Equivalence of 'Lamma' in the Holy Quran Translations

'Lamma' is chosen as an example of having or not equivalence or equivalences in four English translations of the H. Quran. Dealing with it semantically, 'Lamma' as an adverbial noun or a particle (conjunction) has certain meanings in Arabic grammar. It has more than one type that carries different meanings. Assessment of rendering 'lamma' relies on Nida's (1964) types of equivalences (formal and dynamic); both kinds are reflected in different terms by Newmark’s (1988) type of translations, i.e. semantic and communicative. The aim of the study is to investigate the translation of these types and to high light the differences in the translations as well as to detect the equivalences of 'lamma' in English.The research is trying to answer the following questions :


449
‫ج‬ Hilali & Khan (1417A.H./1978, and two of them, Arberry (1980) & Irving (2003 have English TL as their mother tongue. There are three types of 'lamma'; only the first type has more than 105 times existing in the H. Quran, while the second and third types have occurred less than 10 times. Thus, six verses (aayas) are chosen to assess their translations concerning the first type of 'lamma'. On the other hand, four verses are chosen concerning other types to assess their translations. Assessment of rendering 'lamma' relies on Nida's (1964) types of equivalences (formal & dynamic); both kinds are reflected in different terms by Newmark's (1988) type of translations, i.e. semantic and communicative. The aim of this research work is trying to investigate the translation of these types and to high light the differences in the translations as well as to detect the equivalences of 'lamma' in English. Moreover, it is to answer these two research questions: 1-The translators succeeded or not in rendering the grammatical meanings of 'lamma'. Additionally, how they are tackling the difference in meanings. We will know 'lamma' have one or more equivalences in the H. Quran's English translations', Arberry [Arb.] (1980), al-Hilali &Khan [H.&K.] (1417 A.H./1978), Mir Ahmed Ali [Mir A.A.] (1988) and Irving [Irv.] (2003). 2-Investigate whether renderings of 'lamma' are different from one translator to another; do they depend on time (old or modern), or culture (Muslim or Christian, Knowing Arabic (source language) or not).

II.
Translation and Equivalence One of the central tasks of translation is that of defining equivalence and its nature and conditions in translation (See Catford, 1965, cited in Al-Sulaimaan & M. Khoshaba, 2018. Nida andTaber (1982 cited in Al-Sulaimaan &Khoshaba, 2018) say that translation is to reproduce the closest natural equivalence of the source language message in meanings and style of the receptor language (p.761). They "focus on both content and form of the message to reproduce the same effect on the source text" (p. 791). Newmark cited in Al-Sulaimaan & Khoshaba, 2018 interpret equivalence based on each text, i.e. in terms of function and communicative effect.
Equivalent is defined by Hornby (1995: s.v equivalent) as something being equal in value, meaning, and importance. Approaches to equivalence differ completely. Equivalence has the concept of sameness and similarity of meaning or effect in translation. However, in the 1960s and 1970s it was meant that ST and TT share some kind of 'sameness'. In fact, the controversy was related to the kind and degree of sameness which showed the different kinds of equivalence (Panou, 2013). Equivalence "is variously regarded as a necessary condition for translation, an obstacle to progress in translation studies, or a useful category for describing translation." (Baker, Mona, & Saldanha, 2011:s.v. equivalence, p.96). The theorists who define translation in terms of equivalence are (Kenny, 2013): 1) Catford (1965) "the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL)." 2) Nida and Taber (1969) it is "reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the …[SL] message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style" (Nida &Taber, 1974:12) 3) Toury (1980) "a translation will be any target language text which is presented or regarded a such within the target system itself, on whatever grounds." (Toury, 1995:27) 4) Pym (1992) "equivalence is supposed to define translation, and translation, …, defines equivalence." And 5) Koller (1995) "translation can be understood as the result of a text-processing activity, by means of which a source-language text is transposed into a targetlanguage text." However, the researcher will deal with equivalence as a relation between ST and TT in translation. Nida (1964) presents two types of equivalences: formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence is "a matching, in the translational process, of the source language and the target language concerning grammatical categories." (Laver & Mason,n.d. s.v. formal equivalence,p.48). That is related to the form and meaning of terms. Dynamic equivalence is a translation type which seeks to achieve the same communicative understanding by the intended recipient as would some native recipient of the source text (Laver & Mason,p.38). Nida believes that formal equivalence of the TT highly resembles the ST both in form and content whereas in dynamic equivalence an effort is made to convey the ST message in the TT as naturally as possible (Panou, 2013).

Newmark's Types of Translations (1981)
Newmark suggests semantic and communicative translations. The fist one is a method of translation most often used for semantically precise texts where the corresponding accuracy of verbal form is in the first place, as in academic, technical and scientific writing (Laver & Mason, n.d.). It emphasizes Nida's formal equivalence (see above). "A near-synonym is literal translation" (Laver & Mason,n.d. p.120). The second type is "oriented to the linguistic and stylistic needs of the reader, which also seeks to generate in that reading the same or similar response as in the native readers of the original text" ; it emphasizes the dynamic equivalence (see above). In other words, the first kind asserts the ST and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possibl. It is more complex, detailed and there is also a tendency to over-translate. It has a great emphasis on the author of the original text (Panou, 2013). By contrast, communicative translation focuses on effect and the readership 'the addressees' ; thus, it is 'under translation' (p.4) .
However, in both kinds of translations "equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation" (Newmark's view cited in Al-Sulaimaan & Khoshaa, 2018, p. 765). In other words, the two kinds of translation are widely overlapping: "a translation can be more or less, semantic, more or less communicative" (Izza, n.d., p. 6) III. "Lamma" in Arabic Semantically, Arabic grammar has three kinds of 'lamma' (al-Mu'jam al-Wasit [Intermediate (Arabic) Dictionaray], 2010, pp.272-73) depending on its meanings: 1-The Timely (conditional) 'lamma' It is a conditional particle [conjunction]; it semantically indicates the existence of a thing because of the existence of something else, and it comes with the past (perfect) verb. It is called an existence particle for (an) existence thing (al-Galaayni, 2000). Its answer is either a past verb or a nominal sentence, accompanied with the surprising Itha ‫الفجائية‬ ‫.اذا‬ It carries the conditional meaning and the meaning of 'Heen' ‫حين‬ when" (Abass, cited in Saleh, 2013, p.922 'lamma' can encompass the meaning of action and tense more than it is considered a mere conjunction (Saleh, 2014). It is an adverbial particle including the conditional meaning (Abdul-Razaq, 2009). It is existed in 42 Surahs, enumerated as 151 times 1 .

(1988: p. 329) Chapter III (Al-e-Imran)
Here 'lamma' has a formal and dynamic equivalence 'when', reflecting the time at a certain point in the translation of Arb., H.&K., and Mir A.A. However, Irv. rendered 'lamma' into the conj. 'whenever' which means at any time. That makes the verse 'aaya' more general than the previous ones.

135)
135 Yet whenever We lifted the plague from them for a period which they were to observe, why, they failed to keep it! Irv. (2003: p.166) THE HIGHTS (7) 135. But when We removed the punishment from them to a fixed term, which they had to reach, behold! They broke their word! H. & K. (1978: pp.218-19) Surah 7. Al-A'raf 135. But whenever removed We the torment from them till a fixed term which they should reach, lo! they broke (their promise). Mir A.A. (1988:p.600) Chapter VII 'Lamma' in this verse gets the formal equivalence 'when', reflecting the time at a certain point in Arb. and H.&K.'s translation. However, Irv. and Mir. A.A. rendered 'lamma' into the conj. 'whenever' which means at any time. That makes the verse (aaya) more general than the previous ones. 13. And Indeed We did destroy generations before you when they did wrong, and had come unto them apostles for them with clear signs … Mir A. A. (1988:p.704) Chapter X (Yunus) In this verse 'lamma', as a conj. (timely particle), is translated into the conj. 'when' by the four translators. 'Lamma' and 'when' both carry the same meaning at or during the time that (Hornby, 1995 s. v. when 101 We did no wrong to them but they had (already) wronged themselves: their (false) gods which they had been appealing to instead of to God [alone] did not benefit them in any way once your Lord's command came along, … Irv. (2003: p.233) HUD (11) 101. We wronged them not, but they wronged themselves. So their alihah (gods), other than Allah, whom they invoked, profited them naught when there came the Command of your Lord, … H. &K. (1978: p.300) Surah 11. Hud 101. And We did no injustice unto them, but they were unjust unto themselves, so availed them not aught their gods whom they called upon besides God when came to pass the decree of thy Lord; … Mir A.A. (1988: p.755) Chapter XI (Hud) The timely 'lamma' in the previous translations is translated into the timely conj. 'when' except with Irv. He translated it into the conj. 'once'. As a formal equivalence 'when' can be acceptable for 'lamma'. However, "once" is more appropriate as a formal and dynamic equivalence for 'lamma', since it reflects the unexpected or sudden meaning that the verse 'aaya' implies:

1494) Chapter XLVI (Al-Ahqaf)
This verse (aaya), no.7 at al-Ahqaf Surah, is like the previous one, i.e. the timely 'lamma' is translated into the conjunctions: 'when' (in Arb., H.&K. and Mir A.A.'s), and 'once' (in Irv.'s). Here 'lamma' comes with the sudden ‫الفجائية:‪Itha‬‬ ‫إذا‬ which gives the meaning of unexpected action; thus, using 'once' is closer to the Arabic meaning as a formal and dynamic equivalence. In this verse (aaya) in Surat Qaf (Chapter L:5) the timely 'lamma' gets its formal equivalence 'when' by reflecting the meaning: at or during the time that. However, 'lamma' here gives the meaning of sudden action that was done by the unbelievers, as they belied the truth without thinking. 214 Or did you reckon you will enter the Garden when the same thing never happened to you such as [happened] to those who have passed away before you? …

Irv. (2003: p.33) THE COW (2)
214. Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? … H. &K. (1978: p.45) Surah 2. Al-Baqarah 214. Or think ye that ye will enter the Garden while yet upon you hath not yet come the like of that which befell those who passed before you; … Mir A.A.

(1988: p.141) Chapter II Al-Bagarah (The Cow)
'Lamma' in this verse gives the meaning of negation but there is an expectation to happen concerning the verb (az-Zamakhshari, 1995:Vol.1:p.253). In Arb.'s, it is rendered into the adverb 'without', and in H.&K.'s, into the preposition 'without' which means 'not having or showing something (Hornby, 1995, s. v. ‫ج‬ without). Here the translations lack to render the whole meaning of 'lamma'. Moreover, Irv. has loosened the meaning of expectation when he used the adverb "never" which means 'at no time in the past or the future' (Hornby, 1995, s. v. never 'Lamma' here gives the meaning of negation as well as expectation, i.e. to happen in the future, (see az-Zamakhshari, 1995:Vol.4: p.366 cited in Salih, 2013. 'Not' with the adverb 'yet' can be a formal and dynamic equivalence to 'lamma', as in Arb., H.& K., and Mir A.A.'s translation, since 'yet' means until now/ then. However, Irv. translated 'lamma' into the conj. 'yet' followed by a negative sentence 'belief has not penetrated your hearts'. Here Irv.'s translation does not convey the expected meaning of 'lamma'; 'lamma' has no formal, nor dynamic equivalence.

C. The four verses (aayas) of the Exceptional
Surely each one of themthy Lord will pay them in full for their works; He is aware of the things they do. As mentioned above, this kind of 'lamma' is a controversial topic among scholars, grammarians, and interpreters (Abi Talib In this verse (aaya), 'lamma' is seen through two views mentioned in the previous verse (Hud:v.111); see al-Mahali & as-Suti (1988:p.442). The oath meaning could be understood by using 'surely' and 'assuredly' in H.&K. and Mir A.A.'s respectably since oath is used for emphasis. However, no one of the above translators understands the meaning of the exception. Arb. translated 'lamma' into 'that' as he got it 'a relative particle' preceded by the negative ‫:إن‬ not; thus, the meaning of the verse (aaya) has been lost. On the other hand, Irv. translated 'lamma' into the conj. 'so' which indicated the result meaning afterward. He got this meaning since all creatures will be lastly gathered before God for reckoning. The meaning of 'lamma' as in the previous verses (Hud:v.111/Yasin:v.32) (al-Mahali & as-Suti, 1988: p.492). Here, all the translators got the meaning of exception, and 'lamma' has a dynamic equivalence (the terms underlined above in the translated verses), since 'but', as a preposition, means except or apart from when preceded by negation, a question word, or all, everyone (Hornby, 1995: s.v.but2). Moreover, 'only' as an adverb gives the meaning of exception, since it is meant 'but' and preceded by 'all' (s.v. all). However, 'lamma' as a conj. has no formal equivalences: a preposition 'but' and the adverb 'only'. 'Lamma' in this verse means Illa: ‫,إال‬ i.e. each Nafis: soul accompanied with angels write its doings or keep souls to have them backed to bodies before the day of judgment. See (az-Zamakhshari, 1995:p.721 cited in Salih, 2014:p.927) (at-Tabtaba'i, 1424A.H.:p.655) (al-Mahali &as-Suti, 1988 . However, only H. & K. rendered 'lamma' with the meaning of exception by the dynamic equivalences 'not…but' as a preposition '(used after the negatives …, the question words …, and also all, everyone, …) except…; apart from…' (Hornby, 1995: s.v.but2). On the other hand, Arb. and Irv. did not render 'lamma' here; thus, it has no equivalence in theirs.

