Robertson In Thai Script

[patongster]

Hello,

Can anyone Translate Robertson into Thai, Thanks in advance.

[Jay_Jay]

Was just flicking through the headings this morning and couldn't let this post go by without putting my 2 cents worth in.

You will see an interesting phenomenon happen when you ask Thais to transliterate 'Robertson'

The standard answer would probably be something like

โรเบิร์ทสัน

which would be pronounced -

Row (common / mid tone) (as in row row row your boat), 'Bert' - sounds pretty much like the English - low tone, and then 'San' with a rising tone

I think the psychology is

Ro - when you see 'o', the natural reaction in Thai is to say that it's โอ. The actual sound in English is probably closer to the short อ = เอาะ

If you have some Thais around you, have them try and pronounce this:

ร็อบเบิร์ท - Robert

I think you'll find it closer to the English pronunciation.

This - ร้อเบิร์ท would come even closer, but looks kinda strange in Thai.

Now for the '-son' part.

I've looked at this for many years now. The psychology on THIS one would probably go something like

'son' in English is pronounced the same as 'sun' - the big yellow thing in the sky - so... any time you see 'son' in a word, it is pronounced like 'sun'. - similar to the way that 'er' in an English word is always pronounced like the 'ir' in 'bird' -

so "Cherry" becomes เชอร์รี่ - Choer ree and "Error" becomes เออเริ่อร์ - Oer rerh (pardon my transliteration inconsistencies)

In English, depending what dialect you speak, the -son in Robertson will be something like เสิ่น - /soen/ (like the 'u' in 'blur').

So - Trying to compromise not looking too strange in Thai with having a more accurate pronunciation, I would personally write Robertson as:

ร็อบเบิร์ทเสิ่น - though if you do pronounce the 'o' in 'son' as an 'o', you could get away with ร็อบเบิร์ทสน - and it probably looks a little less strange in Thai.

So - Take your pick!

โรเบิร์ทสัน

ร็อบเบิร์ทเสิ่น

ร็อบเบิร์ทสน

There are a several other permutations, but this is a good start.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Jay_Jay

[patongster]

wow thanks for you detailed reply, Im Australian and would probably say Rob-erts-soen not Rob-erts-son (like sun in sky)

I should add I'm going to stick with how you would personally write Robertson; ร็อบเบิร์ทเสิ่น

Edited August 15, 2008 by patongster

[AjarnP]

Was just flicking through the headings this morning and couldn't let this post go by without putting my 2 cents worth in.

You will see an interesting phenomenon happen when you ask Thais to transliterate 'Robertson'

The standard answer would probably be something like

โรเบิร์ทสัน

which would be pronounced -

Row (common / mid tone) (as in row row row your boat), 'Bert' - sounds pretty much like the English - low tone, and then 'San' with a rising tone

I think the psychology is

Ro - when you see 'o', the natural reaction in Thai is to say that it's โอ. The actual sound in English is probably closer to the short อ = เอาะ

If you have some Thais around you, have them try and pronounce this:

ร็อบเบิร์ท - Robert

I think you'll find it closer to the English pronunciation.

This - ร้อเบิร์ท would come even closer, but looks kinda strange in Thai.

Now for the '-son' part.

I've looked at this for many years now. The psychology on THIS one would probably go something like

'son' in English is pronounced the same as 'sun' - the big yellow thing in the sky - so... any time you see 'son' in a word, it is pronounced like 'sun'. - similar to the way that 'er' in an English word is always pronounced like the 'ir' in 'bird' -

so "Cherry" becomes เชอร์รี่ - Choer ree and "Error" becomes เออเริ่อร์ - Oer rerh (pardon my transliteration inconsistencies)

In English, depending what dialect you speak, the -son in Robertson will be something like เสิ่น - /soen/ (like the 'u' in 'blur').

So - Trying to compromise not looking too strange in Thai with having a more accurate pronunciation, I would personally write Robertson as:

ร็อบเบิร์ทเสิ่น - though if you do pronounce the 'o' in 'son' as an 'o', you could get away with ร็อบเบิร์ทสน - and it probably looks a little less strange in Thai.

So - Take your pick!

โรเบิร์ทสัน

ร็อบเบิร์ทเสิ่น

ร็อบเบิร์ทสน

There are a several other permutations, but this is a good start.

