Timeline for Is Thai language related or a descendant of Sanskrit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2019 at 21:35 | comment | added | jlawler | Though others think Tai-Kadai is related to Austronesian, not Sino-Tibetan. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 16:56 | history | edited | jlawler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2019 at 15:35 | comment | added | FlatAssembler | Many linguists think Sino-Tibetan and Tai-Kadai languages are actually distantly related. | |
| S Feb 13, 2018 at 11:59 | history | suggested | Private Name | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
The broken English here is not as apparent as in the question itself but is very much in need of corrections as well. Too many errors were present to be explained in this short text box.
|
| Feb 13, 2018 at 11:40 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 13, 2018 at 11:59 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2017 at 13:53 | comment | added | Yellow Sky | @jeffmcneill - Naturally, in most cases it's needed to modify a script in a way if you want to use it for a language it wasn't devised for. If we tale the Latin alphabet, some other languages use it with diacritics (Czech), or digraphs (English), or specially created new letters (Icelandic), or the mixture of all of them. The shape of the written symbols is not important to write a language consistently – that was the idea of my answer. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 5:03 | comment | added | jeffmcneill | @ColinFine I agree with your first sentence, but already stated that in terms of the first case (transliteration from one script to another). In the case of Pali, in fact the goal is to approximate the sounds relative to a native language in a given script, since Pali doesn't have its own script, per se, and written Pali is historically codified oral traditions. In the case of say the use of the Roman alphabet used in Thailand to represent Central Thai, the first goal I mentioned holds sway, so that characters are transcribed, rather than phonemes. | |
| Nov 20, 2017 at 1:05 | comment | added | Colin Fine | But the goal in writing is very often not phonemic transcription, @jeffmcneill. If it were, English, Irish, French, Hebrew, Tibetan - to name but a few - would not have the awkward writing systems they have. | |
| Nov 19, 2017 at 17:28 | comment | added | jeffmcneill | Fair enough. If the idea is to provide transliteration from one script to another, I guess a rule system of any sort could be proposed. However, if the goal is phonemic transcription, then some scripts (in terms of their native language) simply don't have the ability to represent sounds in other languages (that is, those sounds which are not present and do not have representation in another script). Languages are phonemically rich and disparate. Scripts are a lot more restricted and brittle (except for example the IPA, though even that is limited). Not to mention scripts without tonal chars. | |
| Nov 19, 2017 at 15:50 | comment | added | brass tacks | @jeffmcneill Your comment would be more helpful if you gave a concrete counterexample. Characters in scripts can be repurposed e.g. Japanese kana are derived from Chinese characters | |
| Nov 19, 2017 at 4:37 | comment | added | jeffmcneill | It is not correct to write "every script can be used to write any language". | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 20:11 | history | edited | Yellow Sky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 19:59 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | Edited a bit; "Buddhist languages" in the last paragraph looked like a category; feel free to roll it back my edit is wrong. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 19:58 | history | edited | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor logic improvement
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 19:29 | history | edited | Yellow Sky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 19:16 | history | edited | Yellow Sky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 19:09 | history | answered | Yellow Sky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |