# Why are words from other alphabets spelled so weird?



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

When words from a languages that uses alphabets other than the Roman/Latin alphabet are written in the Roman/Latin alphabet, why are they not spelled phonetically?

For example, the word in this image:








It seems the proper way to spell that using letters from the Roman alphabet is now *Qur'an*. Other accepted ways to spell it include Quran, Kuran, Koran, Qur'ān, Coran or al-Qur'ān. I have only ever heard it pronounced as _Koran_, so what's wrong with just spelling it that way?

How about this word?
*北京*
It used to be spelled Peking. People that didn't know better pronounced it like "Pee King". But how is anyone supposed to know better when that's how it's spelled? I mean...if it's pronounced "Bay jing" (with a soft 'j'), why wasn't it just spelled "Beijing" in the first place...or even better, as "Bayjing"?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

This is something that has puzzled me for many years. I'm glad to know that is isn't just me.

Cruiser


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't understand why Rhodesia is now pronounced Zimbabwe.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I was thinking for the benefit of non-English speakers, but that doesn't make sense because every language has their own spellings even for proper nouns! For instance... Germany is rarely called "Deutschland" except as a joke by English speakers. Never understood how you got "JER-MUN-EE" from "DOICH-LANT" to begin with. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

NOT CORRECT! 
Germany isn't just an English word it comes from the Latin Germania and Germanien which the Romans used to refer to the larger region of "barbarians" north of the Roman Empire. 


Even Hitler spoke about Das Grosse Germania (Greater Germany)

So the word came to both German and English from Latin

Any German dictionary will show you the following German words: 
Germane (pronounced German) meaning Teuton. And a Teuton was one of the ancient Germanic people living on the Jutland peninsula. 
Germanisch = Germanic, Teutonic
Germanist = student or teacher of German.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Okay, as a linguist, translator and former English teacher allow me to address the original query in point form


1. It is the spoken language that is correct and which is represented by the written language NOT the other way round as
many not educated in the subject, especially self-elected grammar police on the web, seem to think. 

2. NO written alphabet is capable of representing all the various sounds of its own language, this is due to regional variations, national pronunciations of loan words from other languages, and the natural development of the language. 

3. Thus it follows that any alphabet is even less capable of representing all the spoken sounds of another language. 

4. Any transcription to the Latin alphabet will never represent to 100% the correct pronunciation of a word from, for example, the Cyrillic or Greek alphabets.

5. Thus any spelling in such a transcription that gives an approved pronunciation can be said to be correct. That is why there are so many different accepted spellings of Koran. (The more recent QU versions though are unnecessary because they still result in the correct K sound.)
And why there are so many different spellings of, for example, Russian and other slavic names.

You must also always bear in mind that even in the languages that use the Latin alphabet not all the letters are sounded in the same way. Simply compare the letter J between English (dy - James) , Swedish (y -Johan), French (zh - Jaques) and Spanish (h - José).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NOT CORRECT!
> Germany isn't just an English word it comes from the Latin Germania and Germanien which the Romans used to refer to the larger region of "barbarians" north of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Even Hitler spoke about Das Grosse Germania (Greater Germany)
> ...


 My friend, I was pretty clearly joking.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

All I ask is to pick one and stick with it!!


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You must also always bear in mind that even in the languages that use the Latin alphabet not all the letters are sounded in the same way. Simply compare the letter J between English (dy - James) , Swedish (y -Johan), French (zh - Jaques) and Spanish (h - José).


In some cases, the old traditional transliteration wasn't done by English-speaking people. It passed into English via French or German. I suspect that's how "Tchaikovsky" acquired its initial T, got spelled with a W and ended up being pronounced by some English-speaking people as Chai-COW-sky.


----------



## CharlesFerdinand (Jun 18, 2010)

To pick a nit, one proper way of spelling your first example in Latin script would be al-'arabiya


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Okay, as a linguist, translator and former English teacher allow me to address the original query in point form
> 
> 1. It is the spoken language that is correct and which is represented by the written language NOT the other way round as
> many not educated in the subject, especially self-elected grammar police on the web, seem to think.
> ...


But this, I feel, goes to the heart of what I'm saying.

I'm not asking for the spoken language to conform to the written. I'm asking why does the written not conform to the spoken.

