Orality in Translating Biblical Hebrew Proverbs in Sesotho

Abstract

This paper evaluates how Sesotho translators have translated Biblical Hebrew proverbs in the 1989 Sesotho translation of the Bible. Because this 1989 translation is undergoing revision by the Bible Society of South Africa, it is important to determine the success of the translation. The orality of proverbs relates to their origin as orally transmitted sapiential sayings. In evaluating how some of the Biblical Hebrew proverbs are translated in Sesotho, the literal translation of 1909/61 will be compared to the 1989 dynamic equivalent translation. Using complexity thinking as a theoretical framework, the paper argues that the Hebrew proverbs are better translated in the 1989 version than they are in the 1909/61 version of the Bible in Sesotho in terms of numerous features of orality. In the 1989 version and its revision, proverbs are translated in a poetic format. This means that the translated proverbs in this version of the Bible, informed by the principles of orality, exhibit Sesotho poetic features or structures. The article is divided into the following components: proverbs in Hebrew and Sesotho, theoretical frameworks, how the theoretical frameworks are used to translate certain Hebrew proverbs in the 1989 version, and conclusions.

1. Introduction

Sesotho, one of the eleven official languages of South Africa, has two main translations of the Bible: the 1909/61 (T2/T3) version , the 1989 version and the latter’s revision (T4/R).1 The former originally emanated from the very first one in 1881 (T1) that was translated by the Paris Evangelical Missionary Societies when they arrived in Lesotho (then known as Basutoland) in the 19th century. This 1881 translation was revised several times until the major translation of 1909 (T2) was undertaken.

This translation (T2) also underwent a major revision in 1961 (T3). Other mini revisions followed thereafter until another major translation, that of 1989 (T4), came into existence. T2/T3 is more literal and follows the structure of the Hebrew text more closely. Here, more focus is on the form of the Hebrew text (the source text), and it poses a serious challenge, amongst others, in terms of its complicated vocabulary, especially for younger generations. For instance, in 1 Samuel 1: 3, “Anna yena e ne e le nyopa/Hannah did not have children”, the word nyopa sounds a bit strange to younger readers of the Bible. T4/R adopts the translation strategy of dynamic equivalence, which means more focus is on Sesotho form and meaning. In most cases, this translation is more explanatory and explicit. In this translation, the word “nyopa” is translated as “not having children”. In other words, the strange word is exposed in such a way that it brings about a clearer picture for understanding what “nyopa” is to the contemporary reader. To give T4/R an edge over T2/T3, reviewers provided an explanatory footnote to this effect. This makes T4/R a more understandable translation than T2/T3. Although this is the case, it does not push T2/T3 to the periphery.

One way of assessing the merits of the two translation strategies would be to ask the following: how do the two translations translate some proverbs into Sesotho? The two translations translate proverbs and psalms in different ways depending on the translation principles and practices they are based on. The scope of this paper will include some proverbs. Important to mention about the latter translation is that it is currently under review. As part of the team of reviewers, I came to realize that the T4/R translation, with its dynamism in translating some proverbs, came from translators who knew exactly the role of orality in changing the lives of Sesotho readers and hearers of the Bible. In T4/R, proverbs are translated into a poetic format, showing oral features contained in Sesotho poetry as understood by Sesotho speakers and readers of the Bible. Although T2/T3, influenced by the source text (in Hebrew), does present other oral features such as parallels, repetitions and so on, these are not as prevalent as those in T4/R. Furthermore, T2/T3 does not present the translated proverbs plainly in a poetic form unlike T4/R. In this context, I would contend that T4/R applies to speakers of the language more than T2/T3 does. Because of the oral character of proverbs, certain features of proverbs as perceived within the historical and cultural contexts of the Ancient Near Eastern—reflecting the era when events and teachings were documented in the Old Testament—can be compared and contrasted with how proverbs are viewed in the Sesotho context. Consequently, we need to consider how T4/R translates Hebrew proverbs, their nature, form and so on.

In analyzing the differences and similarities between Hebrew proverbs and their Sesotho translations, the paper begins by defining proverbs in general, and then delineates the features of Biblical Hebrew proverbs and Sesotho traditional proverbs. Complexity theory helps us to incorporate orality within the broader discussion of the translation of Biblical Hebrew proverbs in the Sesotho Bible translation.

The following section explains how proverbs in Hebrew and Sesotho cultures were perceived and used.

2. Proverbs in Hebrew and Sesotho Cultures

The literary genre of proverbs has a valuable place in the hearts of many nations, including the Basotho. Each proverb, given its own context, makes an enormous contribution to teaching and modeling old and new generations in some way. The knowledge that is contained in the proverbs has stood the test of time. In Biblical times, proverbs carried words of wisdom to teach and provide guidance on how life should be viewed carefully and wisely. In the olden days, in many cultures, including those in Biblical times, most of the proverbial sayings were not written or documented but spoken. This shows the powerful driving force behind orality or the oral world. These wise sayings were memorized for future transmission from one generation to another. Mieder (1993, p. 5) defines a proverb as “a short, generally known sentence of the folk which contains wisdom, truth, morals and traditional views in a metaphorical, fixed and memorable form and which is handed down from generation to generation”. Valdaeva (2003, p. 379) focuses on the tropological dimension, noting that “proverbs combine literal meaning, which is the form for another, transferred, meaning that contains the idea”. He further asserts that “Proverbs are easily recalled and recognised because of different stylistic devices such as alliteration, rhyme, paronomasia, metaphor and many others and, thus, have a more advantageous form than other set expressions, and are very effective for carrying different ideas to the society in a very compact form.”

Apart from Hebrew, other Middle Eastern languages such as Arabic and Syriac use the broad concept of משל for a proverb. This concept could refer to the following:

(a)	A similitude or parable as in Ezekiel 17:3 and 24:3
	Ezekiel 17:3
	אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה הַנֶּ֤שֶׁר הַגָּדֹול֙ גְּדֹ֤ול הַכְּנָפַ֙יִם֙ אֶ֣רֶךְ הָאֵ֔בֶר מָלֵא֙ הַנֹּוצָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־לֹ֖ו הָֽרִקְמָ֑ה בָּ֚א אֶל־הַלְּבָנֹ֔ון וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־צַמֶּ֥רֶת הָאָֽרֶז׃
	RSV: Thus says the Lord God: A great eagle with great wings and long pinions, rich in plumage of many colors, came to Lebanon and took the top of the cedar;
	Or
	Ezekiel 24:3
	וּמְשֹׁ֤ל אֶל־בֵּית־הַמֶּ֙רִי֙ מָשָׁ֔ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם כֹּ֥ה אָמַ֖ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֑ה שְׁפֹ֤ת הַסִּיר֙ שְׁפֹ֔ת וְגַם־יְצֹ֥ק בֹּ֖ו מָֽיִם׃
	RSV: And utter an allegory to the rebellious house and say to them, thus says the Lord God:
	Set on the pot, set it on, pour in water also;
(b)	A sentence, opinion or sententious saying that consists of two parts that are comparable or that contrast each other, for instance
	אֵֽשֶׁת־חַ֭יִל עֲטֶ֣רֶת בַּעְלָ֑הּ וּכְרָקָ֖ב בְּעַצְמֹותָ֣יו מְבִישָֽׁה׃
	RSV: A good wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.

According to Tregelles (1909, DXVII), the nature of these sentences “often pass[es] (culminate) into a proverb”, as in 1 Sam 24:14:

אַחֲרֵ֨י מִ֤י יָצָא֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אַחֲרֵ֥י מִ֖י אַתָּ֣ה רֹדֵ֑ף אַֽחֲרֵי֙ כֶּ֣לֶב מֵ֔ת אַחֲרֵ֖י פַּרְעֹ֥שׁ אֶחָֽד׃

RSV: After whom has the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? After a dead dog! After a flea!

Koehler and Baumgartner (1990, pp. 19–21) note further that a Hebrew משל could be a song or poem in which parallelism is the most formal and conspicuous oral feature. In addition to parallelism, poetry, songs and parables, Hebrew proverbs also exhibit couplets, questions, and literary devices such as antithesis, comparison, and personification. In terms of their social functions, Biblical proverbs were used to teach people how to attain wisdom, discipline, a prudent life and how to do what is right, just and fair.

