Thai Language Blog

[farangnahrak]

I recently got hired to write a bi-weekly learn Thai Language blog for a company.

This means I'll be writing about stuff you can't learn in books, and yet it'll be professional level quality (for a white guy speaking Thai).

Enjoy!

[Edit: No personal website or commercial URLs per forum policy. Do a search on Google for Transparent Language thai blog]

Edited August 15, 2010 by Rikker

[makescents]

I hate to be a complete tool but ดิฉัน is exactly the type of Thai you find in books and frustrates learners when they never hear it.

If you want to stand out from the crowd of thai language learning blogs, teach the informal Thai that people can make use of in everyday situations; add male/female recordings and it'll be a winner.

[LazyYogi]

The post from July 30 has the names of "mái drii" and "mái jàt-dtà-waa" reversed.

Also they are all in the wrong order. The names are all from Sanskrit.

"èek" literally means "one" so it should naturally come first.

"thoo" = "two"

"dtrii" = "three"

"jàt-dtà-waa" = "four"

[Tod Daniels]

The post from July 30 has the names of "mái drii" and "mái jàt-dtà-waa" reversed.

Also they are all in the wrong order. The names are all from Sanskrit.

"èek" literally means "one" so it should naturally come first.

"thoo" = "two"

"dtrii" = "three"

"jàt-dtà-waa" = "four"

I was gonna point out the errors in the names and order of the tone marks in the post from July 30th too, but totally spaced it .

I also wonder(ed) about the veracity of the '4 rules' dealy about narrowing the guesswork in the toning of thai words. I ask that more learned posters weigh in and say whether these basic rules work or not ..

This is ripped shamelessly from the blog, (although I corrected and re-ordered them);

Rule #1

The first tone mark is; ่ , pronounced; ไม้เอก. The symbol somewhat looks like the small of a back, and when I injure my back, I’ll say ‘my back ache’. (I hope that mnemonic helps you remember the name.) When you see this mark, the word automatically becomes either a falling tone or a low tone, no exceptions. A 50:50 guess.

Rule #2

The second tone mark is; ้ , pronounced; ไม้โท. It somewhat looks like a toe, making the name easy to remember. When you see this mark, the word will always be either a high tone or falling tone, no exceptions. Another 50:50 guess.

Rule #3

The third tone mark is; ๊ , pronounced; ไม้ตรี. This mark, which I believe is only used for words taken from other languages, guarantees a high tone for the word.

Rule #4

The last tone mark is; ๋ , pronounced ไม้จัตวา. It’s a little plus sign, giving you the hint of something being added. In this case, using this tone mark guarantees the word to have a rising tone. There is one exception however, that being the word for noodles. Its written as ก๋วยเตี๋ยว (both are rising tones), but ก๋วย is pronounced with a falling tone. This is the only word I’m aware of that breaks this rule. I typically see this tone mark used for words borrowed/stolen from Chinese.

It has been my experience that ไม้จัตวา cannot denote any tone other than 'rising'. Even looking up ก๋วยเตี๋ยว in thai-language dot com yields; "guay^R dtiaao^R" as the pronunciation. This would lend me to believe that no matter how a word is spoken in casual or colloquial thai that ไม้จัตวา hasta denote a rising tone.

FWIW: I did find the 'basic rules' quite enlightening and if they actually work in practice, much more so given my discernment in toning unfamiliar thai words is quite horrific .

While quite honestly, the last thing the internet needs is another frickin' blog about something-’r-other it was of marginal interest, and I'll keep checking back to see if it gets any better. (I think a little better proof-reading BEFORE posting the topix couldn't be all bad either.)

[bhoydy]

This information about ก๋วย being pronounced with a falling tone is news to me. I'd be interested in any thoughts about this. I've always pronounced it with a rising tone and have never been corrected.

[Tod Daniels]

I’m still interested about if these basic ‘rules’ to discern toning in thai words holds true; as it would cut my guessing by at least half . ..

