Translating Food and Drink-Related Insults in Shakespeare’s (Henry IV) into Arabic

This study highlights the problems of translating Shakespeare's food and drink-related insults (henceforth FDRIs) in (Henry IV, Parts I&II) into Arabic. It adopts (Vinay & Darbelnet's:1950s) model, namely (Direct& Oblique) to highlight the applicability of the different methods and procedures made by the two selected translators (Mashati:1990 & Habeeb:1905) .The present study tries to answer the following questions:(i) To what extent the FDRIs in Henry IV might pose a translational problem for the selected translators to find suitable cultural equivalents for them? (ii) Why do the translators, in many cases, resort to a literal procedure which is almost not workable with such expressions. (iii)What is the main reason behind the high percentage of inappropriateness in translating FDRIs from English into Arabic? As for the main conclusions that the study has come up with, we can sum up them in the following points.(i) Most of the FDRIs are culturally bound expressions with cultural peculiarities making them very hard to be deciphered and translated even by experienced translators.(ii) Most of the FDRIs used by Shakespeare in his tragedy Henry IV, are very old and were his own inventions, a fact that makes them very difficult not only for the non-native speakers of English as the case with our translators (Mashati &Habeeb) but also for the native speakers. (iii) Finally, one can say that all the wrong and funny renditions were due to the wrong adopted procedures by (Mashati &Habeeb) , while the other successful renderings were as a result of their well-selected procedures that consider the cultural difference between the two languages.

insult might differ from one culture to another and what is considered very insulting in one culture might be of weak effect. For example, the English word" bastard" is used in English culture with a very strong insulting effect while when it is used in Spanish its effect is weakened, becoming almost a lenient insult. (Mato&Yus ,2000,p. 2) believe that the cognitive drive that impels people to insult is the same for everybody but the tools employed are different from one language to another. The word "foxy" for example is used in English to mean (very sexy, attractive, clever, or fascinating) while the Spanish equivalent "Zorra" is used to mean (bitch, whore, or wicked) . It is worth mentioning here that Shakespeare was the best insult writer of his age who made a great contribution in this field through the coinage of many insults that used on the lips of his characters in his literary works.
Shakespeare's insults targeted the insultees' characteristics or physical appearance with aggressively focused intentionality and FDRIs are among the insults used by Shakespeare as derogatory notes.

Taxonomy of Shakespearean Insults
William Shakespeare used a lot of attributes that belong to the material things that exist around us in our physical world besides the human and animalistic abstract attributes to sarcastically address abominable characters in his plays and novels. He was not only skillful in using plantation terms like vegetables and fruits and other plant terms but he did the same with different types of drinkable materials as well as animals products (meat, fat, cheese, eggs, cheese, milk) to insult lowlife people on the lips of his characters in his works. Shakespeare's insults were not limited to food ( i.e. fruits, vegetables, drinks, meat and animal meat, fat and other products) but he used a variety of life aspects such as those belonging to man ( politicians,

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021 56 fishmongers, and pirates)or those belong to inanimate things ( rag, stone, thimble). Shakespeare also used the attributes of animals as (pigs, birds, bulls, pigeons) to address some of his characters and he went further as he used human qualities (rogue, traitor, fool), body parts (guts, lips, eye, brain) and diseases (disease, pox, canker, boil) as insulting tools. The abovementioned types of Shakespearean insults are clearly shown by the following examples retrieved from: "https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare" .
"Othello, Act II, Scene III" 3. "A goodly apple rotten at the heart." "Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene III" 4. "And like a scurvy politician seems to see the things thou dost not." "King Lear, Act IV, Scene VI" 5. "No more brain than a stone." "Twelfth Night, Act I, Scene V" 6. "The wretched. Bloody and usurping boar that spoiled your summer." "Richard III, Act V, Scene 2" 7. "What a frosty-spirited rogue is this!" "Henry IV, Act II, Scene III" 8. "He has not so much brain as ear-wax!" "Troilus and Cressida, Act V, Scene I" 9. "Thou art a boil, a plague-sore or embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood." "King Lear, Act 2, Scene 4"

(Diagram No.1: FDRs in Shakespeare's Henry IV , Parts I &II
In a nutshell, we agree with (Canning,1884,p.216)  times. Shakespeare's works alone, as (Medwell et al,2014,p.54)  English and thus they need to be checked in special glossaries or dictionaries. It is worth mentioning here that literary texts translators' task is not easy at all but it is thorny and full of challenges. They should take into consideration time and cultural differences to decode the writer's message to arrive at the intended meaning of every insulting word and expression because time and cultural restrictions run powerfully in the insulting paradigm of any language.

