A Comparative Study of the Persian Translation of Majma' al-Khawas with its Turkish Text (Based on Catford's Equivalence Theory

. Introduction
Poets' Tazkiras are considered one of the most important sources in the history of literature that their history in the Persian language dating back to the 6th century AH. However, currently, the oldest extant Tazkira is Muhammad Awfi's Lubab-al-Albab, which was written in the first quarter of the 7th century AH, and started that this tradition of Tazkirah-writing continues to the present day after the passage of eight centuries.
Most of the Tazkiras of Persian poets are written in Persian, but a few are also written in Turkish. therefore, it is necessary to carefully and scientifically-critically correct and publish the text of these Turkish Tazkiras based on authentic manuscripts, because if it to be otherwise, numerous defects and errors would find their way into their content and to the effect of them, in the sources of literary history that if this happens, it is the duty of researchers to criticize and even re-correct these erroneous Tazkiras based on valid evidence and reasons.
Majma' al-Khawas is one of the contemporary Tazkiras that Sadeghi Afshar, the bookkeeper (d. 1018 or 1022 AH) composed in the early 11th century AH, influenced by Majalis-al-Nafayis of Amir Ali-Shir Navai, in the Turkish language of Chaghatai, and in it she discusses the lives and Persian poems of and sometimes Turkish poets. According to the Khayyampur printed, this Tazkira contains the biographies of 333 poets from the second half of the 10th AH century and the first half of the 11th AH century, with its main content, apart from an introduction and conclusion, is arranged in eight Majma' by adapting the octet Majalis of Majalis-al-Nafayis Navai.
 

Methodology

The method of this research is library and theoretical, so that the selective translation of Hosseini, Mir-Jafari, and Dehghan Nayyeri with the Khayyampur printed and the new correction and translation from Majma' al-Khawas is compared comparison has been made within the framework of Catford's equivalence theory.
 

Discussion

John Catford (d. 2009), a British linguist, was one of the theorists who developed the topic of types of translation and formal changes in translation. According to Catford, in lexical equivalence, the priority is that the translator, by following the rule of equivalence, can find an equivalent in the target language for each word in the source text, but if she fails to find an equivalent, she will inevitably substitute another word from the target language for the word in the source language, in accordance with the rule of modification or substitution, rather than resorting to similar words that have little connection with the original word, as translators of selective translation of Majma 'al-Khawas do, because if each translator were to translate a text without paying attention to the meaning derived from the root words of the source text, several free translations of the same text would be made, all of which might contain the content of the source text, but none of them would be considered a literal translation of the source text.
In grammatical equivalence, the translator must be able to use the same equivalent or entered words in the grammatical network that are the same in both languages, but when the translator is unable to find an equivalent, he inevitably applies formal changes at the grammatical level: 1- In changing the grammatical structure, the translator changes the order of the parts of the source language sentence in the target language, but not like the changes in selective translation that disrupt the meaning and concept. 2- In changing grammatical categories, the translator changes one of the components of the source language sentence in the target language in such a way that the grammatical group and its role may be different in the two languages, but not like selective translation changes where the tense and mood of the verbs or their imperative and transitive are not taken into account. 3- In unit change, one or more linguistic units are removed or added from the target text, but not like selective translation changes where the removal of the lexical unit has disrupted the grammar of the target text and has incomplete meaning and concept.
The translator's work is more sensitive in translating ancient texts, because if the source text has been badly corrected and contains corrector errors, and the translator does not notice those errors, its defect will naturally permeate the translation, as sometimes the absence of some recordings in the Khayyampur printed has also made its way into the selective translation, and sometimes the unreliable recordings in the Khayyampur printed have also infiltrated the selective translation.
Of course, sometimes the recordings of Khayampour's original manuscript are correct, but Khayampour and, following him, Hosseini, Mir-Jafari, and Dehghan Nayyeri committed misreadings in their readings. Even some of the correct recordings of Khayampour's printed work were incorrectly changed in the selective translation, and the translators did not pay attention to the linguistic and syntactic context of the sentences. At the end of their article, they have arranged a table in three rows: the Turkish text, the faithful translation, and the translator's translation. They have compared their translation with some sentences in Khayyampour's translation and called their translation faithful relative to his translation, but their translation is not faithful in many of the evidence mentioned in the table due to incorrect equivalence and, like Khayyampour's translation, is free and does not adhere to the Majma' al-Khawas text.
 

Conclusion

Formal changes are necessary and efficient for languages ​​that do not have sufficient equivalents for the source text, and the translator is forced to use this criterion, but in Persian there are sufficient equivalents for translating Turkish texts, and the translator is not forced to apply the rule of formal changes, Rather, the principle of finding equivalents is much more appropriate and accurate for a text like Majma' al-Khawas.
According to Catford's theory, Hosseini, Mir-Jafari, and Dehghan Nayyeri have used the rule of formal lexical and grammatical changes in their selective translation instead of relying on finding equivalents. They have chosen alternative equivalents for many Turkish words that have equivalents in Persian, most of which do not correspond to the root of the Turkish words and have different meanings and connotations.
Hosseini, Mir-Jafari, and Dehghan Nayyeri also used grammatical changes in their translation and changed the structure, classes, and grammatical units of the target language, so that 1- In structural change, the components of the sentences of the source text have changed in the target text, disrupting meaning and concept. 2- In changing the categories, they did not pay attention to the group and role of the words in the target text, causing the tense and mood of the verbs, as well as their imperative and transitiveness, to change. 3- In a single change, either the source text has been reduced in the translation or added to the target text. Sometimes, lexical and grammatical changes have been applied simultaneously in some sentences, which connection and fit between the source and target text being minimized, and a different and incorrect translation has been presented.
Another part of the changes made by Hosseini, Mir-Jafari, and Dehghan Nayyeri is related to the defects and errors in Khayyampur's printed work, which have also found their way into their Persian translation.