Brassica for Thai

[bradrn]

The Thai script is correct, however some of the transcribed output words do not have the tones I would expect (from learning modern Thai). I'm assuming the tones of modern Thai are what's intended, and mid tone does not occur in stop-final syllables. What are you verifying the outputs against?

ʔi̯et → ʔēt [เอ็ด ‘one’] -- should be ʔèt (low tone)
dlək → lāk [ลัก ‘steal’] -- should be lák (high tone)
muək → mūuk [มูก ‘mucus’] -- should be mûuk (falling tone)

Ah, good catch! But when I re-run it, these do have the correct tones. It appears that I accidentally used an outdated version of the program when I copied those results over.

The actual results (using the correct version of the software) are:

ʔbu̯ɩ̈n → bōn [บน ‘above’]
ʔblɩ̈en → dɩ̄an [เดือน ‘moon, month’]
drɩ̈o → rɩ̄a [เรือ ‘boat’]
ɣɩ̈ən → khɩ̄ɩ̈n [คืน ‘night’]
ňuŋ → jūŋ [ยุง ‘mosquito’]
siuᴮ → sìu [สิ่ว ‘chisel’]
bɔᴮ → phɔ̂ɔ [พ่อ ‘father’]
rueᴮ → rûa [รั่ว ‘leak’]
haᶜ → hâa [ห้า ‘five’]
rɔiᶜ → rɔ́ɔi [ร้อย ‘string’]
ʔi̯et → ʔēt [เอ็ด ‘one’]
pruɔk → tɔ̀ɔk [ตอก ‘bamboo strip’]
dlək → lák [ลัก ‘steal’]
muək → mûuk [มูก ‘mucus’]

[bradrn]

I’m now confident enough that I’ve uploaded the sound changes in question at https://github.com/bradrn/brassica/blob ... s/thai.bsc. Expect Brassica v1.0.0 to be released imminently.

[Richard W]

Richard, could you double-check that the Thai script is correct? Then this should be ready to add to Brassica’s set of examples.

The Thai script for these words is OK.

(Yes, I know the transcription is somewhat eccentric, but honestly I can’t find one that isn’t, so I thought I might as well stick with Li’s.)

But your choice of symbol for the high back unrounded vowel for an IPA-capable system is perverse, and has rendering problems when an accent is placed on it.

[bradrn]

(Yes, I know the transcription is somewhat eccentric, but honestly I can’t find one that isn’t, so I thought I might as well stick with Li’s.)

But your choice of symbol for the high back unrounded vowel for an IPA-capable system is perverse, and has rendering problems when an accent is placed on it.

It is perverse, I completely agree. But this is what Li used, and its interpretation puzzled me enough that I decided not to change it.

(it's not like other sources are much better, anyway. SEAlang seems to call it /ʉ/!)

[Richard W]

rɔiᶜ → rɔ́ɔi [ร้อย ‘string’]

Better glossed as 'string (of objects)' to avoid confounding with 'twine'.

[bradrn]

rɔiᶜ → rɔ́ɔi [ร้อย ‘string’]

Better glossed as 'string (of objects)' to avoid confounding with 'twine'.

Sure.