Dean's World
 Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

.:: Dean's World: K-O-R-A-N ::.

July 31, 2003

K-O-R-A-N

Reverend Brill says that I am wrong about the spelling of "Koran". To add insult to injury, in the comments to my earlier article on this subject, Reverend Burgess also disagreed with me. With my luck, Donald Sensing will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong, too.

Having considered the matter deeply, I can only conclude that Satan has bamboozled their synapses. Because, as has already been established for all right-thinking people, DIRAE (Dean Is Right About Everything). It's in the Bible, guys, just look it up. If you haven't found it yet, you probably haven't looked hard enough.

In defense of "Koran," I merely submit John Derbyshire's piece on the onomastic cringe. Yes, yes, he's one of those scary right-wingers, but I think he makes a good point. Don't you?

Posted by dean | PermaLink | TrackBack (1)

Discuss This Article!

 

I've always spelled it that way, too. Don Sensing's latest posts on the topic have gone with "Qur'an," though.

Posted by James Joyner on July 31, 2003 at 12:54 PM


In the Bible?

You're joking, right? Hard to tell sometimes...

Posted by Ara Rubyan on July 31, 2003 at 2:00 PM


Koran, not "Qu'ran."
Niger, not knee-ZHAIR.
Sandy Eggo, not [hyper-correct-Spanish-pronunciation] San Diego.[/hyper-correct-Spanish-pronunciation]

Etc.

Posted by Xrlq on July 31, 2003 at 2:06 PM


Actually, James, I omit the apostrophe and just write Quran. Typing Qu'ran is unnecessarily complicated and signifies nothing.

The ' apparently refers to an Arabic pronunciation for which there is no English equivalent. Fine, but so what? I'm writing the word, not speaking it, and I have never heard any non-Arab try to speak it pronouncing the '.

Posted by Donald Sensing on July 31, 2003 at 2:07 PM


And one more thing. Why call the Bible "the Bible?" It's not as though they called it that in Ancient Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

Posted by Xrlq on July 31, 2003 at 2:08 PM


I meant to type, "signifies nothing in English." Also, Dean, write "Koran" all you want - you'll get no objection from me!

Posted by Donald Sensing on July 31, 2003 at 2:09 PM


We call the Bible "the Bible" because we don't speak ancient Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

Posted by Donald Sensing on July 31, 2003 at 2:11 PM


I think the whole process is nothing but an homage to PC. Blacks went from Colored, to Black, to African-American, to People of Color. If Colored was racist, why isn't People of Color? Peking or Bejing? Who cares, the buildings are all in the same place aren't they?

Should we correct the next spanish speaker that refers to the US as the Estados Unidos? I certainly don't care how other languages refer to us.

The whole thing is a stupid ego trip by people who like to prove they are socially progressive. If you say "Torino", you're progressive. But troglodytes say "Turin".

Posted by mj on July 31, 2003 at 2:33 PM


I don't understand why we don't hear more about goings-on in Deutschland or España on the evening news. It's not like those countries don't exist.

Posted by Jerry Kindall on July 31, 2003 at 2:59 PM


Yes, MJ, and those same sophisticates will still talk about their trip to Paris, and not Pah-REE!

Posted by CGeib on July 31, 2003 at 4:00 PM


You're joking, right? Hard to tell sometimes...

Oh, come on dude. Life is too short. ;-)

Posted by Dean Esmay on July 31, 2003 at 4:53 PM


Well, okay, I admit I'm of the crowd that pronounces it "Knicker-roggwa" instead of "Neeeeekarrrrragua."

And I admit that the first Qur'an I dipped my nose into, back in my teenage years, was Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall's translation, entitled (I believe) The Meaning of the Glorious Koran.

However, the big thick hardcover-- Arabic down one column, English down the other, with extensive footnotes and appendices-- which a friend of mine in Air Force linguistics gave me back about 1975 had "Qur'an" emblazoned on the cover. (He enlisted to learn Russian, somehow ended up learning colloquial Arabic, Cairo dialect, instead.)

