Fixed Linguistic Forms and Problems of Finding Its Equivalence In Translations of Nahj Al-Balagha

Within the text of Nahj al-Balagha, one may come across words and phrases that can be classified as profane or offensive statements. These terms serve two purposes. Some of them denote profanity and obscenity, while others seem to be using profanity. However, it possesses a metaphorical connotation and does not include any profanity. Understanding the historical origins of these statements, as well as their textual and temporal context, is essential and highly beneficial for comprehending the intended meaning of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). This study employed a prescriptive methodology to extract fourteen collective curses from Nahj al-Balagha and analyze the translation performance of five translators in relation to this work. The translators are Faiz al-Islam, al-Shahidi, al-Faqihi, al-Dashti, and al-Ansari. Each of these translators embodies a distinct translation style. The research findings revealed that many statements that may appear to be curses were not employed as insults but rather served various purposes such as praise, adoration, attention, and punishment. These translators neglected this difficulty and attempted to translate these meanings either word-for-word or with an imprecise functional equivalent, resulting in an incorrect translation of these meanings. Of the various translation methods available, the faithful approach and the literal method offer greater potential for translating this specific category of fixed language structures.Keywords: Translation, Fixed Form of Language, Cursing, Nahj al-Balagha.IntroductionGiven the intimate connection between translation and culture, the primary obstacle for the translator will be to convey these ideas accurately in the target language. Multiple hypotheses have been put out in the process of converting these concepts into different languages. Newmark (2011) has put forward a total of eighteen approaches, while Ivier (1987) has suggested a total of seven methods. Gradler (2000) and Harvey (2000) both postulated four distinct procedures. Additionally, Chesterman (1997) and Pedersen (2007) have put up alternative approaches. The primary distinction in the categorization of methodologies in these types of studies lies in the specific focus that each method places on the primary unit of language in translation (Alizadeh, 2019: 54). Profane expressions are seen as established linguistic and cultural phenomena that vary across different cultures. Consequently, translators often opt for literal tran