It’s “kwik-saw-tik”, just like the character in the novel: Don Kwik-sawt.
I’m all over kee-hoe-tic, Partly because the word is derived from Don ‘kee-hoe-tee’, but MOSTLY because anyone I’d use it on wouldn’t know any better. That’s just the kind of guy I am. If English speakers pronounced the name ‘kwix-o-tee’ then I might beleive otherwise. And since the main driver of English pronunciation is usage, I guess the ‘proper’ pronunciation should be determine by putting it to a vote…Nah.
BTW, At DLI in Monterey we had an Egyptian instructor who was convinced that Don Quixote was of Arabic origin–a tale pulled from the rich Arabic tradition during their…uh…occupation of Spain–and that the correct pronunciation was Don ‘kee–shot.’ There were 10 of us students in the classroom. We all pee’d our pants.
I’m all over kee-hoe-tic, Partly because the word is derived from Don ‘kee-hoe-tee’, but MOSTLY because anyone I’d use it on wouldn’t know any better. That’s just the kind of guy I am. If English speakers pronounced the name ‘kwix-o-tee’ then I might believe otherwise. And since the main driver of English pronunciation is usage, I guess the ‘proper’ pronunciation should be determine by putting it to a vote…Nah.
BTW, At DLI in Monterey we had an Egyptian instructor who was convinced that Don Quixote was of Arabic origin–a tale pulled from the rich Arabic tradition during their…uh…occupation of Spain–and that the correct pronunciation was Don ‘kee–shot.’ There were 10 of us students in the classroom. We all pee’d our pants.
Well, the things you learn, eh?
In looking up the relevant word in the dictionary – yes, kwik’satik, with the “a” being the backwards, IPA “a” that represents the vowel sound in “hot” – I also find “quixotism” and “quixotry”, both pronounced in the same Anglicised fashion. Quixotry I especially like.
Furthermore, the word quixote means “thigh armour” in Spanish.
And further furthermore, Google searching for quixotic pronounced provides overwhelming support for this pronunciation.
And ascenray, I’m from Home Counties England, in case you were wondering about my pronunication. Round these parts “hot” most definitely does not rhyme with “caught”. 
Ascenray, you question whether there is any “evidence that “quixotic” was a Spanish word borrowed into English.” Interesting point – one which I’ll admit I never considered. While the word’s source, Don Quixote, is of undisputed Spanish origin, I don’t know if its derivation was a native Spanish word before being used in English. I’ll look into that.
Regardless, it seems perfectly logical that as quixotic was born of Quixote, at least an approximation of the Spanish pronunciation of the Man of La Mancha’s name should be used. I realize, of course, that numerous dictionaries (as well as most of y’all) are in complete disagreement with me on this point.
Methinks you’re being overly harsh, RealityChuck, in your response to zimaane. Among other things, you ask, “Should we pronounce the capital of France as “Pa-ree,” since that’s how the[y] pronounce it?” Well, yes, if you’re so inclined. Merriam-Webster allows that as a secondary pronunciation. As most dictionary powers-that-be seem to have adopted a descriptive – rather than proscriptive – approach to their work, it just strikes me as odd that they don’t offer kee-HOE-tik as a secondary option as many people (by my count, five in this thread alone) obviously use it.
To steer this away from a debate, allow me to repeat one of my original questions: Can anyone cite an instance of an established English speaker using kee-HOE-tik?
(I used to say “kwiks-i-otic.” I have no idea why.)
Where were all of you when I was getting piled on in this thread?
That debate centered more upon whether or not the traditional British pronunciation of “Quixote” was “Kwik-zit.” Nevertheless, it’s still relevant in that the pronunciation of “quixotic” is probably based on an old anglicization of the character’s name.
In general (of course, there are exceptions to the rule), British English speakers take a foreign word, keep its foreign spelling, and then pronounce it as if it were an English word.
E.g., in Byron’s poem Don Juan, ‘Juan’ is pronounced JEW - ahn (it has to be pronounced that way in order to make the rhymes work).
American English, on the other hand, is more inclined to keep the foreign pronunciation and spelling, even if we mangle the foreign pronuncation, because, by God, we 'merkins will make it sound foreign!
So, it’s not surprising that Americans, when encountering Quixotic and realizing that it is eponymously from Don Quixote (key-HOE-tay, or, as Americans mangle it, key-HOE-tee) will attempt to pronounce it key-HOE-tic.
However, being more commonly used in the literary halls of England, the common pronunciation is kik-SOH-tic (rhyming with exotic) from the English pronunciation of Quixote as KWIK-suht.
Being an American, I most purposely, knowing full well it is ‘wrong,’ say key-HOE-tic, and eschew the hegemony of Britishisms.
I also pronounce Jesus’s as GEE-suh-sez for the same reason (eschewing the common {and stupid, IMO} practice of saying GEE-suhs for the possessive.)
Yes, I’m a radical. You can’t stop me.
Peace.
Read what I said. The word “quixotic” is an English word. That should be obvious – if you see it written in English, you know what it means, and it is in English dictionary. I did not assert that the English invented it or created it. As with most English words, it was borrowed from another language.
But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that “quixotic” – no matter what its origins – is an English word and there isn’t the slightest reason for it to take on the same pronunciation as Don Quixote.
STARK – you should have seen the post before I toned it down. And the pronounciation of “Par-ee” is non standard, and is usually spelt as “Par-ee.” You ever hear a news announcer saying anything but “Paris”?
It makes perfect sense: it’s pronounced exactly the way it’s spelled. The logical pronunciation of “Quix” is “kwiks” and you just add “otic” to that. How doesn’t that make sense? If you never heard of Don Quixote, “kwicksotic” is the logical pronunciation.
moriah: IMO, the possessive of Jesus is *spelled * Jesus’, and is pronounced as you do it, GEE-suh-sez. If you find people commonly pronouncing it no differently than the name itself (I, thankfully, am not often around people who speak of Jesus, so I wouldn’t know what the common practice is), then IMO they are making the mistake of not pronouncing the missing S in the possessive.
STARK: Since, as you say (or almost said), dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, the absence of kee-HO-tik as an alternative pronunciation is a pretty clear sign that nearly no one ever actually uses it. Maybe it’s because after getting laughed at the first time, no one repeats the mistake. Or maybe it’s that it’s one of those words, like eleemosynary, that are used far more often in writing than in speech.
BTW, is there anyone else here who is annoyed by the laissez-faire descriptive attitude of most dictionaries? Who would join me in creating a prescriptive dictionary that would flat out say, “NO, NO, NO! That’s wrong! The right pronunciation is…”
The pronunciation editor for Merriam Webster was on NPR the other day, and he actually said that saying “nucular” is not wrong, just a variation. It makes me so MAAAAADDDD!
I’ve never heard anything but quick-sah-tick. I am aware of the pronunciation of the proper noun, but the adjectival form follows normal English pronunciation rules. Adjectival forms of names often don’t sound that similar to their root --> take the usual pronunciation of “platonic” and compare with the root “Plato.” I’m sure other, even better, example abound.
“Kee-hote-ick” or whatever variation, just sounds plain ludicrous to my ears.
But, no, comma, I’m not at all annoyed by the laissez-faire descriptive attitude of dictionaries. And I still think they’re fairly conservative, usually at least 5 years behind popular usage.
Trying to get people to change their pronunciation of “quixotic” is a noble but unrealistic goal. Those who do so are pursuing a romantic yet impractical ideal.
I’m with you! Anything to help people speak more cularly…
Good. There’s already a project underway…
could be worse - I had a roommate who pronounced “wash”, “warsh.” And that was the only word that came out in her original accent - always made me startle a little.
As for the original post, I’ve always heard and used kwik-SAH-tik.
Julie
Isn’t the French spelling (“Don Quichotte”) pronounced that way?
Merriam-Webster explains that quixotic was derived in 1815 from the book title, not from the Spanish language. At that stage, English speakers who had read the book would have pronounced it in an Anglicised way, so that’s why quixotic is pronounced kwik-sot-ic. Most English speakers today, including British ones, seem to have updated their pronunciation of the Book title to Don Kee-HOE-tay, but not the other words derived from it. Spanish adjectives don’t end in -ic anyway, so an English adjective with such a regular ending has obviously been coined within English, not absorbed directly from Spanish.
Well I’ve counted six people, but two of those also claimed never to have heard the word spoken and another claims that he knows better than the dictionary, so I suggest they may not be the most reliable referees. All the same, the dictionaries will be updated if and when usage changes. That’s the way it works.
I can’t. Kee-HOE-tay yes, kee-HOE-tik not so far.
That has been true in the past, but not so much these days. I’ve never heard anyone pronouncing Juan as JEW-an unless they were reading Byron’s poem, which was of course begun in 1818, when Anglicisation of Spanish words was the norm here.
FWIW, the Hebrew pronounciation is also (generally) KEE-SHOT. Hebrew is related to Arabic, so it’s probably a parallel transliteration process at work here… it would have been just as easy to pronounce KEE-KHOT or KEE-KHOT-EH, don’t know how that SH sound got in (and in two languages, yet!)
And yes, Quichotte would be pronouced KEE-SHOT in French. So that makes three.
There’s a difference between claiming the dictionary is wrong and purposely choosing to do something different from what the dictionary prescribes. I’ll accept ‘dissident’ or ‘trend-setter,’ but I won’t accept ‘egomaniac’ (even though it may be the case).
So, then, does this mean you’ll join me in my crusade to update a pronunciation which has unfortunately been based on a linguistical convention that’s been abandoned in other arenas?
Peace.