About Sesotho proverbs, Guma (1967, p. 65) lists the following characteristics that make a proverb what it is:

• They all have a fixed and rigid form, which they always adhere to, and which is not changeable; for instance, Katse ha e le siyo, tweba di a hlanaka/If the cat is away the mice will play.
• They are figurative, and employ various structural forms such as contrast and parallelism, rhythm and alliteration, and balance, for instance Bo tsholwa bo tjhesa, bo tsohe bo fodile/bringing it (the bread) out of the oven while still hot, next (day) it is cool.
• They must enjoy general acceptance by the community whose collective wit and wisdom they represent, for them to be firmly established. Mokitimi (1991, p. 126) concurs with Guma on the rigid and fixed structure of the proverbs.

Contrary to the notion of the rigidness and fixed structure of proverbs as supported by Mokitimi and Guma, Yankah (1989, p. 28) argued that the form and meaning of a proverb is not fixed, but depends on its usage for specific reasons. This issue is advanced further by a comparative study between the traditional and contemporary Sesotho proverbs. This study was conducted by Possa (2014, p. 61) with the sole aim of determining whether or not contemporary Sesotho proverbs qualify as proverbs (that is, traditional proverbs) as far as structure is concerned. From her observation, she concluded “……it seems like newer research is showing that proverbs are being coined from time to time and the fixed form of proverbs is no longer regarded as important as it used to be in the past”.

Although the issue of differences in terms of form or structure between the traditional and contemporary Sesotho proverbs is critically important, this is not the focal point of the current article. The current article primarily focuses on how the Sesotho translation of biblical Hebrew proverbs has been designed in the 1989 version.

In enhancing our discussion about comparing Biblical Hebrew proverbs and Sesotho proverbs in terms of examining both their formal features (linguistic characteristics) and their social functions (how they operate within their respective cultural and social contexts), it is critical to highlight the following key elements, among others:

Similarities

-

Morality and wisdom: These were the critical elements that were conveyed through proverbs on how to live a life of wisdom, and how of attain social cohesiveness and discipline in life amongst the communities.

-

Cultural epistemology: Proverbs in both cultures are deeply rooted in strong cultures and histories.

-

Metaphorical and pedagogical language:

The language of proverbs is a language of metaphors and symbols (deep and hidden language crafted in a meticulous fashion). The purpose of this was to teach old and younger generations how to survive the numerous challenges of life by living a life full of wisdom and integrity.

Differences

The difference between the Biblical Hebrew and Sesotho proverbs can be understood by highlighting the following elements:

-

Religious elements in context

Biblical Hebrew: Proverbs in this context are deeply rooted in religion, which exhibits some theological implications.

Sesotho: Here, proverbs are embedded in African traditional spirituality and cultural belief systems.

-

Language and other cultural nuances

Biblical Hebrew: Proverbs were written in Hebrew and later translated into various languages with cultural nuances specific to the Middle East.

Sesotho: Proverbs were written in Sesotho and reflect the linguistic and cultural richness of the Basotho.

-

Community values

Biblical Hebrew: This often emphasizes individual responsibility and righteousness within a broader community context.

Sesotho: Here, there is an emphasis on communal values and the interconnectedness of individuals within the community.

-

Adaptations to modern contexts

Biblical Hebrew: This is frequently used in religious settings, sermons and teachings.

Sesotho: This is adapted to modern contexts while preserving cultural heritage.

To summarize the above discussion, one could deduce that although there are similarities between Biblical Hebrew proverbs and Sesotho proverbs in terms of their focus on morality, wisdom and so on, their differences are equally important because they provide us with a deep understanding of the various ways in which proverbs function within different cultural and religious setups.

The following section discusses the theoretical frameworks upon which this article rests. These are orality and complexity theory.

3. Theoretical Frameworks: Orality and Complexity Theory

For orality, one could say that the spoken language had been the mostly used medium of communication by the oral cultures for so long. This was not only a special knowledge, but it was also an experience created to communicate the valuable information in a unique way. This valuable information encapsulates pedagogical life experiences of the oral or indigenous people. Havelock (1986, p. 65) defines the oral world, strictly speaking, as the world that describes societies that do not use any form of writing. Finnegan (1970, p. 2) adds that “the oral world is by definition dependent on a performer who formulates it in words on a specific occasion; there is no other way in which it can be realized as a literary product.” Finnegan (2007, pp. 179–224) contested further that the oral world must not be viewed as something ancient, especially when compared to the dominance of writing. Nandwe and Bukenya (1983, p. 1) define orality or the oral world as “utterances, whether spoken, recited or sung, whose composition and performance show artistic characteristics of accurate observation, vivid imagination and ingenious expression”. Okpewho (1992, p. 4) defines the oral world as traditional literature that comes from the past and is handed down from one generation to the other. According to Niditch (1996, pp. 13–21), the following oral patterns are found in the Hebrew Bible: repetitions, formulas and formula patterns, conventionalized patterns, epithets, longer formulas and so on. Njoku (2005, pp. 144–46) says orality is the thinking and transmission of oral thought from generation to generation. Orality according to Njoku (2005, pp. 144–46) encapsulates elements such as repetition, reduplication, mimicry, gesture, onomatopoeia, ideophones and so on. These systemic features of orality, as discussed, for instance, in Section 2, and Section 3 (by different scholars here) above will be identified and analyzed in Section 4 below. The identification of some of these oral markers in T4/R justify the notion that the translation of Hebrew proverbs in this Sesotho translation is peculiar.

In terms of complexity theory, Marais suggests using complexity theory to encourage innovative and multi-layered thought processes for translation (Marais 2014, 2019) to avoid simplistic thinking in translation theories. Older models of translation were focused on achieving equivalence, but this kind of reductionistic paradigm is insufficient for working in what is essentially a non-linear cause-and-effect relationships (Marais 2014, pp. 26–43). Marais based his research on a reassessment of Jakobson’s definition of interlingual translation (Marais 2019, pp. 43–44; Jakobson 1959, p. 127). He incorporated his findings with Peircean semiotics, namely the process where there is a cooperation between a sign (representation), its object and its interpretant. Marais states that “meaning is never given, and it is never ‘in’ something. It is emerging relationally between Representamen, Object and Interpretant, systematically speaking”. The translation is not simply interlingual but is semiotic because the communicative act involves multiple levels of signaling between the incipient sign systems (or source texts) and the subsequent sign systems (or target texts).

One of the fundamental principles of complexity is that it sees different factors of reality not as different parts but as a whole endeavor; out of that whole endeavor comes self-emergence (where new knowledge emanates). In that sense, complexity can make domestication and foreignalization talk to one another to propel new knowledge and change.

On the other hand, complexity does not see orality as another independent component, but complexity functions as a mechanism that elevates and embraces orality and its features as exhibited in Sesotho literatures (for the sake of the current study, Sesotho proverbs) and translations (how the Hebrew proverbs are translated in T4/R) of the Bible.

The next section showcases how the theoretical frameworks of orality and complexity have been appropriated in translating certain Hebrew proverbs in T4/R.

4. Orality, and Complexity in Translating Hebrew Proverbs in T4/R Sesotho Translation

For our purposes, there are certain key components that make translation a complicated process. One of these is the understanding and recognition of indigenous knowledge or embedded knowledge of the Basotho. According to Nel (2004, pp. 94–105), indigenous knowledge is embedded knowledge used by local communities to survive challenges (old and new) through the ages with the intention of maintaining customs and livelihood. Therefore, the so called “onlookers”, that is, people who are not the speakers the Sesotho language, for instance, will always struggle with the understanding of how this kind of knowledge is constituted. This knowledge is derived from the minds and experiences of how to live life in a wise manner and is clearly demonstrated when the Basotho coin and craft their songs, poetry and proverbs. This is carried out in meticulous ways. Orality anchored by complexity has been the main driving force behind the coining of these special literary genres. To demonstrate the impact of orality on these literary genres, one could identify, amongst others, parallelism and word pairs, contrasts, rhythmic elements like repetitions, alliterations and so on. Although these signs or features of orality are there in Hebrew poetry, proverbs and so on, the way some of these are presented in Sesotho T4/R is very distinct, because it translates them into a poetic format. That is what makes it distinct from the Hebrew translation and T2/T3.

