SIIO DAM KHEM (ซีอิ๊วดำเค็ม)

[Kanga Japan]

Can anyone tell me what this could be called in English?

I have seen it shown as SWEET LIGHT SOY SAUCE, however the KHEM at the end implies 'salty'. I also think it should be dark, rather than light.

Thank you for your help.

[Seligne2]

Thais have two kinds of soy sauce: ซีอิ๊วดำ sii-​íu-​dam or heavy dark soy sauce and ซีอิ๊วขาว sii-​íu-​kǎao or light soy sauce. The words dam (black) and kǎao (white) are the key words to look for. Some manufacturers have as many as 5 different grades of soy sauce ranging from Number 1 (~80% soy extract) to Number 5 (~20% soy extract). Go to a big market like Big C and study the labels and you'll see how it works.

[Kanga Japan]

Dear Seligne 2,

Thank you for that information. I have the SI IU DAM, SII IU KAAO sauces etc., including the sweet ones, but I don't know what this particular one should be shown as. Is it a sweet-salty taste? Thick or thin?

I wish I could go to a Thai market, but unfortunately I live in Japan.

Thanks for your help.

[Seligne2]

If the bottle says "dam" and เค็ม kem (salty) then you can be sure it is heavy and salty.

[Kanga Japan]

Dear Seligne2,

Thanks for that. I thought so, considering the Thai words. Just seemed strange not to include the word 'salty'.

Glad to have that confirmation.

[AyG]

According to one (reliable) source (http://www.foodnetworksolution.com/wiki/word/3845/น้ำซีอิ๊ว), there are 4 types of SI-IW.

3. ชนิด
3.1 น้ำซีอิ๊ว แบ่งออกเป็น 4 ชนิด คือ
3.1.1 น้ำซีอิ๊วขาว
3.1.2 น้ำซีอิ๊วดำเค็ม
3.1.3 น้ำซีอิ๊วดำ
3.1.4 น้ำซีอิ๊วหวาน

My loose translation

3. Varieties
3.1 NAM SI-IW is divided into four types, namely
3.1.1 NAM SI-IW KHAO (white)
3.1.2 NAM SI-IW DAM KHEM (black and salty)
3.1.3 NAM SI-IW DAM (black)
3.1.4 NAM SI-IW WAN (sweet)

Edit: Fixed link and transliteration of WAN.

[Kanga Japan]

Dear AyG,

Thank you for those words and translations. The RTGS transliteration is quite different (or sounds to me) from the actual sound. It is SIIO.

I am entering it as siiū, which I think is close to the actual pronunciation (and similar to spellings sometimes used in Thai food-related publications). Of course, I am also using the RTGS reading.

Much appreciated.

[AyG]

Technically, the RTGS version is SI-IO, I think. Hyphens are used where there are consecutive vowels, as in BANG PA-IN (where the Thai Royal Summer Palace is). Still, it shows what a useless system the RTGS is.

The closest English equivalent for the first syllable (ignoring tones) is "see" (rhymes with me, fee, he - long vowel). And for the second, the vowel (OK, technically diphthong) is short, "ewwww!" rhyming with few, dew, screw, new.

[Kanga Japan]

Dear AyG,

Thank you for that. When I used the Thai-language.com RTGS system, it didn't have a hyphen, but I will add it.

Regarding using "see", I agree with you, however the system I am using is one which uses "I" as in it (lengthened to "ii" as in "see") and "E" as in "red". I adopted this after a lot of consideration and it also goes well with the Japanese. I am also including an explanation. I might also add a "W" at the end, as you suggest.

Thanks for your advice, as always.

[Richard W]

Technically, the RTGS version is SI-IO, I think. Hyphens are used where there are consecutive vowels, as in BANG PA-IN (where the Thai Royal Summer Palace is). Still, it shows what a useless system the RTGS is.

So what would you prefer? Siʹio? Something like an original *Siïu would have faced the problem that the general system was meant to function as the simplification of the precise system, in which shortness and tone marks appear above the vowels. An apostrophe would also invite confusion with the use of an apostrophe as an approximation to the horns on 'o' and 'u', as in the transliteration muʹong for modern mueang (The 'o' as opposed to 'a' comes from the precise system). The RTGS only took off when it abandoned the ligatures and diacritics (č, æ, ǫ, , ư). (The oe ligature may have vanished from the list for some obscure reason.) Not marking would be as silly as English boing (the sound) and going, and works like English co-operate or re-enter.

[AyG]

Technically, the RTGS version is SI-IO, I think. Hyphens are used where there are consecutive vowels, as in BANG PA-IN (where the Thai Royal Summer Palace is). Still, it shows what a useless system the RTGS is.

So what would you prefer? Siʹio? Something like an original *Siïu would have faced the problem that the general system was meant to function as the simplification of the precise system, in which shortness and tone marks appear above the vowels. An apostrophe would also invite confusion with the use of an apostrophe as an approximation to the horns on 'o' and 'u', as in the transliteration muʹong for modern mueang (The 'o' as opposed to 'a' comes from the precise system). The RTGS only took off when it abandoned the ligatures and diacritics (č, æ, ǫ, , ư). (The oe ligature may have vanished from the list for some obscure reason.) Not marking would be as silly as English boing (the sound) and going, and works like English co-operate or re-enter.

On encountering SIIO the non-speaker is probably going to think this is a single syllable, something like see-oh.

And with the syllables separated - SI-IO - the second syllable will probably be pronounced Aye-oh (like the moon, Io), or possibly Yo! or Eee-oh (with Eee as in tree).

Neither transliteration gets remotely close to the correct pronunciation.

So I would prefer something that allowed a non-speaker of the language to produce an approximation of how the word is pronounced. Probably not essential to indicate tones, since the non-speaker probably won't be able to produce them. However, vowel length is critical.

