من حفر حفرة لأخيه وقع فيها

Fusha Arabic
Man hafra hufratan li-akkihi waqa’a fiha
He who digs a hole for his brother will fall into it
Hoist with his own petard

Όποιος σκάβει το λάκκο του άλλου, πέφτει ο ίδιος μέσα.

/opços skavi to lako tu alu pefti o iðʝos mesa/

Whoever digs another's pit falls into it himself.

Spoken for someone, who tries to hurt someone and gets hurt themselves.

The two proverbs deliver a shared moral lesson: those who scheme harm against others often find themselves the victims of their own designs. Both highlight themes of justice, reciprocity, and the moral consequences of one’s actions.

         The structure of the Arabic proverb is formal and rhythmic, characteristic of Classical Arabic (Fusha). The repetition of sounds in حفرة (hufra, “pit”) and وقع  (waqa’a, “falls”) creates a memorable cadence. The phrase لأخيه (li-akhihi, “for his brother”) adds a relational dimension, underscoring familial and social responsibility. The pit serves as a metaphor for a deliberate trap, illustrating the belief that harmful intentions toward others often rebound on the perpetrator. Through linking the metaphor to a communal or relational context through لأخيه (li-akhihi), the proverb enhances the severity of betrayal and its effects.

On the other hand, the Greek proverb is stated in a more informal language than the Arabic one. Its conditional structure, Όποιος (opios, “he who”), focuses on why something happens and what happens as a result, and the two words that are most closely related to the concept of the Arabic proverb, skavi (dig) and pefei (fall), are also used in parallel. The image of a pit (λάκκος, lakkos) is also clear and can be understood by everyone, and like the Arabic proverb, it is intentional in conveying the idea of causing harm. The Greek proverb extends the scope of the application to all relationships, not just familial ones as in the Arabic proverb.

Both proverbs convey the message that ill intentions usually end up backfiring on the ill-intentioned. They embody the cultural notions of justice in the divine arena of the Arabic culture and in the natural realm of the Greek one. The Arabic proverb is said about a person who plots against others but ends up falling into their own trap, causing harm to themselves. It is mostly used by the elderly around the Middle East. It attaches the lesson to religious and ethical principles, focusing on the afterlife consequences of actions, while the Greek version places more accent on reason and inevitable consequences of actions, which dictate that things must happen as they do. These proverbs are a lesson, a lesson on how to avoid deceit and malice, how to practice decency and ethics in our relationships. In their simplest form, as metaphors, they cross cultural and temporal barriers. The pit is suddenly no longer specific to a particular culture but has become a clear image of the danger that lies in waiting to hurt oneself.

The history of the Arabic proverb is as follows: There were two brothers, one wealthy and the other poor and blind. The rich brother often gathered with prominent merchants in his council, which was far from the home of his blind brother. The poor brother had to walk a long and difficult path to reach it. However, the wealthy brother was embarrassed by his brother's presence in front of his affluent companions, so he decided to get rid of him. One day, he ordered his servants to dig a pit along the path leading to his council so that his blind brother would fall into it, after which the workers would bury him, causing his death. At dawn, the rich brother set out, but by God's will, he forgot where the pit was and fell into it. Because of the darkness, the workers mistakenly believed he was the blind brother and buried him. When they later saw the blind brother still alive, one of them said: “Whoever digs a pit for his brother will fall into it.”[1] It represents the culture and religion on the issue of divine justice and ethical reciprocity, which is consistent with the Quranic verse “وَلاَ يَحِيقُ ٱلْمَكْرُ ٱلسَّيِّئُ إِلَّا بِأَهْلِِ” ("Evil plotting does not encompass except its own people," Quran 35:43). The use of لأخيه (li-akhihi, "his brother") also shows the role of social relationships in the society, and since betrayal is an offense to the community, it is more punishable. The opposite is true for the Greek proverb: it is based on the assumption that what one does, will always affect them in some way. This is in concurrence with the Greek philosophical tradition, for example, Nemesis the goddess of retribution. The cultural emphasis is less on the specific relationships that the Greek proverb is not tied to family units, but instead on ethical action in all relationships.

The emphasis differs in the culture: the Arabic proverb, with its focus on brother, represents a collectivist perspective consistent with Arab cultural and Islamic values, which emphasize the family and community. The framework of the Greek proverb is universal, in harmony with the Greek philosophical tradition of justice and natural consequences and with ethical universals, not with specific social roles. In these two proverbs, we see two different, yet related, cultural approaches to morality and what happens when people act.

The history of the Greek proverb offers a striking narrative that underscores its message. King Leo the Armenian, an iconoclast, imprisoned Michael, a former ally, intending to execute him on Christmas Day for opposing his policies. However, during a visit to the prison on Christmas Eve, the king discovered an unexpected scene: the prison guard had shown Michael respect by sharing his blanket while he slept on the floor. Fearing retribution, the guard and Michael conspired against the king. On Christmas morning, they assassinated King Leo, reversing his plans and fulfilling the adage, “He who digs another’s pit falls into it himself.” This tale, chronicled in the book Faith Alone Is Not Enough by Agios Nikolaos Velimirovich, encapsulates the inevitability of moral justice, whether human or divine.

From the book: Agios Nikolaos Velimirovich, “Faith alone is not enough...”. Missionary letters B' - Publications “En plo”, 2008.

[1] https://www.baladna.ps/news/10520.html  (accessed on 20 October 2024)

 انفرطت المسبحة

(Syrian-Lebanese)

Infartat al-masbaha
The prayer beads have come unstrung
The fat is in the fire

Ρίχνω λάδι στη φωτιά

/rixno laði sti pʰotça/

I throw fuel to the fire.

Proverbs give a culture’s perspective on chaos, conflict, and the effects of disruption. The Syrian-Lebanese “نفَرطت المسبحة” (Infartat al-masbaha, “The prayer beads have come unstrung”) and the Greek “Ρίχνω λάδι στη φωτιά” (/rixno laði sti pʰotça/, “I throw oil on the fire”) are about loss of order and worsening of conflict, respectively. Both proverbs capture a specific moment when control is slipping or tension is rising, and both give a small but clear insight into cultural norms around disorder and its consequences. In spite of the differences between the two expressions, both of them embody the same principles of precaution, regularity, and the effects of destabilizing events.

The structure of “نفَرطت المسبحة” is short and metaphorical. "المسبحة"Al-Masbaha (the prayer beads) is a symbol of order and unity, and "نفَرطت" infartat means the collapse of that order. The phrase is also visually evocative, which brings to mind a picture of beads spreading in all directions. The beads denote harmony, spirituality and control, and therefore their unstringing is a perfect way to describe disorder. This imagery is linked to religious and cultural routines, giving weight to the cultural significance of preserving togetherness and regimen. The Greek proverb is more action-based and more specific in its words. The phrase “ρίχνω λάδι” (rixno laði, "I throw oil") implies an intentional act, while “στη φωτιά” (sti pʰotça, "on the fire") vividly describes building up. The structure of the two paragraphs is also cause and effect, and it shows that adding oil makes the conflict worse. Tension and conflict are represented by fire and oil imagery, which is lively and passionate. Fire is a highly active phenomenon, and oil as an accelerant represents actions that make the fire worse. This metaphor is related to the roles of human actions in increasing the chaos.

Both proverbs revolve around the idea that one should know that things or actions lead to chaos at some point. The Arabic one focuses on the consequence of the chaos (the beads are broken), while the Greek one focuses on the process of the chaos (oil is added), focusing more on the effect of actions that cause chaos. The unstrung Arabic prayer beads are a symbol of the breakdown of a cherished concept of order and, therefore, reflect the attitude of the community toward unity and order. The intensification of Greek fire warns against actions that disrupt stability, reflecting a value for maintaining balance in tense situations. Both sayings caution against allowing situations to spiral out of control, whether by negligence (Arabic) or intentional provocation (Greek). Both proverbs are commonly used in interpersonal contexts, reflecting their role in guiding behavior within family, social, or community settings. In essence, 'adding fuel to the fire' means 'exacerbating things', i.e. by saying something or doing something I make a situation worse.

The Arabic proverb is used in a poem by Bydawi Alwagdani:

Original Arabic text

English translation

انفكت السبحة وضاع الخرز ضاع

 وبغيت ألمه يا سليمـان وازريـت

 صار الذهب قصدير والورد نعناع

 أنكرت ريحه مختلف يوم شميـت

 الباب طايـــــــح والمساميـر خــلاّع

 والحَبّ فيه السوس والفار في البيت[1]

The string of beads has broken, and the beads are lost,
I wanted to gather them, O Suleiman, but I failed.

The gold turned to tin, and the roses became mint,
I denied its fragrance when I smelled it differently.

The door is falling, and the nails are gone,
The grain is full of worms, and the rat is in the house

Relation to the meaning:

The poem reflects a situation where once something which was valuable is now broken and corrupted. It represents a sense of loss and inability to restore things to their former state.

Similarly, there is a Greek folk song (λαϊκό) performed by Paschalis Terzis, titled “Rixe laði sti pʰotça/, whose lyrics are the following:

Original Greek lyrics

Πάνω στο θυμό σου είπες πράγματα πολύ βαριά

μέθυσες αλλά δεν ήπιες, και με κέρασες φωτιά

ο εγωισμός να ξέρεις, φέρνει την καταστροφή

και ο δρόμος που διαλέγεις, δε θα έχει επιστροφή.

Ρίξε κι άλλο λάδι στη φωτιά

πες μου ότι πια δε με χρειάζεσαι

κι αν σου περισσεύει μια καρδιά

δωσ' τη μου να ζήσω κι ας μη νοιάζεσαι

Pίξε κι άλλο λάδι στη φωτιά

πες μου πως ποτέ δε σε αγάπησα

κι αν σου περισσεύει μια ματιά

κοίτα με πριν φύγω γιατί άργησα.

Πάνω στο θυμό σου είπες, λόγια που δε λέγονται

μου `δειξες αλλά δεν είδες, οι καρδιές πως καίγονται

ο εγωισμός να ξέρεις, θα μας βγάλει σε γκρεμό

κι αν μου λες πως υποφέρεις, τότε τι να πω εγώ.

Ρίξε κι άλλο λάδι στη φωτιά

πες μου ότι πια δε με χρειάζεσαι

κι αν σου περισσεύει μια καρδιά

δωσ' τη μου να ζήσω κι ας μη νοιάζεσαι

Ρίξε κι άλλο λάδι στη φωτιά

πες μου πως ποτέ δε σε αγάπησα

κι αν σου περισσεύει μια ματιά

κοίτα με πριν φύγω γιατί άργησα.

Ρίξε κι άλλο λάδι στη φωτιά

πες μου ότι πια δε με χρειάζεσαι

κι αν σου περισσεύει μια καρδιά

δωσ' τη μου να ζήσω κι ας μη νοιάζεσαι

Ρίξε κι άλλο λάδι στη φωτιά

πες μου πως ποτέ δε σε αγάπησα

κι αν σου περισσεύει μια ματιά

κοίτα με πριν φύγω γιατί άργησα.

English translation

In your anger you said very heavy things you got drunk but didn't drink, and you treated me to fire selfishness, you know, brings destruction and the path you choose, there will be no turning back.

Pour more oil on the fire

tell me that you don't need me anymore

and if you have a heart to spare

give me mine so I can live even if you don't care

pour more oil on the fire

tell me that I never loved you

and if you have a look to spare

look at me before I leave because I was late.

In your anger you said, words that are not said you showed me but you didn't see, how hearts burn selfishness, you know, will take us off a cliff and if you tell me that you suffer, then what can I say.

 Add more fuel to the fire tell me that you don't need me anymore

and if you have a heart left

give it to me so I can live and even if you don't care

Αdd more fuel to the fire

tell me that I never loved you

and if you have a look left

look at me before I leave because I'm late.

Add more fuel to the fire

tell me that you don't need me anymore

and if you have a heart left

give it to me so I can live and even if you don't care

Αdd more fuel to the fire

tell me that I never loved you

and if you have a look left

look at me before I leave because I'm late.

The music has been composed by Christos Dantis, and the lyrics belong to Dimitris Tsafas. The song can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqgWxy-DTmo

In Syrian-Lebanese culture, the masbaha holds deep religious and social significance, representing spiritual reflection and unity. When the beads are unstringing, it means a lack of these qualities which the people of that culture are afraid of, that is chaos and disintegration. The proverb is usually used in familial or social settings, and its meaning is similar to how one might describe a plan that has gone awry or a dispute that has escalated to involve everyone else. It also stresses the necessity of preserving order and avoiding the situation in which harmony is disturbed. The Greek proverb shows the culture’s perception on how people’s actions can cause more tension. To ‘throw oil on the fire’ means to do things that cause tension to increase, whether by design or by accident, stressing the need to avoid such actions. Given the country’s rich history of political and social changes, the proverb is understandable and quite meaningful to the current environment as it is a common-sense approach to how actions can lead to consequences in already sensitive systems.

The two proverbs differ in their cultural emphasis; the Arabic proverb is more on the passive or accidental loss of control as the beads are said to scatter. This is in line with a collectivist perspective on the fragility of harmony and the necessity of keeping order. On the other hand, the focus of the Greek proverb is on the active escalation, for instance, throwing oil on fire. This is an individualistic view on accountability, which warns people against doing things that may worsen the tension in the community. The Arabic proverb highlights the repercussions of the loss of order and the mess that follows, which are culturally and religiously significant concepts of harmony and unity. The Greek proverb is more about intentional behaviors that contribute to conflict, while the Greek proverb represents a realist perspective on people’s behavior in the context of crisis-like situations.

[1] https://x.com/fahadgail/status/1237386117147549708?mx=2 (accessed on 23 December 2024)

اللي عينه فارغة ما بيشبع
(levant -egyptian) Illi ‘aynu fargha ma biyishba
He whose eye is greedy will never have a full stomach
Some people are never satisfied

Άνθρωπος που 'ναι αχόρταγος ποτέ του δε χορταίνει

/anθropos pu ne axortaɣos pote tu ðe xorteni/

A person who is insatiable never gets satisfied, he or she never gets enough

The Levantine Egyptian Arabic proverb “اللي عينه فارغة ما بيشبع” “He who has an empty eye will never be satisfied” (Illi ‘aynu fargha ma biyishba), and the Greek proverb “Άνθρωπος που 'ναι αχόρταγος ποτέ του δε χορταίνει” (“A person who is insatiable never gets satisfied, he or she never gets enough”) (Anthropos pou 'ne achórtagos poté tou de chorténei) both offer a word of caution about greed and the endless character of human desire. Both sayings capture the same idea of trying in vain to please those who are by their very nature ungrateful or over-ambitious, telling essentially the same story about people.

The Arabic proverb uses the vivid physical metaphor “عينه فارغة” “his eye is empty” (‘aynu fargha), which stands for insatiable greed or dissatisfaction. The phrase “ما بيشبع” (ma biyishba, “never full”) adds a visceral dimension, linking greed to physical hunger and emphasizing its unending nature. The combination of visual and physical imagery makes the proverb memorable and relatable. The Greek proverb adopts a more straightforward approach, explicitly referring to an “αχόρταγος” (achórtagos, “insatiable person”). The repetition of “χορταίνει” (chorténei, “satisfied”) and its negation (“ποτέ του δε χορταίνει”, poté tou de chorténei, “never gets satisfied”) reinforces the futility of satisfying excessive desires. Its use of the word “άνθρωπος” (anthropos, “person”) generalizes the lesson to all humanity, making it broadly applicable.

The Arabic proverb lays out a collectivist worldview, where happiness and gratitude are considered virtues that are important for the wellbeing of the society. The idiom of the ‘empty eye’ links greed to a moral defect that affects not only the gratified but also the surrounding environment. The parallel made between visual greed (the eye) and physical greed (the stomach) shows that greed is not only a personal weakness but also a social one since it results in imbalance and chaos. The Greek proverb also aims at greed but mainly from the perspective of the effects it brings to the individual. It also uses the term “αχόρταγος” (achórtagos, that is, “ungrateful person”) to describe a certain psychological state of people who are controlled by ambition or desire. This is in line with the Greek cultural and philosophical beliefs that moderate passion (metriopatheia) is ideal for a healthy and a happy life.

Both proverbs plot against greed as a never-ending and ultimately futile endeavour to try and satisfy one’s infinite cravings. They encourage the practice of restraint and satisfaction as an ideal way of living a healthy and fulfilling life. The Arabic proverb is told through the prism of the eye and the stomach, thereby giving a real, sensory spin to the anti-greed message. On the other hand, the Greek quotation focuses on the individual as a whole when it comes to insatiability, which is depicted as a more general psychological and Existential problem. The cultural emphasis on envy (hasad) and desire as dangers to the eye in the Arabic culture makes these proverbs rather close to their context. The Greek proverb specifically uses the term “person” which shows a more selfish outlook on life and the effects of overachieving in philosophy.

In all, the Arabic proverb illustrates greed as a physical and moral disease, which is in harmony with the cultural perceptions of the effects of unchecked desires on the society. The Greek proverb focuses on the torment of insatiability, analyzing excessive ambition as a psychological problem. Therefore, these proverbs present different views as to how greed is detrimental and how happiness can be attained by avoiding greed.

سمحنا له، فات وفوت حماره

Palestinian

Samahna lahu, fat wa fawwat himaru
We let him in and he brought his donkey too
Give him an inch and he’ll take an ell

Παπά το γαϊδούρι, παπά το σαμάρι.

/papa to ɣaiðuri papa to samari/

Both of the proverbs are related to the topics of pushing the limits and benefiting from someone’s goodwill. These proverbs are in line with the cultural norms of moderation, justice, and the necessity of setting rules for them, while at the same time warning against the consequences of overgenerosity or undue tolerance.

The Arabic proverb is more narrative and uses a structure to develop the plot. The phrases “فات” (fat, “he entered”) and “فوت حماره” (fawwat himaru, “he brought his donkey too”) show the process of permission being given and then taken further. The translation of the text also gives an understanding of how the phrase ‘brings his donkey’ implies that the person is taking too much from the kindness of the subject. The donkey is a symbol of an additional and unwanted item that has been added to what was already allowed, thus making a small favor too much of a ask. The narrative form makes the proverb easy to understand and apply. The Greek proverb is short and has parallel structure and repetition as its main device. The two uses of “παπά” (papa, “Father”) | highlights the repeated demands: first for the donkey (γαϊδούρι, ɣaiðuri) and then for the saddle (σαμάρι, samari). This parallelism mimics the dynamics of the gradual intrusion. The ‘donkey’ and ‘saddle’ are metaphoric for the gradual demands that are being made, whereas the latter represents the demand for not only the principal but also the conjunctives. The pairing is a humorous yet effective critique of greed.

Both of these warnings are about not letting small concessions become large ones that are unreasonable. The one in Arabic shows how too much leniency can be taken, and how it can alter the dynamics of relationships in a social exchange. The Greek one focuses on the step-by-step dynamics of the accrual, pointing out that there is a need to know when things are being overdone. Both of the cultures discussed here also emphasize the importance of people’s ability to set limits when it comes to relationships and societal interactions in order to preserve equity and decency. With this background, both the sayings are against the persons who try to take advantage of others from their kindness and thus both the quotes convey a negative connotation towards opportunism. Besides, both of the proverbs and this quibble are based on humor and easy to understand pictures to make the message more understandable and understandable. The lesson is linked to everyday life in both cultures through the donkey, a daily symbol. These sayings are based on real life experience and give us a idea how to handle kindness, negotiation and justice in relationships.

The Palestinian hospitality is known to be very high (Al-Sheroqi et al., 2023) therefore, this proverb can be applied to not take hospitality for granted. The step-by-step increase in the demands from letting a person in to letting a donkey in shows the social norms of reciprocation in interpersonal relations. The advice is kept mild through the quote, while at the same time, it conveys the message that one should not be too accommodating to avoid taking advantage of others in the community. The Greek proverb represents the cultural concept of moderate requests and moderation. It also uses comic representation of accumulated demands to parody unprincipled behavior and to convey the message that fairness is important in relationships. The use of a priest (παπά, papa) as the central figure reflects Greece’s historical reliance on clergy in social contexts, blending religious imagery with everyday wisdom to address interpersonal boundaries. The fixed expression is used to describe a situation or person who wants everything for themselves, even beyond what is reasonable or fair. It is an expression that characterizes excessive greed or selfishness. This is a proverb from the oral tradition of the Eptanisa region, according to folklorist Angeliki Xatzimichali-Kollyva.[1] In fact, there are numerous other fixed expressions with a similar meaning, in which the protagonist is always a priest:

Παπά τ’ αμπέλι, παπά και το χωράφι

/papa t ambeli papa ce to xorapʰi/

The priest's vineyard, the priest's field as well.

It conveys the idea of someone wanting to claim everything for themselves, often used to criticize greed or an excessive desire for control or ownership. A similar pragmatic meaning is conveyed also through the following proverb:

Του παπά και το μουλάρι του παπά και το λινάρι.

/tu pa’pa ce to mulari tu pa’pa ce to linari/

The priest's mule, the priest's flax as well.

This fixed expression is used to criticize someone who is overly greedy or wants to claim everything for themselves, even things that might not logically belong to them. It conveys a sense of excessive entitlement or possessiveness. It is similar in tone to the English saying “wanting to have your cake and eat it too”, though it focuses more on the notion of hoarding or claiming all resources. These three variant fixed expressions are often used humorously or critically to point out someone’s unreasonable demands or their inability to share or compromise.

«επί των οικειοποιουμένων τα πάντα»

This fixed expression means “for those who appropriate everything” or “for those who claim and take everything for themselves, even if it does not belong to them”.

It is a colloquial expression usually used to describe people who show greed or excessive self-centeredness, without respecting the rights or needs of others. According to foklorist J. Nestoridis,[2] this fixed expression, whose origins are unknown, is correlated with the aforementioned priest-based ones.

In summary, the Arabic proverb reflects a collectivist culture, where hospitality and communal fairness are paramount. It warns against individuals who exploit communal generosity, emphasizing the importance of reciprocity. On the other hand, the Greek proverb focuses more on individual negotiation dynamics, portraying persistence as potentially excessive. It critiques opportunistic behavior while highlighting the need for balanced exchanges. While the Palestinian proverb focuses on the potential for exploitation in a collectivist context of hospitality, the Greek saying critiques incremental overreach in individual interactions.

[1] https://www.searchculture.gr/aggregator/edm/AcademyParimies/000093-20.500.11853_254593 (accessed on 16 November 2024)

[2] https://www.searchculture.gr/aggregator/edm/AcademyParimies/000093-20.500.11853_265484 (accessed on 16 November 2024)

 حبل الكذب قصير

Fusha
Habal al-katheb qaseer
short
Liars need good memories

Το ψέμα έχει κοντά ποδάρια

/to psema eçi konda poðarʝa/

It's not worth lying because the truth will eventually come out (literally: “lies have short legs”)

These proverbs share values of truthfulness, accountability, and the long-term consequences of dishonesty by highlighting the futility of lying by emphasizing that deception is eventually exposed.

         The history of the Arabic proverb is as follows: It is said that in ancient times, there was a wealthy merchant from the city of Baghdad who had several workers who assisted in his business and supported his livelihood. One day, the merchant checked his finances and discovered that one of his money bags was missing. After much thought, he suspected that the bag had been stolen by one of his ten workers who were responsible for safeguarding and depositing his money.

The merchant called all his workers together and informed them about the stolen money bag. He then handed each of them a rope of the same length, telling them that he would check the ropes the next morning, and that the thief’s rope would be ten centimeters longer, revealing them in front of everyone.

That night, the thief, feeling secure, cut ten centimeters from one end of his rope and went to bed, confident that he would escape detection the next day. The following morning, when the merchant called his workers together, he found the stolen rope shortened by ten centimeters, which revealed the thief.

Thus, the saying "حبل الكذب قصير" (The rope of lies is short) was born.[1]

The Arabic proverb is metaphorical and succinct. The phrase “حبل الكذب” (Habal al-katheb, “the rope of lying”) evokes a vivid image, with "قصير" (qaseer, “short”) suggesting the limited lifespan or reach of a lie. Its compact structure makes it memorable and easy to use in daily conversations. The focus on memory reflects a logical argument against lying rather than a poetic one. The rope imagery suggests a tool or path that is inherently flawed, symbolizing the limited scope and ultimate failure of lies. It reflects the cultural and moral weight placed on truth and accountability. The Greek proverb is also metaphorical, using the image of “κοντά ποδάρια” (konda poðarʝa, “short legs”) to imply that lies cannot “run far” and are quickly caught. The humor and visual quality of the metaphor make it relatable and impactful. As for the short legs of lies, they signify their incapability to hide, which is quite in harmony with the notion that truth always overrides lies. Proverbs are comparisons that illustrate the value of truth in ethics and daily life. In the Arabic one, sincerity is depicted as godly and communal responsibility while in the Greek one, truth is shown as inevitable while lies are shown as laughable and ineffective. Lying is considered to be against the cultural norms in the Arabic culture as it goes against the moral principles of the society. The short legs in the Greek proverb mean that lies cannot run away from the consequences.

     Both of the proverbs share the idea that people should not tell lies and that the truth will always be revealed, which shows that lying is pointless. These proverbs are used to pass across a message on the values of honesty and integrity to the generations to come. The Arabic proverb is consistent with Islamic teachings and culture, where truthfulness (صدق, sidq) is encouraged while lying (كذب, katheb) is frowned upon. The quote can be used as a warning and as a moral lesson representing the entire concept of honesty. Lies are frowned upon in Arab cultures which place much emphasis on relationship and trust as they disrupt social relationships. The Arabic proverb looks at the issue from the point of view of logistics and the actual possibility of sustaining a lie. It encapsulates the cultural orientation towards reason and the effects of deceptive behaviour. The quote reveals the impact of dishonesty on the individual and not on the society as a whole, as seen in other quotes. The Greek proverb is a clear sighted observation on human behaviour and a humorous take on cheating. The cultural tendency to metaphor and irony regarding short legs is in conformity with the area’s culture. Greek society, a society of dialogue and communal living, has truth as one of its basic principles. The proverb warns against lying in a way that is both accessible and memorable. The ancient Greeks had deified Truth and in art they represented her as a young and beautiful woman. Thus, they had an ideal personification of truth. Pindar called her the daughter of Zeus and according to Plutarch she was one of Apollo's nurses. Philostratus records that the goddess Truth wandered “white-wintered” near the Amphiareum because she wore a white robe. Why does a lie have short legs? In one of Aesop's fables, Truth was not the daughter of Zeus but a creation of Prometheus, the benefactor of humanity. The Titan of fire decided to mold Truth from clay and then bring her to life. When he finished his creation and before bringing it to life, he had to leave for a while. False found the opportunity to create a statue identical to that of Prometheus. However, he ran out of clay and left his work without legs. Returning, Prometheus saw the two identical works of art and decided to bring them both to life.

Truth walked, but the statue of Falsehood could not take a single step! The expression “a lie has no legs” or “has short legs” that is found in many European peoples has its roots from this myth.[2]

Overall, the focus of the Arabic one is on the moral and social consequences of lying, reflecting a collectivist perspective where dishonesty undermines communal trust. On the contrary, the emphasis of the Greek one is on the use of humor and metaphor, which soften the moral lesson, reflecting a cultural preference for relatable and vivid expressions of wisdom.

Such a vivid expression is found below:

το ψέμα δε ζει για να γεράσει

/to psema ðe zi ʝa na ʝerasi/

It's not worth lying because the truth will eventually come out (literally: “the lie does not live to grow old”)

The saying implies that lies have a limited lifespan. Eventually, the truth will surface, and the falsehood will be exposed. It's a reminder that deceit is not sustainable and will likely be revealed with time. The Arabic proverb highlights the moral and social implications of lying, while the English version focuses on its practical challenges, and the Greek saying adds humor and metaphor to its critique.

[1] https://arabi21.com/story/1443438/%D9%82%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AB%D9%84-%D8%AD%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B0%D8%A8-%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%B1 (accessed on 3 January 2025)

[2] https://www.mixanitouxronou.gr/giati-to-psema-echei-quot-konta-podaria-quot-eno-i-alitheia-einai-quot-gymni-quot-mia-didaktiki-istoria-gia-tin-protaprilia/ (accessed on 18 November 2024)

 جرح السيف يلتئم وجرح اللسان لا يلتئم
/jarh as-saif yalta'im wa jarh al-lisan la yalta'im/

The wound of a sword heals, but the wound of the tongue does not

Words will never hurt me

Insult from your relatives is sharper than an axe.

Η γλώσσα κόκκαλα δεν έχει και κόκκαλα τσακίζει

/i ɣlosa kokala ðen eçi ce kokala tsakizi/

The Arabic proverb “جرح السيف يلتئم وجرح اللسان لا يلتئم” (Jarh as-saif yalta'im wa jarh al-lisan la yalta'im, “The wound of a sword heals, but the wound of the tongue does not”) and the Greek proverb “Η γλώσσα κόκκαλα δεν έχει και κόκκαλα τσακίζει” (I glossa kokala den echi ke kokala tsakizi, “The tongue has no bones but it breaks bones”) both emphasize the profound and enduring impact of words. Despite their differing imagery, both proverbs reflect a shared cultural awareness of the power of speech, especially its ability to harm or heal.

The Arabic proverb uses a parallel structure to compare two types of wounds: the physical harm caused by a sword (jarh as-saif) and the emotional or psychological harm caused by words (jarh al-lisan). The repetition of the verb yalta'im ("heals") enhances the rhythmic balance of the phrase, making it memorable. The imagery of wounds is vivid, and it helps to understand the meaning of the proverb in a real-life context. The Greek proverb, however, uses a figurative language. The tongue is described as a soft part of the mouth but it is able to ‘break bones’ as stated in the metaphor; kokala tsakizi. The contradiction between the tongue’s lack of physical strength and its capacity to cause intense pain increases the emotional load of the proverb. The use of rhyme (eçi and tsakizi) also increases the oral appeal and the mnemonic value.

The Arabic proverb highlights the importance of the effect of words and the repercussions of using your voice. In Arab cultures where oratory and word are highly regarded, words are perched on the verge of either uniting or decimating relationships. It functions as a moral perspective that tells us to watch what we say, something that is crucial in a culture that places a high premium on relationships. Like the Arabic proverb, the Greek proverb highlights the role of words, consistent with a cultural tradition based on rhetoric and philosophy. Other Greek thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle also looked into the moral and social implications of speech and noted that speech can move people in a certain way. The image of the tongue breaking bones reveals the Greek views on the subtle powers that determine the course of people’s relationships, as does the concept of communication. This particular saying is one of the most well-known proverbs of the Greek people, in which all the power, strength and prestige of our language, the medium for expressing our thoughts and feelings, is presented. Words, speech, although intangible elements can sometimes be so harsh, so bitter and formulated in such a way that they hurt and pain our fellow man, because of the truth they often hide. In this sentence, language is presented as something abstract which, however, if used properly, can act as a weapon to hurt someone. Therefore, through this popular proverb, the power and prestige that hides within it, the otherwise simple meaning of the language, can be seen.

     According to Pythagoras, the wound caused by the tongue is much deeper than the wound caused by the knife. For the knife wounds the body, while the tongue wounds the soul. (Pythagoras)

Both proverbs highlight the enduring impact of verbal harm compared to physical wounds. However, the Arabic proverb is more specific in its orientation and is aimed at the dichotomy between the physical and emotional wounds that cannot be healed. The Greek proverb, however, pays more attention to the paradox of power of speech, which is a sharp weapon despite being powerless. The Arabic saying uses concrete imagery (swords and wounds) that will appeal to a cultural tendency to emphasise real effects of actions while the Greek saying uses metaphors to explain ideas that are conceptual in nature following the tendency of the Greek culture.

These proverbs are a testimony to the fact that people of different cultures understand the might of words despite the fact that they are far from each other. The Arabic version is a warning about the irreparable damage of words and the message is relevant for people-oriented society. The Greek version praises the strange might of the tongue in line with the cultural bias that appreciates the art of rhetoric and ethical reasoning. In conclusion, they both convey the human consensus on the role of language in relationships and societies.

 في المشمس

Khalji- Egyptian

 Fi al-mishmish
There will be apricots
Tomorrow never comes

Tο αύριο δεν έρχεται ποτέ

/to avrio ðen erçete pote/

Both proverbs reflect skepticism about promises or events that are indefinitely delayed, offering pragmatic commentary on the futility of deferring actions or placing faith in perpetually postponed outcomes. Despite their distinct phrasing and imagery, they converge on themes of uncertainty and the necessity of addressing the present rather than relying on an elusive future.

The Arabic proverb "في المشمش" (Fi al-mishmish, “in the apricot”) is idiomatic and metaphorical, characterized by its brevity and humorous tone. Because of its conversational language and the number of possible interpretations, it can be used to express doubt and with a certain degree of irony. The apricot, a plant that grows for a short period of time, is used to describe something that is not likely to happen or to come true, which means temporary expectations or promises that are not going to be fulfilled. The playfulness of the phrase makes it convenient to use in everyday conversation, especially to mock unrealistic optimism or expectations in the case of hopes and commitments, respectively. The Greek proverb “Το αύριο δεν έρχεται ποτέ” (To avrio den erçete pote, “Tomorrow never comes”) is direct and declarative, it is quite similar to the English counterpart. Thus, stating that “tomorrow never comes”, it conveys the idea that it is impossible to reach the future that is always shifted to the future. The saying is about the abstract notion of “tomorrow” as the unattainable ideal, and the proximity of death ought to make everyone wake up to the fact that there are no guarantees of tomorrow, and that one should live for the day. Its practical tone is in harmony with the Greek traditions and values, which appreciate the initiative and the reality of the present over the future, based on the older philosophical systems such as Epicureanism and Stoicism, which taught people to live in the present and grab the certainty over the possibility of future gains.

Both proverbs highlight the problem of relying on the events or outcomes that are postponed for an infinitely long time. The history of the Arabic proverb is varied. Below are some of the interpretations I was able to identify: 

1- The proverb originates from the village of Al-Amar Al-Kubra in Qalyubia, which mainly depends on the apricot harvest. When someone wanted to host a wedding for their son or daughter, they would agree that the wedding would take place “in the apricot season”, meaning during the apricot harvest time.

2- There were two friends who were merchants working together in the fruit trade. They decided that on their first day, they would sell apricots. One of them focused on selling, while the other spent his time eating. For example, whenever the first one sold one kilogram of apricots, the second would eat one kilogram in return. The first was dissatisfied with this situation and suggested to his friend, “Let’s sell grapes instead of apricots”, thinking that grapes might be harder to eat than apricots. However, the next day, he was surprised to find his friend eating grapes, one bunch after another. He told him, “Why don't you eat one grape at a time”? The second friend replied, “No, my dear, one grape at a time is for apricots”.

3- The most popular version of the story was written by the author and writer Ahmed Amin in his book “A Dictionary of Egyptian Customs, Traditions, and Expressions”. In this story, a wealthy man lost all his money and wealth and found himself with no place to go. A poor man took him in and hosted him at his home. On the first day, the poor man bought apricots for his wife, children, and the guest. The wealthy man ate three apricots but left the rest. The next day, the poor man bought grapes and invited the wealthy man. The wealthy man began eating one bunch of grapes after another, to the point that the host feared there would be none left for his wife and children. He said, “Why don’t you eat one grape at a time”? The wealthy man replied, “No, no, that applies to apricots, not grapes”.[1]

The Arabic expression is a humorous and picturesque way of pointing out the stupidity of some of the promises while the Greek saying is more of a serious complaint about procrastination and calls for action now rather than later. The humor in the Arabic version based on the brief existence of apricots is a clear example of a cultural practice of using scepticism, especially in the form of humor, when confronting the sceptical in social and family interactions. On the other hand, the Greek proverb is in harmony with the cultural norms of the immediate and realism and is a call to action rather than waiting for the future that may never come.

The use of apricots in the Arabic proverb is linked to the pre-agricultural, agrarian societies of the Middle East and North Africa, where seasonal fruits are symbolical. The fruit’s short seasonality is a perfect analogy for unattainability which fits well with a cultural trend of utilizing humor to call out unreasonably high expectations. On the other hand, the Greek saying embodies the cultural norms of pragmatism, leadership, and scepticism towards the future and its promises and advises people to grab the opportunities of the present. Both proverbs are excellent reminders of the lessons we learn about managing people’s expectations and taking action. The Arabic proverb with its metaphoric devices and humorous strategy gives an oblique but effective criticism of the impossible, while the Greek version is direct and down to earth in pointing out the disadvantages of procrastination. In conclusion, they each give different, but equally true, views on how to deal with the real world rather than wait for what cannot be achieved or what only happens in the future.

[1] https://theglocal.com/%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%B4-%D8%A5%D9%8A%D9%87-%D9%82%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AB%D9%84-%D8%AF%D9%87%D8%9F/ (accessed on  20 January 2025)

 مزين بسط على أقرع استفتح

Εgyptian
Muzayyin basat ‘ala aqra’ istaftah
The barber opened up his shop; his first costumer was bald
To start the day off on the wrong foot

Ξύπνησε με στραβό ποδάρι

/ksipnise me stravo poðari/

He woke up with a crooked leg

He woke up on the wrong foot

Both of the proverbs have similar messages about failing early in life but both approach it with lightness and courage when talking about the challenges they faced. They personify the usual values of realism, perseverance, and flexibility.

The Arabic proverb tells the story and makes jokes, and describes an ironic situation in which the first customer of the barber is a bald man, namely a man who is not suitable for the job. The colloquial phrase ’بسط علي أقرع’ (basat ‘ala aqra, “opened up on a bald man”) is lively and understandable, and the irony stays that way. This pairing of the barber and the bald customer is also a representation of what is expected and what is realized. Through humour, the proverb conveys how one can fail to achieve his goals owing to certain unforeseen factors. In contrast, the Greek proverb uses a figurative expression “στραβό ποδάρι” (stravo poðari, wrong foot) to describe a not so good start of the day. The simplicity of ’Ξύπνησε’ (ksipnise, he woke up) renders it easily applicable to many scenarios. The meaning of the “wrong foot” is the wrong choice, which describes the wrong position or the wrong situation, and the concept of the wrong foot describes the concept of being off balance or wrong in some way regarding the initial position.

Both proverbs finally encourage the continuation of the effort in the face of first-time failures. The Arabic saying reduces the effect of the reverse fortune teller through comedy, and the Greek one prepares the client for the worst and encourages him to hang on for better days. It is humorous how the Arabic proverb describes the barber and his predicament as a perfect example of the unpredictability of life. The “wrong foot” metaphor in the Greek proverb brings some lightness into a frustrating situation and therefore does not weigh one down as much. Both of the proverbs can be linked to the idea of culture that people from different countries understand that life is not always in our control and that sometimes we experience bad starts in life.

The Arabic proverb from the Egyptian culture often features humor as a way of dealing with issues. This proverb looks at the humorous side of failure, and it conveys the message that life is full of surprises and that people should keep trying. Linking the proverb to a profession (barbering) brings out the issues of daily economic struggles and the prominence of trades in Middle Eastern societies, and therefore the significance of career achievements and the interdependence of people in the community. While the Greek proverb is based on cultural routines of the day, a bad start may predict the rest of the day. The metaphor reflects this kind of days while suggesting a way to restore balance and get through such days. It is in harmony with the spirit of resistance and has a humorous approach to deal with the failures that are inevitable in life.

In its most basic form, the Arabic proverb uses humor and situational irony to express the idea that one should never take external factors into account, while the Greek one uses metaphor to describe internal equilibrium. Having said that, both of the sayings represent the common values of optimism, comedy, and the need to triumph over adversity to attain peace in life.

يبغي يكحلها عماها

Khaliji

yabgi ykhalha amaha
He wants to put khol in her eyes but he blinded her

Mary goes out for wool and come without shorn

Πήγε για μαλλί και βγήκε κουρεμένος

/piʝe ʝa mali ce vɣice kuremenos/

He went for wool and came back shorn

(good intentions, bad results seeking perfection in terms of beauty standards shared in both languages)

When someone achieves the opposite result of what they are aiming for, we use the ironic expression “went in for wool and came out with short hair”. The two proverbs express a shared cultural understanding that well-meaning actions, when poorly executed, can result in unintended negative consequences. Both proverbs are against the improvement or perfection which is pursued without the proper care and stress on the need to know one’s self, and to avoid the fangs of overreach.

     The Arabic proverb “بغي يكحلها عماها” is quite short and symbolic, where “يكحلها” (ykhalha, “to put kohl in her eyes”) is compared to “عماها” (amaha, ‘to blinded her”). This comparison also reveals the negative consequences of overdoing or doing the wrong thing. Kohl, a traditional cosmetic used to enhance the beauty of the eyes and usually applied with precision, is compared to blindness, an overbearing and negative concept. This imagery relates the proverb to Arab culture and traditional practices on beauty, and how attempts to improve can sometimes go the opposite way. The story behind this Arabic proverb is told that a man was suspicious of his wife’s love for him because she did not speak or laugh with him. So, he went to an elderly woman to tell her about his problem. She advised him to place a snake, with its mouth tightly shut, on his chest while he was sleeping. He followed her advice, and to his surprise, his wife screamed and cried, trying to wake him up after thinking he had died. He was reassured of her love for him and quickly got up to tell her he was not dead. However, when the wife found out what had happened, she became very angry and swore she would never return to him, leaving him.[1]

         The Greek proverb “Πήγε για μαλλί και βγήκε κουρεμένος” is structured narratively. The word “πήγε” (piʝe, “he went”) conveys the idea of intention, whereas “βγήκε κουρεμένος” (vɣice kuremenos, “came back shorn”) describes the humorous reverse situation. The humorous tone makes the message enjoyable and easy to remember. The analogy of looking for wool and coming back shaven is based on a transactional relationship that has become counterproductive, based on the Greek rural lifestyle where sheep and wool were important assets and meant for resource management.

     Both proverbs aim at the difference between right and wrong planning and performance, and both proverbs warn against actions that may turn out to be detrimental. The Arabic proverb, on the other hand, explains the possible consequences of overdoing beauty enhancements, while the Greek proverb explains what usually happens when people try to do something and end up doing the opposite. Both proverbs support the idea of taking things slowly and knowing one’s own capabilities. They against the pursuit of the best and, by extension, warning against doing more than is necessary.

The Arabic proverb connects deeply with beauty standards and the cultural tradition of applying kohl, while the Greek one employs rural and economic imagery to illustrate the risks of misjudgment. Together, they reflect a shared wisdom about the importance of cautious and deliberate action in avoiding undesirable outcomes. The explanation given by Takis Natsoulis (1952: 23) has written a story for the well-known Greek expression which is as follows: One of the darkest times that Greece lived through was when its coasts were raided by various pirates who stabbed all the women and children and grabbed the beautiful girls to sell them in their slave markets. At that time there were large tapestry workshops in the apple, which made beautifully patterned rugs with a special wool. This carpet was sold at a high price to the various rich people of Constantinople, Cyprus or Venice. At that time, there was a terrible Corsair, Ali Memet Khan, operating in the Aegean. One dark night, therefore, he went out with his lads to the apple tree to cut her off. The pirates also entered the carpet workshops and began loading the animals with all the balls of hair that were there. They are in force, but they got word of them, surrounded them and captured them without bloodshed. Instead of killing them, however, they shaved their heads and beards and sent them as a gift to the emperor of Byzantium. From then on, the reason why we often see each other even today in similar cases “they went for hair and they came out with a haircut”.

In terms of their sociocultural underpinnings, kohl found in the Arabic proverb holds cultural and historical significance in Arab societies as a symbol of beauty and meticulous care. The proverb reflects the importance of precision and moderation in pursuits related to improvement. The saying warns against overstepping or rushing into actions without proper thought, reflecting a cultural appreciation for balance and mindfulness. Rooted in agrarian life, the proverb reflects the Greek emphasis on managing resources and expectations wisely. The sheep imagery ties the lesson to rural life and the economic risks of miscalculation. The Greek proverb incorporates humor to underscore the folly of overambition, aligning with the cultural tendency to use wit in moral lessons.

Overall, the imagery of the Arabic one revolves around beauty and personal care, reflecting Arab cultural values tied to appearance and precision. The proverb is succinct and focuses on the consequences of overdoing efforts to improve. The rural metaphor of the Greek one ties the lesson to resource management and economic risks, reflecting Greek agricultural traditions. The humorous tone adds a layer of relatability, making the proverb accessible in various contexts. While the Arabic proverb focuses on beauty and personal care, the Greek saying uses humor and rural imagery to highlight economic and practical lessons.

[1] https://www.youm7.com/story/2017/5/14/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81-%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AB%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%89-%D8%A5%D9%8A%D9%87-%D8%AC%D9%87-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A7/3233416   (accessed on 14 January 2025)

 تيتي تيتي مثل ما رحتي ما جيتي

Egyptian

Titi titi mithl ma ruhti ma jiti, so you come back
So what else is new!

Όπως πήγα, ήλθα

/opos piɣa ilθa/

The Arabic proverb “تيتي تيتي مثل ما رحتي ما جيتي” and its Greek counterpart “Όπως πήγα, ήλθα” encapsulate a cultural observation of futility and lack of progress. They are used to conclude that an effort or an endeavor produced no change or benefit. Both of them mean that an action produced no result and the person is as much gai as he or she was before, be it physically, emotionally, or materially. They express a feeling of disappointment or futility. Both proverbs are aimed at efforts or situations that produce no positive change and are frustratingly unchanging in their essence.

     The Arabic proverb, used primarily in the Iraqi and Egyptian dialects, has an interesting history: It is a popular proverb among the old inhabitants of Baghdad. It refers to passenger transport buses marked with the “TT” sign. These buses would depart filled with foreign tourists and return carrying a different group of foreign tourists. Over time, Baghdadi society began to humorously reference this transport company and its buses, turning it into a widely used proverb that remains popular to this day.[1]

         It is striking in its colloquial simplicity and rhythmic balance, with the repetition of “تيتي تيتي” (Titi titi) acting as a familiar chant or rhyme, making it easy to remember and conversational. This informal tone locates the proverb within everyday Egyptian interactions and can be used humorously or sarcastically to lower expectations or make fun of small efforts. It embodies the pragmatic realism that is often evident in Egyptian culture, where frustrations are often overcome by humour and relatability. The proverb’s imagery is not tied to any particular situation and can be used in a variety of settings, from interpersonal relationships to business ventures. On the other hand, the Greek proverb “Όπως πήγα, ήλθα” carries almost the same meaning but with a more introspective tone. The first person narrative “πήγα” (piɣa, “I went”) and “ήλθα” (ilθa, 'I came back') gives a sense that the speaker is looking back at their own failed attempts. This structure is self-aware and consistent with the Greek cultural practice of examining one's actions and their consequences. The directness of the expression can be used to directly criticize unproductive situations, often with a tone of resignation or humour at the inevitability of such outcomes. It is likely derived from traditional Greek expressions used to describe the various twists and turns of life, including the frustration of putting in effort with nothing to show for it. It embodies a typical and sometimes rather cynical view of labour or unmet expectations, which is very much a part of the Greek cultural psyche.

     Both proverbs reflect a pragmatic worldview that stems from an understanding of the limits of human action. In Egyptian and Greek societies, these expressions are used as a way to cope and express frustration without becoming consumed by it. Humor and relatability are very important in both cultures and are used to help people deal with life’s problems in a light and courageous manner. From a sociocultural perspective, these proverbs reveal the universal human experience of letdowns. The Egyptian expression presents a collectivist frustration and humor to create solidarity, while the Greek version sits more on the individualistic reflection, chime with a wider cultural tendency to self- examination and philosophical enquiry. Although there are these subtle differences, both of these proverbs convey the idea that some things are inevitable and some efforts are always futile, thus helping people to develop a wise attitude toward the various problems in life.

     The linguistic form of the Arabic proverb embodies the oral tradition of Arabic language discussions where the use of proverbs helps in the remembering and passing down of the proverb. The Greek proverb’s simple, straight forward narrative is in harmony with the rationality and order that is synonymous with ancient Greek philosophy. These expressions are a clear example of how language contains not only the situations people find themselves in, but also the meanings and explanations used to make sense of them.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php/?story_fbid=468049141545436&id=107390444277976&locale=ar_AR (accessed on 2 February 2025)

 اللي على راسه بطحه يتحسس عليها\يتحسسها “خليجي

Illi ala rasa btha ythassas aliha
He who has a feather on his head can feel it
cf. To be caught red handed

Όποιος έχει τη μύγα, μυγιάζεται.
/opoios echei ti myga, mygiazete/

"He who has the fly, gets annoyed by it”.