Another key component is that through orality, the Basotho have had a special way of developing their poetry, which is reflected in T4/R’s use of a poetic manner in translating proverbs, using oral poetic features or formatting like parallelisms, repetitions and similes. For example, the following short anonymous Sesotho poem, “Hoja ka mamela/I could have listened”, in

Table 1. Sesotho poem “Hoja ka mamela”.

1 Hoja ka Mamela	I Could Have Listened
2 hoja ka mamela sa semamedi ho mamela ditaelo	I could have listened like a listener to listen to the instructions
3 Phatla-ntjho-tjho sa motjhonoko, Ntsha mokhoba	[listened] Plainly like a seer’s student, the Speller of misfortunes
4 Nkabe ke sa ima	I was not supposed to become pregnant
5a Ka ima lesea ntata lona a tlola,	I became pregnant, the father of the child jumped
5b A tlola sa basetsana	(he) jumped like young girls
6 Ho tlola kgati kgatamping ha ho fatwa	jumping a skipping rope in the wetlands
7 ha ho fatwa letsoku le leholo	when great ochre is excavated
8 Hoja ka mamela	I could have listened

, is about the remorse of a little girl. Had she listened to her parents, she could have been saved from the situation in which she finds herself:

The following oral features are identified in the above poem:

• Lines 1–3: repetition of hoja ka mamela/I could have listened
• Line 4: explicit spelling out of the results of not listening—I was not supposed to become pregnant.
• Lines 4–5: syntactic parallelism, a building up or staircase toward an ultimate result—in this context—being pregnant.
• Lines 5–6: a repetition of words such as pregnant and jump.
• Lines 2, 3 and 6: the use of similes such as ‘like a listener’, ‘like a seer’s student’ and ‘like young girls’.
• Lines 1 and 8: a circular structure (tail to head connection); the poem concludes by rehearsing its opening statement: ‘I could have listened’.

Although the title of this article puts orality before complexity, it is worthwhile postulating that complexity in this study can be labeled a “kernel” (a core theoretical framework in which a conglomeration of systems, namely orality and its systemic features, do not function in silos (independently from one another) but in unison because complexity binds these together. In simpler terms, because complexity views a translation of certain Hebrew proverbs into Sesotho as a complicated initiative, together with orality, complexity produces a meaning-making product, which is the translation of the proverbs into T4/4. Complexity further states that from a complicated process of meaning making, there emerges knew knowledge, as in the case of the current study of how certain Hebrew proverbs are translated in T4/R. This knew knowledge exhibits that Hebrew proverbs are translated in a poetic format in T4/R, which Hebrew and other translations in Sesotho do not display. A poetic format is one of the indicators or signs of orality of certain Hebrew proverbs when translated in T4/R. Within this format, there are other features (signs) of orality, namely repetition, wordplays, parallelisms and so on. This new knowledge that has emerged further enhances the understanding of the Basotho on precisely how certain Hebrew proverbs were translated in T4/R.

The following section showcases how Hebrew proverbs were translated in Sesotho translations, making orality and complexity a basis of the study. T4/R will be compared with the Hebrew translation and with T2/T3. Examples will be used to contrast and to compare these respective texts.

4.1. Proverbs 12:4

אֵֽשֶׁת־חַ֭יִל עֲטֶ֣רֶת בַּעְלָ֑הּ וּכְרָקָ֖ב בְּעַצְמֹותָ֣יו מְבִישָֽׁה׃

RSV: A good wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.

T2/T3

Mosadi ya kgabane ke moqhaka ho monna wa hae;

empa ya hlabisang dihlong o jwaloka ho bola masapong a hae.

An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,

but she who shames him is as rottenness in his bones.

T4/R

Mosadi ya lokileng ke moqhaka ho monna wa hae,

(……) ya hlabisang dihlong yena ke mofetshe,

ke mofetshe o jang monna hae masapo

An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,

(…) she who shames him is cancer,

is cancer that eats the bones of her husband.

T2/T3 fully respects the Hebrew version. This is indicated when the Hebrew contrastive particle but is clearly rendered as empa/but. This rendering is not explicit, but it is implicitly illustrated in T4/R. In simpler sense, T4/R does not translate the Hebrew contrastive but. In this instance, one could ask whether or not this has any implication on the translation rendered in T4/R?. The answer is no, because it does not impede the flow of the sentence that follows, namely she who shames him is cancer. In addition to that, the absence of the Hebrew contrastive but does not mean that the Hebrew is totally lost in T4/R; rather, it is still fully maintained.

