Arapça Dil Kurallarından Kaynaklanan İhtilâfların Meâllere Aktarımı: Bayraktar Bayraklı ve Mustafa Öztürk Meâli Örneği
Öz
Bu çalışmada Arapça dil kurallarından kaynaklanan ihtilâfların meâllere ne ölçüde aktarıldığı Bayraktar Bayraklı ve Mustafa Öztürk meâli özelinde incelenmiştir. Çalışmada bu iki meâl; hakîkat-mecâz, çokanlamlılık, zamirin mercii, bazı bağlaç ve edatlar ile ilgili farklı değerlendirmeler, hazif/eksiltili cümle ve takdîm-te’hîr olmak üzere altı dil kuralı açısından üçer örnekle karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuçta, anlamın özünde ciddi bir farklılığa sebep olmayan ihtilâfların meâle yansıtılmadığı ve dolayısıyla her iki meâlde de bu konuda isâbet sağlandığı saptanmıştır. Zira anlamın özüne etki etmeyen farklılıkların meâle yansıtılması, mealin kapsamı nazara alındığında hem imkân dışı hem de gereksizdir. Diğer taraftan mananın özünde ciddi farklara neden olan ihtilâfların kimi zaman meâle aktarıldığı kimi zaman ise aktarılmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu nedenle her iki meâlde de bu açıdan bazı eksikliklerin bulunduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Çünkü tercih edilmeyen görüşlerin dipnot ya da açıklama bölümünde meâle yansıtılması önem arz etmektedir. Aksi halde âyetlerdeki anlam zenginliği meâle aktarılmadığı gibi tercih edilen anlamın kastedilmeyen anlam olma ihtimâli de mümkündür.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Transferring of the Disputes Arising from Arabic Language Rules to the Translations of Qur'an: The Examples of Bayraktar Bayraklı and Mustafa Öztürk's Translations
Abstract
Language rules are one of the main elements of the interpretation of the Qur’ân in different ways. The Qur’ân, an Arabic book, has used the rules of this language in the most beautiful way. Because the Qur’ân is a unique book not only in terms of meaning but also in terms of word. As a matter of fact, every language scholar has spoken about the language and style wonders of the Qur'ân as much as he can. It is seen that linguistic analysis has an important place in the tafsir written in the first periods. This situation reveals how important the language rules are in the interpretation of the Qur’ân. Indeed, it is a well-known and undeniable fact that even some inter-sectarian disputes are based on language rules. The interpretation of the Qur'ân from different perspectives is directly related to the correct understanding of the language. For this reason, it is impossible to think of any commentator's interpretation of the Qur'ân by ignoring the language rules.
In this study, the reflections of the differences arising from the Arabic language rules to the translations were examined. The study was carried out specifically for Bayraktar Bayraklı and Mustafa Ozturk translations. These two translations were compared with three examples in terms of six language rules. The following results were achieved in the study:
In two verses that are clearly evident that the metaphorical meaning is intended, both translators preferred the metaphorical meaning and transferred it to their translations. However, in the verse where the true and metaphorical meaning is possible, Bayraklı only transferred the meaning he preferred to his translation, but Ozturk gave the meaning he didn’t prefer in the footnote too.
In the verse, where the meaning of the polynomial word is easily determined from the context, both translators didn’t need to mention the different meanings that the word has. Bayraklı reflected different meaning of only one of the words in his translation that cannot be easily determined from the context. Ozturk did the same. However, both translators transferred various meanings of the word in different verses to their translations.
In a verse where the authority of the pronoun did not cause serious differences on the basis of meaning, both translators did not reflect this conflict in their translations. Regarding the two verses in which the authority of the pronoun caused a serious change in terms of meaning: Bayraklı only conveyed his preferred opinion to his translation and did not mention different evaluations. On the other hand, Ozturk stated the dispute about the authority of the pronoun in a footnote only in one verse.
In one of the two verses that came in the same sentence form, Bayraklı made a translation by drawing attention to the “hazf”. İn the other verse Ozturk made same thing. However, neither of them referred to the “hazf”. In the other example that the “hazf” is mentioned, Bayraklı made a translation without drawing attention to the “hazf”. But Ozturk accepted the “hazf” and translated the verse according to that.
“Takdîm-ta’hîr" is used in the sentence for various purposes in Arabic language. One of the "takdîm-ta’hîr" varieties that draw attention in the Qur'an is the one done through "hasr". "hasr" is simply to change the place of the sentence elements to emphasize meaning. In one verse, Bayraklı translated it by paying attention to “hasr”, in another verse, Ozturk made that. The third verse in which “takdîm-ta’hîr” is mentioned has been translated by Bayraklı regardless of “takdîm-ta’hîr”. But Ozturk accepted “takdîm-ta’hîr” among the words and translated the verse according to that.
As a result of transferring the differences arising from language rules to these two translations, it is possible to say the following: It is unnecessary to reflect the differences that do not have a serious effect on the essence of the meaning. Because the translation is not as comprehensive as tafsir. Bayraklı and Ozturk did the right thing by not reflecting such differences to their translations. However, differences that seriously affect the essence of meaning need to be transferred to translations. Because there is a possibility that the meaning reflected in the translations may not be the correct meaning. Therefore, instead of giving the preferred meaning to the reader as final and precise information, it is a more correct method to make the reader feel this difference. In this regard, it can be mentioned that both translations are partially missing.
Keywords
