There appear to us to be so many misconceptions in Mr. Davies’ criticism of our paper “The Kababish” that some comment seems necessary. We would point out to Mr. Davies that a virgin camel is still a she-camel. A more careful perusal of the article might have indicated that in writing “a she-camel called bakra” we were not making an inaccurate statement nor confusing bakra for naqa but rather stating precisely that…by analogy with the use of the word for virgin, it is clear that virgin camels are indicated. For greater clarity the passage might read “she-camels of the kind called bakra”.
-Letter to the Editor, C.G and Brenda Seligman, Sudan Notes and Records, 1921, in reply to a negative review in a previous issue
The virginity of the she-camel was not in question. I was merely pointing out that bakra should be spelled with a kaf and not a qaf.
-Letter to the Editor, R.Davies, in the same issue
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the back and forth between the Seligmans and Mr. Davies about their study of the Kababish published in the Harvard African Studies series seems much like a sand storm in a goat skin. So what?… they got the word for a virgin she-camel wrong. I once got the word for a camel fart wrong. I said fuswa when I meant ‘afeet, and in fact I should have said zurta. KhairAllah said, The sound camels make out their back end depends on what they’ve been eating and when last they’ve been watered and how fast they’ve been walking. It all makes a difference, especially to the Ingeeleez in the old days and to you Amreecaan these days. By Allah, why does it matter?