A And U

[endure]

Can someone explain to me why the letter 'u' is used in books like Becker to represent the sound of 'a' as in 'man'? For avoidance of any confusion I'm from the English Midlands.

[meadish_sweetball]

In RP English, words like 'hung', 'dung', 'sung' and 'bun' sound similar to อัง ดัง ซัง บัน, but obviously in other accents/dialects, the vowel sound in these words sounds different.

I met an Englishman (might have been from Yorkshire but I cannot quite recall) in a Chiang Mai pub a while ago, and we discussed Thai food. He told me at his own pub back home, they had introduced a number of Thai dishes which had become quite popular, and he was now in Chiang Mai to learn to cook a few more. He specifically asked about any Northern Thai dishes that might suit English palates.

I recommended แกงอังเล ([LM]kaeng [sM]hang [LM]lee) and he said right, what is that like. When I explained it was a curry with tamarind paste and pork, he recognized what I meant, and said: 'Ooh, ye mean geng hong lay?'... which made it pretty clear to me he had seen it written with a 'u'... For him to say it right, it should have been written 'hang' as well.

Whichever transcription you choose, it is bound to clash with somebody's pronunciation. While I write 'ee' for long เ as in the IPA systems, most English speakers would prefer that sound to be transcribed 'eh' or 'ay'... 'ee' they would expect to be pronounced as in 'bee'.

[endure]

Thanks for the explanation, Meadish. I suspect this is one of those questions that won't be satisfactorily answered (for me) until I can listen to an explanation face to face with someone.

[iamguava]

Thanks for the explanation, Meadish. I suspect this is one of those questions that won't be satisfactorily answered (for me) until I can listen to an explanation face to face with someone.

I am originally from Manchester, England and I think I understand your question. You are referring to transliterations like "krup" for ครับ

when you would expect "krap" right?

The reason is that most foreigners idea of the English language is based around London pronunciation. Imagine how an English person from South England would pronounce "bus" it would sound to a Northerner like it should be spelled "bas" right? The explanation really is that simple.

Another example of why learning to read Thai is so important and why ANY transliteration system can never be more than a tool to help at the very start of learning this wonderful language.

[meadish_sweetball]

iamguava - exactly.

[tgeezer]

In RP English, words like 'hung', 'dung', 'sung' and 'bun' sound similar to อัง ดัง ซัง บัน, but obviously in other accents/dialects, the vowel sound in these words sounds different.

I met an Englishman (might have been from Yorkshire but I cannot quite recall) in a Chiang Mai pub a while ago, and we discussed Thai food. He told me at his own pub back home, they had introduced a number of Thai dishes which had become quite popular, and he was now in Chiang Mai to learn to cook a few more. He specifically asked about any Northern Thai dishes that might suit English palates.

I recommended แกงอังเล ([LM]kaeng [sM]hang [LM]lee) and he said right, what is that like. When I explained it was a curry with tamarind paste and pork, he recognized what I meant, and said: 'Ooh, ye mean geng hong lay?'... which made it pretty clear to me he had seen it written with a 'u'... For him to say it right, it should have been written 'hang' as well.

Whichever transcription you choose, it is bound to clash with somebody's pronunciation. While I write 'ee' for long เ as in the IPA systems, most English speakers would prefer that sound to be transcribed 'eh' or 'ay'... 'ee' they would expect to be pronounced as in 'bee'.

Phonetics is my pet hate. What is the use of an Englishman and a New Yorker in the same class being told 'o' as in 'hot'? one says 'hot'(perfect you notice!) and the other says 'haat' or is it 'hoht','hat', or perhaps....? and so it goes on. What about two 'e's backwards and upside-down, may as well learn 'เเ' if that is the vowel referred to. I was encouraged to learn by a freind who got very good at Thai who refused to accept that the Thai system was good enough on it's own. For a linguist it is 'bread and butter, but for the average Jo who wants to learn only Thai, why not cut out the middle step and go directly to Thai?

[meadish_sweetball]

Whatever works and makes you happy. I have had plenty of use for phonetics in my language studies, and for anyone who is interested in learning more languages in the future, basic IPA knowledge is an excellent tool.

The main point of learning a phonetic system is that it is unambiguous, unlike most real life writing systems. It shows all the relevant information for you to pronounce the word correctly, with no need to memorize exceptions. Thai has its own system using Thai letters, so it is true that once you have mastered the basic rules of reading/writing, this system will be just as efficient as a pronunciation guide.

