5 ms·
Surely "naan" would have been a way better transliteration choice than "non", right?
by littlekey 2mo ago
Surely "naan" would have been a way better transliteration choice than "non", right?
- alex000kim 2mo agoNo, Uzbeks themselves use “non” when using Latin alphabet. Fun fact: in the past Uzbek language has been written in arabic, cyrillic, and, since ~2018, in latin. Source: grew up there
- shrx 2mo agoProbbly a deliberate choice to distinguish it from its Indian sibling?
- debo_ 2mo agoIt seems like a non issue to me.
- roncesvalles 2mo ago1. English transliteration has its own cultural inertia. It's not just about what's most phonetically sensible (that too only for some particular English region: how an American phonetizes non would be different from how a Brit or Aussie would). 2. Don't assume the Uzbeks say this word the same way as the Indians do. It may very well sound closer to "non" in Uzbekistan.
- Aspos 2mo agoUzbeks do say "non".
- walrus01 2mo agoI got a job at the local Uzbek restaurant, but before I could learn all the recipes and secret ingredients, I had to sign a naan disclosure agreement.
- iLemming 2mo agoNo, in Uzbek it is actually "non" and not "naan", "palov" and not "pilav", "somsa" and not "samosa", "tandir" and not "tandoor".