And my present copy of the Qur'an (printed at the "King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex, AL-Madinah AL-Munawarah under The Auspices of The Ministry of Hajj and Endowments, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia") has emblazoned on its green hardcover: "THE HOLY QUR-ÂN English translation of the meanings and Commentary"-- only it's a macron and not a circumflex over the "A" in "QUR-ÂN." In fact, it is much the same edition as my friend gave me, only the footnotes and commentary have been vetted by a more recent hand for theological orthodoxy.

I dunno, not knowing any Arabic, I suppose when I spell it Qur'an, some (true or false) cognate out of Hebrew (qoph, resh, 'aleph or whatever) is floating around in my mind. Note I drop the whatever-thingy over the a, and the dash, or whatever, mutates into an apostrophe-- which makes my transliteration neither fish nor fowl.

So, Dean, unless you're going to pronounce a fatwa on me (is "DIRAE" a "bright" translation of fatwa?), I think I'll stick to my idiosyncratic semi-demi-cross-misspelling. :)

Posted by Paul Burgess on July 31, 2003 at 5:27 PM


Hmm, I misread "onomastic cringe" as "onanastic cringe" -- quite a different story, eh?

I personally tend to pronounce Spanish names the way a Spanish speaker would pronounce them (aan-hell if talking about a guy named Angel, if he prefers it that way. But I probably would say "mekxico" not "meh-heeco" because it would just be pretentious; my hispanic friends would never let me hear the end of it. It's rather egotistic to assume that you know how to pronounce x foreign language right, better just to go with the accepted English equivalent. Unless you want to be pretentious, patronizing and egotistical as seems to be the case with the You-Know-Whos.

Posted by Tim the Michigander on July 31, 2003 at 9:10 PM


I prefer 'alcoran', myself. It's what's listed in my bybel, at any rate.

Posted by Chad on August 01, 2003 at 2:41 AM


Any spelling in English is an approximation, and I do not see Qu'ran as preferable to Koran outside of an overview course of comparitive mythology - er, religion.

For centuries it was Peking, now it is Beijing - does anyone really think either comes close to the actual name of the city? For that matter, language-impaired types like myself (US Northeastern American, some other American [That's right, eh? Or BBQ], smattering of BBC Comedy, escargot French, Riesling German) cannot correctly pronounce the official name of LA.

Posted by John Anderson on August 01, 2003 at 10:09 AM


John:

an overview course of comparitive mythology - er, religion

Thanks for taking the heat off me! Now I'm no longer #1 in line for a fatwa, among those who've posted to this thread. Them Net censors over in the KSA are ever-vigilant, and they don't miss a trick... ;)

BTW, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me, isn't the standard pronunciation on the BBC World Service "Loss Anjulleeeeez"?

Chad:

"Alcoran"? Hey, I rather like that one myself.

I myself still say "Peking" rather than "Beijing"-- for the capital of far Cathay.

Posted by Paul Burgess on August 01, 2003 at 11:12 AM


People who write Quran rather than Koran are just doing a bit of an intellectual conceit - essentially saying they are more deeply versed than anyone who doesn't write it the way they write it.

As for me, I've actually been to the middle east and hear Koran pronounced and, hey presto!, it sounds like "koran" to me. I do, of course, have a tin ear and can't carry a note in a bucket, so to others it might sound like "quran" - but the standard usage for, oh, 500 years in English has been "koran" and so lets just leave it at that.

Posted by Mark Noonan on August 01, 2003 at 11:30 AM


Of course there will never be absolute consistency in the spelling of this or many other "imported" terms or place names. And (except to avert extreme confusion) why should there be? Some people will always spell such terms one way, some people will always spell them another way. For a wide variety of reasons, or for no reason at all.

And that's just hunky-dory with me.

Hell, I don't even worry about foolish-hobgoblin consistency in my own practice on these matters. With nineteen "imported" terms out of twenty, I'll use the traditional, long-established anglicized spelling and pronunciation: "Peking" instead of "Beijing"; "Bombay" instead of "Mumbai" (say what?!); "Moscow" instead of "MoskVAH"; "Norway" instead of "Norge"; etc., etc. But with maybe one "imported" term out of twenty, for a wide variety of reasons, or for no reason at all, I'll go with some variant spelling or pronunciation.

"Liberty Hall, boys, Liberty Hall!"