[kriswillems]

What is annoying about the transliteration/phonetic systems is that every book uses a different system.

You can't learn Thai by just reading one book. I've bought and read many books explaining Thai language to foreigners. Every book uses a different transliteration system and I ended up using the old transliteration system is the new book, resulting in studying the words incorrectly.

Futher on the transliteration systems are not easy to use by non-native English speakers. English has a limited "tone/sound"-set. I'll give just one example, but there are many other examples: To write a long "O", some books write "OR" because it sounds like a long "O" when you pronounce it in English. In many european languages you would pronounce "OR" in a different way, which makes it very hard for non-native English speakers to use transliteration systems. Also many European languages have a long "O" sound, so it's a bit stupid to write a long "O" as "OR", because there's a better alternative.

I think transliteration is useful in the very beginning, but you should avoid using 2 different transliteration systems (and thus limit yourself to one writer). I think the Benjamin Poomsan Becker books are very good, because she offers a whole series of books that use the same transliteration system.

After switching to the Thai writing system I had the feeling my Thai language improved a lot and I found out that I had been remembering many words incorrectly.

[loong]

For those who think that learning to read the Thai script is too difficult.

As Kriwillems and many others say, no transliteration method is ideal and the method differs from book to book. This means that the student actually has to learn the transliteration method; if you spend time learning this, why not use that time to study the Thai script?

Transliteration is useful at times, I use it as reference when I'm not sure how to pronounce the more complicated words, ie unwritten vowels. I also struggle with the tone rules, so this is another case where transliteration is useful for me.

Often, when I look in a dictionary, the Thai font is so small that I have difficulty identifying some of the characters, especially อี อื อิ อึ อั and even more so when there is a tone mark อี้ อื้ อิ้ อึ้ อั้. The transliteration will often give me a clue.

As for the OP อั, is usually written as "a" and sometimes "u"; to my ears neither is right and I would say that it is a shortened "ah" sound.

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

[meadish_sweetball]

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

That clearly shows the problem with basing a transliteration system on the spelling rules of a language whose own spelling rules cause more confusion than clarity, and the merits of using a system where each letter always has the same sound. It does mean you have to relearn the values of each letter, but it also ensures that once you've done this, you'll never need to worry about it again.

[tgeezer]

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

That clearly shows the problem with basing a transliteration system on the spelling rules of a language whose own spelling rules cause more confusion than clarity, and the merits of using a system where each letter always has the same sound. It does mean you have to relearn the values of each letter, but it also ensures that once you've done this, you'll never need to worry about it again.

I think we should distinguish between transliterate and phoneticize, noone has a problem with transliteration which has to follow the spelling of the word and has little to do with pronunciation although sometimes you can get lucky, I call 'Sawasdi' unlucky!

[endure]

Thanks for the explanation, Meadish. I suspect this is one of those questions that won't be satisfactorily answered (for me) until I can listen to an explanation face to face with someone.

I am originally from Manchester, England and I think I understand your question. You are referring to transliterations like "krup" for ครับ

when you would expect "krap" right?

The reason is that most foreigners idea of the English language is based around London pronunciation. Imagine how an English person from South England would pronounce "bus" it would sound to a Northerner like it should be spelled "bas" right? The explanation really is that simple.

Blimey, those southern wusses get everywhere

[meadish_sweetball]

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

That clearly shows the problem with basing a transliteration system on the spelling rules of a language whose own spelling rules cause more confusion than clarity, and the merits of using a system where each letter always has the same sound. It does mean you have to relearn the values of each letter, but it also ensures that once you've done this, you'll never need to worry about it again.

I think we should distinguish between transliterate and phoneticize, noone has a problem with transliteration which has to follow the spelling of the word and has little to do with pronunciation although sometimes you can get lucky, I call 'Sawasdi' unlucky!

You're right, the word I should have used above is 'transcription' rather than 'transliteration' - I get them mixed up sometimes - more about the difference here.

[tgeezer]

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

That clearly shows the problem with basing a transliteration system on the spelling rules of a language whose own spelling rules cause more confusion than clarity, and the merits of using a system where each letter always has the same sound. It does mean you have to relearn the values of each letter, but it also ensures that once you've done this, you'll never need to worry about it again.

