Template talk:th-pron

vs the current format at ชล (chon).

Thoughts? Wyang (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, yes. I think this entry พล may need the same treatment as well. I have removed the original IPA, thinking that alternative readings belong to derived terms. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems like a lot of good screen space is wasted though. My suggestion:

—suzukaze (t・c) 08:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good thinking. The table seems a little crammed though. How about this:

Orthographic	Phonemic	Paiboon	Lua error in Module:parameters at line 646: Parameter 1 must be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Bangkok" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. IPA (key)
ชล d͡ʑ+l	ชน d͡ʑ+n	chon	/t͡ɕʰon˧/
	ชน-ละ- d͡ʑ+n — l+a+-	chon-lá-	/t͡ɕʰon˧.la˦˥./

The only downside is with a long word:

Orthographic	Phonemic	Paiboon	Lua error in Module:parameters at line 646: Parameter 1 must be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Bangkok" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. IPA (key)
กรุงเทพมหานคร k+r+u+ŋ+e+d+b+m+h+ā+n+g+r	กฺรุง เทบ มะ-หา นะ-คอน k+VL+r+u+ŋ  e+d+ɓ  m+a — h+ā  n+a — g+a/o+n	grung têep má-hǎa ná-kɔɔn	/kruŋ˧ tʰeːp̚˥˩ ma˦˥.haː˩˩˦ na˦˥.kʰɔːn˧/

In which case rotating would be better:

Orthographic	กรุงเทพมหานคร k+r+u+ŋ+e+d+b+m+h+ā+n+g+r
Phonemic	กฺรุง เทบ มะ-หา นะ-คอน k+VL+r+u+ŋ  e+d+ɓ  m+a — h+ā  n+a — g+a/o+n
Paiboon	grung têep má-hǎa ná-kɔɔn
IPA(key) (Bangkok)	/kruŋ˧ tʰeːp̚˥˩ ma˦˥.haː˩˩˦ na˦˥.kʰɔːn˧/

Wyang (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a good design by itself, but I feel like it currently doesn't really conform well to the rest of Wiktionary/MediaWiki :/ (generous white space wasn't a thing when Monobook was created)

The huge cell spacing combined with the <small> text feels a bit strange too. It feels disjointed (?)

—suzukaze (t・c) 10:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please think about some words that can be read different four pronunciations. It is the maximum case I found. (It may have more when discovered.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Will they be under the same etymology or different etymologies? Wyang (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it's different root. Please see สระ for example. More one sound is not included because it's part of other words (but it has entry in dictionary). --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Format changed. Wyang (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Royal Institute Romanization does not seem necessary for this pronunciation template, as it does not represent pronunciation (tones, short/long vowels, etc). Having it here does not help anything. The existing Paiboon and IPA already suffice. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@หมวดซาโต้ I think @Octahedron80 added it because the system is quite widely used. It is less distinguishing than Paiboon and IPA, but readers may find the RTGS transcriptions useful in some circumstances, I think. Wyang (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

RI is an official agent, makes official systems. This one is used allover the country; enough reason to include. Some languages already list possible transliterations/transcriptions under pronunciation section, such as Burmese. I still find some ways to override space and do caps on proper noun. --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Should we enable the template to indicate the "extraordinarity" of certain pronunciations (that are worth adding because of their popularity - I don't how to describe it correctly, and sorry for that), just like how it indicates the "bound-form" pronunciations? For example:

--Miwako Sato (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You should not include them into same entries. I suggest to separate between หนึ่ง/นึง and so on. Yes, alt pronunciation are widely written either. FYI, no "bound form" occur with these words. --Octahedron80 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Miwako Sato If these pronunciations can be indicated in the entry one way or another, it would be very helpful. Also: หนังสือ (nǎng-sʉ̌ʉ), pronounced with a high tone on the first syllable. Wyang (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang Yes, it's gonna be so helpful. That's why I propose that the template should have some functions that allow indicating the characteristics (not sure how to call it) of certain pronunciations, just like how it indicates the bound-form characteristics. Examples are in this photo. --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Miwako Sato Seems good to me, thanks. I will add this function in later today. Wyang (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Miwako Sato, Octahedron80, Atitarev The qualifier function in pronunciations has been added; the format is respelling:qualifier. Please see ฉัน (chǎn) and ข้าว (kâao) for examples. Wyang (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's off-topic but red-linked ไหร่ (hrài) should produce 'nil' without the ◌ฺ but ไหฺร่ (rài) should produce "rài". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang, Octahedron80: Thanks, Frank. Guys, please fix the issue above when you have time as well. Transliterations like "hrài" shouldn't be produced on undefined terms with spellings like ไหร่ (hrài) - initial ห folowed by a consonant without a phinthu. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang Wow, that's so great! Thank you very much for your efforts!

@Atitarev I think it is just fixed with {{th-l|ไหร่|p=ไหฺร่}}.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Miwako Sato: Thanks, I know about this. There are cases that should fail because there is not enough information and ไหร่ (hrài) without "p=" (undefined, red-linked, without {{th-pron}}) should produce nothing ('nil') rather than "hrài". Yes, great effort, thank you and sorry for the off-topic :( --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a highly visible template. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply