Bad Dictionaries - Poor Transcriptions

[RDN]

I won't name the dictionary just yet, as I would like the opinions of other members.

My g/f was learning some English words again today, and I was helping with the pronunciation. She showed me the word she had written down - "compel" - and asked me what it meant. So I told her and she got out her dictionary and said "Cumpell".

So I said it should be pronounced "compel" - very short "com" and accent on the "pell".

She then showed me the dictionary's transcription (at least, I think it was meant to be a "transcription", i.e. a pronunciation guide, rather than a "transliteration" - the representation of the English letters using Thai letters.)

Here is the entry in the dictionary:

There is a whole series of words after "compel" that they have transcribed like that, and yet immediately above "compel" is "compilation":

So, as well as "cum" being wrong in "compel", why have they put a "mai-dtai-kuu" over the "paw paan"? It's almost as if they think it's pronounced "cumple" as in "crumple"!

[meadish_sweetball]

without "mai-thaai-khuu" over พ the vowel would be long, and that would be very wrong- because it would lure the Thai into saying something similar to "pain" as pronounced by a Scotsman, making the entire word be closer to a mispronounced "complain" than "compel".

Since there is a stress mark after the second syllable, (the ' ), it should be obvious the enphasis is there and not on the first. Then again, most Thais might not pay any mind to the stress mark, as it is not a normal feature of Thai writing, and since stress in Thai and English work differently (Thai does not change pitch to any significant degree when stressing a word, but English does). I can see how the teacher would have a problem with explaining stress in English to students to make it sink in properly.

As for the first syllable being คัม and not ค็อม, I think they have made a mistake, but not a very big one. Since the stress is on the second syllable, leaving the first syllable unstressed, you wouldn't be able to spot the difference in vowel quality in normal speech. When your girlfriend says the word in isolation, it will be another matter of course.

[RDN]

Thanks for pointing out the accent mark that the dictionary uses. I hadn't thought about that for "compel" and - clearly - neither had my Thai g/f.

I've just checked the authors of this dictionary - both are Thai but both have qualifications from America - M.P.A. Indiana, M.A. Columbia, and Ed. D.s from Columbia and Indiana. So maybe they are speaking the words with American accents?

So "compel" becomes "cumpel"?

But still strange - or inconsistent - that lots of the other following words are transcripted using "ค็อม" for "com".

[meadish_sweetball]

Yep, there is a clear inconsistency there.

[Richard W]

Thanks for pointing out the accent mark that the dictionary uses. I hadn't thought about that for "compel" and - clearly - neither had my Thai g/f.

So "compel" becomes "cumpel"?

But still strange - or inconsistent - that lots of the other following words are transcripted using "ค็อม" for "com".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

American phonologists do not distinguish the slurred vowel (schwa) of 'compel' from the stressed vowel of 'company' other that to say that one is unstressed and the other stressed. The best pair of words for hearing the difference is 'gallop' and 'hiccup'.

The key difference between 'compel' and 'compilation' is that 'com' is unstressed in the first word and has a secondary stress in the second. Consequently, the 'o' of 'compel' is the same as that of 'gallop' in the Received Pronunciation.

[Andrew Mac]

Thanks for pointing out the accent mark that the dictionary uses. I hadn't thought about that for "compel" and - clearly - neither had my Thai g/f.

So "compel" becomes "cumpel"?

But still strange - or inconsistent - that lots of the other following words are transcripted using "ค็อม" for "com".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

American phonologists do not distinguish the slurred vowel (schwa) of 'compel' from the stressed vowel of 'company' other that to say that one is unstressed and the other stressed. The best pair of words for hearing the difference is 'gallop' and 'hiccup'.

The key difference between 'compel' and 'compilation' is that 'com' is unstressed in the first word and has a secondary stress in the second. Consequently, the 'o' of 'compel' is the same as that of 'gallop' in the Received Pronunciation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Richard, Meadish, RDN, and/or anyone else that might be interested enough to try and make sense of the amateur linguistics that follows ...

Just out of interest, do you happen to know if there is a commonly accepted way of rendering this schwa in Thai, in order to achieve an appropriate sound?

From what I've seen, the vowel chosen most often is "mai hanaakaat" (อ้), but to be honest there's many cases where my (Australian) ear tends to think a short /ǝ/ sound (เออะ) -- without any glottal stop, of course -- would be more appropriate. For example, in our own national dictionary (the Macquarie Dictionary) "compel" is rendered as /kǝmʼpel/ -- not /kam'pel/ (the stress mark placed at the beginning of the syllable here, unlike in the Thai sample given by RDN).

