro-sentence (couldn"t possibly) → Verbal phrase (moteshakeram)

7. "Oh, no," I said, "I couldn"t possibly." (Rebecca.p.5)

_ Goftam: "na, motshakeram, nemitavaanam ghabul konam."

 Said I:" no, obliged am I, can"t I accept do I.

/goftam/ /na/ /motšakeram/
/nemi: tava: nam/ /qabu: l/ /konam/.

گفتم: "نه،نمیتوانم قبول کنم."

There are two pro-forms in the original, the first "I" and the second "couldn"t possibly"." I" is a separable subjective pronoun which is translated as inseparable subjective pronoun. "I couldn"t possibly" is a pro-sentence which has been translated using a verbal phrase. The context has helped the translator to rightly guess the missing part of the pro-sentence. There is, however, the addition of another verbal phrase "moteshakeram" which is not necessary. The translator translated this sentence according to the context.

Proposed version: goftam: "ah na, emkaan nadaare betavaanam."

Pro-sentence (you friend) → Ø

8.   "Your friend," he began at last," she is very much older than you. Have you known her long? (Rebbeca.p.5)

_ Yek martabe darbare khaanom-e Van Hoper sohbat kard:"

Suddenly about Miss Van Hoper talked he:" friend your very

dostetaan kheyli mosentar az shomaa hastand, aayaa nesbati baa

 older than you, do relative with you he? Do long time is that

shomaa daarand ayaa modat-e ziyadi ast ke u raa mishenaasid?

Him known you?

/yek/ /martabe/ /darba:re/ /khanome/
/van/ /hoper/ /sohbat/ /kard/ /dosteta:n/ /kheyli:/ /mosentar/
/az/ /šoma:/ /hastand/ /a:ya:/ /nesbati:/ /ba:/ /šoma:/
/da:rand/ /a:ya:/ /modate/ /zi:yadi:/ /ast/ /ke/ /u:/ /ra:/
/mi:šena:si:d/

یک مرتبه درباره خانم ون هوپر صحبت کرد: " دوستتان خیلی مسن تر از شما هستند آیا نسبتی با شما دارند؟آیا مدت زیادی است که او را میشناسید؟"

There are five pro-forms in this sentence, "your friend", "he", "she", "you", "and her". "She" and "you" are separable subjective pronoun and it has been translated as inseparable subject pronoun. "Her" is an "objective pronoun" and has been translated correctly. "Your friend" is a "pro-sentence" which the translator ignored it in the translation.

Proposed version: Max saranjaam goft: dostetaan, ishaan kheyli mosentar az shomaa hastand. ayaa modat-e ziyadist ishaan ra mishenaasid?

Distributive pronoun (one) → Ø

9. "I did not know one could buy companionship," he said; "it sounds a strange idea?" (Rebbeca.p.6)

_ "Nemidanestam ke mosaahebat va hamneshini raa ham mitavaan

 Not known I that friendship and companion also can buy. This think 

kharid. In fekre kheyili ahmaghaane ast."

Didn"t know that.

/nemi:da:nestam/ /ke/ /mosa:hebat/ /va/
/hamneši:ni:/ /ra:/ /ham/ /mi:tava:n/
/khari:d/ /i:n/ /fekr/ /kheyli:/ /ahmaqa:ne/ /ast/.

"نمیدانستم که مصاحبت و همنشینی را هم میتوان خرید. این فکر خیلی احمقانه است."

There are four pro-forms in this sentence, "I", "one", "he", and "it. "I" is a separable subjective pronoun. "He" is also a subjective pronoun; it is omitted in the translation. "It" is a "dummy pronoun"; it doesn"t have any problem in the translation. "One" is a "distributive pronoun" which is the subject of the subordinate sentence. This notion has been ignored in the translation, showing the subject of the sentence the speaker himself.

Proposed version: Max goft: nemidaanestam ke fard mitavaanad refaaghat raa bekharad. In ide ajibi be nazar miresad.

The translator has omitted "he said" but the researcher believes that it is necessary to use it in the sentence.

Objective pronoun (her) → reciprocal pronoun (ham)

10. You haven"t much in common with her. (Rebbeca.p.6)

_ "Vali be nazar-e man, shomaa be hich onvaan noghte moshtaraki baa ham nadaarid."

 But my idea, you any point common with each other don"t have.

/vali:/ /be/ /nazare/
/man/ /šoma:/ /be/ /hi:č/ /onva:n/ /noqte/ /moštaraki/
/ba:/ /ham/ /nada:ri:d/.

"ولی به نظر من ،شما به هیچ عنوان نقطه مشترکی با هم ندارید."

There are two pro-forms in the sentence, "you" and "her". "You is a subjective pronoun. "Her" is an "objective pronoun". The translator has added "vali be nazare man" in the beginning, but it doesn"t have any one- to-one correspondence in the English version. The translator has used "ham" instead of "her" which is also doesn"t have any correspondence.

Proposed version: shomaa hich noghte eshteraaki baa u nadaarid.

Subjective pronoun (they) → indefinite pronoun (hame)

11. "No_ they"re dead."( Rebbeca.p.6)

_ "Kheyr, hame fowt kardehand."

 No all dead are

/kheyr/ /hame/ / fot/ /kardehand/.

خیر همه فوت کرده اند.

 

There are two pro-forms in the original,"no"and "they". "No" is a "pro-sentence'. "They" is a "subjective pronoun" which is related to the previous sentence. "They" is the subjective pronoun and is translated as "hameh" (all).

Proposed version: na, ?anhaa morde-and.

Demonstrative pronoun (that) → noun phrase (vajh moshtarak)

12.   "We are the same in that, you and I. (Rebbeca.p.6)

_ Maa yek vajhe eshteraak baa ham daarim.

 We one the same with each other have.

/ma: / /yek/ /vajhe/
/eštera:k/ /ba:/ /ham/ /da:ri:m/.

ما یک وجه اشتراک با هم داریم.

There are four pro-forms in this sentence. The only problematic one is "that" which has posed some problems for the translator. It is translated "vajh moshtarak" which doesn"t adequately represent the original text.

Proposed version: maa dar in mored mesl-e ham hastim.

Demonstrative pronoun (this) → adjective (avalin)

13. I am glad it cannot happen twice, the fever of this love. (Rebbeca.p.6)

_ Khoshhaalam ke tab va tab-e avalin eshgh digar baaz nemigardad.

 Happy am I that fever of first love no longer avoid it.

/khošha:lam/ /ke/ /tab/ /va/ /ta:be/ /avali:n/ /ešq/
/di:gar/ /ba:z/ /nemi:gardad/.

خوشحالم که تب و تاب اولین عشق دیگر باز نمیگردد.

There are three pro-forms in the sentence, "I", "it", "this". "I" is a "subjective pronoun" and according to the Farsi rules it is translated as an inseparable pronoun. "It" is a "dummy pronoun" and refers to the "the fever of this love" and has been omitted in the translation. "This" is a "demonstrative pronoun" and has been translated as "avalin eshgh". The translation is a free reproduction of the original, though it is successful.

Proposed version: khoshhaalam ke taabe in eshgh nemitavaanad dobaare etefaagh bioftad.

14.  "This is Mrs. Danvers," said Maxim. (Rebbeca.p.7)

_ Maxim goft: "ishaan Khaanom-e Danvers hastand."

 Maxim said: this Miss Danvers is.

/maxi:m/ /goft/ /i:ša:n/ /kha:nome/ /da:nverz/ /hastand/.

ماکسیم گفت:" ایشان خانم دان ورزهستند".

"This is" is a "demonstrative pronoun" and in the translation, the translator used "ایشان" for "this is".

Indefinite pronoun (something) → Ø

15.  I tried to say something. (Rebbeca.p.8)

_ Man ham be naachaar baa sedaay-e larzaan, kheyli aaheste chand

I also inevitably with sound trembling, very slow some sentences for

jomlei dar tashakor az u be zabaan avardam.

thanking from him to tongue mention.

/man/ /ham/ /be/
/na:ča:r/ /ba:/ /seda:ye/ /larza:n/ , /kheyli:/ /a:heste/
/čand/ /jomlei:/ /dar/ /tašakor/ /az/ /u:/ / be/
/zaba:n/ /a:vardam/.

من هم به ناچار با صدای لرزان، خیلی آهسته چند جمله ای در تشکر از او به زبان آوردم.

There are two pro-forms in this sentence, "I", "something". "I" is a subjective pronoun. "Something" is an "indefinite pronoun". The translation version is not a translation at all. This sentence has been added perhaps to make it more information.

Proposed version: say kardam chizi begam.

It is clear that, "something is not used in the translation version. She used "chand jomleie" for this word.

Negative pronoun (nothing) → a full sentence (taghiraate ziyadi daade nashode)

16. "What have they been doing?" I asked. ( Rebbeca.p.8)

 "Oh, nothing much".

_ Goftam: "dar banaaye ghasr taghiraati daadeh-id?"

Said I: in repair palace any change did you?

"Na, taghiraat-e ziyaadi daade nashode"

No, change much no did.

/goftam/ /dar/ /bana:ye/ /qasr/ /taqi:ra:ti:/ da:dehi:d/

گفتم : "در بنای قصر تغییراتی داده اید؟

/na/ /taqi:rate/ /zi:yadi:/ da:deh/ /našode/

نه تغییرات زیادی داده نشده.

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "they", "I", and "nothing". "They" and "I" are "subjective pronouns" and they are translated as "inseparable subjective pronouns". "Oh" is a "pro-sentence". "Nothing much" is also a "pro-sentence". The translator has used "goftam" for the word "asked". She has completely changed the first sentence and translated it according to the previous sentence. "Nothing" is also expanded in the translation. A complete new conversation has been built, thereby "nothing much" has been put into a full sentence.

Proposed version: porsidam: aanhaa che kaari anjaam daadehand? Max javaab daad: oh, ziyaad kaari anjaam nadaadehand.

As one can see "oh, nothing much" is the short answer for the previous sentence.

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

17. Run along and make friends with Mrs. Danvers. It"s a good opportunity. (Rebecca.p.8)

_ Dar zemn alaan behtarin forsat baraay-e aashenai baa khanom-e Danvers ast.

 Meanwhile, now the best opportunity for friendship with Miss Danvers is.

/dar/ /zemn/ /ala:n/ /behtari:n/ /forsat/ / bara:ye/ /a:šenai:/
/ba:/ /kha:nome/ /da:nverz/ /ast/.

در ضمن الان بهترین فرصت برای آشنایی با خانم دان ورز است.

There are two pro-forms in the original, one of them "you" in the first sentence and the other one is "it". In "Run along" the pronoun "you" implied and it is a "subjective pronoun". "It" is a "dummy pronoun" and it is translated as "alaan" which is not a good equivalence for "it". The translator has translated those two sentences freely and she has added "dar zemn" to the translation. The translator has mixed the two sentences and translated them all together.

Proposed version: Ajale kon baa khanom-e Danvers dust show, in forsate khubist.

Relative pronoun (which) → Ø

18. We went along broad passages, then came to a door which she opened, standing back to let me pass.( Rebecca.p.8)

_ Vaared-e saalon-e bozorgi shodim dar aanjaa khaanom-e Danvers

Enter passages along in that place went Miss Danvers in the corner

dar gushei istaad va dari raa baa eshaare dast be man neshaan daad

stands and a door with hand her to me showed opened the door entered

dar raa baaz karde vaared-e saalon-e kuchektari shodam.

passage so smaller went.