JayJay,

The most clear and proper explanation of the 'o' in robert that I've ever seen. Great job. Now if only I can get people to start writing peter with a 'พ' and not a 'ป' I will be a happy man

[Jay_Jay]

Yup - I think the whole โอ = o, ป = p etc that's embedded into the subconscious of Thai kids from when they begin to read creates a mountain for them later on when it comes to pronouncing English without a Tinglish accent.

Seeing Pepsi = เป็บซี่ from birth really calcifies this p=ป thing. เพ็บสี่ would sound more natural.

There are many others. E.g. - the word

Opal

โอปอ = "oh por" = probably because 'all' is pronounced ออล

BUT

Opel - as in the car brand name becomes

โอเปิ้ล - because 'pel' is like what you'd find in 'gospel' ... or kinda like 'apple' (more common), so it is pronounced 'oh poen'

where in English, both are pronounced the same.

โอเผิ่ล

Actually - saying it with the โอ would sound more like a scottsman saying it -

I have my own transliteration system in thai - hard to render here, but would look something like :

เอิวเผิ่ล - เอิว is not a vowel frame in Thai, but after a minute's explanation most people can adapt to it - sounding something like เออฺอูเผิ่ล (with no glottal close between syllable frames)

Hmmm.... looking back at this, what a can of worms 'Robertson' has brought up! 55555

[Rikker]

Since you opened the can of worms, I'll add that ต is a more common ending for Robert than ท, as supported by Google hits, so if one doesn't mind inexact pronunciation, the received Thai spelling would mostly likely be โีรเบิร์ตสัน, that we would expect to see for a celebrity or author with this name.

[Jay_Jay]

That's right Rikker - The ต is probably more accurate too as it makes it feel like a more palatised 't' at the end.

If it was a professional translation job, I would put my personal opinions aside and submit the โรเบิร์ตสัน / โรเบิร์ทสัน rendition to the client.

As a long term goal though, I'd like to work towards a more natural sounding transliteration system in Thai. If you have a look at the way it's done in Korean nowadays, despite having its many critics, it's obvious someone with a very strong understanding of phonetics for native speakers of English and Korean had a role in putting the standard together.

Is it believable to think that this mindset shift about perceived pronunciation of English will change? ... Maybe not in this lifetime ^^ but it's worth a try.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Jay_Jay

[AjarnP]

That's right Rikker - The ต is probably more accurate too as it makes it feel like a more palatised 't' at the end.

If it was a professional translation job, I would put my personal opinions aside and submit the โรเบิร์ตสัน / โรเบิร์ทสัน rendition to the client.

As a long term goal though, I'd like to work towards a more natural sounding transliteration system in Thai. If you have a look at the way it's done in Korean nowadays, despite having its many critics, it's obvious someone with a very strong understanding of phonetics for native speakers of English and Korean had a role in putting the standard together.

Is it believable to think that this mindset shift about perceived pronunciation of English will change? ... Maybe not in this lifetime ^^ but it's worth a try.

Here here (hear hear) couldn't agree more that the old transliteration is just that OLD as in aged, decrepit and certainly could use an overhaul.

IMHO (yes I know I raised this before) the continual literation in English of letters silenced by the dear old karan (garun) is something that needs phasing out too. How anyone visiting LOS is supposed to know that SuriwongSEE is just suriwong never fails to amuse me when I hear them asking teh tuk tuk driver to go there.

OH well...it is Friday have a nice weekend

AjarnP

[rgs2001uk]

That's right Rikker - The ต is probably more accurate too as it makes it feel like a more palatised 't' at the end.

If it was a professional translation job, I would put my personal opinions aside and submit the โรเบิร์ตสัน / โรเบิร์ทสัน rendition to the client.

As a long term goal though, I'd like to work towards a more natural sounding transliteration system in Thai. If you have a look at the way it's done in Korean nowadays, despite having its many critics, it's obvious someone with a very strong understanding of phonetics for native speakers of English and Korean had a role in putting the standard together.

Is it believable to think that this mindset shift about perceived pronunciation of English will change? ... Maybe not in this lifetime ^^ but it's worth a try.

Here here (hear hear) couldn't agree more that the old transliteration is just that OLD as in aged, decrepit and certainly could use an overhaul.

IMHO (yes I know I raised this before) the continual literation in English of letters silenced by the dear old karan (garun) is something that needs phasing out too. How anyone visiting LOS is supposed to know that SuriwongSEE is just suriwong never fails to amuse me when I hear them asking teh tuk tuk driver to go there.