To give another example, I have been taught that my name ("Macpherson") comes out in Thai as แม็คเฟอร์ซัน, but (over here in Australia, at least) that creates a slightly unusual sound for the final syllable: /ʼmɛkfǝǝsan/ rather than /ʼmɛkfǝǝsǝn/. I do use the above spelling in Thai, as I have been taught, but I've always been just a bit uncomfortable with the way that last syllable comes through ... if there's a way to write it so that it does come through in Thai the way it tends to be pronounced over here in Australia, I'd much rather use that.

Rendering this short /ǝ/ sound of the (Australian?) schwa in Thai might be OK if the syllable doesn't have a closing consonant, because Thai does have that phoneme, but the issue that arises from this is that Thai doesn't seem to have that phoneme between consonants (except that for some linguists that glottal stop is in fact a consonant). And after all, the schwa really exists precisely because of that second consonant, doesn't it?

I'm not a linguist -- so this next bit may well be wrong -- but I guess the distinction I'm trying to make is that (again, at least in Australia) the schwa tends to be the short mid-central [ǝ] or maybe the short high-central [ʉ], rather than the short low-central [a] ... does that make senseʔ

If I'm not completely wrong about the normal English phoneme used for the schwa (again, at least in the Australian use I've experienced), is there any way to transcribe this shortened sound into Thai? The vowel เออะ is the best choice, I guess, but as far as I know there just doesn't seem to be any way to write this sound in the Thai script *when there is a final consonant*.

So (if any of this has made any sense at all), is there any option to rendering the schwa with what seems to be the Thai standard [/a/ อ้] sound, or is that really in fact the only accepted method?

Thanks in advance for any advice or suggestions people may have ... but don't worry: I'm not going to lose any sleep over any of this if it's just something that isn't relevant, or cannot be addressed in Thai :-)

Edited October 29, 2005 by Andrew Mac

[meadish_sweetball]

Very relevant question and very detailed post. Good job, from one hobby linguist to another.

I think the simple answer to your question is No.

BTW, your perceptions of the schwa are just as applicable to many dialects of British English, especially Southern ones. I also agree with your suggested 'closest sounds' in Thai, although the short high-central [ʉ] creates a distinctly Australian, or even Kiwi sound to 'son' in my ears.

Judging from transcriptions in English for Thais books, they do not pay much attention to the schwa's, perhaps one of the reasons why Thais seem to find it more difficult to understand Brits and Aussies than Americans (provided the Americans are not from the Deep South, and also provided the Thai in question has lived close to or worked with a Brit or Aussie of course).

American English has a stress-pattern more equally distributed among the syllables as well as less ups and downs in intonation, which probably suits the Thai ear better. Then again, they would still have a 'schwa' in the final syllable of McPherson.

Thai writing conventions dictate that '-son' should be written 'สัน' or 'ซัน', so you may find it hard to convince them to spell the sound in the final syllable ซึน though I agree it would sound more like an Aussie pronounces it.

[RDN]

...if there's a way to write it so that it does come through in Thai the way it tends to be pronounced over here in Australia, I'd much rather use that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is an echo of the "Oil or Oy" thread ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45136 ), where I commented on my name - Roger - being transliterated in Thai to โรเจอร, whereas I now transcribe it to รดเจอะ so Thais pronounce it as "Rodja".

[orchidexpert]

complain = cum-pain.."คัม-เพลน"

son = ซอน

If you say "ซัน" means SUN

If you say "สัน" different meaning.

For Roger . Thai people say "Ro-Ger"= " โร-เจอ" {R=ร}

But in English said "รออ-เจอะ"

If you are an engilsh native speaker you can teach your gf very easy.

But when I was in Aussi-land one guy told me

"He- will- back -to -Thailand- to-die" (Some say day but some say die but as the same meaning) English native speakers?