/va:rede/ /sa:lone/ /bozorgi:/ /šodi:m/ /dar/ /a:nja:/ /kha:nome/
/da:nverz/ /dar/ /gošehi:/ /i:sta:d/ /va/ /dari:/ /ra:/ /ba:/ /eša:reh/
/dast/ /be/ /man/ /neša:n/ /da:d/ /dar/ /ra:/ /ba:z/
/karde/ /va:rede/ /sa:lone/ /kočektari:/ /šodi:m/.

وارد سالن بزرگتری شدیم در آنجا خانم دان ورز در گوشه ای ایستاد و دری را با اشاره دست به من نشان داد در را باز کرده وارد سالن کوچکتری شدیم.

There are four pro-forms here, "we", "which", "she", "me"." We" and "she" are "subjective pronouns" which are translated as "inseparable subjective pronouns". "Me" is an "objective pronoun". But "which" is a "relative pronoun" and it is not rendered in the translation. There is no one –to-one correspondence between the translation and the English version. As one can see the translator has changed the English version, and instead has added some words to the Farsi version.

Proposed version: vaared-e saalon-e bozorgi shodim, sepas be samt-e dari raftim ke Khaanom-e Danverz baaz kard, dar kenaari istaad va ejaazeh daad taa man obur konam.

Dummy pronoun (there) → demonstrative pronoun (?aan)

19. "There was a large double bedroom with wide windows, and a bathroom beyond. (Rebecca.p.8)

_ In saalon be yek otaagh-e khaab-e dow nafar-e bozorg va hamaami

This passage to one bedroom two persons big and bathroom at the back that

dar posht-e aan montahi mishod.

end.

/i:n/ /sa:lon/ /be/ /yek/ /ota:qe/ /kha:be/ / do/ /nafare/
/bozorg/ /va
/ /hama:mi:/ /dar/ /pošt/ / montahi:/ /mi:šod/.

این سالن به یک اتاق خواب دو نفره بزرگ و حمّامی پشت آن منتهی میشد.

There is one pro-form in the original, "there". "There" is a "dummy pronoun". In the translation a noun phrase "in salon" (this hall) has been used. There is no mention of "hall" in the original, however. There is no correspondence between the original pronoun and the translated version.

Proposed version: aanjaa yek otaagh-e khaab-e bozorg baa panjerehaaye ariz va hamaami dar poshte aan vojud daasht.

Subjective pronoun (you) → passive form (nemishavad)

Pro-adverb (then) →Ø

20. "You can"t see the sea from here, then?" I said (Rebecca.p.8)

_ Goftam: "daryaa az injaa dide nemishaavad?"

 Said I: "sea from here sees do not?"

/goftam/ / darya:/ /az/ /i:nja:/ /di:deh/ /nemi:šavad/.

گفتم :" دریا از اینجا دیده نمیشود؟"

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "you", "then", and "I". "I" is a "subjective pronoun" and as usual it is translated as an "inseparable subjective pronoun". "You" is a "subjective pronoun" which is omitted in the translation because the translator has used the passive form in the Farsi version. "Then" is a "pro-adverb". This has been ignored in the translation.

Proposed version: man goftam: "pas shomaa nemitavaanid daryaa raa az injaa bebinid?"

Definite subjective pronoun (she) → definite third person inseparable subjective pronoun (mikard)

Indefinite pronoun (something) → definite noun (mozoi)

Definite objective pronoun (her) → definite inseparable objective pronoun

21. She spoke in a strange way, as though something lay behind her words.(Rebbeca.p.9)

_Chenaan marmuz sohbat mikard ke ehsaas kardam daarad mozoi

How secret talk she that feel I do something from I make secret.

raa az man makhfi mikonad.

/čena:n/ /marmoz/
/sohbat/ /mi:kard/ /ke/ /ehsa:s/ /kardam/
/da:rad/ /mozoi:/ / az/ /man/ /makhfi:/ /mi:konad/.

چنان مرموز صحبت میکرد که احساس کردم دارد موضوعی از من مخفی میکند.

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "she", "something" and "her". "She" is a "subjective pronoun". The translator has used "sohbat mikard" instead of "she" but the translator didn"t make obvious what the gender of the speaker is because she has omitted "she" in the translation. This is usually done using the proper noun in Persian. "Her" is also an "objective pronoun" and this is also omitted in the translation. "Something" is an "indefinite pronoun" and the translator has used "mozoie" for this word. The translator has ignored all of the pro-forms in this sentence.

Proposed version: khanom-e Danverz tarz-e ajibi sohbat mikard engaar ke chizi posht-e sohbataash bud.

Subjective pronoun (I) →Ø

Demonstrative pronoun (that) →Ø

22.   "I"m sorry about that; I like the sea." (Rebecca.p.9)

_ Goftam: "cheghadr heyf shod, man daryaa raa dust daaram."

Said I: "what a pity, I sea like.

/goftam/ /čeqadr/ /heyf/ /šod/ /man/ /darya:/ /ra:/ /dost/ /da:ram/.

گفتم:" چقدر حیف شد، من دریا را دوست دارم."

There are two pro-forms here, "I", "that". "I" is a "subjective pronoun and in the first sentence it has been omitted. "That" is a "demonstrative pronoun" and also" preposition pronoun" but in the translation it has been omitted too. The translator has changed the English version.

Proposed version: AZ in mozu besyaar moteasefam, man daryaa raa dust daaram.

Pro-adverb (however) → pro-adverb (albate)

Dummy pronoun (it is) →demonstrative pronoun (in)

23.   "However, it"s a very charming room..."(Rebbeca.p.9)

_ "Albate in otaagh besyaar zibaa ast."

Of course this room very beautiful is.

/albateh/ /i:n/ /ota:q/ /besya:r/zi:ba:st/.

"البته این اتاق بسیار زیباست."

There are two pro-forms here, "however", and "it". "However" is a pro-adverb in this sentence. The translator has used "albateh" for however. "It" is a "dummy pronoun". This has been translated according to the Persian syntactic. The word "albateh" (of course) should be replaced with the equivalent of however which is "be har haal".

Proposed version: be har haal, in otaagh zibaaiest. 

Demonstrative pronoun (that) →Ø

24. "Oh. He didn"t tell me that."(Rebecca.p.9)

_ "Dar in mored chizi be man nagofte bud."

 In this case anything to me say did not.

/dar/ /i:n/ /mored/
/či:zi:/ /be/ /man/ /nagofteh/ /bod/.

"در این مورد چیزی به من نگفته بود."

There are three pro-forms in this English version, "he", "me", "that". "He" is a "subjective pronoun" and it has been translated as an "inseparable pronoun". "Me" is an "objective pronoun" and doesn"t have any problems in its translation. "That" is a "demonstrative pronoun" which is functioning as an "objective pronoun".

Proposed version: aah, u in raa be man nagoft.

Demonstrative pronoun (there) → verb (shod)

Objective pronoun (us) → Ø

25. There was silence between us. (Rebecca.p.9)

_ Sokuti bargharaar shod.

Sokuti beyne maa barghaar shod.

/sokoti:/ /beyne/ /ma://barqara:r/ /šod/.

سکوتی بین ما برقرار شد.

There are two pro-forms, "there", and "us". "There" is a "demonstrative pronoun"; it has been omitted in the translation. "Us" is an "objective pronoun, there is no objective pronoun in the translation.

Proposed version: beyn-e maa sokuti bargharaar shud.

Subjective pronoun (she) →Ø

26. I wondered why she must go on standing there, watching me...(Rebecca.p.9)

_ Tàajob karde bodam ke cheraa aanjaa istaade bud... be man negaah mikard.

Surprised I that why there stands she...to me looked at she.

/taajob/ /karde/ /bodam/ / ke/ /čera:/ /a:nja:/ /i:sta:de/ /bod/ /be/ /man/ /nega:h/ /mi:kard/.

تعجب کرده بودم که چرا آنجا ایستاده بود ....به من نگاه میکرد.

There are four pro-forms in the original, "I", "she", "there", "me". "I" and "she" are "subjective pronoun". "She" has not been translated, because of that the gender of the translation version is not obvious. "There" is a "pro-adverb" and here there is no other problem with this sentence.

Proposed version: man tàajob kardam ke cheraa khanom-e Danverz baayad be istadanesh dar injaa edaame midaad, dar haalike man raa negaah mikard.

Possessive pronoun (mine) →Ø

27. ...like her hand when it had lain in mine.(Rebbeca.p.9)

_ Dorost mesl-e dast haayash ke vaghti dar dast gereftam...

Right like hands her that when in hand mine...

/Dorost/ /mesle/ /dast ha:yaš/ /ke/ /vaqti:/ /dar/ /dast/ /gereftam/....

درست مثل دستهایش که وقتی در دست گرفتم.

There are three pro-forms, "he", "it", and "mine". "Her" is a "possessive adjective"; "it" is a "subjective pronoun" which has not been translated in the translation. "Mine" is a "possessive pronoun" but in the translation the possession has not been shown.

Proposed version: mesle daste khaanom-e Danverz zamaanike aanraa dar dast haayam gereftam.

 Prepositional pronoun (that) → adverbial pronoun (ba"d az)

28. "I see; so you didn"t come till after that."( Rebecca.p.9)

_ "Bale, pas shomaa bad az fowt-e aaghaaye Winter be injaa amadeh-id?"

"Yes, so you after death Mr. Winter to here came?"

/bale/ /pas/ /šoma:/ /bad/ /az/ /fote/ /a:qa:ye/
/vi:nter/ /be/ /i:nja:/ /a:madehi:d/

"بله پس شما بعد از فوت آقای وینتر به اینجا آمده اید؟"

There are three pro-forms, "I see", "you", "that". "I see" is a "pro-sentence" and it should be translated as "fahmidam" not as "baleh" (yes), these are two different things. "You" is a "prepositional pronoun". The translator has omitted "that" in the sentence and has expanded the sentence according to the Persian structure. The translator has changed the English form. As it is obvious the English version is negative but the translation version is positive.

Proposed version: fahmidam pas shomaa taa ba"d az aan injaa nayaamade budid.

Negative pronoun (not) → Ø

29. "No, Not till after that.(Rebecca.p.9)

_ "Na daghighan bad az fowte u."

"na exactly after death him."

/na/ /daqi:qan/ /bad/ /az/ /fote/ /u:/.

"نه، دقیقاً بعد از فوت او."

There are two pro-forms in this sentence, "no", and "that". "No" is a "pro-sentence". There are two negative signs in this sentence but in the translation version one of them has been omitted. "That" like the previous sentence is a "preposional pronoun" and should be translated like the previous one. It is to some extent the same as the previous sentence, and she has tried to change it according to her understanding.

Proposed version: na, na taa ba"d az aan.

Demonstrative pronoun (there) → Ø

30. Yet there was something beside scorn in those eyes of hers, something surely of dislike, or even hatred?(Rebbeca.p.10)

_ be did-e heghaarat be man mingerist va motmaenan nazaresh

Regard with contempt to me she and surely idea her to me positive do

nesbat be man mosbat nabud va shayad vaaghean badkhaahe man

not And maybe really malevolent me.

bud.

/be/ /di:de/ /heqa:rat/ /be/ /man/ /mi:ngeri:st/ /va/
/motmaenam/ /nazareš/
/nesbat/ /be/ /man/ /mosbat/ /nabod/ /va/ /ša:yad/
/va:qean/ /badkha:he/ /man/ /bod/.

به دیده حقارت به من مینگریست و مطمئنم نظرش نسبت به من مثبت نبود و شاید واقعاً بدخواه من بود.

There are five pro-forms in the original, "there was", "something", "those", "hers". "There was" is a "demonstrative pronoun" which has been omitted in this sentence. "Those" is also a "demonstrative pronoun" and it has also been ignored in the translation version. As you see, the translator has changed the English version completely.

