Richard W

You're missing the point that it works against monkeypox.

A versatile Thai passive used to sound a bit stilted - as though the text were a translation of English. The ถูก/โดน construction is meant for passives where the patient suffers. It has been argued that the somewhat unusual word order reflects the original semantics. I'm not sure whether หมา is the correct word for 'dog' in your sentences; does the vileness of its behaviour permit one to refer to it as หมา rather than สุนัข?

In general, I don't believe one can transliterate a text oneself and then quote the transliteration as an example of the spelling in that writing system. In general, transliteration is not copyrightable - nowadays it is often delegated to computers. There may be some creative leeway when the 'transliteration' is not dictated by the text, as with the RTGS, e.g. Phetburi v, Phetchaburi. I haven't heard of any Mahayana texts around in the Thai script. I'd expect them to be in the Khom script.

Sanskrit is alleged to be written in the Thai script, and I'd like to document some of this usage. However, in practical terms it's easier to find examples of English written in the Thai script or Thai written in the Roman script, neither of which would be accepted on Wiktionary. I'm pretty sure the Sanskrit etyma in the RID would no more be accepted on their own than would the Khmer etyma, which are also given in the Thai script. The reason for choosing the Bhagavad Gita is that out of copyright translations are available. If I felt automatically generated transcriptions would be acceptable, I could use a transliteration of the Bengali or Devanagari script (I forget which it is) translation into Sanskrit of the New Testament. There are public domain translations into English of the New Testament.

Actually, for me 'double 'e'' is a single bouncy key stroke! Also, I wouldn't be surprised to find ro han (รร) being spelt out as 'ro han'.

The old system is not quite as simple. It's onset consonants first, then the tone mark if the vowel is all to the right of the onset consonants, then the vowel, then the tone mark if not already said, than karan. This ใหม่ 'new' is ho hip, mo ma, sara ai maimuan, mai ek. I don't think the compound vowel symbols are treated as units in the modern system, but spelt out individually, so the เชียง bit would be sara e, cho chang, sara ii, yo yak, ngo ngu - as you type it, which is simpler, and handles anomalous spellings like เทอม 'term', which by the rules should be *เทิม.

It does seem as though Thais have forgotten the system that Stubby learnt. That system is taught at the end of Section 10B (in the 5th edition) of 'the fundamentals of the Thai Language' by Campbell and Shaweewongs. Their most useful example is เดี๋ยวนี้ spelt out as 'do sara ia mai chattawa wo no sara ii mai tho', or in their transcription, 'DOR SARA EE-A MȲ JUTDTAWAH WOR, NOR SARA EE MȲTŌ'. Coda consonants are treated as though in separate syllables. However, that system seems to have become moribund by the time I realised that I didn't know how to distinguish modern and old เฉผาะ from reformed ฉเผาะ. Nowadays Thais spell out as they type, as stated by ColeBOzbourne.

Is it possible to buy a copy of the Bhagavad Gita written in Thai letters in the normal way for Sanskrit? I nearly bought a copy of ภควัต-กีตา ฉบับเดิม (the Thai edition of [i]the Bhagavad Gita As It Is[/i]), but I found that the Thai script was actually a phonetic transliteration of the Devanagari version, with such oddities as do dek for Devanagari da (द), instead of the tho thahan one sees in the etymology section of Thai dictionaries. I next tried the translation 'the Bhagavadgita : A Thai Version', only to find that it did not contain the Sanskrit at all. (Preview pages were restricted to the introduction.) I'm looking for something that a library might keep a copy of, so that it is 'durably archived' in the Wiktionary sense.