The proper tone for the word for fun สนุก ?

[SiSePuede419]

The second syllable of this word--as written--should be the tone, Low class+short vowel+dead ending= high tone.

But my Thai teacher says, no. There is an invisible haw heeb (ห) in front of that syllable, because this word comes from another language.

The teacher said if I read more, then i will understand the correct tone.

I told her that i find it extremely difficult to read invisible letters.

1. Why was the high class consonant ห dropped from the word? As a high class consonant which changes the tone of the syllable, ห is ALWAYS silent and is NEVER pronounced.

2. Why the h*ll was the word meaning "fun" not part of The Thai vocabulary, before these foreigners came here and gave them the word for "fun"? This is totally bizare, since the entire Thai lifestyle revolves around sanook: eating, drinking, sex and working as little as possible...????

Could it be similar when I visited a hunter gather tribe in the Amazon jungle, and asked them what the word " respect" meant in their native language, they told me there was no such word. But their entire life came from the Amazon forest...their food, clothing, shelter. Literally, everything they had in life. Their entire life was about respecting the relationships of other tribal members to themselves, as well as living sustainably with the forest and again, working as little as possible, and mostly just laying around in their hamocks, starving with their families (they ate very little, there were no obese people in their tribe).

Could it be that the ancient Thai people enjoyed fun in everything they did in their life, that they assumed it was part of everything and thus had no word for it until some foreigners came in and taught them the word for fun was "สหนุก", later shortened to "สนุก" (because they were too busy having สนุก to write the consonant ห)?

555

[Richard W]

The easiest way of handling it is to think of it as consisting of a single syllable starting /สน/. Thai doesn't allow this cluster, so they insert the vowel /a/, without changing the tone. This is good enough reason for Thais not to add ห.

My explanation of the phonetics isn't actually true for this word. It comes from a word of two syllables in Khmer. In Khmer, an oral stop or fricative consonant generally acts as the initial consonant for a second syllable not starting with one for their equivalent of the tone rules, and this pattern is generally seen in loan words from Khmer, and also on short words borrowed from Pali or Sanskrit.

[AyG]

Quoting David Smyth (Thai An Essential Grammar) since he can explain far more clearly than I:

"Many two syllable words in Thai have an unwritten a vowel in the first syllable. The first syllable is unstressed and pronounced with a mid tone in normal speech; the tone of the second syllable is determined by the second consonant in the word ... unless that consonant is either ง, น, ม, ร, ย, ว, or ล, in which case the first consonant "overrules" it and determines the tone."

In other words, the pronunciation of saˑ​nùk is perfectly regular - nothing to do with the word having come from Khmer.

Your Thai teacher's (decidedly unhelpful) explanation probably comes from the fact that in a dictionary the pronunciation of the word will be shown as /สะ-หฺนุก/, with a leading hor hip on the second syllable.

(It's slightly off topic, but the dictionary suggests that the pronunciation of the first syllable is low tone followed by a glottal stop. Of course, it isn't in normal speech. It's unstressed mid tone and no glottal stop. It really bugs me that so many Thai-English dictionaries get this consistently wrong.)

The original Khmer word (according to the RID) is pronounced สฺรณุก.

[CaptHaddock]

The OP should get another teacher, a competent one.

[SiSePuede419]

"The easiest way of handling it is to think of it as consisting of a single syllable starting /สน/. Thai doesn't allow this cluster, so they insert the vowel /a/, without changing the tone. This is good enough reason for Thais not to add ห."

Makes no sense. Sanook is a two syllable word. The tone of the first syllable never affects the tone of the second syllable.

[CaptHaddock]

Wrong again. Repeat suggestion to get competent instruction.

[SiSePuede419]

Quoting David Smyth (Thai An Essential Grammar) since he can explain far more clearly than I:

"Many two syllable words in Thai have an unwritten a vowel in the first syllable. The first syllable is unstressed and pronounced with a mid tone in normal speech; the tone of the second syllable is determined by the second consonant in the word ... unless that consonant is either ง, น, ม, ร, ย, ว, or ล, in which case the first consonant "overrules" it and determines the tone."

In other words, the pronunciation of saˑ​nùk is perfectly regular - nothing to do with the word having come from Khmer.

Your Thai teacher's (decidedly unhelpful) explanation probably comes from the fact that in a dictionary the pronunciation of the word will be shown as /สะ-หฺนุก/, with a leading hor hip on the second syllable.

(It's slightly off topic, but the dictionary suggests that the pronunciation of the first syllable is low tone followed by a glottal stop. Of course, it isn't in normal speech. It's unstressed mid tone and no glottal stop. It really bugs me that so many Thai-English dictionaries get this consistently wrong.)