Proposed version: hanuz haalati hamraah baa heghaarat dar cheshmhaayash vojud daasht. Motmaenan haalati naashi az adam-e alaagh-e va yaa hataa tanafor.

Indefinite pronoun (something) →Ø

31. I had to say something.(Rebecca.p.10)

_ Baayad harfi mizadam.

Should talk I.

/ba:yad/ /harfi:/ /mi:zadm/.

باید حرفی می زدم.

There are two pro-forms in the original, "I", and "something". "I" is a "subjective pronoun, in the translation it has been translated as "inseparable pronoun". "Something" is an "indefinite pronoun". The translator has omitted this word in the translation.

Proposed version: baayad yek chizi migoftam.

32. "...She liked to give the order herself. (Rebecca.p.10)

_ "Ishaan maayel budand ke khodeshaan mostaghiman be hame omur nezaarat daashte baashand."

/i:ša:n/ /ma:yel/ /bodand/ / ke/ /khodeša:n/
/mostaqi:man/ /be/ /hame/ /omor/ /neza:rat/
/da:šteh/ /ba:šand/.

"ایشان مایل بودند که خودشان مستقیماً به همه امور نظارت داشته باشند."

"Herself" is a kind of pronoun called it "reflexive pronoun" and has been translated as" khodeshan" in this sentence.

Proposed version: ishaan maayel budand khodeshaan

Subjective pronoun (he) → Ø

Objective pronoun (me) →Ø

33. "How is it?" he said to me." (Rebecca.p.11)

_" Otaaghet chetor ast?"

Room your how is it?

/ota:qet/ /četor/ /ast/

اتاقت چطور است؟

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "it", he", "and me". "It" is a "pro-noun; it is related to the previous sentence and as the translator has translated it, "it" should be translated according to the previous sentence. "He" is a" subjective pronoun" and it has been omitted. "Me" is an "objective pronoun", which has been ignored in the translation.

Proposed version: Max be man goft: "otaaghet chetowr ast?"

Pro-sentence (all right) → sentence expansion (hame chiz khub ast)

34. "All right! Do you think you"ll like it?" (Rebecca.p.11)

_ "Hameh chiz moratab ast? Az in otaagh khoshat miaayad?

Every thing organized is? From this room like it?

/hameh/ /či:z/ /moratab/ /ast/ /az/ i:n/
/ota:q/ /khošat/ /mi:a:yad/

همه چیز مرتب است؟ از این اتاق خوشت می آید؟

 

There are three pro-forms in the original, "all right", "you", and "it". "All right" is a "pro-sentence" and it is related to the previous sentence. The translator has expanded the sentence according to the Persian structure. "You" is a "subjective pronoun"; it has also been translated as "inseparable pronoun". The other one is "it" which is an "objective pronoun". The only problem with this sentence is the expansion of the sentence instead of using "all right" in the translation version.

Proposed version: "khobe? Fekr mikoni dustesh khaahi daasht?"

Demonstrative pronoun (all those) → Ø

35.  It was wasted all those years as a guest room.(Rebecca.p.11)

_ Dar tamaam-e in saalhaa be onvaane otaagh-e mehmaan, az aan

 In whole this years as room gust, from that have used not so much.

estefaadehe chandaani nashodeh ast.

/dar/ /tama:me/ /i:n/ /sa:lha:/ /be/
/onva:ne/ /ota:ghe/ /mehma:n/ /az/ /a:n/ /estefa:deh/
/čanda:ni:/ /našodeh/ /ast/.

در تمام این سالها به عنوان اتاق مهمان از آن استفاده چندانی نشده است.

There are two pro-forms here, "it", and "those". "It" is a "dummy pronoun" which has been omitted in the translation. "All those" is a" demonstrative pronoun". In translation the sentence "it was wasted" is translated as "estefadeh chandani nashodeh ast", so we will come to this conclusion that the translator did not translate according to the English sentence. The translator has changed the positive form into negative form.

Proposed version: in otaagh dar tamaam-e in saalha be onvaan-e otaagh-e mehmaan mored-e estefaadeh budeh ast.

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

36. There is something peaceful and happy about this room. It is quiet too.(Rebecca.p.11)

_aaraamesh va khoshhaali dar in otaagh mowj mizad. Dar zemn denj va saaket ham ast.

 Peace and happiness in this room was. Meanwhile tight and silence is.

/a:ra:meš/ /va/ /khošha:li:/ /dar/ /i:n/ /ota:gh/
/moj/ /mi:zad/ /dar/ /zemn/ /denj/ /va/ /sa:ket/ /ham/ /ast/.

آرامش و خوشحالی در این اتاق موج میزد. در ضمن دنج و ساکت هم بود.

There are five pro-forms in the original, "there", "something", "this", "it", and "too". "There is" and "it" are "dummy pronouns. If we try to translate them according to the English sentence it can be like" vojod darad aramesh va khoshhali dar in otagh". It should be translated as if there is no dummy pronoun in the source because according to the target language there is no "dummy pronoun in Farsi." Something "is an "indefinite pronoun" which did not been considered in the translation. "Too" is a "pro-adjective" which has been substituted for the previous sentence. The translator has not paid attention to "there is" in the sentence and has ignored them. "This" is a "demonstrative pronoun" which has been translated correctly.

Proposed version: in otaagh shaamel-e khosusiyati ast ke dar aan vojud daarad, mesle aaraamesh va shaadmaani. In otaagh hamchenin kheyli aaraam ast.

Pro-adverb (after all) → Ø

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

Objective pronoun (me) → Ø

37. "...After all, it"s only natural that she should dislike me a bit at first", I said quickly.(Rebecca.p.11)

_ "...amaa az man khoshesh nemiaayad va nesbat be man khosh bin nist."

 But from I like doesn"t and with regard to I optimist doesn"t she.

/ama:/ /az/ /man/ /khošeš/ /nemi:a:yad/ /va/ /nesbat/
/be/ /man/ /khošbi:n/ /nist/.

".....اما از من خوشش نمیاید و نسبت به من خوشبین نیست."

There are four pro-forms in the original, "after all", "me", "I". "After all" is a "pro-adverb". It has been omitted in the translation. "It is" is a "dummy pronoun" and "me" is an "objective pronoun" which has not been used in the translation. As a whole, the translator translated the sentence according to the meaning not the form.

Proposed version: kheyli sari goftam: bealaave, kaamelan tabiei ast ke dar ebtedaa u baayad ziyaad az man khoshesh nayaad.

Pro-sentence (dislike you) → Pro-sentence (khoshbin nist)

38. "Dislike you? Why dislike you?" He turned from the window, an angry look on his face.(Rebecca.p.12)

_ "Khoshbeen nist? Manzorat chist?" baa asabaaniyat az panjareh Optimistic doesn"t? Do mean what you? With angry look from window go

dowr shod va betarafe man amad.

far away and to me came he.

/khošbi:n/ /ni:st/ /manzorat/ /či:st/ /ba:/ /asaba:ni:yat/ /az/
/panjare/ /dor/ /šod/ /va/ betarafe/ /man/ /a:mad/.

"خوشبین نیست ؟ منظورت چیست؟" با عصبانیت از پنجره دور شد و بطرف من آمد.

There are three pro-forms in the original, "dislike you", "you", "he". "Dislike you" is a "pro-sentence which is translate as "khoushbin nist?" But the researcher believes that it isn"t a good equivalence for that. In this translation, some parts have been deleted.

Proposed version: Max baa surate asabaani be samt-e man bargasht va goft:"Az to khoshesh nayomad? Cheraa khoshesh nayomad? "

Dummy pronoun (this) → Ø

Indefinite pronoun (something) →Ø

39.   "You mustn"t mind," he said, "this is something you must get used to."(Rebecca.p.12)

_ Goft: "negaraan nabaash. Mohem nist. Kam kam adat mikoni."

 Said he: worry don"t be .important is not. Gradually habit you will.

/goft/ /Negara:n/ /naba:š/ /mohem/ /ni:st/ /kam kam/ /a:dat/ /mikoni:/

گفت:نگران نباش. مهم نیست. کم کم عادت میکنی.

There are five pro-forms in the original, "you", "he", "this", "something", "used to". "You" is a "subjective pronoun" and has been translated as an "inseparable subjective pronoun". "He" is also a "subjective pronoun" but in the translation the speaker"s gender is not obvious. "This" is a "dummy pronoun" it has been omitted in the translation. "Something" is an "indefinite pronoun", it has been ignored too. None of the pro-forms considered in the translation. The translator changed has changed the English sentence completely. "Used to" is a "pro-sentence" which is related to the previous sentence but the translator has completely changed the English structure in the translation.

Proposed version: Max goft: negaraan nabaash. inhaa chizhaiest ke baayad be aan aadat koni.

40. "Not that way," called Maxim," come on, Jasper, old boy!"(Rebecca.p.15)

_ Maxim faryaad zad:" az aan taraf naro Jasper. Bargard injaa, zud baash."

 Maxim shouted: from that way don"t go Jasper. Come back here, come on."

/maxi:m/ /farya:d/ /zad/ /az/ /a:n/ /taraf/ /naro/
/ja:sper/ /bargard/ /i:nja:/ /zod/ /ba:š/.

ماکسیم فریاد زد:" از آنطرف نرو جاسپر برگرد اینجا زود باش."

 

There are three pro-forms in the original, "not that way", "com on", "old boy". "Not that way "is a "pro-sentence". "Come on" is a "pro-sentence" too. "Old boy" is another kind of pro-form which is ignored in the translation. She has translated "old boy" to "zod baash"!

Proposed version: Max faryaad zad: az aantaraf na, Jasper, sage pir, zud biaa injaa!

Prepositional pronoun (it) → adverbial of place (kolbe)

41. "I suppose he"s used to it," said Maxim shortly.(Rebecca.p.15)

_ Maxim bi hosele goft:"nemidaanam shaayad aadat daasht be kolbe saaheli miraft."

 Maxim without patient said: "know don"t I maybe habit have he to cottage coastal went he.

/ma:xi:m/ /bi:/ /hosele/ /goft/ // nemi:danam/ /ša:yad/
/a:dat/ /da:št/ /be/ /kolbe/ /sa:heli:/ /miraft/.

ماکسیم بی حوصله گفت:" نمیدانم شاید عادت داشت به کلبه ساحلی میرفت."

There is only one pro-form in the original, "used to it". "It" in the "he"s used to it" is a "prepositional pronoun" and the translator considered it as an adverb of place because she translated it as "Kolbe". "It" is not "adverb of place rather it is a pro-form and it should be considered as an action which he usually did before.

Proposed version: Max kheyli kotaah goft: "fekr konam ghablan ziyaad az aaan taraf miraft."

Demonstrative pronoun (that) →Ø

42. "There! Look at that." Maxim said.(Rebecca.p.15)

_ Sedaaye Maxim man raa be khod aavard: "aanjaa raa negaah kon, vaaghean zibaa ast."

Sound Maxim made conscious me: "there look you, really beautiful is.

/seda:ye/ /ma:xi:m/ /man/ /ra:/ /be/ /khod/ /a:vard/ /a:nja:/
/ra:/ /nega:h/ /kon/ /va:qean/ /zi:ba:/ /ast/

صدای ماکسیم من را به خود آورد :"آنجا را نگاه کن ،واقعاً زیباست.

There are two pro-forms in the original, "there", "that". "There" is a "pro-adverb" and "that" is a "demonstrative pronoun". The translator has omitted the "demonstrative pronoun" in the translation. The translation is a free one. As you see we can use both the "demonstrative pronoun" and "pro-adverb" in the translation.