That would best be met by either using IPA, which is universal, or (probably better since it's a little simpler) Mary Haas' adaptation thereof. So, siː íw or sii íw.

[Seligne2]

I like the system employed in the Becker (Paiboon Publishing) books: sii-​íu

[Kanga Japan]

Dear AyG and Seligne2,

Thank you both for your suggestions and also the additional information from AyG.

I will keep that in mind.

Best regards.

[Richard W]

The RTGS is a compromise, and falls between several stools. It is supposed to be tolerably readable as generic 'Foreign', with an adaptation of the principle of consonants as in English and vowels as in Italian.

On encountering SIIO the non-speaker is probably going to think this is a single syllable, something like see-oh.

We have a problem here with the question of vowel doubling for length. When the RTGS was developed, in what was still to some extent Further India, it would have been natural to use a macron or breve to show vowel length; these diacritics were naturally available for use in Latin grammars and, locally, Sanskrit and Pali. I wonder if the greater modern use of doubled vowel letters was initiated by the move to authors preparing camera-ready text.

And with the syllables separated - SI-IO - the second syllable will probably be pronounced Aye-oh (like the moon, Io), or possibly Yo! or Eee-oh (with Eee as in tree). Neither transliteration gets remotely close to the correct pronunciation.

There may be a problem here that the RTGS is based too much on words like Italian ciao. There is a question here of how we should expect an educated English reader to pronounce au. Writing aw risks evoking [ ɔː]. The original RTGS had iu for the second syllable. The transcription of final /w/ was later simplified to <o> after all vowels.

So I would prefer something that allowed a non-speaker of the language to produce an approximation of how the word is pronounced. Probably not essential to indicate tones, since the non-speaker probably won't be able to produce them. However, vowel length is critical. That would best be met by either using IPA, which is universal, or (probably better since it's a little simpler) Mary Haas' adaptation thereof. So, siː íw or sii íw.

Do you have evidence that vowel length is more important than tone? From the irregularities in vowel length and the compromises made in spelling, I would have said that tone was more important to a native speaker. Additionally, as tempo increases, vowel length vanishes before tone in unstressed syllables.

The phonetics of the Thai rime /iw/ are curious. While one would expect it to be close to the rime of Estuarine English grill, I often hear the rime as [ju:] rather than [iw]. So for a Londoner, Slapdash see ill would so, but so would Slapdash see you.

[AyG]

The RTGS is a compromise, and falls between several stools. It is supposed to be tolerably readable as generic 'Foreign', with an adaptation of the principle of consonants as in English and vowels as in Italian.

On encountering SIIO the non-speaker is probably going to think this is a single syllable, something like see-oh.

We have a problem here with the question of vowel doubling for length. When the RTGS was developed, in what was still to some extent Further India, it would have been natural to use a macron or breve to show vowel length; these diacritics were naturally available for use in Latin grammars and, locally, Sanskrit and Pali. I wonder if the greater modern use of doubled vowel letters was initiated by the move to authors preparing camera-ready text.

And with the syllables separated - SI-IO - the second syllable will probably be pronounced Aye-oh (like the moon, Io), or possibly Yo! or Eee-oh (with Eee as in tree). Neither transliteration gets remotely close to the correct pronunciation.

There may be a problem here that the RTGS is based too much on words like Italian ciao. There is a question here of how we should expect an educated English reader to pronounce au. Writing aw risks evoking [ ɔː]. The original RTGS had iu for the second syllable. The transcription of final /w/ was later simplified to <o> after all vowels.

So I would prefer something that allowed a non-speaker of the language to produce an approximation of how the word is pronounced. Probably not essential to indicate tones, since the non-speaker probably won't be able to produce them. However, vowel length is critical. That would best be met by either using IPA, which is universal, or (probably better since it's a little simpler) Mary Haas' adaptation thereof. So, siː íw or sii íw.

Do you have evidence that vowel length is more important than tone? From the irregularities in vowel length and the compromises made in spelling, I would have said that tone was more important to a native speaker. Additionally, as tempo increases, vowel length vanishes before tone in unstressed syllables.

The phonetics of the Thai rime /iw/ are curious. While one would expect it to be close to the rime of Estuarine English grill, I often hear the rime as [ju:] rather than [iw]. So for a Londoner, Slapdash see ill would so, but so would Slapdash see you.

SIIO wasn't meant as an example of vowel doubling. It's what Kanga gave as the RTGS (based upon thai-language.com), whilst it should have been hyphenated SI-IO.

Vowel length is arguably more important than tone, since Thai is reasonably intelligible in the absence of tone (e.g. when whispering, or written using the Latin alphabet without tone marks). However, that was not my point. My point was that for speakers of non-tonal languages who haven't studied one the inclusion of tone information is of no benefit. I'd also suggest that it's not particularly helpful for speakers of other tonal languages, given the differences in tone profile.

[Richard W]

Vowel length is arguably more important than tone, since Thai is reasonably intelligible in the absence of tone (e.g. when whispering, or written using the Latin alphabet without tone marks).

There seems to be quite a bit of tone left in Thai even when the pitch differences are lost - see for example Abramson's experiments.

For the most part, vowel length does not have much functional load in Thai, as I began to realise when looking for contrasts of the form /nii/ v. /hiin/ (but with same tone) in Northern Thai - words like /hiin/ were too rare for me to find any contrasts. Many Tai languages lack the length contrasts, with one significant difference, /a:/ v. /a/, which is generally also a qualitative contrast [a] v. [ɐ] (or [ʌ] if you follow the traditional English abuse of the symbol). Not surprisingly, showing this distinction is a very common modification of what is otherwise RTGS.