3.Methodology
The present study falls into two parts:(i) the theoretical part, which consists of a short background of the topic of the study, i.e. (Henry IV), related literature of (FDRIs) concept, Vinay and Drbelnet's model, and finally a taxonomy of Shakespeare's insults (ii) the practical part, which consists of nine tables with two Arabic translations of ( FDRIs) by two Arab translators, namely (Mashati:1990) and (Habeeb:1905). The tables are followed by a detailed discussion of each text. After the discussion of the selected data, a frequency analysis comes to declare the findings and to highlight the frequent procedures used by each one of the selected translators. In the end, the study comes to its conclusions followed by a list of the consulted references.

3.1.Vinay &Darbelnet's Framework of Data Analysis:
In their book which is entitled "Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology of Translation", (Vinay and Darbelnet: 1995) proposed their contrastive stylistic analysis of translation and they set up their model according to three basic linguistic aspects, namely (vocabulary "lexicon", grammar "syntax", and composition "message") (El-Farahaty,2015,p.59). The following figure which is retrieved from (Vinay &Darbelnet,1995,p.30) can give an idea about the three-dimensional planes of utterance: .  Vinay &Darbelnet (1995,p.84) (as cited in El-Farahaty,2015, claim that "certain stylistic effects cannot be transposed to TL without upsetting the syntactic order or even the lexis". To tackle this stylistic problem, they suggest two general translation methods and seven translation procedures to be followed by the translator according to the above planes. The different methods or procedures proposed by (Vinay &Darbelnet,1995,p.31) seemed at first to be countless, but they were condensed to two main methods (direct and oblique) and seven procedures (borrowing, claque, literal translation, transposition, modulation, equivalence, and adaptation); each one corresponding to a higher degree of complexity. In practice, they may be used either on their own or combined with one or more of the others. Broadly speaking, a translator can choose from these two methods. In some rendition tasks, it might be likely to transpose the SL message component by component into the TL. Vinay &Darbelnet (1995,p.31) state that " such transposition is based on either (i) parallel categories, in which case we can speak of structural parallelism, or (ii) on parallel concepts, which are the result of metalinguistic parallelisms".
In other rendition tasks, as Vinay &Darbelnet point out, a translator should manage the gaps, or "lacunae" using corresponding elements so that the overall impression is the same for the two languages. It may, however, also happen that, because of structural or metalinguistic differences, certain stylistic effects cannot be transposed into TL without upsetting the syntactic order, or even the lexis and thus a translator has to choose a more complex method of translation, namely(oblique method) to permit translators a strict control over the reliability of their work. Now, let us respectively view the two main methods and their related procedures in detail.

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021

Direct Method
This kind of method is employed only when the source language message can be transferred into the target language as a result of parallelism of structure and concepts between SL and TL. The following are the subcategories(procedures) of the direct method of translation:

Literal Translation
According to (Vinay &Darbelnet,1995,p.33 ‫أالنكليزية‬ ‫أتحدث‬ ‫أنا‬ I speak English (TL) (Abdelaal,2020,p.13 ) ‫فيلال‬ ‫اشتريت‬ ‫أنا‬ I bought a villa (TL) ( Abdelaal, 2020,p.14) Vinay and Darbelnet (1995,p.34) discuss that if the translators after trying the first three procedures come up with a conclusion that literal translation is improper because it entails a mistaken meaning, or it is meaningless or impossible for structural or pragmatic ends, then they must turn to the procedures of oblique translation.

Oblique (Indirect)Translation
This kind of method is employed when source language message cannot be transferred directly into target language via literal translation due to the absence of parallelism of structures and meta-linguistic concepts between SL and TL. This case happens when SL and TL belong to different language families as in the case between English and Arabic. Thus, the translators have to dispense with a literal translation and turn to oblique (indirect) translation method to produce an acceptable translation by TL receptors. The following are the subcategories (procedures) of the oblique method.

