A Puzzling Comment On Tone Marks - Do You Understand This?

[AbeSurd]

One of the books I have on Thai contains a puzzling comment on tone marks. Sometimes when I read the sentence I think I understand it. But most of the time I don't get it. I don't think it's making an important point - but maybe it is?

Here goes...

"The tone marks used in written Thai don't show the actual tone, they only modify the spelling."

Can anyone help?

Thanks.

[DavidHouston]

Although the message is not quite clear, the sentence you quote does reflect the reality of the Thai pronunciation system. In Vietnamese, the tone mark directly reflects the pronunciation of the syllable or word with which the mark is associated. In Thai, however, the tone mark is only one determinant of the tone of any particular syllable or word.

The tone of a Thai syllable is determined by the presence or absence of a number of factors including the class of the first consonant of the syllable (and the second in the case of a cluster); the length of the vowel; the presence or absence of the final consonant in the syllable; whether a final vowel or consonant creates a closed or open syllable; and the presence or absence of a tone mark. It is the combination of all these spelling elements which results in the tone associated with a Thai syllable.

This is probably what the sentence is trying to articulate.

[AbeSurd]

Although the message is not quite clear, the sentence you quote does reflect the reality of the Thai pronunciation system. In Vietnamese, the tone mark directly reflects the pronunciation of the syllable or word with which the mark is associated. In Thai, however, the tone mark is only one determinant of the tone of any particular syllable or word.

The tone of a Thai syllable is determined by the presence or absence of a number of factors including the class of the first consonant of the syllable (and the second in the case of a cluster); the length of the vowel; the presence or absence of the final consonant in the syllable; whether a final vowel or consonant creates a closed or open syllable; and the presence or absence of a tone mark. It is the combination of all these spelling elements which results in the tone associated with a Thai syllable.

This is probably what the sentence is trying to articulate.

Right. So the sentence would be better put:

"The tone marks used in written Thai are very important for determining tone. However you should bear in mind that they are not the only determinant of tone."

The original sentence is really quite misleading.

Thanks.

[AyG]

The tone of a Thai syllable is determined by the presence or absence of a number of factors including the class of the first consonant of the syllable (and the second in the case of a cluster);

The second in the case of a cluster? That doesn't sound right to me at all, unless I'm missing something.

Incidentally, J. Marvin Brown has suggested that historically the tone marks did directly correspond to the tone. (After all, King Ramkhamhaeng was smart, so why would he have invented the rather complicated system we have today?) Subsequently, Brown posits, there was an event - The Great Tone Shift - during which tones for the different classes changed dramatically leaving today's system. Of course, knowing this does nothing to help one read Thai today.

Edit: Ah, just got what you mean. You're referring to leading ห and ย modifying the class of the following consonant. I'd interpreted what you wrote as meaning "in a consonant cluster it's the second consonant that determines the tone".

Edited September 11, 2012 by AyG

[DavidHouston]

The tone of a Thai syllable is determined by the presence or absence of a number of factors including the class of the first consonant of the syllable (and the second in the case of a cluster);

The second in the case of a cluster? That doesn't sound right to me at all, unless I'm missing something.

Incidentally, J. Marvin Brown has suggested that historically the tone marks did directly correspond to the tone. (After all, King Ramkhamhaeng was smart, so why would he have invented the rather complicated system we have today?) Subsequently, Brown posits, there was an event - The Great Tone Shift - during which tones for the different classes changed dramatically leaving today's system. Of course, knowing this does nothing to help one read Thai today.

Edit: Ah, just got what you mean. You're referring to leading ห and ย modifying the class of the following consonant. I'd interpreted what you wrote as meaning "in a consonant cluster it's the second consonant that determines the tone".

That, and whether the second consonant in a cluster is a sonorant or not. :From T-L.com:

______________________________________________________________

Most Type III( "non-conforming" clusters (clusters which internally invoke inherent sub-syllable /‑a/) use a sonorant second consonant and thus will follow the general rule as stated. However, the rule does not apply when the second consonant in the cluster is not a sonorant. The completely stated rule is as follows:

Clustered Consonant Tone Rule (full version):In syllables with initial consonant clusters, the overall lexical tone is determined by the consonant class of:

• the

first

consonant in the cluster, if the second consonant is a

sonorant

;

• the

second

consonant in the cluster, if the second consonant is not a sonorant.

_________________________________________________

Examples:

With a sonorant second consonant, we observe tone carry-forward from first consonant:

สนุก

With non-sonorant second consonat, there is no tone carry-forward and the second consonant prevails:

แสดง เกษียณ เฉพาะ

Edited September 11, 2012 by DavidHouston

[DavidHouston]

[eliminate dual posting]

Edited September 11, 2012 by DavidHouston