Inadequacies Of Thai Spelling

[Richard W]

I think it would be best if you spelled the word that I'm supposed to say as an english word, not as some dictionary word like "khraap" which is totally confusing.  So, should I say "club" (going to a club), "crap" (going to take a crap), or some other word?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As for the transcription system we use, it is based on consistency unlike the English spelling system. In other words, when it says "khrap" you know that the "kh" ALWAYS stands for the same sound, the "a" stands for a short vowel sound such as the "a" in the International phonetic alphabet etc.

This way you eliminate irregularities like "nut" and "bull" ("u" represents two totally different sounds).

Of course, if you learn the sound values of the Thai alphabet you will not have to worry about transcription systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

น้ำ [H]naam

ไม้ [H]maai

เขา [H]khau

ผม [H]phom

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

เงิน [MS]ngoen

ห้อง [FS]horng

แท่ง [FS]thaeng

The Thai script has no way of showing the pronunciation of the last three words!

[Spee]

น้ำ [H]naam

ไม้ [H]maai

เขา [H]khau

ผม [H]phom

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

เงิน [MS]ngoen

ห้อง [FS]horng

แท่ง [FS]thaeng

The Thai script has no way of showing the pronunciation of the last three words!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points all, Richard.

IMHO no language is perfect. English sure has its faults. With Spanish, several words are spelled the same all over the country, but are pronounced quite differently depending on which region one is in.

If I could ever get good enough with Thai language, so that these and other few exceptions were my only problem, then I would still be pretty happy.

Cheers!

[bannork]

I think it would be best if you spelled the word that I'm supposed to say as an english word, not as some dictionary word like "khraap" which is totally confusing.  So, should I say "club" (going to a club), "crap" (going to take a crap), or some other word?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As for the transcription system we use, it is based on consistency unlike the English spelling system. In other words, when it says "khrap" you know that the "kh" ALWAYS stands for the same sound, the "a" stands for a short vowel sound such as the "a" in the International phonetic alphabet etc.

This way you eliminate irregularities like "nut" and "bull" ("u" represents two totally different sounds).

Of course, if you learn the sound values of the Thai alphabet you will not have to worry about transcription systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

น้ำ [H]naam

ไม้ [H]maai

เขา [H]khau

ผม [H]phom

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

เงิน [MS]ngoen

ห้อง [FS]horng

แท่ง [FS]thaeng

The Thai script has no way of showing the pronunciation of the last three words!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please elaborate further, Richard, it looks straightforward enough.

[Richard W]

Please elaborate further, Richard, it looks straightforward enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are three causes here.

น้ำ [H]naam - spelling implies [H]nam - sound could be written น้าม

ไม้ [H]maai - spelling implies [H]mai - sound could be written ม้าย

Central Thai seems to have a lot of unexplained lengthenings and shortenings. In a literate society, spelling takes time to catch up with changes - I've seen the lengthening of น้ำ described asa Bangkok pronunciation. A further complication is that as the first element of compound words, or at least, familiar compound words, the old, short pronunciation is still used. (For more on น้ำ, see the discussion in the topic 'Water'.)

เขา [H]khau - spelling implies [R]khau

ผม [H]phom - spelling implies [R]phom

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

Again, a recent sound shift. I don't know if it's still in progress. Unstressed 'grammatical' words with a rising tone switched to the high tone. Some of these words are sometimes informally written to be in the high tone, e.g. เค้า.

เงิน [MS]ngoen - the spelling implies [ML]ngoen

ห้อง [FS]horng - the spelling implies [FL]horng

แท่ง [FS]thaeng - the spelling implies [FL]thaeng

There is a fundamental problem that Thai has no way of writing a short /oe/ in a closed syllable. I've been told that the most obvious solution, *เง็อน, is incomprehensible. For the next two cases, the problem is that a consonant cannot bear both the short vowel symbol, maitaikhu (อ็), and a tone mark. (Windows allows it but the fonts cause it to render badly - they don't move the tone mark upwards.)

Another problem with the Thai script is words like ตนุ and เพลา, which each have different pronunications with different meanings. In the latter case, any unfamiliar but reasonable transliteration will tell you whether you have [M]phlau 'axle' or [M]phee[M]laa 'time'.

[gburns57au]

Please elaborate further, Richard, it looks straightforward enough.

There are three causes here.

