Why is everyone misspelling the word "Koran" nowdays?

[Fenris]

There's phonetically no difference that I can hear between "Koran" and "Quran"--is a difference in pronunciation indicated by the spelling change? If so, what?

Or did someone just decide it was more fun to use a "Qu" instead of a "Ko"

And why did it change all at once*? Did someone suddenly realize "Hey, we've been Anglicising the word incorrectly for the last hundred years! "?


*Or have both been accepted spellings forever and I just now noticed the Qu version?

[Gala Matrix Fire]

I can't speak for everybody, but Qur'an is a more accurate transliteration of the Arabic word, القرآن.

K and Q represent different sounds in Arabic, and really shouldn't be interchanged, IMHO.

[Fenris]

But K and Q in English are pretty much the same sound.

Can you describe how it's supposed to be prounounced?

[Alessan]

1. The "K" is pronounced from the back of the throat.

2. The second vowel starts with the "A", not the "R" - in other words, "koor-AHN" rather that "koo-RAHN". English speakers may have a problem distinguishing between these.

[Fenris]

Nope--I see the difference.

Thanks Alessan and Gala.

Asked/Answered.

[yabob]

They've both been around for awhile. Heinlein used the spelling "Qur'an" (I think I place the apostrophe correctly) in "Stranger in a Strange Land", published in 1961.

[Derleth]

Fundamentally, Romanization systems aren't for English, any more than they're for the benefit of Spanish or German or Basque. They're for the benefit of the speakers of the language being Romanized.

[Fenris]

Are you sure? I've got an early edition and I think he used Koran--could it have been changed in a reprint?

[yabob]

I remember it striking me as odd when he had Jubal Harshaw quote from it, using the "Q" spelling. Of course, I haven't read it in years, perhaps decades, but it sticks in my mind. I'll admit I could have conflated something, and am willing to stand corrected. But I have seen the "Q" spelling other places over the years.

[qazwart]

Originally Posted by Fenris

There's phonetically no difference that I can hear between "Koran" and "Quran"--is a difference in pronunciation indicated by the spelling change? If so, what?

Or did someone just decide it was more fun to use a "Qu" instead of a "Ko"

And why did it change all at once*? Did someone suddenly realize "Hey, we've been Anglicising the word incorrectly for the last hundred years! "?


*Or have both been accepted spellings forever and I just now noticed the Qu version?

Remember that Quran/Koran is an Arabic word that we're trying to transliterate into English. There really isn't a "correct" English spelling any more than spelling your name in Arabic. When you transliterate a word, you use what sounds are available in the other language to get the closest pronunciation possible.

Sometimes, the people who speak the other language can't even hear the difference between various sounds. A good example is the "L" vs. "R" sound in Japanese. And, if you look at the various words in Japanese that are transliterated from English, you'll see some very strange attempts of trying to pronounce various English word.

There are similar issues in Hebrew too: Chanukah vs. Hanukah vs. Hanukkah vs. Chanuka, etc. In Hebrew, there are two different "T", "S", "K", and "H" sounds. Plus, there are two different ways to pronounce the sound we transliterate as "CH" although "KH" would be a better transliteration of it. Heck, there were even two different ways of pronouncing the two different silent letters. Even most Hebrew speakers have lost those distinctions. You have to listen to a Yemeni speak Hebrew to get all the varieties of sounds.

The "Q" is suppose to represent what you could call a softened "K". Maybe like "Kh" which is a bit closer to the actual pronunciation.

As English becomes more popular in other countries, many of the native speakers find better ways to transliterate their words into English than have been traditionally done. For example, back in the early 1970s, the Chinese started insisting that Beijing was the better transliteration of their capital city over the more commonly used Peking.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Back when Muammar Kaddafi was in the news regularly, somebody compiled a list of all the different ways it was transliterated. The list ran into the dozens.

Why?

The basic problem here is that (1) there is no generally accepted authority for romanizing Arabic names, and (2) the Mummer's name contains several sounds that have no exact equivalent in English. In standard Arabic, the initial consonant qaf is pronounced like a throaty k, midway between the English k and the German ch, as in Bach. The second consonant, dhal--two dhals, actually--is pronounced like a double dh, which is similar to English th, only with the tongue pulled back a bit behind the teeth. Regional pronunciation differences further complicate matters. Libyans tend to pronounce qaf like a hard g, which has inspired a whole different set of spellings.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by qazwart

The "Q" is suppose to represent what you could call a softened "K". Maybe like "Kh" which is a bit closer to the actual pronunciation.