OH well...it is Friday have a nice weekend

AjarnP

aint that the truth, makes me smile when i hear the tourists asking for a singha beer instead of bia sing.

too many others to list, the dear old new airport is another example of a redundant system, why the vowel on top of the final constonant is not pronounced takes a bit of explaining to people who dont understand the mechanics of the language.

dont even get me started on pattaya or phuket .

the number of times i have heard these pronounced incorrectly must be on a par with chiang (chang) mai.

as you say ajarn, its friday.

[mangkorn]

Jay_Jay: I agree completely that the transcription system needs an overhaul. But, could you explain your own use of "or" in a word transcribed as "por" or "gor"?

I've been speaking English a long time, and I don't get the "or" - words like that just seem to scream out for "aw."

(The English word "saw" is not written as "sor" - which I believe is a French nun...)

But then, I guess that's the problem with transcription: getting everybody to agree is almost impossible.

Edited August 15, 2008 by mangkorn

[Jay_Jay]

OR...... we could go the other way and start a Sanskrit revival here in Thailand where people young and old would be pronouncing the Sanskrit words with their original pronunciation - voiced, retroflex consonants and all!

.... or maybe....

[desi]

How anyone visiting LOS is supposed to know that SuriwongSEE is just suriwong never fails to amuse me when I hear them asking teh tuk tuk driver to go there.

AjarnP

Have you ever tried to suss out place names in the UK? It's like they've been trying to use up extra letters or some such...

Gloucester = Gloster

Leicester = Lester

Reading = Redding

Salisbury = Sawlsbry

Worcester = Wooster

As for Thailand, I still can't pronounce Paholyothin the same twice in a row (but I have no problems getting taxis back home...)

[Jay_Jay]

Mangkorn - sorry for my disjointed reply to ur last message.

As for the 'or' thing...

I personally hate using non IPA transcription systems, but I acknowledge that they're needed. Then when you do end up typing in normal latin fonts, I think -'who's the audience' .. linguists, non-linguists, native english speakers, romance language speakers etc.

I have an internal dialogue... do I write อ as /o/ and โอ as /eu/ ...

but then /eu/ could be interpreted as อือ .. so then do i change อ to /aw/ - but then would someone read it as /au/ (อาว) ... probably not. Then i figure อ sounds like how many people would pronounce the english word 'or'. so i just went with the 'or' = อ

In hindsight, i think your /aw/ is a better solution.

[Rikker]

Jay_Jay, regarding the received Thai pronunciation of English words, names, etc.--You may be interested in a (rather hard to find) 1984 article "Some Remarks on Lexical Modernization in Thai" by Christopher Court that touches on this issue.

He suggests that this "institutionalized national pronunciation of English" (the "Thai-glish" English accent) is designed, taught, and perpetuated intentionally. That is, you can de-claw the threat of English by making it sufficiently Thai.

Here's an excerpt from page 3:

"...it can be said that one of the purposes of the national pronunciation is precisely to enable one to use English words without sounding like a foreigner. It serves, then, important sociolinguistic functions: it shows that the speaker is not trying to ape foreigners, to air his knowledge, or to put his interlocutor down, and it makes it all right to use almost any amount of English vocabulary in one's discourse ... Wearing the Thai-designed uniform for aliens gives the alien word the freedom of the city, as it were, and it prevents the nationals from feeling overwhelmed. More than that, if foreign teachers were to cease trying to teach native-speaker pronunciation, as well as certain grammatical niceties, and generally were to give up behaving as if English were a living language, it is conceivable that English would before too long be elevated to the pantheon of classical languages, so that none of its contributions to the national language would have to be replaced at all, even in the long run."

Things are both very much the same and very much different 25 years later. But I think much of his point still stands. In essence, that English vocabulary is legitimized in Thai by accepting and integrating it on Thai terms--given a stylized accent and used within the bounds of Thai grammar. Anything beyond that makes the purists uncomfortable. And that's exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. The purists are uncomfortable (and there are still plenty who want to eradicate foreign words entirely--a thoroughly impossible prospect).

The bit at the end is a hypothetical scenario, of course. The implicit point, I think, is that English is no more a "corrupting" force on Thai than Pali or Sanskrit were (and maybe people were saying the same things 1000 years ago about Sanskrit "corrupting" the language--who knows).