458
On the contrary, Mir A.A. conveys the following meaning, but for this grace of the Lord [i.e., 'every soul has been preserved or guarded or protected by several angels'] no soul would be able to escape the various kinds of the calamities which the body and the soul face in this world. 1 V. Findings The table of the conditional 'lamma' in appendix 1 below (review appendices 1-2-3 after recommendation) illustrates types of equivalences in rendering 'lamma' by four translators (Arb., Irv., H.&K., and Mir A.A.). According to Arab grammarians and scholars, 'lamma' is considered either an adverbial noun or conjunction (a particle of connection). It is observed that 'lamma' as a conj. has got a formal and dynamic equivalence when we got the translations: 'when', 'whenever', or 'once'. However, when we got 'lamma' as an adverbial noun, the previous renderings are considered dynamic equivalences only.
Table two in appendix 2 below shows rendering of the jussive and negative 'lamma'; the adverbs 'not yet' in Mir A.A.'s (al-Baqarah:v.214) can be its dynamic equivalence since they have the same meaning and effect that negative 'lamma' carries. Concerning the dynamic equivalence 'not yet', the same is presented in the translations of Arb. and H.&K.'s (Yunus:v.39), Arb. and Irv.'s (Sad:v.8), and Arb., H. &K.,. The rest of 'lamma's' rendering has no formal equivalence, nor dynamic. It has no formal equivalence as it is a negative particle (coming before present verbs) though it is translated into adv., conj., or pre.
(review the table in appendix two below). Moreover, 'lamma' has no dynamic equivalence because the meaning of expectation to happen is lost.
Table three in appendex 3 below shows renderings of the exceptional particle 'lamma'. It has no formal equivalence, nor dynamic in Hud: v.111 and Yaasin: v.32 of the four translations, and the same is in at-Tariq(v.4) of Arb., Irv., and Mir A.A. However, H.&K. have got a formal and dynamic equivalences at this Surah (at-Tariq:v.4). On the other hand, 'Lamma' has a formal and dynamic equivalences in Surat az-Zukhruf:v.35 of the four translations.

VI.
Discussion Firstly, kinds of 'lamma' are related to Nida's kinds of equivaleces (formal & dynamic), and that, secondly, leads to Newmark's kinds of translations (semantic & communicative). Conditional 'lamma' is translated into 'when', 'whenever', or 'once'; that are formal & dynamic equivalences. However, when 'lamma' is considered 'an adverbial noun', the previous translated terms can be considered 'dynamic equivaleces'. Jussive & negative 'lamma' is translated into the adverbs 'not yet'; that is considered 'a dynamic equivalence'. However, other translations, a mere 'adv. ', 'conj.', or 'prep.'are niether formal equivalence, nor dynamic, since the meaning of expectation to happen is lost. The exceptional 'lamma' (that existed in four aayas only) isnot translated as a formal, nor dynamic equivalences except in one aaya (az-Zukhruf:v.35) in four translations, and in one translation (H. & K.'s) of a second aaya (at-Tariq:v.4).
Related to Newmark's types of translations, all of the translations selected are of semantic type rather than communicative. They are literal translations (especially in H.& K.'s )though semantic and communicative translations are overlapping (especially in Arb.'s).

VII. Conclusion
As 'lamma' has more than one meaning in Arabic, so it has more than one equivalence in English.The first type of 'lamma', the timely or conditional one, as a conjunction, has a formal and dynamic equivalence in all English translations selected, i.e. 'when' (in Arb.'s, H.&K.'s & Mir A.A.) and 'once' (in Irv.'s sometimes). The second type, the jussive and negative 'lamma', has an equivalence, i.e. 'not yet'. Irv. translated as such only in one verse of the four verses. On the other hand, two verses of four occur in the two translations of the H. Quran (H.&K.'s, &Mir A.A.'s) where 'lamma' is translated into 'not yet'. Lastly Arb. translated 'lamma' into formal and dynamic equivalences 'not yet' in three verses out of four. It is obvious that Arb. got the expected meaning of 'lamma' better than the rest translators, Irv., H.&K., and Mir A.A. The third kind of 'lamma', the exceptional, hasn't been understood and has niether formal nor dynamic equivalence in two verses out of four by all translations selected. However, the four translators understood the exceptional 'lamma' in one verse of four (review appendix three below). Still one verse only H.&K. got the meaning of exception and translated it into 'no …but' whereas the rest did not.
Relatively speaking, translators have found a formal and dynamic equivalences of 'lamma' as far as the meaning is clear, as in the first type. However, when the meaning of 'lamma' is not clear enough, as in the second and third type, the translators didn't grasp the whole meaning of it. Thus, translation of the timely 'lamma' is semantic and communicative, whereas with the negative and exceptional 'lamma' the translation fluctuated between semantic and communicative or none of them.
Moreover, there are no clear diffrences among the translators concerning their time and culture. However, Arb. is the best translator who grasp the negative 'lamma' with an expectation of happening. For, he translated it (the second type of 'lamma') as a formal and dynamic equivalence, three verses out of four, whereas H.&K. and Mir A.A. translated it in two verses out of four and Irv. translated it in one verse out of four. In contrast, the Arabic (ST) wasn't Arb.'s mother tongue. On the other hand, H,&K. were the best translators who understood the exceptional 'lamma', since they translated it into two verses out of four, whereas the others translated this type only into one verse out of four.