"raawy" Or "roi" ?

[traveller76]

Sawadee,

I search through a few online eng-thai dictionary.... when speaking about hundred, some mentioned "raawy" (eg. two-hundred -> saawng raawy), and some dictionary translate as "roi" (eg. two hundred -> saawng roi)

So, I wonder which is the correct term?

thanks all

[Totster]

They're both correct, it's all a matter of transliteration.

Personally I prefer "roi" as it fits the sound better IMO

totster

[meadish_sweetball]

I would like to say that neither is correct.

The correct term is ร้อย and both of those two are just different ways of trying to transcribe the actual Thai sound.

The word ร้อย has four phonemes (=sounds that carry meaning.) This is counting the tone, which is also phonematic. To a Westerner not trained to listen for tones, it has three distinct sounds.

'Roi' may seem a good choice for somebody who does not know what information is crucial in a Thai context. But it is clumpsy for the following reasons:

1. It will tend to be pronounced with a short vowel sound (although that does depend on the accent of the speaker), whereas ร้อย has a long vowel sound.

2. The vowel designation 'o' for the second phoneme can be confusing.

raawy is not optimal either, as some people might want to pronounce it 'ah-wi' instead of a the long 'aw' sound as in American English 'law' that it is intended to represent.

In my personal opinion, only the IPA-based transcription systems (as designed by Mary Haas, and Marwin Brown of AUA) are unambiguous enough to be really suitable for transcribing Thai. The problem with them is that they have a steep learning curve and use signs that cannot be easily entered on a standard computer keyboard. Many people therefore feel it is a better idea to go straight to Thai script, as no transcription system works for communicating effectively with the average Thai.

[thailanguagestudent]

I would like to say that neither is correct.

The correct term is ร้อย and both of those two are just different ways of trying to transcribe the actual Thai sound.

Meadish is right. Thai is written in thai script and it was never intended to be transcribed into english. You can get close with english, but that is all it will ever be, just close.

[Totster]

I would like to say that neither is correct.

The correct term is ร้อย and both of those two are just different ways of trying to transcribe the actual Thai sound.

Meadish is right. Thai is written in thai script and it was never intended to be transcribed into english. You can get close with english, but that is all it will ever be, just close.

I think you both strayed from the question. If it had to be transliterated (which it often does) then which one is (more) correct ? Or at least fits the sound better ? For me it is "Roi", but if I had to make my own, I suppose I would write "roy-ee".

[meadish_sweetball]

I still maintain that the transliteration most people will pick as most correct, is typically based on their own personal dialect's or language's pronunciation - i.e. what you perceive to be the 'correct' pronunciation of Roman letters in combination.

For some people it could be based on the Royal Institute official transliteration system, but that is quite insufficient for representing Thai sounds - as anyone who has tried to explain to taxi drivers where they want to go based on street signs or official names of buildings have already discovered.

Anyways, according to that official system, 'roi' is correct, as in the city/province name of 'Roi Et' in Isaan for example.

What I mean is, there really is no right or wrong unless you are starting from a specific, established system... because among all the various languages that use the Roman alphabet, neither can really be said to be more correct - they are systems onto themselves. And among English dialects, the same thing holds true in my opinion, even though R.P. English is seen as a standard by British purists, and Standard American ('neutral Midwestern newsreader accent') is held up as something similar by some Americans.

Not to mention Kiwis, Irish, South Africans and Australians, etc. etc. and their ideas about what proper pronunciation is... In the end we will be left with lots of differing opinions on which one is better, and no closer to a solution, until we settle for agreeing on a system and start to teach it in order to make it an undisputed standard... as the Chinese have done with pinyin.

[DavidHouston]

I still maintain that the transliteration most people will pick as most correct, is typically based on their own personal dialect's or language's pronunciation - i.e. what you perceive to be the 'correct' pronunciation of Roman letters in combination.

For some people it could be based on the Royal Institute official transliteration system, but that is quite insufficient for representing Thai sounds - as anyone who has tried to explain to taxi drivers where they want to go based on street signs or official names of buildings have already discovered.

Anyways, according to that official system, 'roi' is correct, as in the city/province name of 'Roi Et' in Isaan for example.

What I mean is, there really is no right or wrong unless you are starting from a specific, established system... because among all the various languages that use the Roman alphabet, neither can really be said to be more correct - they are systems onto themselves. And among English dialects, the same thing holds true in my opinion, even though R.P. English is seen as a standard by British purists, and Standard American ('neutral Midwestern newsreader accent') is held up as something similar by some Americans.

Not to mention Kiwis, Irish, South Africans and Australians, etc. etc. and their ideas about what proper pronunciation is... In the end we will be left with lots of differing opinions on which one is better, and no closer to a solution, until we settle for agreeing on a system and start to teach it in order to make it an undisputed standard... as the Chinese have done with pinyin.

