quoted by Dagut, \一句法语\arise when the metaphors are not so inventive发明的，有创意的 (Dagut quotes \which is not a metaphor in his 独有的，专用的；唯一的；排外的；高级的，高档的exclusively creative sense创新意识 at all, and which could perhaps be translated by a polysemous一词多义的 word such as achever or tuer, and here Dagut rightly states that \extent to which the cultural (i.e. Referential) experience and semantic (linguistic) association on which it draws are shared by speakers of the particular TL\and semantic translation from Hebrew into English) are telling. However, he strangely fails to mention the third factor of universal or 在……之外，超出，越出；非常，格外extra-cultural experience, which makes translation of metaphor relatively easy, provided the semantic range of the relevant words are fairly congruent全等的；适合的，相称的. Thus, in the following lines from E. E. Cummings (1963) (from \intricate错综复杂的；复杂精细的；难以理解的\small clumsy feet of April came into the ragged破烂的，褴褛的 meadow of my soul\事实上，实际上；几乎，差不多 extracultural, in contrast with \言外之意
connotations (freshness, sweetness, 阵雨showers, unfolding of 叶芽；花蕾buds and blossoms, etc.) are restricted to the temperate regions温带地区 of the Northern Hemisphere北半球, and \also (differently) geographically 在……周围画线；将……限制于一定范围内，约束circumscribed. Of these three metaphors, \\constraints. (I believe that certain physical and natural objects---and certain mathematical, physical and moral laws---are a priori and therefore extracultural, and they are at least less 借文化传入而使之变化acculturated than other objects and laws. The meanings of objects and concepts are apprehended partly in as so far as就……而论；远至，到……程度 they are universal and common to all cultures, and partly in as far as they form part of a particular culture, and partly through individual perception.) Note that a creative metaphor is normally difficult enough to translate without the translator being able to account for解释，说明；对……负有责任；占，共计达 sound-effect (as in the above-mentioned Time quotation) unless the sound-effect \sense. If the metaphor includes a neologism (but \
\own neologism in semantic, but not normally in communicative translation.
Newbert has suggested that \day?\semantically translated into a language spoken in a country where summers are unpleasant. This is not so, since the reader should get a vivid impression from the content of the sonnet of the beauty of summer in England, and reading the poem should exercise his imagination as well as introduce him to English culture. A communicative translation into a Middle East language would certainly require a different imagery and a new poem. However, one could assume that all serious poems should be semantically translated and that the more original the metaphor, the more disconnected it is from its culture and therefore the more its originality can be preserved by a literal translation.
The translation of a metaphor may be a four-fold process: the source language term (e.g.ferme) 经常一起使用，搭配collocated with visage脸，面貌；外表，外观 leads to the image \The four elements (SL term; SL image; TL image; TL term)
depict描绘，描述 the sense and quality of lifelessness没有生气的，没有活力的；无趣的；废弃的，不被使用的 and hardness. These are the conventional processes of communicative translation.
Language has verbs, adjectives and adverbs that refer naturally to persons, but may be transferred in some cases to objects (e.g. \使震惊，使目瞪口呆；打昏，使昏迷stunned surprise使人目瞪口呆的惊喜\Similarly, most languages have ambiguous words such as \stock, harvest\or figurative or even both. At times有时，间或 a sentence may even be on three levels, viz. specific, generic类的，属的；一般的，总称的 and figurative, e.g.
\\
\pharmacology药理学，药物学.\
In all these case, a communicative translation will tend to be the easiest version that is consonant符合的，一致的n.辅音（字母） with the function of the utterance发音；表达；言论，话语, whilst a semantic translation will attempt to embrace the total meaning. To sum up, metaphors are not affected by the
semantic-communicative argument when they have standardized TL equivalents: in other cases they are translated semantically, but with some allowance津贴，补助，零用钱；折价，折扣 for different cultures, if they are original and important; communicatively, emphasizing or explicating their sense, in most other cases.
It may be objected that communicative translation should always be semantic and that semantic translation should always be communicative. I do not think this is possible. There is a contradiction, an opposition, at best an overlapping between meaning and message---when both are equally pursued. If, like Darbelnet, one believes that \此处略去一段法文
\following Nida's \emphasis on a readable可读的；易读的；读起来有趣的 (instantly立即，立刻?), understandable text (although Nida also insists on accuracy and fidelity), one notices invevitably a great loss of meaning in the dropping of so many Biblical metaphors which, Nida insists, the reader cannot understand.
The translation theorist has to raise the question, in considering Nida's dynamic equivalence, not only of the nature (education, class, occupation, age, etc.) of the readers, but of what is to be