Why Are Low Class Consonants Called Low Class?

[DavidHouston]

พยัญชนะตัวใดพื้นเสียงที่ยังมิได้ผันด้วยรูปวรรณยุกต์ มีสำเนียงอยู่ในระดับต่ำ ก็จัดเป็นพวกอักษรต่ำ

Well done, bit of a chore I know, but it says that any consonent base sound before a tone mark is applied has a sound in the low level is called low consonent. Unfortunaltely there arn't any of those are there? don't we pronounce low consonents in the normal tone? That was the reason for the question I thought. It does say that doesn't it? Most books then go on to say which of the consonents these are, like ได้แก่ ค,พ,ย,น, (in the right order of course but I can't find) The question is if the high and mid consonents have high and mid base tones why doesn't the low have a low tone? I wish someone would say what the answer is or why it is unlikely to be that the low consonents have changed to normal tone.

It appears that the best answer to that series of questions is that two separate meanings are ascribed to words like "high" and "low". The first meaning is "tone" as in เสียงเอก, เสียงโธม etc.; the second meaning is where the sound is produced in the mouth, low in the throat or high in the nasal passage, e.g. This is an unfortunate English language problem, but not a problem in Thai.

I now understand, after a number of respondents have told us, that the appellations of the consonants as high low and mid do not reflect tones but reflect from where in the body the sound emanates. I can understand how the "s" sounds produced by ส ศ ษ are produced high up in the mouth; and ม น ง being voiced sounds come low in the throat. But ก is also produced low but is a mid, and so on - to say nothing of consonants with similar sounds being placed in different categories.

You folks who have discussed the historical derivation of the sounds seem to me to be on a more accurate path than those of us trying to relate the classification to the current Thai language. I now agree with Richard that Kumchai and those who followed him are stretching a point to explain the origins. Tautology it is and apologia it will remain.

Finally, for me, I very much appreciate the thinking you, Richard, and others have done on this issue. Thanks again.

Edited February 22, 2008 by DavidHouston

[kriswillems]

I think there are still 2 possible explanations.

1. If you look at life syllables (consonant pronounced with อ behind), you'll see

mid class - mid tone

high class - rising tone (which with a bit of imagination can be seen as high)

low class - mid tone

There is one inconsistency: the low class. As tgeezer said the low class really might had low tone before.

2. If you look at dead syllable (consonant pronounced with ะ behind), you'll see

mid class - low tone

high class - low tone

low class - high tone

If you now assume that the class names are not based on tone heights but on voices of people, and you assume a big strong guy with a bass voice (low tone) would be called a guy with a "high" status or class, while a small girl with a high tone voice would have a low status or class,

then there is still one inconsistency : the mid class

The question is then, did a mid class syllable followed by a ะ had a mid tone in the past?

PS. I think it's unlikely that Thai people had knowledge about frequency of tones around the time classes were given their name. Modern science in Thailand developed rather late. Probably they didn't know what frequency is. It's more likely that class names were based on how peoples voice were perceived.

[tgeezer]

พยัญชนะตัวใดพื้นเสียงที่ยังมิได้ผันด้วยรูปวรรณยุกต์ มีสำเนียงอยู่ในระดับต่ำ ก็จัดเป็นพวกอักษรต่ำ

Well done, bit of a chore I know, but it says that any consonent base sound before a tone mark is applied has a sound in the low level is called low consonent. Unfortunaltely there arn't any of those are there? don't we pronounce low consonents in the normal tone? That was the reason for the question I thought. It does say that doesn't it? Most books then go on to say which of the consonents these are, like ได้แก่ ค,พ,ย,น, (in the right order of course but I can't find) The question is if the high and mid consonents have high and mid base tones why doesn't the low have a low tone? I wish someone would say what the answer is or why it is unlikely to be that the low consonents have changed to normal tone.

It appears that the best answer to that series of questions is that two separate meanings are ascribed to words like "high" and "low". The first meaning is "tone" as in เสียงเอก, เสียงโธม etc.; the second meaning is where the sound is produced in the mouth, low in the throat or high in the nasal passage, e.g. This is an unfortunate English language problem, but not a problem in Thai.

I now understand, after a number of respondents have told us, that the appellations of the consonants as high low and mid do not reflect tones but reflect from where in the body the sound emanates. I can understand how the "s" sounds produced by ส ศ ษ are produced high up in the mouth; and ม น ง being voiced sounds come low in the throat. But ก is also produced low but is a mid, and so on - to say nothing of consonants with similar sounds being placed in different categories.

You folks who have discussed the historical derivation of the sounds seem to me to be on a more accurate path than those of us trying to relate the classification to the current Thai language. I now agree with Richard that Kumchai and those who followed him are stretching a point to explain the origins. Tautology it is and apologia it will remain.

Finally, for me, I very much appreciate the thinking you, Richard, and others have done on this issue. Thanks again.