Proposed version:  Maxim goft: "aanjaa! aanja raa negaah kon."

Pro-sentence, question (hear that?) → Pro-sentence, affirmative (gosh kon)

Subjective pronoun (he) → objective pronoun (yash)

43. "Hear that? He"s over that way. "I said (Rebbeca.p.15)

_ Goftam: "Gush kon, sedaayash az aan taraf miaayad."

 Said I: "listen you, voice him from that way come.

/goftam/ /goš/ /kon/ /seda:yaš/ az/ /a:n/ /taraf/ /mi:ayad/.

گفتم: " گوش کن، صدایش از آن طرف میاید."

There are three pro-forms in the original, "hear that", "that way" and "I". "I" is a "subjective pronoun"; it has been translated as an "inseparable subjective pronoun". "Hear that?" is a "pro-sentence," that" is a "demonstrative pronoun" the translator has changed the English form and also she has added some other parts into the translated sentence. She has changed the question form into the affirmative sentence. The English sentence is "hear that?" but the translator has translated it as "gush kon" .And another problem is in translating of "sedaayash", in English version it has been written as "he" but in the Farsi version it has not shown whose voice is this?

Proposed version: man goftam: "shenidi? Jasper aanjaa tuye un masire"

Subjective pronoun (I) →Ø

Indefinite pronoun (any) → definite noun (sadaf)

44. "Oh," I said." I"m sorry you can"t find any." (Rebecca.p.16)

_ "moteasefam ke sadaf peydaa nakarde-id."

  Sorry I am that cochlea (shell) find didn"t you.

/moteasefam/ /ke/ /sadaf/ /peyda: / /nakardei:d/

متأسفم که صدف پیدا نکرده اید.

There are two pro-forms in this sentence, "any" and "I". "I" is a "subjective pronoun" and it has been omitted in the translation." any" is an "indefinite pronoun" and also it is a "pro-sentence" and it has been translated as "sadaf "in the translation. It related to the previous sentence.

Proposed version: goftam: aah, moteasefam ke chizi peydaa nakard-id."

Past tense → future tense

Pro-verb → Ø

45. "I ever said nothing, did I?" (Rebbeca.p.17)

_ "Man hargez harfi nakhaaham zad.

/man/ /hargez/ harfi: / /nakha:ham/ /zad/

من هرگز حرفی نخواهم زد. 

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "I", "nothing", "did I". "I" is a "subjective pronoun", there is no problem here. But "nothing" and "did I" merits some problems. "Nothing" is a "negative pronoun" and it has been translated as "hargez" but the translator has used the future tense for this sentence rather there is no sign of future tense in this sentence. "Did I "is a "pro-verb" and also ""pro-sentence", but it is omitted in the translation. The translator has changed the English structure.

Proposed version: "man aslant chizi nagoftam, goftam?"

Pro-adjective (poor devil) Ø

46. "Ben. He"s quite harmless, poor devil." (Rebecca.p.17)

_ Esmesh Ben ast. Mard bi aazaarist."

Name his Ben is. Man harmless is.

/esmeš/ /ben/ /ast/ /marde/ /bi:/ /a:zari:st/

اسمش بن است. مرد بی آزاری ا ست.

There are only two pro-forms, "Ben" and "poor devil". "Ben" is a "pro-sentence", she has translated appropriately. "Poor devil" is a "pro-adjective" it has been omitted in the translation version.

Proposed version: "Ben. O kheili bi aazaarast. Marde bichaare."

Indefinite pronoun (anyone) → Ø

Demonstrative pronoun (that) →Ø

47.  "Anyone would be tired, walking at this speed. "( Rebbeca.p.18)

_ "To kheili shetaab dari, Maa nemitavaanim be to beresim."

  You very in hurry are, we cannot to you arrive.

/to/ /kheyli:/ /šeta:b/ /da:ri:/ /ma:/
/nemi:tava:ni:m/ / be/ /to/ /beresi:m/

تو خیلی شتاب داری، ما نمیتوانیم به تو برسیم.

There are three pro-forms in the original, "anyone", "walking", and "this speed". "Anyone" is an "indefinite pronoun". The translator has changed the source sentence completely. "That" is another kind of pro-form which has been omitted too. This sentence has been translated completely differently from the source one. The three pro-forms have been ignored in the translation. There is no definite subject in this sentence rather in the translation there are two subjects.

Proposed version: "raah raftan baa in sorat har kasi raa khasteh khaahad kard."

Pro-sentence (want to) → Ø

48.  I know you didn"t want to, that"s all. (Rebecca.p.18)

_ Faghat in raa midaanam ke delet nemikhaast biaai.

Only this I know that heart your want don"t come.

/faqat/ /i:n/ /ra:/ /mi:da:nam/ /ke/ /delet/ /nemi:kha:st/ /bi:a:i:/

فقط این را میدانم که د لت نمیخواست بیایی.

There are four pro-forms in this sentence, "I", "you", "want to", "that"s all". "I" and "you" are "subjective pronoun"; there is no problem in their translation. But there are some problems in translation of "wants to" and "that"s all". "Want to" is a "pro-sentence" which is related to the previous sentence. The translator has combined these two sentences together. "That"s all" is a "pro-sentence ".The translator has translated it as "faghat" and has ignored the exact function of the phrase.

Proposed version: man midaanam ke nemikhaasti biai, hamash hamin.

Pro-sentence → Ø

49. "By the way, my sister Beatrice has written to ask herself over to lunch. I half expected she would. I suppose she wants to have a look at you." (Rebecca.p.12)

_" Be har haal Beatrice, khaaharam mikhaahad baraye naahar be

In any case Beatrice, sister mine want for lunch come to here, think I 

injaa biaayad, fekr mikonam mikhaahad to raa bebinad."

Want you to see she.

/be/ /har/ /ha:l/ /beatri:s/ /kha:haram/ /mi:kha:had/
/ baraye/ na:ha:r/ /be/ /i:nja:/ /bi:a:yad/ /fekr/ /mikonam/
/mi:kha:had/ /to/ /ra:/ /bebi:nad/

"به هر حال باتریس، خواهرم میخواهد برای ناهار به اینجا بیاید، فکر میکنم میخواهد تو را ببیند."

There are four pro-forms, "my sister", "herself", "she", "would", "you". All the three pronouns have been translated appropriately. "Herself" is a "reflexive pronoun" which is not translated in the target language and it is translated differently because this sentence is an expression and we cannot translate it word for word. "She would" is a "pro-sentence" and it relates to the previous sentence. And also "I half expected she would" has been ignored in the translation.

Proposed version: "be har haal, khaaharam, Beatrice, mikhaad baraaye naahaar injaa biaad, taa hododi entezaar daashtam biyaad. Man fekr mikonam mikhaad to ro bebine."

Dummy pronoun (there) →Ø

50. There was a shade of doubt in her voice that made me afraid.(Rebbeca.p.13)

_ tardidi ke dar sohbathaayash bud, negaraanam mikard.

 Doubt that in voice her was, worried me.

/tardi:di:/ /ke/ /dar/ /sohbatha:yaš/ /bod/ /negara:nam/ /mi:kard/

تردیدی که در صحبتهایش بود، نگرانم میکرد.

There are three pro-forms in the original, "there was", "her", "me". As it was mentioned before "there "is a "dummy pronoun" and "there was a shade of doubt" was translated as "tardidi... bud" .The translator changed the Source form into Target form. "Her" and "me" are "objective pronoun", there is no special problem in this part.

Proposed version: saayehaay-e tardidi ke dar sedaash bud man ra mitarsaand.

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

Pro-sentence (has it?) → Pro-sentence (really)

Demonstrative pronoun (that) → Ø

51.  "...It has all been got ready specially." (Rebecca.p.14)

"Has it? I didn"t know that. I wonder why."

_ "...aayaa anja raa be taazegi tamir kardehand?"

".....there recently repaired have been.

_"vaaghean? Nemidaanam cheraa, amaa az in mozu ta"ajob

"Really? Know I why, but from this subject wonder I."

 mikonam."

/a:ya:/ /a:nja:/ /ra:/ /be/ /ta:zegi:/ /tami:r/ /kardehand/

آیا آنجا را به تازگی تعمیر کرده اند؟

/va:qean/ /nemi:da:nam/ /čera:/ /ama:/
/az/ /i:n/ /mozo/ /taajob/ /mi:konam/

واقعاً نمیدانم  چرا، اما از این موضوع تعجب میکنم.

There are six pro-forms in this sentence, "it", "all", "has it?", "I", "why", "that". "It has all been "did not translated according to the source language, "it" is a "dummy pronoun". "Has it?" is a "pro-sentence" which is substituted the previous sentence, but the translator did not translate it according to the previous sentence. "That" is another pro-form which is related to the previous sentence. "Why" has not been translated in its correct form. "All" is another pro-form which has been ignored in the translation.

Proposed version: "ham-e aan bettor-e makhsusi aamaade shodeh ast."

"aamaadeh shodeh? in mozu raa nemidaanestam. moteajebam ke chera."

Subject pronoun (she) → subject pronoun (vey)

Demonstrative pronoun (this) → Ø

52.   My stepfather agrees, but soon after this she died. (Sherlock Holmes.p.7)

_ "Na pedari-am movaafeghat kard, amaa chandi nagozasht ke vey mord."

"Stepfather my agreed, but soon after that she/he died.

/na:/ /pedari:am/ /mova:feqat/
/kard/ /ama:/ /čandi:/ /nagozašat/ /ke/ /vey/ /mord/

"نا پدری ا م موافقت کرد،اما چندی نگذشت که وی مرد."

There are four pro-forms, "my", "agrees", "this". "My" is a "possessive pronoun" and it is translated as "iam" in this sentence. "This" here is a "prepositional pronoun" and also it is a "demonstrative pronoun", but it is not shown in the translation and the translator did not translate it in the target language. In the translation the translator used the word "vey" for the word" she". The researcher believes that "vey" is not a good translation in this sentence. The translator had to make obvious who is "vey", her sister or her stepfather!

Proposed version: naapedariam movaafegh bud amaa belaafaasele bad az aan khaaharam mord.

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

53. "I can remember it all very well." (Sherlock Holmes.p.7)

_ Helen javaab daad:" ham-e chiz raa kheyli khub mitavaanam be khaater biaavaram."

Helen answered:" everything very good can I to remember I.

/Helen/ /java:b/ /da:d/ /hame/ /či:z/
/ra:/ /kheyli:/ /khu:b/ /mi:tava:nam/ /be/ /kha:ter/ /bi:a:varam/

هلن جواب داد:" همه چیز را خیلی خوب میتوانم به خاطر بیاورم."

There are three pro-forms, "I", "it", and "all". "I" is a "subjective pronoun" there is problem in this part. In this sentence "It" is a "dummy pronoun" and it has replaced the previous sentence, but the translator has ignored it in the translation. "All" is a "pro- adjective" and it also has replaced the previous sentence.

Proposed version: "man ham-e aan chizhaa raa bekhubi bekhaater miaavaram."

Dummy pronoun (it) →Ø

Subjective pronoun (she) →Ø

54. It was a terrible time! She answered. (Sherlock Holmes.p.8)

_ Lahze besyaar badi bud!

Time very bad was!

/lahzeye/ /besya:r/ /badi:/ /bu:d/

لحظه بسیار بدی بود.

There are only two pro-forms in this sentence, "it", "she"". "It" is a "dummy pronoun"; the translator has not used it directly in the translation rather it has translated through the sentence. "She" is a subjective pronoun" it has been omitted in the translation.

Proposed version: Helen javaab daad: "in lahzeye kheyli badi bud."