T2/T3 concurs with the Hebrew version in terms of the phrase rottenness in his bones. T4/R exaggerates the translation as cancer that eats the bones. Although the translation has been exaggerated, it is more elaborative, explicit and explanatory—cancer does eat the bones or could make the bones become rotten. The word cancer is repeated to indicate emphasis in the argument. Therefore, in this instance, T4/R attempts to demonstrate the oral features of the source text in a comprehensible manner.

4.2. Proverbs 17:21

יֹלֵ֣ד כְּ֭סִיל לְת֣וּגָה לֹ֑ו וְלֹֽא־יִ֝שְׂמַ֗ח אֲבִ֣י נָבָֽל׃

RSV: A stupid son is a grief to a father; and the father of a fool has no joy.

T2/T3

Ya tswalang lehlanya o rua maswabi;

ntata lehlaswa a ke ke a thaba ka lona

He who begets a madman, does so to his grief

and a father of that one who does not care does not enjoy

T4/R

Ya tswalang sethoto

o itswalla ditsietsi,

ntata sethoto o hloka thabo.

He who begets a fool,

begets troubles,

the father of a fool lacks happiness

The Hebrew text contains synonymous parallelism and word pairs: he who begets a fool and father of a fool; to his grief and does not enjoy. In other words, synonymous parallelism and word pairs in this example are the main systemic features of orality identified in the Hebrew text. T2/T3 does also represent these features and translates them in such a way that the orality of the Hebrew is sustained. In T4/R, these features of orality are more conspicuous. In other words, these features of orality in the Hebrew text are reflected in T2/T3, but further elevated in T4/R.

Moreover, in T4/R, the text’s poetic nature is more conspicuous because all facets, including the parallelisms and word pairs, are well presented in a poetic format:

Ya tswalang sethoto/he who begets a fool = ntata sethoto/father of a fool

o itswalla ditsietsi/begets troubles to himself = o hloka thabo /he lacks joy.

In simpler terms, he who begets is the father, and by begetting a fool, a father creates troubles for himself, and will never be happy in life.

4.3. Proverbs 18:19

אָ֗ח נִפְשָׁ֥ע מִקִּרְיַת־עֹ֑ז ומדונים כִּבְרִ֥יחַ אַרְמֹֽון׃

RSV: A brother helped is like a strong city, but quarreling is like the bars of a castle.

T2/T3

Ngwanabo motho, ha a hlabehile, o thata ho feta motse o qhobosheaneng.

diphapang tsa bona di ba jwaloka mekwallo [e kwallang] matlo a borena.

When a brother is made angry, he is harder than a fortified city;

their disputes are like bars of a king’s house.

T4/R
Ngwanabo motho ha a kgenne /	when a brother is made angry
o thata ho feta qhobosheyane, /	he is harder than a fortified city
qhobosheyane e matla, /	a fortified city that is strong
diphapang tsona /	disputes
eka mekwallo ya qhobosheyane/	are like bars of a fortified city

In this example, the Hebrew text is very obscured and very strange to follow. When looking at the Hebrew text, there is qere-ketiv variation. The qere variation (what is read) means oral reading or pronunciation in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew language scriptures, whereas ketiv (what is written) indicates the form of written scriptures as inherited from the tradition.

The Hebrew ומדונים is an oral reading or pronunciation of that word in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew language scriptures.

Although this variation has contributed to the strangeness of the Hebrew text, and has made it difficult for it to be translated in other Sesotho versions, T2/T3 maintained the Hebrew text (a rendering of the literal translation) regardless of the obscurity or strangeness of the Hebrew text. The Sesotho translations use the word hlabehile (T2/T3) and kgenne (T4/R) for angry; the two words are synonyms. The word qhobosheyane/ a fortified city is presented in parallel and is repeated thrice in T4/R. In line 3, T4/R renders the fortified city that is strong, an emphatic statement using Sesotho emphasis techniques. Both T2/T3 and T4/R use the simile “like” in the final line, but T4/R combines this with parallelism and simile: like bars of a fortified city. This shows that the translators in T4/R did their most to convey the Hebrew message in an efficient and functional manner for Sesotho readership.

In this case, T4/R maintained the Hebrew text (the source text), and it also enhanced it through more repetitions and emphatic statements for a Sesotho reader to understand. In addition to that, T2/T3 and T4/R maintained other systemic features of the Hebrew text like the simile and so on.

4.4. Proverbs 17:2

עֶֽבֶד־מַשְׂכִּ֗יל יִ֭מְשֹׁל בְּבֵ֣ן מֵבִ֑ישׁ וּבְתֹ֥וךְ אַ֝חִ֗ים יַחֲלֹ֥ק נַחֲלָֽה׃

A slave who deals wisely will rule over a son who acts shamefully and will share the inheritance with one of the brothers.

T2/T3

Mohlanka ya bohlale o tla busa mora e mobe [wa monga hae],

a je lefa hammoho le bara ba monga hae

a wise servant will rule over a shameful son [of his master],

he will also eat the inheritance with the sons of his master.

T4/R
Mohlanka ya masene/	a wise servant
a ka busa mora/	can rule over a son,
a busa mora ya sethoto wa monga hae/	rule over a stupid son of his master,
a arolelwa lefa jwalo ka bana ba monga hae/	benefit from the inheritance like the children of his master.

In this example, the most prominent oral feature that is represented in the Hebrew text is syntactic parallelism. This means that an argument about “a wise servant” is presented in a “staircase format”. The wise servant can do two things: (a) rule over a stupid son (b) so that ultimately, he (the wise son) benefits from the inheritance of his (stupid son) master exactly the way his master’s children will benefit. The “staircase format”, or building up of an argument or rather the syntactic parallelism of the Hebrew text is clearly represented in T2/T3, and in T4/R. One could also add that in T4/R, this format is further enhanced by the repetition of “he will rule over a shameful son”. In conclusion the Hebrew text is maintained and enhanced in the Sesotho T4/R.

4.5. Proverbs 17:8

אֶֽבֶן־חֵ֣ן הַ֭שֹּׁחַד בְּעֵינֵ֣י בְעָלָ֑יו אֶֽל־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֖ר יִפְנֶ֣ה יַשְׂכִּֽיל׃

RSV: A bribe is like a magic stone in the eyes of him who gives it; wherever he turns he prospers.

T2/T3

Mpho ke lehakwe la bohlokwa ho ya e newang;

hohle moo e kenang, e a hlola

a gift is a precious stone to the one who is given it;

wherever it is, it wins.

T4/R
Tjotjo ke hakwe la bohlokwa,	Bribery is a precious stone
ke la bohlokwa ho ya e nehwang,	it is precious to the one given it
e mo atlehisa ho tsohle tseo a di etsang	it makes him to prosper in all he does.

As in the previous example, in this verse, T4/R also presents syntactic parallelism—the repetition of bribery as a precious stone—that makes one who has it a winner in every respect of life. The Hebrew text is very strange and obscured. It appears that there is much more that needs to be said, but it has been left out or suspended. This aspect lacked or remained unsolved even in T2/T3 and T4/R. In this way, Sesotho translations tend to maintain the Hebrew text with an oral syntactic feature in place.

5. Conclusions

The main argument that this paper pursues is that T4/R is different from the T2/T3 translation with respect to the presentation or translation of some of the Hebrew preverbs.

Although T4/R represented the Hebrew proverbs in a poetic format, it also preserved and maintained the Hebrew proverbs. In some instances, where the translation in T2/T3 sounds very obscure and difficult to understand, that in T4/R, which meticulously maneuvered through all those challenges, not only maintaining the Hebrew proverbs but also enhancing their meaning in Sesotho translations, does not get lost. This was only achieved through orality and complexity theory in mind. Orality anchored by complexity makes it possible to arrive at the following conclusion: the way the Basotho have developed and understood their poetry is precisely reflected in the poetic way the proverbs were translated in the T4/R version with the preservation and enhancement of the understanding of the Hebrew proverbs. This research can be extended in the future by testing the translation of Hebrew psalms in the Sesotho translation of the Bible.