معقد لدرجة عبثية

Byzantine complexity is anything that is so overly and unnecessarily complex as to be beyond understanding. The implication is often that something with Byzantine complexity is not worth understanding.

أو معقد تعقيداً بيزنطياً

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2020-03-21 19:51:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The term in this question is a figure of speech. I have previously stated the most basic rule of operation in dealing with figures of speech in translation. At the risk of repeating myself, I am going restate the basic rule with some elaboration:

- Translate literally, unless there is a compelling reason not to. Only you can decide whether there is a compelling reason.

You can call this The First Principle of Translation.

It is worth repeating because translators often operate contrary to this essential principle -- not all the time, of course. They mostly resort to alternatives to literal translation as a workaround when a figure of speech appears like a bump on the road. Is it wrong to swerve? The answer is no, it is not wrong, but before you resort to an alternative, you need to be aware of the risks you run when you avoid translating the figure of speech that you encounter as it is. What are these risks? Let's take a look:

1. Being unfaithful to the text as intended by the author: Translation integrity requires that we assume that the author knew that he/she was using a figure of speech rather than direct verbiage; that he/she knew the inherent risks of using indirect language; and that he/she chose to do so despite the inherent risks. Authors use risky figures of speech all the time for a variety of reasons, and they are not obligated to provide an explanation for their stylistic choices, but we are obligate to respect their choices, unless there is a compelling reason use an alternative.

2. Being disrespectful to the reader: Washing out the original figures of speech with Clorox basically says to the reader: You are not entitled to the text as written. I decide for you which figure of speech you should grapple with and which figure of speech you should be spared. I am smarter than you. I am going to decide which figures of speech are too hard for you, and will save you from the intellectual effort by replacing it with simpler, less poetic language. In doing so, I will deprive you from experiencing the power, the beauty and elegance of the original literary devices employed by the author, but who are you to complain? You are just the reader.

3. The slippery slope: The first sin stated above is against the author. The second sin is against the reader. This third sin is committed by the translator against his/her own skill and against the translation craft itself. Habitually working around every figure of speech as if it were a blasphemy leads to an erosion of skill and to the cultivation of an attitude and a culture within the translation community and industry that figures of speech are optional, and anything that elevates the mind or delight the literary sense is unnecessary clutter. We can freely level it down with a bulldozer to make way for quicker translation turnaround and for easier reading by inferior minds.

I have previously pointed out two possible alternatives to translating a figure of speech: (1) substituting what we think the author meant for what the author wrote; and (2) replacing the figure of speech with another figure of speech that we think is more accessible or reads more gracefully in the target language. I still maintain that these are legitimate alternatives -- when there is (and this is the key) a compelling reason to do so.

An example might help: In some languages, such as English, many figures of speech come from sports: playing hardball, a homerun, out of the ballpark, under the wire, a Hail Mary, a slam dunk, etc. For the figure of speech to make sense, the reader must have fair acquaintance with the sport from which the figure of speech was borrowed. Some sports are not well-known in some regions of the world. Hockey, for instance, is understandably not well-known in warm regions. Baseball and American football are not culturally rooted in some regions. That would be a good reason to defer to an alternative. We must keep in mind, though, that by definition, choosing an alternative should be rare and well-justified.

Now, some will look at this and express astonishment that anyone would advocate for "literal" translation. There are many reason for the astonishment, but the basic ones are two:

1. Many translators think that "literal" translation means "word-for-word" translation. Anyone who knows more than one language knows that sentences are structured differently in different language; that words of similar meaning in different languages rarely match (they mostly overlap), and that connotations and idioms complicate the translation process. Therefore, word-to-word translation is rejected. Literal translation, however, is not that. It simply means making all reasonable effort to faithfully maintain all the content that the author intended, including rhetorical devices that contribute to totality of the author's work.

2. Translation training courses usually include hilarious examples of translations done with a mindlessly slavish, machine-like approach. Translators often exchange lists of such idiotic renditions. I have seen many of them, and they are really funny. These examples are compiled to inoculate translators against the temptation to translate without regard to the requirements of the target language. Unfortunately, the inoculation often works too well: it often makes translators hasten to edit out anything interesting in the text. The result is usually a translation text that is bland and free of any human touch. In a sense, it carries only a portion of the content of the source text. I have seen even worse than bland. I have seen instances where the translator does not translate at all: the translator takes it upon himself/herself to to go so far as to explain the text, as if the reader is an illiterate imbecile who can't be trusted to figure it out on his/her own.

These are the main reasons. They are good reasons for translating mindfully and strategically, for avoiding a slavish imitation of the source text, but not for shirking the responsibilities of the craft.