Tafsiri - Kituruki-Kiingereza - Aşıkların gönüllerinin yanışıyla gözyaşları...

Hi Mesud
Finally - someone to start evaluating this one. Sorry for the looong delay...

The first and the second part of this translation seem to point to slightly different interpretations:

1. If there were no tears of lovers as well as their burning heart, there would not be water on earth as well as fire. -> we know for a fact that burning hearts, and fire, exist (no doubts or speculations there); if in addition to this, there were no tears, there would be no water in addition to the fire.

2. If there were no tears of lovers or their burning hearts, there would be neither water nor fire on earth. -> if both these things did not exist, there would be no fire and no water.

Can you see the difference I am trying to point out? Which would be the best interpretation, and should we use that wording or do you have another suggestion?

The latter is what I'm trying to say. But I would say "and" instead of "or".

Thank you! (Also for the replies under other translations )

If there were no tears of lovers or their burning heart...>If there were no tears of lovers because of their burning heart

That would destroy the coupling of 'burning heart' with 'fire', so it would remove a bit of the poetry which I think was intended.

Hi Turkish experts

Could I have your votes/input on this translation and a few others please? Not many people voting these days... Thanks!

CC: FIGEN KIRCI minuet Bilge Ertan 44hazal44

Hi Lein

I would say 'If there were no tears of lovers AND their burning hearts, there would be neither water nor fire on earth.'
(so,tears refer to water and burning hearts refer to fire.)

But, actually merdogan has a point, because that part of the phrase could be assumed as 'tears caused by the burning hearts of lovers' as well.

(because of the rich symbolical language of Mevlana, sometimes it's not that easy to make an exact translation of his sayings)

Hope it'll help.
(And let's see the other opinions.)

Thank you!