Any of the “heavy weight” thai language pundits wanna weigh in on what I snipped from the blog about it and posted earlier???

[LazyYogi]

I've also never heard ก๋วยเตี๋ยว with a falling tone. It's always gǔai-dtǐao or gúai-dtǐao (spelled ก๊วยเตี๋ยว).

Other than that, the rules are basically correct.

mái-trii always gives high tone (and is only used with mid-class).

mái-jàt-dtà-waa always gives rising tone (and is only used with mid-class).

But with the other two rules there's no real need to leave people guessing 50/50.

mái-èek is always low tone with high and mid class (and ห_ or อย) and always falling with low-class (absent ห).

mái-thoo is always falling tone with high and mid (and ห_ ) and always high with low-class (absent ห).

[Tod Daniels]

BUT, the previous post goes under the assumption that a person ALREADY knows the 'class' of the thai consonants. ..

Now for someone like me, (a person who NEVER learned the thai consonant classes), and only learned to recognize thai words by rote, do these rules narrow the choices down??

FWIW: I can't be the ONLY foreigner who can read and understand most written thai (by understand, I mean; being able to back translate the words to engrish and/or understand what is written in thai), yet only having learned thai words by recognition when I see them written, but who never learned the three classes of the thai consonants. Or am I the ONLY one who learned to read like this???

I know, after being able to read thai, (even at my low level), a sensible person might think I could memorize the consonant classes, but they just DON'T STICK in my head. ..

[farangnahrak]

I hate to be a complete tool but ดิฉัน is exactly the type of Thai you find in books and frustrates learners when they never hear it.

I often see it written, especially authors writing about themselves and their thoughts. I wasn't however responsible for that video, the company put it there.

I'd say only 15% of all women even refer to themselves as ฉัน. Normally its their name, ไอ, เรา, หนู, or the one that confuses me the most: เขา. Go figure.

It has been my experience that ไม้จัตวา cannot denote any tone other than 'rising'. Even looking up ก๋วยเตี๋ยว in thai-language dot com yields; "guay^R dtiaao^R" as the pronunciation.

While quite honestly, the last thing the internet needs is another frickin' blog about something-'r-other it was of marginal interest, and I'll keep checking back to see if it gets any better.

Thats the thing, the rules specifically state that ก๋วย is a rising tone. But in spoken Thai they break the rule. Ask a Thai why, and they'll answer ' ไม่รู้ '. They said it was ok to pronounce it with a rising tone, its just no one does that. The rules also say จริง should be จะ-ริง, but again, no one does that. And what rule makes ก็ sound like ก้อ anyway?!

As for the 'marginal interest' of the blog . . . my boss requires it be directed to beginners. So unfortunately it may bore the advanced learners . . . but I hope to keep it interesting at least for intermediates!

BUT, the previous post goes under the assumption that a person ALREADY knows the 'class' of the thai consonants. ..

Now for someone like me, (a person who NEVER learned the thai consonant classes), and only learned to recognize thai words by rote, do these rules narrow the choices down??

FWIW: I can't be the ONLY foreigner who can read and understand most written thai (by understand, I mean; being able to back translate the words to engrish and/or understand what is written in thai), yet only having learned thai words by recognition when I see them written, but who never learned the three classes of the thai consonants. Or am I the ONLY one who learned to read like this???

I know, after being able to read thai, (even at my low level), a sensible person might think I could memorize the consonant classes, but they just DON'T STICK in my head. ..

This is how I learned to read/write Thai . . . I got a copy of the Thai alphabet, asked a Thai friend to write the english letter equivalents next to each, and just started memorizing. Then I bought a Thai book, and just started reading. I had 7 months of basic vocab/grammer under my belt, but I still struggled for months before I started to figure it out. I had no teacher, no books to teach me, nothing. These rules I posted on the blog are the patterns I figured out trying to make sense of it all.

Of course one can memorize all the consonant classes, the tone marks, whether a consonant is dead or alive, and how all of that is affected by a short or a long vowel . . . but this is really complicated stuff that can't be memorized by a beginner. Especially not in 5 minutes like my basic guessing rules.