It's a terrible dilemma for those who lament the influence of English on Thai: English is too important on the world stage to deny it to students; but rather than the old "nationalized" pronunciation, today access to authentic English is universal in a way no one could have imagined just a couple decades ago. All you need is YouTube or UBC and you can listen to native speakers all day long. All you need is MSN Messenger and you can chat with native speakers all day long. All you need is Skype and you can talk to native speakers all day long.

I agree with you that there's a sea change coming for English teaching in Thailand. It has to come. But as you well know, there are many out there who (a) are too used to and comfortable with the old way (b ) oppose a new way for one reason or another, and (c ) are too out of touch to realize that this change is both necessary and inevitable.

It's going to take a while. I'd say yes, the change will begin within our lifetime, but maybe it won't be in our lifetime that English teaching is to the point that even the public schools can produce students with conversational ability. We need at least a couple generations to get to the point that all (or the majority) of Thai teachers of English are actually competent in the language they teach (today it's still the norm for them to have only limited conversational ability, if any).

I wonder if the change can happen before the entire educational system changes, though, and rote learning is tossed out the window. Which is probably an even more far fetched scenario.

I have a copy of the article, so if someone is interested in reading the full thing (this is only one point it hits on), send me a message and I'll pass it along.

And I'm interested to hear what others think. It's probably okay to continue this conversation here, since the OP's question has already been answered.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Rikker

[Richard W]

Jay_Jay, regarding the received Thai pronunciation of English words, names, etc.--You may be interested in a (rather hard to find) 1984 article "Some Remarks on Lexical Modernization in Thai" by Christopher Court that touches on this issue.

<snip>

I have a copy of the article, so if someone is interested in reading the full thing (this is only one point it hits on), send me a message and I'll pass it along.

It's available as a PDF image at SEAlang.

Edited to give all 13 pages, not just the first four.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Richard W

[DavidHouston]

I am neither a linguist nor an educator but I would like to ask some questions regarding Khun Rikker's topic.

First, for English (or other modern language) terminology coming into the Thai language why is it necessary that the Thai spelling of any such word reflects the pronunciation of that word in the source language? After all, the persons who will be using that word are Thais, not foreigners. The pronunciation of foreign loan words sounds more natural falling into the Thai native speech patterns, rather than into the speech patterns of speakers of the source language. Why interrupt those patters with a foreigner's exogenous concept of what they should be?

Second, for foreign words borrowed from English, which foreign-native speech patterns should be followed in transcription: British, American, Australian, Indian, Hong Kong or any of the other "native" dialects of English? (As for British and American patters, one then must choose which sub-national dialects to ape.) This issue, and its converse, the transcription of Thai into some Western writing system, is subject to continuing hashing in these forums.

Third, contrary to what has been implied in prior postings on this topic, the written language when used by a native speaker is rarely pronounced before it is understood. We use our eyes to recognize specific words and phrases and then compile these into the sentence- or clause-length thought. In other words, an adult's reading path is from eye to brain, without an intermediate pause for articulation in the mouth. Only young children and foreign language learners need to physically articulate words with their mouths before they understand.

That is, Thais, when reading a foreign loan word, need only recognize the word as consistently written to know its meaning; they do not stop to pronounce it in any "correct" manner. How many of us English speakers are fastidious enough in our daily native speech to make sure we pronounce foreign loan words into English correct as to their native origin? Consider our American pronunciation of "vamanos" ("vamoose") and "villa", for example. Others can add how we English speakers as foreigners continue to butcher the languages of other peoples. The spelling of a foreign loan word should, therefore, have as its primary objective visual recognizability, not accuracy in the foreign context.

(As to place names, that is a whole different kettle of fish. Winston Churchill has been famously quoted as saying, "I do not consider that names that have been familiar for generations in England should be altered to study the whims of foreigners living in those parts." Why shouldn't the Thais take this as a paradigm for their non-proper nouns and verbs?)

Finally, the question of how Thais incorporate foreign words into their language is a completely different matter from how Thais actually learn foreign languages. The Thai education system should indeed improve the learning of foreign languages and has taken a number of steps to do so. In this context one should expect high standards of pronunciation but, again, a foreign word spoken in its own context is very different from a foreign word articulated as part of one's own language.

Edited August 16, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Richard W]

Second, for foreign words borrowed from English, which foreign-native speech patterns should be followed in transcription: British, American, Australian, Indian, Hong Kong or any of the other "native" dialects of English? (As for British and American patters, one then must choose which sub-national dialects to ape.)

Dear chap, it should obviously be the accent of the British public schools. After all, that is where the cream of the Thai élite are educated.

This issue, and its converse, the transcription of Thai into some Western writing system, is subject to continuing hashing in these forums.

Largely because of too much dumbing down. The only dumbing down we should have is on accents v. letters for tones, though I believe citing tones is a real challenge for many. (In the case of tone letters v. tone accents, it is the keyboard mappings and fonts that are limited, not the writers.)

[Rikker]

You're right, David, of course, that there are two separate and very different issues: nativization of loanwords and teaching of foreign languages.

However, there are a number of things that make Thai's situation different. I'll try to name a few.

1) Immediacy: this is an active and ongoing issue in Thai in a way that it really isn't for, say, American English. There's no language which has even comes close to having a comparable level of influence, cachet and "hip" factor for English as English does for Thai.

2) Nationalism: there are very real "anti-English" and "pro-Thai-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else" sentiments which affect policy. The Royal Institute is useful for coining equivalent technical terms, but when they (or whoever) get into trying to influence native speakers to change their informal speech, they quickly become ineffective and irrelevant.

3) Confusion: Many Thais themselves don't distinguish between using English words as loanwords in Thai and using them as part of English-language conversation. In English language class, students are still "taught" (by the teacher's example) to pronounce English words exactly as they are written in Thai--i.e. with the Thai accent. Most of the time no effort is made, even though foreigners are brought in, to teach them genuine English phonology. Then in Thai language class, they are taught to avoid English and use the prescribed Thai substitutes.

Also, a response to one of your questions:

That is, Thais, when reading a foreign loan word, need only recognize the word as consistently written to know its meaning; they do not stop to pronounce it in any "correct" manner.

There is this whole subset of the Thai language--relatively recent English loanwords--that have no formal, official spelling. So they're usually written in only informal places--web boards, blogs, chat rooms. The Royal Institute largely refuses to "canonize" them by including them in dictionaries and other reference works. Often there is a de facto standard, or several similar variations, like เก็ท vs. เิก็ต (for the word pronounced [เก๊ต]. Rather than accept popular spellings, the Royal Institute manages to confuse the issue further. In their พจนานุกรมคำใหม่, they included this word, but spelled it เก๊ต, which virtually no one does. So while standards are needed, popular usage cannot be discarded.

So insofar as reading is involved, you're right--but I would contend that a lot of the time for recent English loans, people don't have that connection between spoken form and written form. So that's something that needs to be addressed, instead of the current "policy"--ignore these words, hoping they go away.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Rikker

[Jay_Jay]

Thanks guys for turning this into a really interesting thread

Rikker - Thanks for the article. I would tend to agree with the arguments brought up in it. David has some great points as well.

As for what dialect of English should we base a transliteration on, I don't even want to go there on this forum. Too much leaning to one side more than another would have one eaten alive. I think it's interesting how they do it in Mandarin. Take country names for example (following on from David's point of 'vamonos' = 'vamoose'. The characters / PinYin chosen are based on (in most cases) the native speaker's pronunciation of the country name. So where you have Germany = เยอรมัน (yerman) in Thai, based on the English pronunciation of Germany, in Chinese it's 德國 - /de2 guo2/, based on 'Deutschland'. This would avoid phenomenon like 'Portugal' = โปรตุเกส = 'protuke(s)t' (which is a ball of thread waiting to be unraveled in itself). If you look at English though, I guess the whole language is built up on bastardizations of loanwords from other languages .... hmm... that's a bit harsh. But you know what I mean. If we were to use that theory as a base to modify English, the language would probably not be recognised as English anymore.

As both of you mentioned, this is based on the higher argument ... Why should we? In not doing it, a strong national identity is retained, a sense of belonging and it just feels more 'natural' saying them that way - or does it? Playing devil's advocate on that point, I might argue that the pronunciations given to these loanwords have intentional unnatural tone / syllable patterns thrown on them to emphasize that they are indeed foreign - just as was pointed out by Rikker with the Royal Language Institutes version of เก๊ต. As soon as you see Mai Tri or Catawa, it screams ALIEN!!!!

