If not clusters, then what are these? And which depends on extra-Tai cognates?
Where?Also, a uvular series is now recognised. Some of the evidence is presented in the chapter on velars.
If not clusters, then what are these? And which depends on extra-Tai cognates?
Where?Also, a uvular series is now recognised. Some of the evidence is presented in the chapter on velars.
It’s still something I can use which is reasonably realistic and supported by real data. That’s all I ask for, for this.
But the suprasegmentals are the point of all this, though. If I start with Proto-Tai then I can simulate the splitting and merging of the old A/B/C/D tones to their modern Siamese values, plus there’s the changes to the vowel qualities underneath those. Sukhothai postdates those changes, to my (limited) understanding.
My understanding is quite different. All phonetic Tai writing systems postdate the original formation of the original 3-way tone system - the presumed conditioning finals are nowhere to be seen. However, the conditioning onsets for the tone splits can be seen in the writing system of Sukhothai, and the contrast is preserved in Viet Tai. What is noteworthy about careful inscriptions is that they also show the A/B/C contrast, which has a tendency to get dropped. Thus for Sukhothai tones on live syllables, the initial consonant letter is the only additional information required.bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 8:59 am But the suprasegmentals are the point of all this, though. If I start with Proto-Tai then I can simulate the splitting and merging of the old A/B/C/D tones to their modern Siamese values, plus there’s the changes to the vowel qualities underneath those. Sukhothai postdates those changes, to my (limited) understanding.
Ah, interesting. I’ll probably keep on looking for more examples anyway.
Oof. Sorry to hear that — hope things improve!(Sorry for the XSAMPA. I’ve been stuck in hospital for a week with an iPhone for communication , and couldn’t get automatic password recovery to work for me.)
That's gotta suck. Hope things get better.
Yep, pretty much. It may be a bit outdated, but at least it involves natlangs and describes a plausible set of sound changes. And honestly, by this point my main priority is to get Brassica v1.0.0 finished and released ASAP.
เอ็ด [ʔet] 'one' is very much there; it's just that SEALang doesn't recognise an initial glottal stop as phonemic.
What phonemic system did you use for the three Proto-Tai tones? Evidence for or against creakiness and glottal constriction for older Thai may be hard to come by; glottal constriction is under-recorded for modern Tai dialects. It's surprising that we have evidence in stone for glottal co-articulation of final stops in the Sukhothai inscriptions.
Very glad to hear this! Hope you’re doing better.
Thanks!เอ็ด [ʔet] 'one' is very much there; it's just that SEALang doesn't recognise an initial glottal stop as phonemic.
OK, I’ll have a look.For the 'stubble' morpheme you should have tried looking up the full Thai word ยุงปัด [juŋpat], but though it's in the authoritative Thai-Thai dictionary, it's certainly rare. However, as this standard Siamese form is grossly irregular in its evolution, I suggest you use Li Section 9.6 no. 14 [juŋ] 'mosquito' instead of no. 13.
Same as in Thai script — A/D, B and C. The annoyance comes from the simple fact that I do need to switch tonal systems. Most of the time switching systems is fine, but in this case it means I need to juggle two separate sets of tonal correspondences. (For instance, ⟨a⟩ could refer to {a, aᴮ, aᶜ}, or it could be {a, ā, à, â, á, ǎ.) It all seems to have turned out reasonably comprehensible, though.What phonemic system did you use for the three Proto-Tai tones?
ʔbu̯ɩ̈n → bōn [บน ‘above’]Richard, could you double-check that the Thai script is correct? Then this should be ready to add to Brassica’s set of examples.
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 → lāk [ลัก ‘steal’]
muək → mūuk [มูก ‘mucus’]
The switch from quantity to quality is complete in much of NAE, but then new quantity has been innovated to replace the old quantity (and which in some dialects like my own is arguably phonemic in some more shallow phonemic analyses).Richard W wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:40 pm Switching systems is quite common, e.g. from Latin vowel length to Romance vowel quality, and in much of English, quantity and quality are concurrent. I can't remember how significant quality is for native interpretation of Thai front vowels; as an Englishman, I perhaps surprisingly rely on the quality differences.
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?bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:42 pm Final set of input and output words:
ʔbu̯ɩ̈n → bōn [บน ‘above’]Richard, could you double-check that the Thai script is correct? Then this should be ready to add to Brassica’s set of examples.
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 → lāk [ลัก ‘steal’]
muək → mūuk [มูก ‘mucus’]
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)