Transposition
Based on (Vinay &Darbelnet,1995,p.36), a transposition is the replacement of a word class with another without altering the propositional content of the message. In translation, there are two distinct types of transposition: (i) obligatory transposition, and (ii) optional transposition .
Consider the following examples that are retrieved from (Nasser, 2020,p.78).

‫قرع‬ ‫الباب‬ ‫علينا‬
There was a knock at the door ← (Optional Transposition)

Modulation
In accordance with (Vinay &Darbelnet ,1995,p.36 translation results in a grammatically correct utterance, it is considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL. Modulation is of two types: (i) obligatory modulation, and (ii) optional modulation. In translation between English and Arabic, modulation is widely used. For example, the Arabic translator tends to translate passive construction in English into Active in Arabic and this is an optional modulation. Consider the following examples retrieved from (Nasser,2020,p.78 ): ‫الرسالة‬ ‫كتب‬ ‫←جون‬ ←The letter was written by John (Optional )

Adaptation
According to (Vinay and Darbelnet ,1995,p.39), adaptation is used in those cases where the type of situation being referred to by the SL message is unknown in the target culture. In such cases, translators have to create a new situation that can be considered as being equivalent. Adaptation can, therefore, be described as a special kind of equivalence, a situational equivalence. Adaptations are particularly frequent in the translation of book and film titles, culture-specific terms and expressions.

Data Analysis
The present study is quantitative and qualitative in nature. To come up with the desirable results and to answer the questions put forward by the researcher, nine English texts with literary insults were selected from different acts and scenes of Shakespeare's (Henry IV, part I&II) along with their Arabic translation to be the corpus of the study. To achieve the goal of the present study, the selected texts were carefully read and analyzed in terms of the cultural differences between SL &TL in what concerns FDRIs.
Then a frequency analysis based on Vinay and Darbelnet's direct and oblique model of translation was carried out to shed light on the most appropriate procedure that should be adopted in translating literary FDRIs from English into Arabic.

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021

Results and Discussion
The subjects' renditions of the selected insults are thoroughly displayed and discussed in the following section:
Down with them! Fleece them!" "Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 2,p.43" Mashati (1990,p.44) Literal ‫شحما"‬ ‫الممتلئون‬ Habeeb (1905,p.79) According to (Guerrin,2016,p.22), the word" bacon" is derived from old French, and it is etymologically related to the back "buttock" of the swine which is mainly consumed by the rural people in England in Shakespeare's days. The word was first used by Shakespeare on the lips of Falstaff in Henry IV as an intended insult through the use of the negative connotative meaning of the word "bacon " as a food image. Falstaff, as (Guerrin,2016,p.23), points out, used the expression "bacon-fed knaves" to let us know that the travelers were fat and more paradoxically, rustic, unsophisticated rural people because swine's flesh was the meat chiefly consumed by the rural population of England. The situation here is very

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021 ironic as Falstaff gives to the travelers his characteristic features, his fatness and suggests they are poor men and at the same time he robs them. Mashati (1990,p.44), andHabeeb (1905,p.79) were unlucky with this text as they chose the direct method of translation (literal translation procedure) to translate it into Arabic. In fact, their choice was inappropriate since literal translation is not fit for all contexts especially when there is no lexical parallelism between TL and SL. Consequently, the direct transfer of SL text into TL idiomatically failed. Both of the Arabic translators could not provide an equivalent image that corresponds to the SL image as well as the intended meaning of the speaker was not conveyed. Mashati (1990,p.44), provided the word ‫"الدهن"‬ as an equivalent to the English word "bacon" which is entirely different from SL food item and refers to an entirely different object. Habeeb (1905,p.79), on the other hand, wrongly provided" ‫وماال‬ ‫شحما"‬ ‫""الممتلؤن‬ as an equivalent to "bacon-fed knaves" . He provided ‫شحما"‬ " as an equivalent of the word "bacon" and thus he committed the same mistake of Mashati in providing a different object with different semantic features. The second mistake done by Habeeb is the use of the word " ‫""ماال‬ which indicates that the rural people are rich, and since there is no hint in Falstaff's words to the money that the travelers had with them, it is considered faulty and needless piece of information.
One can deduce from Falstaff's description that they were poor, rural, rustic people depending on the fact that bacon was mainly consumed by the poor rural population in Shakespeare. In a nutshell, the expression "bacon-fed knaves" was used by Shakespeare to refer to the rural people and he could convey that through the use of the compound word "bacon-fed". At

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021 the same time, he wanted to say that rural people are rustic or hick and disgusting as they consume bacon which very difficult to digest.

