ศาลาชุมนุม

[David and Bui]

For a discussion regarding the issues you raise, please see "หลักภาษาไทย", กำชัย ทองหล่อ, พ.ศ. 2537. This formidable tome contains several discussions regarding the issue of implied vowels, one regarding spelling, i.e., whether to ประวิสรรชนีย์ or not, and the other later in the book regarding how words with implied vowels are pronounced.

I am now in the U.S. and do not have a copy of the book in front of me. Perhaps Rikker can tell you the page reference to the pronunciation discussion from his copy. I do remember that the discussion is about three-quarters of the way through, just before the section on poetry, I believe.

This book is widely available at bookstores in Thailand.

I wish you the best of luck.

[Richard Wordingham]

It's kind of arbitrary which ones get ไม้หันอากาศ and which don't. See ศัตรู [สัดตรู], which gets one, and สตรี [สัดตรี], which doesn't. In the original Sanskrit for both, the first syllable is open syllable /sa/, and Thai turns it into a closed syllable /sat/.

ศตฺรุ śatru only has an initial open syllable if you apply the muta cum liquida rule - and I don't see any evidence for that rule being applied. It woudn't apply to the Pali form, สตฺต satta. What do you see as the Sanskrit original of Thai สตรี? I believe it is สฺิตฺรี strī, a monosyllable! The Pali forms, อิตฺถี itthī and ถี thī, do not seem to be relevant to the Thai word.

[David and Bui]

Regarding variations in spelling and historical attempts at spelling reform, I refer to Rikker's blog entry, "Simplified Thai Spelling During World War II". Is it possible that some of the variations in Thai spelling are functions of other historical reforms of the language? For example, when we compare the King Ramkhamhaeng edicts with where Thai spelling is today, hasn't there been a significant change in spelling conventions over time? Was spelling at one time more internally consistent compared to today or have the various attempts at spelling reform caused there to be greater consistency today?

[Rikker]

ศตฺรุ śatru only has an initial open syllable if you apply the muta cum liquida rule - and I don't see any evidence for that rule being applied. It woudn't apply to the Pali form, สตฺต satta. What do you see as the Sanskrit original of Thai สตรี? I believe it is สฺิตฺรี strī, a monosyllable! The Pali forms, อิตฺถี itthī and ถี thī, do not seem to be relevant to the Thai word.

It appears you're right. Disregarding any reference to the source language, though, I think the point still stands that it may be impossible to predict a closed-syllable /a/ from the spelling (as in สตรี or กรกฎาคม).

Since สตรี appears to be from Sanskrit strī́, which has an initial cluster /str/, then I guess inserting /a/ is just part of nativizing the cluster, and /saʔtrii/ becoming /sat-trii/ is assimilation. Right?

And I'm not sure, but I take it you're saying that for ศัตรู, /sat-truu/ was in fact the Sanskrit pronunciation? Am I interpreting Monier-Williams correctly, which appears to support this?:

śatru
(H1) śátru m. (said to be for śat-tru , fr. √2. śad) , " overthrower " , an enemy , foe , rival , a hostile king (esp. a neighbouring king as a natural enemy) RV. &c &c

Is there anything else enlightening you can divine from this entry?

Comparison to Khmer is interesting: the cognate of สตรี isស្ត្រី pronounced /saʔtrəy/, and the cognate of ศัตรู isសត្រូវ /sattrəv/ (both according to Headley 1997, via SEAlang).

Indic is still a weak point for me, so I appreciate all the help I can get.

[Rikker]

Is it possible that some of the variations in Thai spelling are functions of other historical reforms of the language?

I'm not sure how many systematic spelling reform efforts there have been, certainly none that I know of with as wide a scope as the 1942-1944 reform. I think that there have probably been a lot of case-by-case instances, or relatively small rule changes (like when to use ะ) which could have been motivated by either etymology, aesthetics, or systemization. I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

The best I can do is observe change in actual usage, and surmise the cause. For instance, เดิน is written in early 20th Century documents as เดิร. This seems clearly to be a transliteration of the Khmer ដើរ. One of the rules of the 1942 reform was to change spellings just like this one in words not from Pali/Sanskrit, so though it requires checking against real documents, the spelling of เดิน could well be a legacy of that reform.