But here it is better to omit "it" in the translation because it isn"t according to the Persian structure, so it is better to translate it as: Helen javaab dad:" Lahzeye badi bud."

Pro-adjective (all) → Pro-adjective (har se ma)

55. "Our three bedrooms are all downstairs".(Sherlock Holmes.p.8)

_ "otaagh khaab-e har se maa tabaghe pain ast."

Bedrooms all the three we floor downstairs is.

/ota:q/ /kha:be/ /har/ /se/ /ma:/ /tabaqe/ /pa:i:n/ /ast/

اتاق خواب هر سه ما طبقه پا یین است.

There are two pro-forms in the original, "our", "all". "Our" is a "possessive pronoun" which doesn"t have any problem in its translation. "All" is a "pro-adjective" which hasn"t been translated directly in the translation. "Har se ma" has replaced it in the translation.

Proposed version: "otaaghhaaye khaab-e maa har se tabagheye pain hastand."

Demonstrative pronoun → Ø

56.  "First there is my stepfather"s room." (Sherlock Holmes.p.8)

_ "Aval otagh-e khaab-e naa pedari-am ast."

 First bedroom stepfather my is.

/aval/ /ota:qe/ /kha:be/ /na:pedari:am/ /ast/

اول اتاق خواب نا پدری ام است.

There are two pro-forms in the original, "there" and "my". "There" is a "demonstrative pronoun" which is ignored in the translation. And "my" which translated correctly. The researcher believes that there is no special problem in the translation.

Proposed version: aval otagh-e naapedariam aanja ast.

Pro-verb (you do) → Ø

57.  I laughed and said, "I sleep better than you do." (Sherlock Holmes.p.9)

_ khandidam va goftam:" man raahat tar az to mikhaabam."

 Laughed I and said I:"I more comfortable than you sleep."

/khandi:dam/ /va/ /goftam/ /man/ /ra:hat/ /tar/ /az/ /to/ /mi:kha:bam/

خوابیدم و گفتم :"من راحتتر از تو میخوابم."

There are two pro-forms in the original, "I", "you do". "I" is a "subjective pronoun", it has been translated appropriately. In "better than you do", "do" is a "pro-verb" and in the translation, it has not been obviously. But it is better to say: Khandidam va goftam:"man behtaraz to mikhaabam."

Proposed version:  khandidam va goftam: "man behtar az uni ke to mikhaabi mikhaabam"

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

58. I didn"t know what it was. (Sherlock Holmes.p.10)

_ Nafahmidam chi bud.

No understand what was

/nafahmi:dam/ /či:/  /bu:d/

نفهمیدم چی بود.

In this sentence there are three pro-forms, "it", "I" and "what". "It" in this sentence, is a "pronoun "which substituted the "noun". The translator has omitted it in the sentence. Another one is "I" which has been translated as "inseparable subjective pronoun". The last one is "what", which is an "interrogative pronoun".

Proposed version: nemidaanestam aan chi bud.

Relative pronoun (who) → Ø

Negative pronoun (nothing) → negative sentence (kaari bar nemiaayad)

59. I called my stepfather, who tried to help her, but we could do nothing. (Sherlock Holmes.p.10)

_ Naa pedari-am raa sedaa kardam, say kard komakesh bekonad, Stepfather my called I, tried help her, but nothing from hand our not be accomplish.

amaa kari az dast-e maa bar nemiaamad.

/na:/ /pedari:am/ /ra:/ /seda:/
/kardam/ /say/ /kard/ /komakeš/ /bekonad/ /ama:/
/ka:ri:/ /az/ /daste/ /man/ /bar/ /nemi:a:mad/

نا پدری ام را صدا کردم سعی کرد کمکش بکند اما کاری از دست ما بر نمیامد.

There are six pro-forms here, "I", "my", "who", "her" and "nothing". "I" and "we" are "subjective pronoun" and both of them have been translated as "inseparable pronoun". "My" and "her" are "objective pronoun"; there is no problem in their translations. "Who "is a "relative pronoun" which talk about her stepfather, but in the translation the translator did not show this relative pronoun in the sentence! "Nothing" is a "negative pronoun" and the translator tried to show this pronoun in the "barnemiaamad".

Proposed version: naapedariam raa sedaa kardam, u say kard komakes konad, amaa natunest-im hich kaari anjaam bedim.

Dummy pronoun (it) → Ø

Verb (was) → Ø

60.  "Perhaps it was the gypsies." (Sherlock Holmes.p.11)

_ "Shaayad az kolihaa."

Maybe from Koliha.

/ša:yad/ / /az/ /koli:ha:/

"شاید از کولیها "

There is only one pro-form in this sentence, "it". "It" is a "dummy pronoun", and "was" is a verb, but in the translation the sentence did not have any verb! And the translator translated it as a phrase.

Proposed version: shayaad koliha budand.

Demonstrative pronoun → Ø

61.  "Hmm," he said, "That is a difficult question." (Sherlock Holmes.p.11)

_ Va goft:"hemm, soaale sakhti ast."

And said he:"hmm, question difficult is."

/va/ /goft/ /hem/ /soa:le/ /sakhti:/ /ast/

و گفت: "سوال سختی است."

In this sentence there is only one pro-form, "that". "That" in this sentence is a "demonstrative pronoun" which points out or identifies a noun without naming the noun, but in the translation its function is not obvious and the translator has ignored it in the translation.

Proposed version: Holmes goft: "in soaale sakhti ast."

Demonstrative pronoun → Ø

62. "...last night I heard that whistle again!" (Sherlock Holmes.p.12)

"... aan shab dobaare sedaay-e sut raa shenidam!"

"...that night again the voice whistle heard I"

/a:n/ /šab/ /doba:re/ /seda:ye/ /su:t/ /ra:/ /šeni:dam/

 "آن شب دوباره صدای سوت را شنید م."

There are two pro-forms in this sentence, "I" and "that". "I" is a "subjective pronoun". "That" is a "demonstrative pronoun", but the translator has omitted it in the translation. "That" has used for showing more emphasize on the whistle which has been known before so it should be translated.

Proposed version: "... shab-e ghabl sedaay-e aan sot raa dobaare shenidam.

Definite pronoun (the one) → phrase (hamaan khaliji ke...)

Subjective pronoun (I) → Ø

63. I was down in one of the bays the other day," I said, the one with the little harbor. (Rebecca.p.19)

_ "chand ruz-e pish dar saahel ghadam mizadam, nazdik-e hamaan

 "Some days ago in beach walking I, near that gulf that

khaliji ke mujshekan ham daarad.

breakwater also have.

/čand/ /ru:ze/ /pi:š/ /dar/ /sa:hel/ /qadam/ /mi:zadam/ /nazdi:ke/
/hama:n/ /khali:ji:/ /ke/ /mojšekan/ /ham/ /da:rad/

چند روز پیش در ساحل قدم می زدم نزدیک همان خلیجی که موج شکن هم دارد. 

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "I", "the other" and "the one". "I" is a "subjective pronoun" and it has been translated as "inseparable pronoun". The other "subjective pronoun"-"I"- has been omitted in the translation. "The other" is an "indefinite pronoun" and it has been translated as "chand ruze pish). "The one" is a "definite pronoun" which has been expanded in the translation and the translator has explained the one" in the target one.

Proposed version: goftam: Chand ruz-e pish raftam paain dar yeki az savaahel, saaheli baa eskele kochik.

Dummy pronoun (it) → expanded phrase (baraye aanjaa)

64.   "Why isn"t something done about it?" (Rebecca.p.19)

_ "Chera kaari baraaye aanjaa nemikonid?"

Why do for there no doing?

/čera:/ / ka:ri:/ /bara:ye/ /a:nja:/ /nemi:koni:d/

"چرا کاری برای آنجا نمی کنید؟"

There are two pro-forms, "something" and "it". "Something" is an "indefinite pronoun" and it has been translated as "kari" in the translation. "It" is a" dummy pronoun". The translator has explained "it" in the target language and she expanded the source sentence.

Proposed version: "cheraa kaari dar ertebaat-e baa aan anjaam nashode ast?"

Objective pronoun (it) → Ø

65. "Can you see it, Watson?" he shouted. (Sherlock Holmes.p.21)

_ holmes goft:" mituni bebini Vaatson?"

 Holmes said:" can you see you Vatson?"

/holmz/ /goft/ /mi:toni:/ /bebi:ni:/ /va:tson/

هلمز گفت: "میتونی ببینی واتسون؟ "

There are three pro-forms, "you", "it", "he". In this sentence "it" is an "objective pronoun, but the translator has omitted it. Because of this the writer"s idea is not obvious in the translation that what can be seen. "You" and "he" are "subjective pronoun".

Proposed version: Holmes faryaad zad: "mitavaani aan raa bebini?

Dummy pronoun (it) →Ø

Pro-adjective (such a pity) →Ø

66. "It seems such a pity." (Rebecca.p.19)

_"heyf ast ke aan vasaayel az beyn beravad."

What a pity that means spoiled they.

/heyf/ /ast/ /ke/ /a:n/ /vasa:yel/ /az/ /beyn/ /beravad/

"حیف است که آن وسا یل از بین برود."

There are two pro-forms in this sentence, "it" and "such a pity". "It" is a dummy pronoun which has been ignored in the translation. The other one is "such a pity" which is a pro-adjective" and it has been ignored too. As a whole the translator has changed the source one completely and there is no one –to- one correspondence between the source and the target one.

Objective pronoun (it) →Ø

Subjective pronoun (he) →Ø

67. "Why do I hide it?" he said. (Sherlock Holmes.p.32)

_ Goft: cheraa penhaan konam?

 Said he: "why hide I?

/goft/ /čera:/ /penha:n/ /konam/

گفت:" چرا پنهان کنم ؟ "

There are three pro-forms in this sentence, "I", "it", and "he". "I" is a "subjective pronoun it has been translated as "inseparable subjective pronoun". "It" is an "objective pronoun" which has been ignored in the translation. As one can see the translator has tried to omit the pronouns in the translation! And another problem is in "goft" which is not obvious really "who said this", so the translator should make obvious the gender of the speaker.

Proposed version: Shaah goft: "cheraa aan raa penhaan konam?"

Subjective pronoun (they) → Ø

Pro-sentence (things) → verb (bar ohdeye ...bud)

68. "Are they all Rebecca"s things?" (Rebecca.p.19)

_ "Tamaam-e karhaay-e marbut be kolbe vaa gheyre bar ohdeye Rebeccaa bud?"

 All works relate to cottage and the others on Rebecca"s shoulder was?

/tama:me/ /ka:rha:ye/ /marbu:t/ /be/ /Kolbe/ /va/ /ğeyre/
/bar/ /ohdeye/ /rebeka:/ /bu:d/

"همه کارهای مربوط به کلبه و غیره بر عهده ربه کا بود."

There are three pro-forms here, "they", "all", "things". "They" is a 'subjective pronoun" and it has been ignored in the translation. "All" is an "indefinite pronoun"; it has been translated as "tamame". "Things" is a "pro-sentence and it has been expanded in the translation.

Proposed version: "hameye aanha vasaayele Rebeccaa bud?"

As it is obvious the translators used the wrong equivalence for the word "things".

Objective pronoun (my) → Ø

Prepositional pronoun (me) → Ø

69. A strange sort of excitement was on me. I had to go on with my questions. (Rebecca.p.20)

_ Shadidan be hayajaan aamade budam va morataban soal mikardam.

Severely to excitement was I and continuously question asked I.

/šadi:dan/ /be/ /hayaja:n/ /a:made/ /bu:dam/
/va/ /morataban/ /so:l/ /mi:kardam/

شدیداً به هیجان آمده بودم و مرتّباً سوال میکردم.

There are three pro-forms, "a strange sort of....", "me", "I", "my". "A strange sort of" is a "phrase-pronoun" which is used instead of the noun. "Me" is a "prepositional phrase". "I" is a "subjective pronoun". "My" is an "objective pronoun". There is no one-to-one correspondence in this sentence. She has ignored the pro-forms.

Proposed version:   hayajaan-e ajibi raa dar khodam ehsaas mikardam.baayad be soal porsidanam edaame midaadam.

 Subjective pronoun → Ø

 Pro-sentence → Ø

70. "Lay my table for two," he said. "Mademoiselle will have lunch with me." (Rebecca.p.5)

_ Felan yek service digar sar-e mi-ze man biaavarid. Madmoazel

At present one service another at table mine bring. Miss lunch with me eat

naahaar baa man sarf khaahand kard.

will she.

/felan/ /yek/ /servi:s/ /di:gar/ /sare/ /mi:ze/ /man/
/bi:a:vari:d/ /madmoa:zel/ /na:ha:r/ /ba:/ /man/
/sarf/ /kha:hand/ /kard/

فعلاً یک سرویس دیگر سر میز من بیاورید.مادموازل ناهار با من صرف خواهند کرد.

There are four pro-forms here, "my", "two", "he" and "me". "My" is a "determinative possessive pronoun", there is no problem here. "Two "is the "pro-sentence" which has been omitted in the translation. "He" is a "subjective pronoun" it has been omitted too. "Me" which is a "prepositional pronoun". The translator translated all of them into Persian.

Proposed version: Max goft:" baraay-e dow nafar miz bechinid. khanom ham baa man ghazaa khaahand khord.

There are some samples which are translated correctly and accurately according to both source and target"s rule.

71. The private road was just a narrow ribbon now, its stony surface covered with grass and weeds. (Rebecca.p.1)

_ an gozargaah va masir-e pahnaavar, haalaa be raah-e tang va

That road and way wide, now to way narrow and tight changed has and

baariki tabdil shode bud va tanhaa baarikei az aan che dar saabegh

only stripe from that in past exist was survived had. Except covering

vojod daasht be jaay maande bud. Be joz pusheshi az khazeh

from moss and plants wild nothing from that surface stony and full of gravel stone

neshaani nabud. Giaahaan-e khodrow digar az aan sath-e sanglaakhi va por az sang rizeash

Obvious no was.

/A:n/ /gozarga:h/ va/ /masi:re/ /pahna:var/ /ha:la:/
/be/ /ra:he/ /tang/ /va/ /ba:ri:ki:/ /tabdi:l/ /šode/
/bu:d/ /va/ /tanha:/ /ba:ri:kei:/ /az/ /a:nče/ /dar/
/sa:beq/ /voju:d/ /da:št/ /be/ /ja:y/ /ma:nde/ /bu:d/
/be joz/ /pošeši:/ /az/ /khaze/ /neša:ni:/
/nabu:d/ /giya:hane/ /khodro/ /digar/ /az/ /sathe/ sangla:khi:
/ /va / /por/ /az/ sangria:zeaš/

آن گذشته و مسیر پهناور،حالا به راه تنگ وباریکه ای تبدیل شده بود و تنها باریکه ای از آنچه در سابق وجود داشت به جای مانده بود بجز پوششی از خزه نشانی نبود.گیاهان خودرو دیگر از سطح سنگلاخی و پر از سنگریزه اش نشانی نبود.

 

In the above sentence, there is only one pro-form which is "possessive pronoun". Although she has added many words to the target language, the pro-form has been translated correctly.

72. For Manderley was ours no longer. (Rebecca.p.2)

_ Maanderli dar gozashtehi nachandaan dur be maa ta"alogh daasht.

Manderly in past no longer to us belonged.

/ma:nderli:/ /dar/ /gozaštei:/ /načanda:n /du:r/ /be/
/man/ /taaloq/ /dašt/.

ماندرلی در گذشته ای نه چندان دور به من تعلق داشت.

There is only one pro-form, "determinative possessive pronouns". The translator translated it as "be ma" which can be a good equivalence for "ours".

73. Manderley was no more. (Rebecca.p.2)

_ Amaa alaan digar vojud nadaasht.

 But now never existed.

/ama:/ /ala:n/ /di:gar/ /vojod/ /nadašt/

آن الان دیگر وجود نداشت.

There is only one pro-form, "no more" which is a "pro-sentence" and it is substituted for the sentence" does no longer exist". She has omitted "Mandely". The translator has understood the sentence and translated it correctly.

74. His silence was painful, as anyone else would have noticed, but she ran on clumsily. (Rebecca.p.4)

_ Sokute mard-e javaan, digar ranj aavar shode bud va harkasi jaay-e

Silence man young, any longer suffering was and everyone instead of Miss Van Hoper

Khaanom-eVan Hoper bud motevaje in mozu mishod, amaa u

was understand this subject, but she like a goat ugly to

maannand yek boze zesht be sohbat haa va tamjid haayash az aan kaakh raa edaame midaad.

Speaking and praise her from that soil continued.

/soku:te/ /marde/ /java:n/ /di:gar/ /ranja:var/
/šode/ /bu:d/ /va/ /harkasi:/ /ja:ye/ /kha:nome/ /van/
/hoper/ /bod/ /motevaje/ /i:n/ /mozo/ /mi:šod/ /ama:/
/u:/ /ma:nande/ /yek/ /boze/ /zešt/ /be/ /sohbat/ /ha:/
/va/ /tamji:d/ /ha:yaš/ /az/ /a:n/ /ka:kh/ /ra:/ /eda:me/
/mi:da:d/

سکوت مرد جوان دیگر رنج آور شده بودو هر کسی جای خانم ون هوپر بود متوجه این موضوع میشد اما او مانند یک بز زشت به صحبت ها و تمجیدهایش ازآن کاخ را ادامه میداد.

There are three pro-forms, "his", "anyone else" and "she". "his" is a "possessive pronoun", it has been translated correctly. "Anyone else" is an "indefinite pronoun" which refers to general categories of people; there is no problem in her translation. But the researcher believe that it is better to use "Miss Van Hoper"" instead of using "u" for the word "she".

75. "Why not?" he said. (Rebecca.p.5)

_ Goft: "cheraa na?

 Said he: "why no?"

/goft/ /čera:/ /na/

گفت: "چرا نه؟"

Here we have only one pro-form, "why not" which is a "pro-sentence", "and it is substituted the whole sentence. There is no problem in this part.

76. I can see myself now, badly dressed as usual, although I had been married for seven weeks. (Rebecca.p.7)

_ Be khubi ghiyaafe aan ruz khod raa khaater daaram, baa in ke

To good face that day myself remember, although only seven weeks from

faghat haft hafte az ezdevaaj maa migozaasht va man yek now arus

marriage our passed and I new bride but again like always face my

budam amaa baaz mesle hamishe sar o vazam naamonaaseb bud.

not suitable was.

/be/ /khobi:/ /qia:feye/ /a:n/ /roz/ /khod/ /ra:/ /kha:ter/
/da:ram/ /ba:/ /i:n/ /ke/ /faqat/ /haft/ //hafte/ /az/
/ezdeva:j/ /ma:/ /mi:gozašt/ /va/ /man/ /yek/ /noaros/
/bodam/ /ama:/ /ba:z/ /mesle/ /hami:še/ /sar/ /o/
/vazam/ /na:mona:seb/ /bod/

بخوبی قیافه آن روز خود را خاطر دارم با اینکه فقط هفت هفته از ازدواج ما میگذشت و من یک نو عروس بودم اما باز مثل همیشه سر و وضعم نا مناسب بود

There are three pro-forms, "I", "myself" and "badly dressed as usual". "I" is a "subjective pronoun, there is no problem in this translation. "Myself" is the "reflexive pronoun". And "badly dressed as usual" is a "pro-sentence".

77. "No, not from this wing," she answered," you can"t even here it." (Rebecca.p.8)

_ Kheir in zel-e saakhtemaan be daryaa did nadaarad. Hataa sedaaye

No this side building to sea view doesn"t have. Even voice that also to here

aan ham be injaa nemiresad.

will not arrive.

/kheyr/ /i:n/ /zele/ /sa:khtema:n/ /be/ /darya:/
/di:d/ /nada:rad/ /hata:/ /seda:ye/
/a:n/ /ham/ /be/ /i:nja:/ /nemi:resad/

خیر این ضلع ساختمان به دریا دید ندارد حتی صدای آن هم به اینجا نمی رسد.

There are five pro-forms, "no", "this", "she", you", "it". "No" is a pro-sentence. "This "is the "demonstrative pronoun" and "it" is an "objective pronoun". The translator has forgotten to translate the two "subjective pronoun in this sentence, both "she" and "you" has omitted these pro-forms. But the other pro-forms have been translated correctly.

78. "Then this was not his bedroom originally?" (Rebecca.p.9)

"Pas in jaa otaagh-e khaab-e saabegh u nabod?"

 Then here bedroom previous her no was?

/pas/ /i:n/ /ja:/ /ota:qe/ /kha:be/ /sa:beqe/ /u:/ /nabu:d/

پس اینجا اتاق خواب سابق او نبود؟"

There are two pro-forms here, "this" and "his". "This" is a "demonstrative pronoun" and "his" is a "possessive pronoun". All the pro-forms in this part have been translated appropriately.

79. "No, madam; he"s never used the rooms in this wing before." Rebbeca.p.9)

_ "kheir, ishaan ghablan hargez az in otaagh estefaade nemikardand"

 "No, she before never from this room use not has she.

/kheyr/ /i:ša:n/ /qablan/ /hargez/ /az/ /i:n/
/ota:q/ /estefa:de/ /nemi:kardand/

"خیر، ایشان قبلاً هرگز از این اتاق استفاده نمیکردند.

There are three pro-forms in this part, "no", "he", "this", "before". "No" is a pro-sentence. "He" is a "subjective pronoun". "This" is a "demonstrative pronoun". "Before" is a "pro-adverb. She has used all the pro-forms correctly in her translation.

80. "Very good", she said... (Rebecca.p.10)

_ Goft: besiyaar khub,..

 Said she: very good...

/goft/ /besya:r/ /khu:b/

گفت: " بسیار خوب."

There are two pro-forms, "very good" and "she". "Very good" is a "pro-sentence "in this sentence. Only in translation of the "said" the translator has forgotten to make obvious the narrator"s gender.

81. "Thank you, sir," she said, her face expressionless, and ... (Rebecca.p.10)

_ Khaanome Daanvers bedune inke hattaa zahmat-e labkhandzadan

Miss Danvers without this even smiling to herself didn"t give

be khod bedahad, goft: "motshakeram, aghaa."

Said her: thank you sir"

/kha:nome/ /da:nvez/ /bedone/ /i:nke/ /hata:/ /zahmate/
/labkhandzadan/ /be/ /khod/ /goft/ /mošakaram/ /a:qa:/

خانم دانورز بدون اینکه حتی زحمت لبخندزدن به خود بدهد گفت متشکرم آقا."

There are three pro-forms here, "thank you ", "she", "her". "Thank you sir" is a "pro-sentence which is replaced for the whole answer. "She" is a "subjective pronoun". "her" is a "possessive pronoun". Although the translator has expanded the source sentence, she has used the pro-forms in this translation correctly.

82. "Difficult, my God..." he began, "if you think..." (Rebecca.p.12)

_ Maxim baa sedaaye boland khandid va goft: "motekaber, oh

Maxim with sound loud laughed and said:" proud, oh God mine, if you

khodaaye man, agar to fekr mikoni..."

think..."

