The Vowels Seem To Out Of Control…...

[easyb]

Starting to appreciate the phonetic-ness of Thai but I don’t know why vowels have to float around like some lost tribe. But that’s not my point, well it is sorta because some do seem to be lost. I’m starting to see words that don’t have vowels even though the word has a vowel sound. Like ผม

Why isn’t this ไผม (or better yet ผไม but I won’t go there)

[The_Moog]

Not sure that wood be better (....or "betta")

That's "Paim" I think.

[PvtDick]

"Better" doesn't enter into it.

"Throo" would be better than "through" and "coff" would be better than "cough".

[easyb]

Having taught a little English in Thailand I know better than try to explain why anything is the way it is in English. I don't have a clue at times and just avoided some words. Anyway...

Clearly I made my point too obscure, for which I apologize. Here’s the nut of the post:

Am I misunderstanding things or are there words where the vowel is implied but not written or words without vowels? If ผม is the right way to spell pom how do I know from reading this that it’s not pum or pem or pim?

[PvtDick]

There are many vowels that are implied and not written. You just have to know the rules. I'm sure one of the more linguistic guys here can explain them to you.

[bina]

relax, i can tell u that implied vowels are the least of the problem; all of hebrew after 3rd grade stop using vowels; just in poetry or in newspapers or research projects when a word might be miscontrued from the context are vowels used.... u just get used to it; the worst of course are english or other foreign words... took me years to recongnize the word university in hebrew... now we have a thai/israeli newspaper and they put vocab. in there for the workers so i try to read the thai and then the transliterated hebrew definitions... that is a laugh but it makes me learn the letters etc much faster, and to recongnize all wierd forms of spelling/vowels etc...

[Andrew Mac]

Having taught a little English in Thailand I know better than try to explain why anything is the way it is in English.  I don't have a clue at times and just avoided some words. Anyway...

Clearly I made my point too obscure, for which I apologize.  Here’s the nut of the post:

Am I misunderstanding things or are there words where the vowel is implied but not written or words without vowels?   If ¼Á is the right way to spell pom how do I know from reading this that it’s not pum or pem or pim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're not misunderstanding anything at all! Others will be able to explain it better, but here's a quick attempt.

As a general rule, if a syllable is not written with any explicit vowels, it will *usually* be pronounced with one of two implicit vowels: a short "o", if the syllable is closed by another consonant; or a short "a" if it isn't. Thus the word ¼Á has a closing syllable, so it is pronounced "phom". It's not going to be "phim" or "phem", or anything else, because the rule in this combination of consonants is that the implicit vowel is definitely a short "o".

On the other hand, a word like ¶¹¹ (street) contains two syllables: ¶-¹¹, so the first syllable, which isn't closed, is pronounced "tha"; and the second, which is, is pronounced "non" ... hence, "tha-non". Once you're able to distinguish the syllables, you'll find it easy to pop in the appropriate unwritten syllable.

Clearly, as well, the implicit "a" rule is only for words that comprise more than one syllable. If the word is a single syllable with a short "a" vowel and no closing consonant, the vowel "Ð" will have to be written (for example, ¨Ð "ja").

Please note, however, that there are some recognised consonant clusters in which there will be no implicit vowel: thus »ÅÒ is not palaa, because the » and the Å are pronounced as one cluster consonant "pl". You will need to learn to recognise such clusters.

However, you might have noticed that I said "usually" above. The reason for that is that at times there is at least one other implicit vowel, which is the short "aw" sound which usually found instead of the short "a" in syllables that begin with paw plaa: hence ºÃÔÉÑ· (company) is pronounced baw-ri-sat. I think as well that the implicit vowel before a closing 'Ã' is pronounced as a long "aw" (or "or", depending on the way you want to write it). Thus ¾Ã is actually pronounced "phaawn" (or "phorn"). There may be other vowel sounds introduced in other combinations of consonants; someone more experienced may be able to help with that.

By the way, you can choose to believe this or not, but my Thai teacher said that the main reason for using the implicit vowels is that the Thais have a sense of simplicity in beauty, so they prefer not to write vowels that will make things complicated and ugly, such as ¶Ðâ¹Ð¹ ("¶Ð-â¹Ð¹") ... ¶¹¹ looks much nicer, she said.

The main point, however, is that with a little bit more reading practice, you usually won't have any trouble at all distinguishing any of the implicit vowel sounds.

I hope this short reply is of some help. I'm sure others will pop in to correct any little errors that I may have made, or to add other useful bits of explanation.

[Richard W]

As the Thai was coming out as accented Roman , I've repaired and quoted the entire post.

Having taught a little English in Thailand I know better than try to explain why anything is the way it is in English.  I don't have a clue at times and just avoided some words. Anyway...

Clearly I made my point too obscure, for which I apologize.  Here's the nut of the post:

Am I misunderstanding things or are there words where the vowel is implied but not written or words without vowels?  If ผม is the right way to spell pom how do I know from reading this that it's not pum or pem or pim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're not misunderstanding anything at all! Others will be able to explain it better, but here's a quick attempt.

As a general rule, if a syllable is not written with any explicit vowels, it will *usually* be pronounced with one of two implicit vowels: a short "o", if the syllable is closed by another consonant; or a short "a" if it isn't. Thus the word ผม has a closing syllable, so it is pronounced "phom". It's not going to be "phim" or "phem", or anything else, because the rule in this combination of consonants is that the implicit vowel is definitely a short "o".

On the other hand, a word like ถนน (street) contains two syllables: ถ-นน, so the first syllable, which isn't closed, is pronounced "tha"; and the second, which is, is pronounced "non" ... hence, "tha-non". Once you're able to distinguish the syllables, you'll find it easy to pop in the appropriate unwritten syllable.

Clearly, as well, the implicit "a" rule is only for words that comprise more than one syllable. If the word is a single syllable with a short "a" vowel and no closing consonant, the vowel "ะ" will have to be written (for example, จะ "ja").

Please note, however, that there are some recognised consonant clusters in which there will be no implicit vowel: thus ปลา is not palaa, because the ป and the ล are pronounced as one cluster consonant "pl". You will need to learn to recognise such clusters.

However, you might have noticed that I said "usually" above. The reason for that is that at times there is at least one other implicit vowel, which is the short "aw" sound which usually found instead of the short "a" in syllables that begin with paw plaa: hence บริษัท (company) is pronounced baw-ri-sat. I think as well that the implicit vowel before a closing 'ร' is pronounced as a long "aw" (or "or", depending on the way you want to write it). Thus พร is actually pronounced "phaawn" (or "phorn"). There may be other vowel sounds introduced in other combinations of consonants; someone more experienced may be able to help with that.

By the way, you can choose to believe this or not, but my Thai teacher said that the main reason for using the implicit vowels is that the Thais have a sense of simplicity in beauty, so they prefer not to write vowels that will make things complicated and ugly, such as ถะโนะน ("ถะ-โนะน") ... ถนน looks much nicer, she said.

The main point, however, is that with a little bit more reading practice, you usually won't have any trouble at all distinguishing any of the implicit vowel sounds.

I hope this short reply is of some help. I'm sure others will pop in to correct any little errors that I may have made, or to add other useful bits of explanation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few points:

1. The rule that -ร is (long) -awn rather than -on has just been confirmed by a 100% vocabulary search at thai-language.com. (Glenn Slayden extracted the words from the dictionary there, and I checked the pronunciations against the Royal Institute dictionary on-line.) We found no exceptions to the rule.

2. ถนน is pronounced [L]tha[R]non; ถะนน would be pronounced [L]tha[M]non. The rule for ถนน is called the 'irregular tone rule' in English, while the Thais say it starts with an 'impure cluster'.

3. The Lao script and the old Lanna Thai script have a vowel symbol like an upside-down mai hanakat for the implict /o/ in closed syllables. Therefore a friendlier spelling of ถนน would be like ถะหนัน, but with the final vowel mark reversed.

Richard.

[Abandon]

Many Thai words come from pali language, or sanskrit.

In pali if a consonant stands alone it carries a short 'a'. Thus ผม (which is likely a Thai word and so is a bad example) would be Pha Ma. Thai did not have this rule so Thai's reading pali words without a vowel would insert an 'o' (as in cough) and make it one syllable. They would try and make one syllable from what was originally a 2 syllable word (since Thai was originally an essentially monosyllabic language) E.g. Mara would have been written Maa r with an implicit 'a' after the r . So in Thai, not seeing the implicit 'a' it became มาร (maarn). So in short words the added vowel was 'o' but in longer words keeps the 'a' of the pali.

This 'o' was added to make a 2 syllable word without a vowel into a 1 syllable Thai word. Can't think of any good examples right now.. duh. pretty useless post then isn't it.

