ضربه كفا

H

Hamster Huey

Senior Member
Urdu - Karachi
Hello peeps

E W Lane's Lexicon says ضَرَبَهُ كَفًّا means He struck him a slap with the hand. If this translation is correct then why is كف in the accusative (mansoob) case?

Thanks
 
    • How could it be تمييز, which is supposed to give additional details about another component of the sentence?
     
    There are different types of tamyiz and I don't think that any one of them applies here
     
    If I may slightly shift the focus of this thread.......
    I know Lane is one of the early (before 20th century) luminaries in the field of "Orientalism", and we should all genuflect at the mention of his name, but if he truly translated ضَرَبَهُ كَفًّا into English meaning "He struck him a slap with the hand", I fear he may have been exposed to the Egyptian sun much too long. The translation is positively absurd.....totally wacky....In effect, it's not "English".

    I don't know why so many translators feel they have to translate (especially from Arabic) into this sort of ecclesiastical (church-like) or pseudo-Bibilical, absurdly childish sort of English. No one has ever said and no one will ever say "He struck him a slap with the hand". Even the Arabic doesn't "say" that.

    The correct translation is simply: "He slapped him" Khalaas. That's what "slap" means......to hit someone's face with your hand....but you don't have to give this extended explanation like you're talking to a 2-year old. It's like saying: "He chewed the meat (with his teeth) before swallowing it" or "He jumped across the small river (with his legs and feet) and made it safetly to the other side."
     
    To be fair I don't think that his goal was to produce litterary English. It's a lexicon and he was trying to show the structure of the Arabic language for non-Arabs. The only way to do this is by giving the reader a literal translation (word-for-word translation). This is particurlary important when it comes to المفعول المطلق and other Arabic structures that are rare or don't exist in English.

    This is actually a very good exampel to show the reader that the Arabic original was

    ضربه ضرب كف and that كفا is taking the place of the omitted ضرب

    He struck him a slap with the hand
     
    Abbe said:
    To be fair I don't think that his goal was to produce litterary English. It's a lexicon and he was trying to show the structure of the Arabic language for non-Arabs. The only way to do this is by giving the reader a literal translation (word-for-word translation). This is particurlary important when it comes to المفعول المطلق and other Arabic structures that are rare or don't exist in English.
    Click to expand...
    "He struck him a slap with the hand" is not a "literal" translation of ضَرَبَهُ كَفًّا

    The idiom/phrase "struck(strike) a slap" does not exist in English. The word "hand" does not appear in the Arabic original. What appears is كفّ which "literally" means "palm". How can this be called a "literal" translation at all?

    I know it happens a lot.....I was subject to it myself as an undergraduate. But continuing to explain Arabic by means of incorrect and even non-existent, made-up English simply confuses the student to an alarming degree from which he might not recover.....ever.
     
    I think it is literal enough in order to give the reader an understanding of the Arabic structure.

    I don't think that there is something like ضربه ضربا in English (even though I might be wrong), but I think it's necessary to explain what the Arabic is saying even if there isn't a similar structure in English. Then it's up to the reader to find a way to translate that into proper English if he wants. I agree that if you are translating a book into English you should translate it to "He slapped him", but if you are teaching Arabic to non-Arabs it would be "wrong" to just say that ضربه كفا or ضربه ضرب سوط means "He slapped him" and "He whiped him" without explaining the grammar.
     
    Consider a sentence like "He slept the sleep of the just." This seems to me to be close enough to the Arabic المفعول المطلق (although I may be mistaken).

    Once you use a sentence like this to explain the concept of المفعول المطلق to an English speaker, then translations like "He struck him a slap..." , although not idiomatic in themselves, can serve to indicate a nuance in meaning and grammar that is not easily conveyable otherwise.

    2¢

    Edit: I'll just add that I mean a literal translation like this is justifiable in a dictionary or pedagogical setting. In translating a narrative, a more fluent and idiomatic translation is probably more called for.
     
    Last edited:
    Abu Talha said:
    Consider a sentence like "He slept the sleep of the just." This seems to me to be close enough to the Arabic المفعول المطلق (although I may be mistaken).

    Once you use a sentence like this to explain the concept of المفعول المطلق to an English speaker, then translations like "He struck him a slap..." , although not idiomatic in themselves, can serve to indicate a nuance in meaning and grammar that is not easily conveyable otherwise.

    2¢

    Edit: I'll just add that I mean a literal translation like this is justifiable in a dictionary or pedagogical setting. In translating a narrative, a more fluent and idiomatic translation is probably more called for.
    Click to expand...
    I think it would be "He gave him a slap"
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top