الفهرس 
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 146 |  |  |
| | | from | 146 | | |
Abstract
This work has been devoted to discussing the problems that encounter a translator as he/she renders the conditional sentences in the Glorious Qurtaan into English. More specifically, it targets the verb forms after the conditional particles tin, tioaa and law in the protasis (If-clause) on the one hand, and the problem of rendering modality in the apodosis (the main clause) on the other.
In the present study, I have looked at their varied syntactico-semantic properties of the conditional particles and how they affect the verb forms following them. The purpose of the thesis is to hold a comparative contrastive analysis of how verb forms in conditional structures are translated into English in some selected verses of the Glorious Qurtaan. So, I have used for comparison and contrast three major translations of the Glorious Qurtaan: Yusuf Ali’s, Pickthal’s, and AI Hilaly & Khan’s. To clarify things further, I have marked Yusuf Ali’s as Version I, Pickthal’s Version 2, and Al Hilaly & Khan’s Version 3.
Having analyzed some examples, it is worth noting that all three translations contain a good many differences, and simultaneously share lots of similarities. I have found out that the differences appear according to the translator’s understanding of the context of the situation. Evidently enough, I cannot judge that a given translator followed a given approach to translating conditionals, for it depends, for the most part, on the translator’s evaluation of the context. Pickthal, for example, neglects the context of the situation and, thereby, produces a translation misrepresentation. In the following verse, which contains three consecutive conditional structures, each of which is introduced by latin.
”If they are expelled, never will they go out with them; and if they are attacked (in fight), they will never help them; and if they do help them, they will turn their backs; so they will receive no help ”, (Trans. Yusuf Ali).
”(For) indeed if they are driven out they go not out with them, and indeed if they are attacked they help them not, and indeed if they had helped them they would have turned and fled, and then they would not have been victorious”, (Trans. Pickthal).
inferred the assUl
future h} I under
”Surely, if they (the Jews) are expelled, never will they (hypocrites) go out with them; and if they are attacked, they will never help them. And (even) if they do help them, they (hypocrites) will turn their backs, and they will not be victorious”, (Trans. Al Hilaly & Khan).
simple -l ought to past mo follows:
As matter of fact, Pickthal translates the first two latin conditional structures which precede the one in question_as virtually similar to Versions 1 and 3. However, all of a sudden, Pickthal moves on from the structure if + present simple + present simple to the totally different if +past.