The Arabic proverb “اللي على راسه بطحه يتحسس عليها” and the Greek proverb “Όποιος έχει τη μύγα, μυγιάζεται” both explain that those with guilt or other personal issues tend to be sensitive and more likely to react when such issues are even hinted at. Both proverbs are illustrated well through the use of metaphorical imagery though they do it in differently styled proverbs.

     The Arabic proverb is stated in the form of a story and description. The phrase “اللي على راسه” (illi ala rasa, “he who has on his head”) introduces the topic of discussion while “بطحه يتحسس عليها” (btha ythassas aliha, “a feather and feels it”) uses the metaphor. The notion of a feather underlines the fact that the problem can be seen and felt, which means that the person is aware of his weakness. Due to the language used in the proverb it can be used by people of all ages and in all contexts. The Greek proverb “Όποιος έχει τη μύγα” (Opoios echei ti myga, “He who has the fly”) introduces the topic of the sentence in a direct manner while “μυγιάζεται” (mygiazete, “gets annoyed by it”) introduces the outcome. The “fly” is a symbol of an outside source of stress or the guilt that should not make one so uncomfortable. The simplicity of the metaphors used in the proverb makes it easy to understand and use while the use of the reflexive verb “μυγιάζεται” gives more depth to the situation.

     The Arabic proverb is a manifestation of a cultural concern with respect to personal failure and social image, particularly in communal contexts where individual dignity and prestige are considered sacred. The use of the feather as an object also gives the idea that people with observable weaknesses will know them and be affected when they are shown to others. In the same way, the Greek proverb reveals a cultural tendency to identify and make fun of oversensitivity, especially when the individual has guilt or insecurity as his or her motive. The “fly” metaphor is linked with a common pest, which underlines the notion that even small faults or problems can bother people who are already touchy about them. This is in conformity with the Greek cultural practice of employing humor and wit in the analysis of human behavior.

     Both proverbs convey the message that people tend to become defensive or sensitive when they are reminded of their faults or guilt, which is a typical behavioral cue that people across different cultures tend to display. They show how this behavioural cue cut across cultures. The Arabic proverb focuses on the notion of the person himself or herself and the pressure of the societal norm, whereas the Greek proverb is more oriented towards making fun of the annoyance or overreaction that often happens, sometimes with a humorous touch. The Arabic metaphor of the feather represents the concept of visibility and weakness in a social setting where everyone’s weaknesses are easily visible and can lead to the losing of face. For example, the Greek metaphor of the fly is more oriented towards the internal factors that cause stress, namely guilt or insecurity, whereas the Arabic metaphor of the feather is more oriented towards the outside judgment.

     The two proverbs of Arabic and Greek origin both convey the notion that people are likely to be touchy regarding their flaws or guilt. Where the Arabic proverb is more conscious of social perception and the concept of honor, the Greek proverb makes fun of the tendency to overreact to personal weaknesses through the use of humor and wit. In this case, they provide a clear and accurate picture of people’s behavior, which is not only valid for one culture or language but for every culture.

 طرار ويتشرط

Khlaiji

Tarar wa ytshart
A begger who demands
Never look at a gift horse in the mouth

 Του χάρισαν γάιδαρο, τον κοίταζε στα δόντια

/tu xarisan ɣaiðaro ton kitaze sta δontya/

They gave him a donkey, he looked at it in the teeth

All the proverbs are directed at people who tend to be too demanding or ungrateful in relationship or dependency or generosity. Despite the cultural and linguistic differences, all of these proverbs are based on the values of humility, gratitude, and the context of a gift or favor.

     The Khaliji proverb is quite short and can be heard in everyday conversation; for instance, the word ‘طرار’ (tarar, ‘beggar’) is used to make someone sound really needy. The use of the word ‘beggars’ also helps to create a clear picture of a clear power relations between the subject and the object, where the subject is completely dependent on the object yet tries to act tough. The proverb also targets not only the entitlement but also the inability to realize one’s position. The last element of the conversation, the one that includes the word “ويتشرط” (wa itshart, ‘and demands’) brings some irony to the text since it is not quite becoming for someone who is in need to demand. This makes it quite applicable to Gulf societies. The Greek proverb is similar to the English one in its structure and differs in the kind of animal chosen to pull the cart, a donkey (“γάιδαρο”, ɣaiðaro). This is a very local touch. While translating the second proverb, we also came across the phrase ‘τον κοίταζε στα δόντια’ (ton kitaze sta dontia, ‘looked at its teeth’) which is a humorous criticism of the lack of appreciation on the part of the recipient. The subjects receiving the practical gift of a horse and their donkeys are a generous gift. The joke with checking teeth is a rather funny, yet quite accurate critique of ungratefulness: seemingly ungrateful people are always expecting too much.

     Both of the proverbs share the message that one should know how to appreciate what has been given and not demand more. The one in Arabic targets entitlement in dependency relationships, while the one in Greek is against analyzing or not valuing gifts. Albeit the two proverbs vary in the specific aspect they focus on, they both aim to address the same social issue of maintaining good relations with others. Both of the proverbs highlight the defects of behaviors which can ruin relationships, and both advise modesty and thankfulness as the best way to avoid the tension. However, both proverbs can be used to convey the message in a way that makes the recipient want to avoid the mistake being warned against without directly accusing them of being arrogant or ungrateful.

     On the cultural level, the Arabic proverb which is found in Gulf countries where social relations and the concept of mutual aid are important, discusses the violations of the principles of reciprocity and respect. Generosity is highly appreciated in this culture; therefore, the dependent position of others should not be accompanied by arrogance but by humility. The phrase explains a cultural rule that needs gratitude and refuse demand when in need. The donkey in the Greek proverb ties to an agrarian lifestyle, where such gifts held significant practical value. Critiquing the donkey reflects an ungrateful disregard for the giver’s effort or the value of the gift itself. Greek culture often uses humor and irony to point out human flaws, making the proverb relatable and effective in conveying its message. The sociocultural meaning of the proverb is related to someone who does not appreciate the offer and is concerned with the details. When we are given an important gift, it is foolish and ungrateful to look for flaws and imperfections in it.

     According to Natsoulis (1952: 87), this expression is very old. It is mentioned for the first time by the Roman writer Jerome with the observation that it is a folk proverb. Jerome's wording is as follows: "we do not look a gifted horse in the teeth", meaning that we are not allowed to elaborate when we are given something. Today the horse became a donkey because perhaps it was more useful. By looking at a donkey's teeth, you can estimate its age and, by extension, its value. While this is perfectly acceptable when buying a donkey, examining a donkey that you receive as a gift is, of course, considered rude. After all, it is a gift.[1]

In sum, the Arabic proverb focuses on hierarchical relationships and critiques entitlement in situations of clear dependence, reflecting the communal values of Gulf societies, while the Greek one uses humor and rural imagery to critique ingratitude, aligning with a cultural preference for lively storytelling and practical wisdom. The Arabic proverb focuses on the stark incongruity of dependence and demands, while the English and Greek sayings critique the failure to appreciate generosity, using metaphors tied to animals to convey the message.

[1] https://maleviziotis.gr/2023/01/28/%CF%84%CE%B9-%CF%83%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%85-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CF%87%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B6%CE%B1%CE%BD-%CE%B3%CE%AC%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B1/ (accessed on 19 November 2024)

 حرسوا القط على اللبن

Egyptian

Harrasu ‘l-qitt ala al-laban
They left the cat to guard the milk


Άφησαν τον λύκο να φυλάει τα πρόβατα

/apʰisan to liko na pʰilai ta provata/

They set wolf to guard the sheep

Both proverbs have the same basic message: Do not trust someone or any entity that is likely to take advantage of you or abuse a position of power if given the chance to do so. A selfish person should not be left in charge of a valuable responsibility as this is likely to lead to disaster. These sayings are used to describe a given situation and the irony and the foolishness of putting the responsibility in the wrong hands. Both proverbs are an expression of the awareness of the culture on the weaknesses of human beings and the consequences of trusting the wrong people. Although the imagery is different between the two languages, cats and milk in Arabic while wolves and sheep in Greek, the lessons of caution, responsibility, and practicality are the same.

The Arabic proverb uses a concise and direct structure. The verb “حرسوا” (Harrasu, “assigned to guard”) ironically sets up the contradiction between the cat’s nature and its role as a guardian. The mention of “القط” (al-qitt, “the cat”) and “اللبن” (al-laban, “the milk”) creates a vivid, relatable image of temptation and failure. The cat and milk symbolize temptation and vulnerability. The cat, a common domestic animal, is familiar and relatable, and its known affinity for milk reinforces the proverb’s moral lesson. The Greek phrase “Άφησαν” (apʰisan, “they left”) introduces a sense of negligence, while “τον λύκο” (ton liko, “the wolf”) and “τα πρόβατα” (ta provata, “the sheep”) evoke a stark image of predator and prey. The longer phrasing provides a narrative tone, reflecting the Greek preference for storytelling. The wolf and the sheep are an example of a predator and its prey, and a sign of trust misplaced. The imagery is based on the traditional pastoral setting, which depicts the helplessness of the defenseless who are left to the mercy of a natural predator.

     Both proverbs convey the message that it is foolish to give jobs to people who have no interest in the job. The Arabic one concentrates on the fact that the cat is incapable of guarding the milk as demanded of it, while the Greek one centres on the proposition that a wolf will inevitably eat a sheep, given that it is a wolf. These sayings advise not to trust wrong people and to think twice before assigning any responsibility. Both of the given proverbs support the idea of tasks being should be given to those only who are trustworthy and capable. The use of animals and situations that everyone can easily understand makes the proverbs easily understandable and applicable in any situation. The Arabic one is based on the everyday life with cats and milk and the Greek one – on shepherding and hunters and their prey. Both of these proverbs present the concept of common sense in the management of people, so that the right people are chosen for the right jobs. Both of them support the idea of responsibility and planning in action.

     Cats are everywhere in Arab households and the scenario comes easily with the milk. The proverb is based on practical wisdom of everyday life. The saying tells us to avoid giving important jobs to people who are either by their nature or by their interests unsuitable for the job, which is in line with a pragmatic and cautious worldview. The imagery is particularly resonant in a rural context, and wolves and sheep are standard in Greek pastoral traditions. Wolves and sheep are common in Greek pastoral traditions, making the imagery particularly resonant in a rural context. The phrase draws its imagery from rural life and traditional shepherding, where wolves were natural predators of sheep. Allowing a wolf to guard sheep would be an absurd and disastrous decision, symbolizing misplaced trust or poor judgment. It likely has roots in ancient fables and folklore, where anthropomorphic animals like wolves often represent cunning, greed, or betrayal. The moral lessons from these stories were widely adopted into everyday proverbs. More specifically, it has its origin in Aesop’s fables. According to the fable, once upon a time a shepherd noticed that every day a wolf was coming after his sheep. At first he was very scared and was on his guard. But little by little he gained courage, because he saw that the wolf was probably guarding the sheep, since he had never hurt anyone. Then he gained courage and one day he decided to put the wolf to guard the sheep for him while he went to town to shop. However, the wolf also expected this and when he saw the shepherd moving away, he fell on the flock and decimated it. When the shepherd returned and saw the disaster the wolf had caused him, he shook his head in sorrow, saying: “Who told me to trust my sheep to a wolf?”[1] The proverb reflects the risks of negligence in safeguarding valuable resources. The wolf-sheep relationship symbolizes broader ideas of power dynamics and exploitation, tying the lesson to societal structures and ethical considerations.

     Overall, the focus of the Arabic proverb on the cat and milk ties the lesson to household dynamics and personal relationships. The imagery reflects a straightforward, everyday scenario, emphasizing accessibility and relatability. The wolf and sheep Greek imagery ties the lesson to agrarian life and the protection of livelihoods. The predator-prey relationship suggests themes of exploitation and trust in societal or hierarchical contexts. While the Arabic proverb uses domestic imagery to emphasize practicality and caution in everyday life, the Greek saying draws on rural metaphors to highlight broader ethical and societal implications.

[1] https://www.newsbeast.gr/greece/arthro/2013016/pos-vgike-i-frasi-evale-to-liko-na-filaxi-ta-provata (accessed on 19 November 2024)

 خلي البطيخ يكسر بعضه

Egyptian

Khalli ‘l-batikh yikassir ba’du
Let the water melons break each other
Let them stew in their own juice

Άφησε το νερό να κυλήσει στο αυλάκι.
/afise to nero na kylisei sto avlaki/
Let the water flow in its channel

Άστον να ψηθεί στο ζουμί του

/aston na psiθi sto zumi tu/

Let him stew in his own juice

 It translates into translates to “Let him simmer in his own juice” in English.

The Arabic proverb “خلي البطيخ يكسر بعضه” (Khalli ‘l-batikh yikassir ba’du, “Let the watermelons break each other”) and the Greek expressions “Άφησε το νερό να κυλήσει στο αυλάκι (Afise to nero na kylisei sto avlaki, “Let the water flow in its channel”) and “Άστον να ψηθεί στο ζουμί του” (Aston na psiθi sto zumi tu, “Let him stew in his own juice”) reflect cultural attitudes toward conflict, resolution, and passive observation. These proverbs, though originating in different cultural contexts, emphasize the value of patience and non-interference in resolving disputes or tensions. They are used metaphorically to suggest letting someone deal with their own feelings, problems, or discomfort without interference. They mean giving someone a chance to think through their feelings, worries or guilt, and sometimes as a way of telling them a lesson or making them learn from their mistakes. In that case, it often contains an implicit tendency to stay clear of the situation or even a slight pleasure at the person’s misfortune.

     The Arabic proverb means let problems or situations resolve themselves without interference. It is a common Egyptian proverb used to encourage patience and non-involvement in conflicts as well as in Jordan. However, when used in Jordan sometimes people say: “Pottery breaking itself”. Furthermore, according to (Aldeqs, 2022) it is said when the matter being disputed does not concern the speaker or when they have no interest in intervening.[1] It gives a clear picture of watermelons crashing into each other; small-scale conflicts that sort themselves out without an intervention. The choice of watermelons as the example of the heavy and possible to collide objects is quite understandable: you can’t avoid collisions when the forces are allowed to act on their own. This imagery is in line with the typical approach of people in the Egyptian culture, who prefer to wait for things to happen and not to interfere when there is no need to. The proverb has a meaning that some conflicts should not be solved as they may become worse. It can be applied to social and interpersonal relationships, which tell people that it is better to stay away from the conflict and let it resolve on its own. In Greek, ’Leave the water to flow in its channel’ presents a passive but still quite reasonable point of view. The picture of the water flowing through the channel is also the picture of normal development, which is close to the Greek cultural mentality, which prefers moderation in everything. In this case, the proverb tells us that there are some things that should be allowed to take their own course, and that they usually do so without outside interference. Its tone is as calm as the value it places on measured action and trust in time. The other Greek saying is “Άστον να ψηθεί στο ζουμί του” and it is a more direct application to the individual and his or her situation. The idiom is based on cooking where the process of ‘ψήσιμο’ means cooking, roasting or simmering and when food is cooked in its own juices without adding liquid it develops more flavor. This culinary process is then compared to human experiences where the emotional or psychological ‘simmering’ is compared to how food develops taste when it is cooked in its own essence. The phrase brings up the image of stewing, a slow and gradual process of thinking and becoming. This is in line with the Greek disposition to treat issues as learning opportunities in their quest for personal development, consistent with philosophical traditions of accountability and self-development. It is commonly used in contexts that involve telling someone to stay in discomfort for the sake of growing from the experience.

     From the sociocultural perspective, these proverbs present an understanding of the non-intervention as a strategy for solving conflicts. Both cultures recognize the limitation of too much involvement and the benefit of waiting for time and other natural processes to work. The Arabic proverb is a manifestation of the collectivist culture where people try to avoid getting involved in other people’s business. On the other hand, the Greek sayings are based on the concepts of flow of natural processes and the individual’s strengthening through struggles, which are more collectivist and individualist, respectively. At the linguistic level, the Arabic proverb which uses tangible images like watermelons was formulated from the experiences of day-to-day life in Egypt, especially the agrarian culture, and thus the metaphor is easily understood. The Greek proverbs, however, use more abstract concepts such as water and cooking to convey their message, concepts that are easily linked to cultural stories of balance and transformation. Therefore, these proverbs show how through language and metaphor, people are able to convey general human wisdom while at the same time giving it a specific sociocultural meaning. Both sets of expressions capture the universal role of patience and the need to know when to back off and let things take their course.

[1] https://www.addustour.com/articles/1281228-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%AD%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A#:~:text=%2D%20%D8%A8%D8%B7%D9%91%D9%8A%D8%AE%20%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B3%D8%B1%20%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B6%D9%87%3A%20%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AB%D9%84%D9%87%20%C2%AB,%D9%85%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D9%87%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%20%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%87. (accessed on 23 January 2025)

 سحب السجاد من تحت رجله

Origin??

Sahab as-sijjad min that rijlu
He pulled the carpet from under his feet
{shared by both languages}

Μου τράβηξε το χαλί κάτω απ’ τα πόδια

/my travikse to xali kato ap ta poðʝa/

Both proverbs are based on the metaphor of pulling a carpet to denote treachery or shifting of the ground from under one’s feet, which are consistent with the cultural norms of trust, security, and emotions in case of unforeseen action. These sayings capture the essence of the universal experience of being let down, which focuses on the vulnerability of the human relationship.

     The Arabic expression “سحب السجاد” (Sahab as-sijjad, “touched the carpet”) is quite direct and can be easily understood. The extension of the idea to “من تحت رجله” (min taht rijlu, “from under his feet”) enhances the description; it is a concrete move that switches the ground from underneath one’s feet. The carpet, a thing of comfort and stability in the Arab culture, is the support or trust on which one stands. It also means betrayal or the sudden departure of the entities on which one relies heavily on. This metaphor can be applied easily in cultural situations wherein carpets are not only used for decoration but are also used as a place to sit and eat and are therefore considered the core of the house and society. As a parallel, the Greek phrase “Μου τράβηξε το χαλί” (mu travikse to xali, “pulled the carpet from under me”) uses the same metaphor. The extension to “κάτω απ’ τα πόδια” (kato ap’ ta poðja, “from under my feet”) enhances the picture of tipping over. The use of the possessive “μου” (mu, “my”) makes the situation more personal and the speaker is able to express anger or frustration. As it was in the Arabic version, the carpet is a symbol of stability and when it is pulled from beneath one’s feet, it is a feeling of being betrayed and off balance. This metaphor may have been first used in Greek cultural practice, but it holds a very understandable connotation of the emotional aspect.

     Both proverbs reveal the consequences of betrayal or destabilization in terms of practical and emotional aspects. The Arabic phrase stresses the group dynamics of betrayal as a breakdown of the basic structure of support as experienced by the group, whereas the Greek phrase stresses the emotional reaction of the targeted individual to being knocked down. The use of the metaphor ‘pulling a carpet’ underlies the shock, imbalance and vulnerability that results from such actions and is a reminder of the consequences of trust and relationships. In Arab culture carpets are an essential part of life and have many meanings; from comfort, to stability and right up to the base of the home. The use of the metaphor can be seen as extreme in the case of betrayal since it affects these elements in a basic way and especially in communities where trust and harmony are important.

     Where the Greek proverb differs from the Arabic one is in its concentration on the particular and the emotional experience of being tipped over, especially as it relates to the fragility of relationships and the pain of being let down. This more self-oriented approach is consistent with Greek cultural tendencies to examine the dynamics of people’s relationships and the importance of moderation and trust. Both proverbs are connected to household and cultural circumstances through the use of the carpet as a central metaphor and can therefore be compared across cultures. The Arabic proverb represents the specific case of betrayal from the perspective of the group and therefore stresses the importance of security and trust for the group. The Greek phrase, which is more oriented towards the emotional reaction to the experience of being tipped over, gives a more specific view of the issue. In this way, the two proverbs present different yet related perspectives on people’s day-to-day experience of trust, betrayal, and strength.

 أخذ القرد لماله، راح المال وبقي القرد على حاله

Levant

Akhad al qird limalu, rah al mal wa baqa ‘l-qird ala halu
He married for its money, the money went and the monkey stayed a monkey

Πήρε το γαϊδούρι για το σαμάρι, αλλά έμεινε το γαϊδούρι.

/pire to γaiðuri ʝa to samari ala emine to γaiðuri

He took the donkey for its saddle, but the donkey remained a donkey

Both proverbs critique the folly of prioritizing superficial or material attributes over intrinsic qualities, emphasizing a shared cultural wisdom that external appearances are fleeting. They highlight the importance of discerning the true nature of people or things before committing to them.

The Arabic proverb is mostly used by the elderly. It means that focusing on superficial qualities or material wealth can lead to disappointment when those are gone. The proverb is commonly used in the Levant region to caution against materialism or shallow decisions, particularly in marriage or business. In his article for the Egypt independent, Gahreeb (2014) explained that this proverb warns those who sacrifice beauty when choosing a life partner and accept marrying an unattractive person in exchange for wealth. It cautions them that the money that tempted them will inevitably disappear, leaving them with nothing but the face of the monkey.[1]

The Arabic proverb employs a narrative structure to illustrate cause and effect. The contrast between “أخذ القرد لماله” (Akhad al qird limalu, “He married the monkey for its money”) and “راح المال وبقي القرد على حاله” (rah al mal wa baqa ‘l-qird ala halu, “the money went, and the monkey stayed a monkey”) emphasizes the impermanence of material wealth and the unchanging nature of core traits. The rhythmic phrasing enhances its memorability, while the monkey serves as a symbol of unattractive or undesirable qualities, and its wealth represents transient material gain. The proverb critiques placing value on wealth over character, warning of inevitable disappointment when superficial benefits disappear.

Similarly, the Greek proverb “Πήρε το γαϊδούρι για το σαμάρι, αλλά έμεινε το γαϊδούρι” (Pire to γaiðuri gia to samari, “He took the donkey for its saddle, but it remained a donkey”) uses a concise and direct structure. The juxtaposition of “το γαϊδούρι” (to γaiðuri, “the donkey”) and “το σαμάρι” (to samari, “the saddle”) creates a vivid image of misplaced priorities. The donkey symbolizes simplicity or stubbornness, while the saddle represents external refinement or material allure. The constant reference to the donkey shows that the essence of the object has not changed, which is a criticism of society that praises the outward appearance and not the content.

Both of these proverbs explain that it is better to work for the internal profit than to try to gain something from the outside. The Arabic version of the proverb emphasizes the fleetingness of wealth and the permanence of the characteristics, while the Greek version stress that leather and a saddle, or other similar improvements, will not change the nature of a animal. These sayings are telling us to think twice before making a decision and to look deeper. Both proverbs show that regret is inevitable when superficial gains are lost and essential defects remain the same. The Arabic proverb illustrates the problem of materialism in marriage through a story, while the Greek one compares the situation with putting a saddle on a donkey to highlight the importance of functionality rather than appearance. Consequently, they provide instructions that have been useful for centuries on how to strike a balance between material goals and spiritual values.

In collectivist societies, the Arabic proverb seems to be quite realistic and can be used in relationships and communities where the character is the main component. The consequences of the story about the consequences of loving material wealth rather than the essence of a person correspond to the cultural norms of farsightedness and sincerity. The Greek proverb, which was based on an agricultural culture, is more concerned with function than with beauty. The donkey-saddle metaphor captures the spirit of the rural environment, while the witty tone is typical of the Greeks, who often used humor and irony to teach moral lessons and make the advice easy to follow.

The Arabic proverb focuses on relationships, and specifically on marriage, as the context in which materialism results in a long-term disappointment. Its method of telling stories also reveals the cultural preference for moral examples. The stork bringing shingle(s) for the bridge is a picture of rural and utilitarian type which conveys the message that it is foolish to concentrate on the adornments when the basics are lacking. Funny and, as it is typical of the Greeks, makes the message more understandable and easier to remember. While the Arabic proverb highlights the problem of wealth’s materiality in relationships, the Greek proverb explains the danger of focusing on the superficial in relationships.

