The author tested out the assumption that Hamlet was "universally intelligible." I believe her assumptions were that the general idea of a brother killing his brother in order to win the throne was a universal concept. However the concept of a son avenging his father's death, such as Hamlet, was not a universal concept. The "old man" in the bush contended to the fact that Hamlet could not avenge his father's death, it wasn't customary for a youth to strike out against his elder relatives. Also Hamlet's mother wasn't thought of as being out of line for her marriage to Hamlet's Uncle, in the bush "who would hoe the field." Many of the general concepts of having only one wife, ghosts and vengeance were typically not customary to the people in the bush.

I believe the translation was a a good attempt to explain the story it's just a matter of ideology and customs that make the story of Hamlet unusual to the people in the bush. All in all in the end I think the general concepts were universal between the two cultures, I just think with such different views on a "chief" and his family that this story didn't have the same affect as it would to someone with similar western views.