[HappyInCM]

Of course one can memorize all the consonant classes, the tone marks, whether a consonant is dead or alive, and how all of that is affected by a short or a long vowel . . . but this is really complicated stuff that can't be memorized by a beginner. Especially not in 5 minutes like my basic guessing rules.

But, what use is being able to guess the tone with a 50% chance of being correct? Would it not be better to say things with a neutral tone until one memorizes the rules or better yet hears a native speaker say the word and then associate your memory of the spoken word to the writing. If you're talking about being understood by a Thai, I would think saying the word with a neutral tone and if they don't get it, just spelling it for them would be less confusing for you and your long term acquisition of Thai, no?

It may take more than 5 minutes, but not that much more, to start getting some correct tones. Why not advise people to start by learning all the middle class consonants (or even just a few of them or just one even) and the rules for live and dead syllables and then tone marks and then you'd know the CORRECT tone every time the word starts with a middle consonant. Then move to the highs and then by process of elimination you don't have much more work to know the tone of words starting with low class consonants.

And should we not be encouraging those whose pronunciation may not be great (myself included, even though I know the basic tone rules perfectly (then we get into tone carry-forward in words such as ตำรวจ dtamM ruaatL - which you will notice has a different tone on the latter syllable than รวด ruaatF) but may sometimes still mispronounce new words or old words when spoken in succession - practice makes perfect I guess. ) to hear all the new words they learn spoken by a native speaker as soon and as often as possible?

Edited August 17, 2010 by eljefe2

[bhoydy]

One of the ways i learned the different classes for the consonants was by making a small deck of cards with a letter on each. Then i dealt them out and seperated them into their respective classes. Then it was a shuffle and deal them out again. It was slow at first and the ones i didn't know i would check my chart as i went along and eventually it came.

[LazyYogi]

I never realized that remembering the classes of the consonants would be difficult. For me it was kind of intuitive, but maybe that was a result of learning the Sanskrit classification of consonant sounds prior to studying Thai.

Basically, the Middle Class consonants are all the ones that are unaspirated: g/k, j, d, dt, b, bp, (and aw-àang).

The High Class are the funny ones that make rising tones.

And the Low Class are everything else:

aspirated: kh, ch, th, ph, f

nasals: ng, n, m

semivowels: y, r, l, w

sibilants: s, h

[Groongthep]

FWIW: I can't be the ONLY foreigner who can read and understand most written thai (by understand, I mean; being able to back translate the words to engrish and/or understand what is written in thai), yet only having learned thai words by recognition when I see them written, but who never learned the three classes of the thai consonants. Or am I the ONLY one who learned to read like this???

I know, after being able to read thai, (even at my low level), a sensible person might think I could memorize the consonant classes, but they just DON'T STICK in my head. ..

Maybe so tod. I don't know of anyone else who has learned to read Thai by strict rote memorization of words. If it works for you however, then I can't knock it. I am aware that different people learn differently, but it seems to me that you are making it harder on yourself than it needs to be.

If you know the rules as described in LazyYogi's post:

mái-trii always gives high tone (and is only used with mid-class).

mái-jàt-dtà-waa always gives rising tone (and is only used with mid-class).

But with the other two rules there's no real need to leave people guessing 50/50.

mái-èek is always low tone with high and mid class (and ห_ or อย) and always falling with low-class (absent ห).

mái-thoo is always falling tone with high and mid (and ห_ ) and always high with low-class (absent ห).

then you will know how to pronounce any word with a tone mark correctly.

The rules for syllables without tones marks are a bit more involved because you need to know the class of the beginning consonant, the length of the vowel sound and whether or not the syllable is "live" or "dead" but for most people these things are not as difficult to learn as they appear at first. If you can memorize Thai words by recognition then you shouldn't have much problem learning the classes of the consonants either. bhoydy used flashcards and I found those ก,ko gai ข, kho khai kid's books helpfull. There's all kinds of learning aids out there.

As for whether or not the first syllable of ก๋วยเตี๋ยว is indeed rising or if it is an exception and is pronounced mid or falling I think is of little real life relevance. If you are standing in front of a noodle cart preparing to buy some soup I don't think the vendor is going to misunderstand you no matter what tone you give the first syllable as long as most everything else you say is pronounced relatively correct.

BTW there are a few other common words that are irregular; for example the question word ไหม. According to it's spelling it should be pronounced with a rising tone but in eveyday speech is usually spoken with a high tone and often written มัย. Another one is เขา (he, she, they) according to it's spelling it should also be pronounced with a rising tone but in eveyday speech it is usually spoken with a high tone and sometimes written เค้า.

[SimonN]

I've also never heard ก๋วยเตี๋ยว with a falling tone.

Neither have I. If it was pronounced with a falling tone it would sound like: "bananaเตี๋ยว"

If the first syllable is unstresssed (which is how I usually hear it as) the tone tends to be a mid tone. "กวยเตี๋ยว"

[bhoydy]

BTW there are a few other common words that are irregular; for example the question word ไหม. According to it's spelling it should be pronounced with a rising tone but in eveyday speech is usually spoken with a high tone and often written มัย. Another one is เขา (he, she, they) according to it's spelling it should also be pronounced with a rising tone but in eveyday speech it is usually spoken with a high tone and sometimes written เค้า.

Yes this is true but then they are also spelt differently, however i've never seen noodles spelt ก้วย. I did go up to the Thai Language department in my school and ask and they did confirm that it does have a falling sound when spoken. The reason they gave for this as far as i can tell was so that there was a flow or rhythm to it. I'd be interested to know why, if there is more of a reason to it. I might start speaking it with a high tone to see if anyone picks up on it.

[Groongthep]

BTW there are a few other common words that are irregular; for example the question word ไหม. According to it's spelling it should be pronounced with a rising tone but in eveyday speech is usually spoken with a high tone and often written มัย. Another one is เขา (he, she, they) according to it's spelling it should also be pronounced with a rising tone but in eveyday speech it is usually spoken with a high tone and sometimes written เค้า.

Yes this is true but then they are also spelt differently......

Yes, they are spelled differently because มัย and เค้า represent the way the words are commonly pronounced but they are intentionally misspelled to reflect they way the words are normally pronounced. Technically they are improper Thai. I don't think either one will appear in any dictionary with the meanings of the words spelled ไหม or เขา (sorry, I was too lazy to check). I believe their widespread use has a lot to do with today's texting and internet chat abbreviated language.

All languages evolve. I think these spellings are akin to the way American teenagers say and spell things like "wassup?" for What's up? and "whatchadoin'" for What-are-you-doing? As has probably been the case for generations, the older generation purists will look down upon these new words and spellings but with the passage of time they will allowed into the vernacular of accepted language.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Groongthep

[dobadoy]

The colloquial spelliing of ไหม with a high-tone is มั้ย (not มัย, which would be mid-tone).

Sorry to be a pedant, but you did it twice, so I figured it wasn't just a typo

[dobadoy]

I never realized that remembering the classes of the consonants would be difficult. For me it was kind of intuitive, but maybe that was a result of learning the Sanskrit classification of consonant sounds prior to studying Thai.

Basically, the Middle Class consonants are all the ones that are unaspirated: g/k, j, d, dt, b, bp, (and aw-àang).

The High Class are the funny ones that make rising tones.

And the Low Class are everything else:

aspirated: kh, ch, th, ph, f

nasals: ng, n, m

semivowels: y, r, l, w

sibilants: s, h

Yup, and for people like tod-daniels, its also worth pointing out that the tone markes no.3 (which by the way is a miniature Thai no.7 ๗ ), and the plus sign +, only occur on middle class consonants. So any word you've rote memorized with these tone marks in it tells you that the initial consonant is one of the middle classes.

It ain't much, but its something!

[Groongthep]

The colloquial spelliing of ไหม with a high-tone is มั้ย (not มัย, which would be mid-tone).