False. Alessan got it right above. In Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic, the sound is a voiceless uvular plosive (a.k.a. unvoiced uvular stop). "Uvular" refers to the point of articulation for this sound--all the way in the back of the mouth. The voiceless velar stop /k/ is articulated further forward, at the velum (soft palate), and that's the difference between them. By the way, uvula literally means 'little grape'. In Latin they used uva 'grape' to refer to a swollen uvula, so a normal one is a "little grape."

I don't know what anyone means by the term "soft" in phonetics. Different laypeople use it to mean different things, but it isn't a term defined or used in phonetics.

The digraph <kh> can represent different sounds:
The voiceless velar fricative /x/ (also spelled <ch> by Yiddish speakers). As in "/x/anukkah" (Yiddish pronunciation of ח and כ).
The voiceless uvular fricative /χ/. As in Israeli Hebrew pronunciation of ח and כ.
Or the aspirated voiceless velar plosive /kʰ/. Sort of like in "backhand" or the initial k in "kick"—but in English it isn't phonemic; in Hindi it's a phoneme of its own.

I'm being a stickler for precise transcription of phonetics because in every phonetics thread here, I see confusion arising between people because of ad hoc transcription methods, where a symbol that means one thing to one person means something totally different (or nothing at all) to another person. That's why I urge adoption of the International Phonetic Alphabet. It's fairly easy to learn, very systematic, and all the symbols are there to be copied & pasted. Webster's and similar dictionaries use a dumbed-down system for the general public to transcribe English sounds, but I believe Dopers are a higher caliber of intellect that can handle IPA and would benefit from it a lot.
Consonant chart
Vowel chart
Table of English sounds
Table of international sounds

[AskNott]

It took me a long time, but I just finished T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which was the source of Lawrence Of Arabia. Throughout the book, Lawrence uses various spellings for the same words.

I'm not much of a stickler for other people's spelling in English, and I'm much less worried about other people's spelling in transliterated Arabic. OK? O'qay? 'K?

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Originally Posted by qazwart

Remember that Quran/Koran is an Arabic word that we're trying to transliterate into English. There really isn't a "correct" English spelling any more than spelling your name in Arabic. When you transliterate a word, you use what sounds are available in the other language to get the closest pronunciation possible.


There are similar issues in Hebrew too: Chanukah vs. Hanukah vs. Hanukkah vs. Chanuka, etc. In Hebrew, there are two different "T", "S", "K", and "H" sounds. Plus, there are two different ways to pronounce the sound we transliterate as "CH" although "KH" would be a better transliteration of it. Heck, there were even two different ways of pronouncing the two different silent letters. Even most Hebrew speakers have lost those distinctions. You have to listen to a Yemeni speak Hebrew to get all the varieties of sounds.

The "Q" is suppose to represent what you could call a softened "K". Maybe like "Kh" which is a bit closer to the actual pronunciation.

Is there a similar reason why people started using q for k for Hebrew? Drive around Israel, and you find signs with mutant spellings like "Welcome to Petah Tiqwa" and such. I think I remember someone saying something about how one was for kuf and one was for kof, but they're both said the same.

I mean, really, what's wrong with "Petach Tikva"?

[Rigamarole]

Why do you think there's any such thing as a "correct" spelling for a word that's transliterated from an entirely different alphabet?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is such a thing as using the closest possible phonetic analogs.

[yorick73]

I think it started around the same time everyone started misspelling catsup.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Malleus, Incus, Stapes!

Is there a similar reason why people started using q for k for Hebrew? Drive around Israel, and you find signs with mutant spellings like "Welcome to Petah Tiqwa" and such. I think I remember someone saying something about how one was for kuf and one was for kof, but they're both said the same.

I mean, really, what's wrong with "Petach Tikva"?

Historically, Q and ק qof are descended from the same ancient Semitic letter. You can even see the family resemblance. In ancient Hebrew—and still today in Mizrahi pronunciation—ק has the uvular pronunciation, distinct from the velar כ.

Likewise K and כ kaf are directly related. The two pairs of letters match up exactly.

I mean, really, what's wrong with one-to-one correspondence (where possible)?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Malleus, Incus, Stapes

Is there a similar reason why people started using q for k for Hebrew? Drive around Israel, and you find signs with mutant spellings like "Welcome to Petah Tiqwa" and such. I think I remember someone saying something about how one was for kuf and one was for kof, but they're both said the same.