/ms:xi/ /ba:seda:ye/ /boland/ khandi:d/ a/ goft/
/motekaber/ /khoda:ye/ /man/

ماکسیم با صدای بلند خندید وگفت:"متکبروخدای من....."

"Difficult "is a" pro-adjective". "If you think" is a "pro-sentence".

83. "Tell me a bit about yourself", she said at last. (Rebecca.p.13)

_ Belakhare goft: "kami az khodet baraayam tarif kon."

At last said she:" a little from yourself for me explained"

Belakhare/ /goft/ kami:/ /az/ khodet/ barayam / tari:f/ /kon/

بالاخره گفت: " از خودت برایم بگو."

There are three pro-forms, "me", "yourself", and "she". "Me" is a "subjective pronoun". "Yourself" is a "reflexive pronoun" which is translated correctly in the target sentence. "She" is a "subjective pronoun".

84. "Did she seem friendly?" (Rebecca.p.14)

"No, not very."

_ "Aayaa esteghbaal-e khubi az to kard?"

"Do welcome good from you did?

_ "na, na khayli khob."

"no, not very good".

/a:ya:/ /esteqba:l/ /khobi:/ /az/ /tu:/ /kard

"آیا استقبال خوبی از تو کرد."

/no/ /na:t/ /veri:/ /ma:č/

"نه،نه خیلی خوب"

There are two pro-forms, "she", "no, not very". "No, not very" is a "pro-sentence" which is translated as "na, na khayli khob". "She" is a "subjective pronoun" and "she" has implied in the sentence, it means that she hasn"t translated it in the translation.

85. "Oh," I said. "Oh, I see." (Rebecca.p.14)

_ "ooh, haalaa fahmidam."

"Oh, now understand I"

/oh/ /ha:la:/ /fahmi:dam/

"آه،حالا فهمیدم."

There are two pro-forms, "oh", "I". "Oh" is a "pro-sentence" in this sentence and "I" is a "subjective pronoun" but one "I" has been omitted in the translation. But there is no special problem in the translation.

86. It"s a surprise, isn"t it?" he said. "No one ever expects it. " Rebecca.p.15)

_ Negaahi be suratam andaakht va goft: "a"ajob kardi, dorost ast?

A look to face my had and said she: "surprised you, correct is? Nobody

Hich kas nemitavaanad hataa tasavorash raa bekonad."

Can not even imagine."

Nega:hi:/ /be/ /soratam/ /anda:kht/ /va/ /goft/ /taajob/ /kardi:/
/Dorost/ /šod/ /hi:čkas/ /nemi:tava:nad/ /hata:/
/tasavoraš/ /ra:/ /bekonad/

نگاهی به صورتم انداخت و گفت:"تعجب کردی،درست شد؟ هیچکس نمیتواند حتی تصورش را بکند."

There are five pro-forms in this sentence, "it", "isn"t it?", "he", "no one" and again "it". "It" is a "dummy pronoun". "Isn"t it?" is a "pro-sentence", it has been translated correctly. "He" is a "subjective pronoun". "No one" is an "indefinite pronoun"; there is no problem in this part. "It" is an "objective pronoun". There is no problem in this part.

87. "Good day," he said. "Dirty, isn"t it?" (Rebecca.p.16)

_ Goft: roz be kheir, havaaye badi ast, intor nist?"

 Said he: good day, weather bad is, isn"t it?

/goft/ /roz/ /be/ /kheyr/ /hava:ye/ /badi/ /ast/ /i:ntor/ /ni:st/

گفت: "روز بخیر،هوای بدی است،اینطور نیست؟"

There are four pro-forms, "good day", "he", "dirty", "isn"t it?" "Good day' is "pro-sentence". "He" is a "subjective pronoun". "Dirty" is also a "pro-sentence". "Isn"t it?" is a "pro-sentence". There is no special problem in this part.

88. "Digging for shells," he said." No shells here. Been digging ever since the morning." (Rebecca.p.16)

_ Donbaale sadaf migardam, injaa sadaf peidaa nemishavad. az zohr

Following shell look for I, here shell found will not. From noon till now looking for

taa haalaa migardam amaa chizi peidaa nakarde-am."

But anything found I.

/donba:le/ /sadaf/
/mi:gardam/ /i:nja:/ /sadaf/ /peyda:/ /nemi:šavad/
/az/ /zor/ /ta:/ /ha:la:/ /mi:gardam/ /ama:/ /či:zi:/
/peyda:/ /nakardeam/

"دنبال صدف میگردم ،اینجا صدف پیدا نمیشود. از ظهر تا حالا میگردم اما چیزی پیدا نکردم."

There are two pro-forms, "digging" and "he". "Digging out?" is a "pro-sentence". "He" is a "subjective pronoun."

89. "No, of course not; don"t worry." (Rebecca.p.17)

_ "na, albate ke harfi nakhaahi zad. Negaraan nabaash."

"No, of course that speaking not will say. Worry doesn"t.

/na/ /albate/ /ke/ /harfi:/ /nakha:hi:/ /zad/ /Negara:n/ /naba:š/

" نه، البته که حرفی نخواهی زد. نگران نباش."

There are three pro-forms, "no", "of course not", "don"t worry". All of these three pro-forms are "pro-sentence.

90. Then there was another sound, a much quit sound...(Sherlock Holmes.p.21)

_ Bad sedaaye digary aamad, sedaaye besiyar khafif...

Then voice another came, voice very slow...

/bad/ /seda:ye/ /di:gari:/ /a:mad/ /seda:ye/ /besya:r/ /khafi:f/

بعد صدای دیگری آمد،صدای بسیار خفیف.......

There are three pro-forms, "there", "another", "a much quit sound". "There" is a "demonstrative pronoun". "Another" is a "reciprocal pronoun". "A much quit sound" is a "pro-adjective".

91. "Did you marry her?" (Sherlock Holmes.p.32)

 "NO"

_ Baa u ezdevaaj kardid?

With her marry you?

"Na"

/ba:/ /u:/ /ezdeva:j/ /kardi:d/

"با او ازدواج کردید؟"

There are three pro-forms here, "you", "her" and "no". "You" is a "subjective pronoun". "Her" is an "objective pronoun". "No" is a "pro-sentence "and it is a short answer to the previous sentence. There is no problem in this part.

92. "Most interesting, Holmes!" I said. (Sherlock Holmes.p.37)

_ Goftam: "Holmes, kheyli jaalebe."

Said i:" Holmes, very interesting it is."

/goftam/ /holmz/ /kheyli:/ /ja:lebe/

گفتم: "هولمز، خیلی جالبه."

There are two pro-forms, "most interesting", "I". "Most interesting" is a "pro-sentence" and also a "pro-adjective". "I" is a "subjective pronoun". There is no problem in its translation.

93. "...She"ll have to." (Sherlock Holmes.p.42)

_ "...majbur mishavad."

"....force to do she.

/majbor/ /mi:šavad/

"........مجبور میشود."

There is only one pro-form, "she"ll have to". "She"ll have to" is a "pro-sentence. There is no problem in the translation.

There are some sentences from the book "The Remains of the Day" by "Kazuo Ishiguro" which is translated by "Najaf Daryaa Bandari".

94. It seems increasingly likely that I really will undertake the expedition that has been preoccupying my imagination now for some days.

_ Az gharaare malum ehtemaale azimat be in safari ke chand ruz ast

According to the probability leaving to this trip that many days are

Asbaab-e eshteghaal khaater shode ruz be ruz daarad bishtar mishavad.

Cause inflammation danger was day –to-day become increase.

There are four pro-forms, "it", "that", "I", "my". "It" is a "dummy pronoun". But in the translation it didn"t translate maybe because we don"t have any "dummy pronoun "in Farsi. The translator tried to translate the; dummy pronoun" according to the Farsi rules. "That" is a "relative pronoun". "I" is a" subjective pronoun

95. I should say, which I will undertake alone, in the comfort of Mr. Faraday"s Ford ; an expedition which, as I foresee it, will take me through much of the finest countryside of England to the West country,...

_ Baayad beguyam ke baa otomobil-e rahat ?aaghaay-e Faraday enferaada ?aazem hastam va in tor ke pishbini mikonam dar raah nahiy West country maghaadire ziyaadi az zibaatarin manaazer sarzamin Engelestan...

"Which I will undertake alone" is a "pro-adverb" and it translated as "enferada" in this sentence.

96. Coming out of the blue as it did, I did not quite know how to reply to such a suggestion.

_ Bandeh az ?asanja ke paak ghaafelgir shodeh bodam, dorost nemidaanestam che javaabi baayad be in pishnahaad bedaham.

"As it did" is a "pro- verb" which is the substitution of the previous sentence, the translator translated it completely different from the source language. "How" is a "pro-adjective", again it is translated differently from the source language.

97. This was not the first time my employer had raised such a question; indeed, it seems to be something which genuinely troubles him.

_ Aval bar ham nabud ke arbaab yek hamcho matlabi ra pish mikeshidand; dar vaaghe in masa"ale goyaa haghighatan asbaabe negaraani khaatere ishaan shode bud. 

"Something" is an "indefinite pronoun" which is translated differently in the target language. 

98. It seemed to me that I was going in by the iron entrance gates.

_ Be nazaram miresid moghaabele dar-e ?aahani montahi be jade otomobil row istaade-im.

In this sentence, as you see, we have "it" as "dummy pronoun", "me" as "Objective pronoun ", "I" as "subjective pronoun ". In translation, "it" does not translate because in "Farsi" we do not have such a pronoun. The "subjective pronoun "is translated as "am" in the translation.

99. But let me make it immediately clear what I mean by this; what I mean to say is that Miss Kenton"s letter set off a certain chain of ideas ...

_ Vali ejaaze befarmaaid manzuram raa roshan konam; mikhaastam arz konam hamin name Miss Kenton baaes shod ke ...

"It" is an "objective pronoun" which is related to the "Manzoram". "This" is a "demonstrative pronoun" which is related to the next sentence. "This" has been omitted in this sentence.

Chapter Four

4. Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusion of this study. There is first a summary of the study including the objectives. Then, there is a talk on the findings. This will be followed by the conclusion, implication and suggestions for further study.

4.1. Summary

This research has focused on the translation of the different kinds of pro-forms from English to Persian. There are different kinds of pro-forms in English such as pro-noun, pro-verb, pro-adjective, pro-adverb, and pro-sentence. In translating the pro-forms, the translators usually face problems. So in order to have a good translation, the translator should be aware of these problems.

The purpose of this study was a) to investigate the pro-form translation from English into Persian b) to investigate the problems that may occur during the translation c) to provide an appropriate way for translating these forms. During the translation of the pro-forms, the translators face many problems so the researcher tried to first highlight these problems and then to find out the appropriate ways for translating them.

More specifically, the following questions are posed:

1. What is the typical pro-form substitution practice from English into Persian?

2. Can translated texts be improved by other pro-form devices?

The researcher first chose some sentences from three books, namely, "Rebecca" by Daphne Du maurier and the selected translated version was the one by Nazgol Nikooei. The other book was "Sherlock Holmes" by Arthur Conan Doyle which is translated by "Moniro sadate Seyed Kordestany". The last one was "The Remains of the Day" by Kazuo Ishiguro and translated by Najaf Daryabandary.  A selection of sentences was compared with Persian version and the problems were highlighted. Finally some proposals were given.

These samples and their translations show that although there are different kinds of pro-forms in both English and Persian language, the translators usually ignore these pro-forms and omit them in the translation. In some parts, the pro-forms of one kind are changed to the other kind in the translation. This usually happens because of the target language rules.