If the Chinese say _Bay-zhing_, then why was it ever spelled _Peking_? In what language does a 'k' ever sound like a 'j' or 'zh'? I realize there are probably subtleties to the pronunciation that would be difficult or impossible to put into a spelling with Latin letters, but I feel the spelling should be as close to the pronunciation that speakers of languages that use Latin alphabets are able to get.

By the way, EoO, I'm fascinated by linguistics and etymology. Remember the other thread recently where I translated some Latin fairly well into English? I realized long ago I seem to have a raw talent, or at least potential, for that sort of thing. If I had another lifetime, I would love to formally study language history, possibly tied in with world history.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> My friend, I was pretty clearly joking.


Sorry, I have problems with things like that. Apparently, my wife who knows about these things tells me I'm slightly autistic or have some other problem.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Not a linguist, but I do think that when the real linguists do these things, they are concerned with more than just having some non-native speaker attempt to phonetically mush their way into a general approximation that actually still isn't very good.

For example, it's fine to say that Beijing should be Bay-jing. But what if there is _another_ sound in Mandarin Chinese that also sounds very much like a J but isn't? If you assign them both "J's" then people will pronounce them the same when they aren't.

I speak Mandarin. You know how when you go to a Chinese restaurant and you sometimes get a fortune cookie with phonetic spellings of a simple phrase? People read those to me and I have no idea what they are saying. And if you show them to me and hide the translation, I will probably say it the same way you would and I will have no idea what it was I just said.

If I see the translation, then I can usually go "Oh, I see." But if the requirement for me to understand your attempt to phonetically pronounce Mandarin requires me to already be fluent in English and Chinese... well there's not much point in it.

I think the modern Pinyin system is better than the old-style Yale system, but neither are all that good.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> I'm not asking for the spoken language to conform to the written. I'm asking why does the written not conform to the spoken.
> 
> If the Chinese say _Bay-zhing_, then why was it ever spelled _Peking_?


Thank you for asking that. It saved me the time and effort as that was the same example I was going to give. It just makes no sense to me at all. We were free to use any letters we wanted from the alphabet to spell "Bay-zhing," so why did we choose Peking? Like I said, it makes no sense to me.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Not a linguist, but I do think that when the real linguists do these things, they are concerned with more than just having some non-native speaker attempt to phonetically mush their way into a general approximation that actually still isn't very good.
> 
> For example, it's fine to say that Beijing should be Bay-jing. But what if there is _another_ sound in Mandarin Chinese that also sounds very much like a J but isn't? If you assign them both "J's" then people will pronounce them the same when they aren't.
> 
> ...


OK, but I did say, "I realize there are probably subtleties to the pronunciation that would be difficult or impossible to put into a spelling with Latin letters, but I feel the spelling should be as close to the pronunciation that speakers of languages that use Latin alphabets are able to get." I'm not asking for perfection; I realize it's impossible. To reiterate what I'm asking, see Cruiser's response immediately above this one, below yours. Specifically, the part where he asks, "We were free to use any letters we wanted from the alphabet to spell "Bay-zhing," so why did we choose Peking?"

As you point out with your fortune cookie example, there probably isn't a way to spell most Chinese (Mandarin) words in Latin letters in such a way that the average Westerner will get the pronunciation exactly correct. Now I've never heard a Chinese person say "Beijing", but isn't "Bayzhing" or even "Beijing" closer to how a Chinese person says it than "Peking" (i.e., "Pee-king")? If we can't get it exactly right...isn't it good to at least get as close as possible?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What about the state Arkansas and why do say it Ark-an saw? and not Ark-an-sas?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Peking is the older Wade-Giles romanisation and Běijīng is the more modern and accurate pinyin. Same with Mao Tse Tung vs Máo Zédōng.

The thing with speaking Mandarin, it's vitally important to get the tones right. Pronounce the tones wrong, and one is talking gibberish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_phonology In a restaurant say 'tāng' and one should get soup, but say 'táng' and one will get sugar.

BTW Arkansas is an Algonquin name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas#Origin_of_the_name


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Howard said:


> What about the state Arkansas and why do say it Ark-an saw? and not Ark-an-sas?


