Trans Boyuk Yarak

⚡ TÜM BİLGİLER! BURAYA TIKLAYIN 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

Trans Boyuk Yarak
This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
This article explores the relationship between translation and history-writing within the framework of translation studies by analyzing Büyük İran Tarihi (Great history of Iran) translated by Ömer Halis from Persian into Ottoman Turkish in 1926. Questioning whether the distinction between the translation and the original and the distinction between the translator and the history writer were blurred in this case of translation and whether the translator used strategies that reflect his ideology during the translation process, a descriptive analysis of the extratextual elements surrounding the translation and of the textual elements has been conducted. Drawing on the analysis of the extratextual sources and the textual sources with a focus on the translation strategies such as omissions, additions and modifications, it is claimed that Ömer Halis intervenes in the translation in line with his ideological stance and becomes both a visible translator and a history writer who enters into a communication, starts a dialogue and a discussion with the author of the source text, who evaluates and construes the information in the source text from his ideological point of view and who writes a history that serves his ideology. It is further claimed that, the boundary between the translator and the historian and the boundary between translation and history-writing become eliminated in this specific case of translation, which might be considered as a constituent of the ‘history translation repertoire’ of the period in question.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Hosseini Baghanam , R eza , pp. 19-46
At t he Crossroads of Translation and His tory -Writing: Büyük
İran Tarihi as a Case of Writing History through Translation
This article explores the relationship between translation and history - writing
within the framework of transla tion studies by analyzing Büyük İran Tarihi
(Great h istory of Iran) translate d by Ömer Halis from Persian into Otto man
Turkish in 1926. Questionin g whether the distinction betwe en the translation
and the original and the distinction between the translator and the history writer
were blurred in this case of translation and whether the translator used strategies
that reflect his ideology during the tr anslation process, a descriptive analysis of
the extratextual elements surrounding the translation and of the textual elements
has been conducted. Drawing on the analysis of the extratextual sources and the
textual sources with a focus on the translation s trategies such as omissions,
additions and modifications, it is claimed that Ömer Halis intervenes in the
translation in line with his ideo logical stance and become s both a visible
translator and a history writer who enters into a communication, star ts a d ialogue
and a discussion with the author of the source text, who evaluates and construes
the information in the source text from his ideological point of view and who
writes a history that serves his ideology. It is further claimed that, the boundar y
betwe en the translator and the historian and the boundary between translation
and history - writing become eliminated in this specif ic case of translation, which
might be considered as a constituent of the ‘history translation repertoire’ of the
Keywords: history translation ; history- writing ; ideology; descriptive translation
studies; history translation repertoire
Starting with the proclamation of the Tanzimat (Reorganization) Edict of 1839, which
is officially accepted as the start in g yea r of westernization in the Ottoman Empire up to the
Alphabet Reform in 1928 , several works in various fields were translated into Ottoman Turkish .
In this period, translations from Eastern languages decreased dramaticall y when compared to
the previous years, whereas translations from Western languages showed a significant in crease
( cf. Karadağ 2014 ; Bozkurt 2014). There was also an increase in the num ber of history
translations during this period . Although most of the translations in the field of history were
from Western langu ages, there were al so translations from Eastern languages. One of the
* Assistant Professor at Islamic Azad University of Tabriz.
Email: rbaganam@gmail.com ; ORCID ID: https://orcid.o rg/0000 - 0001 - 7021 - 8425.
(Received 30 Janu ary 2019; accepte d 3 June 2019)
Hosseini Baghanam , R eza , pp. 19-46
At the Crossroads of Translation and History- Writing:
Büyük İran Tarihi as a Case of Writing History
h istory books translated from Eastern languages in to Ottoman Turkish between 1839- 1928 is
Mohammad Ali F oro ugh i’s book title d Büyük İran Tarihi . 1 The book was translated b y Ömer
Halis, 2 a Turkish nationalist and a military officer with a good knowle dge of Persian , and
published by Matbaa- i Askeriye 3 in 1926. The translator wrote a pref ace of 4 pages and added
an epilogue of 36 pages at the end of the book.
The publishing date of the source text is 1931; however, the book was first published in
Tehran in 1902 in installments with the title Tari k h - e I ran- e Q adim ( The o ld h istory of Iran ),
which were then brought together in 1931 and pu blished with the title Tarikh - e Iran - e Bastan 4
( The a n cient h istory of Iran ). The translation by Ömer Halis is based on the installme nts , but
the installments were not availab le in libraries of Iran ; thus, the text published in 1931 was
taken as the source text for this study . W hen translating , Ömer Halis changed t he name of the
book to Büyük İran Tarihi (Great h istory of Iran).
