Talk:Tai Noi script

Diacritics
What are the writing system's diacritics like? --Apisite (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The most complete overview I have found is this one on page 9. The script is not yet standardized and not yet encoded in Unicode, so hopefully in the future a full and proper inventory of all diacritics could be displayed on the page. --Glennznl (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming
“Tai Noi” is pejorative, even though it is commonly used, rather than regurgitating an implicit bias that implies there is a “standard” I think the article should be “Lao Buhan” and note that “Tai Noi” is an alternative. There is sufficient literature on the use of “Tai” and the politicization of Thai historiography and linguistics to change the title.--StampyElephant (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see to whom "Tai Noi" would be pejorative, as historically it was often used for the Siamese, while the Shan were the "Tai Yai" or Great Tai. Aside from this, Tai Noi/Thai Noi as a name for the script is much more common on Google Scholar than Lao Buhan. I would personally prefer Lao Buhan too, as I feel like the current name does not reflect the "Lao origin" of the script, but we should stick to WP:COMMONNAME. If the most commonly used name changes in the future, a change would be justified. --Glennznl (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The ethonym "Tai" is generally accepted, but when you add to it it become an "exonym." I'm glad you brought up the "Tai Yai"- both are exonyms and so political by nature. Neither the Shan nor the Lao refer to themselves as "Tai Yai" or "Tai Noi" and in the sources very few academics use the term...Lorillard doesn’t ...Isn't that strange? The Digital Library of Lao Manuscripts- refers to the scripts/texts as “Lao Buhan.” See Grabowsky, Keyes, Diller, etc. for the issue of how Central Thai is used to subsume minorities (n.b. They all use Lao Buhan when referring to the script too.) See Iijima "the invention of Isan History" for the process of how in the 19th and 20th centuries minority histories and languages were suppressed and their texts were burned. The linguistic terms are based on nineteenth century classifications- even Thai historian, Jit Phumisak acknowledged the distinction between "Tai Yai" and "Tai Noi" is that "Tai Yai" went on to create civilizations on the Salaween and Chaophraya (so Siam/Thai) rivers- and the "Tai Noi" were essentially "tribal" and inhabited regions of Vietnam and the Mekong Valley. The Lao themselves certainly don't call themselves "Lesser Tai" or "Small Tai" and refer to their own script as Lao Buhan- so why not use that term? The same problem exists for "Thai Yuan" the Northern Tai of Lan Na- that translates to "Tai Foreigner" There is an implicit issue- and that is that the use of Central Thai to promulgate comparisons based on 19th century theories. I'd refer you to Frederic Pain, "an introduction to Thai Ethnonymy" for just how complex the issue is and how the idea of "tai migration" needs reevaluation within the context of all the bogus theories which preceded it--StampyElephant (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all correct, but Wikipedia should not lead the way with political issues, but instead follow the majority view. Other known scholars like Draper use "Tai Noi". Instead of comparing article counts between Tai Noi and Lao Buhan, we could make a comparison of known scholars and the terms they use. However, I do not see any evidence of the Tai Isan ever using "Lao Buhan", while today most attention for this script comes from Isan as it is the "original Isan script" that was banned during Thaification, and now seeing some revival. In this context, the page should not be called "Lao Buhan" if this term is completely unknown to Isan. --Glennznl (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, see also the footnote here on the first page: . --Glennznl (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Using "Tai Noi" is "leading the way with political issues" the article is good and researched, my issue is with the name. From a purely academic standing- Draper is being overused in this context most of your sources are only from him. I did my own "google scholar" search and "Lao Buhan" is certainly more widely used in the current literature. On a very basic level- "Tai Noi" means "Lesser Tai" and "Lao Buhan" means "ancient Lao" you can't reasonably deny, even if it were widely used (which it isn't anymore), that one of those terms is demeaning. Since it is demeaning it is outdated, which is obviously why very very few use "tai noi" other than Draper and this wikipedia page. In terms of your discussion on Isan- i'm really at a loss. Read Grabowsky or Iijima and it become apparent why calling something "Lao" wouldn't be the case in Isan. Are you suggesting that Isan wasn't part of Lan Xang or the Lao cultural area? Askew demonstrates clearly and takes photos of trans-Mekong areas that were destroyed which were clearly Lao towns. Iijima takes photocopies of source material being altered at the National Library of Thailand to deny and alter texts which reference "Lao" identity. Your argument above also deprives the use of "Lao Buhan" in Laos- this article isn't "Tai Noi Script in Isan." The Digital Library of Lao Manuscripts, the single largest collection of these scripts- and we are talking about scripts on this wikipedia page, refers to "Lao Buhan" without any mention of "Tai Noi." The reason is obvious, the academic terms have evolved. Lastly, the term "Lao Buhan" wouldn't be unknown in Isan, but the term "Isan" was definitively contrived by Damrong and the Thai to deny the ethnic "Lao" origin of that area - see Streckfuss, Breazeale, Iijima, Enfield, Diller etc.--StampyElephant (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the “common name” see “ When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.” There should also be a nonjudgmental descriptive title. Calling a culture “lesser” or “small” is plainly judgmental. “Lao Buhan” or “old/ancient Lao” is a statement of fact--StampyElephant (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Lao Buhan" gives me 7 results since 2017, "Tai Noi" 77 and "Thai Noi" 32. I did not count the accuracy of each and every result, but the common term as counted by the quantity of results is Tai Noi/Thai Noi. I do recognize that results of Tai Noi/Thai Noi include a lot of Thai authors, but I don't want to write them off as "biased" that easily without further research.
