Wording Of Bangkok Question

[cali4995]

i'm very much a beginner, only starting to read. i was at morchit bus station last week and i was looking at destinations written on the front of the bus. there is กรุงเทพ and then one more funky symbol after that? what does that mean? and is this pronounced groong-thep or kroong-thep?

p.s. the symbol i'm referring to looks almost like an upside down #2?

[BambinA]

I guess you have seen the word กรุงเทพฯ (ฯ is a sign of abbreviation )

กรุงเทพฯ = กรุงเทพมหานคร ( Groong Thep Mahanakhon) >>(Mahanakhon =metropolis)..You may see some people spell it likes "Krung(Thep)" .Anyway it pronouces like "Groong" ( G as gun ,gang ,great)

[Richard W]

and is this pronounced groong-thep or kroong-thep?

No, but you'll be understood with the first one.

[Neeranam]

"groong thayp" is the way someone from my country would write it.

[cali4995]

I guess you have seen the word กรุงเทพฯ (ฯ is a sign of abbreviation )

กรุงเทพฯ = กรุงเทพมหานคร ( Groong Thep Mahanakhon) >>(Mahanakhon =metropolis)..You may see some people spell it likes "Krung(Thep)" .Anyway it pronouces like "Groong" ( G as gun ,gang ,great)

yes, bambina that is the one. an abbreviation symbol, that makes sense. you often see it spelled on signs with a "k" kroong-thep but it's actually pronounced with a "g". that must be like that word for central "glang" that is also spelled with a "k". yes, i've gotten to the point where i just try and read a little or write the word on a piece of paper, it seems easier than trying to communicate with my mangled pronunciation. thanks everyone

[Richard W]

you often see it spelled on signs with a "k" kroong-thep but it's actually pronounced with a "g".

If it's a "g", it's a Chinese one. It's pronounced with the first [k] of 'skunk'.

[aanon]

i'm very much a beginner, only starting to read. i was at morchit bus station last week and i was looking at destinations written on the front of the bus. there is กรุงเทพ and then one more funky symbol after that? what does that mean? and is this pronounced groong-thep or kroong-thep?

p.s. the symbol i'm referring to looks almost like an upside down #2?

hi there,

on the funky symbol question, the symbol ฯ is called ไปยาลน้อย (pai yaan noi) and is used to shorten words/names/statements. for example, as bambina said, กรุงเทพฯ = กรุงเทพมหานคร.

there is also another symbol ฯลฯ called ไปยาลใหญ่ (pai yaan yai) which is used like etc. in English.

eg. ในหลายจังหวัดของภาคอีสาน ได้แก่ สุรินทร์ บุรีรัมย์ ขอนแก่น ฯลฯ (example from wikipedia)

In (the) several provinces of the Isarn region, namely Surin, Buriram, Khonkaen etc.

you read ฯลฯ as "ละ" or "ละอื่น ๆ". on the other hand, ฯ has no sound of its own except that you may/should pronounce the unshortened version. much like an English speaker would pronounce "Dept. of Phil." as "Department of Philosophy".

all the best.

ps. standard apologies for my lack of a consistent transliteration system.

[cali4995]

i'm very much a beginner, only starting to read. i was at morchit bus station last week and i was looking at destinations written on the front of the bus. there is กรุงเทพ and then one more funky symbol after that? what does that mean? and is this pronounced groong-thep or kroong-thep?

p.s. the symbol i'm referring to looks almost like an upside down #2?

hi there,

on the funky symbol question, the symbol ฯ is called ไปยาลน้อย (pai yaan noi) and is used to shorten words/names/statements. for example, as bambina said, กรุงเทพฯ = กรุงเทพมหานคร.

there is also another symbol ฯลฯ called ไปยาลใหญ่ (pai yaan yai) which is used like etc. in English.

eg. ในหลายจังหวัดของภาคอีสาน ได้แก่ สุรินทร์ บุรีรัมย์ ขอนแก่น ฯลฯ (example from wikipedia)

In (the) several provinces of the Isarn region, namely Surin, Buriram, Khonkaen etc.

