« | Home | »

Q v. K

Tags: | |


There is a story about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk practising his signature in the Latin alphabet. The image is incongruous: the most powerful man in Turkey sits frowning over his own name, breaking in the unfamiliar strokes like a schoolboy. He had decreed in 1928 that Turkish would now be written in Latin rather than Arabic script – severing ties with the Ottoman past and making a generation of readers illiterate. In 1934 he passed a law requiring everyone to adopt a surname: Turks at the time tended to go by titles, patronymics or the name of their profession. It’s unclear how Kemal came by his name (he tacked on ‘Father of the Turks’ after 1934; it’s still illegal for anyone else to use it), but as for romanising his initials, the story goes that he tried spelling it first with a Q, then with a K – and deciding that he preferred the latter, banned the letter Q from the alphabet. The story is apocryphal; Kemal’s signature (now one of the most popular tattoos in Turkey) was designed by Hagop Çerçiyan, an Armenian calligrapher. And while it’s true that the letter Q was outlawed for 85 years, from 1928 until last month, the reason for the ban had little to do with aesthetic bias or onomastic whim.

The Turkish Parliament unanimously voted in the Alphabet Law on 1 November 1928. Kemal embarked on a tour of Anatolia to promote it, and staged massive, quasi-theatrical tutorials to demonstrate how easy the letters were to learn. Dolmabahçe Palace was turned into a primary school where servants, ministers of state and other high officials learned the new script with the president of the republic as their teacher. He even composed an Alphabet March to help his pupils along.

Banks, post offices and police stations were fitted with blackboards; on bridges and ferries, syllabaries sold fast; prisoners were photographed bent over their primers. ‘Turkey is one vast schoolroom,’ National Geographic reported. ‘There is no “q”, no “w”, no “x” in the new alphabet… The left-hand edge of the typewriter is the hardest hit. One does not go to the “Maxim” Restaurant, but to the “Maksim”.’

Romanisation, it was argued, would help standardise Turkish spelling, improve literacy, and allow for cheaper and more convenient printing (the Arabic script required more than 400 pieces of type). But the reform had other, political aims: imposing cultural homogeneity and assimilating Turkey’s minorities. New characters were added to the alphabet to accommodate Turkish phonology – ğ, ı, ü, ş – while others were left out. By adhering so closely to the specifics of Turkish and outlawing all other Latin characters (and all other scripts), it effectively proscribed written expression in any language other than Turkish – not least Kurdish, which was spoken by around 20 per cent of the population.

Kurds see linguistic restrictions as one of the key tools of cultural repression in Turkey. When, on 30 September, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan revealed the contents of his long-awaited ‘democratisation package’, a handful of conciliatory reforms extending the rights of some of the country’s minorities, the olive branch was widely seen as a flimsy one: most of the proposals fell short of Kurdish expectations (the ban on mother tongue instruction was lifted, for instance, but only in fee-paying private schools) or failed to meet their demands at all. Compared to more pressing issues – electoral reform, or the mass detention of Kurdish prisoners – the legalisation of Q, W and X may seem token or trivial. But forms of linguistic oppression are forms of oppression nonetheless.

Comments on “Q v. K”

  1. John Beattie says:

    For computers and phones, Turkish is sometimes regarded as the toughest left-to-right non-script language to handle. The process is called ‘localisation’, meaning things such as converting standard texts (think ‘network unavailable’) into the local language. It is also relevant to text messages because they may be converted away from the local language while they are being transmitted and then converted back again. Correct conversion matters.

    Turkish has a large collection of letters and accents and rules for conversions. This is a long-standing story on the net about it, which might or might not be apocryphal in terms of the people involved but the texts involved can be checked.

    The page warns of bad language.


  2. Steve D says:

    It’s a myth that the Roman alphabet is better suited to the sounds of Arabic. Farsi and Urdu, both Indo-European, have most of the same sounds we do and use modified Arabic letters for them. The complexity of Arabic type is due to the variations in letter shape depending on how the letters join to others, plus there are a variety of diacritical marks that modify some of the vowels.

    My beef about Turkish is that, instead of using the well established circumflex forms for sh, ch and zh found in, say, some Slavic languages, they invented new forms so that Turkish ch looks like French c in garcon. Then they have this weird variant on g (which ironically DOES use the circumflex). It seems, as best I can tell, to replace the glottal stop. Then there’s that weird business of using “c” for the “j” sound, because they use j for “zh,” rather than circumflex z.

    Q and X are unnecessary even in English. “W.C.” for “bathroom” is common in Turkey, anyway. These changes are mostly to accommodate foreign words.

    As someone in the State Department once said, “If you want an Islamic country that’s moderate, democratic and pro-Western, Turkey isn’t the best game in town, it’s the ONLY game in town.”

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement