Why Do Osama and Usama Have Different Spellings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DR13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differing spellings of "Osama" and "Usama," highlighting the complexities of transliterating Arabic into English. Participants note that the FBI Most Wanted List uses "Usama," while CNN opts for "Osama." Variations in pronunciation and spelling arise from regional differences in Arabic and Urdu, as well as historical attempts to represent these sounds in English. The conversation emphasizes that no single transliteration scheme can capture the nuances of Arabic vowel sounds, leading to multiple acceptable forms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Arabic phonetics and pronunciation
  • Familiarity with transliteration systems for Arabic
  • Knowledge of regional dialects in Arabic and Urdu
  • Awareness of historical variations in transliteration practices
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the "Romanization of Arabic" on Wikipedia for detailed examples
  • Explore different Arabic transliteration schemes and their applications
  • Study the phonetic differences between Arabic and English vowel sounds
  • Investigate the impact of regional dialects on language transliteration
USEFUL FOR

Language scholars, linguists, translators, and anyone interested in the complexities of Arabic transliteration and pronunciation variations.

Which is it?

  • Osama

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • Usama

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Total voters
    9
DR13
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
Is it Osama or Usama? The FBI Most Wanted List has Usama but CNN says Osama. Personally, I have always used Osama. Opinions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's both.
 
Neither. It's dead.
 
davec426913 said:
neither. It's dead.

haha!
 
The pronunciation of languages like Arabic and Urdu has large regional variations. Iin fact "standard Arabic" is the second language of many native Arabic speakers, not their first language.

Vowel sounds are quite variable - for example if you look at historical Western writings over the last two or three centuries, you will see variations like Mohammad, Muhammed, Mahomet, and even Mahmood and Mahmud. There is no reason to suppose that the writers were not making their best attempt at writing down what they heard.

A "scholarly" transliteration of the scripts into the Roman alphabet can be confusing for non-specialist English speakers. The sounds of the basic vowels are a better match with modern Italian than English.

Today I heard some New Yorker talking about "Bin Layden" in a news report on Obama's visit. Clearly that is a plausible English pronunciation of "Laden", but it couldn't possibly be Arabic - or Italian.

You could equally argue for Oosama, or even Uwsama.
 
AlephZero said:
The pronunciation of languages like Arabic and Urdu has large regional variations. Iin fact "standard Arabic" is the second language of many native Arabic speakers, not their first language.

Vowel sounds are quite variable - for example if you look at historical Western writings over the last two or three centuries, you will see variations like Mohammad, Muhammed, Mahomet, and even Mahmood and Mahmud. There is no reason to suppose that the writers were not making their best attempt at writing down what they heard.

A "scholarly" transliteration of the scripts into the Roman alphabet can be confusing for non-specialist English speakers. The sounds of the basic vowels are a better match with modern Italian than English.

Today I heard some New Yorker talking about "Bin Layden" in a news report on Obama's visit. Clearly that is a plausible English pronunciation of "Laden", but it couldn't possibly be Arabic - or Italian.

You could equally argue for Oosama, or even Uwsama.

I've never seen a transliteration scheme that would allow Uwsama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic for some examples. I believe the و is the one to look at.
 
Usama avoids some possible confusion with Obama.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Neither. It's dead.

This.


Seriously, the guy is getting more attention after death than being alive.
 
Jack21222 said:
I've never seen a transliteration scheme that would allow Uwsama.

Neither have I, but it would be less confusing to a casual reader than Wsama (which is arguably the most literal "letter-for letter" verison)
 
  • #10
pergradus said:
Usama avoids some possible confusion with Obama.

But it's easily confused with Ubama.
 
  • #11
Antiphon said:
But it's easily confused with Ubama.

:smile:
 
  • #12
And don't forget Bama jelly.
 
  • #13
AlephZero said:
The pronunciation of languages like Arabic and Urdu has large regional variations. Iin fact "standard Arabic" is the second language of many native Arabic speakers, not their first language.

Vowel sounds are quite variable - for example if you look at historical Western writings over the last two or three centuries, you will see variations like Mohammad, Muhammed, Mahomet, and even Mahmood and Mahmud. There is no reason to suppose that the writers were not making their best attempt at writing down what they heard.

A "scholarly" transliteration of the scripts into the Roman alphabet can be confusing for non-specialist English speakers. The sounds of the basic vowels are a better match with modern Italian than English.

Today I heard some New Yorker talking about "Bin Layden" in a news report on Obama's visit. Clearly that is a plausible English pronunciation of "Laden", but it couldn't possibly be Arabic - or Italian.

You could equally argue for Oosama, or even Uwsama.

Arabic is closely related to Hebrew, and they share this same transliteration issue, too. That's why you see both "Chanukah" and "Hanukkah" (plus a few other variations). In English, there isn't a letter that represents that sound that sits between "k" and "h" so people have to do their best to approximate it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K