According to the article Quran or Koran?, in 2000, AP started to use Quran instead of the more familiar Koran.
Does anybody have information as to why this happened, and why newspapers today are using Quran instead of Koran?
It represents a more careful transliteration:
Thus in modern transliterations of Arabic, the word will appear as "quran" (or for an even more careful transliteration, "qur'an").
There has been an increasing tendency to replace traditional English versions of foreign words, especially names, by more scholarly or official versions in the last few decades (consider "Beijing" and "Mumbai" as opposed to "Peking" and "Bombay"), though in the end I think this is a political rather than a literary trend.
The 'K' is the equivalent of Arabic "Kaf" in English and French (mybe other languages), to highlight the difference between 'Kaf' and 'Qaf', using 'Q' instead of 'K' is more appropriate.
Organizations that want to look sophisticated and non-nationalistic and sensitive may use a more "accurate" and "scholarly" spelling such as "quran"
In the column "Don't Mention the Jihad" (warning: the column may be offensive), right-wing commentator Mark Steyn, who is against being sophisticated, non-nationalistic, and sensitive, mocks such changes, saying
Do you find our language too insensitive? Fine. Let's make "Koran" "Quran", or better yet, "Qu'ran", or, if you prefer, "Qu'~*ran", whatever you want, the more the merrier, toss a couple of wingdings in there. In the Thirties, when Churchill was attacking the Munich Agreement, the sensitivity-check didn't automatically amend it to "München". ... Hitherto, Anglicisation of foreign place names has been an accepted custom ...
Nevermind the fact that it's not pronounced ko-ran, or kor-an. It's said just like we spell it. If you need pronunciation spelling, it would be closest to kur-on. It's the name of a holy book. Use the accurate title and learn the correct way to pronounce it. It's not difficult.
I think many people who do this are motivated by the fact that "Quran" doesn't look at all like a native English word. By implication, therefore, it might be an original "native Arab" form.
Obviously it isn't, since any relevant "native Arabs" didn't even use our alphabet, let alone our written conventions regarding the letter q. But most dictionaries will have several words starting with the letter q where it's not followed by u, and they're invariably to do with "things Arabic".
The form we're looking at here looks like an effort to allude to that "u-less q". I don't speak Arabic, so I don't know if the lack of a "pronounceable" vowel after qu may also reflect the fact that native speakers of the relevant languages don't normally enunciate much of a vowel before -ran.
But I doubt that's really a significant factor. Mostly it's just a somewhat clumsy attempt to show respect for what might have been a traditional native spelling (but in fact it's not).
EDIT: In case it's not obvious, I'm aware that 'Kaf' and 'Qaf' are distinct phonemes in Arabic. By long-standing convention, we use that latter representation, even though it "breaks the rules" for English, because there's no reasonable alternative in that particular circumstance.
I wouldn't object to Quoran (which has been used, though not so often). But I don't see why we should welcome a relatively new trend that runs counter to an otherwise strictly-observed aspect of English orthography, simply to represent a phonemic difference that doesn't actually exist for us...
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?