you read ฯลฯ as "ละ" or "ละอื่น ๆ". on the other hand, ฯ has no sound of its own except that you may/should pronounce the unshortened version. much like an English speaker would pronounce "Dept. of Phil." as "Department of Philosophy".

all the best.

ps. standard apologies for my lack of a consistent transliteration system.

yes aanon, i think the transliteration issue is a big stumbling block (well, for me anyway).

if i can learn a little rule i try and match it with an example so i can remember. this thai province mukdahan

( มุกดาหาร ) i know that's a มุ ( moo) and ก is gor-gai so wouldn't it be moog-da-han? i thought this was just a running joke the thais had to keep us perpetually confused with english misspellings, maybe it's just me.

p.s. as an american english speaker it's safe to assume it's just me

[mangkorn]

i'm very much a beginner, only starting to read. i was at morchit bus station last week and i was looking at destinations written on the front of the bus. there is ??????? and then one more funky symbol after that? what does that mean? and is this pronounced groong-thep or kroong-thep?

p.s. the symbol i'm referring to looks almost like an upside down #2?

hi there,

on the funky symbol question, the symbol ? is called ????????? (pai yaan noi) and is used to shorten words/names/statements. for example, as bambina said, ???????? = ?????????????.

there is also another symbol ??? called ????????? (pai yaan yai) which is used like etc. in English.

eg. ???????????????????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??? (example from wikipedia)

In (the) several provinces of the Isarn region, namely Surin, Buriram, Khonkaen etc.

you read ??? as "??" or "?????? ?". on the other hand, ? has no sound of its own except that you may/should pronounce the unshortened version. much like an English speaker would pronounce "Dept. of Phil." as "Department of Philosophy".

all the best.

ps. standard apologies for my lack of a consistent transliteration system.

yes aanon, i think the transliteration issue is a big stumbling block (well, for me anyway).

if i can learn a little rule i try and match it with an example so i can remember. this thai province mukdahan

( ???????? ) i know that's a ?? ( moo) and ? is gor-gai so wouldn't it be moog-da-han? i thought this was just a running joke the thais had to keep us perpetually confused with english misspellings, maybe it's just me.

p.s. as an american english speaker it's safe to assume it's just me

Of course, there are many opinions on transliteration and pronunciation, but in the example you use, I think it helps to be mindful of whether the consonant

begins or ends the syllable. In a word like "gai," it has a "g" sound, but when it comes at the end, the "gor gai" takes on a harder sound, more like a "k."

It is important to know what happens to many Thai characters when they come at the end of the syllable, if for no other reason than to avoid the odious and preposterous "Sawasdee."

I've also always wondered why transliterations use the Roman letter "v" - as in Sukhumvit - when there is no corresponding sound to that letter in Thai. And while I'm on the subject, when are they going to drop the "i" at the end of the transliterated name of the new airport? In Thai, there is no vowel sound at the end, and thus there is absolutely no reason to transliterate it that way.

Same goes for the name of the venerable king, which is not "Bhumipol," but "Bhumipon." The "lor ling" becomes an "n" sound at the end of a syllable.

There is no "l" sound at the end of Thai syllables, nor is there an "s" sound.

If transliteration is not faithfully phonetic, then it is nothing at all.

[Richard W]

There are two jargon terms, 'transliteration' and 'transcription', which relate to the whole issue of representing Thai in the Roman script. The primary aim of a transliteration is to convey the spelling, ideally so that you can convert back to the original alphabet. The primary aim of a transcription is to convey the sound, ideally so that you can pronounce the words.

In a word like "gai," it has a "g" sound, but when it comes at the end, the "gor gai" takes on a harder sound, more like a "k."

Thai has a 3-way contrast, e.g. /ph/ v. /p/ v. /b/, at the start of a syllable. This is the same contrast as existed in Classical Greek - phi v. pi v. beta, before Greek /ph/ became [f] (or similar). Thai /ph/ is pronounced similarly to English /p/ at the start of monosyllable and Thai /b/ is pronounced similarly to an English /b/. Thai /p/ is pronounced as 'p' in English 'spaghetti' and as 'b' in Welsh 'sbageti'.

