Miss-spelt Words For K And G

[katana]

If you didn't know, how would you ever work out how to pronounce "Ple" which is a pretty common girls nickname?

I've met Thai girls named 'Jim' and 'Juu'. The names use the high tone, but farang call them using a rising tone which is just hilarious (I'll let you figure that one out).

I love it when transcription can go horribly wrong . . .

The Thai girl's name JIM is actually spelt with a ไม้จัตวา and has a rising tone. So it has 2 meanings

[SimonN]

... why she spelled it as Ple is a total mystery...

Perhaps because it's stylish?

[Tod Daniels]

When i started teaching.....

And do you use the same moniker in class Mr. Tod?

Sorry "Johpa", you gotta read those posts a little closer before using the ‘fast reply’ button . You've confused me with a post made by "Murf" which I quoted in the body of my response.

BTW, I DON'T teach.

FWIW; my real name is spelled Todd, but in thailand every frickin' thai pronounced it as Toddy . I finally dropped one of the d's from the engrish spelling and ALWAYS use the thai spelling ท้อด (which is a thai word that has NO meaning other than the engrish name; Tod or Todd) . Surprisingly it's about as close to how my name is pronounced in american engrish as I'm likely to get without using a word which has another meaning .

Just an FYI; My name is NOT spelled like;

ถอด; remove, take off, nor like ทอด; deep-fried, nor even like ตด; fart, and not even like ตอด; bite, nibble or peck at, but either ท้อด or if I wanna act hi-so and/or persnickety; ท้อดด์.

But thanx for askin' anyway. .. ....

In response to another post where someone says spelling the thai nickname เปิ้ล (the last syllable of the engrish word apple) as Ple is by some wild stretch of the imagination stylish. .. All I can say is

[Rikker]

It is interesting to me that no one seems to have picked up on the root cause for most of the transliteration confusion, for which my favorite example is "Saruesdi" to represent former Prime Minister Sarit...

Foreigners assume that in transliterating Thai characters into Roman, the intent is to represent sounds so that they can be imitated by non-Thais. On the contrary, the basis for the official transliteration system (and all Thai-devised approaches) is to represent Thai words in such a way that native Thai speakers, seeing the romanization, can immediately visualize the proper Thai alphabet spelling and thus pronounce the word correctly.

Once you understand that romanization targets Thais and not foreigners, many of the idiosyncracies discussed here begin to make sense.

It seems that you're conflating the concepts of transcription (rendering the pronunciation of one language in the writing of another) and transliteration (rendering the spelling of one language in the writing of another). Different schemes exist to satisfy different needs, including hybrid systems. The umbrella term romanization, perhaps confusingly, covers both concepts.

The current official Thai system, RTGS, was adopted in 1999. It's a simplified phonetic system, and as such spelling is irrelevant. RTGS is not intended to be able to map words back to a Thai pronunciation with any certainty. In fact its directly stated goal (no assumption necessary) is:

เพื่อให้อ่านคำภาษาไทยที่เขียนด้วยอักษรโรมันให้ได้เสียงใกล้เคียง โดยไม่คำนึงถึงการสะกดการันต์และวรรณยุกต์(see page 1, paragraph 1)

"To enable approximate reading of Thai words written with the roman alphabet, without consideration for silent letters and tones." (my translation)

And so with RTGS the words คน โคน ขอน ค่อน etc. are all written 'khon', and โตะ โต ตอ ต้อ เตาะ etc. are all written 'to'. Creating an easily accessible, approximate transcription system is the goal of RTGS. The purpose for each romanization system may vary, depending on the target audience and the target purpose.

By comparison, a true transliteration system of Thai is basically useless, as ISO 11940 demonstrates. It is a linear 1:1 reversible system, including character ordering. So เชียงใหม่ (in RTGS, Chiang Mai) is rendered by ISO 11940 as echīyngıh̄m̀. So while it may be a "standard", it's an unused standard.

Functional transliteration of Thai, if it is to be useful, must be a hybrid system. เกา written "eka" is 1:1 reversible, but it isn't very helpful. So a hybrid transliteration system will usually be reversible but need not be linear, resulting in a transliteration like "kau" (or what have you).