น้ำ [H]naam - spelling implies [H]nam - sound could be written น้าม

ไม้ [H]maai - spelling implies [H]mai - sound could be written ม้าย

Central Thai seems to have a lot of unexplained lengthenings and shortenings. In a literate society, spelling takes time to catch up with changes - I've seen the lengthening of น้ำ described asa Bangkok pronunciation. A further complication is that as the first element of compound words, or at least, familiar compound words, the old, short pronunciation is still used. (For more on น้ำ, see the discussion in the topic 'Water'.)

เขา [H]khau - spelling implies [R]khau

ผม [H]phom - spelling implies [R]phom

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

Again, a recent sound shift. I don't know if it's still in progress. Unstressed 'grammatical' words with a rising tone switched to the high tone. Some of these words are sometimes informally written to be in the high tone, e.g. เค้า.

เงิน [MS]ngoen - the spelling implies [ML]ngoen

ห้อง [FS]horng - the spelling implies [FL]horng

แท่ง [FS]thaeng - the spelling implies [FL]thaeng

There is a fundamental problem that Thai has no way of writing a short /oe/ in a closed syllable. I've been told that the most obvious solution, *เง็อน, is incomprehensible. For the next two cases, the problem is that a consonant cannot bear both the short vowel symbol, maitaikhu (อ็), and a tone mark. (Windows allows it but the fonts cause it to render badly - they don't move the tone mark upwards.)

Another problem with the Thai script is words like ตนุ and เพลา, which each have different pronunications with different meanings. In the latter case, any unfamiliar but reasonable transliteration will tell you whether you have [M]phlau 'axle' or [M]phee[M]laa 'time'.

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

and I always thought this was pronounced Maw, Mor.

I gather your point is that you cant give a written example of how to pronounce the word in Thai script in those examples you gave. So obviously you need to read Thai script to read the pronounciation written in Thai script.

But if you can read the Thai script...why would you need it.???

[Richard W]

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

and I always thought this was pronounced Maw, Mor.

Typo there! The Thai word with the issue is หนอ, the final particle marking a rhetorical question, not หมอ[HL]mor 'leech, expert'.

I gather your point is that you cant give a written example of how to pronounce the word in Thai script in those examples you gave. So obviously you need to read Thai script to read the pronounciation written in Thai script.

But if you can read the Thai script...why would you need it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first point here is that the Thai spelling gives false information about the pronunciation of these words.

A second point is that a Thai dictionary indicating pronunciation purely by respelling in the Thai script alone cannot show the pronunciation of เงิน, ห้อง and แท่ง; the short vowel of เงิน [MS]ngoen (as opposed to the long vowel of เดิน [ML]doen 'walk') cannot be shown at all in the Thai script, and the Thai script cannot simultaneously show the short vowel and the tone of the other two.

The only other notational devices I've seen used for pronunciations given in the Thai script are a hyphen for syllable breaks, and phinthu so you can see the relative phonetic ordering of vowel and consonant, thus เหมฺ so you can see it is [R]heem​ and not *[R]mee, and แหฺง so you can see it is [RL]ngae and not *[RL]haeng. Neither of these techniques helps with the three words above.

To look up the pronunciation of these words, one will therefore have to consult a pronunication given in transcription in a precise enough dictionary. While the short vowel of เงิน is very rare, ae and or are not. Another matter is that I have not seen the tone shifts mentioned above given in a dictionary that uses the Thai script to show pronunciation. This again means that one cannot rely entirely on the Thai script for the pronunciation of these words.

By contrast, respelling and marking syllable division can handle ตนุ and เพลา perfectly well.

[gburns57au]

The first point here is that the Thai spelling gives false information about the pronunciation of these words.

A second point is that a Thai dictionary indicating pronunciation purely by respelling in the Thai script alone cannot show the pronunciation of เงิน, ห้อง and แท่ง; the short vowel of เงิน [MS]ngoen (as opposed to the long vowel of เดิน [ML]doen 'walk') cannot be shown at all in the Thai script, and the Thai script cannot simultaneously show the short vowel and the tone of the other two.

The only other notational devices I've seen used for pronunciations given in the Thai script are a hyphen for syllable breaks, and phinthu so you can see the relative phonetic ordering of vowel and consonant, thus เหมฺ so you can see it is [R]heem​ and not *[R]mee, and แหฺง so you can see it is [RL]ngae and not *[RL]haeng.  Neither of these techniques helps with the three words above.