Sorry to be a pedant, but you did it twice, so I figured it wasn't just a typo

You are correct. A particularly embarrassing mistake since I was talking about tones rules and misspellings. Thanks.

[bhoydy]

My point was that these are two different concepts we're talking about. The ก๋วย is always spelt that way but always pronounced with a falling tone (except by me:ermm:) , as per my discussion with our Thai language department. Whereas ไหม มั้ย เขา and เค้า are pronounced the way they're spelt. This goes to confirm that the OP was correct in putting this on his blog which is what i thought we were on about.

[DavidHouston]

Several thoughts:

1. My experience is that Chinese words imported into Thai often have differences between spelling and pronunciation. My experience is mostly in Phuket, where the native language is a combination of Hokkien Chinese dialect and Southern Thai. Thus, this cleavage between spelling and pronunciation may be a localized phenomenon; perhaps those of you living in Bangkok or elsewhere can comment. Since the Thai-Chinese in Bangkok are generally of Teochew ancestry, the Thai spelling may have originated from that particular dialect. Any thoughts?

2. I fully agree with the comment above regarding tones and intonation. They are separate influences in Thai but because they affect the same spoken language, they effects are integrated. I believe that the irregular pronunciations (when compared with the written form) is the effect of intonation overlaying the tone structure. Because most Thai dictionaries are devoted to reflecting the written language, few of them pay much attention to alternative pronunciations born out of intonation.

3. There has been much discussion on these boards regarding the effects of age on language learning, and, more specifically the fact that adults learn languages differently than children do. The implications have been that while children can learn to speak and read a language without regard to learning "rules", adults have a much more difficult time in doing so. Although I am not equipped to make an academic judgment on this question, it seems to me that many second-language learners can and do learn to read Thai via word recognition - Tod being a highly vocal example. This is how many of us learned to read and pronounce English, what we in the U.S. used to refer to as the "Dick and Jane" method in the antediluvian period before phonics became popular in schools. The seven-book series called "หัดอ่านภาษาไทยแบบใหม่" takes a mixed approach: it focuses on practice with no rules stated whatsoever; however, its lessons are arranged in an order which illustrates rules.

4. As for learning and notating spelling and pronunciation, a poster named R2d2, on a forum-which-shall-not-be-named, suggested that learners should learn Thai words with two types of Thai orthography: the correct Thai spelling and "phonemic Thai". Phonemic Thai is the method that Royal Institute Dictionary uses when the Thai spelling does not reflect the actual pronunciation. Examples include มรดก [มอระ-] and มฤดก [มะรึดก]. If the foreign student studies Thai by learning the orthography; learning pronunciation via the use of phonemic Thai, and learning reading via the actual spelling conventions, much of the difficulty of transliteration and transcription might disappear.

[tombkk]

I hate to be a complete tool but ดิฉัน is exactly the type of Thai you find in books and frustrates learners when they never hear it.

I often see it written, especially authors writing about themselves and their thoughts. I wasn't however responsible for that video, the company put it there.

I'd say only 15% of all women even refer to themselves as ฉัน. Normally its their name, ไอ, เรา, หนู, or the one that confuses me the most: เขา. Go figure.

It has been my experience that ไม้จัตวา cannot denote any tone other than 'rising'. Even looking up ก๋วยเตี๋ยว in thai-language dot com yields; "guay^R dtiaao^R" as the pronunciation.

While quite honestly, the last thing the internet needs is another frickin' blog about something-'r-other it was of marginal interest, and I'll keep checking back to see if it gets any better.

Thats the thing, the rules specifically state that ก๋วย is a rising tone. But in spoken Thai they break the rule. Ask a Thai why, and they'll answer ' ไม่รู้ '. They said it was ok to pronounce it with a rising tone, its just no one does that. The rules also say จริง should be จะ-ริง, but again, no one does that. And what rule makes ก็ sound like ก้อ anyway?!