Table 2. Summarizes the whole analysis

 

Pro-form

Translated form

English form

Persian form

Number of occurrences

Pro-verb →

Noun phrase

That is certain

Haghighate mosalem

1

Objective pronoun →

Subjective pronoun

Us

m

1

Reciprocal pronoun →

Prepositional noun phrase

Each other

Beine ma

1

Negative pronoun →

Ø

Not

Nothing

Ø

Ø

2

Relative pronoun →

Deictic expression

Who

 

Hamoni ke

1

Separate sentence →

Ø

You know

 

Ø

1

Pro-sentence →

Verbal phrase

Couldn"t possibly

 

Moteshakeram

1

Pro-sentence →

 Ø

Yourfreind

Want to

She would

Ø

Ø

Ø

3

Distributive pronoun →

 Ø

 

One

Ø

1

Objective pronoun →

Reciprocal pronoun

 

Her

Ham

1

Subjective pronoun →

Indefinite pronoun

 

They

Hameh

1



 

Pro-form

Translated form

English form

Persian form

Number of occurrences

Demonstrative pronoun →

Noun phrase

That

Vajhe moshtarak

1

Demonstrative pronoun →

Adjective

This

Avalan

1

Indefinite pronoun →

Ø

Something

Anyone

Ø

Ø

4

Negative pronoun →

A full sentence

Nothing

Taghirate ziadi dade nashode

1

Dummy pronoun →

Ø

It

This

There...

Ø

Ø

Ø

11

Relative pronoun →

 

Ø

Which

Who

Ø

Ø

2

Dummy pronoun →

Demonstrative pronoun

There

It is

Aan

In

2

Subjective pronoun →

Passive form

You

Nemishavad

1

 

Pro-adverb →

Ø

Then

After all

Ø

 Ø

2

Definite subject →

Definite inseparable subject pron.

She

Mikard

1



 

Pro-form

Translated form

English form

Persian form

Number of occurrences

Indefinite pronoun →

Definite noun

Something

Any

Mozoiee

sadaf

2

Definite objective →

Definite inseparable

Her

Mikonad

1

Subjective pronoun →

 

Ø

I

Ø

1

Demonstrative pronoun →

 

Ø

That

There

All those

Ø

Ø

Ø

11

Pro-adverb →

Pro-adverb

However

Albateh

1

Demonstrative pronoun →

Verb

There

Shod

1

Objective pronoun →

Ø

Us

Me

It

Ø

Ø

Ø

6

Possessive pronoun →

 

Ø

Mine

Ø

1

Prepositional pronoun →

Adverbial

pronoun

That

Ba"d az

1

Pro-sentence →

Sentence expansion

All right

Hameh chiz khob ast

1

Pro-sentence →

Pro-sentence

Dislikeyou Has it?

Khoshbin nist vag

2



Pro-form

Translated form

English form

Persian form

Number of occurrences

Prepositional pronoun →

Adverb of place

It

Kolbeh

1

Pro-sentence

question →

Pro-senten

affirmative

Hear that?

Goush kon

1

Subjective pronoun →

Objective pronoun

He

Yash

1

 

Past tense →

Future tense

Siad

Harfi nakhaham zad

1

Pro-verb →

 

Ø

Did I?

You do

Ø

Ø

2

Pro-adjective →

 

Ø

Poor devil

Such a pity

Ø

Ø

2

Subjective pronoun →

Subjective pronoun

She

Vey

1

Pro-adjective →

Pro-adjective

 

All

Har seye ma

1

Negative pronoun →

Negative pronoun

Nothing

Kari bar nemiayad

1

Verb →

Ø

Was

Ø

1

Definite pronoun →

Phrase

The one

Haman khaliji ke.

1

Dummy pronoun →

Expanded phrase

It

Baraye aanja

1

4.2. Conclusion

The results indicate that 34% of the English pro-forms are not rendered into Persian at all. This has been sometimes due to inattention or lack of correspondence between English and Persian in those contexts. In a majority of cases this has been due to inattention. A tiny 13% of the renderings show one-to-one correspondence between the English version and the Persian translation, however. This shows that the translators have not been successful in providing appropriate translations. The proposed versions prove that this failure by the translators can, with some attention and hard work, be improved. Any way such productions are indicative of the status of translation market in Iran.

13.33% of the renderings belong to pro-sentences. None of these constructions have been treated appropriately. A more frequent item is demonstrative pronouns with 8.88%. These also have the fate as of the previous item.

The rest of the pro-forms (48%) belong to a variation of other forms. These are not rendered appropriately, however. A quick glance at this analysis reveals important critical finding that nearly 90% of all the items have not been rendered appropriately. This obviously calls for a uniform mass effort on the part of translations to produce reading materials that receive maximum attention.

A very small proportion (2.22%) of all renderings belongs to the rendering of subjective pronoun. Among the subjective pronouns renderings 40% belongs to appropriate ones (one –to-one correspondence) and 60% belongs to other forms or inappropriate ones. This is in fact very much shocking as the proposed versions prove that they are among the easiest to be substituted.

4.44% of the renderings belong to pro-verbs and objective pronouns. These constructions have been rendered using other forms, however. 2.22% belongs to reciprocal pronouns. These also have been rendered using other forms. The occurrence of negative pronouns and relative pronoun is 4.44% of which 50% have been rendered appropriately.

4.3. Implication

This study has focused on different aspects of the pro-forms. The implication of this study is to make the translators familiar with different aspect of the pro-forms and also to show them how they should translate these pro-forms in the sentences. The other implication points to the status of translation in Iran that needs a revolutionary jolt. The Iranian book market is inundated with translated books that only a few can be considered good translations. This study, therefore, may shed some lights on translation problems and pave the way for translators to follow.

4.4. Suggestion for further studies

1. The same study can be replicated with more books and texts so that a more generalized conclusion can be reached.

2. A study could be carried out on the translation of cohesive devices in English and Persian.

3. Theme –Rheme is another issue which deserves attention in this regard as well.

Chapter Five

5. References

 Adjective pronoun (2008). Available at: English Language Adjective Pronoun24. htm

 Anaphora (2008). Available at: All Users\Documents\Anaphora - Glossary Definition -

Anaphora (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora

Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman (Longman Linguistics Library) p.60.

Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating. New York: Longman. (pp.83-123)

Brown, K. & Miller J. (2002). A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure.p.101.

Cataphora (2008). Available at: Cataphora - Glossary Definition - UsingEnglish_com.htm

Cataphora (2008).Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cataphora

Catford, Cunnison J. (1917). A Linguistic Theory of Translation.

Collinge N. E (1990). An Encyclopedia of Language. London Routledge.

Conan Doyal, A. (2005). Sherlock Holmes. Translated by Monirolsadat Kourdestanchi. Vajeh

Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics 5th Ed Oxford Blackwall.

Fallahi. M. (2000). Contrastive Analysis in Linguistic.

Function word (2008). Available at: Function word _ everything on Function word. Htm

Function word (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function word

Falk, Julia S. (1973-1978). Linguistics and Language. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (pp.226-227)

Finch, G. (2000). Linguistic Terms and Concepts. New York: St. Matins" Press.

Hatim, B. & Munday, J. (2004). Translation. Routledge.p.3.

Interrogative word (2008). Available at: Interrogative word - Everything on Interrogative word.htm

Interrogative word (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogative_word

Kies, D. retrieved from (2008). Available at: English 2126 Modern English Grammar The Grammatical Foundations of style Grammar Around and Beyond the clause. 3. Htm.p.1.

Langacker, R.W. (1988). Language and Its Structure, Some Fundamental Linguistic Concept. (pp.31-130)

Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning –based Translation. University Press of America, Inc. (pp.72-120)

Michael Herrmann (2004). Available at: Problems of Translation.htm.p.1.

Maurier, D. Du (1999); simplified by A.S.M. Ronaldson; introduction and questions by Gwyneth Roberts. Rebecca. Translated by Nikooei Nazgol. Tehran: Farhangestan-e Zaban

Miremadi, S. A. Ph.D. (1991). Theories and Translation and Interpretation. Published by SAMT.p.23.

Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to Translation. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. (pp.3-5-10-19-26)

Personal pronoun (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_pronoun

Port. R. retrieved from (2008). Problem of Translation.htm

Pro-adjective (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-adjective

Pro-adjective (2007). Available at: www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAProAdjective.htm

Pro-adverb (2008). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pro-adverb

Pro-adverb (2007).Available at: www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAPro-Adverb.htm

Pro-form (2007). Available at: Pro-form English Dictionary & Translation by Babylon.htm.p.1.

Pro-form (2008). Available at: Everything on Pro-form. Htm.p.1

Pro-form (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/, the free encyclopedia-dafe2.htm

Pro-form (2008). Available at: Pro-form in TutorGig Encyclopedia 2.htm

Pro-form (2002). Available at:  Proform_ the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition_ 2000.htm

Pronouns (2008). Available at:  English Grammar _ Learn English Grammar Pronouns 17.htm

Pronoun (2008). Available at:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoun - 42k

Pronoun (2008). Available at: Distinctions made in pronouns.htm

Pronoun (2008). index .htm

Pronoun (2008). Available at: function of in English grammar19.htm.p.1

Pro-sentence (2008). Available at: Everything on Pro-sentence. htm

Pro Verb (2008). Pro Verb.htm (October 28, 2004).p.1.

Pro-verb (2008). Available at: - Everything on Pro-verb. Htm

Pro-verb (2008). Available at: En. Wikipedia..Org/wiki/pro o verb

Radford, Andrew (1988). Transformational Grammar. P.79.

Richard, J., PLATT. J and Webet.H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London. p.293

Relative pronoun (2008). Available at: Everything on Relative pronoun. Htm

Rodman, F. (1988). An Introduction to Language.

Roman Jacobson (1959), on linguistic aspects of translation, in: R.Brower (ed.), On Translation, Harvard University Press. (pp. 232-239)

Richard Nordquist (2008). All Users\Documents\anaphora - definition and examples of anaphora.htm

Sanati Far, M. S. (2008). Available at: sanatifar.blogfa.com/post-62.aspx - 20

Steinbeck, J. (2003). Of Mice and Men. Translated by Elham Tabeh Ahmadi. Jungle

Solhjou, A. (1998). Discourse and Translation. Nashr Markaz. (pp. 94-97)

TalkPro-form (2008).Available at: En. Wikipedia.org/wiki/pro-verb

Weak pronoun (2008). Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/weak pronoun

Widdewson, H.G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford University press

Yule, G. (1985). The Study of Language. The Press Syndicate of the Cambridge. P.131.




Published - March 2009










Submit your article!

Read more articles - free!

Read sense of life articles!

E-mail this article to your colleague!

Need more translation jobs? Click here!

Translation agencies are welcome to register here - Free!

Freelance translators are welcome to register here - Free!








Please see some ads as well as other content from TranslationDirectory.com:


Free Newsletter

Subscribe to our free newsletter to receive news from us:

 
Menu
Recommend This Article
Read More Articles
Search Article Index
Read Sense of Life Articles
Submit Your Article
Obtain Translation Jobs
Visit Language Job Board
Post Your Translation Job!
Register Translation Agency
Submit Your Resume
Find Freelance Translators
Buy Database of Translators
Buy Database of Agencies
Obtain Blacklisted Agencies
Advertise Here
Use Free Translators
Use Free Dictionaries
Use Free Glossaries
Use Free Software
Vote in Polls for Translators
Read Testimonials
Read More Testimonials
Read Even More Testimonials
Read Yet More Testimonials
And More Testimonials!
Admire God's Creations

christianity portal
translation jobs


 

 
Copyright © 2003-2019 by TranslationDirectory.com
Legal Disclaimer
Site Map