T wo author s’ nam es appear on the cov er page ( see figure 1 in the appendix ) of the
source text : “ Mohammad Hüse yin Han Zekâü’l - Mülk” ( Foroughi t he f ather ) under the w ord
“nigâriş” 5 and “ Mohammad Ali Han Foroughi Zekâü’l-Mül k” ( Foroughi the s on ) unde r the
word “te lif .” 6 That might be due to the fact that the author wrote the preface of the book together
with his father and the author used his father ’ s fame for accrediting the book, but there is no
explanation on this matter in the preface . Five couplets wr itten by Foroughi the father also
Mohammad Ali Foroughi, born in 1875 in Tehran , was named as Zekâü ’l -Mülk- i Sânî
(Second Zekâü ’l -Mülk) because of his fathe r ’ s nick name , Zekâü ’l -Mülk- i Evvel (First
Zekâü’l -Mülk ). He was also an important politician who was highly trusted by the United
Kingdom. It is known that Foroughi played an important role in the most critical political
periods of Iran, such as the transition period from Qajarid Dynasty to Pahlavi rulers, th e Reza
1 Literally means ‘ Great h istory of Ir an. ’
2 Ömer Halis was born in 1883 in Erzi ncan and served at differ ent military institutions after grad uating from the
military school Mekteb - i Harbiye. He took charge of the security command of Istanbul and was on duty when he
died in 1939. The book n amed İran’da İngilizler (The English in I ran) is another history translation by Ömer Halis.
It was translated from French. Moreover, Ömer Halis wrote a book titled Ti murlar Zamanında Hindistan Türk
İmparatorluğu (The T urkish E m pire of I ndia in the reign of T amerlane) w hich was publishe d by the Tur kish
3 The publishin g house of the Ottoman ar my .
Hosseini Baghanam , R eza , pp. 19-46
At the Crossroads of Translation and History- Writing:
Büyük İran Tarihi as a Case of Writing History
Khan Pahlavi period and the transition period from Reza Khan to the son, Mohammad Reza.
Foroughi served for British and Russian interests when he was working for the Turkish Qajarid
State, playing an important role in bringing the Turkish domination in Iran to an end and in the
takeover of the state by Pahlavis (cf. Jahanbeiglou 2015). Foroughi was a member and th e
spokesman of the parliament during the period of Pahlavi the first. He also served as prime
minister and after his term ended, he was fir st assigned as ambassador to Turkey and then to
the USA. He passed awa y in Tehran before h e had a chance to take o ffice in the USA.
Foroughi ’s works 7 reveal his special interest in history. However , the author is believed
to have viewed Iranian history f ro m the perspecti ve of France an d the United Kingdom and
been inspi red b y the social enginee ring efforts of these countries to writ e a new history book
( cf. Malcolm 1908; Pirnia 1937; Briant 1998; Diakonoff 2001; Gershevitch 2008; Gershev itch
2012) . Foroughi was interest ed in language as well. He foun ded the P e rsian Lan guage Society
in 1935 with the aim of clean sing the Persian lan guage and protect ing it f rom the influence of
Turkish and Arabic languages ( cf. Foroughi 1931). 8
Even this limited information about Foroughi might suffice to reveal his attitude
towards Turk ic states. Therefore, a book written by a political figure like Foroughi about the
h istory of Iran , throughout which Turkic s tates play ed a n important role, can be argued to be
an interesting research object for scholars working in the field of history. W hether some states
DorDore - yi Mukhtasar E z Elme Fizik [ A brief review of physic s ] ( Tehran: Ministry of Education , 1834)
Ekonomi Politik [E cono m y p olitics] (Tehran: Ministr y of Education , 1938)
Adab - e Meshroutiyet - e Dovel [The constitution principles of governments] (T ehran: Kavir , 1907)
Tarikh - e Mokhtasare Iran [ A brief history of I ran ] (Tehran: Mahmoudiyeh , 1909)
Tarikh - e Qadim - e Iran [The ol d history of Ir an] (Tehra n: Entesharat - e Elm , 1902)
Tarikh - e Iran - e Bastan [The a ncient h istory of Iran] (Tehran: Entesharat - e Elm , 1931 )
Tarikh - e Sasani [ The h istory of Sassanid ] (T ehran: Dolat , 1897)
Tarikh - e Qadim - e Melal - e M ashregh [T he history of o ld governments o f east ] , trans. Mohammed Ali Foroughi .
Tarikh - e Mokhtasar - e Dolat - e Qadim - e Rom [A brief history of R ome government ] (Tehran: Farous , 1948 )
Hekmet - e Soqrat ve Eflaotun [The w isdom of Socrates and Plato] (Tehran: Majlis , 1943 )
Seyr - e Hekmat Dar Oroupa [T he circulation of wisdom in E urope ] (Tehran: Safi Alishah , 1911 )
Ayin - e Sokhanvari [T he principles of speaking] (Tehran: Danesh Press , 1912 )
Payam be Farhanghestan [A m essage to the language association ] ( Tehran: Payam , 1936 )
Fenn - e Semâ - e Tabii [Natural sema techniques] (Tehran: National Parlia ment, 1937).
8 Foroughi made significant contribution s to the renewal of Persian. Ho wever, it should be mentioned that his
approach to cleansing Persian from Arabic and Turkish was not as strict as some members of the Persian Languag e
Society. While some members of the s ociety opted for removing th e influence of Arabic and Turki sh completely
from Persian, Foroughi had a milder and concealed approach towards the words commonly used by public and
that ha d become a part of Persian. He underline d that Turks in I ran should not be allowed to change their alphabet
to Latin, because they would be mo re ac quainted wit h developme nts in Turke y.
Hosseini Baghanam , R eza , pp. 19-46
At the Crossroads of Translation and History- Writing:
Büyük İran Tarihi as a Case of Writing History
in the Iran ian history, like Safavids, are o f Turkish origin or not has been a topic of interest
among Iranian , Turkish and Western historians , whose views on the subject considerably differ
from each other ( cf. Feridun Ahmet Paşa 1847 ; Jean - Baptist e Tavernier 1910; Krosinski 1984 ;
Seyed Hassan Astar abadi [1703 ] 1985; Bakihanov 2004 ). Man y Iranian h istorians regard the
Safavid State within the Iranian borders as a Shia - Persian sta te , for instance, while some
Tur kish and European historians de sc ribe it as the first independent Shia - Turk ic state. What is
clear is that Saf avids’ Turkish origin has almost always been ignored by Persian historians
especially after the Pahlavi period. It can be argued that Moh ammad Ali Foroughi displays a
similar attitude in his book. Thus, Foroughi ’s approach can be considered as an example of how
the author’s ideolog y affects the way he writes history. The fact that the book was translated
into Ottoman Turkish by a military translator who presumably had a completely opposing view
to that of the author makes the subject even more intriguing especially from the perspective of
The rel ationship between translation and history(w riting) in the Ottoman context has
been explored in a re cent study by Karadağ (2019) . Questioning whether Hongyin Wang’s
concepts of “foreign language creation” and “rootless/textless back translation” have an
explanatory role in investigating th e relationship between translation and history( writing) , the
author suggests that the act of translating a histor ical text might be considered as “re - writing”
since the translator translates a text produced by a historian who , acting as a translator, treats
the past as a source tex t and translates it into a target text (34). Following her descriptive
analysis of the translatio n of Alphonse - Marie - Louis de Prat de Lamar tine ’s 1859- text
L’Historie de la Turquie into Turkish as Osmanlı Tarihi I - Aşire tten Devlete (Ottoman h isto ry
I - f rom tribe to s tate) b y Mehmet Reşat Uzmen wi th a focus on the “restoration” of the source
text by the translator and the r edactor during the translation process , Karadağ claims that t he y
assume the role of “history writer” who “write their own history ” (52) as they translate a work
penned by a French auth or on Turks, as a case of “foreign langua ge creation ,” into the Turkish
language, performin g a process of “re -translation” (53).
How the distinction between the translator and the author and the translation and the
original 9 becomes bl urred in a transl ation case in the Ot toman - Turkish translation history has
also been illustrated in a study b y Öner and Karadağ (2016) on t he drafting of the Ottoman
9 For a recent comprehensive study on the constructed nature of the concept of “the original , ” see Tellioğlu (2019).
Hosseini Baghanam , R eza , pp. 19-46
At the Crossroads of Translation and History- Writing:
Büyük İran Tarihi as a Case of Writing History
Penal Code of 1858 where the French Penal Code of 1810 was used as the source. Introducing
the term “lawmaking through translation” to “define a case of lawm aking where translati on is
instrumentaliz ed in the drafting process b efore the law is enact ed by the legislative body” (15) ,
the authors argue that the Ottoman Code of 1858 “was a translation which was not produced to
be presented/percei ved as a transl ation in the tar get system” (14 -15), but “so as to entertain the
status of an original cod e in the target s ystem” (15), and “was a con stituent of transl ated law as
a particular system within the Ottoma n -Turkish legal polysystem” (15).