The 3-way contrast only applies to sounds at the front of the mouth. At the back, the third member is missing, so one has /ch/ v. /c/ but, to use the American symbol, no */j/ and similarly /kh/ v. /k/ but no */g/. The Royal Thai General System (RTGS) of transcription transcribes both /ch/ and /c/ as 'ch'. An old Indian system transcribes the corresponding sounds as 'chh' and 'ch'.

At the end of the syllable, there is no contrast in speech, so whether you say the final sound is /p/ or /b/ is very much a matter of taste. Mary Haas got ridiculed for saying there was a final /g/ when there is no initial /g/. Final /f/ and /s/ now occur in the speech of some Thai speakers, as a result of prolonged exposure to English.

The Thai alphabet is related to the scripts of India, and for some people it is useful to transliterate in a manner that preserves the correspondences. One consequence is that wo waen gets transliterated as 'v'. One complication is the Great Thai Consonant Shift, which means that the sounds represented by the Thai letters (and Lao and Cambodian, for that matter) are now rather different to those represented by the related Indian letters.

Transliteration of Thai into English runs into the problem that บ ป ผ พ ภ needs 5 symbols. The Indian equivalents transliterate as p p ph b bh.

I've also always wondered why transliterations use the Roman letter "v" - as in Sukhumvit - when there is no corresponding sound to that letter in Thai.

See above.

And while I'm on the subject, when are they going to drop the "i" at the end of the transliterated name of the new airport? In Thai, there is no vowel sound at the end, and thus there is absolutely no reason to transliterate it that way.

Under the graphic system, as put forward by Rama VI, the name would appear as Suvarrnabhumi with a dot under the 'n' and a macron above the 'u'. Note that the Thai names does end in sara i, so a transliteration should end in 'i'.

Same goes for the name of the venerable king, which is not "Bhumipol," but "Bhumipon." The "lor ling" becomes an "n" sound at the end of a syllable.

There is no "l" sound at the end of Thai syllables, nor is there an "s" sound.

If transliteration is not faithfully phonetic, then it is nothing at all.

Or it could be transliteration rather than transcription!

[tgeezer]

If transliteration is not faithfully phonetic, then it is nothing at all.

Or it could be transliteration rather than transcription!

I think the best way is to read 'copy' when you see the word 'transcribe'. The two types of copy we are looking at are literal and phonetic. All is simple. As to whether is is right to change names in Thailand to suit people who don't read the Thai is a tough one. I have changed my name from 'Reggie' to 'Rejji' to make a soft 'g' and put to 'j's to be faithful to the English; a mix of both systems, I ignore the fact that it probably could be read Retji. It's been this way for twenty years and I know more now but why bother to change it; and if I do, change it to what?

[mangkorn]

Good on ya, Richard.

You are very learned in the dark arcana of preferred linguist jargon, and I do

humbly concede the point on "transcription vs. transliteration," in that sense.

But while the jargon may suit the science of it, it sure doesn't do much good for the practical purpose of written language, which is communication - among average people, from many and varied cultures.

What is the whole point of "transliterating" a name, solely for the benefit of non-native speakers? Sorry, but it is not so they may be able to trace it back to the Sanskrit root, and then perhaps one day understand why it came to be spelled the way it is in Thai alphabet - just so that they may then some day learn how to pronounce it correctly.

No, the purpose is so that they may be able to pronounce it correctly straight away. Those of us who are students do learn what you explain, but the signs on the roads are not written for serious students; they are provided there for the tourist (or the hopelessly lazy ex-pats). And that's where the failure of the "transliterating" lies: it leads to mispronunciation. And it is just plain foolish.

Otherwise, why is the country called even called Thailand - for the benefit of the rest of the world - instead of Meuang Thai (or however one may prefer to transliterate, or transcribe, that name)? Thai people don't say Thailand, and they sure as hel_l don't say Bangkok. Talk about changing the names to suit people who don't read Thai...

Thai people know that the Sanskrit-based name for the new airport is written with a "sara i" - just as you and I do - but they and we also know that the vowel is SILENT. How can anybody possibly expect non-student foreigners to know that?

Apropos tgeezer's comment about "...to change names in Thailand to suit people who don't read the Thai..." - well, that is nonsense, and not what I nor anyone else here has suggested. Quite the opposite, actually. When you write something that will obviously and predictably be mispronounced - as in the case of the airport - then what YOU are doing is changing the name, and for no good reason. I merely advocate for a phonetic spelling so that the name will not be changed unwittingly by foreigners when they read it and pronounce it as they will: incorrectly. If you write it phonetically, however, most people will pronounce it correctly - the same way that Thais do - or close enough...

I might agree with tgeezer's stated point, if it means that in order to be truly faithful to the Thai names, they should only be written in Thai. But then, that wouldn't do much good for businessmen, tourists, diplomats, would it?

Of course not. And so, the Roman alphabet is employed for some purposes, which makes a helluva lot of sense, in principle. But if you are going to use a different alphabet to represent the Thai words, then you should do so in a way that the target audience will understand, and thus communicate properly. After all, isn't that the whole point of doing it in the first place?

Sorry if I'm being overly pedantic here, but it seems self-evident to me: the transliterating or transcribing is not done for Thais, it's done for the benefit of foreigners - who are not linguists (and some may not even be very literate).

Otherwise, why even do it?

Cheers.

[Richard W]

What is the whole point of "transliterating" a name, solely for the benefit of non-native speakers? Sorry, but it is not so they may be able to trace it back to the Sanskrit root, and then perhaps one day understand why it came to be spelled the way it is in Thai alphabet - just so that they may then some day learn how to pronounce it correctly.

No, the purpose is so that they may be able to pronounce it correctly straight away.

For which the RTGS does quite badly. It omits vowel length and tone, and confounds one pair of consonant sounds and one pair of vowel qualities. Still, it's improved. It used to confound another pair of vowel qualities and a pair of diphthongs. Not that improvement gets appreciation. Complaints are raised against the improvement of 'Don Muang' to 'Don Mueang'.

Otherwise, why is the country called even called Thailand - for the benefit of the rest of the world - instead of Meuang Thai (or however one may prefer to transliterate, or transcribe, that name)? Thai people don't say Thailand, and they sure as hel_l don't say Bangkok. Talk about changing the names to suit people who don't read Thai...

The name of the country, short form at least, is 'Prathet Thai'. 'Thailand' is a translation!

'Krungthep' is a newer name. 'Bangkok' is the older name for the area, and is borne by two of the districts of the capital city, 'Bangkok Yai' and 'Bangkok Noi'.

Thai people know that the Sanskrit-based name for the new airport is written with a "sara i" - just as you and I do - but they and we also know that the vowel is SILENT. How can anybody possibly expect non-student foreigners to know that?

It should be as obvious as the vowel qualities in 'London' and 'Washington'. When an American asked me in the middle of Derbyshire for directions to 'Dirby' I was strongly tempted to tell him I'd never heard of the place. No one that matters is in any hurry to respell these 'Lundon', 'Woshington' or 'Dahby'. Also remember the place name 'Wymondham' and the surname 'Cholmondley' (both two syllables).

Sorry if I'm being overly pedantic here, but it seems self-evident to me: the transliterating or transcribing is not done for Thais, it's done for the benefit of foreigners - who are not linguists (and some may not even be very literate).

Otherwise, why even do it?

Because most foreigners can't copy Thai characters properly.

[mangkorn]

Richard W. wrote:

The name of the country, short form at least, is 'Prathet Thai'. 'Thailand' is a translation!

'Krungthep' is a newer name. 'Bangkok' is the older name for the area, and is borne by two of the districts of the capital city, 'Bangkok Yai' and 'Bangkok Noi."

***

Ah, you're just trying to pick a fight. And I don't wish to fight.

Yet, the fact is that 99.999% of Thais say "Meuang Thai."

At the risk of picking a fight - I swear, I do not wish to - not every culture in the world translates their own word for "country" as the English word "land."