I think we should distinguish between transliterate and phoneticize, noone has a problem with transliteration which has to follow the spelling of the word and has little to do with pronunciation although sometimes you can get lucky, I call 'Sawasdi' unlucky!

You're right, the word I should have used above is 'transcription' rather than 'transliteration' - I get them mixed up sometimes - more about the difference here.

I don't know where Wikepedia gets it's info from but I just go for the good old OED when I need a word and that word is phonetics. The bigger and much fuller description in your source seems designed to baffle with bs.

[meadish_sweetball]

I don't know where Wikepedia gets it's info from but I just go for the good old OED when I need a word and that word is phonetics.

Not sure I understand what you mean. Are you trying to say 'transcribe' is incorrect and 'phoneticize' is correct? In that case I have to disagree. I am sure OED has an entry on 'transcribe' as well, fitting the definition given in Wikipedia.

The fact that two words can be used to describe the same thing does not really mean one is more correct than the other. The important thing is that it is clear what one means when using a word. I use 'transcribe' because it is the word most often used in linguistics, and the one I am most familiar with from my Thai studies. That doesn't mean phoneticize is incorrect though.

The bigger and much fuller description in your source seems designed to baffle with bs.

In the field of linguistics, 'transcribe' and 'transcription' are both used as described in the Wikipedia article. No bs there in my opinion, even though admittedly the article is long-winded and rather dry/scientific. Wikipedia is by no means perfect, but it is a free service and usually accurate enough.

[tgeezer]

I don't know where Wikepedia gets it's info from but I just go for the good old OED when I need a word and that word is phonetics.

Not sure I understand what you mean. Are you trying to say 'transcribe' is incorrect and 'phoneticize' is correct? In that case I have to disagree. I am sure OED has an entry on 'transcribe' as well, fitting the definition given in Wikipedia.

The fact that two words can be used to describe the same thing does not really mean one is more correct than the other. The important thing is that it is clear what one means when using a word. I use 'transcribe' because it is the word most often used in linguistics, and the one I am most familiar with from my Thai studies. That doesn't mean phoneticize is incorrect though.

The bigger and much fuller description in your source seems designed to baffle with bs.

In the field of linguistics, 'transcribe' and 'transcription' are both used as described in the Wikipedia article. No bs there in my opinion, even though admittedly the article is long-winded and rather dry/scientific. Wikipedia is by no means perfect, but it is a free service and usually accurate enough.

Of course I have looked it up and transcribe is merely to copy and transliterate is another form of copy specific to language, whereas phoneticize is copy in a form which attempts to reproduce sounds specifically. Imo using transcribe for sounds is uneccesary and can lead to confusion of the two similar words. After all it is only a language which I suppose makes this entire post uneccessary, had my dictionary been printed in a different time it would probaly be different. And if Wikepedia becomes the authority; anarchy!

[Richard W]

As Kriwillems and many others say, no transliteration method is ideal and the method differs from book to book. This means that the student actually has to learn the transliteration method; if you spend time learning this, why not use that time to study the Thai script?

The problem is that most schemes assume the learner wil only learn one foreign language. Meadish and I are happy with IPA because it is knowledge that transfers and is useful for learning other languages. I didn't learn the IPA to learn Thai.

Of course, there are subtleties to using Thai to write pronunciation. You may get some very odd looks if you write that <เงิน> is pronounced [เงิน็], but I have a dictionary published in Chaingmai that uses that very system in transliterations [sic] into the Thai script. (The transliterations aren't fully reversible, and have a touch of transcription about them.)

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

That would conflict with the rules of English, and stressed อะ is flatter than อั. Note that English 'the' may be transcribed as เดอะ.

[tgeezer]

odd looks if you write that <เงิน> is pronounced [เงิน็], but I have a dictionary published in Chaingmai that uses that very system in transliterations [sic] into the Thai script. (The transliterations aren't fully reversible, and have a touch of transcription about them.)

It is considered that อั is the same as อะ, but the latter is used when there is no final consonant. Yet I have never seen อะ written as "u".