[1] https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1700883  (accessed on 12 February 2025)

 يا داخل بين البصلة وقشرتها ما نابك إلا صنتها

Khaliji or Egyptian

Ya dakhil bayn al-basala wa qishrit-ha ma nabak illa sannit-ha
Whoever gets between the onion and its skin will only be rewarded by its stink
Never get between a man and his wife

Όποιος ανακατεύεται με τα πίτουρα τον τρώνε οι κότες

/opços anakatavete me ta pitura ton trone i kotes/

Whoever meddles with bran gets eaten by the chickens.

Both of these proverbs are warning against interfering with something that doesn’t concern the subject, and both highlight the dangers and pointlessness of unnecessary intervention. Both are similar in that they represent cultural truths about people’s tendencies to respect boundaries, exercise caution, and look out for themselves. The Arabic proverb uses onions and their tendency to be spicy as a metaphor, while the Greek proverb uses chickens and bran to illustrate the potential negative outcomes of overreaching.

     The Arabic expression is often heard, especially among grandparents and elders, to indicate that excessive curiosity or intrusiveness, putting one's nose into matters that do not concern them, can bring misfortune. This is particularly relevant in situations where people wish to maintain their privacy, keep their secrets, and avoid unnecessary involvement in matters that do not concern them. The person who coined this proverb may have made a comparison between the unpleasant smell of onions and people meddling in affairs that do not concern them, suggesting that instead of minding their own business, they end up inhaling unpleasant “odors” (consequences) as a result of their interference.[1]

         The expression “بين البصلة وقشرتها” (bayn al-basala wa qishrit-ha, “between the onion and its skin”) creates a vivid image of unwarranted closeness, while “ما نابك إلا صنتها” (ma nabak illa sannit-ha, “you get only its stink”) highlights the unpleasant result. The rhythmic phrasing enhances its memorability and impact. The onion and its skin represent layers of closeness or protection, and the smell symbolizes the undesirable outcomes of meddling. This metaphor, rooted in the daily experience of cooking, makes the lesson relatable and tangible.     The Greek phrase “Όποιος ανακατεύεται” (opços anakatavete, “whoever meddles”) introduces the general premise, while “τον τρώνε οι κότες” (ton trone i kotes, “gets eaten by the chickens”) exaggerates the consequence with a humorous twist. The bran, associated with animal feed, represents trivial matters, while the chickens symbolize those who react to interference. The imagery makes the lesson relate to a rural and agricultural environment which makes it applicability and comparability with the topic.

     Both proverbs are founded on the principle that one should respect boundaries so as not to attract problems. The Arabic metaphor states that one should not touch the onion as it has a bad smell. The same goes for the Greek proverb; it states that one should not interfere with bran as it can make chickens dirty and annoying. Both sayings share the message that people who meddle usually gain nothing and may even lose a lot. The Arabic one concentrates on the point that trying to control something is pointless, while the Greek one stresses the dangers of doing this through humorous extension. The use of everyday items such as onions and bran make these lessons easy to grasp and remember, with the main message being that one should not interfere in other people’s business. The Arabic proverb is consistent with the collectivist culture of its origin, which emphasizes the importance of personal space in interpersonal relationships to maintain the integrity of the group. Intrusion is depicted as unproductive and usually having negative consequences. The use of onions as an example makes the advice rather concrete and applicable to the daily life. On the other hand, the funny way whereby the Greek proverb is delivered is typical of this culture where people tend to use wit and exaggeration when conveying certain messages. The examples of bran and chickens help to link the message to the rural lifestyle where meddling in small things may result in rather amusing or even embarrassing situations. This emphasis on self-registry and responsibility is in harmony with the Greek cultural values.

     Ultimately, the Arabic metaphor expresses the inconvenience of intrusion into people’s private lives and presents a clear and tangible effect of the action (the stink). At the same time, the Greek proverb brings some humor into the story, involving chickens, and thus makes the message more enjoyable and warning at the same time. The critique of fussing over petty things (bran) extends the range of the message to the context of superfluous engagement in general. Whereas the Arabic saying focuses on the relational and short-term discomfort that comes with interference, the Greek saying uses humor and rural circumstances to convey the possible, embarrassing outcomes.

[1] https://www.elbalad.news/4679199#:~:text=%22%D9%8A%D8%A7%20%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%20%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A9%20%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7,%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87%D9%85%20%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%85%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84%20%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%84  (accessed on 13 January 2025)

 حجر في دكان الزجاج

Khaliji
Hajar fi dukkan az-zajjaj
A stone in the shop of a glass merchant
A bull in a China shop

Ταύρος εν υαλοπωλείω

/tavros en ialopolio/

A bull in a glass shop.

Both expressions compare an inappropriate or clumsy presence in a delicate situation to a rock in a glass shop. They are excellent examples of metaphors that use very descriptive language to describe the consequences of thoughtlessness or inappropriate behaviour that results in the destruction of the object. These expressions are usually used to describe people who are sloppy or rude when in situations that require a good deal of thought and consideration. They also involve the notion of accidental damage that occurs as a result of insensitivity or lack of understanding, which is used to prevent inappropriate behaviour in certain situations. Both of them are the manifestation of the same principles of being conscious, moderate, and knowing one’s place.

     The Arabic phrase “حجر في دكان الزجاج” (Hajar fi dukkan az-zajjaj, “A stone in a glass shop”) is quite short and abstract. The comparison of ‘حجر’ (Hajar, ‘stone’) with ‘دكان الزجاج’ (dukkan az-zajjaj, ‘glass shop’) brings an immediate picture of an accident that is going to happen, especially with the use of the stone in the given context. The stone represents the essence of destruction while the glass shop is presented as a weak and defenseless structure. This metaphor which is based on real life situations in business or at home makes the lesson easily understandable and memorable. As with the Greek phrase ‘Ταύρος εν υαλοπωλείω’ (tavros en ialopolio, ‘a bull in a glass shop’) this is also a rather dramatic and funny comparison. The comparison of ‘ταύρος’ (tavros, ‘bull’) and ‘υαλοπωλείο’ (ialopolio, ‘glass shop’) in the phrase is humorous because of the imagination of a large and uncoordinated animal in a highly breakable environment. The bull represents the untamed potential and the lack of control while the glass shop represents the lack of stability. The image described in this case is also rather vivid, and the funny tendency makes it easy to remember the message.

     Both of these expressions share the message that one should know their surroundings and avoid doing anything that may result in causing harm. The Arabic phrase focuses on the disturbance that results from the existence of the stone in the Delicate trade framework, while the Greek one uses the comical representation of a bull in a small space to describe the effects of immoderation. Both of the sayings are against spontaneity and thoughtlessness, and both of them defend the idea of protecting delicate systems and not just destroying them for the sake of it. These two comparisons are easily understandable due to the use of the terms stone, bull, and glass. The Arabic proverb reflects the role of trade and craftsmanship in Khaliji societies and gives a criticism of elements that disturb equilibrium in societies such as a glass merchant’s shop. It also means that people should watch their steps so that they do not upset the natural order of things in the society they are living in. On the other hand, the Greek proverb is based on the agricultural lifestyle, and the bulls are representative of power and the possibility of power mishandling if the bulls are not tamed. The humor in the Greek text is in harmony with the cultural preference for rendering moral lessons in a humorous form. It disputes immoderation as an act of aggression on balance and order and, therefore, calls for caution and an understanding of context in the Greek culture.

     In general, the Arabic expression is more specific in its scope and is aimed at particular kinds of activities that can be detrimental to business or social relations. The Greek proverb is more general in its tone and intention, and while it is a humorous warning against clumsiness and carelessness it can be applied to a wider range of situations. The use of vivid imagery, specifically the concept of a bull in a glass shop, increases the applicability of the story, which makes the critique more humorous yet equally effective. The Arabic sentence can be linked to a specific context, such as a glass merchant’s shop, whereas the Greek sentence can be linked to a general environment and is based on comedy to convey the message.

 الجهال عدو نفسه

Fusha

Al-jahil adu nafsu
The ignorant person is his own enemy
A little learning is a dangerous thing

Η ημιμάθεια είναι χειρότερη της αμάθειας.

/i imimaθia ine çiroteri tis amaθias/

Half-knowledge is worse than ignorance.

Both of these proverbs are warning against the dangers of ignorance and knowledge that is not complete. While the Arabic proverb criticizes ignorance as a sort of self-destruction, the Greek adage is scared of the consequences of knowledge that is incomplete, which may lead to actions that are wrong. Although they have different focal points, both proverbs are closely related to the ideas of understanding, wisdom, and modus operandi of people in general.

     The Arabic expression is used in the context of meaning that ignorance often leads to self-destruction. It is used widely in the Iraqi culture, especially in discussions of education and personal growth. The phrase “الجهال عدو نفسه” (Al-jahil adu nafsu, “The ignorant is an enemy to himself”) is concise and declarative, portraying ignorance (“الجهال”) as an active enemy (“عدو”) to the individual. The reflexive structure “نفسه” (nafsu, “himself”) emphasizes the internal, self-inflicted nature of the harm. By personifying ignorance as a destructive force, the proverb underscores the idea of self-sabotage and internal conflict. The Greek proverb “Η ημιμάθεια είναι χειρότερη της αμάθειας” (I imimaθia ine çiroteri tis amaθias, “Half-knowledge is worse than ignorance”) contrasts “ημιμάθεια” (imimaθia, “half-knowledge) with “αμάθεια” (amaθia, ”ignorance”). The comparative “χειρότερη” (çiroteri, “worse”) is a warning about the dangers of partial knowledge: the text is both warning and judgemental. The distinction between the two is subtle, but critical; ignorance and half-knowledge are positioned as similar, but different forces that could cause significant harm.

     Both proverbs share the same theme of warning against the effects of ignorance, to some extent. The Arabic proverb emphasizes the negative effects of ignorance on the individual, while the Greek one explains that partial knowledge can lead people astray and even increase the damage. Together, they support the idea of intellectual humility and the desire to know the truth as much as possible. They against both the arrogance of ignorance and the arrogance that comes from semi-awareness. The Arabic proverb, used primarily in Iraq, explains that ignorance is dangerous because it takes away people’s understanding of themselves and thus leads to destruction; the Greek proverb explains that half-knowledge is dangerous because it is more dangerous than ignorance itself – it makes people cocksure. The Arabic proverb reflects the cultural emphasis in Islamic and Arab societies on the individual as moral and social agent. Ignorance is depicted as a sin and a defect of character, and knowledge is presented as a condition of growth both for the individual and for the society. This perspective focuses not only on the effects of ignorance for the individual but also on the consequences for the society as a whole. The Greek proverb, from classical antiquity, is in harmony with the principles of philosophical rationalism and the quest for wisdom. It also brings back the teachings of Socrates who said that “I know that I know nothing,” which stress the importance of acknowledging one’s ignorance as a way to gain knowledge. Greek ancient philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, also warned against the dangers of phenomenon, that is shallow knowledge and called for a more profound investigation and intellectual honor. The analysis of the concept of partial knowledge in the Greek proverb is connected with the social and communal aspects and the possibility to distort the reality and cause harm. This warning is about the effects of half-knowledge that can mislead others and make the effects of the ignorance far greater than they would be for the individual.

     In sum, the Arabic proverb concentrates on the internal consequences of ignorance in the form of self-inflicted suffering and presents ignorance as a moral and intellectual defect. It is consistent with religious and ethical teachings on self-development and the role of knowledge in it. The Greek proverb, however, is more concerned with the comparative risks of knowledge and ignorance, and with the group consequences of acting on partial understanding. The Arabic proverb, which fits well with the cultural context of introspection and personal accountability, has a direct counterpart in the Greek expression that extends the critique to the social consequences of shallow knowledge and calls for reflection and systemic understanding.

 الفاضي يعمل قاضي

Egyptian

Al-fadi yi’mal qadi
The idle man makes himself a judge
An armchair critic

Όποιος είναι έξω από το χορό πολλά τραγούδια ξέρει

/opços ine ekso apto horo pola traγuðʝa kseri/

He who is outside the dance knows many songs

Both proverbs are aimed at people who have no business or occupation to attend to, but instead try to meddle in other people’s business or make comments about things they know nothing about. They share the values of modesty, the primacy of practice over theory, and the hazards of power that is not earned. The Arabic saying is a frown on idleness as a cause of superfluous interference, while the Greek proverb is a frown on the gap between watching and doing.

     Regarding the Arabic proverb, it implies that people with nothing to do often interfere in others' affairs. It is a popular expression in Egyptian culture, often used humorously in casual conversations. Based on the article by (Khalil, n.d.),  it is said about someone who appoints themselves as a judge, passing judgments on people and events without being assigned or qualified for it, and sometimes without having any real concern for the matter.[1]

The Arabic phrase “الفاضي يعمل قاضي” (Al-fadi yi’mal qadi, The idle person becomes a judge”) is also short and rhetorical. It also has a good contrast between ‘الفاضي’ (al-fadi, the idle person) and ‘قاضي’ (qadi, judge), which makes the idea of someone who takes the role of a judge without having anything substantial to back up their decision rather ludicrous. The purposeless person is the idle person; the legitimate authority and discernment are represented by the judge. The inability and the position are out of balance in this proverb, and it can be used effectively in contexts where idleness brings in the unnecessary interference and the importance of self. The Greek phrase “Όποιος είναι έξω από το χορό” (opços ine ekso apto horo, He who is outside the dance”) introduces a vivid metaphor, while “knows many songs” humourously conveys the presumed expertise of outsiders. The dance is the real activity and experience, while the outsider is the detachment and the speculative opinions. The difference between the theorist and the pragmatist is shown by the provision of watching and doing.

     Both proverbs explain that it is far better to have practical experience than to rely on the opinions of those who have none. The one from Arabic is a frown on those who take the role without a purpose or comprehension, while the Greek one is a frown on the difference between the doer and the spectator. Both are against the arrogance of the naive and for the purpose of modesty in the understanding of affairs. In short, they tell people to think twice before passing judgment on something that they have no basis to know about. The two proverbs; one from Arabic and the other from Greek use vivid, everyday metaphors; idleness and judging, dancing and songs, through which to deliver their messages. The cultural emphasis in the Arabic proverb on the productivity and proper behaviour of individuals is also noticeable especially in the Egyptian society. It also has a review on the assumption of judgment as socially disruptive while idleness is seen as a cause of unnecessary meddling and self-importance. This is because in a collectivist culture where authority is linked to the community and the authority is only given to those who are competent, this saying is humorous but with a serious message. The Greek proverb, which is based on the doctrine of experiential knowledge, takes a stab at the type of person who thinks that just because they have nothing to do, they know everything that needs to be done. The humour in ‘knowing many songs’ separates the surface knowledge from the knowledge that is based on experience, which is consistent with the Greek humour and irony in the moral lessons.

     In its fullest sense, the Arabic proverb can be related to the unjustified judgment of the idle persons and regards it as wasteful and detrimental. It concentrates on the ridicule of the person who tries to take a position of authority (for instance, a judge) without having the right foundation. The Greek proverb that we are analyzing in this paper is a frown on those who stand and watch without engaging in the activity and instead argue that practice is better than theory. While the Arabic saying is focused on the idle person as a mediator, the Greek one funny attack the difference between doing and watching and therefore both proverbs teach us lesson about humility and the value of practice.

[1] https://www.nahwalhadaf.com/makala.aspx?mid=11340  (accessed on 14 January 2025)

 مثل الحية تحت التبن

Levant

Mithl al-hayya that al-tibn
Like a snake under the hay
Like a snake in the grass

Ούτε ψύλλος/φίδι στον κόρφο του

/ute psilos/pʰiði ston korpʰo tu/

"”Not even a flea on his bosom” or “Not even a snake in his bosom”

This set of proverbs uses the image of a snake to convey deceit, danger, and hidden evil. While the Arabic proverb gives a clear picture of a person who is able to hide his real self, especially his bad self, the Greek saying is a general warning against keeping danger in the house. These proverbs are consistent with the notions of caution, scepticism towards deceit and the idea of self-interest. The Greek proverb has a slightly different variant where instead of a snake, a flea is used. The structure “مثل الحية تحت التبن” (Mithl al-hayya taht al-tibn) is a simile (“مثل”, “like”) that makes a clear link between a deceitful person and a snake under hay. The imagery suggests a concealed danger that is not immediately visible but poses a threat when disturbed. The snake under the hay represents hidden threats, reflecting a danger that lies in wait. The use of hay, a familiar element in agricultural societies, ties the metaphor to rural life and everyday experiences. The phrase “Ούτε φίδι στον κόρφο του” (ute fʰiði ston korpʰo tu) is more declarative, expressing an emphatic negation (“ούτε”, “not even”). The “κόρφο” (korpʰo, “bosom”) evokes closeness and trust, making the betrayal or danger even more personal and poignant. The snake in one’s bosom symbolizes betrayal or harm from a trusted source, emphasizing personal vulnerability. The proximity of the snake to the individual heightens the sense of betrayal or imminent danger. These expressions are used (metaphorically) if someone I trusted (in my arms, in my arms) betrays me when I least expected it. They describe a person facing extremely unfortunate, troubling, or harmful circumstances and they evoke sympathy by emphasizing how unbearable the situation is, suggesting that no one should experience such difficulties.

/ute psilos ston korpʰo tu/

This phrase emphasizes minor but persistent, irritating troubles. The ψύλλος (flea) represents small, nagging issues that become unbearable when they persist. The κόρφος (bosom), referring to the area near the chest or close to the body, symbolizes personal space and vulnerability, making the image even more uncomfortable. It is often used to describe someone in a stressful or irritating situation, implying pity and compassion for their plight.

/ute pʰiði ston korpʰo tu/

This version amplifies the severity of the situation. The φίδι (snake) is a symbol of danger, betrayal or some menace that is deep and rather threatening and can be harmful or very uncomfortable. A snake in one’s bosom is a situation of extremely close and immediate danger with no apparent way out. This expression is used for particularly severe circumstances, it means nobody should have to suffer such a misfortune.

     Both expressions are part of Greek oral tradition, which uses vivid and relatable metaphors to express complex emotions. They are indicative of a cultural propensity to conjure sayings from everyday experiences that would resonate across generations. The flea is a small, but a really annoying pest that can spoil the day. The idea of having fleas in the chest region is extremely annoying and provokes an almost physical reaction to the irritation. The snake, as a more dramatic and dangerous metaphor, is a betrayal (as in the Adam and Eve story) or some bad and dangerous surprise. In this case, these expressions are consistent with the Greek culture of empathy and the idea of common humanity. It also emphasis on the fact that some sufferings are so unbearable that they can transcend personal resentment or enmity. They also capture the cultural relevance of using physical imagery to describe emotional states. When referring to a nagging flea or a threatening snake, these phrases concretize the need to understand and feel for fellow humans in their time of need.

     The proverbs in both languages capture the theme of being careful of hidden dangers and traitors.  The Arabic sentence focuses on the concept that the threat is secret, and one should always be wary in apparently safe positions as compared to the Greek one which focuses on betrayal by a close party, and the need to avoid too much trust. Both of the sayings are against dishonesty and the effects that it brings, whether it is hidden within a longer text (Arabic proverbs) or is linked to relationships and contact with people in our environment (Greek proverbs). They recommend exercising caution to avoid danger and to identify and avoid dangerous people or settings. The universal symbol of the snake, which is associated with cunning and danger, links these proverbs to the central human experiences and fears.

     The image of hay in the Arabic proverb is also more specific to the agricultural societies of Levant where these metaphors are easily understood. A snake under the hay is a symbol of deceitful people who are cunning and have a way of hiding their plans in the closest proximity. The proverb reflects the collectivist mentality, which warns against the people who hide their evil intentions within the community or among the people with whom one has a close relationship. In the Greek version, the snake in the bosom denotes treason by a friend or a close associate, paying attention to the cultural norms of loyalty in relationships. The very negative phrase stresses the general message about the need to avoid contacting dangerous people, in accordance with the Greek traditions of moral and ethical thinking.

     Ultimately, the Arabic proverb highlights the threats that are present in the surrounding environment on a general level and advises one to be wary and lookout for potential dangers in order to safeguard the group or the community. On the other hand, the Greek proverb is more concerned with the hurt that is inflicted by a person who is close to the subject, and hence focuses on the issue of vulnerability in relationships. The final negation “ούτε” is rather forceful and brings the warning across in a more forceful manner than the first proverb. In either case, these proverbs present two different, yet equally effective angles as to why one must always be on one’s guard and for the protection of others from harm and betrayal.

 الأعور في بلاد العميان طرفة

Al-a’war fi bilad al-umyan turfa
The one-eyed person is a beauty in the country of the blind
In the country of the blind, the one-eye man is king

Στους τυφλούς βασιλεύει ο μονόφθαλμος

/stus tipʰlus vasilevi o monopʰθalmos/

Among the blind, the one-eyed man is king

Both proverbs convey the idea that even limited abilities or qualities can appear exceptional in a context where others lack them entirely. They highlight shared cultural values of relativity, the perception of power or superiority, and the situational nature of advantage. These expressions use metaphor to emphasize how relative advantage or superiority emerges in contexts of deficiency, where individuals with minimal abilities, knowledge, or resources stand out simply because others have even less. In pre-modern societies, physical impairments such as blindness were common, and someone with even partial vision would naturally hold an advantage, namely a real-life observation that likely inspired the metaphor. These proverbs illustrate how mediocrity can be perceived as excellence in a setting devoid of competence.

The Arabic phrase “الأعور في بلاد العميان طرفة” (Al-a’war fi bilad al-umyan turfa, “The one-eyed person is a marvel in the land of the blind”) employs vivid descriptive language to create a striking contrast. The Arabic word “الأعور”(al-a’war, the one-eyed person)  is compared to “بلاد العميان” (bilad al-umyan, the land of  the blind), which emphasises the difference. The word “طرفة”(turfa, a  marvel or beauty) is used ironically, to suggest over-exaggerated praise for relatively small ability. In this case, the one-eyed person symbolizes the small benefit or the middle ground between the two, while the blind community represents the inability to function in any of these capacities. The imagery, therefore, conveys the message that it depends on the situation how what is average becomes extraordinary. The Greek proverb “Στους τυφλούς βασιλεύει ο μονόφθαλμος” (Stus tiflús vasileví o monófthalmos, In  the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) is direct and explanatory. The verb “βασιλεύει” (vasileví, is king) implies power or authority, while “μονόφθαλμος” (monófthalmos, one-eyed) means having a relative edge. The one-eyed king represents leadership or supremacy by virtue of positional power rather than real ability. The vision and blindness metaphor nicely captures the distinction between ability and inability, and the message that power or recognition is often a function of context rather than ability.

Both proverbs stress that greatness is arbitrary and that one usually becomes great through the faults of other people rather than through one’s own merits. The Arabic proverb makes the one-eyed person a “marvel”, focusing on the wrong perception of the ability in an environment where everyone is incapable. The Greek proverb indicates that the one-eyed person becomes the leader not by virtue of his ability but by the inability of those around him. Both proverbs are against the notion that people tend to consider moderate capability as excellent in poorly performing surroundings, which highlights the role of context in assessing worth and performance. Both proverbs use irony as a tool, which adds some humor to the proverbs; “طرفة” (turfa) humorously expresses the ridiculousness of the situation in the Arabic version and making the one-eyed man a king creates the same ironic effect in the Greek expression. The Arabic proverb tells us that context is key in determining the worth and potential of a person. In collectivist Arab societies, where the communal standards are the measure of individual worth, the proverb tells us that the conception of greatness is relative not absolute. The word “طرفة” (turfa) captures the circumstance behind the one-eyed person’s advantage, so it is called ironic, not exceptional. The Greek proverb connects with the classical philosophical reflections on leadership and power and the relativity of the competence. It peeps on systems that justify the incompetence as great because others are worse, and thus it has a wider message on how authority or superiority is often got circumstantially. This critique expands to the society as a whole and the way it celebrates the average when it is better than the worst.

In conclusion, these proverbs present modal knowledge of the situational nature of ability and greatness. The Arabic proverb is about appreciation of the limited ability in a failed environment, which reveals the natural tendency of people to appreciate the familiar in the extreme condition. The Greek expression also has a negative appraisal of the systems that allow the mediocre to take the position of power, and it does so with a cautionary lesson on how one should look at the leaders and the experts. These two proverbs also convey the message about the point of view, and they tell the people not to be complacent and proud, but to appreciate real achievement.