English people may like to think so, but it is not true, not at all.

And yeah, sure, I know all about Bangkok, but that's not really the old name for this city, in fact. It is the old name for a forlorn place of exile where the Ayuthaya folks arrived, dragging their tails in disgrace - and settled in, only temporarily - until someone said: "hey, if we're worried about the Burmese hordes attacking us, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to move over to the OTHER side of the river? You know, for protection?! I'm just saying..."

That made a helluva lot of sense.

And that's what they wisely did, and then built their new city: Krungthep...

It must be noted that Thai people, at least since the Chakri Dynasty actually built the capital city, have never called it Bangkok. The name, as per official international recognition, is actually the legacy of an evil military dictator who overthrew the monarchy and joined with the Japanese invaders, and then later probably killed the young king Rama VIII - and whose own name I choose to liberally translate as "esteemed older brother who really loves war..."

A lovely man, surely. No doubt that he loved his children, too.

Today, anyway, the Bangkok Noi and Bangkok Yai districts are certainly very vibrant places, populated by scads of lovely people, and well-worth visiting.

No danger of any Burmese troops attacking, that's for sure.

Cheers, in all good faith,

mangkorn

[mangkorn]

Mangkorn wrote:

>>Thai people know that the Sanskrit-based name for the new airport is written with a "sara i" - just as you and I do - but they and we also know that the vowel is SILENT. How can anybody possibly expect non-student foreigners to know that?<<

Richard W. responded:

It should be as obvious as the vowel qualities in 'London' and 'Washington'.

Okay, now I do want to pick a fight. Uh, no it should not be as obvious, not by any possible stretch of anyone's imagination. The particular vowel qualities of "London" or "Washington" have nothing to do with the issue at hand, because thpse are SPOKEN vowels - no matter how many different ways that different people may speak them. What is obvious, and should be unnecessary to point out, is that the "sara i" at the end of the name of the airport here is SILENT!

On that point, your argument falls on its face: you are comparing pomelos to durians there, mate.

How on Buddha's green earth could it ever be "obvious" that a silent letter in a completely foreign language is silent?

Balderdash - as they used to say in merry ol' England.

Nobody could possibly ever know that, if they weren't told that it were so.

But, there are no silent vowels in "London," nor in "Washington."

Silent people, perhaps - and stupid people, surely - but no silent vowels.

[sabaijai]

If transliteration is not faithfully phonetic, then it is nothing at all.

Hmmm then where does that leave transcribing your nick 'mangkorn' (มังกร) yet using a /g/ for the same sound in your transcription 'gor gai' (ก ไก่)?

[meadish_sweetball]

But, there are no silent vowels in "London," nor in "Washington."

In RP English, the variety of British English traditionally taught to second language learners as 'properly pronounced', the second vowel in 'London' could be regarded as silent, and the first one as having a non-standard sound:

Something like ['landn] with an attempt to write IPA phonetics in the absence of real IPA characters, or /lundn/ - using so called phonics based on English standard spelling.

[mangkorn]

If transliteration is not faithfully phonetic, then it is nothing at all.

Hmmm then where does that leave transcribing your nick 'mangkorn' (มังà¸à¸£) yet using a /g/ for the same sound in your transcription 'gor gai' (ภไà¸à¹ˆ)?

Now there you have me. Very good point. No defence, I guess it just looked better in type than a double-g might, but I'll gladly concede. Perhaps one /g/ would suffice.

And thanks meadish for the explanation re: London. I see that now, too.

Cheers.

[grtaylor]

If transliteration is not faithfully phonetic, then it is nothing at all.

Or it could be transliteration rather than transcription!

I think the best way is to read 'copy' when you see the word 'transcribe'. The two types of copy we are looking at are literal and phonetic. All is simple. As to whether is is right to change names in Thailand to suit people who don't read the Thai is a tough one. I have changed my name from 'Reggie' to 'Rejji' to make a soft 'g' and put to 'j's to be faithful to the English; a mix of both systems, I ignore the fact that it probably could be read Retji. It's been this way for twenty years and I know more now but why bother to change it; and if I do, change it to what?