Anyway - Pali carries an implicit 'a' after each consonant unless a vowel is specifically added, and this is what caused the insertion of the 'o' to make a monosyllabic word.

[easyb]

Thanks all - this was very helpful!

[Richard W]

Many Thai words come from pali language, or sanskrit.

In pali if a consonant stands alone it carries a short 'a'. Thus ผม (which is likely a Thai word and so is a bad example) would be Pha Ma. Thai did not have this rule so Thai's reading pali words without a vowel would insert an 'o' (as in cough) and make it one syllable. They would try and make one syllable from what was originally a 2 syllable word (since Thai was originally an essentially monosyllabic language) E.g. Mara would have been written Maa r  with an implicit 'a' after the r . So in Thai, not seeing the implicit 'a' it became มาร  (maarn). So in short words the added vowel was 'o' but in longer words keeps the 'a' of the pali.

This 'o' was added to make a 2 syllable word without a vowel into a 1 syllable Thai word. Can't think of any good examples right now.. duh. pretty useless post then isn't it.

Anyway - Pali carries an implicit 'a' after each consonant unless a vowel is specifically added, and this is what caused the insertion of the 'o' to make a monosyllabic word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The following are some examples that Pandit35 was looking for:

ผล [R]phon 'fruit', รถ [L]rot 'car, vehicle', ศร [RL]sawn 'bow and arrow', ยนต์, ยนตร์ [M]yon.

Sometimes but not always 3 syllables have been reduced to one - compare พจน์ [H]phot 'word' and นคร [H/M]na[ML]khawn 'city'.

I think it is more likely that word-final -a was dropped in accordance with developing Indian speech habits. It's word-final omission is a general feature in Khmer, Thai and Burmese. Words that have a final -a look like more recent Sanskrit (ever Pali?) loans. There used to be quite a few words with an implicit 'a', e.g. นม [H]na[H]ma 'homage', but nowadays such words are usually spelt with final ะ, so the form you find in the dictionary nowadays is นมะ.

[PvtDick]

Then there are words such as ¸ÃÃÁ ("tham", meaning dharma). The double Ãà translates into a short "a" sound I guess.

[Richard W]

Then there are words such as ¸ÃÃÁ ("tham", meaning dharma).  The double Ãà translates into a short "a" sound I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, though there seem to be two groups:

1. Words whose pronunciation derives from Pali. In these words รร is just -a-. ธรรม [M]tham is a good example. The word is simply ธมฺม dhamma in Pali; dharma is the Sanskrit form.

2. Words whose pronunciation derives from Sanskrit. In these words รร is -an-. ครรภ์ [M]khan 'womb' is a good example. The word is ครฺภ garbha in Sanskrit.

Sometimes the word exists in both forms, with slightly different meanings, e.g. พรรค [H]phak 'party' and พรรค์ [M]phan 'group, class' from Pali vagga and Sanskrit varga. (There is also another form, วรรค [H]wak, with various applications to writing.)

[Richard W]

ผล [R]phon 'fruit', รถ [L]rot 'car, vehicle', ศร

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Self-correction:

รถ [H]rot 'car, vehicle'

[Edward B]

วน - WON - pronounced วน (to go around in a circle)

วน - WANA - pronounced วะนะ (A forest [poetic])

วร - WORA - pronounced วอระ (glorious)

Confusing init?

[Abandon]

Cheers Richard, I'd been digging myself a hole on that one.

Another related thing is Pali grammar which horribly changes the ending of the words according to case i.e. the ends of words changes enormously accoding to the grammar where in English we us prepositions. I feel (guess) that the mono-syllabic Thais tended to cut the entire ending off alltogether and just use the stem, as in Thai there is no inflection. (is that the right word?)

such as Achariya becoming ajahn.

Ahh, now I've thought of some more examples I was fishing for earlier.

Monthol - from Mandala

tam - from Dhamma

Kam -from kamma

monkhol - from mangala

sat - from sajja

khru - from guru (I'm guessing on that one)

[Richard W]

วน  - WON - pronounced วน (to go around in a circle)

วน  - WANA - pronounced วะนะ (A forest [poetic])

วร  -  WORA - pronounced วอระ (glorious)

Confusing init?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to the Royal Institute Dictionary On-line, both the last two are prefixes only, in which case their pronunciation is not so peculiar. Is the dictionary wrong?

[Richard W]

Another related thing is Pali grammar which horribly changes the ending of the words according to case i.e. the ends of words changes enormously accoding to the grammar where in English we use prepositions. I feel (guess) that the mono-syllabic Thais tended to cut the entire ending off alltogether and just use the stem, as in Thai there is no inflection. (is that the right word?)

such as Achariya becoming ajahn.

Sanskrit a:ca:rya[/a] is a better fit than Pali a:cariya.

The stem forms have an independent existence as non-final elements in compounds, so I think it unlikely that the final -a was simply lost with the inflexions. Perhaps I'd better ask on a wider forum. A common way of dealing with such mismatches is simply to use the nominative singular, as indeed seems to happen nowadays with the Pali names of monks.

Ahh, now I've thought of some more examples I was fishing for earlier.

khru      - from guru (I'm guessing on that one)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basically yes, but it's more likely to be from the older form garu. The syncope may well have happened in Khmer, which likewise has ครู. Similar syncope has happened in ครุฑ [H]khrut 'garuda', presumably from Sanskrit ครุฑ garu.da rather than Pali ครุฬ garu.la.

[Abandon]

richard Yur Da MAN

talking of the various grammatical endings I was thinking of novices in a temple who recited something like

boriso, borisa, borisasssa, borisehi, borisayya..... etc..

which was all the endings that boriso can have in Pali. I reckon the Thais just thought &lt;deleted&gt; and cut all the ends off to get Burut. It was a little off at tangent to what we had been saying before though.

[sabaijai]

    Cheers Richard, I'd been digging myself a hole on that one.  

Another related thing is Pali grammar which horribly changes the ending of the words according to case i.e. the ends of words changes enormously accoding to the grammar where in English we us prepositions. I feel (guess) that the mono-syllabic Thais tended to cut the entire ending off alltogether and just use the stem, as in Thai there is no inflection. (is that the right word?)

such as Achariya becoming ajahn.

Ahh, now I've thought of some more examples I was fishing for earlier.

Monthol  -  from Mandala

tam      - from Dhamma

Kam      -from kamma

monkhol  - from mangala

sat        - from sajja

khru      - from guru (I'm guessing on that one)

This is a small thing, but if you mean to represent the Thai pronunciation of these words, then your 'monthol' results in /monthon/ and 'monkhol' is /mongkhon/.

Of course you may choose - and many Thais do - to represent ล - 'law ling' - as /l/ even when that's not how it's pronounced, just to preserve the history of the spelling. But in that case you might as well transliterate the entire word according to the spelling referenced, i.e., /mandala/, since the change from /d/ to /th/ and /a/ to /o/ are also artefacts of Thai pronunciation.

This is a recurring problem when transliterating Thai script for words derived from P-S, inconsistently choosing between a 'strict' orthography (writing the Roman /l/ everytime ล - 'law ling' - occurs, regardless of pronunciation) and Thai pronunciation writh the Roman /n/ where it's pronounced as an /n/).

The actual spelling - in Thai script - mirrors the Pali-Sanskrit exactly (in these two cases, at least) as long as you understand how P-S /g/ and /d/ are transcribed in Thai script.

In the end it comes down to personal preference. But in RTGS word-final ล is written as /n/, e.g. 'Ubon' rather than 'Ubol'.

RTGS

[Richard W]

Ahh, now I've thought of some more examples I was fishing for earlier.

Monthol  -  from Mandala

...

monkhol   - from mangala

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you may choose - and many Thais do - to represent ล - 'law ling' - as /l/ even when that's not how it's pronounced, just to preserve the history of the spelling. But in that case you might as well transliterate the entire word according to the spelling referenced, i.e., /mandala/, since the change from /d/ to /th/ and /a/ to /o/ are also artefacts of Thai pronunciation.

RTGS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You then encounter the problem that in closed syllables, the result is inconsistently /a/ or /o/, e.g. พันธ์ [M]phan from bhand- (related to English 'bind'), รัตน์ [H]rat 'jewel' from Pali rat(a)na 'jewel', or, with even more complications, บัณฑิต [M]ban [L]dit from Sanskrit/Pali pa.n.dita. (The latter word reeks of Khmer influence to me.)

Is there any documentation of the graphic transcription method around? I don't know how (or if) it works with peculiarly Thai consonants and vowels, or whether it addresses the a/o issue.