Jonah Ibn Janāḥ’s The Book of [Hebrew] Roots: Translator’s Comment

Judah ben Saul adds:

I have now completed my translation of this book, entitled The Book of Roots [Sefer ha-shorashim], the second part of The Book of Grammar [Maḥberet ha-dikduk], in the same manner in which I translated the first part, entitled The Book of Embroidery [Sefer ha-rikmah], as I explained in the introduction, and there is no reason to repeat it here. I translated the book in its entirety, with the exception of a very few passages in flowery Arabic, which the author adduces in a few places [as comparisons] to specific phrases under discussion, which the people of this land would not understand and from which they would not benefit. However, I translated, to the best of my ability, all passages in which the author compared word for word or root to root, or discussed flowery language that would be understood and is of exegetical or grammatical relevance. [ . . . ]

I will add that I am familiar with three previous translations of this book, The Book of Roots: The scholar Isaac ben Judah from Barcelona translated the sections from the letter alef until the letter lamed, as did the late R. Isaac ha-Levi. I have seen a third version, by a translator by the name of R. Solomon ben Parḥon, who translated the work in its entirety. I do not know where he was from originally, but he mentions that he translated the book in Palermo.

I have observed that Solomon changed the order of the book’s content and added his own personal material, not the work of the original author, from homilies and medicinal recipes and other matters, as he saw fit, without distinguishing them from the words of the author, with the result that the reader will assume that they are the words of the author himself. This is a great sin and transgression, for he should have noted this and explicitly indicated every passage not written by the author as material that is not part of the original work. The translation also omits in places some of the author’s words, including commentaries, grammatical points, and unique phrases, and does not reflect his literary style. I have seen fit to note this for the sake of the original author. The reader of this translation will note what I mentioned earlier.

R. Isaac ha-Levi also did not translate everything in its proper order but chose what he wanted to translate and ignored the rest. However, he did not add his own words or change the words of the author.

The translation of the scholar Isaac ben Judah follows the structure of the original book more closely than the other two translations, and he neither added nor omitted from the original, although he did shorten the flowery language in a few places. His translation is better than those mentioned above because he translated sequentially and changed nothing.

I will add that I have observed that the author of the book omitted from the section bet-ḥet-resh [baḥar] the nif‘al conjugation: The tongue of a righteous man is choice [nivḥar] silver (Proverbs 10:20) and my produce is better than choice [nivḥar] silver (Proverbs 8:19). In the section shin-mem-tet, he omitted the hif‘il conjugation: but you must remit [tashmet] whatever is due you from your kinsmen (Deuteronomy 15:3). These verses do not appear in any of the manuscripts of the book, and I do not know if they are the omission of the author or of the first scribe, for no one is free from error or forgetfulness.

I ask the readers of these books, if they discover a mistake in some of the words of the translation, to understand that it occurred inadvertently due to mental preoccupation, and to correct it, and judge me favorably, and realize that the error did not occur for lack of understanding or awareness but inadvertently, as I was distracted by stylistic considerations as well as my habitual use of Arabic in speech and thought, and its continual presence before me as I translate. It is possible that, preoccupied with this task, I used the masculine form of a word instead of the feminine, or the singular instead of the plural or the other way around, and similar things, under the influence of Arabic, without realizing it out of haste and preoccupation with the length of the poetic language. In such and similar cases, it would be right to judge me favorably, for the reasons I have mentioned.