By
D Girma, PhD

Introduction

Amidst the current wave of amusing satires circulating about what appears to be the ill-fated Khuullee writing system, this short article endeavours to address something serious relating to the ongoing cacophony. The term cacophony is deliberately used to characterize the lack of intellectual rigor, research evidence, and academic substance in the dialogue surrounding this matter of significant importance. This issue holds grand importance because it pertains to the nation’s language, a topic that warrants thoughtful consideration grounded in evidence-based research, rather than being relegated to a personal hobby tucked away for 19 years, as Khuullee claims.

Following nearly a week of uproar, there remains a conspicuous absence of a clear explanation as to why the Khuullee writing system was deemed necessary in the first place. The issue doesn’t solely rest with the interviewees; rather, it lies with the interviewers of digital media who have failed to pose the pertinent questions. Their approach has been overly polite, lacking in the necessary assertiveness required for engaging in a rigorous discussion with individuals who possess little to no understanding of linguistics but have pursued their personal hobby for 19 years without apparent justification.

Trying to decipher Obbo Hassan Abdulqadir’s interview, the creator of Khuullee, on Kiya Media revealed three key points for me:

1. Khuullee is solely funded by Obbo Hassan’s personal finances, with no external backing for the project. He claims to have published as many as 10 books based on the Khuullee writing system and asserts that around 10,000 individuals have been educated in Khuullee. However, he fails to clarify whether this figure represents a one-time training event or an ongoing educational program integrated into systems such as elementary education.
2. Obbo Hassan emphasizes that Khuullee is intended for future generations but fails to specify when this future generation will adopt the writing system over Qubee. Reading between the lines, Obbo Hassan appears to resent the Latin Qubee alphabet, seeing it as inadequate in representing the Oromo language authentically. This aligns with the sentiments of Qubee detractors who have consistently criticized its lack of indigenous roots. Consequently, it becomes evident that Khuullee isn’t aimed at addressing any orthographic deficiencies in Qubee but rather as a potential replacement due to Qubee’s perceived lack of cultural authenticity from an Oromo perspective.
3. Obbo Hassan shifts blame to Obbo Abdissa Bancha Jara and Obbo Fedhasa Tadassa Guta for bringing Khuullee into the public sphere following their disagreement. This disagreement appears to stem from Abdissa’s preference for Afaan Africa Association (AAA aka 3A) and Fedhasa’s advocacy for the establishment of a language academy. This suggests that Obbo Hassan had not intended to publicize Khuullee initially, and it remains unclear if the project will continue without public exposure.

It is worth remarking on item #2 above. The Latin Alphabet, adopted by over 120 countries worldwide, stands as a testament to its universal acceptance. No nation utilizing this script appears to harbor feelings of inferiority for doing so. In fact, the Latin Alphabet can be viewed as a de facto “open source” orthographic system, freely accessible and widely utilized across diverse linguistic and cultural landscapes. Here is a more elaborate statement, provided by ChatGPT.

The Latin alphabet, in its basic form, can indeed be considered a sort of “open source” writing system due to its widespread use and adaptability. It has been adapted to write numerous languages beyond its original Latin roots, including English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, and many others. Additionally, the Latin alphabet has been adapted with diacritics and additional letters to suit the phonetic needs of various languages.

One of the key factors contributing to the Latin alphabet’s adaptability is its lack of ownership or proprietary rights. Unlike some writing systems developed for specific languages or cultures, the Latin alphabet is not associated with any single group or organization that has exclusive control over its use or modification.

Hence, distancing oneself from the use of the Latin alphabet due to its perceived lack of indigeneity is an unfounded or misplaced manifestation of inferiority complex, the sentiment exploited by our detractors to their advantage.

A cursory examination of the Khuullee writing system reveals its classification as another Syllabic, also known as Abugida writing system, as elaborated in the subsequent section. Below, I present my argument for why Khuullee should meet an abrupt demise. Understanding the nuances of the two distinct orthographic systems is essential for this discussion as explained below.

Alphabetic Versus Syllabic Orthography

Alphabetic orthography, exemplified by scripts like the Latin alphabet, assigns distinct symbols to individual phonemes, allowing for precise representation of spoken language. Each letter typically corresponds to a consonant or vowel sound, facilitating straightforward transcription. The English writing system, and closer to home, the Qubee writing system, both are based on the alphabetic orthography.