SLT No.2
Falstaff: "There's no more faith in thee than in a stewed prune". "Henry IV, Part 1, Act 3, Scene  Habeeb (1905,p.162) According to (Guerrin,2016,p.384), stewed-prunes are dried plums which were a popular dish in brothels which were known as "stews". In Henry VI, Shakespeare uses this expression on the lips of Falstaff during his conversation with the hostess as he relates her to the world of the brothel by this scornful and figurative use of the language. The expression conveys the notion of deception and unfaithfulness as it is indirectly said. Stewed-prune is a euphemism of the word" whore" and both belong to a brothel.
Bawdiness, as (Hardy,1979,p.180) points out, was compounded by Shakespeare through the proliferation of sexual references as "beast, otter, fish, stewed-prune, etc.". The food image of "stewed-prune" is a reference to

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021 a whore, not something else. Falstaff makes a comparison between the hostess and a whore(stewed-prune) and the point of similarity is the concept of unfaithfulness. The whole comparison is carried out through the use of the food item "stewed-prune" that has a negative connotation, namely "a whore". The word "whore" in its turn has many negative connotations; the most common of which is unfaithfulness and it is the speaker's intended meaning in the given context. Mashati (1990,p.107), provided‫دجال‬ ‫"كاذب‬ " , a lying charlatan " as an equivalent for the figuratively used food item "stewed prune" which mainly refers to "a whore" and thus he has changed the object of the referring expression and the image to which the hostess is compared to, namely.," a whore". Mashati tried to modulate SL text for the sake of politeness. By using ‫دجال"‬ ‫."كاذب‬ Mashati sought for a politer expression due to TL cultural norms.
One cannot deny that he has succeeded in conveying the image politely or less directly as it is in English but at the same time he committed a mistake when he has changed the point of comparison between the hostess and "a stewed-prune". Mashati used ‫"منافقة"‬ instead of " ‫وفاء‬ ‫فيك‬ ‫وفية,ليس‬ ‫"غير‬ and thus he shifted the notion of "unfaithfulness " into the notion of "hypocrisy".
In the same time, he shifted the sex of the image of comparison from feminine to masculine, as if in Arabic only men have such feature while he could use for example.,"‫محتالة‬ ‫كاذبة‬ "with a slight amendment to the other items in the text, i.e., changing ‫منافقة"‬ " with ‫الوفاء"‬ ‫من‬ ‫فيك‬ ‫"ليس‬ and thus his rendition can be more appropriate without any change in the propositional content of SL text. Another try to convey the intended meaning of Shakespeare's bawdy wordplay "stewed-prune" into Arabic was made by (Habeeb,1905,p.162). Habeeb provided"‫عاهرة‬ ‫"أمراة‬ as an equivalent for the

Journal of the College of Languages
No. (43) 2021 English food item "stewed-prune". Habeeb was luckier than Mashati in his attempt. He applied another procedure of translation, namely "adaptation".
Thus, he brought a concept in Arabic, ‫عاهرة"‬ ‫"أمراة‬ that corresponds to the SL item "stewed-prune" in meaning. Habeeb succeeded to convey the intended meaning but at the same time he failed to keep the stylistic indirectness of the writer since he used the very direct expression " ‫أمراة‬ ‫."عاهرة‬ Habeeb's rendition was not 100% correct due to the stylistic shift.
Even if we attribute the decision made by him to the fact that Arabic does not have an indirect idiomatic food expression as English does as in this case as a result of an expected lexical gap between SL and TL, but still there are other choices with less amount of directness or dysphemism, for example, ‫ليل"‬ ‫بنت‬ ‫هوى,‬ ‫بنت‬ ". See the proposed translation above.

SLT No.3
Falstaff: "All the other gifts appurtenant to man, as the malice of this age, shapes them, are not worth a gooseberry." "Henry IV, Part 2, Act 1, Scene 2,p.169" According to (Fairecloth and Thomas,2014,p.157), gooseberry refers to a spiny shrub of the currant family which was cultivated to produce larger slightly sweeter berries than those that were available in the wild. It was planted as a decorative shrub. The fruit of this plant was backed and served as a relish with meat. Gooseberry not only has a nutritious value in English culture but also a proverbial use. In Shakespeare's time, as Fairecloth and Thomas, point out, this plant was a symbol of anything that has very little value or dirty-cheap because of its abundance in that time. Shakespeare in Henry IV used this plant in its figurative meaning on the lips of Falstaff in his verbal duel with the chief justice complaining against the injustice that befell good men like him in the commercial age. Falstaff says: "all other gifts pertinent to a man, as the malice of this age shapes them are not worth a gooseberry". The intended meaning behind the use of Falstaff to such food items is to show the trivial value given to his and other men's talent. He did that through the use of the figurative analogy between the men's gifts and the food item "gooseberries". Both (Mashati,p.185 &Habeeb,p.272) succeeded in conveying the intended meaning of the speaker as they provided the Arabic idiomatic equivalent of the English food idiomatic expression "don't worth a gooseberry". But it is worth mentioning here that both translators were too classic. Both provided classic Arabic equivalent Mashati's rendition is adopted here.

SLT
Adaptation ‫ر‬ ‫عديد‬ Mashati (1990,p.48) Adaptation ‫الهمة‬ ‫خائر‬ Habeeb (1905,p.82) Henry Percy, known as "Hotspur" is the son of the Earl of Northumberland. He has fought for king Henry IV in Scotland but now, in this scene, he is conspiring with the enemy Douglas against the king and attempts to launch a military attack against him (Blaisdell,2006,p.18). In this scene, Hotspur receives a letter from a friend who rejects to join him in his rebellion against the king. Hotspur's reaction to the refusal of the nobleman was sever so he described him as a dish of skim milk, i.e., a shallow cowardly hind . Shakespeare used the expression "a dish of skim milk" as an insult directed by Hotspur to the coward nobleman. It was first coined by Shakespeare and used as a symbol of a person with his or her courage removed as the milk with its fat or cream removed. The figurative use of such expression extended to our modern time with a slight amendment on the expression which has become "a dish of skimmed milk" not "a dish of skim milk".
Mashati & Habeeb in their attempt to provide an appropriate translation for the food-related insult by Shakespeare they both adapted the oblique method of translation(adaptation). Both translators did their best to convey the intended meaning behind the use of such expression.
Consequently, (Mashati,1990,p.48) provided"‫"رعديد‬ while (Habeeb ,1905,p.82) provided ‫الهمة"‬ ‫"خائر‬ as Arabic equivalents of the English expression "a dish of skim milk". Mashati was more very close to the intended meaning by the speaker in comparison with Habeeb who provided ‫الهمة"‬ ‫"خائر‬ for the English expression. Here we can take back translation as a test for the most appropriate translation of both translators. For example, if we put ‫رعديد""‬ back into English depending on Al-Ma'ani Arabic-Arabic dictionary & Lasan Al-Arab by Ibin Manthoor (1993Manthoor ( , p.1669, we can see that the most appropriate word in English for it is "coward" or "very coward" while if we put ‫الهمة"‬ ‫خائر‬ " back into English depending on the same criteria,i.e.(back translation and an Arabic-Arabic dictionary) then we will see that the expressions; "someone with weak determination" or "someone with weak will or personality" is the most appropriate equivalents in English and they are to some extent near to the intended meaning but not the exact meaning intended by the speaker i.e. "a coward person".Thus, Mashati's rendition ‫رعديد"‬ " is the most appropriate one. See the table above.  Habeeb (1905,p.116) In this text, Hal directs an insult to Falstaff and accuses him of being drunkard. According to (Guerrin,2016,p.68) and (Irving &Marshall 1890,p.255), a bombard is a waxed leather vessel coated from outside with tar or pitch and used for holding liquor. Guerrin points out that in Henry IV, Shakespeare used the expression "a huge bombard of sack" as a metaphoric insult that transfers Falstaff into a vessel or container for liquor either for holding it or for drinking from. Guerrin, believes that Shakespeare used the word" bombard" to highlight some features of Falstaff, for example., to show us that Falstaff is as black as the vessel of a sack that is coated with tar from outside and he is as noisy as the bombard of war. To translate this text into Arabic, both translators have selected the direct method of translation, namely (literal procedure). Consequently, (Mashati ,1990,p.75