 يزيد من الطين بلة
azid min at-tin balla
Add wetness to the mud
Add fuel to the fire

Ρίχνω λάδι στη φωτιά

/rixno laði sti fotça/

The Arabic proverb “يزيد من الطين بلة” (Yazid min at-tin balla, “Add wetness to the mud”) and the Greek one “Ρίχνω λάδι στη φωτιά” (rixno ladi sti fotça, “Throw oil on the fire”) are the examples of the tendencies to explain actions that only make a situation worse. Both proverbs are accompanied by vivid metaphors that demonstrate the cultural and linguistic capacity to describe the worsening of the problems.

     The Arabic phrase 'Yazid min at-tin balla' means 'Add wetness to the mud.' The concept of mud' gives a feeling of weight and mess that is used to describe an already onerous matter. The contribution of ’bala’ (wetness) means to worsen the problem, that is, to make it worse in such a way that it becomes difficult to solve. The Greek phrase “Ρίχνω λάδι στη φωτιά” (rixno ladi sti fotça, “Throw oil on the fire”) has fire as the example of conflict or tension. The addition of 'ládi' (oil) gives the impression that the matter is escalating and is doing so at a rapid rate, since oil encourages the fire. Both metaphors described below achieve the same goal of portraying worsening situations; however, they do so through different imagery. In Arabic, if you step in 'الطين' (at-tin, mud), it means that you are already in a sticky and complex situation and 'بلة' (bala, wetness) is something that should have been avoided that only makes things worse. In Greek, 'ládi' (ladi, oil) is also cultural, since it is olive oil, an essential product in Greek cuisine and daily life. The last component, 'φωτιά' (fotça), can be used to mean fire, danger, chaos or conflict. The Arabic metaphor depicts a slow growth of the problems – mud is heavier and tougher to handle than water – while the Greek one shows how oil can quickly ignite and spread fire.

     These differences are an indication of a different perception of the development of the problems. The Arabic proverb, however, presents a perspective where the difficulties are seen to be layered and accumulative and, especially, how thoughtless actions can make a bad situation worse. The image of the mud, which is based on agricultural realities, links the proverb to the actual experiences of difficulty, for example, farming when the ground is poor. The Greek proverb reflects an understanding of cultural dynamics of disputes and uses fire as a metaphor to convey the idea that some actions should not be taken as they may escalate the conflict. Olive oil, a traditional Greek product, gives two meanings to the example: an oil can heal and support, and vice versa – it can create damage and exacerbate the situation.

     Both proverbs are based on the concept that people tend to contribute to the worsening of the problems they face. They are warning signs that one should exercise caution and discretion in handling certain matters, especially when the situation is sensitive. These sayings are used by the two cultures to show the effects of actions on society and therefore tell people to think about their actions as contributors to the society.

In general, the Arabic proverb is more specific to the incremental deterioration, which is consistent with the perception of problems as accumulating over time, as it reflects the dynamics of traditional Arab societies. On the other hand, the Greek proverb is more similar to the intense version of the conflict, which is more dramatic than the first one. This is in line with the Greek cultural stories which embody the principles of dramatics and emotionality in storytelling. In this case, these proverbs are similar in the lesson they tell about the effects of actions taken and, in particular, the need to exercise caution in dealing with challenges.

     The Arabic proverb reflects a more gradual deterioration, which represents a view of problems as gradually accumulating over time, consistent with the complexity of daily life in Arab societies. On the other hand, the Greek proverb is more similar to the intense version of the conflict, which is more dramatic than the first one. This is in line with Greek cultural narratives that have a tendency to dramatize events and embrace emotional story telling. In this case, these proverbs are similar in the lesson they tell about the effects of actions taken and, in particular, the need to exercise caution in dealing with challenges.

إذا رأيت نيوب الليث بارزةً   فلا تظن أن الليث يبتسم
Idha ra’ayta nuyub al laythi barizata fala tazunnana ann allaytha yabtasimu
If the lion bares his teeth, don’t assume he is smiling
Things are not always what they seem

Τα φαινόμενα απατούν

/ta pʰenomena apatun/

The appearances are deceiving.

As with the previous category, here are two proverbs each from both languages, which capture cultural values, linguistic strategies, and societal norms that are characteristic of their societies’ perspectives. The Arabic proverb is also rich in metaphor and description as well as rhythm and formulas of oral traditions and storytelling typical for the Arab culture. The lion (الليث) is also a common symbol in the Arab culture and it represents power, strength and majesty. The language of the lion’s bared teeth is also quite explicit, and combined with the adverb

     The word “bariza””بارزة” (barizatan, ""exposed"") conveys the possibility of aggression and danger, as a lesson. This visual metaphor is combined with the apparently innocuous action of “smiling” “يبتسم” (“yabtasimu”), which creates a sharp contrast and which tells one not to judge by appearances. The formal structure of the language and the parallel between “bariza” and “yabtasimu” help to make the proverb easy to remember and pass on orally. The formula “إذا... فلا” “If... Then don't...” is typical of Classical Arabic wisdom literature. The behavior of a lion is a metaphor for human relationships, and it conveys the message that one should not always take things at face value. The Greek proverb, “Τα φαινόμενα απατούν'” (Ta fainomena apatoun, “Appearances deceive'”), is more general and less explicit. Its simplicity and brevity are characteristic of the Greek tradition of generating wisdom statements that can be applied to all situations. It is not a highly imaginative proverb because it does not have specific images. Instead, it employs terms such as “φαινόμενα” (phenomena, “appearances”) and “απατούν” (apatoun, “deceive”) to express the idea that is consistent with the philosophical spirit of ancient Greece. This simplicity allows the proverb to move beyond the particular situations and be applied to almost any aspect of human activity, including interpersonal communication, social analysis, and even existence. The focus on appearances and deception is in harmony with the Greek philosophical tradition, particularly the works of Plato and Aristotle that addressed the problems of perception and reality. For instance, the allegory of the cave in Plato's work conveys the same spirit of this proverb by showing how we can be fooled by the superficial appearances.

     Both proverbs capture the human tendency to worry about the tendency of appearances to mislead, and the need to think critically. The first Arabic proverb illustrates this theme through the use of rich, metaphoric dramatization while the Greek proverb is an abstract statement that can be applied to everyone. However, both of the proverbs given above focus on the idea of not to judge a book by its cover and to think critically when coming to the conclusions about the world. They are useful guidelines in interpersonal communications and decision-making processes and they also alert us to the dangers of being gullible and trusting too easily.

     The cultural context of the Arabic proverb is closely connected with the role of storytelling and oral wisdom in the Arab culture. The lion is one of the most popular subjects in pre-Islamic poetry (الشعر الجاهلي), and it is both impressive and dangerous, which makes it an appropriate image for the world of people's relationships. The proverb expresses the communal knowledge that one should be cautious and subtle in relationships, because people may not always be what they seem. This cultural focus on observation and understanding of the environment is influenced by the conditions of the desert where everything was never black and white, where every signal and every object had to be considered and evaluated as potential threat or friend. The Greek saying, which is based on the cultural tendency to prefer clear and reason-based choices, can be found in the abstraction of the message. The idea of ''appearances deceive'' is in harmony with the classical ideals of knowledge and understanding that go beyond the sensory level. The shortness and the generality of the proverb indicate that it could have been created in a textual context and not in an oral one, in the same way as the philosophical works which are the cornerstone of the Greek cultural heritage.

     Both proverbs explain a general message: people should not always trust their eyes because things are not always as they seem. The visual and dramatic qualities of the Arabic proverb, as well as its structure, are in harmony with the oral and communal culture of Arab society, when the audience is addressed through dramatization and metaphor. On the other hand, the abstraction and the clarity of the Greek saying are characteristic of the intellectual and philosophical spirit of ancient Greece, which favored clear and general messages. In this way, these proverbs show how through the cultural filters, people from different cultures give specific meanings to general human values such as caution, reason, and vision.

 المرء بأدابه لا بثيابه (fusha)

/ʔlmərʔ bia:da:bəh la: bəθiabəh/

A man is known by his manners, not by his clothes

         راجل بفعايلو ماشي بحوايجو

Morrocan

Rajel bfaaylo machi b hwayjo

A man is defined by his acts not by his clothes

Τα ράσα δεν κάνουν τον παπά

/ta ràsa δen kànun tom bapà/

Robes do not make someone a priest

Fine feathers do not make fine birds

The proverbs are based on the shared cultural values of the society that focus on the inner qualities, character and actions rather than on the outer shape or the generic properties. These proverbs are also true, and they convey the same message that appearance is not as important as the real thing, or one’s behaviour. Although each proverb is culturally bound in its form and imagery, all of them propagate modesty, sincerity, and the belief that the inner self is more significant than the outer shell. The formal structure of the fusha Arabic proverb with 'أدابه' (ada:bəh, manners') and 'ثيابه' (θiabəh, 'clothes') is a direct comparison of character versus superficiality. The rhythm and parallelism make it memorable and authoritative, aligning with the literary and universal tone of Classical Arabic. The metaphor of "clothes" versus "manners" reflects the universal dichotomy of external versus internal qualities. It suggests that societal respect should be earned through character, not material adornments. The conversational structure of the Moroccan Arabic “راجل بفعايلو ماشي بحوايجو” (Rajel bfaaylo machi b hwayjo, “A man is defined by his acts, not by his clothes”) uses colloquial phrasing. The term ‘فعايلو’ (faaylo, ‘acts’) is based on actions which are based on the real-life situation. The comparison between ‘حوايجو’ (hwayjo, ‘clothes’) and ‘فعايلو’ (faaylo, ‘acts’) makes the concept more applicable to everyday life and serves as a measurement of worth. The Greek proverb “Τα ράσα δεν κάνουν τον παπά” (/ta ràsa δen kànun tom bapà/, “Robes do not make someone a priest”) is a very direct and metaphorical proverb. The focus on “ράσα” (ràsa, “robes”) as a critique of superficial markers of religious or social status, which focuses instead on the intrinsic value of authenticity. The ‘robes’ are a symbol of religious or professional rank, while the ‘priest’ is someone whose worth should be sought from their deeds, and not their garments. The proverb is against hypocrisy and shallowness in society.

     All the proverbs explain that the value of a person depends not on his or her rank, appearance, or possessions but on his or her character, behavior, or actions. Both of the Arabic ones are based on manners and deeds as the reflections of the ethical standard. However, at the same time, both of them also convey the message that it is better to esteem the internal and ethical qualities than to appreciate material or physical aspects, which is typical for collectivist cultures. The Greek one gives the warning against judging from appearance or from outward symbols and also criticizes society’s reliance on outward signs of worth, which is more typical of individualistic cultures. All the proverbs given above are a good lesson on how one should always try to be genuine and not to judge others by their appearance or their social status.

     The proverbs are cross-cultural and apply to the present day, giving important advice that can be used in different social and personal situations. As for the sociocultural origins, the fusha Arabic one is closely connected with Islamic teachings since it stresses adab (manners) as one of the main virtues. It captures the essence of the collectivist Arab culture where character and interpersonal behavior are key in defining a person’s reputation and worth. The formal tone allows it to be applied across all Arab societies and thus goes beyond the regional dialects. The Moroccan Arabic proverb, which is realistic in tune with the pragmatism of the Moroccan culture, also stresses the significance of action in the determination of worth, as per the community-oriented mindset that only acknowledges real contributions and not appearance. Its conversational tone is also due to the fact that it is often used in everyday conversations and therefore can be understood by people from all levels of the society. The Greek proverb represents the traditional Greek outlook on life with its emphasis on the real thing as opposed to the appearance. It also ties into historical and religious critiques of superficial markers of virtue, especially in the context of hierarchical societies. The story of a priest who is characterized by his robes but not by his actions is rather ironic and conforms to the Greek tendencies to employ humour and storytelling in the delivery of moral lessons.

     In general, the fusha Arabic one emphasis on adab (manners) as a main ethical and social virtue is in conformity with Islamic and Arab cultural ethics. The Moroccan Arabic one is based on actions as the best and most evident way to estimate a value of a person, which is typical for the Moroccan society, and the Greek one introduces some irony and humorous approach to the topic, as well as the distinction between outer signs (robes) and real properties, with the special emphasis on social roles and pretence. While the Arabic proverbs are based on manners and deeds, the Greek proverb speaks about the wrong judgments and conclusions through the metaphor and irony.

 حبل الكذب قصير
Habl al kidhb gasir
The rope of lie is short
The liar is sooner caught than the cripple

Ο κλέφτης και ο ψεύτης τον πρώτο χρόνο χαίρονται

/o klepʰtis ce o psepʰtis tom broto xrono çeronde/

If you do something nasty, you will pay for it soon

The Arabic proverb “حبل الكذب قصير” (Habl al-kidhb qasir, The rope of lies is short.) and the Greek proverb “Ο κλέφτης και ο ψεύτης τον πρώτο χρόνο χαίρονται” (O kleptis ke o pseftis ton proto xrono cheronte, The thief and the liar  rejoice only for the first year) have the same moral instruction: cheating is fun for a short time  but in the end, one is caught and punished.  

     The Arabic expression is short, symbolic and rich. The ‘rope of lies’ is a dramatic representation of the concept, which means the art of lying is not sustainable. The image of a short rope reveals tension and the notion of limitation, which implies that all lies are unsustainable. The rhyme between ‘الكذب’(al-kidhb, lies) and ‘قصير’(qasir, short) increases the  prost’s memorability and ease of oral delivery, thus making it a good tool for educating the society  on moral principles. Its compactness and the rhythmic structure are typical of Arabic wisdom literature, which often presents their messages in a short and poetic form. The Greek expression is longer and more explicit, and although it does not use metaphor, it has a narrative structure that establishes “the thief” (ο κλέφτης) and “the liar” (ο ψεύτης) as examples of dishonesty. The time clause “τον πρώτο χρόνο” (ton proto xrono, the first year) defines the certain period of time during which the criminals enjoy happiness. The contrast between the initial success or happiness (χαίρονται – cheronte, rejoice) and the eventual downfall gives the plot a certain degree of dynamism and highlights the fact that dishonesty is short-lived. This detailed and narrative approach is in harmony with the Greek oral tradition of storytelling which often use examples and anecdotes to enforce their moral lessons.

     The Arabic proverb embodies the cultural and religious principles that forbid lying (كذب, kidhb) and encourage speaking the truth (صدق, sidq). Inspired by Islamic teachings, the saying concludes that society understands that dishonesty cannot last and will end in failure. The metaphor of the short rope is in harmony with the material culture of Arab societies where ropes are used for work, for connection, and for survival. A short or weak rope would be dangerous and unstable, thereby making the metaphor even more meaningful in the agricultural and desert areas. The Greek proverb expresses the conventional Aeon Greek view towards dishonesty, in conformity with the ethical and social principles of modern and ancient Greeks. The combination of the thief and the liar represents two types of fraud and connects individual actions to their social consequences. The cultural interest in the time in the Greek society is seen with the particular reference to the ‘first year’, which suggests that honesty is rewarded over time. This temporal reference seems to convey the message that while dishonesty may be profitable for a while, it is ultimately unsustainable. The form of the story tells about a society that likes to learn from stories and pass moral lessons to its members.  

These proverbs are related to the idea that truth always triumphs and lies are ineffective because both of them teach the same lesson about the inevitability of the truth. They teach that lies and deceit are petty and cannot last for a long time, and that they are used to teach children the value of speaking the truth. The Arabic proverb has used metaphor and brevity to convey its message, namely, vivid imagery and rhythmic structure to achieve effectiveness. The Greek proverb, with its storyline and time perspective, provides more background and specific instances of the theme, in line with the culture of storytelling and philosophical analysis.  

     The Islamic and social principles of the Arabic proverb make it a timeless perspective that suggests that truth will out no matter the time. The Greek saying’s reference to “the first year” provides a specific reference to time, and emphasizes that honest happiness does not last a year. In this way, these proverbs provide similar insights into the effects of dishonesty and at the same time showcase the cultural and linguistic variation of the expressions. Each of them is a great example of a message that reminds people of the importance of honesty in interpersonal relationships.

زي الأطرش في الزفة
Zay al atrash fizzaffa
He is like a deaf person at a wedding procession
A fish out of water

Έξω από τα νερά μου

/ekso ap ta nera mu/

The Arabic proverb "زي الأطرش في الزفة" (Zay al atrash fizzaffa, He is like a deaf person at a wedding procession) and the Greek expression “Έξω από τα νερά μου” (Ekso ap ta nera mu, Out of my waters) both capture the shared human experience of discomfort or disorientation in unfamiliar or unsuitable situations.

         The Arabic proverb paints a vivid and specific picture: a deaf person in the middle of the action, at a wedding procession. Weddings in Arab culture are big extended family celebrations, with music, dancing and happiness. The image of a deaf person, who cannot hear or fully participate, describes figuratively the feeling of being out of tune with the environment. The colloquial use of "زي" (zay, like) makes the proverb easily relatable when expressed in spoken Arabic. The use of ”زفة”(zaffa, wedding procession) situates the proverb within a cultural practice closely identified with community and celebration, and the isolation is particularly glaring in such a lively setting. The Greek expression 'Out of my waters' is a more general, more indirect comparison. Water is something familiar, something regular, something we need as a country that is almost completely surrounded by water. The phrase conveys the idea of being out of one’s element or feeling lost. The use of the possessive 'μου' (mu, my) turns the situation into a personal experience, rather than a group scenario. Because the metaphor is not tied to a specific image, it can be used in a variety of situations that fit when someone feels lost or confused.

     The Arabic expression is more about the social context, given that weddings are significant communal events and signs of togetherness and celebration in Arab culture. The case of a deaf person at such a event highlights the theme of togetherness and participation in the group, and therefore, the effect of exclusion is felt more. This is in harmony with the oral and humorous aspects of the Arab culture where people tend to make observations on what happens in our society. The Greek saying, however, represents more of an individualistic approach. The concept of being 'out of water' strikes a note with the Greek cultural attitude to balance and moderation, which is often linked to the ancient philosophical traditions. Water, as a life giving and natural resource, is comfort and security; being away from it is disturbance or discomfort. The phrase is less specific and more personal than the Greek focus on self-development and action.

     While the two proverbs given above are from different cultures and languages, they both capture the idea of what it feels like to be out of place or lonely. The Arabic proverb is more concrete in its imagery, based on a cultural practice, versus the Greek expression’s more general and more general and more general metaphor. However, both do so using very lively language to help the reader or listener relate to the feeling. Thus, the Arabic proverb is a good example of the social and tend to capture the essence of Arab culture, especially when it comes to group activities and the need for everyone to be in harmony and participate.  The emphasis on the individual experience in the Greek expression is consistent with the philosophical and individualistic tradition of the Greek culture.

         In conclusion, these proverbs show how different cultural perspectives shape the expression of ordinary human experiences despite their proximity in essence. Both of these proverbs explain how people’s lives are affected by the need and desire to feel secure and comfortable.

يسرق الحل من العين
Yasrig al kuhul min al ‘ayn
He steals the kohl from the eye
cf. he’d steal the shirt of your back

Μου πήρε μέχρι τα σώβρακα

/mu pire mexri ta sovraka/

He took me down to my panties

Μου πήρε την τροφή από το στόμα

/mu pire tin tropʰi ap to stoma/

He took the food from my mouth

The Arabic proverb "يسرِق الحل من العين" (Yasriq al-kuhul min al-‘ayn, or “He steals the kohl from the eye”) and the Greek expressions “Μου πήρε μέχρι τα σώβρακα” (Mu pire mexri ta sovraka, “He took even my underwear”) and “Μου πήρε την τροφή από το στόμα” (Mu pire tin trofi ap’ to stoma, “He took the food from my mouth”) are also related to the theme of exploitation, which can be aimed at the cunning of the perpetrator or the misfortune of the victim.

     The Arabic proverb is based on a rich metaphor, which means that the person is supposed to be very clever and stealthy. Kohl, which is applied delicately in the area of the eyes and is important in the Arab culture as an ornamental item, is linked with beauty and therefore represents something valuable. The idea that someone could take it and do so without being detected speaks to the level of cunning of the thief. This expression is short and metaphorical and therefore in harmony with the Arabic language which is known for its simplicity yet richness in expressing certain concepts. The appreciation of the skill in spite of it being employed in deceit shows a cultural appreciation of resourcefulness and wit. The informal and exaggerating Greek proverb “Μου πήρε μέχρι τα σώβρακα” can be roughly translated as 'he stripped me down to my underwear'. The choice of 'underwear' gives the joke a funny and easily relatable situation while at the same time expressing the highest extent of the loss. The last Greek example, “Μου πήρε την τροφή από το στόμα”, is more concrete and less dramatic than the previous two, it focuses on the actual snatching of food from people’s mouths. This imagery also represents deprivation and it further brings out the concept of loss of the essentials. The focus on food makes people sympathetic as it is connected with life and health, like most of the Greek proverbs, they are both meaningful and realistic.

     The Arabic proverb shows the cultural norms that approve the cunning and talented people even if they use it improperly. The choice of kohl as the item to be stolen is also rather understandable as kohl is not only familiar to cultural surroundings but also has a cultural and cultural significance. The proverb has the features of hyperbole and metaphor which are typical for oral Arabic literature and the proverbs and stories told within it. It originates from social contexts where it was not only permissible to be smart but also to do so in the wrong way. The Greek sayings, however, are more straight forward and easily understandable. The colloquial tone of the "underwear" proverb is in line with the Greek tendency to use humor to make fun of exploitation. It conveys the feeling of being left with nothing but at the same time, makes the audience feel angry yet convinced that this has happened to them at one point. The second expression which is the food expression can be related to historical events that occurred at a given period of time and more so, access to food and other essentials was a big issue especially during periods of famine. These proverbs are from the perspective of the victim and are against exploitation and the effects of selfishness.

     All three proverbs are related to exploitation and the process of taking advantage of other people though they do so in different ways. The Arabic proverb, rather covertly, praises the thief for his art while at the same time condemning the thief for his actions. The Greek proverbs, however, are more geared towards the sufferer and are more likely to be concerned with what the sufferer has lost or has not gained, and the injustice of it. All three have very tangible images that anyone can easily understand and apply to their lives, regardless of the language they speak. The Arabic proverb uses hyperbolic metaphor to celebrate the thief’s art and craftness and reflects the Arab culture of appreciating wit and intelligence. The Greek proverbs, however, are more probable to use exaggeration, specifically when it comes to ‘even my underwear’, than to describe concrete situations, for instance, food and clothing which make the proverbs more realistic. The Arabic reference to kohl links the expression to a particular object which has a specific meaning in the Arabic culture while the Greek proverbs which are based on general objects like food, clothing can be used almost anywhere.

     These proverbs reveal the culture’s perspective on narrating cases of exploitation and cleverness. The Arabic expression, due to its metaphorical and poetic language, celebrates the spirit of resourcefulness and cunningness in the Arab culture. The Greek proverbs, with their simplicity and realism, are focused on the perspective of the victim and the feeling of loss which is more understandable and believable. In this case, they show the various ways through which culture can express itself while at the same time dealing with issues that concern the human society such as morality, intelligence and exploitation.

كلام الليل يمحوه النهار
Kalam al layl yamhuhu an-nahar
The day obliterates the promises of the night
cf. the vows made in storms are forgotten in calms

"Το πρωί είναι σοφότερο από το βράδυ"
/To proí íne sofótero apó to vrády/

"The morning is wiser than the evening"

The Arabic proverb “كلام الليل يمحوه النهار” “Kalam al layl yamhuhu an-nahar (The day obliterates the promises of the night)” and the Greek proverb “Το πρωί είναι σοφότερο από το βράδυ” (To proí íne sofótero apó to vrády, “The morning is wiser than the evening”) both contain deep insights into people’s behavior and the power of time, more specifically the power of day and night. These sayings capture the essence of the notion that thoughts and decisions are temporary and that clarity of thought is often a function of time.

     The Arabic expression uses a contrast between night and day to describe the difference between “كلام الليل” (“words of the night”), and the way the day “يمحوه النهار”(“obliterated by the day”) eradicates them. The language used in this proverb is also quite profound and can be supported by the use of such features as parallel structures like “كلام الليل” and “يمحوه  النهار”. The use of night and day as metaphors is consistent with Arabic poetry which often uses such contrasts in its teachings. The first proverb is more explicit, as it compares the morning with the evening and associates wisdom with the morning because it is a time of clear thinking. One feature of the Greek tradition is the use of abstract notions to represent tangible entities in order to convey a given message. The Greek cultural tendency to express wisdom in the form of short, easily remembered sayings is encapsulated by the brief, yet potent, phrase that is the proverb.