For example, when we compare the King Ramkhamhaeng edicts with where Thai spelling is today, hasn't there been a significant change in spelling conventions over time?

By the King Ramkhamhaeng edicts, are you referring to the Ramkhamhaeng inscription? There have certainly been a lot of spelling changes in 700 years. Or are you referring to to the King Mongkut edicts? If the latter, I haven't done any close comparison of synchronic documents to see how conventional spelling really was in the 19th Century, or whether it was sort of free and loose and up to the writer, much like, say, English used to be.

Was spelling at one time more internally consistent compared to today or have the various attempts at spelling reform caused there to be greater consistency today?

Inconsistency often comes from loanwords, which Thai has been soaking up in large quantities for many centuries, the modern era being no exception. If I'm correct in assuming that native words have always been relatively consistent, and loanwords have always been a force for inconsistency, then it's probably true that there is greater consistency today than in the past, due to spelling reform efforts.

There's a strong tendency to retain spellings of loanwords which indicate the spelling from the original language, but this tendency seems to lose out over time as a word becomes accepted as 'native' in its host language (i.e. people stop thinking of it as a foreign word). (See เดิร > เดิน, or ฟุตบอลล์ > ฟุตบอล). These aren't really inconsistencies per se, but it's a trend toward simplification.

I think this thread is developing a severe cased of schizophrenia...

[Rikker]

Whew! There's a lot to reply to here.

With that in mind, let's start here: say a new Thai learner (or a computer algorithm) is presented with a new Thai word such as กรณี, สหรัฐ, นวนิยาย, ปฏิเสธ, which definitely contains more than one syllable. Say we first make the following assumptions:

• there are no morpheme boundaries (as in กระเต็มหน้า)
• all of the syllables with (implicit and explicit) short vowels are open syllables. So, this assumption omits cases like:
  
• วิทยาลัย where some syllables (วิท, ลัย) have final consonants
• สะใจ where there is a "hidden" glottal stop final consonant,
• กรกฎาคม where there is a "hidden" −ั− that again genererates a final consonant.

About วิทยาลัย: For certain types of following consonants (particularly those in the แม่กด group), it seems to be the case that if it can act as a closing syllable, it will. วิทยา > วิด-ทะ-ยา, not วิ-ทะ-ยา; ศาสนา > สาด-สะ-หนา, not สา-สะ-หนา. So perhaps that's a starting hint as to how to formulate a rule for this kind of detection.

Also, in วิทยาลัย, the ทะ syllable is weak, so I don't understand why you propose the restriction that all short non-final syllables must be open.

Under those assumptions, can we then conclude that all the non-final short syllables are weak and will be pronounced mid (and that [a] becomes [ə])?

For me, this is the point where we need to start applying these proposed rules, looking at the results, and then tweaking them based on mistakes. It's too hard to remember problem cases of the top of my head.

What are the "other factors" you allude to that determine which short, open syllables are unstressed? Are the factors you had in mind all covered by our assumptions above or are there others?

My brain's a little slow right now, but I think it's stuff that's mostly been mentioned already.

First, is it possible for one of those closed, short syllables to be "unstressed"?

I don't think so, no. Can anyone help prove me wrong?

In particular,

• Will they always have the tone predicted by the tone rules, or are there cases where they also get shunted to a mid tone?
• Will they always have their natural phonetic value (e.g. [a] for อะ), or are there cases where they get shunted (perhaps centralized) to another value (e.g. [ə]) because of their "unstressed" position? So far I have not been able to think of any words where closed, short syllables change their phonetic value in a pattern that resembles the "unstressed" positions, but I'm wondering if anyone else out there has.

I don't have anything to offer to refute this assumption. Right now I'm working under the assumption that closed syllables are pronounced as written.