But, of course, there is no need for a Pinyin for Thai because Thai is alphabetic and for the most part phonetic. I am firmly on Meadish's side -- learn Thai, forget about Roman transliteration. Anyone who plans to spend more than six months in Thailand should learn the rudiments of reading. First, there is almost no cognate between English vowels (from wherever the speaker hails) and Thai vowels. Any attempt to link the two by combinations of roman dipthongs or tripthongs is bound to fail. Second, the Thai sounds are so unique to the English-speaking ear, that the best way to learn is to divorce the Thai sounds from any romanization and concentrate on learning the peculiar Thai vocalizations. (And, we have not even raised the question of consonant sounds.) To my mind teaching Thai sounds can only be accomplished by a skilled and responsive native Thai-speaking teacher. Third, even though some words in Thai present a pronunciation challenge (Royal language and Buddhist words in particular because of their origins), the Thais do have a standard transliteration of their own language whereby hard to say words are transliterated into a more simple Thai. The use of that system is much more user-friendly than a Thai version of Pinyin. Fourth, while the vowels may be difficult for native-English speakers to hear and say initially, the Thai vowel is almost always pronounced identically in every instance.

This provides a great advantage to English-language natives when compared to the Thais learning English finding out that "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u" have multiple vocalizations, some duplicates of eachother. Not only that, but each particular local group of English speakers has a different way of pronouncing vowels, even with respect to the same word!

How lucky we are to be learning Thai! My advice to everyone? Get a teacher; you will be happy to did.

[Johpa]

In a less than perfect world, I would agree that using roi is a far better transliteration than raawy, which is, IMHO, a really, really bad transliteration.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Johpa

[withnail]

The other thing to realise with systems of transliteration is that they too must be learnt. There is no one accurate way to write a Thai word using the Roman alphabet that will enable everybody who can't read Thai to read the word correctly.

Before I could read Thai I quite liked Benjawan Poomsan Becker's system of transliteration, but you have to read her explanation of it before you can use it. For example you have to realise that 'a' indicates a short vowel and 'aa' indicates a long vowel. In fact you really need some previous knowledge of Thai to understand it. It is not designed so that anyone who can read English can read it and then pronounce the word correctly.

Consequently, you still have to learn a new way of writing (albeit a very easy one to grasp) so my thought is this: Why not just learn Thai script? It isn't that difficult to learn to read Thai to a basic level, although writing I agree is much harder. A few minutes a day for a month or so and you should be able to use Thai script to learn new words.

It helps you on many levels, it helps your pronunciation and gives you the ability to teach yourself without having to rely on someone to help you all the time. It also guarantees that wherever you are you are still learning as there is Thai script all around you.

I'm not having a go at the original poster here, for he or she may be very new to learning the language and it is common to learn some Thai before you begin reading and writing. However, it does annoy me when friends of mine who have been here a long time and profess to having an interest in learning the language refuse to learn to read and write. I don't really know anyone whose spoken Thai is good that can't read and write (it is possible but uncommon).

You also find that when you do learn to read you'll probably have to go back and relearn everything again, so do it as early as possible.

withnail

[Totster]

I am firmly on Meadish's side -- learn Thai, forget about Roman transliteration.

Again, I feel that the original question is being somewhat ignored. I wholeheartedly agree with yours and Meadish's statement about learning the Thai script and forgetting transliteration, however.. the OP asked about transliteration.

I fail to see where "sides" came into it ...

Totster

[withnail]

The problem is that he asked a question that has no answer. A lot of people when embarking on learning a new language are unaware of the complexities of it and the processes involved in learning it.

A system of transliteration is only a system and one that must be first leant. If one book consistently uses aawy and one book consistently uses oi both with an explanation of what they mean then they are both correct.

If you think that one is correct based on your understanding of Thai and your pronunciation of English, French or what ever language you use to transliterate then that is fine, for you. I'm not having a go Totster I'm just saying that the OP is probably at a stage in learning when our answers are necessary. You are obviously at a stage when you can make such a decision for yourself, but these things do need to be explained.

[Totster]

The problem is that he asked a question that has no answer. A lot of people when embarking on learning a new language are unaware of the complexities of it and the processes involved in learning it.

A system of transliteration is only a system and one that must be first leant. If one book consistently uses aawy and one book consistently uses oi both with an explanation of what they mean then they are both correct.

If you think that one is correct based on your understanding of Thai and your pronunciation of English, French or what ever language you use to transliterate then that is fine, for you. I'm not having a go Totster I'm just saying that the OP is probably at a stage in learning when our answers are necessary. You are obviously at a stage when you can make such a decision for yourself, but these things do need to be explained.

You're right of course, and I understand that

totster

[sabaijai]

The correct RTGS transliteration is 'roi'.

(I prefer rawy, as for me and the dialect I come from, it comes out sounding more like ร้อย than 'roi', which to me suggests โรย).

[Richard W]

Consequently, you still have to learn a new way of writing (albeit a very easy one to grasp) so my thought is this: Why not just learn Thai script?

It depends how many languages one needs to deal with. IPA based systems work fine. I'm still think [H]rååi would be a good transcription - the <å> of the Swede I work with is closer to ออ than to โอ.

[gampaan]

I like roy-ee also. But like withnail said, you must have the vowel length and tone or it is of no use. You might as well say Roy (Rogers).

dave