To whom it may concern; See, I don't understand this, a dictionary normally only shows a translation, why not write translation? I have no idea how to transliterate Money into Thai? We are at cross swords here possibly because the characters in Thai cannot easily be represented very closely in English the vowels being all over the place, I should imagine that Chinese must present some added difficulty, that is perhaps why the confusion arises. Transliteration is to represent a word in the closest coresponding letters or characters of a different language, which is why Sawasdi is spelt the way it is, that is a transliteration. If we put a 't' instead of an 's' we have phoneticised it, doesn't that have a touch of common sense about it? Anyway as someone is already saying I expect "life is too short"

Edited February 3, 2007 by tgeezer

[meadish_sweetball]

I don't know where Wikepedia gets it's info from but I just go for the good old OED when I need a word and that word is phonetics.

Not sure I understand what you mean. Are you trying to say 'transcribe' is incorrect and 'phoneticize' is correct? In that case I have to disagree. I am sure OED has an entry on 'transcribe' as well, fitting the definition given in Wikipedia.

The fact that two words can be used to describe the same thing does not really mean one is more correct than the other. The important thing is that it is clear what one means when using a word. I use 'transcribe' because it is the word most often used in linguistics, and the one I am most familiar with from my Thai studies. That doesn't mean phoneticize is incorrect though.

The bigger and much fuller description in your source seems designed to baffle with bs.

In the field of linguistics, 'transcribe' and 'transcription' are both used as described in the Wikipedia article. No bs there in my opinion, even though admittedly the article is long-winded and rather dry/scientific. Wikipedia is by no means perfect, but it is a free service and usually accurate enough.

Of course I have looked it up and transcribe is merely to copy and transliterate is another form of copy specific to language, whereas phoneticize is copy in a form which attempts to reproduce sounds specifically. Imo using transcribe for sounds is uneccesary and can lead to confusion of the two similar words. After all it is only a language which I suppose makes this entire post uneccessary, had my dictionary been printed in a different time it would probaly be different. And if Wikepedia becomes the authority; anarchy!

I fail to see where I said Wikipedia was to be regarded as an authority.

I used Wikipedia as a reference because their explanation of 'transcribe' is similar to the explanation given when I studied linguistics and Thai at university. It is impossible to link to the OED because their online version is a pay service. I do have the complete entry for 'transcribe' from Merriam-Webster's Unabridged though - please see below:

Merriam Webster:

Main Entry:transcribe

Pronunciation:tranz*kr*, traan-, -n(t)*sk-

Function:verb

Inflected Form:-ed/-ing/-s

Etymology:Latin transcribere, from trans- + scribere to write * more at SCRIBE

transitive verb

1 a : to make a written copy of *scrupulously transcribed from the surviving manuscripts of the war years D.C.Mearns* b : to make a copy of (dictated or recorded matter) in longhand or especially on a typewriter *taking dictation in the mornings, transcribing correspondence in the afternoons Jean Holloway* *take letters down in shorthand or on the dictating machine and transcribe them on the typewriter E.M.Robinson*; specifically : to read aloud (shorthand notes) *lay aside this book and orally transcribe your shorthand notes Law Stenographer* c : to reproduce in writing by more or less exact quotation : PARAPHRASE, SUMMARIZE *I need not transcribe any more of this part of the s*ance Beverley Nichols* *what he expressed as a mere surmise was transcribed by others as a positive statement Richard Semon* d : to write down : RECORD *a unique achievement in the amazing fidelity with which it transcribes the life and mentality of an alien people Amy Loveman* *if one looks the jungle straight in the face and transcribes what is seen William Beebe* *is endowed with T an unerring ear for transcribing speech Angel Flores*

2 obsolete : ASCRIBE, IMPUTE

3 a (1) : TRANSLITERATE *the larger part T would be unintelligible if transcribed in an alphabet or syllabary K.S.Latourette* *transcribed into Cyrillic characters from the original Glagolitic R.G.A.DeBray* *his hobby is transcribing books into braille New York Herald Tribune* (2) : to represent (speech sounds) by means of phonetic symbols *the letter b transcribe s Greek beta, which represented a phoneme with both stop and spirant allophones W.G.Moulton* (3) : to arrange (the letters of a cryptogram) by a prescribed route or system *there are 39 routes by which the letters in the rectangle might have been transcribed to form the cryptogram J.M.Wolfe* b : TRANSLATE 2a *transcribed English hymns into German American Guide Series: Pennsylvania* c : to transfer or convey (as information) from one recording form to another *the account number could then be transcribed to the receiving ticket H.D.McGuigan* *reproducers´automatically transcribe punching from one card to another H.C.Zeisig & P.T.Martin*