Is the distinction between the translation and the origi nal and hence between the
translator and the histo ry writer also blurred in the translation case under scrutiny in the present
study ? Why and how was this particular history book , shaped by its author’s ideology ,
translated into Ottoman Turkish by a translator who was a Turkish nationalist ? Did the
translator use strategies reflect ing his own ideology during the translation process ? If so, can
we claim that the translator wrote history through translatio n in this specific case of history
Looking for the answers to the above research questi ons, this paper aims to explore the
relationship between translation and history- writing within the framework of translation
studies. With this aim, s ection 2 and s ection 3 of the paper are devoted to the descriptive analysis
of the extratextual elements surr ounding the translation and of the textual elements ,
respectively . Section 4 presents the discussion and conclusions.
2. The Translator’s Preface and Epilogue
As one major source for analysis of translation products and for reconstructing
translational norms within the Touria n descriptive fram ework, extratex tual sources (Tour y
1995, 65) are of critical significance fo r the analysis of the case in question in the pre sent study.
One such source is the translator’s four - page long preface titled “Türkçeye Nakledenin
Mukaddimesi” ( The p reface of the conveyor ). Before discussing the “skopos” (Vermeer 2012)
of the translator in writing a preface , the preface written by the author for the source tex t
deserves to be focused on . Foroughi , the author of the source text , wrote a preface to his book
with his father Mohammad Hüseyin Han Foroug hi . The Foroughi s state in the preface tha t their
main purpose was to write a history book for educational purposes. This history book , which
Hosseini Baghanam , R eza , pp. 19-46
At the Crossroads of Translation and History- Writing:
Büyük İran Tarihi as a Case of Writing History
the Foroughi s expect ed to be taught in schools, is divided into two parts : Persian history before
Islam and after Islam , which was a then - new historic segmentation compared to previous
It would not be wrong to say that the book was written with an em phasis on Persian
nationalism, taking into consideration the Foroughis ’ intention to t each this history to Iranian
school children . T he Foroughi s’ tendency to wards ‘ Persian nationalism ’ i s clearly reflected i n
After writing this preface, we decided to divide the Persian history into two parts: the
old and the new history . The first part ( old history ) starts with the Achaemenid E mpire
and ends with the toppling of Persian shahs by Arabs. The second pa rt (new history)
starts with the emerge nce of Islam and holds up to the present. Both parts include
different chapters as seen in the table of contents. However, the history before the
Achaemenid Empire will be present ed in another book; because we cannot include this
period in Iranian history . (Foroughi 1931, 7; emphasis ad ded ; s ee figure 2a) 10
The fact that the writers of the preface do not regard the history of 6000 years before
Achaemenid as Iranian history can be construed as their tendency to ignore other nations, apart
from Persians, that have lived in Iran. In line with the statements of the authors in the preface,
it can also be argued th at they turn a blind e ye to 2500 years of the Iranian histo ry, especially
the Mede, Manna, Elamite and Sumer states , and p resent the new age starting with Pahlavis as
the extension of the “ Age of Prosperity ” ( Foroughi 1931).
Such a tendenc y is also evident in Foro ug hi the father’s following poem of five couplets
ﺑ ﯿ ﺎ ﺎﺗ ﺎﺑ ﻮﺗ ﻮﮔ ﯾ ﻢ ﺎﮭﻧﺎﺘﺳاد ﻞﺑﺎﺑ لﻼطا و هﺪﻠﮐ ﻊﺑر ز
ﺳﺮﮐ ز ﯿ ﺎﮭ ی ﺮﺨﺘﺳا و شﻮﺷ زا ﮏﻠﻣ ﺘﻗو ﮫﮐ ﺎﮭﺟرﺎﺧ ز ﯽ ﻞﺧاد ﺪﻧدﻮﺑ
ﺎﻌﻨﺻ ز ﯾ ﻦﻤ ﻄﺴﻠﻓ و مﺎﺷ ﯿ ﻦ ﻞﺣﺎﺳ نادﻮﺳ ﮫﺑﻮﻧ و
Güzel Am Lı Kız Pornosu
Rokket Toube Turk Porno Vıdeolar
Naughtyamerica Dan Nasıl Download Yapılır