     The Arabic proverb is a product of a culture where words, especially words that are given in a personal way, are taken very seriously especially in group and individual interactions. In Arab culture, night is often associated with intimacy, emotions and making promises which are often impulsive. Light, on the other hand, is associated with awareness, realism and the demands of societal relationships that erase the nighttime words. The proverb captures the human behavior of making quick decisions and can be used to encourage people to treat such decisions with caution. Being derived from the oral culture of the Arab society, it conveys the idea that words that are made when one is emotionally charged are not very long-lasting. The Greek saying is closely connected with the concept of thought, and will, and reflects the general tendency of this nation to search for rational solutions and to prefer to sleep on decisions. This is in line with the philosophical tradition of the Greeks who also associated rationality and patience as necessary ways to wisdom. The proverb can be applied to almost any situation in life and gives the message to people to think twice before acting when they are not completely sure of what they are doing or saying.

     While the two proverbs are radically different in form and cultural context, they both express basic human truths. They focus on the role of time as a distorter of the vision, the revision of the choices and the volatility of words and actions. Both support the idea of waiting and thinking before making decisions and falling into the trap of relying on the words of others where the circumstances are not fully understood. The metaphorical and oral nature of the Arabic proverb is consistent with the oral and communal nature of Arabic culture where language is a central means of encoding and expressing social rules. On the other hand, the abstract and philosophical nature of the Greek proverb is in harmony with the rational and logical tradition of ancient Greece, which preferred generalizations to the particulars of the situation.

     In light of the above, these proverbs show how cultural differences influence the perception of essential aspects of human behavior and nature and how emotions and reason interact. They are universal tips on how to live life and a way of reminding people that it is always wise to think twice before taking any action.

 لا دخان بدون نار
La dukhan bidun nar
No smoke without fire
<shared by both languages>

Δεν υπάρχει καπνός χωρίς φωτιά

/ðen iparçi kapnos xoris pʰotça/

There is no smoke without fire

The Arabic proverb “لا دخان بدون نار” (La dukhan bidun nar, or “No smoke without fire”) and the Greek equivalent “Δεν υπάρχει καπνός χωρίς φωτιά” (Den iparxi kapnos xoris fotça, or "There is no smoke without fire") are almost identical in meaning and message and are thus a manifestation of the universal understanding  that things are generally as they appear to be. Both proverbs are based on the idea that there is always a cause for an effect.

     The Arabic phrase “لا دخان بدون نار” (No smoke without fire) uses basic words to convey a simple concept of cause and effect. The analogy of smoke as the signs that are seen or heard, including rumours or evidence, and fire as the source or cause is easily understandable. This imagery is particularly relevant in communities that relied on fire for survival, heat and social interactions. The length of the proverb is also balanced and its rhythm is maintained through the use of “دخان” (smoke) and “نار” (fire) which are linked in a parallel structure that makes it easy to remember. The Greek saying is a replica of this structure and metaphor which translates the same meaning of effect and their cause through “καπνός” (kapnos, 'Smoke') and “φωτιά” (fotça, 'Fire'). The phrase “Δεν υπάρχει” (Den iparxi, “There is no”) introduces the idea with a formal negation as is common in Greek language for universal statements, and the way it is stated, it seems that this is something that has to be so.

     The Arabic proverb is a product of a culture that places much emphasis on oral narratives and figurative language, and which has a significant meaning of fire and smoke in terms of life and death. In Arab cultures the proverb is used to convey the message that there are no effects without a cause, and that effects such as rumors, or even suspicions, have a cause that is often hidden. This is in consonance with a communal culture where every action and its consequences are scrutinized and interpreted within the context of the society. The proverbs can be applied in various aspects of life including individual, social, and moral life and is usually used to tell people to look beyond the surface. The Greek saying embodies the cultural emphasis on reason, questioning and the examination of the cause-and-effect relationships like those found in the philosophical tradition of ancient Greece. The smoke and fire metaphors in the Greek culture also have the same meaning; there is a need to look for the cause of the visible signals. It can be used almost in any relationship or in any subject on television or in the news to mean that there is more to investigate than what meets the eye. It represents a broader cultural emphasis on reasoning and seeking the truth, which are two very important cultural values in the Greek civilization.

     These two proverbs are more application of the cultural similarity of smoke and fire as causes and effects. They convey the message of the existence of a reverse side to every coin and demand people to observe and reason as much as they can. The Arabic version of the proverb may have more of a communal connotation than the Greek version which is more individual in its approach and more in line with its philosophical orientation.

     The variation in the proverbs is mainly in the linguistic level which is a function of the stylistic variation across the two languages. The Arabic version is quite rhythmic and metaphorical as it is an oral version and thus easily remembered and passed on. The Greek version is also short and can be classified as a cultural and intellectual/literary production with emphasis on clarity and logical organization. In other words, the Arabic and Greek proverbs “لا دخان بدون نار”and “Δεν υπάρχει καπνός χωρίς φωτιά” are the best examples of people’s wisdom gained from experience.

     Both proverbs employ the smoke and fire metaphor to convey the same notion of cause and effect in various settings of the personal, social, or philosophical kind. Their linguistic forms are driven by the cultural orientations, yet their messages are almost identical to demonstrate the unity of the human spirit. These proverbs show the eternal human activity: searching for the truth that lies behind the shapes we see.

 اللي ما يعرف الصقر يشويه
Illi ma yi’raf is-sagr yishwih
He who does not recognize the falcon kills it
Regrettable deeds are performed through ignorance

Σοφία πάντων κάλλιστον, η δε αμάθεια πάντων κάκιστον.

/sopʰia pandon kaliston i ðe amaθia pandon kakiston/

Πλάτων, 427-347 π.Χ., Φιλόσοφος

The Arabic proverb “اللي ما يعرف الصقر يشويه” (Illi ma yi’raf is-sagr yishwih, “He who does not recognize the falcon kills it”) and the Greek saying “Σοφία πάντων κάλλιστον, η δε αμάθεια πάντων κάκιστον” (/Sofia pandon kalliston i de amathia pandon kakiston/, “Wisdom is the greatest of all virtues, and ignorance the worst of all evils”) explore the consequences of ignorance.

The falcon (صقر, saqr) of the Arabic proverb is a powerful cultural symbol in Arab society, associated with nobility, strength, and skill. Its mention elevates the proverb, as the falcon is a revered animal. The act of “cooking” or “roasting” it (يشويه, yishwih) underscores ignorance leading to wasteful or destructive outcomes. The use of “اللي” (illi, "he who") and “ما يعرف” (ma yi’raf, “does not know”) reflects a colloquial register, making the proverb accessible and resonant in daily speech. The proverb contrasts the value of knowledge (recognizing the falcon’s worth) with the destructive consequences of ignorance, making it a vivid and relatable moral lesson. For its side, the Greek phrase uses an abstract and philosophical tone, fitting its origin from Plato. In Greek, “σοφία” (Sofia, wisdom) and “αμάθεια” (amathia, ignorance) are personified as the Greeks used to personify intellectual virtues. The parallel structure of the proverb (“Wisdom is the greatest,” “Ignorance the worst”) helps to build the rhetorical effect, so that the message is not only clear but also easy to remember. The Arabic proverb has more specific images than the Greek one which generalizes wisdom and ignorance as general concepts like the proverbs are.

   In their indexed cultural contexts, the Arabic proverb represents a culture in which falconry is not only a means of survival but also a significant metaphor. Falcons have been a symbol of leadership, vision and control especially in the Bedouin and the Gulf states. The proverb tells us that ignorance is the loss of something good and that one should recognize the expert in order not to make a wrong decision. This saying may have been formed from a falconry environment and it also applies to the modern world since falconry was at one time an essential part of people’s lives. It focuses on the role of information, practice, and cultural heritage and, consequently, on the consequences of indiscriminate action. The Greek proverb is from Plato’s philosophical tradition in which sofia (σοφία) was the highest virtue and amathia (αμάθεια) the root of all evil. It captures the ancient Greek culture’s focus on the mind, reasoning, and knowledge as the means of individual and societal improvement. Since the message of the saying is not tied to a specific situation, it was probably used in ethical and enlightening debates to justify the need for education and the dangers of stupidity more generally.

   Both proverbs share the message that ignorance is dangerous and that knowledge is powerful, and both proverbs reflect the consequences of ignorance. Both of them explain how ignorance results in loss or damage of property through either killing of the falcon in the Arabic version or through the various evils that are associated with ignorance in the Greek version. Both the proverbs are in favor of knowledge, wisdom and understanding as the preventive and elixir of success. The sayings are warning examples that tell people to be careful and to gain knowledge when making a decision.

   The Arabic proverb uses a real and cultural understandable object (a falcon) to explain the idea. The Greek saying is based on concepts, in line with its philosophical basis and generality. The Arabic proverb is easy to use in daily conversation because of its colloquial language like that of oral communication. The Greek proverb is formal as it is associated with the philosophical and written tradition, being derived from philosophical discussions. The Arabic proverb is closely connected with the Bedouins and falconry and is therefore particular to this cultural context. The Greek proverb can be applied across cultures and contexts due to its generality and relative lack of specificity, in line with a philosophical perspective.

   In general, both the Arabic and the Greek proverbs convey the negative message about ignorance and the positive message about knowledge, but the language variations show the difference in the approach. The Arabic proverb is rich in imagination and is informal, and it is linked to the real and symbolic world of the Arab society particularly through falconry. The Greek proverb is less tangible and more theoretical in comparison with the first one, and it is in harmony with the logical and theoretical orientation of the classical Greek thought. In spite of the fact that these proverbs are from different cultures, they convey the same notion of the impact of ignorance and the potential of wisdom in people’s lives.

 إذا كثر الربابنة غرقت السفينة
Khaliji

Idha kathira ar-rababina gharigat as-safina
Too many captains sink the ship
Too many cooks spoil the broth

Όπου λαλούν πολλοί κοκόροι, αργεί να ξημερώσει

/opu lalun poli kokori arʝi na ksimerosi/

Where many roosters crow, the dawn is late

The Arabic proverb “إذا كثر الربابنة غرقت السفينة” (Idha kathira ar-rababina gharigat as-safina, “Too many captains sink the ship”) and the Greek sayings “Όπου λαλούν πολλοί κοκόροι, αργεί να ξημερώσει” (Opou laloun polloí kokkóri, argí na ksimerósei, “Where many roosters crow, dawn comes late”) warn against the complications and inefficiencies that arise when too many people try to assert control or authority over a single endeavor. More specifically, they are used when many opinions are heard on a subject and people are talking and shouting all together, neither can they make decisions nor can they proceed with some action.

The Arabic proverb employs vivid maritime imagery, with “الربابنة” (ar-rababina, “captains”) symbolizing leadership or decision-makers and “السفينة” (as-safina, “the ship”) representing a collective effort or goal. The verb “غرقت” (gharigat, “sinks”) creates a dramatic, almost catastrophic tone, emphasizing the ultimate consequence of conflicting leadership. The structure is straightforward and rhythmic, making it effective as a cautionary statement. The Greek proverb “Όπου λαλούν πολλοί κοκόροι, αργεί να ξημερώσει” (“Where many chickens crow, it takes time to daybreak”) has rural language, and kokóri (roosters) are used to represent voices or opinions fighting for prominence. The other point is that the translation of argí na ksimerósei, (“dawn comes late”) is rather indirect but quite potent, meaning that dawn comes late and that things take time to happen. The use of many (pollóí) also introduces the concept of overkill while the overall sentence structure is casual and thus easy to pass on.

Both proverbs and the English equivalent both use concrete metaphors to express a concept that is abstract in nature. The Greek saying and the Arabic proverb are both historical, with the last one being a maritime metaphor that reflects the collectivist culture of the Arabs and their concern with unity and coordinated leadership. The Greeks, who came from a more agrarian background, based their saying on experiences from daily life on the farm to convey the mess that results from having too many voices competing to make a decision. The Arabic proverb is from a maritime context and applies to trading societies of the Gulf where a smooth journey is more likely when there is a clear head and harmony among the captains. The danger of too many captains in a ship is captured by the use of “الربابنة” arrababina (captains) and the proverb is thus closely linked to cultural norms of collaboration and respect for authority. The impression given by the sinking ship is one of common loss and the effect of the message is that leadership failures are felt by everyone on the ship. The Greek proverb, which has to do with agrarian activities, captures the importance of time and productivity in the countryside. The roosters, the multiple voices or leaders, make the dawn, or the solution, later. This represents a cultural understanding of the need for order and the consequences of disorder in a community’s work. The manner in which the proverb is delivered; in a form of a conversation is in conformity with the Greek culture that prefers to convey its practical wisdom through easily understandable and relatable pictures.

All three proverbs, in some way, convey the idea that there are risks in having two or many leaders. They stress on the importance of understanding, working together, and complying with the set up in order to achieve a specific objective. Both the Arabic and Greek proverbs explain that leadership conflicts have a negative impact on the community, with the ship sinking and the delayed dawn representing failures. However, the Arabic proverb is based on the urgency and the life-or-death situation of the maritime scenario, which represents the cultural importance of trade and collaboration in Arab societies. The Greek proverb that is being used is a rather lighter and more rural one that conveys a message about inefficiency by using the idea of cooperation and timing in country activities.

The Arabic proverb conveys the message that leadership should not be split and uses the dramatic setting of a ship that is sinking to convey the message that time is of the essence. The Greek proverb focuses on the weaknesses and slowdown, which is based on the agricultural cycle as an example of wrong management. These sayings, together with the English equivalent, express the general idea that success is only possible if everyone works together and there is a clear leadership structure, while at the same time reflecting the specific cultural experiences and values of the two societies.

 ذنب الكلب أعوج ولو حطيت في خمسين قالب
Khaliji

Dahnab al kalb a ‘waj walaw hattytu fi khamsin galib
The dog’s tail remains crooked, even if it puts in fifty moulds
A leopard cannot change its spot

Δεν αλλάζει ο άνθρωπος

/ðen alazi o anθropos/

The Arabic proverb “ذنب الكلب أعوج ولو حطيت في خمسين قالب” (Dahnab al-kalb a‘waj walaw hattytu fi khamsin qalib, “The dog’s tail remains crooked, even if it is put in fifty molds”) and the Greek proverb “Δεν αλλάζει ο άνθρωπος” (Den allázei o ánthropos, “A person doesn’t change”) align with the English equivalent “A leopard cannot change its spots” inasmuch as they express the persistence of inherent traits or behaviors. All three proverbs reflect the universal acknowledgment of the difficulty or impossibility of fundamentally altering one's nature.

The Arabic proverb uses a vivid and specific metaphor, “ذنب الكلب” (dahnab al-kalb, “the dog’s tail”), as a symbol of something inherently and unchangeably bent or flawed. The phrase “ولو حطيت في خمسين قالب” (walaw hattytu fi khamsin qalib, “even if it is put in fifty molds”) adds hyperbolic imagery, emphasizing that no amount of effort or intervention can straighten what is intrinsically crooked. The structure is both rhythmic and visual, making it a compelling piece of oral wisdom. From Greek, the proverb goes: “Δεν αλλάζει ο άνθρωπος”. This proverb is short and claimative and the negation “δεν” (den) is used with the verb “αλλάζει” (allázei, “to change”). This makes the simplicity of the proverb make it fit for use in a conversation and moreover, the focus on “άνθρωπος” ties the proverb to human behaviour rather than to their physical appearance.

The English equivalent of this is ‘A leopard cannot change its spots’ which also uses animal imagery like the Arabic proverb but focuses on the immutability of physical markings as a way of illustrating the immutability of character. This is because it is simple and has used an animal that is known to everyone.

The Arabic proverb represents a pragmatic worldview which is based on real life experiences and which considers physical and behavioral traits as ingrained. An enriched comparison to ‘fifty molds’ enriches the comparison to the cultural appreciation of accepting things as they are rather than trying to change them, and a dog’s tail links the saying to everyday observations of nature which would make it relevant in agrarian and pastoral societies. The Greek proverb is about human behavior and personality, and the difficulty of changing deep seeded characteristics. Its simplicity is characteristic of a cultural tendency to express wisdom through direct and universal truths. The saying resonates with Greek philosophical traditions that explore the tension between nature and nurture and highlights the enduring influence of innate characteristics.

All these proverbs have a common theme: the persistence of inherent traits despite attempts to change them. They warn against the futility of trying to alter what is deeply ingrained, whether in physical nature (as in the Arabic proverb) or human personality (as in the Greek saying). The Arabic proverb ties the lesson to observable realities in the natural world by means of vivid animal metaphors. The Greek proverb, by contrast, takes a more abstract and human-centered approach, not explicitly focusing on human behavior, but rather on external symbols. The reference to molds in the Arabic saying underscores a cultural awareness of effort and intervention, which recognizes their limitations in dealing with inherent traits. The Greek proverb’s focus on humanity reflects a philosophical orientation, considering the inevitability of nature in shaping identity.

The Arabic proverb uses practical and visual imagery to emphasize the futility of changing inherent traits, reflecting a cultural preference for accepting natural realities. The Greek proverb takes a more abstract approach, focusing on the constancy of human nature through a direct and universal statement. Such an approach is also found in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, in the text found below:

Οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀντιδροῦν παρόμοια κάτω ἀπό παρόμοιες συνθῆκες καί αὐτό συμβαίνει καί θά συμβαίνει ὅσο ἡ ἀνθρώπινη φύση παραμένει ἀμετάβλητη. (Θούκ. 3,82, 2.)

“People react similarly under similar circumstances, and this is happening and will continue to happen as long as human nature remains unchanged. (Thucydides 3.82.2)

Essentially, Thucydides is arguing that human behavior is predictable because human nature is fundamentally constant. Even though the specific events and contexts might differ, people will tend to respond in similar ways when faced with similar challenges, emotions, or motivations. This observation is used to explain the cyclical nature of conflict and political upheaval throughout history. The reference that Thucydides makes above to human nature is the first in a series in his history, but not the only one. And further down, in the third book of his history, when he chronicles Corfu, talking about the consequences of the war, which Thucydides describes as a “brutal teacher”, he writes, among other things: “and so be it, until this is the nature of humans...” In other words, what comes out as Thucydides' belief, from his two passages that refer to human nature, is that humans react similarly under similar conditions and that this happens and will happen as long as human nature remains unchanged.

The didactic and prognostic character of Thucydides' history is based on this belief, who seems to have considered war as a disease of the social and political body, perhaps influenced by his contemporary physician Hippocrates and his medical predictions. In other words, just as a doctor with the help of the accumulated scientific knowledge can not only find the cause but also predict the course and evolution of a disease and act preventively or therapeutically, human behavior, individual or group, could be proportionally as a sign to be predicted, to be prevented or to be guided, with the help of the stable and unchanging elements of human nature. Of course, this prediction of Thucydides is based exclusively on the human intellect and has nothing to do with the methods of ancient divination.[1]

These proverbs articulate a shared human understanding of the limits of change, while their linguistic and metaphorical choices reveal the unique cultural perspectives that shape their expression.

[1] https://www.lexigram.gr/lex/enni/phrase/%CE%B1%CE%BD_%CE%B7_%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%AC_%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%B5%CE%AF%CF%87%CE%B5_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%B1_%2F_%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BC%CE%AC%CE%BD_%CE%B8%CE%B1_%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD_%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B9_%2F_%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%8A_%2F_%CF%84%CF%81%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%BF#Hist0 (accessed on 18 November 2024)

 بوطبيع مايوز عن طبعه

A guy’s nature does not change

A leopard cannot change its spots

/buʈˤbəʕ mayuːz ʕan ʈˤabʕah/

Ο λύκος και αν εγέρασε και άσπρισε το μαλλί του, μηδέ τη γνώμην άλλαξε μηδέ την κεφαλή του

/o ‘liːkos çαn ε’γεrαsε ç’αsprisε to mα’liː tu mi΄δε ti γnomin ‘αlaksε mi’δε tin kεfα’liː tu/

The wolf, though he grew up and turned his hair white, did not change his mind, nor his head

The wolf may lose his teeth but never his nature. The fox may grow gray but never good. Α leopard can you change its spots.

Proverbs addressing the immutability of nature and personality reflect cultural observations about human behavior and the difficulty of transformation. Both these proverbs convey the shared idea that inherent traits, whether in humans or animals, are resistant to change. These proverbs reveal shared values of realism, caution, and the acknowledgment of enduring characteristics across cultures.

The phrase “وطبيع مايوز عن طبعه” (buʈˤbəʕ mayuːz ʕan ʈˤabʕah) is concise and rhythmic, using repetition of “طبعه” (ʈˤabʕah, “nature”) to emphasize the unchanging essence of an individual. Its brevity reflects oral traditions in the Gulf region. The term “طبعه” (ʈˤabʕah) symbolizes an individual’s inherent nature or habits. The phrase uses a direct statement rather than metaphor, focusing on the unchangeability of personality traits. The Greek proverb is longer and more descriptive, presenting a narrative about the wolf’s aging process (“άσπρισε το μαλλί του”, “turned his hair white”) to illustrate that external changes do not alter internal nature. The extended structure reflects a storytelling tradition. The wolf represents cunning and persistence, and its unchanged nature despite physical aging underscores the idea that character remains constant over time.

Both proverbs acknowledge that fundamental traits are resistant to change. The Arabic one sees this as a social reality in relationships, while the Greek one places the emphasis on the continuity of character throughout the span of time even when the physical structure is undergoing changes. These proverbs are meant to be taken as a warning to enter into relationships or certain situations with the knowledge of the true nature of people. Both are telling us to not expect people to change the nature within them.

Each proverb links human characteristics to natural events using vivid imagery to convey its message. The Arabic one simply states the fact, while the Greek one uses animal symbols to support the idea. The proverbs thus support the readers to have a practical attitude towards people and circumstances in real life situations whether in social or individual contexts. The Arabic proverb captures a possible view in Gulf societies where it is easier to understand and accept the qualities of people as well as those of others. The shortness ensures that it is easy to remember and use in our daily lives, as it is part of the practical wisdom and conversation. The explanatory narrative links the proverb to the Greek oral traditions where stories were used to explain or demonstrate a moral or philosophical lesson. Being an ancient Greek proverb, it also stresses on the stability of one’s character, which is in some way related to the concepts of the essence and identity in the classical philosophy.

In general, the Arabic one is more oriented towards the consequences of the concept of the unchanging nature in interpersonal relations, which is typical for collectivist cultures. The direct statement highlights the everyday use of the proverb and its relevance. The Greek one uses a detailed story about the wolf to illustrate the continuity of nature, tying to the cultural tradition of using stories for moral lessons. Highlights that age and external change do not affect intrinsic traits, adding depth to the proverb’s meaning. While the Arabic proverb is succinct and relational, the English saying employs a universal metaphor, and the Greek version uses a narrative approach to underscore the continuity of character over time.

 من عاشر القوم صار منهم

/mIn ʕaːʃar ilˈqəʊm sˤaːr minˈhum/

He who lives with a group of people, becomes one of them

Όμοιος ομοίω αεί πελάζει

/’omios o’miɔː α’iː pε’lαzi/

A similar person always approaches their similar ones

Μ’όποιο δάσκαλο καθήσεις τέτοια γράμματα θα μάθεις

/’mopço ‘δαskαlo kαtʰiːsis ‘tetçα ‘γrαmαtα tʰα mαtʰis/ 

With whomever teacher you sit with, this is the type of knowledge (literae) you will learn

Proverbs are powerful expressions of cultural wisdom that reveal shared beliefs about human behavior and relationships. The ones found here explore themes of influence, association, and the power of relationships in shaping behavior and character. Despite cultural differences, these proverbs share values of adaptability, the transformative power of social context, and the caution required in choosing one's company.