4 obsolete : COPY, IMITATE

5 : to make a musical transcription of *originally written for organ, the work was transcribed for symphony orchestra Current Biography*

6 a : to broadcast (a radio or television program) by electrical transcription b : to record (as on magnetic tape) for later broadcast

intransitive verb

1 a : to make a copy of something in writing *shall begin to transcribe again and polish T.B.Macaulay* b : to reproduce in writing dictated or recorded matter *ability to take dictation easily and transcribe accurately on the typewriter Gregg Dictation Simplified* *the belts are mailed to the T office for transcribing Dun's Review* c : to write down, set forth, or produce a factual or objective representation *some transcribe directly from nature Thomas Munro* *no artist is content to transcribe New Mexico Quarterly*

2 : TRANSLATE 1 a *this question of whether they should T transcribe into modern idiom H.L.Savage*ô¹

It is true 'transcribe' has more connotations than 'phoneticize' and that it could possibly cause some confusion given that no more context is given. Nevertheless, it is commonly used by linguists in exactly the sense marked in bold above.

I take it you're not a fan of the Sex Pistols, then?

[tgeezer]

I don't know where Wikepedia gets it's info from but I just go for the good old OED when I need a word and that word is phonetics.

Not sure I understand what you mean. Are you trying to say 'transcribe' is incorrect and 'phoneticize' is correct? In that case I have to disagree. I am sure OED has an entry on 'transcribe' as well, fitting the definition given in Wikipedia.

The fact that two words can be used to describe the same thing does not really mean one is more correct than the other. The important thing is that it is clear what one means when using a word. I use 'transcribe' because it is the word most often used in linguistics, and the one I am most familiar with from my Thai studies. That doesn't mean phoneticize is incorrect though.

The bigger and much fuller description in your source seems designed to baffle with bs.

In the field of linguistics, 'transcribe' and 'transcription' are both used as described in the Wikipedia article. No bs there in my opinion, even though admittedly the article is long-winded and rather dry/scientific. Wikipedia is by no means perfect, but it is a free service and usually accurate enough.

Of course I have looked it up and transcribe is merely to copy and transliterate is another form of copy specific to language, whereas phoneticize is copy in a form which attempts to reproduce sounds specifically. Imo using transcribe for sounds is uneccesary and can lead to confusion of the two similar words. After all it is only a language which I suppose makes this entire post uneccessary, had my dictionary been printed in a different time it would probaly be different. And if Wikepedia becomes the authority; anarchy!

I fail to see where I said Wikipedia was to be regarded as an authority.

I used Wikipedia as a reference because their explanation of 'transcribe' is similar to the explanation given when I studied linguistics and Thai at university. It is impossible to link to the OED because their online version is a pay service. I do have the complete entry for 'transcribe' from Merriam-Webster's Unabridged though - please see below:

Merriam Webster:

Main Entry:transcribe

Pronunciation:tranz*kr*, traan-, -n(t)*sk-

Function:verb

Inflected Form:-ed/-ing/-s

Etymology:Latin transcribere, from trans- + scribere to write * more at SCRIBE

transitive verb

1 a : to make a written copy of *scrupulously transcribed from the surviving manuscripts of the war years D.C.Mearns* b : to make a copy of (dictated or recorded matter) in longhand or especially on a typewriter *taking dictation in the mornings, transcribing correspondence in the afternoons Jean Holloway* *take letters down in shorthand or on the dictating machine and transcribe them on the typewriter E.M.Robinson*; specifically : to read aloud (shorthand notes) *lay aside this book and orally transcribe your shorthand notes Law Stenographer* c : to reproduce in writing by more or less exact quotation : PARAPHRASE, SUMMARIZE *I need not transcribe any more of this part of the s*ance Beverley Nichols* *what he expressed as a mere surmise was transcribed by others as a positive statement Richard Semon* d : to write down : RECORD *a unique achievement in the amazing fidelity with which it transcribes the life and mentality of an alien people Amy Loveman* *if one looks the jungle straight in the face and transcribes what is seen William Beebe* *is endowed with T an unerring ear for transcribing speech Angel Flores*

2 obsolete : ASCRIBE, IMPUTE

3 a (1) : TRANSLITERATE *the larger part T would be unintelligible if transcribed in an alphabet or syllabary K.S.Latourette* *transcribed into Cyrillic characters from the original Glagolitic R.G.A.DeBray* *his hobby is transcribing books into braille New York Herald Tribune* (2) : to represent (speech sounds) by means of phonetic symbols *the letter b transcribe s Greek beta, which represented a phoneme with both stop and spirant allophones W.G.Moulton* (3) : to arrange (the letters of a cryptogram) by a prescribed route or system *there are 39 routes by which the letters in the rectangle might have been transcribed to form the cryptogram J.M.Wolfe* b : TRANSLATE 2a *transcribed English hymns into German American Guide Series: Pennsylvania* c : to transfer or convey (as information) from one recording form to another *the account number could then be transcribed to the receiving ticket H.D.McGuigan* *reproducers´automatically transcribe punching from one card to another H.C.Zeisig & P.T.Martin*

4 obsolete : COPY, IMITATE

5 : to make a musical transcription of *originally written for organ, the work was transcribed for symphony orchestra Current Biography*

6 a : to broadcast (a radio or television program) by electrical transcription b : to record (as on magnetic tape) for later broadcast

intransitive verb

1 a : to make a copy of something in writing *shall begin to transcribe again and polish T.B.Macaulay* b : to reproduce in writing dictated or recorded matter *ability to take dictation easily and transcribe accurately on the typewriter Gregg Dictation Simplified* *the belts are mailed to the T office for transcribing Dun's Review* c : to write down, set forth, or produce a factual or objective representation *some transcribe directly from nature Thomas Munro* *no artist is content to transcribe New Mexico Quarterly*

2 : TRANSLATE 1 a *this question of whether they should T transcribe into modern idiom H.L.Savage*ô¹

It is true 'transcribe' has more connotations than 'phoneticize' and that it could possibly cause some confusion given that no more context is given. Nevertheless, it is commonly used by linguists in exactly the sense marked in bold above.

I take it you're not a fan of the Sex Pistols, then?

Gosh we do go on; the highlighted part seems to be written in some kind of shorthand and I don't understand a word of it, it is in fact, Greek to me! Would you say that Sawasdi is a misspelling? My dictionary is not up to date of course and times change, but it is so that the 'Ivory Towers' have to so complicate things to put them out of reach of the unlettered.

[meadish_sweetball]

Gosh we do go on; the highlighted part seems to be written in some kind of shorthand and I don't understand a word of it, it is in fact, Greek to me!

The final part is just a quote showing usage of the word in context, and not important to the definition. Surely the first part, the definition "to represent (speech sounds) by means of phonetic symbols" is clear enough though?

Would you say that Sawasdi is a misspelling?

The only correct spelling is สวัสดี.

'Sawasdi' is reasonable as a transliteration if we are not interested in being able to pronounce the original word, although if we want to keep a straight transliteration, 'swasdi' would be better - the first /a/ sound is not represented by an actual letter in the Thai writing.

As a phonemic transcription (or 'phoneticization' if you will), "sawasdi" is not of much use, because it fails to represent some crucial aspects of Thai such as vowel length, obligatory phonemic tone on each syllable, and the changed pronunciation of ส when it occurs in syllable-final position.

A reasonably good phonemic rendition is /sawàd dii/ - but that is still not perfect.

[tgeezer]

Gosh we do go on; the highlighted part seems to be written in some kind of shorthand and I don't understand a word of it, it is in fact, Greek to me!

The final part is just a quote showing usage of the word in context, and not important to the definition. Surely the first part, the definition "to represent (speech sounds) by means of phonetic symbols" is clear enough though?

Would you say that Sawasdi is a misspelling?

The only correct spelling is สวัสดี.

'Sawasdi' is reasonable as a transliteration if we are not interested in being able to pronounce the original word, although if we want to keep a straight transliteration, 'swasdi' would be better - the first /a/ sound is not represented by an actual letter in the Thai writing.

As a phonemic transcription (or 'phoneticization' if you will), "sawasdi" is not of much use, because it fails to represent some crucial aspects of Thai such as vowel length, obligatory phonemic tone on each syllable, and the changed pronunciation of ส when it occurs in syllable-final position.

A reasonably good phonemic rendition is /sawàd dii/ - but that is still not perfect.