There do seem to be cases where closed, short syllables change their phonetic value in general. For example, I hear Thais use the same /e/ sound in เปล and เป๊ะ but a distinctly different sound in เม็ด, and I hear many (but not all) Thais use the same /i/ sound in หมี and ติ but not in ปิด. But since these effects happen even in single-syllable words, they don't seem to be related to "unstressed" syllables.

I think this variation is just another function of natural phonetic variation, influenced by the surrounding sounds. There's already a well-known difference in vowel quality in so-called 'long/short' vowel pairs (that is, they're actually different vowels, not just long/short versions of the same vowel). This is clear in minimal pairs like กัน/กาน or ปิน/ปีน. But some phonetic environments appears to cause a short vowel to be a truly short version of its long equivalent (i.e. the quality stays the same, just the length changes). For example, ตีน /tiin/, ติด /tɪd/, but ติ /tiʔ/ -- not /tɪʔ/. (If needed, see the Wikipedia articles about these two different vowels.)

Just curious, as far as 'etymologically correct' theory, the are there any cases of long syllables with high consonants getting shortened, and do they have a rising tone?

It's a flimsy theory that only illustrates how insisting on enunciating the 'new' tone and glottal stop isn't necessary. For an example of what you asked, see ขอรับ > ครับ, or สายดือ > สะดือ, or สาวไภ้ > สะไภ้.

Interesting! Can you suggest any English or Thai references that further discuss the stressed/unstressed topic, either books or papers (ideally ones available in the boonies or emailable

David's suggestion is what I had in mind re the Thai perspective. I'll keep an eye out for other things, though.

[Chris Pirazzi]

Thanks for another hugely useful response!

Also, in วิทยาลัย, the ทะ syllable is weak, so I don't understand why you propose the restriction that all short non-final syllables must be open.

That was just so I could first ask you about the more restricted case of open syllables, then later expand to ask the other question about short closed syllables.

David's suggestion is what I had in mind re the Thai perspective. I'll keep an eye out for other things, though.

I will definitely pick up that book next time I come out to see-wa-lai-zation.

- Chris Pirazzi

[David and Bui]

Chris, Rikker, et al,

I am following your discussions with great interest, although I do not have the educational background or intellectual tools to make much of meaningful contribution.

Solely from a learning perspective, however, I am wondering about linguistic analysis and resultant rules, principles, and grammar which may or may not be part of the traditional Thai rule sets. I would believe that current Thai linguistics professors are well aware of the structural issues that you two, and Richard W, discuss in these forums. Are these distinctions and rule sets reflected in the Thai literature in this field?

Take, for example, the tri-partite division of Thai consonants and their relationship to tones. As you all have pointed out, there is not a strict one-to-one correlation between consonant class and tone, especially in the context of consonant clusters. However, there is much greater consistency if one takes into account the subsets of sounds within the low-class category. Is this distinction also built-into the traditional Thai grammatical structure? I have not read Kumchai completely through and I wonder whether he takes such distinctions into account.

In addition, even if the older generation of Thai language structure writers did not, do the younger professors with a more international and Western education take these differences into account? In other words, is there a cleavage between the Western view of Thai grammatical structures and their own internal view?

Thanks again for the thoughtful and insightful analysis you three are providing.

[MiTeTy]

Hi
First we have to understand and accept that Thai is a tonal language. Changing the tone is changing a word's meaning; this causes problems for westerners learning it. However, language is always used in context. People therefore still can make mutual understanding despite unfamiliar pronunciation.

If, now, we all accept that, we should pronounce every syllable of every word spoken with equal amount of sound. Unfortunately, people NEVER do that in a discourse. If so we do, we may end up speaking like a robot. This also happen in a stressed language. Take English as an example.
COMFORTABLE has four syllable, but what we always hear of is that it's shortened in 3 syllables \‘kəm-fə(r)-bəl\. This is called native speaker's competence. For some reason, our voice producing organs can function better in that way than making it 4 syllables, and it is more pleasant to hear and conventionally accepted.

Nor will even a single Thai pronounce every syllable in a word with equal amount of sound although it's a rule of the language. This may be due to that it's against the way our tongue, lips, teeth to move naturally, and to produce a beautiful series of rhythmic sounds.

