Many works by Arab writers who’d become famous in Western countries, such as Gibran Kahlil Gibran, Naguib Mahfouz, and Nawal el-Saadawi ended up being translated into Turkish for the first time using the English translations. The story collection named al-Arvâḥ alMutamarrida (Spirits Rebellious), which includes the short story “Wardé al-Hani” by Gibran Kahlil Gibran, is one of the works to be translated into Turkish for the first time from English as an interlanguage. While difficulty is had in providing equivalence between the two languages, losses will inevitably be experienced when translating a work into a second target language through an interlanguage. In this context, this study comparatively examines the text of the Arabic short story by Gibran Khalil Gibran “Wardé al-Hani” and its translations from Arabic to Turkish, from Arabic to English, and from Arabic to English then to Turkish as an interlanguage in terms of translation strategies and losses in translation in order to determine the losses that occurred when translating using the interlanguage. By including the English translation of the story in the comparison, the study also attempts to determine the extent to which the losses that occurred when translating through the interlanguage were due to the English translation. As a result of investigating the examples included in the study, translation strategies were seen to have been used effectively and successfully when translating directly to Turkish from the source text, apart from the words that were omitted using the omission strategy, a technique that is used to emphasize meaning. In addition, some translation strategies could not be used when translating through the interlanguage, while other strategies were adhered to in the interlanguage translation. A second intervention was also observed to have been made after the application of the strategies in the intermediate language translation was seen to have distorted the meaning. The most important reason for this was the lack of checking the translation against the text in the source language. When examining the strategies applied in the translations, the following findings have been reached: The borrowing strategy was implemented in many places when translating from Arabic to Turkish (A-T). Meanwhile, the translation using English as an interlanguage to Turkish (A-E-T) necessarily adhered to the translation from Arabic to English (A-E), because the borrowing strategy cannot be used in the absence of a direct translation from the source text. Arab and Turkish societies have had religious and cultural interactions for centuries. For this reason, the meanings of some words were not seen to have been fully met by translating using English as an interlanguage instead of borrowing the words that had already settled into Turkish. The calque strategy was applied in all translations. However, translations were seen to be made with metaphorical meanings instead of calque, especially regarding metaphorical expressions in the A-T. However, some expressions in the A-E in which the calque strategy had been applied were seen to have been translated incorrectly in the A-E-T. Because the literal strategy is a difficult strategy to implement in literary texts, this strategy was seen to be less used compared to other strategies in the A-T and A-E translations. In addition, many of the literal translations were seen to have changed or distorted meanings in the A-E-T. The transformation strategy was also one of the strategies applied in the translations examined in the study. While this strategy had been successfully applied, and the meanings of the expressions had been preserved in the A-T and A-E translations, significant losses and differences were seen to have occurred in some of the A-E-T translations as a result of the interventions that were made. Because the modulation strategy provides flexibility to translators with regard to literary texts, this strategy was seen to have been used in the translations examined in the study. The modulation strategy was preferred more in the A-T than in the A-E translations. In the A-E-T translations, however, most of the places where this strategy had been applied were observed to have adhered to the A-E translations, while some expressions had been translated incorrectly. The equivalence strategy was an important strategy in terms of translating stereotyped expressions that would have disrupted the harmony and fluency of the text if the expressions had been translated with their equivalents in the target language. While this strategy was seen to have been successfully implemented by translators who are fluent in both languages with regard to the A-T translation, this strategy could not be implemented in the A-E-T translation as it had adhered to the interlanguage translation and the fluency that had been offered by the equivalence strategy in the A-T translation was not at the same level in the A-E-T translation. In addition, some of the expressions that were translated by applying the equivalence strategy in the A-E translation transformed into meanings different from the source text when translated into a third language in the A-E-T translation. Similar to the equivalence strategy, the adaption strategy can also be applied by a translator who has a good grasp of the source and target languages. For this reason, some expressions the author used in source text had been successfully adapted to the target language using the adaptation strategy in the A-T translation. In the A-E-T translation, the intended meanings and styles in source text could not always be properly reflected due to the literal translation strategy having being implemented for these expressions in the A-E translation. In addition, many expressions that occurred in the A-E translation were seen to have changed and been translated incorrectly in the A-E-T translation. The omission strategy was seen to have been used for longer phrases and repeated expressions in the translations examined in the study. In addition to the expressions that could not be preserved in the A-E-T translation due to the omission strategy applied in the A-E translation, some words were also observed to have not been included when using the omission strategy applied to the A-E-T translation. Meanwhile, the adding strategy was seen to have been used more in the A-T translation compared to the A-E and A-E-T translations in order to beautify expressions and expand upon the more closed expressions from the source text. In addition to the losses detected in the translation strategies, many erroneous translations and losses of meaning were detected in the A-E-T interlanguage translation. These losses are discussed under two sections: 1) losses arising from the A-E translation and 2) other errors. When considering the losses caused by the A-E translation, apart from some expressions having been translated incorrectly in the A-E translation, the meanings of words used in the A-E translation had been translated using secondary meanings in Turkish for the A-E-T interlanguage translation. When looking at the errors that had not been caused by the A-E translation, many of the correctly translated expressions in the AET were seen to have been incorrectly or incompletely translated in the A-E-T translation.