Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.227–251

Early Thai orthography

Innovative tone-marking or recent hoax?

| University of Sydney, Australia
Orthographic complexity in Thai is traced diachronically to account for non-linear relationships in the current writing system. As a result of orthographic conservatism over a period of phonological change, an earlier direct phoneme-grapheme isomorphism has shifted to a complex configuration with abstract reinterpretation. What were originally segmental graphemes have acquired hierarchical functions in suprasegmental tone marking. However, aspects of this account have been challenged. A debate has arisen regarding the origins of Thai writing. An early inscription with consistent use of tone marks has been deemed a fake, causing a local uproar. This inscriptional debate is described in some detail as it provides a context appropriate for examining more general questions raised by Share & Daniels (2016) and others regarding multi-dimensional hierarchical depth in orthographic systems. Central to Thai orthographic depth is the claim that early Thai writers marked phonemic tone.
Keywords: abugida, akshara, alphasyllabary, attribution, graphematic hierarchy, orthographic depth, suprasegmental, Thai, tone
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discovery (or fakery?) of the Ram Khamhaeng inscription
  • 3.The Ram Khamhaeng orthography as an integrated plan
  • 4.Thai orthography in the fourteenth century and beyond
    • 4.1Orthographic practice of King Lithai (r. 1347–1370?)
    • 4.2Consonant shapes
    • 4.3Indic etymological retentions
    • 4.4Consonant cluster representation
    • 4.5Aspirated continuant digraphs such as หม <hm>, หน <hn>, หล <hl>
    • 4.6Creation of new graphemes from old
    • 4.7Vowel developments
    • 4.8Tone-marking developments
    • 4.9Sound changes or clever fakery?
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 9 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00005.dil
References (60)
References
Bauer, Christian. (1991). Notes on Mon epigraphy. Journal of the Siam Society 79.11: 35–83.Google Scholar
Bowring, Sir John. (1857). The kingdom and people of Siam. Facsimile edition: Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Bright, William. (1996). Kannada and Telugu writing. In Daniels & Bright (eds.) (1996), 413–419.Google Scholar
Brunelle, Marc & James Kirby. (2016). Tone and phonation in Southeast Asian Languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 10/41 (2016): 191–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Denis, Sudaporn Luksaneeyanawin, Suntree Kantamphan & Amanda Reid. (2013). Phonics vs. whole-word instruction in a tone language: spelling errors on consonants, vowels, and tones over age. Written Language & Literacy 16:1 (2013), 60–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, James R. (ed.) (1991). The Ram Khamhaeng controversy: collected papers. Bangkok: Siam Society.Google Scholar
Court, Christopher. (1996). The spread of Brahmi script into Southeast Asia. In Daniels & Bright (eds.) (1996), 445–449.Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. (1996). The study of writing systems. In Daniels & Bright (eds.) (1996), 3–17.Google Scholar
(2006). On beyond alphabets. Written Language & Literacy 9.11: 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. & William Bright (eds.) (1996). The world’s writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danivivatana, Nanthana. (1987). The Thai writing system (Forum phoneticum 39). Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Diller, Anthony. (1996a). Thai and Lao writing. In Daniels & Bright (eds.) (1996), 457–466.Google Scholar
. (1996b). Thai orthography and the history of marking tone. Oriens Extremus 39.21: 228–254.Google Scholar
. (2006). Polylectal grammar and Royal Thai. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: the standing challenge of grammar writing, 565–608. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evertz, Martin & Beatrice Primus. (2013). The graphematic foot in English and German. Writing Systems Research 5.11:1–23. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fedorova, Liudmila L. (2012). The development of structural characteristics of Brahmi script in derivative writing systems. Written Language & Literacy 15:1: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fontpad (2017). [URL].
Fine Arts Department [of Thailand] (1983). Caruek samai sukhothai [Inscriptions of the Sukhothai period]. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. (1952). A study of writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gedney, William J. (1991). Comments on linguistic arguments relating to Inscription One. In Chamberlain (ed.) (1991), 193–276.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1956). The Thai system of writing. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Holm, David & Meng Yuanyao. (2015). Hanvueng: The Goose King and the Ancestral King: an epic from Guangxi in Southern China. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudak, Thomas John. (1980). The indigenization of Pali meters in Thai poetry. Southeast Asia Series No. 87 . Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies.Google Scholar
Jenner, Philip N. (1981). A Chrestomathy of pre-Angkorian Khmer. Honolulu: Southeast Asia Paper No. 20, Part II, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Khanittanan, Wilaiwan. (2001). Khmero-Indic: the great change in the history of the Thai language of the Chao Phraya Basin. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Bangkok.
Krairiksh, Piriya. (1991a). Towards a revised history of Sukhothai art: a reassessment of the Inscription of King Ram Khamhaeng. In Chamberlain (ed.) (1991), 53–159.Google Scholar
. (1991b). An epilogue to the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription. In Chamberlain (ed.) (1991), 553–565.Google Scholar