As for the 'marginal interest' of the blog . . . my boss requires it be directed to beginners. So unfortunately it may bore the advanced learners . . . but I hope to keep it interesting at least for intermediates!

BUT, the previous post goes under the assumption that a person ALREADY knows the 'class' of the thai consonants. ..

Now for someone like me, (a person who NEVER learned the thai consonant classes), and only learned to recognize thai words by rote, do these rules narrow the choices down??

FWIW: I can't be the ONLY foreigner who can read and understand most written thai (by understand, I mean; being able to back translate the words to engrish and/or understand what is written in thai), yet only having learned thai words by recognition when I see them written, but who never learned the three classes of the thai consonants. Or am I the ONLY one who learned to read like this???

I know, after being able to read thai, (even at my low level), a sensible person might think I could memorize the consonant classes, but they just DON'T STICK in my head. ..

This is how I learned to read/write Thai . . . I got a copy of the Thai alphabet, asked a Thai friend to write the english letter equivalents next to each, and just started memorizing. Then I bought a Thai book, and just started reading. I had 7 months of basic vocab/grammer under my belt, but I still struggled for months before I started to figure it out. I had no teacher, no books to teach me, nothing. These rules I posted on the blog are the patterns I figured out trying to make sense of it all.

Of course one can memorize all the consonant classes, the tone marks, whether a consonant is dead or alive, and how all of that is affected by a short or a long vowel . . . but this is really complicated stuff that can't be memorized by a beginner. Especially not in 5 minutes like my basic guessing rules.

Yes, it is really complicatedc stuff and cannot be learned in five minutes. But it is basic stuff. It is worth learning Thai (or any language, for that matter) properly in order to not have to guess.

And, FWIW, I have heard many ladies refer to themselves as ดิฉัน. I don't know why this thread seems to think this word is only used in formal written language.

[tombkk]

I've also never heard ก๋วยเตี๋ยว with a falling tone. It's always gǔai-dtǐao or gúai-dtǐao (spelled ก๊วยเตี๋ยว).

Other than that, the rules are basically correct.

mái-trii always gives high tone (and is only used with mid-class).

mái-jàt-dtà-waa always gives rising tone (and is only used with mid-class).

But with the other two rules there's no real need to leave people guessing 50/50.

mái-èek is always low tone with high and mid class (and ห_ or อย) and always falling with low-class (absent ห).

mái-thoo is always falling tone with high and mid (and ห_ ) and always high with low-class (absent ห).

Thanks for pointing this out. What I like about Thai writing is that there is no guessing, it is much more precise than English.

When I hear a new word in Thai, I always ask: "How do you spell it?" My ears are not always precise, but the spelling tells me exactly what tones to use when pronouncing it.

[tombkk]

This information about ก๋วย being pronounced with a falling tone is news to me. I'd be interested in any thoughts about this. I've always pronounced it with a rising tone and have never been corrected.

I just asked my friend. Rising tone is correct he says, even though the falling tones might be used in colloquial parlance.

My friend is not a language expert, but a native speaker with education (master's degree in an unrelated field). A Bangkok native, if that makes a difference.

[tombkk]

Several thoughts:

1. My experience is that Chinese words imported into Thai often have differences between spelling and pronunciation. My experience is mostly in Phuket, where the native language is a combination of Hokkien Chinese dialect and Southern Thai. Thus, this cleavage between spelling and pronunciation may be a localized phenomenon; perhaps those of you living in Bangkok or elsewhere can comment. Since the Thai-Chinese in Bangkok are generally of Teochew ancestry, the Thai spelling may have originated from that particular dialect. Any thoughts?

This not my experience, here in Bangkok. Words are pronounced the way they are spelled (in Thai, I wouldn't know about Teochew). But then, in the South they use different tones anyway, so even Thai words are not pronounced the way they are spelled, down there.

2. I fully agree with the comment above regarding tones and intonation. They are separate influences in Thai but because they affect the same spoken language, they effects are integrated. I believe that the irregular pronunciations (when compared with the written form) is the effect of intonation overlaying the tone structure. Because most Thai dictionaries are devoted to reflecting the written language, few of them pay much attention to alternative pronunciations born out of intonation.

