Transliteration And Transcription

[DavidHouston]

Remember the discussion recently regarding writing Thai with Roman letters? Richard W. taught me then that there was a difference between "transcription" and "transliteration". I just saw this definition of the word ทับศัพท์ in Lexitron.

ทับศัพท์ [V] transliterate

Def. รับเอาคำของภาษาหนึ่งมาใช้ในอีกภาษาหนึ่งโดยวิธีถ่ายเสียงและถอดอักษร.

"taking words in one language to use in aother language through the use of transferring sounds and copying letters."

Sample:คำภาษาต่างประเทศที่ใช้โดยตรง หรือทับศัพท์นั้น ควรใช้เมื่อจำเป็นตามกาลเทศะ หรือเมื่อไม่มีคำในภาษาไทยใช้

"Foreign words which are used directly [in Thai] or "thap sap" should be used only when required in the right place and in the right time or whenever there is not a comparable term in Thai."

Question: Should the correct definition be "transcription" or should both "transcription" and "transliteration" be used as a translation?

[sbk]

Transcription is used to mean writing phonetically, Transliteration is another word for romanization, is my understanding anyway. Romanization and phonetically written are not, I believe, the same thing. Wouldn't it be required to use phonetic symbols for it to be phonetic?

[ZenHillbillyPoet22]

I don't think that's quite right. Romanization is a type of transcription. Transcription is rewriting a language in a different alphabet letter for letter, such as 'sawasdee'. Transliteration is rewriting a language in a different alphabet by the sounds, which i guess would be like 'sawatdee'. or something like that

[sbk]

According to Dictionary.com they are the same thing:

tran·scribe /trænˈskraɪb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tran-skrahyb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -scribed, -scrib·ing.

1. to make a written copy, esp. a typewritten copy, of (dictated material, notes taken during a lecture, or other spoken material).

2. to make an exact copy of (a document, text, etc.).

3. to write out in another language or alphabet; translate or transliterate: to transcribe Chinese into English characters.

4. Phonetics. to represent (speech sounds) in written phonetic or phonemic symbols.

5. Radio. to make a recording of (a program, announcement, etc.) for broadcasting.

6. Music. to arrange (a composition) for a medium other than that for which it was originally written.

7. Genetics. to effect genetic transcription of (a DNA molecule template).

trans·lit·er·ate /trænsˈlɪtəˌreɪt, trænz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-lit-uh-reyt, tranz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.

to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language: to transliterate the Greek Χ as ch.

[Origin: 1860–65; trans- + L līter(a) letter1 + -ate1]

—Related forms

trans·lit·er·a·tion, noun

trans·lit·er·a·tor, noun

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary

trans·lit·er·ate (trāns-lĭt'ə-rāt', trānz-) Pronunciation Key

tr.v. trans·lit·er·at·ed, trans·lit·er·at·ing, trans·lit·er·ates

To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet.

[trans- + Latin littera, lītera, letter + -ate1.]

trans·lit'er·a'tion (-ə-rā'shən) n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

transliterate

"to write a word in the characters of another alphabet," 1861, apparently coined by Ger. philologist Max Müller (1823–1900), from trans- "across" + L. littera "letter, character."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

[DavidHouston]

Transcription is used to mean writing phonetically, Transliteration is another word for romanization, is my understanding anyway. Romanization and phonetically written are not, I believe, the same thing. Wouldn't it be required to use phonetic symbols for it to be phonetic?

For a more extended discussion see http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=119113. and http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...amp;mode=linear

According to the Journal of the RID article referenced in the latter discussion,

"2.1 Transliteration is the process which consists of representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by using the characters of a conversion alphabet. The use of a conversion alphabet is the easiest way to ensure the complete and unambiguous reversibility of the conversion alphabet into the converted system." whereas,

2.2 Transcription is the process whereby the sounds of a given language are represented by a system of signs contained in a conversion language. A transcription system is of necessity based on the orthographical conventions of the conversion language. Transcription is not strictly reversible." and,

"2.3 Romanization is the process whereby a non-Latin writing systems is converted to the Latin alphabet. In doing so either transliteration or transcription or a combination of the two systems may be used depending on the nature of the converted system and the desired objectives."

Simple, No? Now all we have to do is figure out what the Thai word "ทับศัพท์" means. And, since our use here (using Thai consonants and vowels to express English - or other language - words) is the opposite of what we usually discuss (i.e., Thai to Roman or phonetic characters), I wonder what the Thai word means.

