III. TRANSPOSITION Whittlesey 2012 sets up an exhaustive continuum for any exchange of any substance starting with one medium then onto the next, principally, however not only, including language to language, language to different mediums, e.g., pictures (films, kid’s shows, and so forth.) or from different mediums to different mediums, with interpretation, comprehended as in exactly the same words replication in the thin sense, at the one end, transposition including different degrees of free rendering of the source, and adjustment saw as the uttermost expelled from the source. He calls attention to that genuine interpretation in the thin sense he proposes is somewhat confined then again, with numerous guidelines: exclusions of words, expressions, and sentences, not to mention entire segments, is disliked, as are augmentations, or bends of the source or its purpose. Interpretations must summon a similar picture as the source messages and pass on their content.9 The exactness of an interpretation must be obvious, which is considerably less simple for transposition or adaptation.10 Whittlesey likewise refers to such models as condensed variants of the works of art, making old messages increasingly available absolutely by modernizing the language; decorating, enhancing or really subbing writings with pictures. This need not go astray excessively far from the source content; e.g., Grant, Kennedy and MacDhomhnaill’s (2008) Gaelic adaptation of Stevenson’s Jekyll and Hyde, which stays as devoted to the first story-line as a realistic novel can be, even with the two transfers.11 One astounding model where some type of transposition is really essential is given by Priestly’s interpretation of Chekhov’s ????????? ??????? (“The Horsey Name”; Chekhov and Priestly 1989), which “represents in extraordinary structure an element that may make the content ‘untranslatable’ in the regularly acknowledged feeling of the term: in particular, what might be called CULTURE-SPECIFICITY .”>