On the other hand, syllabic orthography, characteristic of systems like Abugida, represents syllables rather than individual phonemes. In such systems, basic units of writing encompass consonant-vowel combinations, known as syllabic characters or graphemes. These graphemes convey not only the consonant sound but also the following vowel sound inherent in the syllable.

The distinction between these two orthographic systems lies in their granularity of representation. Alphabetic orthography meticulously captures phonemic distinctions, offering a one-to-one correspondence between sounds and symbols. Conversely, syllabic orthography operates at the level of syllables, merging consonant-vowel pairs into single graphemes, resulting in a more condensed representation of language.

Understanding these fundamental differences is crucial for evaluating the efficacy and suitability of the Khuullee writing system within linguistic contexts.

Now, the question arises: which option is superior in the technological age? Instead of relying solely on my opinion, let’s turn to ChatGPT, our independent and neutral arbiter. Pose the following question, or a variation thereof, and discover the answer firsthand.

Question: Between the Alphabetic and the Syllabic types of orthography, which one is more suited to language processing in the technological era, more specifically for lexical and grammatical analysis, translation, transliteration, content generation, and any other tasks related to linguistic computations? Explain the reasons.

The answer follows:

In the technological era, alphabetic orthographies are generally more suited for language processing tasks like lexical and grammatical analysis, translation, transliteration, and content generation. This is primarily because alphabetic systems represent individual speech sounds with distinct symbols, making it easier for computational systems to analyse and manipulate text.
Alphabetic orthographies offer more transparency in mapping sounds to symbols, facilitating tasks like machine learning algorithms for natural language processing. Additionally, alphabetic systems are often more flexible and adaptable to different languages, which is crucial for multilingual applications.

Syllabic orthographies, while efficient for representing entire syllables, can be more challenging for computers to process due to the complexity of mapping syllabic units to phonemes and the variability across languages. Therefore, for tasks related to linguistic computations, alphabetic orthographies provide a more efficient and versatile framework.

I needn’t say more. I’ll simply conclude with appreciation for the clear and impartial response provided by our new assistant, ChatGPT, which is built upon the Artificial Intelligence (AI) knowledge base.

Conclusions

The furore over the last few days surrounding Qubee versus Khuullee carries significant weight, rooted in the deep attachment of Oromos to the Qubee alphabet. Qubee, beyond serving as a crucial driver of progress over the past three decades, holds profound symbolic value, embodying the essence of the Oromo struggle and identity.

Proposing a change to a nation’s writing system cannot be treated lightly as a mere personal pursuit or hobby, as evidenced by the Khuullee debate. Such matters demand serious consideration. It is high time to institute a coordinated body of Afan Oromo Language Academy (AOLA) to engage stakeholders such as the Oromia Education Bureau, higher education Afan Oromo language departments, cultural Gadaa institutions, and scholarly national and international organizations like the Oromo Studies Association (OSA). This collaborative effort will foster research and evidence-based discourse to guide decision-making.

With regard to the debates, both traditional and digital media outlets bear the responsibility of rigorously vetting interviewees for their academic credentials and expertise, while posing incisive questions without undue hesitation. This approach is essential for distinguishing between amateurs and qualified individuals, as underscored by recent events involving Khuullee.

Furthermore, irresponsible remarks, like suggestions to alter established words or discredit aspects of Qubee’s orthography, highlight the dangers of careless discourse. Such inaccuracies, when amplified by the media, can perpetuate misinformation and confusion.

Qubee, far from being limited, reflects the capabilities and adaptability of its users. It has the potential to accommodate not only Afan Oromo but also other languages, as demonstrated by its use for Amharic (see my recent article: The Power of Afan Oromo Qubee: from Transliteration to Generating Amharic Text). Despite its imperfections, akin to any writing system, Qubee stands as a resilient symbol of linguistic identity. The enduring presence of languages like English, with their own complexities, further underscores the resilience of established writing systems. Therefore, questioning the well-established Qubee demands a critical examination of underlying motivations and the broader context of linguistic diversity.

In conclusion, while the Abugida-based Khuullee system has garnered some attention, its practicality and viability seem doomed to failure. This is because it fails to offer any notable advantages over the Qubee writing system, while simultaneously stripping away many of its benefits.