Journal of the College of Languages
‫ا‬ ‫الدن‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫بالخمر‬ ‫لمملوء‬ " while (Habeeb ,1905,p.116)  worth mentioning here that the Arabic word"‫دن‬ " is not the same as ‫"زق"‬ because the two objects are made of different materials and have different physical shapes even though both refer to liquor containers. According to Al-Ma'ani Arabic online dictionary; the Arabic word ‫دن"‬ " refers to the material object "barrel" while the Arabic word"‫"زق‬ refers to the material object "bombard" i.e., a container made of leather". Thus, Habeeb could provide the most appropriate translation because his translation could not only keep the image of the comparison made by Shakespeare between Falstaff's belly and the bombard but also it kept the image of comparison between Falstaff's skin color and the color of the leather vessel which is coated with a pitch from outside.
In this text the Sheriff and the carrier visit prince Hal's stronghold seeking for Falstaff and his companions who robbed the carrier's money.
Falstaff was hiding behind the curtain according to prince Hal's orders while the other thieves were asked to hide upstairs. Then the sheriff describes the shape of thieves to the prince then he informs him that there is one who is a  Habeeb (1905,p.12 ) grossly fat man is known to him. The carrier, on the other hand, adds more details to the description made by the sheriff as he says "yes, he is as fat as butter". To translate this text into Arabic, Mashati adopted an oblique procedure(modulation) which is not applicable in this case. Mshati committed a serious mistake in his attempt to translate the intended insult because he modulated the text in a very bad manner instead of looking for an appropriate Arabic equivalent. Habeeb (1905:120), on the other hand, adopted a direct translation method (literal procedure). Since simile is a kind of figurative language use, one has to think of cultural filtering. In this text, we see the carrier uses the word "butter" to show how much fat Falstaff is! The speaker compared Falstaff to "butter" and it is quite acceptable in English culture; but is it acceptable the same in our culture? If yes, then his translation is 100% appropriate but if the reverse is true then his translation must be adapted to our culture and this is what happened in the proposed translation in the above  Habeeb (1905,p.101) Walker (2019 illustrates that one of the things that makes Falstaff so funny is his ongoing hyperbole to expatiate on his heroic performance by the unconventional use of metaphor. In this scene, Falstaff claims that he and his accomplice could steal a thousand pounds in the Gadshill heist and he then tells prince Hal that a hundred other men stole it from them, but not before he had fought with dozens of them two hours together. But after that, Hal confronts him with a more accurate account of what happened, then Falstaff defended himself by his famous expression" but if I fought not with fifty of them I am a bunch of radishes". According to (Weil&Weil ,1997,p.117) and (Tayler et al, 2016(Tayler et al, ,p.1306, the FRI used by Falstaff in this scene exactly means excessive leanness or cowardice since radish was used in Shakespeare's time as a symbol of cowardice or coward people. It is red on the outside and the red color signifies power with positive color connotation while it is white from inside and the white color here signifies cowardice with a negative connotation. Mashati (1990,p.62) failed in his attempt because he provided a literal translation of the TL expression (a bunch of radishes) as he translated it into Arabic as ‫فجل(‬ ‫)باقة‬ which does not bear the figurative meaning of SL due to the cultural difference and the lack of such image in Arabic. As for (Habeeb ,1905,p.101), he also failed in his attempt to convey the exact meaning of the TL expression even he has followed a different procedure from that followed by Mashati. Habeeb provided the Arabic expression ‫الفجل(‬ ‫كعود‬ ‫)هزيل‬ as an equivalent to the English expression (a bunch of radishes) but he did not put in his consideration that such an image is not Falstaff: "He a good wit? Hang him, baboon. His wit's as thick as Tewksbury mustard. There's no more conceit in him than is in a mallet" "Henry IV, Part 2, Act 2, Scene 4,p.201"

Proposed Rendition
Adopted Procedure/s TLT Subjects ‫بثخن‬ ‫فطنته‬ ‫أن‬ ‫الحجر‬ (Zangana,2000:38) literal ‫مثل‬ ‫الذوق‬ ‫عديم‬ ‫الفهم‬ ‫غليظ‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫بري"‬ ‫"توكس‬ ‫.خردل‬ (1990,p.229) Literal ‫من‬ ‫أغبى‬ ‫عقله‬ ‫أن‬ " ‫خردل‬ ‫بري‬ ‫"توكس‬ (1905,p.329) According to (Beisly ,1864,p.97), Tewkesbury mustard was sharp and biting. It was considered the best in Shakespeare's time. It is named after the town that produces it "Tewksbury"; the fair and large town and the place of the famous mustard makers in Yorkshire in England. In this scene, Falstaff directs an insult toward his friend Poins as he makes a kind of comparison between his friend's character and Tewkesbury mustard. Such comparison is based on an exact point of similarity intended by Falstaff which is the thickness of such kind of mustard and the wit or brain of his friend. Here, both (Mashati ,1990,p.229) and (Habeeb ,1905,p.329) could not provide the appropriate meaning of the SL expression in TLT. Their renditions seem very foreign and strange due to the adoption of a wrong choice or procedure, i.e., (literal procedure). The literal procedure here can do nothing to convey the intended meaning of the author thus they had better follow another procedure that can fulfill the task. Consider the proposed rendition in the table in which we follow an appropriate procedure, i.e., (adaptation).  Habeeb (1905,p.98) In this scene as (Phipson,1883,p.374) points out, Falstaff contemptuously denounces the cowardice of the prince and his friend Poins.

Habeeb
He says:" Go thy way, old Jack; die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be not forgotten upon the face of the earth, then am I a shotten herring". ( Doran ,874,p.450) & (Phipson,1883,p.374) agree that the phrase (a shotten herring) was figuratively used to depict the state of the lean meager fellow, i.e.(Falstaff). Doran, on the other hand, excludes the literal meaning of the expression, i.e., (a gutted herring that is dried for keeping". For him, the phrase (a shotten herring) as applied to fish is unlikely to mean gutted and dried as it is in its literal meaning but it means a shabby underfed fellow who is thrown out like rubbish or refuse. (Mashati ,1990,p.59) has failed in his attempt because he provided a literal translation of the TL expression (a shotten herring) as he translated it into Arabic as ( ‫مجفف‬ ‫كسمك‬ ‫)مدخن‬ which does not bear the figurative meaning of SL due to the cultural difference and the lack of such an image in Arabic. As for (Habeeb ,1905,p.98), he also failed in his attempt to convey the exact meaning of the TL expression as he also has followed a literal procedure. Habeeb provided the Arabic expression ‫واهنة(‬ ‫)كسمكة‬ as an equivalent to the English expression (a shotten herring) and he did not put in his consideration that such an image is not used in Arabic and the use of it makes it very strange to the Arabic reader to understand. The English expression can be appropriately translated into Arabic if one finds the equivalent object in Arabic which conveys the same intended meaning; otherwise one can give the intended meaning directly into Arabic especially in the case of the cultural gap between the two languages in what concerns the type of food used for the same insult.
Consider the proposed translation in the table.

IV. Findings
The present study has come up with the following findings: (

V. Conclusions
The present study has come up with the conclusions: 1. Most of the FDRIs are culturally bound expressions with cultural peculiarities making them very hard to be deciphered and translated even by experienced translators.
2. Most of the FDRIs used by Shakespeare in his tragedy Henry IV, are very old and were his own inventions, a fact that makes them very difficult not only for the non-native speakers of English as the case with our translators (Mashati &Habeeb) but also for the native speakers of it.
3. The wrong adopted procedures by (Mashati &Habeeb) lead them in many cases to wrong and funny renditions.
4 The frequency of direct method followed by both translators is 55.6% while the frequency of the oblique one is 44.4%. This entails that they were SL oriented.
7.The translators of Shakespeare's works should put in their minds that their mission is not easy at all due to the abundant use of literary devices, and the implicit meaning. Thus, overlooking the cultural differences and the writer's intentionality would inevitably lead to a very award, senseless translation.