Maybe I should leave sleeping dogs lie and cease flogging dead horses. Thanks, SBK and ZenHillbilly, for your replies.

Perhaps we can agree on one thing: "What tangled webs we weave" (even when we do not intend to deceive) - with apologies to Sir Walter Scott.

Edited November 21, 2007 by DavidHouston

[sbk]

Pity they don't have a standard romanization like the PinYin of Mandarin. It would certainly make street signs and names much easier to follow for people who don't read Thai (confuses the heck out of tourists to see the same thing written 3 different ways).

[withnail]

From the COED:

transliterate

n verb write or print (a letter or word) using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language.

Some examples:

ก = G

croissant = cwasont (if you were perhaps explaining the pronunciation)

สุวรรณภูมิ = Suvarnabhumi/Suwanapoom

Pepsi = เปปซี่

Sometimes people say that transliterating is writing the sounds of one language using the script of another but I think that depends on who is transliterating and what there reason is for doing so. For a foreigner learning Thai it is true that what we are interested in when transliterating is the pronunciation. However, when Thais transliterate Thai into English they are likely doing so out of necessity and don't really care how the final result would be pronounced by an English speaker. With Suvarnabhumi for example it is clear that the original spelling and the word's roots are more important than the fact that anyone can say the word correctly.

transcribe

n verb

1 put (thoughts, speech, or data) into written or printed form.

2 transliterate (foreign characters) or write or type out (shorthand, notes, etc.) into ordinary characters or full sentences.

It seems that transcribe can be used to mean transliterate. Perhaps it is used because outside of linguistic circles the word is not commonly known. Transliterate is more precise IMO.

Romanization would be transliterating but specifically into the Roman alphabet.

Writing something phonetically I think could just mean 'as it sounds' i.e. phone = fone, not necessarily using the IPA.

Edited November 21, 2007 by withnail

[mangkorn]

Fascinating thread. Richard W. will probably explain the linguists' lingo on this.

Meantime, one that always stumps me: Pepsi = เปปซี่ - why is there a falling tone on the last syllable?

In fact, why are so many foreign names and words given a falling tone at the end, when they don't have one - or even a stress - in the original pronunciation?

There seems to be a (perhaps) unconscious belief that many foreign names have to end in a falling tone. No big deal - I was just wondering if there was a reason for it?

[withnail]

Fascinating thread. Richard W. will probably explain the linguists' lingo on this.

Meantime, one that always stumps me: Pepsi = เปปซี่ - why is there a falling tone on the last syllable?

In fact, why are so many foreign names and words given a falling tone at the end, when they don't have one - or even a stress - in the original pronunciation?

There seems to be a (perhaps) unconscious belief that many foreign names have to end in a falling tone. No big deal - I was just wondering if there was a reason for it?

My teacher explained that to me. I believe it is their attempt at copying an accent/intonation (presumably American) certainly I think Thai people believe a word sounds more 'farang' if it has a falling tone. It is weird though how sometimes this is accounted for and other times not.

[mangkorn]

I'm not convinced of this, but I'll throw it out for discussion/dissection: ตักน้ำรดตอ is an idiom that I've never been totally clear about, but a teacher once said that it was like "beating your head against a wall," - or, perhaps, flogging a dead horse.

She explained that it was like when you're trying to teach proper behaviour to an unruly child who won't listen or obey, and so all your efforts are in vain - "pouring water over a stump," because nothing will ever grow from it anyway.

What say ye wise men/women about the meaning of that idiom?

[mangkorn]

Not sure about this one either: สีซอให้ควายฟัง

Could that be akin to "flogging a dead horse?"

[ZenHillbillyPoet22]

Oops! Yeah I think I got the transcription and transliteration switched. Transliteration would be a letter for letter change, and transcription would be by the sounds. As for ท้บศัพท์ that would be loan words. I don't know where pepsi falls cause that's a product name but a few that come to mind: TV, taxi, plastic, shopping. Of course sometimes there is a corresponding Thai word that may or may not be more popular to use, but the influence of the foreign word has become so prominent that the word has become normal lexicon. Happens in English too...

[meadish_sweetball]

Was there greater distinction in tones used in loan words from English before? I am thinking of examples put forward in the AUA teaching material I studied some 10 years ago.

From my observations it seems these days, high tone is most common for monosyllabic words (although some take the low tone), and there is an obligatory falling tone at the end of those with more than one syllables.

Older polysyllabic word borrowings, such as chemical substance names, do not seem to have a falling tone at the end.