Tell you gf. In english language has many words not follow the grammer rules such as :

DEBT : should to say "dep" "เดบ"

But we said "det" "เดท"

And Thai people have problem with "h" "eh..ch" "เอช.ช"

Many Thai people say "h" is "hed" " เฮด"

[RDN]

...For Roger . Thai people say "Ro-Ger"= " โร-เจอ" {R=ร}

But in English said  "รออ-เจอะ"

If you are an engilsh native speaker you can teach your gf very easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, my g/f says it OK, but her friends still say "ro-GEEEER"

...But when I was in Aussi-land one guy  told me

"He- will- back -to -Thailand- to-die" (Some say day but some say die but as the same meaning) English native speakers?...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes - "to die" is exactly how a lot of Aussies say "today"

And welcome to the Thai Language forum. Please keep looking here - lots of good - and usually serious - topics to keep you interested!

[Richard W]

Rendering this short /ǝ/ sound of the (Australian?) schwa in Thai might be OK if the syllable doesn't have a closing consonant, because Thai does have that phoneme, but the issue that arises from this is that Thai doesn't seem to have that phoneme between consonants (except that for some linguists that glottal stop is in fact a consonant). And after all, the schwa really exists precisely because of that second consonant, doesn't it?

Thai has this vowel sound in เงิน, which is the only word I know of that has it before a consonant other than a glottal stop. Curiously, Fang-Kuei Li (as his name appears in his publications) reckons that this word comes from an earlier *งึน.

If I'm not completely wrong about the normal English phoneme used for the schwa (again, at least in the Australian use I've experienced), is there any way to transcribe this shortened sound into Thai? The vowel เออะ is the best choice, I guess, but as far as I know there just doesn't seem to be any way to write this sound in the Thai script *when there is a final consonant*.

I was given this impression on another forum - *เง็อน was declared incomprehensible. However, in a textbook on the Kam Mueang, I found this same vowel transliterated from tua muang into the Thai script into the following instances in systematic accounts of the แม่ กน, กง, กก etc. with the various vowels:

เกิด็ เกิง็ เกิน็ เกิม็

but indiscrimately written เกิก เกิบ (same as for long vowel). Kam Mueang allows the equivalent of mai han-akat and maitaikhu to be written above the sara i equivalent, which may be why I've seen a report that maitaikhu may be written above sara i and sara ii in Thai. The short diphtongs in closing syllables were similarly transcribed เกีย็น and เกือ็น - there is no length contrast on diphthongs in closed syllables in Siamese.

What the average Thai would make of เคิม็เพ็ล as the pronunciation of an English word is another matter. It would be nicer if the maitaikhu were above the vowel, but modern renderers won't allow it.

Edited October 29, 2005 by Richard W

[meadish_sweetball]

complain = cum-pain.."คัม-เพลน"

son  = ซอน

If you say "ซัน"  means  SUN

If you say "สัน" different meaning.

For Roger . Thai people say "Ro-Ger"= " โร-เจอ" {R=ร}

But in English said  "รออ-เจอะ"

If you are an engilsh native speaker you can teach your gf very easy.

But when I was in Aussi-land one guy  told me

"He- will- back -to -Thailand- to-die" (Some say day but some say die but as the same meaning) English native speakers?

Tell you gf. In english language has many words not follow the grammer rules such as :

DEBT : should to say  "dep" "เดบ"

But we said "det" "เดท"

And Thai people have problem with "h"  "eh..ch" "เอช.ช"

Many Thai people say "h" is "hed" " เฮด"

I am afraid you misunderstood what I was trying to say - I was not talking about the single word 'son'. I was talking about how the suffix -son is rendered in Thai writing and how it is pronounced by Thais.

To clarify: What I meant was how most Thais pronounce "Ericsson", the mobile phone company because of how the name of the company is written in Thai letters?

This is what I was referring to in my post (note the hyphen used, to indicate that I meant a suffix - "-son").

[stateman]

Maybe Kam Mueang are written as you indicated, and the northern Thais can pronounce it. I can’t speak Kam Mueang and would readily admit that I don’t understand a lot of their words. But in central Thai, or official Thai (as used in Bangkok), things are different. In official Thai:

เกิก เกิบ are OK.

But เกิด็ เกิง็ เกิน็ เกิม็ เกีย็น and เกือ็น เคิม็เพ็ล are practically incomprenhensible. Most Thais (central, official) will say they are wrong and wouldn’t even attempt to pronounce them. In my opinion, it is not worth the torture to write them that way. The placement of maitaikhu make them look so un-natural, un-Thai and would serve more as an obstacle to cause stumbling, than to help in making them pronounce more correctly.