This leads on to another fascinating topic that I've had the privilege of working with several Thai government offices recently of facilitating discussions / debates amongst Thai public servants (behind closed doors of course ) - ความเป็นไทยคืออะไร - 'What is Khwam Bpen Thai' or 'Thainess' in the eyes of Thais. This is a theme that we have running continuously when discussing other language / communication based topics. As for the team at the Royal Institute, they are a fascinating bunch of people. I do feel for them as they have so many political agendas that they are required to be the tip of the spear to, even if it goes against their own personal opinions.

In any case, this is a fascinating topic with many political / social implications. Who woulda thunk a simple request for the spelling of 'Robertson' could have turned into this ^^.

[DavidHouston]

This leads on to another fascinating topic that I've had the privilege of working with several Thai government offices recently of facilitating discussions / debates amongst Thai public servants (behind closed doors of course ) - ความเป็นไทยคืออะไร - 'What is Khwam Bpen Thai' or 'Thainess' in the eyes of Thais. This is a theme that we have running continuously when discussing other language / communication based topics. As for the team at the Royal Institute, they are a fascinating bunch of people. I do feel for them as they have so many political agendas that they are required to be the tip of the spear to, even if it goes against their own personal opinions.

Thank you, Jay_Jay, for that response. I am very impressed that the Thai intellectual community makes the effort to question basic assumptions and premises regarding its social and language norms from time to time. Perhaps it is not the result that is important but rather that the Thai people themselves deal with their cultural heritage and its future viability, rather than having such heritage fall into the hands of foreigners.

I am also pleased to see that all such discussions do not happen behind closed doors but are active on television, radio, and in the news media. We can read Professor Nithi Eewsriwong's columns in both his Matichon newspaper columns and his weekly column in Matichon Sut Sapada and, as Rikker points out in a separate thread, language columns and briefs can be found in a number of media.

We would very much appreciate your keeping us informed of any developments in these areas which are put into the public forum and to which we might be able to gain access. Thanks again.

Edited August 17, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Jay_Jay]

I was really happy two when they called me in from the beginning to work on this project. Over the past year or so, we have been in some very interesting discussions, and there have been many 'aha' moments along the way from all sides. Like you said, just the fact that these things are being spoken about is a good thing.

I was in a similar discussion last week with a group of people - please note that the person that I'm about to quote is NOT a civil servant. This person's response I feel is just the tip of the iceberg of a number of issues floating out there in the Kingdom. We were on the topic of 'Thainess' ความเป็นไทย - as the conversation went on, I posed the question:

Question

"ก็..ถ้างั้น พี่น้องอยู่สามจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้เป็นคนไทยหรือเปล่า?"

"So are our brothers and sisters in the far South Thai?"

Answer

"ไม่ใช่ค่ะ เขาเป็นมูสลิม"

"No, they're Muslim"

The scary thing is, that in many of the discussions that I've facilitated over the years, this notion has flavoured IMHO more than I would have liked to have anticipated.

Food for thought.

[Richard W]

I think it's interesting how they do it in Mandarin. Take country names for example (following on from David's point of 'vamonos' = 'vamoose'. The characters / PinYin chosen are based on (in most cases) the native speaker's pronunciation of the country name. So where you have Germany = เยอรมัน (yerman) in Thai, based on the English pronunciation of Germany, in Chinese it's 德國 - /de2 guo2/, based on 'Deutschland'.

That's so far off that there is no point asking which German accent is being taken as the basis.

This would avoid phenomenon like 'Portugal' = โปรตุเกส = 'protuke(s)t' (which is a ball of thread waiting to be unraveled in itself).

At first sight this looks like an excellent transcription of Portuguese _português_ 'Portuguese'. It only becomes odd when you realise that โปร is being, effectively, misread as [M]proo rather than the impossible [M]poor.

If you look at English though, I guess the whole language is built up on bastardizations of loanwords from other languages .... hmm... that's a bit harsh. But you know what I mean. If we were to use that theory as a base to modify English, the language would probably not be recognised as English anymore.

English has already remodelled several French loanwords to follow changes in French pronunication, e.g. _chevron_ and _chavalier_, in which the <ch> originally had the Old French pronunciation, whcih was the same as the normal modern English pronunication of <ch>.

[Richard W]

Often there is a de facto standard, or several similar variations, like เก็ท vs. เิก็ต (for the word pronounced [เก๊ต].

How is this word pronounced? Thai orthography can only show the vowel length if it has the low tone, which it clearly doesn't.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Richard W

[5tash]

This would avoid phenomenon like 'Portugal' = โปรตุเกส = 'protuke(s)t' (which is a ball of thread waiting to be unraveled in itself).