The original Khmer word (according to the RID) is pronounced สฺรณุก.

Which dictionary specifies tones?

As far as Thais knowing tones, they only know what they memorize. Most Thais can't tell you which tone any word is.

So, according to what you said, the word for snack "ka nom " ขนม is low tone, low tone.

Because the second syllable is Low Class + live ending, who should be mid tone, but the tone of the first syllable over rules and makes it low tone?????

Darn those Khmer for bringing the concepts of "fun" and "snacks" into Thailand and corrupting their perfect written tone rules....

555

[AyG]

Quoting David Smyth (Thai An Essential Grammar) since he can explain far more clearly than I:

"Many two syllable words in Thai have an unwritten a vowel in the first syllable. The first syllable is unstressed and pronounced with a mid tone in normal speech; the tone of the second syllable is determined by the second consonant in the word ... unless that consonant is either ง, น, ม, ร, ย, ว, or ล, in which case the first consonant "overrules" it and determines the tone."

In other words, the pronunciation of saˑ​nùk is perfectly regular - nothing to do with the word having come from Khmer.

Your Thai teacher's (decidedly unhelpful) explanation probably comes from the fact that in a dictionary the pronunciation of the word will be shown as /สะ-หฺนุก/, with a leading hor hip on the second syllable.

(It's slightly off topic, but the dictionary suggests that the pronunciation of the first syllable is low tone followed by a glottal stop. Of course, it isn't in normal speech. It's unstressed mid tone and no glottal stop. It really bugs me that so many Thai-English dictionaries get this consistently wrong.)

The original Khmer word (according to the RID) is pronounced สฺรณุก.

Which dictionary specifies tones? Uh, all of them? Notice how the pronunciation for this word in Thai language dictionaries is shown as /สะ-หฺนุก/ The hor hip there is to modify the tone of the second syllable, showing that the word is not pronounced exactly as spelled.

So, according to what you said, the word for snack "ka nom " ขนม is low tone, low tone. No. ข is high class, so the pronunciation is /ขะ-หฺนม/ (khaˑ​nǒm) (mid tone, unstressed, no glottal stop; rising tone).

[SiSePuede419]

Quoting David Smyth (Thai An Essential Grammar) since he can explain far more clearly than I:

"Many two syllable words in Thai have an unwritten a vowel in the first syllable. The first syllable is unstressed and pronounced with a mid tone in normal speech; the tone of the second syllable is determined by the second consonant in the word ... unless that consonant is either ง, น, ม, ร, ย, ว, or ล, in which case the first consonant "overrules" it and determines the tone."

In other words, the pronunciation of saˑ​nùk is perfectly regular - nothing to do with the word having come from Khmer.

Your Thai teacher's (decidedly unhelpful) explanation probably comes from the fact that in a dictionary the pronunciation of the word will be shown as /สะ-หฺนุก/, with a leading hor hip on the second syllable.

(It's slightly off topic, but the dictionary suggests that the pronunciation of the first syllable is low tone followed by a glottal stop. Of course, it isn't in normal speech. It's unstressed mid tone and no glottal stop. It really bugs me that so many Thai-English dictionaries get this consistently wrong.)

The original Khmer word (according to the RID) is pronounced สฺรณุก.

Which dictionary specifies tones? Uh, all of them? Notice how the pronunciation for this word in Thai language dictionaries is shown as /สะ-หฺนุก/ The hor hip there is to modify the tone of the second syllable, showing that the word is not pronounced exactly as spelled.

So, according to what you said, the word for snack "ka nom " ขนม is low tone, low tone. No. ข is high class, so the pronunciation is /ขะ-หฺนม/ (khaˑ​nǒm) (mid tone, unstressed, no glottal stop; rising tone).

By all of them, you mean none of them. I looked at several Thai dictionaries in the bookstore. None had tone marks, nor specified the tone.

Wrong about the tone of Kanom.

High Class + Dead ending = Low tone, not mid tone.

http://letstalkthai.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/completeToneRules.jpg

In fact, a high class consonant can never hAve a mid tone or high tone (according to the 15 written tone rules in the chart in the link).

A short vowell is always counted as a dead ending, no? If not, I would like to see documentation where a consonant with a short vowel (written or unwritten ) with no consonant ending constitutes a "live" ending.

I'm an engineer, not an English teacher. I don't accept heresay.

[SiSePuede419]

I think what I'm hearing here is that the tone rules for written Thai don't matter.

What's important for the correct tone is how Thai people pronounce it. The tone rules don't matter.

Thai people are ALWAYS right (even when they're wrong), because "tradition", or something.