     The proverb “من عاشر القوم صار منهم” is succinct and direct. It uses “عاشر” (ʕaːʃar, “interacted closely”) and “القوم” (ilˈqəʊm, “the group of people”) to establish a connection, and “صار منهم” (sˤaːr minˈhum, “became one of them”) highlights the transformative effect.  The focus is on integration into a group, where prolonged association leads to assimilation. This reflects the cultural emphasis on community and shared identity. The Greek (Όμοιος ομοίω αεί πελάζει) phrase is rhythmic and poetic. The repetition of “όμοιος ομοίω” (’omios o’miɔː, “like to like”) and the verb “πελάζει” (pε’lαzi, “approaches”) emphasizes natural alignment between similar individuals. The imagery of similarity and attraction underscores the natural gravitation of individuals toward those with shared traits or values. From its side, the Greek (Μ’όποιο δάσκαλο καθήσεις…): This proverb has a narrative structure that links the subject (“δάσκαλο”, “teacher”) to the consequence (“γράμματα”, “letters/knowledge”), underscoring the educational and relational influence. The teacher-student dynamic symbolizes the broader influence of association, extending the proverb’s relevance to mentorship and learning.

     All three proverbs highlight the profound impact of the company one keeps. The Arabic one reflects the transformative power of social integration and assimilation, while the first Greek one suggests that like attracts like, emphasizing natural affinity, and the second one focuses on how associations actively shape knowledge and character. The proverbs serve as cautionary reminders to be mindful of one’s surroundings and relationships. They tell the dangers of the negative impact while encouraging the union with the positive ones. The sayings are true that people are moldable and depend on environmental factors. The Arabic one is more specific and claims that a person always becomes similar to his or her friends and associates, while the second Greek one is more general and focuses on the educational and social aspects of the process. All three proverbs explain that people who are compatible can live in harmony and develop together, and they also explain that people who have similar values can have a good relationship or association.

     The Arabic proverb reflects the collectivist culture of Arab countries, in which people’s identity and behavior are determined by their interaction with the group. The concept of being part of a group is consistent with cultural practices that highlight integration, group rules, and mutual change. The saying is a reminder that one should be careful in selecting one’s friends as they tend to influence one’s personality. The first Greek proverb is consistent with the classical Greek philosophical assumptions about the like-spirit and the role of common interests in relationships. It also highlights the role of commonalities in the development of solid ties. The second Greek proverb is connected to the concept of mentor and shifts the proverb to the context of the cultural appreciation of learning and growth. It states that the environment, represented by the teacher, determines behavior and knowledge.

     In conclusion, the Arabic one is connected to the concept of integration and the concept of the individual’s identity being subsumed into the group. It reflects a collectivist mindset where assimilation into the group is often necessary for survival and social cohesion. The first Greek proverb focuses on the organic attraction between like-minded individuals, emphasizing the ease of forming relationships with shared values. The emphasis on similarity aligns with Greek philosophical traditions of exploring human nature and relationships. The second one places a stronger focus on the deliberate shaping of character through mentorship and learning, reflecting the Greek reverence for education. It highlights the responsibility of selecting influences wisely, especially in formative contexts.

 إيش راح تعمل الماشطة بهذا الوجه الوحش
Aysh rah ti ‘mal al mashtah bi hadah al wajh al wihish
What can the lady comber do with this ugly face?
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear

Εκ στόματος κόρακος κρα εξελεύσεται

/ek stomatos korakos kra ekselepʰsete/

From the mouth of a crow will come out kra (sound)

 The Arabic proverb “إيش راح تعمل الماشطة بهذا الوجه الوحش” (Aysh rah ti‘mal al-mashtah bi hadah al-wajh al-wihish, “What can the lady comber do with this ugly face?”) and the Greek proverb “Εκ στόματος κόρακος κρα εξελεύσεται” (Ek stomatos korakos kra ekselefsete, “From the mouth of a crow, a caw will come forth”) both critique the futility of attempting to improve or refine something inherently flawed. They reflect a shared understanding of the limitations of transformation and the inevitability of innate characteristics manifesting despite external efforts.

The Arabic proverb uses a rhetorical question to convey its message, with “إيش راح تعمل” (Aysh rah ti‘mal, “What can be done”) emphasizing the futility of effort. The phrase “الماشطة” (al-mashtah, “the lady comber”) introduces a figure associated with beauty and refinement, while “هذا الوجه الوحش” (hadah al-wajh al-wihish, “this ugly face”) underscores the inherent limitation. The imagery of a beautician and an unchangeable face creates a vivid and relatable metaphor. The Greek proverb uses declarative language, and the idiom “Εκ στόματος κόρακος” “From the mouth of a crow” (Ek stomatos korakos) is seen as having a negative meaning. The onomatopoeic “κρα” (kra, “caw”) ensures that the result is certain, as it is with other traits that are a part of one's nature and cannot be changed. The structure is formal and classic for Greek oratory, which makes it seem like it has been around for centuries.

The Arabic proverb embodies the cultural spirit of recognizing the limits of any process and the shallowness of trying to fix them. The term “الماشطة” (al-mashtah, “the beautician”) links the quote to traditional men and women who are in charge of changing and enhancing the appearance of people while the '”ugly face” shows that some issues cannot be covered up. This is in conformity with the Arab culture that has a focus on the real thing and not the outside show of things. The Greek proverb is based on a philosophical and naturalistic perspective, and the crow is used as a personification of the unchangeable nature. In Greek culture, crows are often depicted as loud and not very beautiful, and therefore they are used to illustrate the impossibility to change the nature of something. This proverb shows a cultural tendency of using observations from the natural world to explain principles about human behavior and change.

Both proverbs explain why it is foolish to try and fix or improve something that is simply poor. They teach one needs to know when to stop and accept defects instead of trying to rectify them. The Arabic proverb is set in the context of beauty and art, and thus the proverb effectively conveys a societal message about the need to know when to stop beautifying and attaining optimal results. The Greek proverb is rather more general, and more conceptual in its use of the crow as a personification of the unavoidable and the natural. Whereas the Arabic saying is based on a situation that can be related to in our daily lives and personal hygiene, the Greek proverb is based on nature and classical philosophy. This is because the two societies have different cultural angles through which they interpret and express general truths. The Arabic proverb, however, gives a clear and easy to picture situation of trying to cover up a big fault with cosmetic changes and the proverbs represent a common-sense approach to the issue from a cultural perspective. The Greek proverb expresses the concept of the inevitability of birth traits through natural symbols. These proverbs jointly present a common statement about the possibilities of change and the intelligence of the individual and society to accept the given qualities while at the same time presenting cultural variations.

 الحسود لا يسود
Al hasud la yasud
The envious will not prevail
cf. Envy eats nothing but its own heart

Ώσπερ υπό του ιού τον σίδηρον, ούτω τους φθονερούς υπό του ιδίου ήθους κατεσθίεσθαι.

/osper ipo tu iu ton siðiron uto tus pʰθonerus ipo tu iðiu iθus katesθiesθe/

–

Όπως η σκουριά τρώει το σίδερο, έτσι και ο φθονερός κατατρώγεται από το πάθος του.

Αντισθένης, 445-360 π.Χ., Κυνικός φιλόσοφος

As rust eats iron, so the envious is consumed by his passion.

The Arabic proverb ’الحسود لا يسود’(Al-hasud la yasud – The envious will not prevail’) and the Greek philosophical saying attributed to Antisthenes, ‘Ώσπερ υπό του ιού τον σίδηρον, ούτω τους φθονερούς υπό του ιδίου ήθους κατεσθίεσθαι’ (Osper ipo tu iu ton sidiron, outo tus phthonerous ipo tu idiu ithous katesthiésethai – As rust eats iron, so the envious is consumed by his passion) both express the same negative appraisal of envy as a destructive passion. Both are rich in cultural significance and capture much about the effects of envy on the human being and his or her potential for leadership or advancement.

The Arabic proverb is short and clear and the words ’الحسود’(al-hasud – the envious) and ’لا  يسود’(la yasud – will not prevail) are written in a meter and parallel structure. The language of ‘لا يسود’(la yasud – will not prevail) is quite strong and  the message given is that envy is not a good way to succeed. It is short and rhythmic and thus easy to learn and to pass on by word of mouth. The Greek saying, ascribed to Antisthenes, is much longer and more explicit and uses a comparison to explain the concept. It compares rust (’ιού’ / iou – rust) as attacking iron (’τον σίδηρον’ / ton sidiron – iron) and how the envious (’φθονερούς’ / phthonerous – the envious) injures himself or herself. The word ’κατεσθίεσθαι’ (katesthiésethai – is consumed) describes in detail the negative effects of envy on character. The extended metaphor gives the philosophy a depth and the wording a reflective quality.

     The Arabic proverb expresses a moral vision of the world where envy is equivalent to failure and lack of moral character. Envy (حسد / hasad) is considered as a malicious spirit in the Arab culture that causes social disease and erodes people’s character. The phrase implies that envy does not only affects other people in a negative way but also hinders the envious person from becoming a leader (يسود / yasud – to prevail) or a respected person. The Greek proverb, which is related to classical philosophy, gives a more introspective view of envy. Comparing it to rust eating iron, it focuses on the internal and auto-aggressive process of envy. This is in concordance with the Greek philosophical traditions that analyzed emotions like envy as vices that prevented people from attaining virtue and reason. The metaphor explains that once a person is envious, they can only expect a destructive outcome of the emotion, which is consistent with the cultural perception of the phenomenon.

     Both proverbs anti-envy messages tell us that envy is a selfish passion that prevents one from being virtuous and in tune with the community. They differ in the way they address the consequences of envy, whether in terms of leadership or society. The Arabic proverb is more specific in discussing the consequences of envy, which is the failure to gain leadership or status in the society. On the other hand, the Greek saying gives a detailed view of the effects of envy, which suggests that envy corrodes the character of the envious person. This paper concludes that the two proverbs share a common theme of opposing envy as a destructive passion that has adverse effects on individuals and the society.

     The language of the Arabic proverb is direct and forceful and it reflects the pragmatic and moral nature of the proverb, which makes it understandable and applicable in real life. The Greek saying, however, is a deep and metaphor-laden piece of philosophy that is meant to be thought about and discussed, for use by people with a more meditative approach to life. The Arabic proverb uses a direct and strong language to prevent envy and its effects on achievements and morality in society.  The Greek saying, which compares envy to rust, is in harmony with the classical philosophical views on emotions. Therefore, these proverbs give different but related views on the effects of envy and how wisdom is expressed in different cultures.

 إذا قلت الخيول سرجوا الكلاب
Idha gallat al khuyul sarraju al kaliab
From lack of horses they saddle dogs
Explanation: there is nothing suitable, so they come up with totally useless alternative

Γάιδαρος ειν' ο γάιδαρος αν βάλει και τη σέλλα

 /ɣaiðaros in o ɣaiðaros an vali ce ti sela/

A donkey remains a donkey, even if he puts a saddle

The Arabic proverb “ إذا قلت الخيول سرجوا الكلاب”and the  Greek saying “Γάιδαρος ειν' ο γάιδαρος αν βάλει και τη σέλλα” both convey the same message that even if you call horses horses,  dogs will be ridden. Both are directed against poor attempts to raise somebody or something or to make them better than they actually are. They stress the importance of the intrinsic value and the futility of trying to replace or alter the surface or components.

     The Arabic proverb goes: “If you lack”; it is then stated that, “They tame dogs” in the proverb “sarraju  al-kalab”. The idea of putting a saddle on a dog, a animal that is not meant to carry a rider, gives the idea of the humorousness of the situation. The comparison between horses and dogs is well made and the analogy is easy to understand. The Greek saying is a declarative sentence, and gaídaros is used to denote something small and gaídaros again to say that no amount of saddles can change it. The language of the proverb is also quite rhythmic owing to the repetition of the word γάιδαρος.

     The Arabic proverb is the manifestation of the common sense of Arab people who had to struggle for existence in the conditions of scarcity of resources.  Horses, who were usually appreciated for their usefulness and position, are the example of the high level and the capability, and dogs – although they are quite useful in their own right – are not presented as a proper replacement. The meaning of the saying is to avoid the downgrade or wrong direction of effort to fill the void of the essential thing and it conforms to the cultural norms of the real and the appropriate. The Greek proverb is typical of a cultural tendency to express wit and irony at the expense of affectation or inadequacy. The donkey, a standard beast of the Greek countryside, is a symbol of the simple and limited. To that extent, the proverb is correct in arguing that even a saddle cannot transform the donkey’s nature, since the proverbs focuses on the essence and not the appearance like the Greek tradition.

     Both proverbs contain doubts as to the possibility of covering up for the lack of quality or trying to replace excellence with average. Both of them appreciate the role of the intrinsic value and express the disregard to the pseudo or inappropriate mimicry. The Arabic proverb is relevant to the topic of scarcity and the consequences of reducing standards, which is typical for the Arabic culture, oriented at the practical and economic aspects. The Greek saying, with its humorous and ironic demeanor, makes fun of pretensions and, in general, points to the unchangeability of the world around us, as do the cultural tendencies to search for and appreciate the philosophical meaning of the said. The story of the Arabic proverb is told through the experience of two different kinds of animals, one of them a noble animal (horses) and the other a common animal (dogs), in order to explain its message. The difference between the two cultures and the ways of expressing them is also seen in the fact that the Greek proverb does not try to change the nature of things through external alterations. This difference can be attributed to the different cultural backgrounds and the ways of expressing them in the two civilizations.

Overall, the Arabic proverb is a picture and verbal illustration of an advice against lowering standards during shortage, which is in line with the cultural orientation towards the realization of the practical and economic aspects. The Greek saying uses humorous and ironic premises to justify the idea that one should not try to change the world, but rather accept it as it is, in accordance with the cultural and philosophical tendencies of this people. In this way, these proverbs provide separate but related teachings on the subject of real and impostor, based on two different cultures’ approaches to this concept.

 قرعة بتتباها بشعر بنت اختها
Gar’a bititbaha bish’ar bint ukhtaha
A bald woman brags about her niece’s hair

Μην το περηφανεύεσαι και μην το κάνεις νάζι, γιατί ο Θεός την ομορφιά σαν άνθος την τινάζει.

/min to peripʰanevese ce min ti kanis nazi ʝiati o θeos tin omorpʰça san anθοσ tin tinazi/

Do not be proud of it and do not act up, because God shakes beauty like a flower.

The Arabic proverb “ قرعة بتتباها بشعر بنت اختها" "Gar’a bititbaha bish’ar bint ukhtaha" (A bald woman brags about her niece’s hair) and the Greek saying "Μην το περηφανεύεσαι και μην το κάνεις νάζι, γιατί ο Θεός την ομορφιά σαν άνθος την τινάζει" "Min to periphanévese ke min to kánis názi, yiati o Theós tin omorfia san ánthos tin tinázi" (Do not be proud of it and do not act up, because God shakes beauty like a flower) both aim their criticism at arrogant people who have no reason to be arrogant. These sayings are representative of the broader cultural norms that pertain to humility, awareness, and the illusion of physical beauty or success.

     The Arabic proverb is quite direct and has a good laugh at our expense; “قرعة” (Gar’a, ‘bald woman’) is someone who doesn’t have what it is to boast about, in this case, hair. The phrase “بتتباها بشعر بنت اختها” (bititbaha bish’ar bint ukhtaha, “brags about her niece’s hair”) shows how ridiculous it is to brag about something that belongs to someone else. The use of familial ties (niece) brings a more private and understandable message to the analysis. The Greek proverb is a beautiful piece of art that has a philosophical and preventative nature of the message that it conveys, such as the phrase “Μην το περηφανεύεσαι” (Min to periphanévese, “Do not be proud of it”) and the phrase “γιατί ο Θεός την ομορφιά σαν άνθος την τινάζει” (yiati o Theós tin omorfia san ánthos tin tinázi, “because God shakes beauty like a flower”). The metaphor that has been used here is the one about a flower being shaken which means that the flower is pretty delicate and short-lived. The involvement of God in the message makes the lesson learned from it connected to the moral and spiritual plane.

     The Arabic proverb can be translated as an expression of contempt for arrogance and snobbism, especially if it is based on the extraneous or heir loans. In mocking a bald woman who is proud of her niece’s hair, the saying tells of the Greeks on the issue of modus operandity and the absence of authenticity in such conduct. This is in conformity with the Arab culture that caters to the norms of modesty and the need to earn respect the hard way. The Greek saying, which has a religious and ethical basis, tells against vanity and conceit, especially with regard to physical appearances. Such factors as God and the shaking of a flower give a clear picture of the beauty as a short-lived gift. This is in conformity with the Greek cultural principles that support modesty and consider pride as a possible vice that may attract the gods’ anger or punishment.

     Both proverbs share the message that it is better to be humble than proud and that one should not brag about things that are not really their own or that will not last. They teach us not to pride ourselves in qualities which are not really ours but which are likely to be short-lived. The Arabic proverb uses humor and family situations to make fun of pride, thus making the message easily understood and relatable. The Greek saying, being a poetic and moral perspective of the lesson, links it to divine providence and the immortality of beauty.

     Overall, the Arabic proverb is more oriented towards social relationships and the funny side of bragging about someone’s qualities while the Greek saying is more general, and more philosophical and spiritual in its approach, emphasizing the idea of beauty as a transient value and the need for modesty. Humor and familial relations are used in the Arabic proverb to make fun of pride, which is consistent with the cultural tendency to prefer realism and social judgement. The Greek saying, which is in the form of a poem and is a moral advice, is against vanity which is in conformity with a cultural practice of integrating philosophy and religion in daily advice. Therefore, these proverbs together explain the need for modesty and wisdom while at the same time giving a glimpse of how each culture has tailored these values.

 بطيختين بيد وحده مابيتحملوا
Levant/Egyptian

/bətʰi:xtein byəd waħdə ma:byətħaməlu:/

Battikatayn bi yad wahida ma biyithamlu
Two watermelons cannot be carried in one hand
Don’t attempt the impossible

Two watermelons cannot be carried in one hand

Δε χωράνε δύο καρπούζια κάτω από την ίδια μασχάλη

/δen xoràne δìo karpùzja kàto apò tin ìδja masxàli/

Two watermellons do not fit under the same underpit

The Arabic proverb ’بطيختين بيد وحده مابيتحملوا’/ Battikatayn bi yad wahida ma biyithamlu/ that means “Two watermelons cannot be carried in one hand” and the Greek equivalent ’Δυο καρπούζια δε χωράνε κάτω από την ίδια μασχάλη’ / Dyo karpúzia de horáne káto apó tin ídia mascháli/, which means ’Two watermelons cannot fit under the same armpit’ use the same metaphorical language to convey the same message that two should not be done in one go. Both of the sayings are based on the idea of common sense and they appear to be steeped in the depths of folk wisdom: as it is with watermelons, which do not fit under our arms, so it is when one deals with more than one case, he is unable to handle them.

     The Arabic proverb is stated in a very simple language and the term ’بطيختين’ (battikatayn; two watermelons) is used as a representative of a bulky item. The preposition ’بيد وحده’(bi yad wahida;  in one hand) also expresses the impossibility of the task while the verb  ’مابيتحملوا’(ma biyithamlu; cannot be borne) describes the result. The language of the proverb is quite informal which makes it easy to use in conversations. The Greek proverb is also similar to the Arabic one in its metaphoric likeness, the ’καρπούζια’ (karpúzia; watermelons) being the central image. The extension of the comedy and the clarity to the text is achieved through the use of ’κάτω από την ίδια μασχάλη’ (káto apó tin ídia mascháli; under the same armpit), which gives a clear picture of what the sentence is aiming at. The use of the negative verb ’δε χωράνε’ (de horáne; can’t) gives the impression that failure is inevitable.

     The Arabic proverb is based on the realistic approach of daily life and watermelons are a real and familiar object that can be easily carried in real life. It conveys the message of the futility of attempting to do more than one can or to try to manage more than one can. This is in concordance with the cultural norms of pragmatism and awareness when it comes to work. As with the Greek proverb, which has a more rural, agricultural basis, it captures the spirit of moderation and realism that is so much a part of Greek traditional culture. The use of humour in the rendering of two watermelons being placed under one armpit is humorous yet quite accurate to the Greek culture due to their tendency to employ humour and similes in their teachings.

     Both proverbs mentioned above explain that one should not try to do more than can be done and that it is better not to try the impossible. They also both stress the need to

know one’s own capabilities and to only attempt that which one can comfortably accomplish. The use of watermelons as an example is a clear way of explaining the message to everyone, although the phrasing and cultural references differ. The Arabic version of the proverb focuses more on the idea of ’one hand’ as the capacity of the individual and the physical limit of fitting in too many things. The Greek version, which is centered on the ’armpit,’ provides some humor and a slightly over the top scenario to make the message more enjoyable and easier to remember.

     The Arabic proverb tells a very tangible and easily understandable moral story about not trying to do more than one can do, which is consistent with the cultural mentality of moderation and reasonable self-assessment. A similar message is conveyed by the Greek saying, which uses humour and realistic imagery in its delivery, following the Greek tendency to combine wisdom with humour. In conclusion, these proverbs show the understanding of people all over the world regarding the notion of focus and balance while at the same time showing how each culture has its own way of expressing this idea via language.

Both proverbs give sensible advice on how not to overload oneself and to prioritize, and the wisdom they impart is applicable in any society. In terms of their sociocultural underpinnings, the Levantine culture is known for its pragmatic approach to life and the Levantine proverb “بطيختين بيد وحدة”(bətʰi:xtein byəd waħdə) reflects this. The imagery is consistent with an agrarian and market-oriented background where watermelons are easily identifiable and their sizes well understood. The informal style of the language makes the lesson easy to relate to and is used frequently in everyday conversation, often as a warning against overcommitment. The Greek version is also inclined to use humor and exaggeration in order to pass across its message. A light humorous touch is introduced by the armpit comedy while offering a profound message on human limitations. As taken from the Greek culture, principles of personal accountability and balance are involved in this proverb that tells people to work on things they can easily handle and not to try to do more than they can.

     In sum, the first proverb belongs to the collectivist culture where people have to solve the problem of balancing between individual and social responsibilities. Colloquial language of the proverb makes it easily applicable in everyday life. However, the focus of the Greek one is on personal responsibility and awareness when it comes to work, which is more characteristic for the individualistic culture. The comic relief and the figures of speech used in the story make the piece quite enjoyable and the message of moderation is delivered in a fun way. Whereas the Arabic proverb is based on the experience of daily life, realist attitudes and straightforward language, the Greek saying brings humor and exaggeration to bear on the issue of individual responsibility.

 بيعطي الحلق للي بلا أودان
Biya’ti al halag lilli bila awdan
He gives earrings to the one without ears
… as pointless as carrying coals to Newcastle

Κομίζει γλαύκα εις Αθήνας

/komizi ɣlapʰka is aθinas/

He brings owls to Athens

He brings sand to the beach

The Arabic proverb "بيعطي الحلق للي بلا أودان" 'Biya’ti al halag lilli bila awdan (He gives earrings to the one without ears)' and the Greek proverb "Κομίζει γλαύκα εις Αθήνας" 'Komízei gláfka eis Athínas (He brings owls to Athens)' are proverbs that mock actions which are perceived as being aimless, misplaced or poorly considered. The Arabic expression is characterized by the recognition of the inappropriate present – an item the recipient does not need, while the Greek proverb focuses on the superfluous action, especially when there is no need for it in the given situation.

     The Arabic proverb uses a visual metaphor, ‘earrings’ are represented by ‘الحلق’ (al halag), while ‘without ears’ is denoted by ‘بلا أودان’ (bila awdan). The language used is straightforward and the message is easy to grasp, and the example given is something that can be related to in real life. The Greek proverb uses a historical and cultural reference; gláfka (owl) is used to represent wisdom and wealth, because the owl was connected to Athena, the goddess of wisdom, and was depicted on Athenian coins. The phrase ‘εις Αθήνας’ (eis Athínas) expresses the idea of taking something common or too much of it to an area famous for it. The phrasing is brief and strikes the reader as rather accurate, which makes for a good criticism of actions that serve no purpose.