At first sight this looks like an excellent transcription of Portuguese _português_ 'Portuguese'. It only becomes odd when you realise that โปร is being, effectively, misread as [M]proo rather than the impossible [M]poor.

Would it be possible that โปรตุเกส originally had the spelling โปร์ตุเกส and that somehow over the centuries the "garan" disappeared?

[Jay_Jay]

I think you're right Richard. The โปร might have intended to be 'Por', but in Thai, would be naturally read in this way of writing as 'Pro'. The other problem is that they've used the adjective 'Portuguese' as the base rather than Portugal.

As for how is 'เก็ต' pronounced, it's as Rikker mentioned above - เก๊ต ... (like 'get' in English with a high tone) though it's said with a short 'เอะ' vowel (+high tone ๊) - using the standard 1xsyllable English ->Thai paradigm - i.e. - put a high tone over the word

ป็อป / ป๊อป = Pop

บุ๊ค / บุ๊ก = Book

โค้ก = Coke ... Though I heard a rumour once that with 'Coke', someone tried to address this issue by taking the Mai Tho tone marker out โคก - giving it a 'more natural in English' sound ... but then realised that it had become something that could well sum up images that deserve an R rating. If you ask me, they could have sold more bottles under the revised spelling!

เก็ต has a number of uses in Thai based on the word 'get'. A common one you will here is

คนนี้ไม่เก็ต - 'khon ni mai get' = This guy doesn't get the joke, understand the situation at hand, oblivious to the innuendo that's at play in the room etc.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Jay_Jay

[5tash]

I think you're right Richard. The โปร might have intended to be 'Por', but in Thai, would be naturally read in this way of writing as 'Pro'. The other problem is that they've used the adjective 'Portuguese' as the base rather than Portugal.

The Thai language also uses the adjective "English" for "England". อังกฤษ

[Jay_Jay]

That's right! ... and now I think of it, you have 'French' 'française' - ฝรั่งเศษ instead of France.

[DavidHouston]

I think 5tash might be on to something. I have six volumes of Professor Jamnong Thongprasert's series "The Thai Language in Five Minutes", a series of short essays on various language topics. In at least two of these volumes, Volume 6 (pages 89-91) and Volume 8 (page 44), Professor Jamnong deals with the word "Portugal" and "Portugese". In both essays, he focuses on the question of why the name of the country follows the name of the population, instead of pronouncing them differently, as in English.

However, when attempting to "sound" out the words phonemically, he uses the spelling "พอร์ชุกีส" and alternatively โปฺรตุกีส (notice the pintujut under the "ป"), ending up with the current Thai spelling "โปรตตุเกศ". No mention is made of a missing "karan" silencer.

However, like 5tash, it sure seems to me that the addition of a silencer, or even the substitution of the vowel "อ" for the combination of "โ" and "ร" would have saved us a lot of keystrokes in this context. On the other hand, that spelling formulation took place many moons ago.

[Jay_Jay]

I wish we still had อักศรตัวซ้อน - compound letters left in Thai like there still are in Burmese, Hindi, Khmer, Javanese etc. How many Thais do you know that know where the Pintujut key is on a keyboard... let alone what its role is

The พอร์ชูกีส rendition sounds a little more like the English version of Portuguese... I think a hybrid of the two might be more fitting for the adjective Portuguese - ปอร์ตุเกส

Hmm... ok, I'm feeling inspired. Here are some new entries for the next พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน พ.ศ. ???? (Royal Institute Dictionary) - based on how natives of the countries might pronounce the name of their countries:

China จุงกว๋อ

Portugal ปอร์ตุกัล

France ฟรองส

Germany โดยช์ลานด์

Holland ไนธลานด์ส

Denmark แดนมาร์ค

oh yeah, and two more

Australia สไจรญา ... the adjectival form is สไจรน์

and of course:

USA เซนเตอร์อ๊อฟเดอะยูนิเวอร์ส ... sorry, that was just a joke! ... In the fine words of Borat, I LOVE THE USA.

... the Australian one was not a joke

Edited August 17, 2008 by Jay_Jay

[5tash]

I see that Thai Wikipedia transcribes the Portuguese for "Portuguese Republic", República Portuguesa as เรปูบลีกา โปร์ตูเกซา

Edited August 17, 2008 by 5tash