5555

[AyG]

By all of them, you mean none of them. I looked at several Thai dictionaries in the bookstore. None had tone marks, nor specified the tone. I can only presume you were looking at Thai-English dictionaries. Thai dictionaries do include the pronunciation for words where the pronunciation is irregular. Here is the definition of ขนม from the Royal Institute Dictionary, 1999.

"ขนม [ขะหฺนม] น. ของกินที่ไม่ใช่กับข้าว มักปรุงด้วยแป้งหรือข้าว

กับกะทิหรือนํ้าตาล, ของหวาน, ทางเหนือเรียกว่า ข้าวหนม."

The part in square brackets is the pronunciation of the word.

Wrong about the tone of Kanom. I most certainly am not.

High Class + Dead ending = Low tone, not mid tone.

http://letstalkthai.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/completeToneRules.jpg

In fact, a high class consonant can never hAve a mid tone or high tone (according to the 15 written tone rules in the chart in the link).

That chart is an oversimplification.

A short vowell is always counted as a dead ending, no? No. An unwritten /a/ does not give a dead syllable. It always produces an unstressed mid tone in normal speech. If not, I would like to see documentation where a consonant with a short vowel (written or unwritten ) with no consonant ending constitutes a "live" ending. You apparently missed what I posted earlier, quoting from an authoritative grammar book of the Thai language. (I've bolded the relevant part.):

"Many two syllable words in Thai have an unwritten a vowel in the first syllable. The first syllable is unstressed and pronounced with a mid tone in normal speech; the tone of the second syllable is determined by the second consonant in the word ... unless that consonant is either ง, น, ม, ร, ย, ว, or ล, in which case the first consonant "overrules" it and determines the tone."

In similar vein, Higbie and Thinsan (Thai Reference Grammar) in the section "Tone changes on unstressed syllables" write pretty much the same thing, but also extend it to unstressed syllables and syllables in other positions in polysyllabic words. Examples they cite include นาฬิกา (naaˑ​liˑ​kaa - mid tone for second syllable) and หนังสือ (naŋˑ​sʉ̌ʉ - mid tone for first syllable).

[SiSePuede419]

That chart is an oversimplification.

555.

In other words, there are rules for Tones in Thai, but if Thai people don't follow the rules, they're always right (even when they're wrong).

"A short vowell is always counted as a dead ending, no?"

No. An unwritten /a/ does not give a dead syllable.

It's the vowel ะ .

ะ is a short vowel.

Short vowels have a dead ending.

Please provide documentation that specifically says ะ is not a short vowel.

It's most certainly pronounced as a short vowel. I thought the pronunciation of Thai speakers was always correct????

"It always produces an unstressed mid tone in normal speech."

Again, just because it's "normal" for Thai people to pronounce this with a mid tone does not mean it's correct.

"You apparently missed what I posted earlier, quoting from an authoritative grammar book of the Thai language."

I'm sorry. I don't bow down to authority. Just because some Farang writes a book and seeks to suck up to Thai speakers who use the wrong tone, doesn't make them an "authority". And just because a Thai person put their name on a book doesn't mean they are more educated in logic than me.

Anyone can write a book. That doesn't mean what's in the book is a fact.

(I've bolded the relevant part.):

[CaptHaddock]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig.

[Johpa]

Oh my, some retentive prescriptive grammarian attitudes on display here. People rarely understand the rules that grammarians create to deconstruct the language that resides in the brain. Thais are indeed oblivious to tone "rules" just as say native English speakers are oblivious to the morphophonemic rules that determine plural formation in English. Thais don't memorize tone rules and Anglos don't memorize plural formation rules. The language come out quite naturally and quite perfectly the vast majority of the time. If the rules don't fit the way people speak then it is those who write the rules, or would adhere to the rules, that have the issues.

[SiSePuede419]

Another example of a word Thai speakers get wrong is the Female Particle at the end of the sentence ค่ะ.

Low class consonant + ไม้เอก ( Mai eek tone Mark) = Falling

http://www.thai-language.com/ref/tone-rules

Instead, I'm told that it's pronounced with a LOW tone. Why?

"Because that's how Thai people pronounce it"

Which means only 3 possibilities:

1. It's being pronounced wrong.

2. It's being spelled wrong with ค when it should be spelled with a high class consonant ข.

3. There's an invisible อ or ห in front of the word to make Thai people feel better about pronouncing the wrong tone.

Don't you see that invisible elephant over there? If you were as smart and educated as a Thai teacher, you would!

555

[Richard W]

By all of them, you mean none of them. I looked at several Thai dictionaries in the bookstore. None had tone marks, nor specified the tone.

Wrong about the tone of Kanom.