To look up the pronunciation of these words, one will therefore have to consult a pronunication given in transcription in a precise enough dictionary.  While the short vowel of เงิน is very rare, ae and or are not.  Another matter is that I have not seen the tone shifts mentioned above given in a dictionary that uses the Thai script to show pronunciation.  This again means that one cannot rely entirely on the Thai script for the pronunciation of these words.

By contrast, respelling and marking syllable division can handle ตนุ and เพลา perfectly well.

I take your point with the spelling of the words for money and walk.....perhaps it is the way we hear the word or the way we pronounce it...Ngor- Ngoo is one of the trickier consonants for farangs to pronounce and hear. other than that I dont think an explanation can be given

regards to Hong and taeng....these words are pronounced as spelt...no pronounciation guide is necessary. Thats the way I see it anyway.

I had a problem with the different ways of pronouncing Ngor-ngoo and when I asked my teacher about this...she just said "because thats the way it is, if you look for answers to everything, you will go crazy"

[meadish_sweetball]

What Richard means with ห้อง and แท่ง is that you cannot know the length of the consonant sound from the spelling. In the case of ห้อง the pronunciation is clearly short, but nothing in the spelling shows this.

[sabaijai]

I think it would be best if you spelled the word that I'm supposed to say as an english word, not as some dictionary word like "khraap" which is totally confusing.  So, should I say "club" (going to a club), "crap" (going to take a crap), or some other word?

As for the transcription system we use, it is based on consistency unlike the English spelling system. In other words, when it says "khrap" you know that the "kh" ALWAYS stands for the same sound, the "a" stands for a short vowel sound such as the "a" in the International phonetic alphabet etc.

This way you eliminate irregularities like "nut" and "bull" ("u" represents two totally different sounds).

Of course, if you learn the sound values of the Thai alphabet you will not have to worry about transcription systems.

น้ำ [H]naam

ไม้ [H]maai

เขา [H]khau

ผม [H]phom

หมอ [HL]nor (OK, sometimes it is [RL]nor, as spelt.)

เงิน [MS]ngoen

ห้อง [FS]horng

แท่ง [FS]thaeng

The Thai script has no way of showing the pronunciation of the last three words!

I simply think of these as exceptions, and have found it relatively easy to memorise the pronunciation exceptions in Thai (and there are many more than those you've cited). When I studied Thai formally, such exceptions were explicitly taught.

I suppose it's true that a Roman transcription system can be more accurate, but writing in Thai is a lot easier (for me at least). At any rate I don't think the minor differences are all that important to a novice learner. Whether the novice Thai speaker says [F]than or [F]thaan for ท่าน (to toss in another exception) is not going to impede communication. At some point, I think, every learner figures out that that the vowel is short though written long, and until they do it's no big deal. For those that never learn to read, and learn by imitation, it won't even be an issue.

As long as we're being picky about accuracy, for words like ห้อง I prefer the transcription [FS]hawng (/aw/ as in 'jaw') over [FS]horng as I think it's more intelligible across differing English dialects, eg. Irish, Canadian, American and Scottish English tend to pronounce inter-vocalic /r/.

[gburns57au]

I simply think of these as exceptions, and have found it relatively to easy to memorise the pronunciation exceptions in Thai (and there are many more than those you've cited). When I studied Thai formally, such exceptions were explicitly taught.

I suppose it's true that a Roman transcription system can be more accurate, but writing in Thai is a lot easier (for me at least). At any rate I don't think the minor differences are all that important to a novice learner. Whether the novice Thai speaker says [F]than or [F]thaan for ท่าน (to toss in another exception) is not going to impede communication. At some point, I think, every learner figures out that that the vowel is short though written long, and until they do it's no big deal. For those that never learn to read, and learn by imitation, it won't even be an issue.

As long as we're being picky about accuracy, for words like ห้อง I prefer the transcription [FS]hawng (/aw/ as in 'jaw') over [FS]horng as I think it's more intelligible across differing English dialects, eg. Irish, Canadian, American and Scottish English tend to pronounce inter-vocalic /r/.

Agree here too......who said I was argumentative.....

I did find some of Richards transcriptions to be a bit out of line with my way of pronounciation. I too prefer Hawng....Khow or kow as against khau...Rice is accepted as khao....and Ngarm as against naam... but again this is just my way of doing it.