However, if one really tries to salvage the writings above for the sake of discussion, one could say:

เกิด็ เกิง็ เกิน็ เกิม็ เกือ็น if pronounceable, would be pronounced the same as เกิด เกิง เกิน เกิม เกือน (probably with a bit shorter pronounciation, however ). I suggest using plain old เกิด เกิง เกิน เกิม เกือน.

เกีย็น incomprenhensible. Don’t use.

As for compel, I checked out The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition, 2000 on the Internet and listened to its pronunciation, I have to concur with RDN’s Thai dictionary! I would have done the same.

[Ref.: http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/C0525400.html

compel

PRONUNCIATION: (special symbols no reproduceable here) ]

Reason is the word in American pronunciatin is more a “cum” sound, than a “com” sound.

[siamesekitty]

I'll have to say I agree with RDN's dictionary as well. It's as I would have transcribed it myself.

(Might be 'cuz I lean towards American English )

Edited October 30, 2005 by siamesekitty

[stateman]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of interest, do you happen to know if there is a commonly accepted way of rendering this schwa in Thai, in order to achieve an appropriate sound?

From what I've seen, the vowel chosen most often is "mai hanaakaat" (อ้), but to be honest there's many cases where my (Australian) ear tends to think a short /ǝ/ sound (เออะ) -- without any glottal stop, of course -- would be more appropriate. For example, in our own national dictionary (the Macquarie Dictionary) "compel" is rendered as /kǝmʼpel/ -- not /kam'pel/ (the stress mark placed at the beginning of the syllable here, unlike in the Thai sample given by RDN).

To give another example, I have been taught that my name ("Macpherson") comes out in Thai as แม็คเฟอร์ซัน, but (over here in Australia, at least) that creates a slightly unusual sound for the final syllable: /ʼmɛkfǝǝsan/ rather than /ʼmɛkfǝǝsǝn/. I do use the above spelling in Thai, as I have been taught, but I've always been just a bit uncomfortable with the way that last syllable comes through ... if there's a way to write it so that it does come through in Thai the way it tends to be pronounced over here in Australia, I'd much rather use that.

Rendering this short /ǝ/ sound of the (Australian?) schwa in Thai might be OK if the syllable doesn't have a closing consonant, because Thai does have that phoneme, but the issue that arises from this is that Thai doesn't seem to have that phoneme between consonants (except that for some linguists that glottal stop is in fact a consonant). And after all, the schwa really exists precisely because of that second consonant, doesn't it?

I'm not a linguist -- so this next bit may well be wrong -- but I guess the distinction I'm trying to make is that (again, at least in Australia) the schwa tends to be the short mid-central [ǝ] or maybe the short high-central [ʉ], rather than the short low-central [a] ... does that make senseʔ

If I'm not completely wrong about the normal English phoneme used for the schwa (again, at least in the Australian use I've experienced), is there any way to transcribe this shortened sound into Thai? The vowel เออะ is the best choice, I guess, but as far as I know there just doesn't seem to be any way to write this sound in the Thai script *when there is a final consonant*.

So (if any of this has made any sense at all), is there any option to rendering the schwa with what seems to be the Thai standard [/a/ อ้] sound, or is that really in fact the only accepted method?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

…" if there's a way to write it so that it does come through in Thai the way it tends to be pronounced over here in Australia, I'd much rather use that. "

Well Andrew Mac,

Re: แม็คเฟอร์ซัน

This is a tough one.

The last syllable in Thai ‘ซัน’ is a fairly standard way of writing ‘son’ in Thai – especially for British English or American English.

To write it so the pronunciation is closer to / s ə n/ necessitates using ‘ซาน’. ‘ซาน’ probably is quite close to the sound you want. That is แม็คเฟอร์ซาน

But that brings on a new problem. It uses ‘า’ which draws the sound to be a long sound – which is NOT what you want! L . ‘ซาน’ is the way it is written for San as in San Francisco. There is no way to tell a Thai person to pronounce it short!

Also, it looks so unfamiliar to a Thai to see ‘แม็คเฟอร์ซาน’ that the first impression is to judge that you didn’t know how to write it in Thai – as it is not written in a more familiar way of ‘แม็คเฟอร์ซัน’.