High Class + Dead ending = Low tone, not mid tone.

http://letstalkthai.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/completeToneRules.jpg

In fact, a high class consonant can never hAve a mid tone or high tone (according to the 15 written tone rules in the chart in the link).

These rules are really the rules for stressed syllables or words of one syllable. Note that the rule about words ending in a short vowel being dead syllables arose because of their final glottal stop. The tone of unstressed syllables have a tendency to drift, and unstressed open syllables with a short /a/ are normally pronounced with the mid tone - and no final glottal stop. I have a Thai-English dictionary that marks tones on the IPA-like recording of the pronunciation, but it refuses to mark any tone for such syllables. Some people claim that the first vowel in words like ขนม is extra short. My perception is not good enough to tell, and for what its worth I've never seen the statement repeated in academic descriptions of Thai by people with a Western phonetic training.

A short vowell is always counted as a dead ending, no? If not, I would like to see documentation where a consonant with a short vowel (written or unwritten ) with no consonant ending constitutes a "live" ending.

I'm an engineer, not an English teacher. I don't accept heresay.

These syllables preceding a stressed syllable don't take a falling or rising tone. The process is much closer to tone being neutralised. I first saw it documented in 'A Handbook of Comparative Tai', by Fang Kuei Li as his name is recorded on the front cover. (His surname’s Li) - his observation must be about 50 years old by now.

Now, if you read some academic descriptions of Thai, you will find the observation that falling tones don't occur on short dead syllables. Now that statement isn't true now and probably wasn't true when the books were written, but they are rare. Final particles, however, have a behaviour of their own, and one should not be surprised at the tone rules failing to apply to them.

[Richard W]

Quoting David Smyth (Thai An Essential Grammar) since he can explain far more clearly than I:

"Many two syllable words in Thai have an unwritten a vowel in the first syllable. The first syllable is unstressed and pronounced with a mid tone in normal speech; the tone of the second syllable is determined by the second consonant in the word ... unless that consonant is either ง, น, ม, ร, ย, ว, or ล, in which case the first consonant "overrules" it and determines the tone."

In other words, the pronunciation of saˑ​nùk is perfectly regular - nothing to do with the word having come from Khmer.

<snip>

The original Khmer word (according to the RID) is pronounced สฺรณุก.

David Smyth oversimplifies. ตนุ meaning 'I' or 'thin' has the high tone, but ตนุ meaning 'green turtle' has the low tone. For words of two syllables, the best sequence of rules I could come up with for words with that pattern of consonants is:

• Words beginning with ส have tone determined by ส as Smyth describes.
• Otherwise, words that look Pali/Sanskrit have the tone determined by the resonant consonant.
• Otherwise, as Smyth describes.

For words not of Pali/Sanskrit origin, the resonant can be made to control the tone by inserting the glottal stop symbol sara a (ะ). There is a rule that one cannot insert that symbol in the middle of Pali/Sanskrit words. The exception is the prefix ประ-. That prefix is also exceptional in that there are a few common words beginning ประ- that behave as Smyth describes, such as ประวัติ [M]pra[L]wat 'history' and ประโยชน์ [M]pra[L]yoot 'usefulness'.

[Johpa]

Another example of a word Thai speakers get wrong is the Female Particle at the end of the sentence

I am in a bit of a conundrum here. Is the concept of native speakers "getting it wrong" oxymoronic or simply moronic?

[AyG]

Another example of a word Thai speakers get wrong is the Female Particle at the end of the sentence ค่ะ.

Low class consonant + ไม้เอก ( Mai eek tone Mark) = Falling

Instead, I'm told that it's pronounced with a LOW tone. Why?

"Because that's how Thai people pronounce it"

Which means only 3 possibilities:

... and they're all wrong. Fortunately there is a fourth possibility - it's not pronounced with a low tone. It's pronounced with a falling tone and glottal stop /khâʔ/

No real mystery here.

[Richard W]

I am in a bit of a conundrum here. Is the concept of native speakers "getting it wrong" oxymoronic or simply moronic?

The term 'native speaker' is a courtesy often applied to people who didn't go to the right school. Their getting it wrong is one way of identifying them as not having gone to the right school.

[Richard W]

Consider the fifth possibility. It's normally low tone, but has a falling tone for emphasis.

There's the additional problem that the question form, which has the high tone, may be misspelt with mai ek.

[longway]

Smyth's simplifications aside, I think he provides the best structured format for learning the thai alphabet and reading, I cant remember the name of his book, but had 12 lessons for beginners. I condensed all the thai reading rules to 2 sides of A4 using his book and referred to that whenever I was stuck or needed and explanation of why the tones were they way they were, and it was all I ever need the vast majority of the time.