LOL!!! Howard I had EXACTLY this chat with a friend a few days ago, talking about how Americans pronounce their own place
names & then how they seem to completely start slaughtering UK place names when visiting. I said to my friend if it's Arkansaw then it surely it should be Kansaw or vice versa

Quick list for American tourists:

Gloucester (Road) is Gloster NOT Glau-Chester
Bicester is Bister
Towcester is Toaster
Worcestershire Sauce is called Woster Sauce
Leicester (Square) is Lester NOT Ly-chester
Beauchamp is Beech-um NOT Boe-shomp
Beaulieu is Bewley NOT Boo-loo-ey
Belvoir is Beaver NOT Bell-vwa
Edinburgh is Ed-in-bru or as the locals call it Embra NOT Ed-in-burrow.
Derby is Darby NOT Durrby 
Hertford is Hartford not Hurtford
Berkshire is Bark-shu NOT Burk-shy-er
Warwickshire is War-ick-shu NOT War-wick-shy-er
Greenwich is Grenidge NOT Green witch
Holborn is Ho-burn NOT Holl-born 
Fulham is Full-em NOT Full-ham
Tottenham is Tott'num NOT Tott-en-ham

and

Hackney is 'acne!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Not every person from a country pronounces things the same. Not everyone who uses the latin alphabet pronounces things the same. Pronunciations change over time, in all languages.

It's possible that "Peking" was in fact phonetically the best way that some original European guy using their language at that time could approximate the name of the city as pronounced by the Chinese people at that time in whatever region he was dealing with.

And in 200 years, we may have to alter Beijing to a different spelling.

A fairly effective albeit painful way to learn the pronunciations of UK towns is to have your team get relegated a bunch of times. Were it not for Saints totally sucking, I might still be pronouncing Wycombe as "Wye comb." I'm looking forward to mastering "Shrewsbury," "Stevenage" and "Torquay" next season.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Newark, NJ = New-Urk

Newark, DE = New-Ark

Norfolk, VA = Nah-Fuk

A regional Norfolk High School Cheerleading Joke;

We don't smoke,

We don't drink,

Norfolk, Norfolk, Norfolk!!


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Newark, NJ = New-Urk ...


Actually it depends on who in NJ you talk to. Some pronounce _only _the R (Nerk) and others pronounce everything _but _the R (Noo-uk). Another regional oddity: Houston, (Hyoo-stun) TX vs Houston St. (House-tun St.), NYC. The toughest place for tourists is New Orleans. Most places have French names, but some are pronounced like French words; others like English; still others a bastard combination of the two. You need a local translator to tell you which is which.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> LOL!!! Howard I had EXACTLY this chat with a friend a few days ago, talking about how Americans pronounce their own place
> names & then how they seem to completely start slaughtering UK place names when visiting. I said to my friend if it's Arkansaw then it surely it should be Kansaw or vice versa
> 
> Quick list for American tourists:
> ...


I still think it should be Arkansas. The hell with how you pronounce it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Place names have changed through their being under new management. S.Rhodesia is now called Zimbabwe because there was a Kingdom of Zimbabwe in that approximate area, which was destroyed about 400 years before the Europeans arrived.
Melaka has changed from Malacca, for reasons that I can't make out. Bombay is Mumbai, Calcutta is Kolkatta, so that they sound slightly different from when these cities were British. Channai used to be Madras. I can't see any rational idea behind the changes, as the cities in question were either founded by the Brits, or, like Bombay, were given to tghe Brits by their previous owners, who handed on the name as well.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

How about the state of Maine,Why is there an "e" on the end? Shouldn't it be Main?


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Forget place names, what about ordinary English words?

Who would guess at the spelling of ... well, "guess"? Or "special," "laugh," "amoeba" or even "country"?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Starch said:


> Forget place names, what about ordinary English words?
> 
> Who would guess at the spelling of ... well, "guess"? Or "special," "laugh," "amoeba" or even "country"?


What about ghoughpteighbteau? Thanks about these words, and see if you can figure out what that spells: _hiccough, though, ptomaine, neigh, debt, bureau_.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Howard said:


> How about the state of Maine,Why is there an "e" on the end? Shouldn't it be Main?


It was named after the old French province of Maine, now the area called the Mayenne.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Chouan said:


> It was named after the old French province of Maine, now the area called the Mayenne.