A third choice: “my (Australian) ear tends to think a short /ə/ sound (เออะ)”

If you can accept the short ‘เออะ’ sound in Thai, then you may write ‘เซิน’ as แม็คเฟอร์เซิน

[or แม็คเฟอร์เซิีีน i.e. adding ‘maiek’ above ‘i’, but at the expense of looking so odd]

So here they are. You make the decision yourself! J

[RDN]

...(Might be 'cuz I lean towards American English )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly do lean that way, 'coz I say " 'coz" and you say " 'cuz"...

And I say potato and you say potarto

[meadish_sweetball]

I say potatis but you say ข้าวเหนียว

[Richard W]

เกิก เกิบ are OK.

But เกิด็ เกิง็ เกิน็ เกิม็ เกีย็น and เกือ็น เคิม็เพ็ล are practically incomprenhensible.  Most Thais (central, official) will say they are wrong and wouldn’t even attempt to pronounce them.  In my opinion, it is not worth the torture to write them that way.  The placement of maitaikhu make them look so un-natural, un-Thai and would serve more as an obstacle to cause stumbling, than to help in making them pronounce more correctly. 

However, if one really tries to salvage the writings above for the sake of discussion, one could say:

เกิด็  เกิง็ เกิน็  เกิม็  เกือ็น  if pronounceable, would be pronounced the same as เกิด  เกิง  เกิน  เกิม เกือน  (probably with a bit shorter pronounciation, however  ).  I suggest using plain old เกิด เกิง เกิน เกิม เกือน. 

เกีย็น  incomprenhensible.  Don’t use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The whole point of my mentioning the writing of เกิด็ เกิง็ เกิน็ เกิม็ is that they are pronounced with the vowel of เงิน, not the vowel of เชิญ. The book's writing เกิก and เกิบ for both long and short vowels (which occurred in immediate succession in the table) without any comment was downright misleading.

On the other hand, the sounds of เกือ็น and เกือน (which in the book might have written เกื๋อ็น and เกื๋อน, for the Tua Mueang ก is a high consonant) are not distinguished in Central Thai, nor the sounds of เกีย็น and เกียน. I mentioned them to show that there was a system here. How widespread it is is another matter. It might just be restricted to that one book, แบบเรียนภาษาล้านนา 'Lanna Textbook' (my translation).

[RDN]

...but does anyone know what's happened to Thai2English.com? Can't get access - "Error 403 Forbidden"

mike_l? What are you doing?

[meadish_sweetball]

I can get there without any problems RDN. Try again?

[mike_l]

Sorry, there was a problem for a while but it should be working normally again now.

[meadish_sweetball]

Sorry, there was a problem for a while but it should be working normally again now.

Goodie, would hate to lose your site - just watch out for the Ray Banned geezers who shut down thai-language.com temporarily...

[siamesekitty]

...(Might be 'cuz I lean towards American English )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly do lean that way, 'coz I say " 'coz" and you say " 'cuz"...

And I say potato and you say potarto

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least we drive cars instead of khaas

[RDN]

Sorry, there was a problem for a while but it should be working normally again now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep! Thanks guys, OK now. Scared me for a minute there, Mike. I would hate to lose the instant translation facility!

[RDN]

...(Might be 'cuz I lean towards American English )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly do lean that way, 'coz I say " 'coz" and you say " 'cuz"...

And I say potato and you say potarto

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least we drive cars instead of khaas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but we drive on the right (ซ้าย, sáai, left) not wrong (ขวา, kwăa, right) side of the road!

[siamesekitty]

...(Might be 'cuz I lean towards American English )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly do lean that way, 'coz I say " 'coz" and you say " 'cuz"...

And I say potato and you say potarto

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least we drive cars instead of khaas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but we drive on the right (ซ้าย, sáai, left) not wrong (ขวา, kwăa, right) side of the road!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure it's called "right" for a reason

(and 138 other countries will agree 139 countries driving on the right vs. 53 countries driving on the left)

Edited October 30, 2005 by siamesekitty

[bannork]

...(Might be 'cuz I lean towards American English )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly do lean that way, 'coz I say " 'coz" and you say " 'cuz"...

And I say potato and you say potarto

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least we drive cars instead of khaas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but we drive on the right (ซ้าย, sáai, left) not wrong (ขวา, kwăa, right) side of the road!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure it's called "right" for a reason

(and 138 other countries will agree 139 countries driving on the right vs. 53 countries driving on the left)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm afraid there's an error SK in your statistics, you forgot to mention that in Thailand people drive on both sides of the road,(apart from the pavement).