     The Arabic proverb embodies the cultural concern for the common sense and rationality in the use of resources. By highlighting the absurdity of giving earrings to someone without ears, the saying critiques wastefulness and misplaced efforts. This resonates with a societal focus on resourcefulness and the meaningful use of assets. The Greek proverb, rooted in the historical and cultural context of ancient Athens, critiques redundancy and the lack of awareness in actions. Athens, known as a center of wisdom and abundance (symbolized by the owl), becomes the backdrop for the metaphor. The saying reflects a cultural emphasis on discernment and the avoidance of unnecessary or redundant actions. It stems from King Otto’s arrival to Athens. "As the King stepped onto the bustling pier, a distinguished delegation awaited him, bearing a magnificent live owl, its wise eyes blinking in the midday sun. The owl, symbol of ancient Athens, was presented alongside a fragrant olive branch, a gesture of peace and welcome. A murmur rippled through the crowd gathered at the Temple of Hephaestus. Their eyes widened at the sight of the King and his entourage processing through the city streets, a majestic owl perched upon the royal arm. But a sense of confusion, even amusement, soon spread amongst the Athenians... Little did King Otto know that his gesture of goodwill would be so wildly misinterpreted. The Athenians, proud of their ancient heritage, felt insulted by what they perceived as a foreigner's attempt to 'bring owls to Athens' – a proverbial act of redundancy! And so, the phrase 'bringing Glaucus to Athens' was reborn, a humorous reminder of the day their King inadvertently ruffled their feathers. The King's journey to Athens was a momentous occasion, marking a new chapter in the young nation's history. He sailed aboard the very same vessel that had brought him to Greece years earlier – the mighty frigate Madagascar, a symbol of British naval power. Ironically, this ship, once used to combat the slave trade, now carried the hopes and dreams of a newly liberated people. Thus, a simple misunderstanding etched itself into the annals of Athenian history. The phrase 'bringing Glaucus to Athens' became a witty adage, a testament to the cultural pride and sharp wit of the Athenian people. Even today, it serves as a reminder that sometimes, the most unexpected events can shape the language and identity of a nation”.[1]

Both proverbs highlight the importance of purposeful and thoughtful actions, critiquing wastefulness and lack of discernment. They share a universal skepticism toward actions that fail to consider context or practicality. The Arabic proverb emphasizes the absurdity of giving something valuable to someone who cannot benefit from it, reflecting a practical and resource-conscious worldview. The Greek saying critiques the futility of bringing something unnecessary to a place already saturated with it, reflecting a philosophical approach to redundancy and discernment.

The Arabic proverb uses relatable imagery to critique wasteful or misdirected actions, emphasizing practicality and resourcefulness. The Greek saying, with its cultural and historical resonance, critiques redundancy and the failure to consider context, aligning with a tradition of intellectual and philosophical observations. Together, these proverbs underscore the importance of thoughtful and purposeful actions, while illustrating the distinct cultural lenses through which this wisdom is expressed.

[1] https://www.iefimerida.gr/news/116632/%CF%84%CE%B9-%CF%83%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9-%CE%B7-%CF%86%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%B7-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%AF%CE%B6%CF%89-%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%8D%CE%BA%CE%B1-%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82-%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%82%C2%BB-%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CF%8C%CE%B8%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CF%80%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%AC

 (accessed on 28 December 2024)

 من زرع الريح حصد العاصفة (fusha)

/mən zəraʕəʔ ʔlri:ħ ħasˁəd ʔlʕa:sˁifə/

He who sows the wind harvests the storm

Όποιος σπέρνει ανέμους, θερίζει θύελλες

/òpços spèrni anèmus θerìzi θìeles/

Whoever sows winds reaps storms

Proverbs are preventive remedies that are usually used to advise people on the likely consequences of a certain action. Both of these proverbs convey a single message about the stepped-up consequences that are likely to be faced by those who act impulsively or incorrectly, and both of them embody the cultural ideals of accountability, thought, and effect. As such, they impart moral advice that can be applied practically by anyone.

     The Arabic proverb is formal and metaphorical, and uses agricultural metaphors like “زرع الريح” (zəraʕəʔ ʔlri:ħ, “sowing the wind”) and “حصد العاصفة” (ħasˁəd ʔlʕa:sˁifə, “harvesting the storm”). The wind and storm are counterpoised well, and the language has a good rhythm and balance that helps in memorization. The wind is the uncertainty, the rash, or the actions which are taken without a thought while the storm is the consequences or chaos. The farming metaphor is linked to the area’s past agricultural heritage, thus the message is easily understood and can be related to. The Greek proverb is also structured in this manner: “σπέρνει ανέμους” (spèrni anèmus, “sows winds”) and “θερίζει θύελλες” (θerìzi θìeles, "reaps storms"). The use of verbs related to agricultural activities in both languages make the message more compelling and ensures that the message is received and understood by the audience. As it is with the Arabic one, wind is the potential to cause damage and storms are the situations that are out of one’s control. As with a proverb, the saying draws on the sea and weather experience of the Greeks to illustrate the consequences of actions.

     In their shared values, both proverbs discuss the certainty of the effects of actions taken. The Arabic one is more concerned with ethical issues and warns against actions that lead to the detriment of the group than does the Greek one, which is more concerned with individual responsibility and retaliation. Both pieces of advice highlighted above are in relation to the need to exercise caution when undertaking actions that may have adverse impacts in the future. Both of them use the agricultural metaphor to explain that poor or adverse crops are always got from adverse or poor seeds sown. The progression from wind to storm in both of the proverbs gives the impression of the escalation of the effects of the mishap, and the warning against the consequences of reckless actions. The usage of natural and agricultural metaphors makes both proquests related to the life of mankind and their wisdom can be applied to any nation.

     The Arabic proverb is in conformity with the Quran and Islamic beliefs which emphasize the notion of reward and punishment for our actions and thus forms part of the cultural mindset. In collectivist Arab culture, actions are viewed as affecting not only the individual, but also the group, hence the need for prudence. The Greek proverb is related to the Greek philosophical spirit of the analysis of human behavior and its consequences. It links up with the Greek tradition of the hubris and nemesis where overbearing and pride leads to downfall. The weather and the sea are especially important for Greece; storms and winds – the forces that are easily felt and often feared – personify the forces that are greater than those of a man and his humility.

     In general, the Arabic proverb as compared to the Greek one is more related to an ethical system based on religious and communal norms and thus stresses the duties of an individual in the society. The Fusha Arabic language structure adds weight and authority to the message and makes it applicable to all the countries where Arabic is spoken. The Greek proverb, however, looks at the situation from a philosophical point of view and focuses on the role of people as decision makers and the effects that follow from the decisions they make. The sea and weather images are in line with the geographical and cultural settings of Greece and therefore call for humility and submissiveness to the supernatural. The above Arabic quote is based on religious and social ethics, while the Greek quote presents a philosophical and individualistic approach.

لا دخان بدون نار (fusha)

/La duxan bidun nar/

No smoke without fire

         مكاينش الرماد بلا عافية  (Moroccan)

/Makaniʃ ramad bila ‘fia/

There is no ash without fire.

Δεν υπάρχει καπνός χωρίς φωτιά

/δèn ipàrçi kapnòs xorìs fotçà/

There is no smoke without fire

These proverbs address situations where hidden actions or events inevitably lead to observable consequences. They all emphasize that visible signs often point to underlying realities. Despite linguistic and cultural nuances, they reflect shared values of discernment, accountability, and the inevitability of consequences.

The formal structure of “لا دخان بدون نار” uses the negation “لا” (la, “no”) to establish the impossibility of smoke without fire. The rhythmic pairing of “دخان” (duxan, “smoke”) and “نار” (nar, “fire”) creates a concise and authoritative statement. The smoke and fire imagery reflects a logical and visual relationship, symbolizing signs (smoke) pointing to deeper causes (fire). It is both metaphorical and direct, offering a framework for interpreting visible and hidden realities. The conversational Moroccan Arabic “مكاينش الرماد بلا عافية” mirrors this structure but incorporates “مكاينش” (makaniʃ, “there is no”) and “الرماد” (ramad, “ash”), emphasizing the aftermath of fire rather than its initial signs. The term “عافية” (‘fia, “fire”) adds a local linguistic touch, making the proverb more accessible in daily Moroccan speech. The inclusion of “الرماد”(ramad, “ash”) extends the time reference  from the smoke to the remains of the fire, thus implying more contemplation on the consequences and the  proofs. The Greek proverb “Δεν υπάρχει καπνός χωρίς φωτιά” also employs negation (“Δεν υπάρχει”, “there is no”) to explain the relation between smoke (“καπνός”) and fire (“φωτιά”) as a set of cause-and-effect relationships. Its simple structure is in line with the Greek linguistic pedagogical strategy of using simple language to express general truths. The smoke and fire metaphors are easily understood, as do the Greeks appreciate straight forwardness and the effects that cause.

All three proverbs explain that it is necessary to search for the signs in order to find the meaning. The two fusha and the Moroccan Arabic proverbs tell the reader that you have to look at social situations and actions and find out the cause while the Greek one tells the reader that there is always a way to find clarity in a relationship. The proverbs argue that all actions leave some sort of a trail and that hidden actions have visible effects.  The fusha Arabic one focuses on the ethical issue of accountability, whereas the Moroccan Arabic and the Greek ones concentrate on the concept of cause and effect in social relationships.

The proverbs are linked to general human and natural experiences by means of smoke and fire, elements that are easy to understand. All the proverbs given above are against hypocrisy and naivete and for the idea that everyone must act responsibly and beware that what one does will eventually be revealed. The fushah Arabic proverb reflects Islamic values on responsibility and the doctrine of “cause and effect” and thus asks people to look for the truth beyond the shapes. Its formal structure makes it suitable for use in all the Arabic-speaking countries as a moral and ethical advice and guide. The focus of the Morrocan Arabic one is on ash, which links the proverb to the culture of Morocco, specifically the agricultural and domestic environment where fire was an integral part of people’s lives. The saying is closely used in the daily conversations and the proverbs conveys the message of proving the points in the society. The Greek proverb is consistent with the culture of exploring the realities and patterns in our daily lives. It represents the classic Greek interest in the processes of causality and the difference between the apparent and the real world. The quotation weakens the notion of realism and demands people to question the circumstances where the signs are clear but the causes are not.

In general, the fushah Arabic proverb is aimed at the instant and simple message and the smoke-fire metaphor is used to explain the relationship between the sign and the cause and the style is quite formal. The Moroccan Arabic one provides a more general timing by referring to ash which means more thinking about the consequences and the consequences of actions. This is in concurrence with a communal approach to life and therefore more likely to be encountered in a communal society. The major concern of the Greek one is on the process of reasoning and the facts that can be observed and drawn from them, which is in conformity with the philosophical tradition that favors clear and rational understanding of life. The three Arabic proverbs focus on the direct and indirect effects of actions while the Greek proverb is more on the logical and observable relationships.

 اللي يجاور الحداد ينكوي بناره (fusha)

 /ʔlli jiʤawər al ħaddad jinkəwi b’narh/

He who lives besides the blacksmith is branded by his fire

جاورهم ترفد طبايعهم  (used mostly by Khaliji speakers)

. /ʤawrhm tarfəd tˤbajʕhm/

When you become their neighbors, you will adopt their behavior

Μ’ όποιον δάσκαλο καθίσεις, τέτοια γράμματα θα μάθεις

/mòpçon δàskalo kathìsis tètça γràmata θa màθis/

With whomever teacher you sit together, this is the knowledge you ‘ll get

The proverbs emphasize the impact of proximity, influence, and associations on one’s behavior, knowledge, or character. While these proverbs come from distinct cultural contexts, they both convey shared values about personal growth, learning, and the power of external influences.

     The fusha Arabic proverb employs a cause-and-effect structure with vivid imagery. “يجاور الحداد” (jiʤawər al ħaddad, “lives beside the blacksmith”) establishes proximity, while “ينكوي بناره” (jinkəwi b’narh, “is branded by his fire”) conveys the inevitable influence or impact. The phrasing is rhythmic and metaphorical, making it memorable. The blacksmith and fire are symbolic of an environment that leaves a lasting mark, positively or negatively, on those who are close to it. Fire represents the intensity and inevitability of influence. The Khaliji phrase “جاورهم ترفد طبايعهم” (ʤawrhm tarfəd tˤbajʕhm) is conversational and direct. The use of “جاورهم” (ʤawrhm, “become their neighbors”) and “ترفد طبايعهم” (tarfəd tˤbajʕhm, “adopt their behavior”) highlights how proximity leads to adopting the habits and values of others. The reference to neighbors emphasizes communal living and close relationships, reflecting the collectivist values of Gulf societies. The idea of adopting “behavior” suggests gradual, unconscious assimilation of habits or traits. The Greek proverb has a parallel structure, with “Μ’ όποιον δάσκαλο καθίσεις” (mòpçon δàskalo kathìsis, “with whomever teacher you sit”) setting the context and “τέτοια γράμματα θα μάθεις” (tètça γràmata θa màθis, “this is the knowledge you’ll get”) presenting the outcome. The formal and straightforward phrasing reflects Greek linguistic preferences for clarity in moral lessons. The “teacher” symbolizes influence, while “knowledge” signifies the lasting effect of exposure to particular values, behaviors, or expertise. The proverb draws from a cultural emphasis on education and mentorship.

     Both proverbs are saying that one should be very selective in choosing one’s environment or associations as they are supposed to shape one’s character. The Arabic fusha and the Khaliji ones given above are also insistent on the fact that we tend to become similar to strong or dominant forces that are around us. They teach the lesson that one cannot help but be influenced by those who are close to him or her, while the Greek proverb stresses that the quality of the mentor determines the quality of the learner. The proverbs also explain why it is important to pick friends and surroundings that will help one grow. The two Arab proverbs, one in fusha and the other in Khaliji, give a warning against the consequence of hanging around bad company while the Greek one gives a positive recommendation of what should be done. All the proverbs are based on the assumption that a person’s nature and actions are determined by the environment, be it through daily routines (Khaliji), teachers (Greek) or intense interaction (Fusha Arabic). This, to some extent, is the collectivist mindset, which posits that individual development is linked with the society and its members.

     In the fusha Arabic context, the fire of the blacksmith is a clear picture of the extent and the duration of the effect of external influence. It captures the Arab collectivist attitude towards the community and the need to avoid having contact with the wrong group of people. The burning branding is a reminder of the dangers of being affected by the surroundings, especially in terms of relationships, and the need to make right decisions in this regard. In the Khaliji Arabic context, the proverb, like the previous one, is also consistent with the collectivist culture of the region where proximity to other people is a key factor in the formation of individual behavior. The neighbors’ concept is the everyday contact and their effect on the development of personal characteristics. The language used is quite informal, and thus the proverb can be used in all the Gulf countries where families and communities play an important role. The Greek proverb stresses the role of teachers and mentors, which is in line with the cultural focus on education and the passage of traits. It links to Greece’s intellectual legacy of learning from example and the effect of knowledge on temperament. It tells people to be careful in choosing their teachers because what the teachers value and do will affect the learner in one way or the other. In general, the fusha Arabic proverb concentrates on the fact that every man is influenced by the surrounding environment, pointing to the possible negative consequences or the level of effect (fire). There is a hint of a warning to stay away from people who may harm one in some way, which is a protective and cautionary point of view. The Khaliji Arabic one is on everyday encounters and the gradual acquisition of behaviours, and the importance of the community and its members in the formation of the personality. The Greek proverb can be linked to mentorship and learning as the cultural concept of education and growth is prominent. The tone is more moderate, focusing instead on the role that a teacher or mentor can play in shaping the next generation, instead of the reverse side of the story. The two Greek sayings explained above are more specific in their description of the processes of spontaneous conformity and deliberate shaping than the Arabic proverb about the process of incorporation into the group. The Fusha proverb, however, uses vivid language to tell people how to avoid certain negative influences while the Greek proverb tells people how they can learn from positive influences and the Khaliji expression tells people how they gradually get behaviors from those around them.

 بغى يكحلها عماها

/bIɣa jəkħalha ʕamaːha/

He wanted to put eyeliner, but he made her blind

Do more harm than good

Making matters worse - He got it out of the frying pan into the fire

Πήγε για μαλλί και βγήκε κουρεμένος

/’piʝε ʝα ma’li çε vʝiçε kurε’mεnos/

He went for wool and came out with a haircut

Many go out for wool and come home shorn

Both proverbs are based on the theme of actions and their consequences and also share the common values of moderation, self-assurance and prudence in handling certain matters.

     The Arabic proverb uses a narrative form with pictorial language: ‘جعلها كحلاها’  (jəkħalha, ‘to put on eyeliner’) is a positive change, while ‘عماها’(ʕamaːha, ‘to blind her’) is the negative outcome that one did not anticipate. The language used is that of a conversation and the pictures that come with it make it easier to understand. Applying eyeliner is a process of making things better while blindness is the worst that could happen. The imagery is in line with the Arab culture given that eyeliner is an important part of the Arab culture and beauty, thus the proverb is very meaningful. The Greek proverb also uses a small story to illustrate its point, using ‘wool’ (mali) for gain and ‘cutting the hair’ (kuremenos) for loss. The unexpected shift results in irony, which gives the text a humorous but also cautionary tone. The term 'wool' stands for gain or profit, while 'haircut' denotes the consequences or losses that are not intended. The metaphor is drawn from agrarian and pastoral settings and is used to cast light on foolish actions or overreach. Both proverbs stress the necessity to approach a problem gently and deliberately in order not to make it worse. The first Arabic one is a critique of overconfidence or ignorance in the approach to the interventions while the second Greek one is a critique of reckless ambition or poorly conceived efforts. Both sayings also underlie the dangers of arrogance or ignorance, that is, overconfidence or under-confidence in the given situation, and advise the audience to exercise moderation.

     Both proverbs also employ irony in their delivery of the message to make the message more understandable and appealing to the audience. In the Arabic one, the contrast between the beautiful and the blind is the reversal of the effect, but in the Greek one, the surprise strategy (wool becomes a haircut) provides comic relief and wise advice at the same time.

     The proverbs are of unintended consequences of actions taken by people in different cultures and the advice given is relevant to this day. The emphasis on the eye make-up, especially the eyeliner in the Arabic proverb, can be linked to the cultural ideals of beauty and appearance, especially in relation to interpersonal relations. The proverb highlights overdoing or doing it the wrong way, and therefore, it advocates for moderation and accuracy. In a collectivist culture, any misconduct that causes harm to others is not only a personal failure but also a disturbance of the order in the community, thus requiring that everyone exercise caution when acting. The focus of the Greek proverb is rather on economic or personal ambition, which is more typical of an individualistic and pragmatic perspective. The pastoral metaphor denounces the overreach or wrongfully taken risks in the pursuit of gain.

     Overall, the Arabic proverb is more specific in the area of aesthetics and interpersonal relations and can be linked to a collectivist and relational culture. The failure is made more poignant by the connection of the eyeliner to cultural traditions of care and refinement. However, the emphasis of the Greek one is on economic or personal ambition and, therefore, reflects an individualistic and pragmatic viewpoint. The pastoral metaphor denounces overreach or wrongfully taken risks in pursuit of gain. While the Arabic proverb is focused on aesthetic and interpersonal mistakes, the Greek saying pick on ambition and risk-taking.

Overall, the focus of the Arabic one is on interpersonal relationships and aesthetic improvement, reflecting a collectivist and relational worldview. The imagery of eyeliner ties to cultural traditions of care and refinement, making the failure more poignant. The emphasis of the Greek one, however, is on economic or personal ambition, reflecting an individualistic and pragmatic lens. The pastoral metaphor critiques overreach or miscalculated risks in pursuit of gain. While the Arabic proverb focuses on aesthetic and interpersonal missteps, the Greek saying critiques ambition and risk-taking.

 جبتك لي عون طلعت فرعون

/dʒibtik liː ʕəʊn ʈˤIlaʕt fIrʕəʊn/

Khaliji

I brought you to help but you became a pharaoh

You left me in the lurch

Εκεί που μας χρωστάγανε, μας πήραν και το βόδι

/ε’ciː pu mas xro’stαγαnε mas ‘piːran çε to ‘voði/

Where they owed us, they also took our ox

It is used in order to add insult to injury

Both proverbs are based on the topic of betrayal or the deterioration of the situation with the help of someone who was expected to make things better or solve the problem. The Arabic proverb focuses more on personal betrayal and unexpected arrogance while the Greek version speaks of escalating injustice that is one harm followed by another. Although the two proverbs are rather different in their specifics, both encompass the main principles of justice, retribution, and the effects of trust in society.

     The Arabic proverb has used a rhyming structure with the words “عون”/ʕəʊn/  meaning helper and “فرعون” /fIrʕəʊn/ meaning  pharaoh which makes the phrase easy to remember. The metaphor that has been used here is that of a ‘pharaoh’ which is a tyrant and arrogant person thus making the betrayal of trust worse.  The shift from ‘عون’(helper) to ‘فرعون’(pharaoh) is a dramatic change from support to tyranny, which conveys the hurt of being betrayed by someone close or authority. The Greek phrase is longer and narrative in style; it begins with “Εκεί που μας χρωστάγανε” ("Where they owed us") and then intensifies it with “μας πήραν και το βόδι” ("they also took our ox"). The use of ox as a metaphor is also revealing of the extent of the harm since in agrarian societies, oxen were valuable assets. The ox represents wealth and livelihood, and its grab represents the worsening of an already unfavorable situation. The livelihood is represented by the ox and its grabbing means the worsening of an already bad situation.

     Both proverbs capture the theme of justice and the consequences of their violation since trust is a fragile thing. The Arabic one is more specific and is aimed at the betrayal of individuals, whereas the Greek one is more general and expresses the anger of the crowd. Both of the sayings expressed disappointment with the violated trust, which was supposed to bring help or fairness. The Arabic one expresses the emotion of arrogance and betrayal by someone who was expected to help. The Greek one is the consequences of the existing or the progression of the mistreatment or the injustices. Both proverbs are for imperfect relationships of some kind whether it is through the personal relations in the Arabic version or the systemic oppression in the Greek version. The pharaoh in Arabic and the ox in Greek make the proverbs relevant to different social situations and come up with clear examples of betrayal and injustice.

     The Arabic proverb reflects the culture of Gulf societies which are collectivist and hierarchical and it describes a situation of social trust being compromised by the betrayal of someone who is expected to give help. The use of pharaoh in the quote brings some moral lesson from cultural and historical usage of the term. The throttle control is more inclined to the interpersonal relationships and the agony of having hope of getting assistance and instead being hurt. The Greek proverb has a more general social message of the sequel of injustices which are the retaliation of the deprived. The escalation is the feeling of having no control and being angry at the existing systems or actions. The use of ox, which was a means of livelihood in the agrarian Greece, shows the material basis of the proverb and the actual consequences of betrayal or exploitation.

     In general, the Arabic one contains the change of heart from a helper to a pharaoh which is a clear example of betrayal and the sudden arrogance that will affect relationships. The pharaoh metaphor links the proverb to cultural and historical scenarios of tyranny to give it more meaning and emotion. The Greek saying is more general and applies to the society or the economy, and the harm is said to increase with exploitation or lack of justice. The use of the ox shows the pre-agrarian culture and the actual loss that is incurred through betrayal or bad treatment. Where the Arabic proverb is based on the case of betrayal of confidence and the change of support to tyranny, the Greek contra focuses on the chronotope of injustice with a tendency to its escalation in the society or the economy.

The evaluation of negative proverbs within Arabic and Greek societies shows sophisticated insights into human defects alongside cultural conflicts and moral standards. Through these proverbs, people receive warnings about unwanted traits, which include arrogance along with deceit and envy, as well as useless behaviors. These expressions serve to display the moral values of their creating communities because they function as mechanisms for social regulation and moral analysis. The proverbs about revenge and betrayal serve as warnings because such harmful intentions will probably fail. The proverbs reveal how hypocrisy, ignorance, and false pride result in painful outcomes that show people what happens when they violate social standards or neglect real-world wisdom.

         These negative proverbs function as critical observations about social issues rather than being pessimistic by nature. Through their linguistic structure they represent the cumulative disappointment of society as well as moral disappointment and world skepticism. Proverbs using fire, mud, and crows as metaphors gain both poetic depth and comedic effect to express their moral significance. The evidence supports the dual nature of proverbs, which serve cultural preservation as much as they perform cultural practices.

         Through negative proverbs, people share their common experiences of adversity and social unfairness as well as their personal failures, which produce valuable dark wisdom comparable to positive proverbs. Negative proverbs establish social boundaries by identifying actions that are unacceptable and dangerous as well as those that are ridiculous. The dual function of these expressions serves to prevent destructive behavior while maintaining community-wide awareness of resulting consequences. Throughout Arabic and Greek traditions, negative proverbs demonstrate that knowing about failure helps people develop morally just as celebrating virtue does. These short verbal expressions maintain cultural critique within the fabric of daily communication.