Because ancient Hebrew, specifically, is studied by many scholars in many settings, there is a standardized transliteration used by academics. That includes q vs k, but also left-leaning* apostrophe for alef and right-leaning* apostrophe for ayin (both "silent" letters), and different symbols for the different s-sounds, etc.

Israel does not seem to have standardized transliterations the way that China has.


* I'm doing this from memory and might have got it reversed...

[Alessan]

Hey - I'm working on it.

Last year I did a translation job for the Israeli Yellow Pages, transliterating every single town and street name in the country (possibly the most tedious work I've ever done). Seeing as there isn't an accepted transliteration for many of these names, I just decided to go with what felt right.

I'm proud to say that I didn't use a single Q. I hope it catches on.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by yorick73

I think it started around the same time everyone started misspelling catsup.

That long ago? (Catchup, 1690; ketchup: 1711; catsup, 1730)

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is such a thing as using the closest possible phonetic analogs.

But closest possible phonetic analog will vary by dialect/accent in both Arabic and English. There's a reason that linguists use the IPA to represent sounds.

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Fundamentally, Romanization systems aren't for English, any more than they're for the benefit of Spanish or German or Basque. They're for the benefit of the speakers of the language being Romanized.

Actually, transliteration systems can serve either purpose, or both. It depends on what the designer had in mind.

[Acsenray]

An important point that is being missed here -- the spelling "Koran" represents a transliteration from Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), and it is a very good representation of how the word is pronounced in South Asia. We're not obligated to use the Arabic transliteration.

Originally Posted by Derleth

Fundamentally, Romanization systems aren't for English, any more than they're for the benefit of Spanish or German or Basque. They're for the benefit of the speakers of the language being Romanized.

"Romanization" is for the benefit of the language of origin. What we're talking about here -- transliteration into English -- is for the benefit of us English speakers.

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

Why do you think there's any such thing as a "correct" spelling for a word that's transliterated from an entirely different alphabet?

Exactly.

[TriPolar]

(Caution: anti-intellectual rant)
Many of the newer forms emanate from intellectual types who want to show you they know something you don't. Lately this has moved from the academic world into the news media. The words we use in English are based on tradition, and once well known enough, the spellings and pronunciations continue for consistency. We don't call Spain 'Espana'. The country known as Qatar has been traditionally pronounced 'ka-tar', but during Desert Storm a few reporters came back from the region and began saying something like 'gutter', which doesn't seem to quite match the local pronunciation either. Chinese and Indian cities have been getting the makeover recently as well. There's no harm in getting more accurate spellings and pronunciations, but there isn't much advantage either. And if the new form is still inaccurate, it only adds to the misunderstanding.

[Acsenray]

This has zip-all to do with intellectualism. Pretension, maybe, but not intellectualism.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Johanna

That's why I urge adoption of the International Phonetic Alphabet. It's fairly easy to learn, very systematic, and all the symbols are there to be copied & pasted.

SIL International provides a free program for typing the IPA so one need not copy and paste the symbols.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by acsenray

This has zip-all to do with intellectualism. Pretension, maybe, but not intellectualism.

How about pseudo-intellectualism?

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Johanna

The digraph <kh> can represent different sounds:
The voiceless velar fricative /x/ (also spelled <ch> by Yiddish speakers). As in "/x/anukkah" (Yiddish pronunciation of ח and כ).

In /x/anukkah, is the voiceless velar fricative /x/ plain, labialised, ejective, ejective labialised, semi-labialised, strongly labialised, palatalised, or ejective palatalised?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

In /x/anukkah, is the voiceless velar fricative /x/ plain, labialised, ejective, ejective labialised, semi-labialised, strongly labialised, palatalised, or ejective palatalised?

Chanukah shmanukah

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

In /x/anukkah, is the voiceless velar fricative /x/ plain, labialised, ejective, ejective labialised, semi-labialised, strongly labialised, palatalised, or ejective palatalised?

That sounds extremely dirty. Think of the phonetic children !

[california jobcase]

A friend of mine married a Shah-era Iranian man. Whenever I said Iraq or Iran, she'd snootily correct me until I pointed out she never called Spain Espana or Moscow Москва́ or Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Q'urans, Korans, or whatever, but in South Georgia, it's eye-ran and eye-rack.