One of the funniest examples of the problem of 'transliteration' and 'transcription' was something I saw many years ago. I saw the address of the RBSC written (in English) as "No. 1 Thanon Angree Dunang".

The actual name (Thanon Henri Dunant) had obviously been written by someone phonetically in Thai (from the French), and then subsequently written phonetically back in English by someone who didn't know the original name!

G

PS - And here is a good quiz question for people living in Bangkok - how many other roads in Bangkok are named after foreigners?

[Richard W]

The actual name (Thanon Henri Dunant) had obviously been written by someone phonetically in Thai (from the French), and then subsequently written phonetically back in English by someone who didn't know the original name!

I haven't walked the length of that road since 1998. Is its name still rendered as 'Henri Dunant Road' at one end and as 'Ongri Dunong Road' at the other?

how many other roads in Bangkok are named after foreigners?

I assume Soi Asoke is named after Ashoka

[mangkorn]

<< I assume Soi Asoke is named after Ashoka >>

Surely you jest, funny guy.

But for the benefit of those who may have never considered the word, my favourite transalation for Asoke is: "causing no sorrow."

Lovely, that.

[grtaylor]

<< I assume Soi Asoke is named after Ashoka >>

Surely you jest, funny guy.

But for the benefit of those who may have never considered the word, my favourite transalation for Asoke is: "causing no sorrow."

Lovely, that.

I'd also assumed it was named after Ashoka . . . .

G

[grtaylor]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

[mangkorn]

<< I assume Soi Asoke is named after Ashoka >>

Surely you jest, funny guy.

But for the benefit of those who may have never considered the word, my favourite transalation for Asoke is: "causing no sorrow."

Lovely, that.

I'd also assumed it was named after Ashoka . . . .

G

Oops, I stand corrected: I only knew the word and meaning, but was unaware that it came from the name of the emperor. Thanks for pointing me to that history.

[sabaijai]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

Goethegasse (in front of the Goethe-Institut)

Soi Saint Louis

Soi Cowboy

[grtaylor]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

Goethegasse (in front of the Goethe-Institut)

Soi Saint Louis

Soi Cowboy

Soi Captain Bush

Soi La Salle (Sukhumvit 105)

Soi Pra Maer Maeree

[BambinA]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

Henry Dunant Rd, The road in front of my Vet School.

Soi Convent ,Silom.

[corkscrew]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

Henry Dunant Rd, The road in front of my Vet School.

Soi Convent ,Silom.

Henri Dunant was the founder of the Red Cross. He witnessed the massive suffering at the battle of Solferino so he devoted the remainder of his life to creating the Red Cross. The Hague conventions of 1907 and the Geneva conventions of 1949 were inspired by him and his work.

Cowboy....well everybody knows who he was. I suppose his efforts were humanitarian in another way.

[mangkorn]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

Henry Dunant Rd, The road in front of my Vet School.

Soi Convent ,Silom.

Henri Dunant was the founder of the Red Cross. He witnessed the massive suffering at the battle of Solferino so he devoted the remainder of his life to creating the Red Cross. The Hague conventions of 1907 and the Geneva conventions of 1949 were inspired by him and his work.

Cowboy....well everybody knows who he was. I suppose his efforts were humanitarian in another way.

I don't get it: who was Cowboy?

[corkscrew]

No ideas for other streets named after foreigners? I know three more, I think (one debatable) . . .

G

Henry Dunant Rd, The road in front of my Vet School.

Soi Convent ,Silom.

Henri Dunant was the founder of the Red Cross. He witnessed the massive suffering at the battle of Solferino so he devoted the remainder of his life to creating the Red Cross. The Hague conventions of 1907 and the Geneva conventions of 1949 were inspired by him and his work.

Cowboy....well everybody knows who he was. I suppose his efforts were humanitarian in another way.

I don't get it: who was Cowboy?

"Cowboy" was the owner of a 'bar' on what is now soi Cowboy. The name of his bar was "Cowboy".