Cognate Interference in translations from Hebrew into Arabic

[Peursen, W.T. van (Willem)]

Dear list,

In my research on the ancient Syriac Bible translation (Peshitta), I use this he concept of Cognate Interference as known in translation studies, that is: the tendency in translations where the source text language and the target language are cognate to prefer cognate over non-cognate alternatives.

[See, e.g., for modern Hebrew and Arabic: Ordan, Noam, Hershberg, Nimrod and Shlesinger, Miriam. "Translational conflicts between cognate languages: Arabic into Hebrew as case in point" Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 6, no. 2, 2010, pp. 217-239. https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.008] 

The cognate interference does not mean that the cognate alternatives are wrong (at least not by definition), but rather that they occur in a significant higher frequency in translated texts than in non-translated texts. In the case of Hebrew and Syriac I found a higher frequency of the bipartite nominal clause (as against the tripartite construction which is more common in Syriac non-translated texts) and  of the conjunction waw as against other conjunctions in non-translated texts.

I can well image that the same phenomenon of Cognate Interference occurs in ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Arabic. Any data, experiences or bibliographical references are welcome!

Best wishes,

Willem

Prof. dr. Willem Th. van Peursen

School of Religion and Theology, ETCBC

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam

Tel. +31 (0)20 59 83427; email: w.t.van...@vu.nl

X: @PeursenWTvan

Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer

http://www.etcbc.nl

https://www.facebook.com/etcbc

https://twitter.com/etcbc_vu

https://www.linkedin.com/company/etcbc

[Bishoy Habib]

Hello Willem, 

I find this topic very interesting. I've observed what you described in two areas. 

1. The Van Dyck Arabic translation of the Bible. 

I find the cognate interference more obvious in certain idioms where each word is of current use but the word combination (or collocation) is unfamiliar. For example: Jer. 36:14 קָרָאתָ בָּהּ בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם قَرَأْتَ فِيهِ فِي آذَانِ الشَّعْبِ. Sometimes the cognate's original meaning is lost on modern readers and the current meaning makes reading the passage confusing. For example: Genesis 1 הַתַּנִּינִם تنين, probably means "sea creatures" in Hebrew but Arabic speakers would probably imagine a dragon. 

2. Ibn Al-Tayyib's commentary on Mark. 

In his translation from the Peshitta he tends to use cognates. For example, he used the word ارتضيت to translate ܐܶܨܛܒ݂ܺܝܬ݂ which is normally translated in English as "well-pleased". However, the joy or pleasure element is is not attested in Arabic usage. Other examples are words like زبيل and السليحون which (I imagine even in the 11th century) were not as accessible as سلة and الرسل.

Regards,

Bishoy

[Peursen, W.T. van (Willem)]

Dear Bishoy,

Thanks for these helpful examples!

Best wishes,

Willem

---

Van: nas...@googlegroups.com <nas...@googlegroups.com> namens Bishoy Habib <bisho...@gmail.com>
Verzonden: dinsdag 14 oktober 2025 15:54
Aan: North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies <nas...@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: [nascas] Re: Cognate Interference in translations from Hebrew into Arabic

 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To post to this group, send email to nas...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
nascas+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nascas?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nascas+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/0ad696cf-3ad6-4568-8e7f-46de95a6ec3dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Vevian Zaki]

Dear Willem, 

Cognates are usually part of any studies of old translations of the Arabic Bible, sometimes also as "sound-similar roots." Here are some examples:

Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, 184-186.

Hjälm, Christian Arabic Versions of Daniel, 239-242.

Zaki, The Pauline Epistles in Arabic, 406-407.

Hope this helps,

Vevian

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/DB9PR09MB6009C75551997E329C00A53EEBE8A%40DB9PR09MB6009.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com.

