تحلیل مقایسه‌ای دو ترجمۀ فارسی کلیله و دمنه (برپایه حکایت بوزنگان / حمدونگان)

این نوشتار در پی تطبیق حکایت بوزنگان کلیله و دمنه با دو ترجمۀ فارسی قرن ششم هجری، یعنی ترجمه‌های نصرالله منشی و محمد بن عبدالله بخاری است. نگارندگان تلاش کرده‌اند تا با روش توصیفی تطبیقی به تحلیل ساختاری این دو ترجمه بپردازند و در ضمنِ آن به طور خاص به شیوۀ آنها در برابریابی واژگانی نیز توجّه دهند. همچنین به ویژه به ترجمۀ واژۀ «یراعه» در این حکایت توجه شده، چه گویی یکی از مترجمان در ترجمۀ آن به خطا افتاده است. از بارزترین نتایج این پژوهش آن است که نصرالله منشی می‌کوشد تا برای انتقال مفاهیمی که در زبان مبدا بیان شده، قالب‌های تازه‌ای در زبان مقصد بیافریند، به طوری که هیچ بخشی از صورت و معنی از میان نرود؛ و به همین روی دست به ابداع متنی تازه زده است ولی محمد بخاری، تا حد امکان اصل متن عربی را به فارسی برگردانیده و ترجمۀ او از نظر سبک نوشتار و ساده‌نویسی به متن عربیِ ابن مقفّع نزدیک‌تر است. همچنین بخاری در برابریابی واژگان، بیشتر به معادل‌های فارسی گرایش دارد ولی در ترجمۀ منشی، عربی‌گرایی (کاربرد واژگان عربی، استشهاد به آیات، امثال و اشعار تازی) بیشتر دیده می شود.

The Comparative Analysis Between Two Persian Translationof Kalila and Dimna (Case Study: The story of the monkeys)

AbstractThis study seeks to adapt the narrative of The Apes in Kalila and Dimna with two Persian translations of Nasrallah Monshi and Muhammad Bukhari written in the 6th century AH. The authors have attempted to analyze these two translations in a descriptivecomparative way and to pay particular attention to their method of lexical equivalence. Also, in particular, the translation of the term ‘Yara’ah’ has been taken into account in this narrative, as if one of the translators has failed to translate it. One of the most important results of this research is that Nasrallah Monshi tries to create new templates in the target language for the transfer of concepts expressed in the source language, so that no part of the form and meaning disappears. He has therefore begun to invent new texts. ‏But, Muhammad Bukhari has translated the original Arabic text into Persian as far as possible, and his translation is closer to the Arabic text of Ibn alMuqaffa’. Also, Muhammad Bukhari also tends to be more in line with Persian equivalents in terms of vocabulary, but Arabicism in Nasrallah Monshi’s translation (the use of Arabic vocabulary, an affirmation of verses, proverbs and greedy poems), is more common.IntroductionThis study is about the correspondence of Bozanagan (Hamdungan) anecdote of Kalila and Dimna with Persian translations by Nasrollah Monshi and Mohammad Ibn Abdullah Bokhari and attempts to provide an analytical view of the lexical equivalents in this anecdote. Among the anecdotes, there must be a brief anecdotal selection that the Arabic vocabulary of two Persian translations was compared in the form of an article.In addition, we preferred to choose an anecdote with a highlight. This anecdote is a complete in terms of structure and narrative, and there is a notable interpretation (the word ‘idiom’) in which one of the two translators of the Kalila and Dimna has failed in its translation. In translating this anecdote, translators sometimes translate the Arabic word of the source text into a more notional Arabic word for Persian speakers and sometimes use the same word or a Persian word for translation.Material & MethodsThe recognition and extrapolation of the Arabic words in the above translations, the categorization and then the comparison with the Arabic vocabulary of the source text were done to specifically answer the following two questions: How much is the use of Arabic vocabulary in the Persian translation of Kalila and Dimna? Secondly, are the Arabic words of the target text exactly same as Arabic words of the source text? Or, has the translator chosen more Arabic familiar words for them the Persian equivalence of the Arabic words?The difference of this study with other researches is sentence by sentence analysis about the style difference of two translations. After that, the application of Arabic words in two translations and their differences with Arabic vocabulary of the source text is checked with statistical analysis. Also at the same time, the superiority of each translator against the other one, illustrated over the lexical equality by giving an example.Discussion of Results & ConclusionsOnethird of Arabic words of translations were exactly the same as the Arabic words in the source text, indicating that those words were still used in their original meaning in Persian at that time. Monshi’s contribution to the use of these words is more than Bokhari.