Thai Consonant Classes

[DavidHouston]

What are the consonant classes of "sonorants", "aspirates", and "unaspirates" or "plains" called in Thai? Does anyone know where a discussion of these classed might be found in a Thai grammar book? Thanks for your assistance.

[chinnotes]

The following may not answer your question exactly, but in a book หลักภาษาไทย which I have at hand the consonants are divided into several groups:

1) พยัญชนะเหลว – โฆษะ- เสียงข้าง : ล

2) พยัญชนะเหลว – โฆษะ- เสียงรัว : ร

3) เสียงเสียดแทรก อโคษะ : ช ฮ ฟ

4) เสียงนาสิก โคษะ : ม น ง

5) เสียงระเบิด อโคษะ สิถิล : ป ต จ ก

6) เสียงระเบิด อโคษะ ธนิด : พ ท ช ค

7) เสียงระเบิด โคษะ : บ ด อ

8) อรรธสระ :ว ย

A footnote says: จ และ ช เป็นเสียงครึ้งระเบิดครึ่งเสียดแทรก

These consonants are further characterised by the place where they are produced:

a) ริมฝีปาก: ม ป พ บ ว

ฟัน-ปุ่มเหงือก: ล ร ช น ต ท ด

c) เพดานแช็ง: จ ช ย

d) เพดานอ่อน: ง ก ค

e) ช่องหลอดลม: ฮ อ

f) ริมฝีปากกลาง: ฟันบน ฟ

Erwin

[Rikker]

Allow me to back-translate those for you, with occasional commentary (and typo corrections in red):

1) พยัญชนะเหลว – โฆษะ- เสียงข้าง : ล

liquid - voiced - lateral : /l/

2) พยัญชนะเหลว – โฆษะ- เสียงรัว : ร

liquid - voiced - trill : /r/

3) เสียงเสียดแทรก อโฆษะ : ซ ฮ ฟ

fricative - voiceless : /s/ /h/ /f/

4) เสียงนาสิก โฆษะ : ม น ง

nasal - voiced : /m/ /n/ /ŋ/

5) เสียงระเบิด อโฆษะ สิถิล : ป ต จ ก

plosive - voiceless - inaspirate : /p/ /t/ /j/ /k/

6) เสียงระเบิด อโฆษะ ธนิต : พ ท ช ค

plosive - voiceless - aspirate : /ph/ /th/ /ch/ /kh/

7) เสียงระเบิด โฆษะ : บ ด อ

plosive - voiced : /b/ /d/ /ʔ/

8) อรรธสระ :ว ย

semivowels : /w/ /y/

A footnote says: จ และ ช เป็นเสียงครึ่งระเบิดครึ่งเสียดแทรก

/j/ and /ch/ are affricates (lit: half-plosive and half-fricative)

These consonants are further characterised by the place where they are produced:

a) ริมฝีปาก: ม ป พ บ ว

labial: /m/ /p/ /ph/ /b/ /w/ (produced at the lips)

ฟัน-ปุ่มเหงือก: ล ร ช น ต ท ด

alveo-dental: /l/ /r/ /ch/ /n/ /t/ /th/ /d/ (produced where the alveolar ridge meets the back of the teeth)

c) เพดานแข็ง: จ ช ย

palatal: /j/ /ch/ /y/ (produced at the hard palate)

d) เพดานอ่อน: ง ก ค

velar: /ŋ/ /k/ /kh/ (produced at the soft palate, or velum)

e) ช่องหลอดลม: ฮ อ

glottal: /h/ /ʔ/ (produced at the glottis)

f) ริมฝีปากล่าง: ฟันบน ฟ

labio-dental: /f/ (produced with upper teeth on the the lower lip)

[Rikker]

What are the consonant classes of "sonorants", "aspirates", and "unaspirates" or "plains" called in Thai? Does anyone know where a discussion of these classed might be found in a Thai grammar book? Thanks for your assistance.