I think one of the biggest issue that confuses Thais and foreigners alike is the Indian tradition. Thai script is an Indic-derived writing system, adapted from Khmer, another Indic writing system. (Keep in mind that the development of the written language and the development of the spoken language follow different paths, though of course they interact with one another. Thai was spoken long before it was ever written.) And even in the spoken language, Thai has borrowed at least a quarter of its vocabulary from Indic languages, primarily Sanskrit and Pali.

But in addition to lending Thai the foundation of its writing system and large amounts of vocabulary, Indic languages like Pali and Sanskrit bring along with them conventional romanization systems used by scholars for well over a century. One system (IAST), was standardized in 1894. (Its modern cousin is ISO 15919.)

This strong Indic influence causes confusion because Thai writing is very conservative. It preserves foreign spelling distinctions that aren't reflected in Thai pronunciation. Some prefer romanized Thai to reflect these spelling changes just like the Thai script does. One early proponent of this idea was HM King Vajiravudh (Rama VI), who published his proposed Sanskrit-based system for Siamese romanization in 1913 in the Journal of the Siam Society. This Rama VI system has been extremely influential. He coined and bestowed more than 6000 surnames, back when surnames were new to Siam, and defined both the Thai and the Roman spellings. So though no longer official, it's due to this legacy that we continue to see spellings like Suvarnabhumi -- RTGS would be Suwannaphum. (Note that many Thai names today are pseudo-Indic, mixing phonetic elements with Indic elements, like Teeravoot or Abhisit.)

I'm not arguing for the superiority of any system over another, just trying to clarify the difference between types of romanization and why we're in the confusing mess we're in today.

P.S. The only hit on the internet for "Saruesdi" is your post on this thread. Where have you come across this spelling of สฤษดิ์? The Sanskritized spelling would be Sarisdi.

[mangkorn]

I think the worst offender of all is "Singha" - for สิงห์.

I do understand all the different explanations of rendering systems, as Rikker has very capably outlined above. But none of them justifies "Singha." The การันต์ is clearly written in Thai, and the name is never pronounced in Thai as two syllables, ending in "-ha."

Putting just the "h" at the end would suffice for the odd and impractical notion of 'loyalty" to the original spelling from a completely different alphabet, without the need to add the additional "a" - as in the romanised names of the Indian prime minister, the Fijian professional golfer (and most other Sikh males).

It is also strange that even farangs who should know better insist on referring to the Thai beer as Sing-Ha, when no Thai person says that (except for some deferential sorts, and only when speaking to farangs).

Then again, perhaps those farangs also think there is a "Buffalo River" in กาญจนบุรี ....

I consider myself fortunate that - before I learned to read - a couple of Thai people not only corrected me but actually felt comfortable enough to ridicule my unwary utterances of "River Kwai" and "Vientiane," and "Suvarnabhumi," among others.

The shame of those experiences ensured that I would never make such mistakes again (even though the blame lied squarely with the, ahem, rendering "system.")

Yet most people are too deferential to correct such egregious mispronunciations. That's why I think that a formal "system" should do the correcting, from the very outset - such as at the airport.

Some may argue that it's not important - that it's the same as saying "Sweden" instead of Sverige - but I would counter that there are very practical reasons for getting it right: a wildly incorrect pronunciation may not register at all with a taxi driver or random person on the street in Thailand, whereas I'm sure that everyone in Sverige is familiar with "Sweden."

[farangnahrak]

FWIW; my real name is spelled Todd, but in thailand every frickin' thai pronounced it as Toddy . I finally dropped one of the d's from the engrish spelling and ALWAYS use the thai spelling ท้อด (which is a thai word that has NO meaning other than the engrish name; Tod or Todd) . Surprisingly it's about as close to how my name is pronounced in american engrish as I'm likely to get without using a word which has another meaning .

Just an FYI; My name is NOT spelled like;

ถอด; remove, take off, nor like ทอด; deep-fried, nor even like ตด; fart, and not even like ตอด; bite, nibble or peck at, but either ท้อด or if I wanna act hi-so and/or persnickety; ท้อดด์.

My name is John, pronounced like จาน, but the darn official spelling is จอห์น which results in my name always being mispronounced . . . and they can't understand why its not pronounced according to the official spelling . . . I could spell it as จาห์น but that'd just confuse them even more . . .