Posted by Paul Burgess on August 01, 2003 at 12:35 PM


At least Peking --> Beijing made some sense, as the new spelling encourages people to pronounce the name more "correctly." Spelling the name of the Koran with a Q doesn't accomplish a f'n thing, as both K and Q are pronounced the same in English, and neither letter is used in Arabic.

Posted by Xrlq on August 01, 2003 at 3:52 PM


Isn't Arabic written in a completely non-roman script? So, any transcription as long as it reasonably approximates the pronunciation would seem to be as good as any other. When I see Koran, or Quran, or Qu'ran, I know it refers to the holy book of Islam. How is it spelled in, say, Greek? The Japanese have devised an ingenious system whereby foreign words have their own syllabary, kata kana (actually that is just a romanized version, but you get the idea).

Posted by nobody important on August 01, 2003 at 4:20 PM


A German friend of my step-mother's once laid into my dad for pronouncing her name, Karin, in American. She self-righteously declared "My name is not 'Karen', it's 'Car-rrrrreeeen'", to which he replied "Fine. Then my name is not 'Toe-moss', it's 'Thomas'".

Posted by Emily on August 01, 2003 at 4:35 PM


Emily,

Reminds me of the time when I was in France - after trying mighty hard to pronounce things right and getting rude looks from the Frogs, I spent my last few days deliberately misprounouncing things...

Posted by Mark Noonan on August 01, 2003 at 6:05 PM


As for the capital of far Cathay (Pekin Beijing Pei-ching Peking Peiping Beiping) maybe we could just call it "Larry" and be done with it. :)

If the Russians can get away with still calling China "Kitai", why not?

And I think "Karin" (pronounced "Car-rrrrreeeen") would make a splendid new compromise spelling for the Book Formerly Known as Koran/Quran/Qur'an/Alcoran.

Posted by Paul Burgess on August 01, 2003 at 8:07 PM


I think my biggest objection to "Qu'ran" is that we don't put apostrophes in the middle of words in English, and "Qu" is supposed to be pronounced "kw."

Posted by Dean Esmay on August 02, 2003 at 12:37 AM


Dean, you've got a point there about qu. Though looking in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, I find the following words which start with q plus something other than u: qabbalah, qadarite, qadi, qaimaqam, qantar, qaraqalpaq, qarmatian, qashqai, qasida, qat, qatabanian, qazaq, qere, qeri, qibla, qinah, qintar, qiyas, qoph, qoran, qre, q'ri. To which we could add quraish, quraishite, qur'an or quran, qursh, qutb, qyrghyz. Note, many if not most of these terms come from Arabic, a couple come from Hebrew.

Meanwhile, working on my new EZ Method™ of names for Chinese cities, I've decided that the city of Canton alias Guangzhou (and "The Chinese abbreviation of Guangzhou is Yue") may as well be referred to as "Jenny."

Posted by Paul Burgess on August 02, 2003 at 11:30 AM


How the hell old is that Webster's? This sounds like some new-edition (post-1980 or so) craziness where the Onomastic Cringe probably began...

Posted by Dean Esmay on August 05, 2003 at 12:40 AM


Didn't we just finish a war a few months ago to determine once and for all that you can't have a Q that isn't followed by a U? That's got to count for something.

Posted by Xrlq on August 05, 2003 at 3:32 AM


Dean:

Nope, copyright © 1971 by G. & C. Merriam. Co.

Xrlq:

That's why Iraq will soon be changing its name to Irak. ;)

Posted by Paul Burgess on August 05, 2003 at 8:29 AM


I got into an argument about the notion that you should call a place what the locals call it, with a former co-worker of mine. I told her that Switzerland has three official languages, and god knows whether we should call it die Schweiz, lá Suisse, or Svizzera. And while everyone knows that Munich is a city in Bavaria, how many English speakers know that München is a city in Bäyern? Honestly, most people I know already have enough trouble learning geography and speaking English. Eschew obfuscation--that's my motto.

Posted by Chad Tucker on August 06, 2003 at 3:31 PM


 



.:: ABOUT DEAN'S WORLD ::.


.:: BEST OF DEAN'S WORLD ::.


.:: RECENT ENTRIES ::.


.:: ARCHIVES ::.


.:: MISC ::.