Metaphors, however, must often be translated as nonmetaphors, since the particular extensions of meaning which occur in the source language have no parallel in the receptor language. This is even true in such a relatively simple expression as "his countenance fell" (Mark 10:22), which in Subanen, a language of the Philippines, must be translated simply as "he became sad". Under certain circumstances one would naturally expect metaphors to be rendered by nonmetaphors. If, for example, there is no feature in the receptor culture corresponding to the referent in the source language, one must make some radical adjustment, usually from metaphor to nonmetaphor, as when "they were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians 2 :9) must be translated in Zoque as "they were said to be the big ones". When one finds a so-called mixed metaphor, the chances of necessary alteration are likewise very high. The phrase "uncircumcised of heart" (Acts 7:51) must, of course, be radically altered in a number of receptor languages, as it has been in Cakchiquel, "with your hearts unpreрared". When two or more elements of a figure of speech involve extensions of meaning, there is also a high probability that extensive adjustments must be made; for example, such an expression as "fruit of his loins" (Acts 2:30) is rarely acceptable in another language. Hence, as in Mazatec. it may often be translated simply as "his child".

Some persons object to any shift from a metaphor to another metaphor, a metaphor to a simile, or a metaphor to a nonmetaphor, because they regard such an alteration as involving some loss of information. However, the same persons usually do not object to the translation of a nonmetaphor by a metaphor, for such a change appears to increase the effectiveness of the communication. In other words, most people do not object to a profit in making a transfer from one language to another, but they do feel that a loss is reprehensible, especially when a sacred text is involved, though there are, of course, some persons who object strongly to any "heightening" of meaning. If a new figure of speech in the receptor language appears to be appropriate, it is usually approved readily by outside critics, either out of sheer delight and curiosity, or perhaps because of certain unrecognized paternalistic attitudes toward the receptor culture. At any rate, even though a Kapauku speaker in New Guinea has to refer to something of great importance as"bcing carried on the end of the nose”, such an idiom is generally regarded as quite аcceptable, for it implies a gain in information.

There are, however, two types of shifts from nonmetaphor to metaphor which involve certain problems and reservations. First among these are instances in which a figure of speech is based upon an indigenous mythology which is thought to be out of keeping with the source-language message. The Miskito Indians, for example, speak of the eclipse of the moon as "the moon has caught hold of his mother-in-law". In general, however, such expressions are not taken literally, just as our own unscientific statements that the "sun sets" and the "sun rises" are not so taken.

The second class of dubious correspondences involve indigenous religious beliefs which impinge upon those of the source language. For example, in Shilluk the only way to speak of sickness is to say "he is taken by God", but this use of Jok "God" in such a highly idiomatic phrase is not interpreted by the people endocentrically. Thus it has proved to be a fully acceptable equivalent, despite the apparent impingement of indigenous beliefs upon Christian ones.

Psychological states of being, as suggested previously, involve a number of instances in which nonmetaphors must be shifted to metaphors, often with specializations of meaning which are not formally equatable between source and receptor language. In Maya, for example, one say "he has a hot head" to mean that the person in question is insane. Such a phrase has no relationship to anger or temper, as it has in English. Some shifts from nonmetaphors to metaphors introduce semantic elements which, though inappropriate in the source language, are entirely acceptable in the receptor-language context. For example, in Black Thai the regular way of saying that a man is stingy is to declare "his purse is constipated".

责任编辑：admin