Too deep for me I must be doing something wrong, but then I am not Thai, every sound I make comes from one of three places: lips, throat, and the mouth, and the consonents are cleverly designed to have examples of each in all three groups. It is probably a fact that they number sources in the tens especially when the whole body is involved and it is surprising to me that several centuries ago they should be so analytical. I have never read any books in English on the subject and only school books in Thai and the concern is always what comes out of the mouth not where it came from and they do classify the groups by the sound which comes out. A shame that what would seem to be a fairly simple thing is too deep for mere mortals.

[tgeezer]

I think there are still 2 possible explanations.

1. If you look at life syllables (consonant pronounced with อ behind), you'll see

mid class - mid tone

high class - rising tone (which with a bit of imagination can be seen as high)

low class - mid tone

There is one inconsistency: the low class. As tgeezer said the low class really might had low tone before.

2. If you look at dead syllable (consonant pronounced with ะ behind), you'll see

mid class - low tone

high class - low tone

low class - high tone

If you now assume that the class names are not based on tone heights but on voices of people, and you assume a big strong guy with a bass voice (low tone) would be called a guy with a "high" status or class, while a small girl with a high tone voice would have a low status or class,

then there is still one inconsistency : the mid class

The question is then, did a mid class syllable followed by a ะ had a mid tone in the past?

PS. I think it's unlikely that Thai people had knowledge about frequency of tones around the time classes were given their name. Modern science in Thailand developed rather late. Probably they didn't know what frequency is. It's more likely that class names were based on how peoples voice were perceived.

Wonderful I have nothing better to do, what about the inconsistency of tone marks? They say tones one two three and four then put one over a low consonent and say it is sounded as two, then a two,which is sounded three. If they could work out all the gobbledy gook about depth in the body etc you would think they could apply the tone marks correctly.

[kriswillems]

- First of all. My English is not that good and I need to read some posts many times to understand what is meant and I might not express myself as I would like to. Sorry for that.

- After Richard's remark, I realize that the class names can not be related to the place in body,mouth or throat where they are formed.

Also the article Richard ever wrote on thai-language clearly shows there is no relation between the classes and the place in the body where the sounds are created.

http://www.thai-language.com/ref/altcons

The class names must be based on tone height.

- I am still not sure what Thai people around that time would call a high tone: a tone with a low frequency or a tone with a high frequency. The fact that Thai people call a low voice "เสียงใหญ่" made me think about this. Also the fact that Richard mentioned something about the name "high" and "low" class being swapped in Tai-language made me doubt.

- I am not sure if the class names are based on life syllables or dead syllables

- You've a point tgeezer. If the base tone of low class was historically different from mid class, and the tone marks only represent shifts, it would explain why low class and mid class consonants have different tones with the same tone mark. And I also understand the flaw, i.e. why are mid class and high class not different when they carry the same tone mark?

There must be one class that changed tone height through time (either in life a dead syllables).

Isn't it possible that mid class consonants changed from mid to low in dead syllables (as I suggested earlier)? So mid class consonants became the same as high class consonants (in dead syllable). If the tone marks were introduces after this change, it would explain why low class consonants behave different when applying the tone marks (low class consonants are high in short dead syllables, so different from high and mid class). This scenario shows less inconsistency, in my opinion.

Edited February 22, 2008 by kriswillems

[Richard W]

I think there are still 2 possible explanations.

1. If you look at life syllables (consonant pronounced with อ behind), you'll see

mid class - mid tone

high class - rising tone (which with a bit of imagination can be seen as high)

low class - mid tone

There is one inconsistency: the low class. As tgeezer said the low class really might had low tone before.

2. If you look at dead syllable (consonant pronounced with ะ behind), you'll see

mid class - low tone

high class - low tone

low class - high tone

If you now assume that the class names are not based on tone heights but on voices of people, and you assume a big strong guy with a bass voice (low tone) would be called a guy with a "high" status or class, while a small girl with a high tone voice would have a low status or class,

then there is still one inconsistency : the mid class

The question is then, did a mid class syllable followed by a ะ had a mid tone in the past?

Difficult to know for sure. There is still a Central Thai dialect (U Thong) that makes the three-way distinction on open syllables. The three-way distinction on inherited dead syllables seems to be restricted to Southern Thai. I used to think that 'mid' just meant sometimes high and sometimes low, according to the old tone system (which is what most orthographies are based on), until I discovered there were Southern, Central and North-Eastern dialects making a 3-way distinction in live syllables without tone marks.

Wonderful I have nothing better to do, what about the inconsistency of tone marks? They say tones one two three and four then put one over a low consonent and say it is sounded as two, then a two,which is sounded three. If they could work out all the gobbledy gook about depth in the body etc you would think they could apply the tone marks correctly.

There is plenty of evidence that when first reduced to writing, Thai had just three tones, e.g the khloong (โคลง) form of poetry. The merger of the high/mid class mai tho tone and the low class mai ek tone does not happen in all dialects, e.g. the Northern Thai dialects, which have the same basic tone mark system in the native script (Tham/Lanna) as does Thai. (Northern Thai has fewer mid consonants than Siamese or Lao.) (Siamese mai tri and mai chattawa are innovations, which have been borrowed by the Tham script in Laos, and similar innovations have occured in the Tai Khuen variant of the Tham script. I don't know what has happened in the Isaan variant of the Tham script - I'd guess it followed the Lao variant.)

[Richard W]

Isn't it possible that mid class consonants changed from mid to low in dead syllables (as I suggested earlier)? So mid class consonants became the same as high class consonants (in dead syllable). If the tone marks were introduces after this change, it would explain why low class consonants behave different when applying the tone marks (low class consonants are high in short dead syllables, so different from high and mid class). This scenario shows less inconsistency, in my opinion.

It seems that dead syllables originally had the tone marked as mai ek in live syllables. In most Tai, and indeed a great many Tai-Kadai dialects, the two tend to have the same tone when the initial consonant was the same. (To avod confusion between writing and speech, linguists call the original three live tones A, B and C, and the dead syllables are counted as tone D. One would then say that B and D were the same or very simlar tones.)

[tgeezer]

- First of all. My English is not that good and I need to read some posts many times to understand what is meant and I might not express myself as I would like to. Sorry for that.

- After Richard's remark, I realize that the class names can not be related to the place in body,mouth or throat where they are formed.

Also the article Richard ever wrote on thai-language clearly shows there is no relation between the classes and the place in the body where the sounds are created.

http://www.thai-language.com/ref/altcons

Thank you for starting this thread and how brave of you to take on the English as a vehicle for leaning Thai. I am sorry but I must go on and hope to find the answer to the basic question. I have read the article to which you refer and don't see it relevent. Incidentally it makes a statement that ฤ and ฦ are consonents, (this view is not currently taught in schools) and does not mention ฤา and ฦา . It is not too important I agree but could start another endless discussion. I hope!

[GallopingMajor]

Does anyone know the historical or linguistic reason why low class consonants are called "low" class.

Why not just call them consonants of "group 1" or so. Who invented this (rather confusing) name?

(Same question could be asked for the high and middle class consonants)

I was taught that the high class consonants originated in Bangkok, and the middle class in Chiang Mai/Chiang Rai. The low class consonants originated in Isahn and were thus labeled as "low class" by the residents of Bangkok.

[tgeezer]

Does anyone know the historical or linguistic reason why low class consonants are called "low" class.

Why not just call them consonants of "group 1" or so. Who invented this (rather confusing) name?

(Same question could be asked for the high and middle class consonants)

I was taught that the high class consonants originated in Bangkok, and the middle class in Chiang Mai/Chiang Rai. The low class consonants originated in Isahn and were thus labeled as "low class" by the residents of Bangkok.

And I think we shall have to accept this as the answer it seems plausable to me!

[DavidHouston]

Mr. Kriswillems,

I would like to propose that we post the question you originally asked on the Royal Institute webboard. The board can be found at www.royin.go.th/th/webboardnew/viewall.php. Maybe you will get a response, maybe not. However, there is no downside in trying. The only limitation is that the question should be posed in Thai. Would anyone like to suggest a draft? We can offer our suggestions and have our experts and native speakers on this forum correct the langauge of the question.

Anyone game?

[tgeezer]

Mr. Kriswillems,

I would like to propose that we post the question you originally asked on the Royal Institute webboard. The board can be found at www.royin.go.th/th/webboardnew/viewall.php. Maybe you will get a response, maybe not. However, there is no downside in trying. The only limitation is that the question should be posed in Thai. Would anyone like to suggest a draft? We can offer our suggestions and have our experts and native speakers on this forum correct the langauge of the question.

Anyone game?

พยัญชนะไทยแบ่งออกเป่น ๓ พวก ๑ อักษรสูง ที่ยังไม่ได้ผันค้วยรูปวรรณยุกต์ จะพูดเสียงจัตวา

๒ อักษรกลาง จะเปล่งออกเสียงสามัญ เช่นเดียวกัน

ทำไม ๓ อักษรต่ำ ไม่จำเป็นต้องออกเสียงเอก นอกเนื้อจากนี่ ถ้าเป็นอยางนี้รูปวรรณยุกต์จะแสดงต้องผันเสียงกีขั้นถูกต้อง

Here you are a piece of Thaigrit for you, just to get the show on the road. I think it is important to mention the inconsistency of the tone marks as well because that makes the question more logical than just 'why is a dog called a dog?'

[Rikker]

I actually found an academic article that addresses this very issue. I haven't had the chance to look at it in detail yet, and the reference is on my work computer, but I happened upon it accidentally while looking for interesting articles. It's written by a Thai in English. I'll post more details when I can.