OK, I will drop the argument, I dont use Roman characters anyway, and go on to pick your brains. I hadn't noticed that Sawasdi has the 'a' vowel which isn't in the word, too intense on the English argument I suppose. in my book for these words they say ออกเสียงอะเพียงครึ่งเสียง for this vowel, is it as simple as that?

[meadish_sweetball]

Yep, that is a good way of expressing it - it is just a passing sound, but dropping it altogether, as in English 'swift' is too quick and won't sound quite right.

[Richard W]

odd looks if you write that <เงิน> is pronounced [เงิน็], but I have a dictionary published in Chaingmai that uses that very system in transliterations [sic] into the Thai script. (The transliterations aren't fully reversible, and have a touch of transcription about them.)

To whom it may concern; See, I don't understand this, a dictionary normally only shows a translation, why not write translation?

It's a Northern Thai to Siamese dictionary. The head words are given in the local script (likely to be formally designated as 'Lanna' in ISO standards, but also known as Tua Mueang and occasionally as the Tham script) and transliterated into the Thai script, and then the meaning is given in Siamese. Cross-references to other words or spellings are given in the Thai script.

[tgeezer]

odd looks if you write that <เงิน> is pronounced [เงิน็], but I have a dictionary published in Chaingmai that uses that very system in transliterations [sic] into the Thai script. (The transliterations aren't fully reversible, and have a touch of transcription about them.)

To whom it may concern; See, I don't understand this, a dictionary normally only shows a translation, why not write translation?

It's a Northern Thai to Siamese dictionary. The head words are given in the local script (likely to be formally designated as 'Lanna' in ISO standards, but also known as Tua Mueang and occasionally as the Tham script) and transliterated into the Thai script, and then the meaning is given in Siamese. Cross-references to other words or spellings are given in the Thai script.

That's interesting and just out of curiosity does the Lanna have a 'ร'. Someone pointed out in a post the error of "fallang" and I find myself saying 'sala' sometimes for vowel. Had to look it up the other day to correct. If One is around Northerners it is easy to slip into it, they say it is correct I wonder if it is.

[meadish_sweetball]

just out of curiosity does the Lanna have a 'ร

Richard will have to answer questions about the Lanna script as I do not know it. It is clear though that there is no /r/ sound in spoken 'kham mueang' (Northern Thai).

The Lao alphabet has a symbol similar to ร but it is not pronounced /r/ either, it is a /l/.

[In the Rai!]

just out of curiosity does the Lanna have a 'ร

Richard will have to answer questions about the Lanna script as I do not know it. It is clear though that there is no /r/ sound in spoken 'kham mueang' (Northern Thai).

I dont think this is correct Meadish (unless you are talking about 'kham mueang' Northern Thai language at its origin and maybe has been changed throughout the years). Now there is definately an /r/ ร in the language, but I dont know if it always has been.

Most of the time the ฮ replaces ร but not all the time. For example, the word รวม does not get changed to ฮวม and รถ does not get changed to ฮถ they remain unchanged and therefore ร does exist. These are just 2 examples but there are more.

Most of the time it does get changed and so it can be easy to get caught out. I hope maybe Richard has a rule on it as to when to know when to change it to ฮ and when not to.

cheers ITR

[meadish_sweetball]

I am talking about 'kham mueang'.

Siamese Thai (Standard Thai) as spoken by Northerners is something else (i.e. Siamese Thai with a Northern accent). It is true that in Siamese ร represents a rolling /r/, but in real 'kham mueang' speech, no word is pronounced with that same type of rolling /r/.

The ร - ฮ is only apparent in some words like โรงเรียน - โฮงเฮียน, in others, like รถ the sound is /lód/ in kham mueang. Is there an /r/ phoneme in the Lanna script - I don't know, but I doubt it. Even if 'kham mueang', like Lao, has a letter that looks like ร, it is not for certain that this letter has ever represented the same sound.

I guess it is possible that it did, but I would say it is equally possible that ร pronounced as a rolling /r/ is in fact a pronunciation which ultimately comes from Khmer influence (Central Thai has lots of Khmer loan words - the Tai peoples who migrated down along the river valleys from the South of China got further and further into city states which paid tribute to the Khmer court, and where the officials and people of importance would speak Khmer. The 'khon mueang' up in the North never got that close to the heart of the Khmer empire though, so possibly (I am speculating here, but still) they never adapted the /r/ pronunciation... Meanwhile the educated classes of the Siamese in the South introduced the /r/ pronunciation on the Khmer model. Power languages are prestige languages, and throughout history are often (mistakenly) seen as more advanced languages just because they happen to be spoken by a more powerful culture...

