Content s introduction chapter methodical basis of translation theory

1.2 Specific sphere of translation methods

A variety of English synonyms can be translated into a single word in Uzbek. For example, the verb "accept" can be translated to "qabul qilmoq" in Uzbek, but it has synonyms like "admit," "adopt," "take" and "receive." The Uzbek word "rassom" has three English synonyms: "painter," "artist," and "drawer." The verb "blow" in English can be translated into many words in Uzbek such as "zarba," "zarb," "urilish," "taqillatish," "tepish" and "urish." More than 20 English words convey the sense of "urmoq," which are "blow," "smack," "slap," "whack," "poke," "dig," "rap," "knock," "stroke," etc.

Some languages have specific words corresponding to specific meanings, while others use words that express general concepts and dismiss dual meanings. French is considered a language of complex meanings, whereas German is clearer and uses added words. In French, a specific verb exists to express a certain meaning, which is often conveyed using multiple words in German and English. For example, the French "cendrier" refers to an ashtray - "ashtray" in English and "Aschenbecher" in German are composite words.
When comparing English and Uzbek words, it is possible to identify similarities in structure, and even some compound words may correspond perfectly with each other. However, there can be variations in other cases, which can make certain Uzbek words seem more complex compared to simple English equivalents. Uzbek has a preference for long words, even for the simplest concepts, whereas English employs more simple words, particularly when referring to composite concepts. Occasionally, we find ambiguous compound expressions in both English and Uzbek. For instance, “pocket,”"pock", "hamlet," and "ham" have a common morpheme ("ham"), which does not express clear meaning. When we compare "TTs" with "STs", we can learn about the degree of semantic similarity between two texts during the translation process. Therefore, various types of translation equivalents differ from each other. For example,
1) maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix - some people just don't fit well together.
2) A rolling stone gathers no mass - no one will show kindness to someone who can't settle down.
3) That’s a pretty thing to say - it's just talk.
In this case, we do not identify the general meaning or similarity in the original and its translation. The absolute semantic equivalence of linguistic units is not always present between two texts! The linguistics is commented on by the lack of identical associations to be found between the two texts; as a matter of fact, they bring about the same conclusion as “something similar.”
Clearly, both texts have a common meaning. It is of paramount importance to ensure that the overall content of each composition is satisfactorily resourceful in the translation.
Furthermore, it carries all the information contained in the composition in the translational version (original translated text) available in its structural section. From the examples given, we can see that the overall content and context of the original text and its translation are the same. In other words, when expressed in one word, the translator must capture the general meaning and semantic integrity of the text or extract its meaning from the structure and context associated with the main sentence. In English, the phrase “what is the original text about,” “what is it saying or how is it expressed” is not used; instead, it is simply “what is the text saying,” which signifies the main meaning and essential content of the text. Such examples describe the parallelism of lexical or structural unities.