To be clear to readers, "consonant" here refers to *types of sounds*, not written symbols (the same goes for "vowel" by extension).

sonorant = This is a superclass of speech sounds (consonants and vowels), and I don't know the Thai equivalent here. The members of this class are: nasal, liquid, vowel, semi-vowel, flap, lateral, approximant (some of these subgroups overlap). Anything that isn't a sonorant is an obstruent, which consists of: stops/plosives (same thing), affricates, and fricatives.

aspirate = ธนิต

unaspirate (or inaspirate) = สิถิล

plain = ? I don't know what you mean here

This is the terminology of linguistics, and relatively new terminology, so you'd need to find it in a linguistics book, like the one Erwin suggested. I don't believe it's taught generally, so don't expect Thais to have learned this in grade school. It's probably an elective course in college, too.

[DavidHouston]

Chinnotes,

Is the book to which you referring to "หลักภาษาไทย เรียบเรียงตามหลักสูตรวิชาชุดครูมัธยม" โดย สุธิวงศ์ พงศ์ไพบูลย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๔ (2001), หน้า ๓๔๐ - -๓๕๘ ?

Thanks.

[DavidHouston]

What are the consonant classes of "sonorants", "aspirates", and "unaspirates" or "plains" called in Thai? Does anyone know where a discussion of these classed might be found in a Thai grammar book? Thanks for your assistance.

This is the terminology of linguistics, and relatively new terminology, so you'd need to find it in a linguistics book, like the one Erwin suggested. I don't believe it's taught generally, so don't expect Thais to have learned this in grade school. It's probably an elective course in college, too.

Rikker,

I want to thank you for all the effort you are making here to educate us in this subject; I also want to thank Richard W who has been a constant source of learning and information about the nuts and bolts of Thai from a broader linguistic perspective.

I would like to ask a follow-up question for Mr. Rikker. In http://www.thai-language.com/id/830221 (as explained further in http://www.thai-language.com/id/841623), Glenn reflects what Richard W pointed out regarding the seeming special case inconsistencies of consonant clusters in the "อักษรนำ" category by stating:

" Now as you learn Thai words, you'll notice that the second consonant in non-conforming clusters is almost always a sonorant. If, however, it's not, then the tone of the overall syllable will be determined according to the class of that second consonant."

This statement, first posited by Richard, seems to cover all of what we previously thought were exceptions. Given that this rule is accurate, would it not be reflected in traditional Thai grammar studies?

Two more points:

1. Does the categorization of sounds in the สุธิวงศ์ พงศ์ไพบูลย์ book reflect Western linguistic analysis of Thai sounds or do these arise from traditional Thai grammatical analysis?

2. Is it possible to codify all these above discussions for us, and for posterity or to provide references to which we and other students might refer in the future? Perhaps your blog or Glenn's "Lessons" are an appropriate places.

[chinnotes]

David,

yes, it is this book, although my book is an earlier issue (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ ๑๑ พ.ศง ๒๕๓๖)

Erwin

[Richard W]

5) เสียงระเบิด อโฆษะ สิถิล : ป ต จ ก

plosive - voiceless - inaspirate : /p/ /t/ /j/ /k/

7) เสียงระเบิด โฆษะ : บ ด อ

plosive - voiced : /b/ /d/ /ʔ/

1. Does the categorization of sounds in the สุธิวงศ์ พงศ์ไพบูลย์ book reflect Western linguistic analysis of Thai sounds or do these arise from traditional Thai grammatical analysis?

I think there's something traditional about the classification of อ. It's actually an unaspirated voiceless plosive, not a voiced plosive, and so should be in group 5, not in group 7. Historically, the four consonants บ ด อย อ form a class as the (pre-)glottal(ised) consonants, but I think nothing is left of this connection in the modern spoken language.

[Rikker]

I would like to ask a follow-up question for Mr. Rikker. In http://www.thai-language.com/id/830221 (as explained further in http://www.thai-language.com/id/841623), Glenn reflects what Richard W pointed out regarding the seeming special case inconsistencies of consonant clusters in the "อักษรนำ" category by stating:

" Now as you learn Thai words, you'll notice that the second consonant in non-conforming clusters is almost always a sonorant. If, however, it's not, then the tone of the overall syllable will be determined according to the class of that second consonant."

This statement, first posited by Richard, seems to cover all of what we previously thought were exceptions. Given that this rule is accurate, would it not be reflected in traditional Thai grammar studies?

This doesn't address exceptions like สมาคม and สมาธิ. I can't remember if I've seen a justification of these exceptions anywhere yet. It does deal nicely with สภา and เฉพาะ, though. I have no idea if the phonological basis for exceptions is understood in Thai traditional grammar, but I'd expect it to be. Time to go dig through กำชัย.

Two more points:

1. Does the categorization of sounds in the สุธิวงศ์ พงศ์ไพบูลย์ book reflect Western linguistic analysis of Thai sounds or do these arise from traditional Thai grammatical analysis?

2. Is it possible to codify all these above discussions for us, and for posterity or to provide references to which we and other students might refer in the future? Perhaps your blog or Glenn's "Lessons" are an appropriate places.

1. Excepting Richard's keen observation of the misplacement of อ, this seems like 100% Western-style analysis here (complete with translated terminology).

2. I think we definitely want to do so. I'll see about posting some of this information on my blog, though I don't know if I'll be able to give it the treatment it deserves right away. But at the very least, a discussion of the linguistic terms and their Thai equivalents, with this division of the Thai sounds is definitely in order.

[DavidHouston]

I would like to ask a follow-up question for Mr. Rikker. In http://www.thai-language.com/id/830221 (as explained further in http://www.thai-language.com/id/841623), Glenn reflects what Richard W pointed out regarding the seeming special case inconsistencies of consonant clusters in the "อักษรนำ" category by stating:

" Now as you learn Thai words, you'll notice that the second consonant in non-conforming clusters is almost always a sonorant. If, however, it's not, then the tone of the overall syllable will be determined according to the class of that second consonant."

This statement, first posited by Richard, seems to cover all of what we previously thought were exceptions. Given that this rule is accurate, would it not be reflected in traditional Thai grammar studies?

This doesn't address exceptions like สมาคม and สมาธิ. I can't remember if I've seen a justification of these exceptions anywhere yet. It does deal nicely with สภา and เฉพาะ, though. I have no idea if the phonological basis for exceptions is understood in Thai traditional grammar, but I'd expect it to be. Time to go dig through กำชัย.

Two more points:

1. Does the categorization of sounds in the สุธิวงศ์ พงศ์ไพบูลย์ book reflect Western linguistic analysis of Thai sounds or do these arise from traditional Thai grammatical analysis?

2. Is it possible to codify all these above discussions for us, and for posterity or to provide references to which we and other students might refer in the future? Perhaps your blog or Glenn's "Lessons" are an appropriate places.

1. Excepting Richard's keen observation of the misplacement of อ, this seems like 100% Western-style analysis here (complete with translated terminology).

2. I think we definitely want to do so. I'll see about posting some of this information on my blog, though I don't know if I'll be able to give it the treatment it deserves right away. But at the very least, a discussion of the linguistic terms and their Thai equivalents, with this division of the Thai sounds is definitely in order.

Rikker,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. Towards the front of the กำชัย text is a discussion on Thai written language and spelling. This is where the discussion is on consonant clusters and the tone rules regarding อักษรนำ and ประวิสรรชนีย์. However, toward the end of the book is another chapter on pronunciation. Again กำชัย presents a similar discussion regarding อักษรนำ, as well as a more extended presentation of explicit vowels. It might be there where he discusses the tone rules in this context. Sorry, we are in the U.S. now and I did not bring my กำชัย as is it a bit of a weighty tome. (I did mail myself some other Thai books to work on, including the dictionary of new words.)

Since you and Richard and others often enlighten and entertain us with linguistic analysis of Thai, I certainly would appreciate a glossary of linguistic terms and their Thai equivalents. Chinnotes has added some very valuable items from สุธิวงศ์ and Chris has provided an excellent reference to parts of speech in Nectec's Orchid project (http://www.links.nectec.or.th/orchid/). A reference set on your blog would certainly be helpful.

Thanks again.