Thai Romanization: W, V, And Z

[klfopera]

I have non urgent question or two about romanization of Thai words in, say, English language Thai press and elsewhere.

1. I often see both "w" and "v" used in, say, Bangkok Post (etc.). For example: "Wallop" and "Chavalit" There is no v sound (as pronounced in English, French, Italian-but not German) in Thai language. If the idea is to pronounce the "v" like an English "w", why does the paper use both v" and "w"? I don't see a "v" in the (not very helpful) Royal Thai romanization system or in any of the leading texts.

2. Even more puzzling. Current transportation minister is called Sophon Zarum. What on earth is the "z"? How is it pronounced? What Thai character does it represent?

I apologize in advance if this has been covered in a thread already. My search didn't find it.

[Richard W]

1. Blame the Indians for, like much of humanity, being unable to preserve the /w/ sound and changing it to /v/. As a result, Indians have /v/ rather than /w/ (e.g. veda corresponding to English wit). If you transliterate Thai words of Indic origin according to the rules for transliterating Sanskrit and Pali, you end up with 'v', not 'w'. There are also regional variations - note that the capital of Laos is Vientiane, not Ouientiane. The graphical transliteration of system put forward by Rama VI uses 'v', not 'w'. The result of competing systems is sometimes a mix, though usually the elements are consistent, e.g. Vadhna (graphical) v. Watthana (RTGS). (I've never seen the dots below on a public sign.)

2. Sophon Zarum is โสภณ ซารัมย์. The only justification for 'z' for so so that I can see is that the letter was invented to represent the sound /z/, which unextended Indic alphabets lack until, as in Burmese, palatals are simplified.

[Rikker]

Usually v is used because of Sanskrit influence, which has v. The words which are pronounced v in Sanskrit become either w or p in Thai. But it is traditional, if confusing, to use v in words of Sanskrit origin, even though Thais pronounce it w.

For example, Chavalit (ชวลิต) is from a Sanskrit word meaning "bright" or "shining". This is a partially Thai-ified spelling, since it would be romanized jvalita in standard Sanskrit transliteration.

Of course, this v/w rule doesn't always always hold true, since Wallop (วัลลภ) is also from a Sanskrit word meaning "beloved" or "favorite", and would be written vallabha in roman script.

And z always stands for s in Thai words. Serves no other purpose I can see. Some people think it's cool to use z.

[Maestro]

I believe Thais are free to transcribe their own names any which way they choose. I have seen an example mentioned where somebody said he used an unusual transcription for his name so that it would not be identical with that of another person who has the same Thai name. Newspapers then of course use the transcription that the person has chosen for himself/herself.

For place names, government agencies were at one time encouraged to use the Royal Thai General System of Transcription (RTGS) but I wonder if this is still being promoted within the government.

--

Maestro

[Richard W]

The words which are pronounced v in Sanskrit become either w or p in Thai.

Typo - become w or ph [พ] in Thai.

[Rikker]

Thanks, Richard -- I was simply thinking in English, not phonetic.

[klfopera]

Thanks to all of you. Wery enlightening.

[Acharn]

I once read an anecdote, probably in a book about Thailand. Some farang was speaking to a Thai on the phone and the Thai gave his name. The farang said, "How do you spell that?" The Thai guy said, "Well, how would you like to spell it?"

The above references to Sanskrit and Pali and Indian alphabets are interesting, but I think they miss the point. The Thai sound represented by the letter in the Thai alphabet called /woo waen/ is what professional linguists call a "bilabial fricative." It is made by bringing your lips together and making a buzzing sound with them. The sound is not either /v/ or /w/, but to farang ears, depending on the context, sounds loke one or the other. I've found that in most cases when I use either sound it sounds to my Thai listener like /woo waen/ and they know what I'm trying to say. The human language processing mechanism is a marvelous thing.

When I listen very carefully to a Thai producing the sound, sometimes it sounds to me kind of like /fw/. By the way, the perils of trying to use the latin alphabet to convey phonetic information -- in my representation /woo waen/, /woo/ rhymes with "law", and /waen/ rhymes with "man."

[DavidHouston]

Khun Achan,

Phonology is an area of which I am totally unfamiliar. With respect to /w/ or /ว/ อาจารย์ เรืองเดช ปันเขื่อนขัติย์ in ภาษรศาสตร์ภาษาไทย on pages ๔๘ and ๔๙ refers these consonants as "อัฒสระ" and "bilabial semi-vowel". Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom in "A Reference Grammar of Thai" on page 4 refers to the /w/ as a "labial glide".

Please help us understand what these terms mean and how they differ from a "bilabial fricative".

Thanks.

[Rikker]

Standard Thai doesn't have a bilabial fricative, Acharn. If you're hearing it, you must be listening to a non-standard dialect. I've never seen this claim made in any linguistic literature on Thai.

It should be obvious that Thai doesn't have a bilabial fricative because the ว /w/ is pronounced with rounded lips. A true bilabial fricative, like the Spanish v, sounds to the untrained English-speaking ear like a /b/. No lip rounding.