[ZenHillbillyPoet22]

Was there greater distinction in tones used in loan words from English before? I am thinking of examples put forward in the AUA teaching material I studied some 10 years ago.

From my observations it seems these days, high tone is most common for monosyllabic words (although some take the low tone), and there is an obligatory falling tone at the end of those with more than one syllables.

Older polysyllabic word borrowings, such as chemical substance names, do not seem to have a falling tone at the end.

I've been wondering about something similar to this myself... If you used high tones for the syllable with the word stress and mid or low for the unstressed syllables wouldn't you get a sound closer to the english pronounciation?

[stateman]

Meantime, one that always stumps me: Pepsi = เปปซี่ - why is there a falling tone on the last syllable?

In fact, why are so many foreign names and words given a falling tone at the end, when they don't have one - or even a stress - in the original pronunciation?

Pepsi = เปปซี่ also bugged me since day 1.

เปปซี่ as written, doesn't read the same as Pepsi in English. It reads like something else - not the brand I like.

เป๊ปซี่ would.

[mangkorn]

Meantime, one that always stumps me: Pepsi = เปปซี่ - why is there a falling tone on the last syllable?

In fact, why are so many foreign names and words given a falling tone at the end, when they don't have one - or even a stress - in the original pronunciation?

Pepsi = เปปซี่ also bugged me since day 1.

เปปซี่ as written, doesn't read the same as Pepsi in English. It reads like something else - not the brand I like.

เป๊ปซี่ would.

Good catch, stateman. เป๊ปซี่ is the way it is spelled in Thai. But I think you're wrong in saying that "would read the same as Pepsi in English." The name in English does not have a falling tone, nor any stress, on the final syllable. เป๊ปซี would be closer - or, actually, a short vowel with a middle tone in the final syllable (although that would be difficult to write in Thai).

Thus the original question: why do Thais put a falling tone on the final syllables of foreign words? That might make the words sound more Thai, but it does not make them sound "more farang." English, and most Western languages, rarely stress the final syllables of words and names. But Thais usually pronounce/write multi-syllabic English words that way, and make them sound "less farang."

Personally, I don't really care how they do it: I'm just curious as to why (this being a language forum). A friend's daughter is named Elisa (pronounced ey-LI-sa), but her teachers changed it to (ey-li-SAH) and make her write it that way in Thai. Why?

[meadish_sweetball]

Perhaps there is a thought behind it apart from the obvious one of marking 'farang' loans, but if there is, my uni teacher was unaware of it.

It just seems to be a convention that has developed, and now Thais won't agree to do it any other way, because it doesn't fit their pattern.

My wife often gets piqued by her work mates for properly pronouncing English words that have not been adopted fully into Thai. They think it sounds conceited.

[DavidHouston]

Perhaps there is a thought behind it apart from the obvious one of marking 'farang' loans, but if there is, my uni teacher was unaware of it.

It just seems to be a convention that has developed, and now Thais won't agree to do it any other way, because it doesn't fit their pattern.

My wife often gets piqued by her work mates for properly pronouncing English words that have not been adopted fully into Thai. They think it sounds conceited.

Perhaps one of us could frame the question into good Thai and submit the question to the Royal Institute for an answer. I believe that one can make a posting on http://thailanguage.royin.go.th/webboard_postnew.php. Any thoughts?

[DavidHouston]

For the Royal Institute publication which lists out acceptable English words which can be used in Thai, as well as their spellings and pronunciations and meanings see http://www.royin.go.th/th/download/index1....;SystemMenuID=1. The name of the book is ศัพท์ต่างประเทศที่ใช้คำไทยแทนได and it is reproduced in full in pdf format beginning on the referenced site. The book itself is divided into alphabetic portions to facilitate downloading.

(I tried to copy and paste from the pdf file to show an example but was unsuccessful.)

From what I can see, the Royal Institute liberally uses Thai tone marks to assure that the pronunciations are exactly as Thai people say them. For example, "Memory" is "เม็มโมรี่" with the "ไม้เอก" on the last syllable.

Edited November 24, 2007 by DavidHouston

[tgeezer]

Remember the discussion recently regarding writing Thai with Roman letters? Richard W. taught me then that there was a difference between "transcription" and "transliteration". I just saw this definition of the word ทับศัพท์ in Lexitron.

ทับศัพท์ [V] transliterate

Def. รับเอาคำของภาษาหนึ่งมาใช้ในอีกภาษาหนึ่งโดยวิธีถ่ายเสียงและถอดอักษร.