[Peppy]

My name is John, pronounced like จาน, but the darn official spelling is จอห์น which results in my name always being mispronounced . . . and they can't understand why its not pronounced according to the official spelling . . . I could spell it as จาห์น but that'd just confuse them even more . . .

I too would pronounce John as จอห์น unless somebody told me otherwise.  

It also happens to be my middle name... จอห์น I mean, not จาห์น. 

[Richard W]

P.S. The only hit on the internet for "Saruesdi" is your post on this thread. Where have you come across this spelling of สฤษดิ์? The Sanskritized spelling would be Sarisdi.

I suspect the transliteration of ฤ is well not documented. For Sanskrit one has the choice ṛ/r̥/ṛi, so I am not surprised at the intrusion of RTGS 'rue' onm the principle of ignoring the pronuciation. I would expect the graphical system to yield Sṛṣti for the Thai name, and Sṛṣṭi/Sṛṣṭ̱i/Sṛṣṯ̣i for the transliteration of the Sanskrit spelt the Thai way. The latter should have a 't' with an underline and a dot below, but many fonts display the combination badly. The graphical systems underlines the derivative consonants in the pairs ฎฏ ดต บป

The graphical system doesn't seem to address thanthakhat / wanchakan (วัญฌการ).

I think the worst offender of all is "Singha" - for สิงห์.

I do understand all the different explanations of rendering systems, as Rikker has very capably outlined above. But none of them justifies "Singha." The การันต์ is clearly written in Thai, and the name is never pronounced in Thai as two syllables, ending in "-ha."

The problem here is that the graphical system ignores thanthakhat. There is a rule that for Indic words, one con only have thathakhat if silences a short <i>, <u> or implict(!) <a>. One can almost get away with it in Indic words, though it fails with a few pairs, such as เกียรติ์/เกียรติ (graphic kiarti, Sanskrit kīrti) พรรค์/พรรค (graphic barrga, Skt. varga, Pali vagga). The worst thing about 'Singha' is that it doesn't make the distinction between Siṅgha (wrong) and Siṅha (correct). Incidentally, สิงหะ would be Siṅhaḥ in the graphic system.

[Johpa]

Sorry "Johpa", you gotta read those posts a little closer before using the ‘fast reply’ button . You've confused me with a post made by "Murf" which I quoted in the body of my response.

Sorry, sometime the ol' graduated bifocals cause some minor confusion when there are multiple embedded posts being quoted. Just thought your choice of transliteration within your moniker was a bit humorous, admittedly very sophomoric humor on my part, within a discussion of transliteration of Thai names.

[LazyYogi]

"Porn" is probably the most unfortunately unecessarily messed up romanization victim. I can say with near certainty that, at least for American native English speakers , nobody who reads "Porn" is going to pronounce the name correctly, since there is no "o" and no "r" sound anywhere to be found. The whole problem could be fixed if people just spelled their name as "Pawn" or "Phawn" or maybe "Paun" if they don't want be be a chess piece.

[Richard W]

"Porn" is probably the most unfortunately unecessarily messed up romanization victim. I can say with near certainty that, at least for American native English speakers , nobody who reads "Porn" is going to pronounce the name correctly, since there is no "o" and no "r" sound anywhere to be found. The whole problem could be fixed if people just spelled their name as "Pawn" or "Phawn" or maybe "Paun" if they don't want be be a chess piece.

Aren't American Bostonians native English speakers?

Part of the attraction of the romanisation 'Porn' is that it preserves the 'r' in the Thai spelling.

'Paun' confuses if there is nothing to signal that vowels should be read according to the rules for English.

[LazyYogi]

"Porn" is probably the most unfortunately unecessarily messed up romanization victim. I can say with near certainty that, at least for American native English speakers , nobody who reads "Porn" is going to pronounce the name correctly, since there is no "o" and no "r" sound anywhere to be found. The whole problem could be fixed if people just spelled their name as "Pawn" or "Phawn" or maybe "Paun" if they don't want be be a chess piece.

Aren't American Bostonians native English speakers?

Part of the attraction of the romanisation 'Porn' is that it preserves the 'r' in the Thai spelling.