I have never heard Northern villagers anywhere who pronounce /r/ when they speak their own dialect, only when they speak Central Thai (and even then, many of them retain the /l/ sound for words spelled with ร).

For example, the word รวม does not get changed to ฮวม and รถ does not get changed to ฮถ they remain unchanged and therefore ร does exist.

This sounds like a false assumption that 'kham mueang' is a deviation from Siamese, but it is not. It has its own rules and its own writing system, as well as its own phonetic set of sounds. When using the Siamese Thai alphabet to write 'kham mueang' we are in fact transcribing it (phoneticizing it) in a different alphabet...

[In the Rai!]

I am talking about 'kham mueang'.

Siamese Thai (Standard Thai) as spoken by Northerners is something else (i.e. Siamese Thai with a Northern accent). It is true that in Siamese ร represents a rolling /r/, but in real 'kham mueang' speech, no word is pronounced with that same type of rolling /r/.

The ร - ฮ is only apparent in some words like โรงเรียน - โฮงเฮียน, in others, like รถ the sound is /lód/ in kham mueang. Is there an /r/ phoneme in the Lanna script - I don't know, but I doubt it. Even if 'kham mueang', like Lao, has a letter that looks like ร, it is not for certain that this letter has ever represented the same sound.

I guess it is possible that it did, but I would say it is equally possible that ร pronounced as a rolling /r/ is in fact a pronunciation which ultimately comes from Khmer influence (Central Thai has lots of Khmer loan words - the Tai peoples who migrated down along the river valleys from the South of China got further and further into city states which paid tribute to the Khmer court, and where the officials and people of importance would speak Khmer. The 'khon mueang' up in the North never got that close to the heart of the Khmer empire though, so possibly (I am speculating here, but still) they never adapted the /r/ pronunciation... Meanwhile the educated classes of the Siamese in the South introduced the /r/ pronunciation on the Khmer model. Power languages are prestige languages, and throughout history are often (mistakenly) seen as more advanced languages just because they happen to be spoken by a more powerful culture...

I have never heard Northern villagers anywhere who pronounce /r/ when they speak their own dialect, only when they speak Central Thai (and even then, many of them retain the /l/ sound for words spelled with ร).

For example, the word รวม does not get changed to ฮวม and รถ does not get changed to ฮถ they remain unchanged and therefore ร does exist.

This sounds like a false assumption that 'kham mueang' is a deviation from Siamese, but it is not. It has its own rules and its own writing system, as well as its own phonetic set of sounds. When using the Siamese Thai alphabet to write 'kham mueang' we are in fact transcribing it (phoneticizing it) in a different alphabet...

Meadish,

'kham mueang' is Northern Thai and I always thought that 'kham mueang' was always just a deviation of passa glarng and not its own sounds etc with an exception of the ร/ฮ rule. There are many many other words used in Northern Thai that are slowly being replaced by passa glarng words but I always thought they carried the same sounds and rules.

cheers ITR

Edited February 5, 2007 by In the Rai!

[meadish_sweetball]

We are touching on the difference between a dialect and a language here, and sometimes it is difficult to make a distinction... for political reasons.

The classic definition is 'a language is a dialect with a navy and an army'...

If we ponder the situation here in Thailand we can see that borders have gone back and forth over the centuries. If these Northern provinces had retained their independence from Bangkok (remember Lanna had its own Royal Family, an army etc.), no doubt the Lanna language would be seen as a distinct language from Central Thai, just like Lao is seen as a different language today.

But history would have Lanna become part of Thailand.

If we look at Scandinavia as a contrast, there are now three national languages - spoken in Norway, Sweden and Denmark - all of these languages are offshoots from Old Norse (which in turn also had dialects).

In reality, despite Swedish, Norwegian and Danish having differences in vocabulary, writing conventions and pronunciation, these national languages, when spoken, are so close they could easily be counted as dialects of the same language - I can communicate quite well with Norwegians who do not speak one of the more extreme dialects or use too much slang, while still speaking Swedish myself.

If Laos and Thailand by historical events would be one and the same country today, people would probably discuss if Lao was a dialect of Thai or its own language (or the other way around, depending on where the power centre would be!).