[Acsenray]

I've been an American my whole life and those pronunciations just make me cringe. They've never been standard in English. Those pronunciations will always remind me of a yokel wondering whether I was a "goddam Eyeranian."

[california jobcase]

I didn't say they were standard.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Monty

SIL International provides a free program for typing the IPA so one need not copy and paste the symbols.

I do not see one. The closest I see is a set of libraries that will convert for certain programs. Which program allows you to actually type IPA?

What I currently use is this little website. I wish it could handle non-English IPA, and had a few more diacritics.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

In /x/anukkah, is the voiceless velar fricative /x/ plain, labialised, ejective, ejective labialised, semi-labialised, strongly labialised, palatalised, or ejective palatalised?

There are diacritics for all that, but they look lousy at small font sizes.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Historically, Q and ק qof are descended from the same ancient Semitic letter. You can even see the family resemblance. In ancient Hebrew—and still today in Mizrahi pronunciation—ק has the uvular pronunciation, distinct from the velar כ.

Likewise K and כ kaf are directly related. The two pairs of letters match up exactly.

I mean, really, what's wrong with one-to-one correspondence (where possible)?

Okay, I see where they're coming from.

But there's a long informal Roman-alphabet tradition of which letter goes with which. The gutteral kh is almost always spelled as ch (challah, Chanukah, mincha, tanach). Likewise, I can't think of any standard spelling with q instead of a k. Kosher, kallah, kugel, kiddush, kaddish. Lately there's been all sorts of spellings for the Jewish mystical tradition- cabala, qabbalah, etc- but in Jewish sources, I've only seen "kabbala" or similar.

[davekhps]

This thread reminds me of a very astute column on senseless and unnecessary name changes & pronunciations:

(Caution: National Review link, for those who get upset by that sort of thing).

Also, there was a classic Saturday Night Live sketch featuring Jimmy Smits as a new reporter going to work for NBC News. All the very white, very Anglo anchors and reporters already there insist on overpronouncing Spanish words like "Sanda-NEESTAH!" , "NEEKA-RAHGUA!" and "KOO-BA!", while Smits, the only Hispanic in the room, manages to say the names in normal, accepted English.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that for every good-faith attempt to get the transliteration "right," there are at least as many poseurs pretending to be smarter than they really are.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by davekhps

Also, there was a classic Saturday Night Live sketch featuring Jimmy Smits as a new reporter going to work for NBC News. All the very white, very Anglo anchors and reporters already there insist on overpronouncing Spanish words like "Sanda-NEESTAH!" , "NEEKA-RAHGUA!" and "KOO-BA!", while Smits, the only Hispanic in the room, manages to say the names in normal, accepted English

I don't remember "Cuba" in that sketch. You're forgetting the actual funny bit, where they're overpronouncing "Broncos," "San Diego," and "enchilada."

[qazwart]

Is there a similar reason why people started using q for k for Hebrew? Drive around Israel, and you find signs with mutant spellings like "Welcome to Petah Tiqwa" and such. I think I remember someone saying something about how one was for kuf and one was for kof, but they're both said the same. [/quote]

I bet that guy is a Yemeni. The "w" for a vav (or as they say, the waw) is common for Yemenis, and they do pronounce the kuf and kof differently, although I can barely tell the difference.

When babies are learning to speak, they actually produce a wide variety of sounds, but trim back their range to match what the people around them use. After a while, they lose their ability to distinguish sounds they no longer hear. We all do the same.

My father-in-law is an Iraqi and insists that the alef and the ayin (two silent letters) are pronounced differently. He keeps telling us "Can't you hear the difference?!" No we can't.

Another possibility, there maybe an official Israeli transliteration guide from Hebrew to Latin letters that makes the distinction between the kuf and kof.

However, more likely, the spelling has become part of a struggle in Israeli politics with one side or the other using "Q" and the other insisting on "K". It is amazing what becomes a political football in Israeli politics.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

A Yemeni who gave a talk at our shul said that the ayin is pronounced gn.

[Polycarp]

The aleph and the ayin are both silent, but it's a different kind of silence.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The aleph and the ayin are both silent, but it's a different kind of silence.

You've been waiting all your life for the right moment to say that joke, haven't you?

[Balthisar]

On a similar note, while growing up we referred to people who adhered to the Koran as "Moslims," with a few references here and there to "Muslims." I can't quite place when the latter overtook the former.