"taking words in one language to use in aother language through the use of transferring sounds and copying letters."

Sample:คำภาษาต่างประเทศที่ใช้โดยตรง หรือทับศัพท์นั้น ควรใช้เมื่อจำเป็นตามกาลเทศะ หรือเมื่อไม่มีคำในภาษาไทยใช้

"Foreign words which are used directly [in Thai] or "thap sap" should be used only when required in the right place and in the right time or whenever there is not a comparable term in Thai."

Question: Should the correct definition be "transcription" or should both "transcription" and "transliteration" be used as a translation?

Obviously the Thai word is more comprehensive than the English word which it puports to mean in this example, it is more of a transcription or copy since it covers the phoneticised and the 'other one'! Maybe the Thais are not into 'splitting hairs' as we are. I think everyone knows that it is just a copy and the form is obvious why make it complicated? This is only useful to seperate the cognoscente from the rest of us.

[mangkorn]

Perhaps there is a thought behind it apart from the obvious one of marking 'farang' loans, but if there is, my uni teacher was unaware of it.

It just seems to be a convention that has developed, and now Thais won't agree to do it any other way, because it doesn't fit their pattern.

My wife often gets piqued by her work mates for properly pronouncing English words that have not been adopted fully into Thai. They think it sounds conceited.

Good - I can happily accept that explanation. I guess I was confused by withnail's teacher, who told him that it sounds "more farang" that way - which it doesn't.

Actually, I find the idiosyncratic Thai pronunciation to be quite lovely and melodic, and have even adopted it myself.

Cheers.

[mangkorn]

Maybe the Thais are not into 'splitting hairs' as we are. I think everyone knows that it is just a copy and the form is obvious why make it complicated? This is only useful to seperate the cognoscente from the rest of us.

Sadly, no. This is the "Thai language" forum. It is precisely the place where questions of usage, spelling, grammar, word origins, etc., should be examined and discussed.

[DavidHouston]

While I have not found the answer as to why Thais tend to emphasize the final syllable in English loan words, the following excerpt may give us a glimpse as to the answer. Below is the reference source and the quotation:

“ความเป่ลียนแปลงสู่โลกใหม่ – การสร้างศัพท์ฮ-เทคในภาษาไทย”, โดย รองศาสตราจารย์ ดร. นิตยา กาญจนะวรรณ, “ภาษาไทยของเรา”, สมาคมภาษาและหนังสือแห่งประเทศไทย, พิมพ์ครั้งแรก ๒๕๓๗, หน้า ๑๐๙

“ความขัดแย้งอีกเรื่องหนึ่งอยู่ที่การใช้เครื่องหมายวรรณยุกต์ในคำทัพศัพท์ กฎการทับศัพท์ของราชบัณฑิตยสทาน ไม่มีการใช้รูปวรรณยุกต์ยกเว้นในคำที่ตรงกับคำไทยและอาจทำให้เข้าใจผิดได้แต่ผู้ใช้ภาษาบางกลุ่มก็อดไม่ได้ที่จะเติมรูปวรรณยุกต์ลงไปเพื่อให้มีเสียงเป็นไทยยิ่งขึ้น โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งถ้าเป็นการตั้งชื่อสินค้า เช่น เป๊ปซี่ โค้ก”

"Changes for a New World – Creating Hi-Tech Words in the Thai Language", by Asst. Prof. Dr. Nitiya Karnjanawan, printed in "Our Thai Language", published by the Thai Association for Language and Books, first printing 2537 [1994], page 109

"Another disagreement exists regarding the use of Thai tone marks for transliterated words. The rules for the rendering of transliterated words of the Royal Institute state that that such tone marks should not be used, except where the transliterated word would look exactly like a Thai word and such rendering might result in misunderstanding. However, some groups of Thai language users are unable to keep from putting tone marks on words in order to produce a more Thai-like sound. This is especially true when developing names of commercial products, such as Pepsi [and] Coke."

Note that the author does not attempt to explain why the peculiar final-syllable emphasis is more "Thai-like" but assumes the pronunciation as a premise. Further, it is interesting to see that the Royal Institute has not changed its position and adds tone marks to loan words to reflect the common Thai pronunciation. (See previous post.) And, how spiffy is it that the examples are "Pepsi" and "Coke" that are discussed right in this thread.

[withnail]

Perhaps there is a thought behind it apart from the obvious one of marking 'farang' loans, but if there is, my uni teacher was unaware of it.

It just seems to be a convention that has developed, and now Thais won't agree to do it any other way, because it doesn't fit their pattern.

My wife often gets piqued by her work mates for properly pronouncing English words that have not been adopted fully into Thai. They think it sounds conceited.

Good - I can happily accept that explanation. I guess I was confused by withnail's teacher, who told him that it sounds "more farang" that way - which it doesn't.

Actually, I find the idiosyncratic Thai pronunciation to be quite lovely and melodic, and have even adopted it myself.

Cheers.

I agree that both Meadish's and David's explanations are better than my previous one. Thinking about it I may have misquoted my old teacher slightly, perhaps what she said was merely that foreign loanwords sounded more correct with a falling tone. Not more 'farang like' but more like 'farang words following their pattern'.

[withnail]

The other thing that I find interesting about this topic is Thai people's choice of letters for such transliterations. I believe with vowels they choose vowels which are closer to vowels in their language. So the a in can would be สระ แ- such as in ไทยแลนด์ (Thailand) this is IMO one of the biggest reasons why British people when first in Thailand will comment that Thai people speak English with an American accent, which I don't believe they necessarily do.

I've had Thai people ask me (well one at least) if it is correct to say that a is pronounced like สระ แ- in American English and สระ -า in British English. That's obviously not the right way to look at it but you can see in this case why they would choose one over the other.

But I have seen a couple of words written using both e.g. ก๊าซ and แก๊ส I believe though that one is used more commonly for gases in general and one for gasoline.

The one that I found odd at first is, with the word Pepsi for example, why you would choose ป when พ seems (to me anyway) closer to the original, why is คาร์ฟูร์ spelt with ค but การ์ตูน spelt with ก?

I have also a Thai person say คนไทยชอบกอไก่ presumably what he meant was that given the choice ก gave the word more of a Thai sound. Who knows?

[DavidHouston]

I have been wondering for a long time about the Thai word for gas. Here is what the Royal Institute says:

ก๊าซ น. อากาศธาตุ, (วิทยา) สถานะหนึ่งของสสาร รูปร่างและ

ปริมาตรไม่คงที่ ขึ้นอยู่กับภาชนะที่บรรจุ, เรียกไฟซึ่งเกิดจาก

การจุดอะเซทิลีน ซึ่งได้จากก้อนแคลเซียมคาร์ไบด์ทําปฏิกิริยา

กับน้ำว่า ไฟก๊าซ, แก๊ส ก็ว่า. (อ. gas).

Before translating this paragraph, let's notice that the RI says that both pronunciations, ก๊าซ and แก๊ส are equivalent, the former reflecting British pronunciation, the latter, American. In fact, if you look up either word in the on-line version of the RI Dictionary, you will see the exact same definition, with the opposite word in the ก็ว่า "alternative pronunciation" position.

Here is a translation of the above: (as always, I welcome any corrections or alterantives)

"noun. gaseous substance, (scientific) one state of matter [note: "สสาร" is equal to "สาร"] whose shape and volume are not fixed; these depend on the vessel in which the gas is enclosed; "gas" is what the flame which arises from lighting acetelye is called; the "gas" which is obtained from a reaction between calcium carbide and water is called "gas fire". "แก๊ส" is also an acceptable pronunciation. (from English gas)"

Note that the RID does not define the term "ก๊าซ " or "แก๊ส" as being "gasoline" or "petrol" .

น้ำมันก๊าด น. นํ้ามันชนิดหนึ่งที่ใช้ตามตะเกียง. seems to be "lantern fuel"

น้ำมันดีเซล is diesel fuel

น้ำมันเบนซิน is "benzine"; now the RID is clearly back in the British mode

Did not mean to hi-jack the thread, but Withnail's raising the confusing issue of "gas" brings this to mind. I have no more clarity now than I had before. The good news is that whether one says "ก๊าซ " or "แก๊ส" at the petrol station, they know what you want. (Does anyone remember the 5 gallon square tanks of "refrigerator gas" that used to be sold in Thailand? This was a liquid not a gaseous substance.)

Edited November 25, 2007 by DavidHouston

[withnail]

My bad again, I think the second spelling I gave แก๊ส is more commonly used with gas either in bottles or the stuff that taxis use not gasoline/petrol, which would of course be น้ำมัน.

This came up with a teacher the other day when writing about global warming and she definitely suggested that in the story I was writing the first spelling was better.

Look up the two spellings on google, the differences are quite interesting.

[DavidHouston]

My bad again, I think the second spelling I gave แก๊ส is more commonly used with gas either in bottles or the stuff that taxis use not gasoline/petrol, which would of course be น้ำมัน.

This came up with a teacher the other day when writing about global warming and she definitely suggested that in the story I was writing the first spelling was better.

Look up the two spellings on google, the differences are quite interesting.

Just a very short diversion, if you don't mind. Do the Bangkok taxis and tuk tuks run on LPG (liquified petroleum gas), basically propane and butane; or on CNG (compressed natural gas)? I looked up both in Wikipedia and vehicles may be fitted to run on either. What do they use in Bangkok? (Down here in the South, we have neither.) Cooking gas is LPG, I believe.

And, are they both called "ก๊าซ " or "แก๊ส"? Thanks.

[yoot]

Although ก๊าซ and แก๊ส can be used alternatively but mostly, Thai people will use ก๊าซ to refer to elements of the air, such as ก๊าซคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์, ก๊าซไนโตรเจน, ก๊าซไฮโดรเจน and แก๊ส for fuel such as ปั๊มแก๊ส for both NGV(natural gas vehicles) and LPG(liquefied petroleum gas) gas station. But you will see we use both ก๊าซหุงต้ม and แก๊สหุงต้ม, in this case it's because the word หุงต้ม make the word gas can be refer to both elements of the air or fuel. Another example is when we smell the gas smell, we would say เหม็นกลิ่นแก๊ส which means there might be LPG gas leak out from somewhere.

[stateman]

Meantime, one that always stumps me: Pepsi = เปปซี่ - why is there a falling tone on the last syllable?

In fact, why are so many foreign names and words given a falling tone at the end, when they don't have one - or even a stress - in the original pronunciation?

Pepsi = เปปซี่ also bugged me since day 1.

เปปซี่ as written, doesn't read the same as Pepsi in English. It reads like something else - not the brand I like.

เป๊ปซี่ would.

Good catch, stateman. เป๊ปซี่ is the way it is spelled in Thai. But I think you're wrong in saying that "would read the same as Pepsi in English." The name in English does not have a falling tone, nor any stress, on the final syllable. เป๊ปซี would be closer - or, actually, a short vowel with a middle tone in the final syllable (although that would be difficult to write in Thai).

Thus the original question: why do Thais put a falling tone on the final syllables of foreign words? That might make the words sound more Thai, but it does not make them sound "more farang." English, and most Western languages, rarely stress the final syllables of words and names. But Thais usually pronounce/write multi-syllabic English words that way, and make them sound "less farang."

Personally, I don't really care how they do it: I'm just curious as to why (this being a language forum). A friend's daughter is named Elisa (pronounced ey-LI-sa), but her teachers changed it to (ey-li-SAH) and make her write it that way in Thai. Why?

The one that I found odd at first is, with the word Pepsi for example, why you would choose ป when พ seems (to me anyway)

Pepsi when written in Thai, the best fit to sounding actually should be เพ็พ สิ

But that would probably look too foreign. Using เป็ป probably is more Thai-friendly than เพ็พ.

Your favored ซี may be argued to be off from the English sound, as it would sound exactly as 'C'. A longer flat "C" or see.

So will you accept สิ ?

Or could it be that the translator wanted it to end with ซี่ to sound to have more "gusto"?

ฺBesides, ซี่ at the end of a phrase often is an exclamation pleading/commanding someone to do as said. Example: ทำอย่างนี้ซี่ / ทำอย่างนี้สิ

The one that I found odd at first is, with the word Pepsi for example, why you would choose ป when พ seems (to me anyway) closer to the original, why is คาร์ฟูร์ spelt with ค but การ์ตูน spelt with ก?

I would guess that:

การ์ตูน spelt with ก has been adopted into Thai for a long time. It became a legacy usage, right or wrong!

คาร์ฟูร์ spelt with ค because it is translated by a more modern translator and is done more correctly. Besides it is a store name, so they have total choice of spelling.

Translating English word into Thai evolved through the years. From very primitive to today, which is not yet up to par.

Long time ago, there was a famous translation into Thai newspaper headline for the coming state visit of a certain foreign dignitary "Jacob" to "Siam" as จอบมาเยี่ยมเสียม . Such translation would be laughable today, buy it was acceptable then. Of course,

จอบ เสียม fit into a play of words, as they are a pair of shovels.

Nevertheless, no one can get away with translating "Jacob" into จอบ, nor Siam into เสียม nowadays.