. (2004). Caruek Pho’ Khun Ram Khamhaeng [the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription]. Bangkok: Silapawattanatham-Matichon.Google Scholar
L-Thongkum, Theraphan. (1997). Implications of the relation of proto-voiced plosives and fricatives in the Dai Tho language of Yunnan Province for a theory of tonal development and Tai language classification. In J. A. Edmondson & D. B. Solnit (Eds.), Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch, 191–220. Arlington, Texas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Li, Fang Kuei. (1977). A handbook of Comparatve Thai. Honolulu: Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 15, University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
. (1989). Proto-Tai *kh and *x-. In J. H. C. S. Davidson (ed.), South-East Asian linguisitics: essays in honour of Eugénie J.A. Henderson, 143–146. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
McBride-Chang, Catherine, Hsuan-Chih Chen, Benjawan Kasisopa, Denis Burnham, Ronan Reilly, & Paavo Leppänend. (2012). What and where is the word? Open peer commentary: Frost, Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 351: 263–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Na Nagara, Prasert & A. B. Griswold. (1992). Epigraphical and historical studies. Bangkok: The Historical Society of Thailand under royal patronage of H.R.H. Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn.Google Scholar
National Library [of Thailand], (1986). Charuek nai prathet thai, lem 5 [Inscriptions in Thailand, vol. 5]. Bangkok: National Library, Fine Arts Department.Google Scholar
Newmandala (2017). [URL].
Panarut, Peera & Volker Grabowsky. (2015). Overview of Thai Manuscripts at the Nordsee Museum (Nissenhaus) in Husum, Germany. Journal of the Siam Society 103.11:199–234.Google Scholar
Penth, Hans. (1996). The date of the Wat Bang Sanuk Inscription. Journal of the Siam Society 84. 2: 6–16.Google Scholar
Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. (2009). The phonology of Proto-Tai. Cornell University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. (2016). Chindamani and reconstruction of Thai tones in the 17th century. Diachronica 33.21: 187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. (2004). A featural analysis of the Modern Roman Alphabet. Written Language & Literacy 7.21: 235–274.Google Scholar
Probert, Philomen. (2006). Ancient Greek accentuation: synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puriwanchana, Saipan. (2016). ‘Kingdom of Sukhothai’: The construction of history from Thai legends and beliefs. Warasan Ram Khamhaeng 35.11:143–172.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Craig J. (2006). Seditious histories: contesting Thai and Southeast Asian pasts. Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
Rimzhim, Anurag, Leonard Katz & Carol A. Fowler. (2014). Brāhmī-derived orthographies are typologically Āksharik but functionally predominantly alphabetic. Writing Systems Research, 6.11: 41–53. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ross, Peter. (1996). Dao Ngan Tay: a B-Language in Vietnam. Mon-Khmer Studies 251:133–139.Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark. (2015). Iconisation, attribution and branding in orthography. Written Language & Literacy 18.21: 208–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Share, David L. & Peter T. Daniels. (2016). Aksharas, alphasyllabaries, abugidas, alphabets and orthographic depth: Reflections on Rimzhim, Katz and Fowler (2014). Writing Systems Research, 8.11: 17–31. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B. (1996). Tamil writing. In Daniels & Bright (eds.) (1996), 426–430.Google Scholar
Suphanwanit, Ing-orn. (1984). Wiwatthanakan akson lae akkharawithi thai [the evolution of Thai letters and orthography]. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Tagg, Caroline & Philip Seargeant. (2012). Writing systems at play in Thai-English online interactions. Writing Systems Research 4.21: 195–213. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Terwiel, Barend Jan. (1991). The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription: lacunae and reconstructions. In Chamberlain (ed.) (1991), 309–332.Google Scholar
. (2010). The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription: the fake that did not come true. Gossenberg: OSTASIEN Verlag.Google Scholar
Tsantsanoglou, K. (2010). Accentuation. In Christidis, A. F. (ed.), A history of Ancient Greek from the beginnings to late antiquity, 1318–1325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
UNESCO (2017) website: [URL].
Vickery, Michael. (1991a). The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription: a Piltdown Skull of Southeast Asian history? In Chamberlain (ed.) (1991), 3–52.Google Scholar
. (1991b). Piltdown Skull: installment 2. In Chamberlain (ed.) (1991), 333–418.Google Scholar
Wang, Jun & Zheng Gouqiao. (1993). An outline grammar of Mulao. Translated by Luo Yongxian. Canberra: National Thai Studies Centre, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Winskel, Heather & Kanyarat Iemwanthong. (2010). Reading and spelling acquisition in Thai children. Reading & Writing 231:1021–1053. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Hiram. (2015). Bangkok Kingship: the role of Sukhothai. Journal of the Siam Society 103.11: 183–198.Google Scholar
Wyatt, David K. (2001). Relics, oaths and politics in thirteenth-century Siam. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32.11: 3–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zuckerman, Charles H. P. & N. J. Enfield
2023. The limits of thematization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 33:3 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Sarkisov, Ivan
2021. A Comparative Description of Meters in Thai and Burmese Poetries. Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology 3:4 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.