3. There has been much discussion on these boards regarding the effects of age on language learning, and, more specifically the fact that adults learn languages differently than children do. The implications have been that while children can learn to speak and read a language without regard to learning "rules", adults have a much more difficult time in doing so. Although I am not equipped to make an academic judgment on this question, it seems to me that many second-language learners can and do learn to read Thai via word recognition - Tod being a highly vocal example. This is how many of us learned to read and pronounce English, what we in the U.S. used to refer to as the "Dick and Jane" method in the antediluvian period before phonics became popular in schools. The seven-book series called "หัดอ่านภาษาไทยแบบใหม่" takes a mixed approach: it focuses on practice with no rules stated whatsoever; however, its lessons are arranged in an order which illustrates rules.

4. As for learning and notating spelling and pronunciation, a poster named R2d2, on a forum-which-shall-not-be-named, suggested that learners should learn Thai words with two types of Thai orthography: the correct Thai spelling and "phonemic Thai". Phonemic Thai is the method that Royal Institute Dictionary uses when the Thai spelling does not reflect the actual pronunciation. Examples include มรดก [มอระ-] and มฤดก [มะรึดก]. If the foreign student studies Thai by learning the orthography; learning pronunciation via the use of phonemic Thai, and learning reading via the actual spelling conventions, much of the difficulty of transliteration and transcription might disappear.

I think foreigners (unless they actually live in the North, the South, the Northeast etc) should learn Pasa Klang, the Thai language as it is pronounced on TV. That's not exactly the same way Bangkok natives pronounce words (they can slur...) but the newscasters on TV actually speak a beautiful Thai.

Now, that'sa my opinion based on my personal experience. I am looking forward to native speakers commenting on this.

[farangnahrak]

What I like about Thai writing is that there is no guessing, it is much more precise than English.

I disagree. Thai is very much bastardized, just not as bad as English

For example, พจนานุกรม (dictionary) . . . กรม is one syllable, but no rule says so. Or the example I always bring up, จริง. There are hundreds more.

[tombkk]

What I like about Thai writing is that there is no guessing, it is much more precise than English.

I disagree. Thai is very much bastardized, just not as bad as English

For example, พจนานุกรม (dictionary) . . . กรม is one syllable, but no rule says so. Or the example I always bring up, จริง. There are hundreds more.

Yes, there is some rule with ร following ก. I believe จริง is an exception, and there are some but not many.

English of course is a catastrophe when it comes to reading unkown words, but German uses pretty phonetic spelling. There are exceptions in German too.

Spanish, Italian and Turkish come to mind where spelling and phonetics coincide. Ok, a far stretch from Thai, but I think Thai spelling is still pretty often phonetic.

[SoftWater]

What I like about Thai writing is that there is no guessing, it is much more precise than English.

I disagree. Thai is very much bastardized, just not as bad as English

For example, พจนานุกรม (dictionary) . . . กรม is one syllable, but no rule says so. Or the example I always bring up, จริง. There are hundreds more.

กร.. as a single syllable as in กรม is the norm, not an exception. The exceptions are words that follow กร with another ก, like กรกฎา, but these are few and far between. Almost all other กร words are pronounced as a single syllable (กรุณา is the only other exception I can think of).

Similarly with the silent ร in จริง. I can think of เสร็จ and เศรษฐกิจ off the top of my head, and I'm sure a hunt through a dictionary might throw up not more than a dozen more out of a vocab set of what....40,000 or more?

Thai orthography is very nicely rule-bounded - not perfectly so, of course, but WAY MORE SO than English. I suspect this is because the rules of Thai orthography have largely been circumscribed by authorities rather than naturally evolved through common usage. The opposite being the case with English is precisely why it is very very messy from a learner's point of view.

There is simply no comparison between the massive untidiness of English and the miniscule 'untidiness' of Thai.

Edited August 20, 2010 by SoftWater