Is there a non-“Fox News sucks” explanation for why Fox News refers to Osama bin Laden as Usama?
There is no standard way to transliterate the man’s Arabic name. Fox just picked a house style that is different than most.
Was there a “D” after his name?
It’s actually a better transliteration than Osama.
The basic problem is Arabic has only three vowels, so it is hard to shoehorn it into English transliterations.
Arabic has only three vowels. The English alphabet has 5 symbols for vowels. Only 3 of them are needed for Arabic: a, i, u. In standard Arabic, o and e don’t exist and are not needed.
A Straight Dope Classic from Cecil’s Storehouse of Human Knowledge:
How are you supposed to spell Muammar Gaddafi/Khadafy/Qadhafi?
[QUOTE=Cecil Adams]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Although in some Arabic dialects (e.g. Egyptian Arabic), the transliterations into English using “o” or “e” can be accurate. However, my assumption is that bin Laden speaks Gulf Arabic natively, and would pronounce his own name “Usama”.
Further assumption: I have seen the spelling “Osama” in other contexts quite a lot … is that the Egyptian form?
The real spelling of his name is أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن and that’s a little tough on the crawl writers.
If we disregard diphthongs, then Arabic actually has six vowels. English speakers may hear only three, but that’s only because Arabic distinguishes between long and short vowels, whereas vowel length is generally not phonemic in English. Arabic vowels must be inserted into a transliteration, since they’re not normally written in the original text; if the transliterator uses only three vowel symbols rather than six, then they’re not giving enough information to accurately pronounce the word in isolation. (Pronunciation in running text normally isn’t a problem, since the context disambiguates.)
Well, calling him Usama will prevent newscasters confusing him with the other famous Muslim anti-American terrorist who is his near-namesake.
Yes, of course, I was anticipating this reply. It’s true, I was giving information filtered through the English-literate point of view, specifically because the topic was transliteration of Arabic into English. Strict transliteration uses a macron for the three long vowels ā, ī, ū.
I have seen how easily people who are native speakers of either Arabic or English often get freaked out when presented with a well-worked-out, standardized system of transliteration. I don’t know why that is. I find it an indispensable tool for language study as well as information management. So as not to scare off transliteration virgins, I pared the informational detail down to a minimum.
The standardized transliteration used by the US intelligence community (adopted as such by a 2002 act of Congress) is based on the Library of Congress romanization system, but with no diacritics. No macrons or underdots. This ambiguates a and ā, or d and ḍ. The linguists, editors, and analysts who use this system are expected to be familiar enough with Arabic to disambiguate such letters on sight. Most importantly, it makes possible more efficient information storage, retrieval, and control.
Anyway, you’re correct about Arabic having six vowel phonemes—there are plenty of minimal pairs between long & short vowels, like maṭar ‘rain’ with maṭār ‘airport’—but I was going according to the simplified American transliteration mentioned above.
Yes. That’s why I specified standard Arabic, meaning Modern Standard Arabic, because it is used for better information control.
I wish they would finally get it over with and split off Egyptian dialect into its own language, and stop calling it Arabic. The way Moroccan, Egyptian, Levantine, Iraqi, and Khaliji idioms are all called Arabic is like one person studying Portuguese, another studying Rumantsch, and another person studying Romanian, and all claiming they’ve learned Latin. And nobody can understand the others very well. Calling the Egyptian vernacular “Arabic” confuses things more than it clarifies.
Which means that Arabic vowel phonemes fit into romanization easily, with room to spare. Far from shoehorning.
Arabic consonant phonemes are another story. There are 28 of them, and the unaided 26 letters of English simply can’t cover them all individually. Some have needed to double up to make everything fit well enough.
Personally, I just don’t like transliteration systems that require diacritics. Why not just double the vowel, for example?
Not any more he wouldn’t. He ain’t pronouncing anything any more.
Well, there’s several reasons. Ignoring for now some of the obvious ones, like the savings in space and writing time, I could point out that ideally transliterations should be reversible—that is, given the transliteration, you should be able to work out how the original word was written. This is often difficult to do if you use anything other than one-to-one mappings of letters. For example, say I have a language with the letters <տ>, <ե>, and <է>, which I decide to transliterate to <t>, <e>, and <ee>, respectively. In this case the words <տեետ> and <տէտ> have the same transliteration, <teet>. Whether or not such ambiguities can arise depends on the phonotactics and writing rules of the language in question, a deep understanding of which may be necessary to devise a transliteration system which doesn’t use a one-to-one mapping. I don’t know Arabic well enough to know if this could be a problem.
Another issue (with languages generally) is that doubling a vowel is often understood to indicate vowel length. What if a language has more than six vowel sounds which are distinguished by vowel quality rather than length? And what if some of these are distinguished by length as well?
Fox is in love with the idea that bin Laden’s name starts with USA. To Fox, Usa was the hero that justified all of the crap that the Bushies pulled.
Why? Why? We were doing it so well talking about vowel length and transliterations.
Take your shit to another thread.