I cautiously refer to these as "unstressed" syllables but I am aware that that is a very dangerous term to use, since "stress" in English is really about inflection and vowel length, and these parameters are already "used up" in Thai to determine the meaning of a word!

I would like to better understand this "unstressed" phenomenon.

Hence, there is a system of (ครุ-ลหุ)‘heavy-light’ sounds in Thai pronunciation ; it's not stressed or unstressed, but some may say it's similar.

More to continue.

[MiTeTy]

Here we go.

Now we have to understand the nature of Thais that they'd like to make syllables in a word as less as they can for their convenient sake, perhaps. This happens in both original Thai words and loaned words.
อยุธยา — ยุดยา
ราชบุรี — ราด รี
อุบลราชธานี — อุบล
มอเตอร์ไซค์ — มอไซค์
อินเตอร์เน็ต — เน็ต
ซาอุดิอาระเบีย — ซาอุ
That's why in modern pronunciation (มะ-หา-วิด-ทะ-ยา-ลัย) has become (มะ-หา-ลัย).

This implies something about the way the people live and view the world. Now we go back to the system of ครุ—ลหุ (Heavy—Light Sounds)in Thai pronunciation .

Here are the rules to help ease your pain of learning pronunciation. Remember there are always exceptions to the rules when it comes to language. Now start counting the syllable of the puzzling words.

1. One Syllable: Pronounce it as it is.

2. Two Syllables:
2.1 In case the first one takes either a monothong อะ อา อิ อี . . . or final consonants แม่ก ก แม่ก บ แม่ก ง .... TAKE PATTERN (Light- Heavy ). For examples:
ภา ษิต (พา- สิด )
อุ ษา (อุ- สา )
สะ ดือ (สะ- ดือ )
ส นาม (สะ- หนาม )
ฝ รั่ง (ฝะ- หรั่ง )
บัน เทิง (บัน- เทิง )
2.2 If the first one takes either dipthong vowel or long one with final consonant like เอะ เอาะ เอีย โอ+ค อือ+ด . . . , then ( Heavy-Heavy -) such as:
เบี้ยเลี้ยง ( เบี้ย-เลี้ยง )
โรคภัย ( โรก-พัย )
มืดมิด ( มืด-มิด )

3. Three Syllables: Take this most common pattern in Thai: Heavy -Light Heavy .
Most Thai words fall into this category.
ธน บุ รี ( ทน -บุ- รี )
รัฐ . บาล there is a little sount of ‘ทะ’ in the middle. ( รัด -ถะ- บาน )
If the first syllable takes no final consonant, then this pattern applies: Light- Heavy-Heavy .
ส หรัฐ (สะ- หะ-รัด )
ประ ชาชน (ประ- ชา-ชน )
ป ฏิเสธ (ปะ- ติ-เสด )

4. Four Syllables
4.1 Most of these words are pronounced
Light- Heavy -Light- Heavy
อ ยุท . ยา there's sound ‘ท’ between 3rd and the last. (อะ- ยุด -ทะ- ยา )
ประถม ศึก ษา (ประ- ถม -สึก- สา ). Another new version, which personally felt absurd, is (ประ-ถม- มะ -สึก-สา)
If the second and third ones take monothongs, then this pattern applies:
Heavy -Light-Light- Heavy .
วิท .ยา ลัย ( วิด -ทะ-ยา- ลัย )
จิน ตนา การ ( จิน -ตะ-นา- กาน )

Other than those mentioned, learners must possess the ability to divide compound words into multi root words. Take มหาวิทยาลัย = มหา+วิทยาลัย. Then, apply the rules above. มหาวิทยาลัย (มะ-หา- วิด-ทะ-ยา- ลัย ).

GEM of The DAY: You may notice that every final syllable is ALWAYS prominently pronounced.

Hope this help clarify your queries.

More Reading: อุดม วโรตม์สิกขดิตถ์. ภาษาศาสตร์เหมาะสมัยเบื้องต้น. กรุงเทพ: ต้นธรรม. 2537.