Thanks Chouan.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Starch said:


> Forget place names, what about ordinary English words?
> 
> Who would guess at the spelling of ... well, "guess"? Or "special," "laugh," "amoeba" or even "country"?


The problem usually isn't the spelling: it's the pronunciation. 500 years ago, a lot of words were pronounced exactly as they were spelled. Then the spelling got "etched in stone" after the invention of the printing press, but the pronunciation changed. When Chaucer wrote "and made forward erly for to ryse/ to take oure wey ther as I yow devise", it would have been pronounced more or less like "and mah-duh for-wahrd air-ly for toe ree-suh/ toe tahk oor way thair ahss ee yo deh-vee-suh". Final e's would have been pronounced like in German, except before vowels; all s's were pronounced like in "hiss"; not like a z; "to" and "do" rhymed with "go", "no" and "so" and the vowels would have been pronounced more or less as they are in European languages like Spanish or Italian. Gh would have been pronounced like the "ch" in "loch", so "eight" would have been "eh-cht". "Two" would have been "t-woe" and "five", "fee-vuh". "Bout" would be pronounced like "boot", "boot" like "boat", "need" like "neighed", "said" like "sighed" and "knight" like "k-nicht". Note that the Highland Scots still retain some of these old pronunciations, at least while speaking among themselves.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> The problem usually isn't the spelling: it's the pronunciation. 500 years ago, a lot of words were pronounced exactly as they were spelled. Then the spelling got "etched in stone" after the invention of the printing press, but the pronunciation changed. When Chaucer wrote "and made forward erly for to ryse/ to take oure wey ther as I yow devise", it would have been pronounced more or less like "and mah-duh for-wahrd air-ly for toe ree-suh/ toe tahk oor way thair ahss ee yo deh-vee-suh". Final e's would have been pronounced like in German, except before vowels; all s's were pronounced like in "hiss"; not like a z; "to" and "do" rhymed with "go", "no" and "so" and the vowels would have been pronounced more or less as they are in European languages like Spanish or Italian. Gh would have been pronounced like the "ch" in "loch", so "eight" would have been "eh-cht". "Two" would have been "t-woe" and "five", "fee-vuh". "Bout" would be pronounced like "boot", "boot" like "boat", "need" like "neighed", "said" like "sighed" and "knight" like "k-nicht". Note that the Highland Scots still retain some of these old pronunciations, at least while speaking among themselves.


And Caxton, being a Londoner, ensured that SE English, and London English became dominant when he printed English phonetically.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What about the word Fjord,Why is it pronounced Fee yord and not Jord?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> The problem usually isn't the spelling: it's the pronunciation.


That why a fat kid in Jersey is a "yooj yoot!!"

(huge youth)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Howard said:


> What about the word Fjord,Why is it pronounced Fee yord and not Jord?


Because J in Norwegian is pronounced rather like a Y, so Fyord


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Chouan said:


> And Caxton, being a Londoner, ensured that SE English, and London English became dominant when he printed English phonetically.


Actually, Caxton agonized over the problem of whose pronunciation to use. He apparently realized that the printing press was going to influence the English language for centuries to come, and wrote an essay on the problem of choosing whose version of "English" to use. He related a charming anecdote about some English sailors who wanted to buy food in an unfamiliar English port. The captain asked a local woman if he could buy eggs. She apologized and told him she didn't speak French. He was nonplussed by this, since he didn't speak French, either! Finally, a crew member who had grown up in the area asked her for "eyen" (note the Germanic plural, which survives only in a few words like "children"). That, she understood.

Chaucer himself, writing in the late 1300's, varied between London and more provincial pronunciations from one tale to another - probably for rhetorical effect. For example, in the Nun's Priest's "Chanticleer" story, the poor old farm widow was described as having milk and brown bread and "sometyme an ey or tweye" to eat. But clearly he was familiar with "egg" and "two" and used them in other writings.

My guess is that early English printers like Caxton, Thinne and Wynken de Worde, working 60-100 years after Chaucer, chose SE London pronunciation because that's where most of the literate people who would buy their books were. Remember that prior to the printing press, a single book might have cost the modern equivalent of several thousand dollars; so books (and the ability to read them) were definitely only for the 15th century equivalent of hedge fund managers and dot-com billionaires! :icon_smile_big:


----------