--

Dr. Vevian F. Zaki

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow

Ludwig Maximilians Universität
Institut für den Nahen und Mittleren Osten
Veterinärstr. 1

D-80539 München

[Peursen, W.T. van (Willem)]

Dear Vevian,

 

Thanks , this is exactly the type of references I was hoping for. Unfortunately, your book and Miriam Hjalm’s book are not in our university library so it is hard for me to find access to them.  What I infer from Ronny Vollandt’s study provides interesting parallels to my Peshitta research:

 

1. There is indeed Cognate Interference. Vollandt calls it even “a main characteristic of biblical translations from a Syriac Vorlage”,[1] especially in East-Syriac translations.[2]
2. However, this usage was not mechanical, at least in Arabsyr1.[3] Quite often the cognate and non-cognate alternatives were available to the translator and they are often even used side by side.[4] However, may other translation traditions stick to cognates regardless of their meaning in the target language, even introducing artifical cognates.[5]
3. In a translation such as Arabsyr1, it would be incorrect to consider the use of the cognate inferior to the non-cognate.[6] Nor can the cognates be considered Syriacisms in the strict sense, since they were alreay a integral part of the Classical Arabic vocabulary.[7]
4. When I look at Vollandt’s examples, I infer that cognate interference is mainly observable in the use of lexemes (rather than, e.g. word order). Syntactic cognate Interference is, however, dominant in early Jewish translations into Arabic.[8]
5. I also infer from Vollandt’s examples that when both the cognate and non-cognate are used in the same context, there is no fixed pattern that first the cognate, then the non-cognate is used (unlike what Avinery suggested for Cognate Interference in the translation of genitive constructions from Hebrew into Syriac).

 

Just some first reflections. Again, thank you for your help.

 

Best wishes,

 

Willem

---

[1] Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 184; similarly p. 67.

[2] Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 135.

[3] Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 185; cf. ibid: “Even when acceptable, Arabic cognates are repeatedly avoided and erpresented by semantic synonyms.”

[4] Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 192.

[5] Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 185; cf. ibid: “Even when acceptable, Arabic cognates are repeatedly avoided and erpresented by semantic synonyms.”

[6] Cf. Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 184: “This habit, however, does not affect the lexical adquacy of translation choices with regard to the stylistic requirements of the target language.”

[7] Cf. Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 186.

[8] Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch, p. 77: “The literary and linuigistic norms of the source or imtated on the syntactic, lexicla, and even morphological leves. With regard to syntax, the Hebrew word order tends to be duplicated in disergard of the principles of Classical Arabic, producing a strict word-for-word translation… Sometimes this tendency produced artificial Arabic words.”

---

Van: nas...@googlegroups.com <nas...@googlegroups.com> namens Vevian Zaki <vevia...@gmail.com>
Verzonden: woensdag 15 oktober 2025 10:34
Aan: nas...@googlegroups.com <nas...@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [nascas] Re: Cognate Interference in translations from Hebrew into Arabic

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/CAC5gwyupJ0VUOtfbHRVNiYzJkWf0%3DDsAjT9D_HzvmQ0Q%3Dt85vg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prof Dr. Salah Edris]

Dear list,

• which syriac version of sindbad/syntipas   was translated from syriac into Greek by  Michael Andreopoulos at the end of the 11th century under the title of The Book of the Philosopher Syntipas ?? Ist of Beathgen? Or other version?

Best, salah

Prof.Dr. Salah Abdel Aziz Mahgoub Edris

Professor for Syriac Literature 

Former Dean of Higher Institute of languages, Ministery of higher education-Egypt

Armenian Studies Center, former Director

The Cairo University; Faculty of Arts

Giza-Egypt

 

---

From: nas...@googlegroups.com <nas...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vevian Zaki <vevia...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 11:34 AM
To: nas...@googlegroups.com <nas...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [nascas] Re: Cognate Interference in translations from Hebrew into Arabic

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/CAC5gwyupJ0VUOtfbHRVNiYzJkWf0%3DDsAjT9D_HzvmQ0Q%3Dt85vg%40mail.gmail.com.