'Paun' confuses if there is nothing to signal that vowels should be read according to the rules for English.

Except there's no reason to preserve the "r" as there is none. There is just a "ร" which sounds like "n" at the end of syllables. If we followed this logic then we should be writing "swas-dii" for "hello" and "Prathes-Thaiy" for the name of the country. And anyway, that isn't why the "r" is there. It's an attempt to convey the sound of อ as "-or", so sometimes you see other ridiculous words like "Mor Chit".

You could be right about speakers with a Boston accent, though.

[Johpa]

Except there's no reason to preserve the "r" as there is none. There is just a "ร" which sounds like "n" at the end of syllables.

The "r" is there to specify the vowel sound, a remnant of one of the first transliteration systems devised to write Thai into English by some long forgotten missionary, but a system that is still seen used within names of people and places, a historical artifact one needs to be aware of.

[midnightjay3]

This is interesting.. I'm still new in learning Thai so I wasn't able to notice this one.

[mikenyork]

I was once asked by a friend to help him use transliterated Thai to pronounce Thai street signs/place names correctly.

Me: Oh! Simple! What's the first stop going East on BTS from Siam?

Friend: Chit Lom (pronounced like the ch in cheat).

Me: What's the second ?

Friend: Phloen Chit (pronounced like the j in jitterbug).

Me: Sinple! this is Thailand.

He gave up the idea of pronouncing Thai from signs. It can only be done by rote memory. There isn't a system that's widely enough used to make any difference as far as I can see.

Edited June 25, 2010 by mikenyork

[bhoydy]

I am not so worried about the transliteration of place names on road signs as the number of kilometres left to destination which varies wildly from one to the next.

[Richard W]

Except there's no reason to preserve the "r" as there is none. There is just a "ร" which sounds like "n" at the end of syllables. If we followed this logic then we should be writing "swas-dii" for "hello" and "Prathes-Thaiy" for the name of the country.

'Sawasdee' is quite a well known romanisation!

I spotted the pattern of -rn for -ร when deciphering the Nation's TV listings many years ago. (It was something of a waste of time - they were often hopelessly wrong.) The strongest pattern was in the choice of -arn v. -aan - 'ar' was a strong hint that the spelling contained a ร, as in 'ajarn' for อาจารย์. Is it only the stresslessness-induced shortening of the first syllable that keeps 'r' out of the first syllable by a ratio of about 3 to 1?

I was sure I saw a similar pattern with -orn, though I forget what the 'r'-less alternative was.

And anyway, that isn't why the "r" is there. It's an attempt to convey the sound of อ as "-or", so sometimes you see other ridiculous words like "Mor Chit".

Any student of metropolitan Khmer or English will tell you that a final written 'r' does not indicate a consonant sound (Surin and Texas don't count). Actually, 'or' isn't as bad a choice as you think. It works with most Commonwealth citizens, and others who've learnt some Thai should know it can't represent the sound [r]. 'Au' will confuse those who are used to romanisation using Italian vowel values. Finally, and weakly, won't some Americans confuse 'aw' with Thai า?

The origin of the digraphs 'ar', 'er' and 'or' is undoubtedly British English, but faced with strong competition, the presence of ร does seem to encourage the use of 'r'. Some odd romanisations do seem to stick - why is 'amphur' so popular?

[mangkorn]

'Sawasdee' is quite a well known romanisation!

Yeah, well, it is a horrid abomination. Thai words are romanised for foreigners who can't read Thai, and hideously stupid renderings like that only invite the unwary to mispronounce words and sound utterly foolish. How can the pinhead linguists possibly defend that?

[Richard W]

'Sawasdee' is quite a well known romanisation!

Yeah, well, it is a horrid abomination. ... and hideously stupid renderings like that only invite the unwary to mispronounce words and sound utterly foolish. How can the pinhead linguists possibly defend that?

How is it worse than the romanisation of Spanish 'Jerez' as 'Jerez'?

Thai words are romanised for foreigners who can't read Thai,

They're also romanised for use within text in the Roman alphabet. Writing Thai proper names in Thai in text otherwise in Roman script, except on first mention, would seem terribly pretentious. For a clear example of romanisation for those who can definitely read Thai, look at David Houston's posts.