 * You keep repeating that "Tai Noi" is derogatory per se, but this claim needs some evidence. See the following paper: which says "In Thai, the name for Shan is Tai Yai [Big Tai], in contrast to one of the historical names for the Thai, Tai Noi [Little Tai], possibly in reference to historical relations and settlement patterns." See also  which says "'Tai jai" (Greater Tai) is a term usually applied to the people also known as "Shan", and should probably include the Ahom and other Tai groups of Assam. The associated term is "Tai noi" (Lesser Tai) used to include, probably, all others in the southwestern branch. These are 'Tai" terms and appear not to have superogatory or derogatory implications."
 * I am aware of the Lao character of Isan, but Isan and Laos have diverged as Isan is part of a different country. Therefore it is not that simple to call something in Isan "Lao". My point is that this script receives the most attention in Isan, if "Lao Buhan" is not used in contemporary Isan, I believe that "Lao Buhan" should not be "imposed" on the people most interested in the script, therefore some evidence is needed. Finally, it would help if a list is created of known scholars and their prefered name, included citations. Then we could count more accurately, without authors producing more papers (Draper) weighing in more heavily. Pinging for thoughts on this matter. --Glennznl (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear I fully recognize that Isan is part of Thailand- we’re dealing with a script which was used pre-national borders. I appreciate also that at one time "Tai Yai" and "Tai Noi" were used- but those terms are exonyms and aren't used by the Shan, Central Thai, Northern Thai, Northeastern Thai, or the Lao to refer to themselves. The only modern usage of "Tai Noi" appears to be in reference to script. That's where it becomes problematic- both because the original meaning is lost, and for what it is literally saying. "Lao Buhan" is factual and used alongside "Tai Noi" as an alternative in the English literature on the issue--StampyElephant (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite familiar with the topic, but personally I don't know "Tai Noi" to be pejorative, and am tending to agree with Glennznl that this needs to be better shown to be the case. Maybe it's due to language differences or a lack of historical understanding, but I'm not seeing that "big"/"small" descriptors are inherently judgmental. StampyElephant says that the name is problematic for the script because the original meaning is lost, but I don't follow. Even if it was originally a judgmental term applied to people, shouldn't the current name being divorced from the historical meaning cancel out the problem, given that it's no longer used that way? In any case, if consensus emerges to avoid Tai Noi, I wonder if old Lao script would be a viable alternative, as it has the added benefit of being English, and doesn't actually appear to be much less common than "Lao Buhan". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was pinged but have no expertise to lend here. DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * “Tai Noy” is an exonym- it is a name assigned by outside group and has change in use over time. No group refers to themselves that way- is there a Tai Noi ethnic group that originated this script? No there is not. According to Frederic Pain in An introduction to Thai Ethnonymy: Examples from Shan and Northern Thai, “The study of ethnonyms is made particularly intricate by factors such as (1) lack of parallelism between the ethnic and linguistic naming; (2) the multiplicity of ethnonyms for the same ethnic group; (3) the various etymologies proposed for the same ethnonym; (4) ethnonymic change during migrations; (5) the vagueness (purposely?) associated with ethnic cover terms; and (6) the discrepancy between exonymic naming and the ethno-linguistic reality.” The use of “Tai Noi” is problematic on every one of those levels- but especially #6
 * It is pointedly troublesome when ethnic Thai refer to the Lao “Tai Noi” or “little” in any form. The origin goes back to the nineteenth century, as noted by Thongchai Winichakul in The Quest for “Siwilai” A geographical discourse of civilizational thinking in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Siam, “…The Chaopa were the uncivilizable; the Chaobannok were the loyal, backward subjects…It should be noted that there were peoples who were described in one way or the other between the two categories. The prime example was the Lao (people and regions). The Lao as a people have been treated as inferior to Thais, and Laos as a country has often been looked down by Thais as the little brother of Siam (Thawesilp 1988) Writings about the Lao during the period we are discussing mostly described them in details like chaobannok. At times they were mentioned as non-chaopa, similar to Thais. Yet, Lao people were also mentioned as chaopa, and some accounts dissected Lao customs and described them topically similar, to the description of chaopa…For the Thai elite, the Lao were somewhere between the two kinds of Others.”
 * The original use of the Tai Noi exonym came from the nineteenth century- but it isn’t used by anthropologists or historians currently. Why is "Tai Noi" being applied to this script? Especially when the Lao seem to be the origin and other “Tai Noi” ie. the ethnic groups which make up the Southwestern branch Tai languages-  simply never used the script. Is there any evidence that Central Thai used the script? No there is not. Is there anyone arguing that Central Thai is derivative of “Tai Noi” script? No there is not. So a term which was an umbrella is now only being applied to the Lao- and ancient Lao at that as a means to deny origin.
 * The use of Tai Noi is political. Its current use is similarly misleading- it is used to deny or avoid the trouble of referring to something as “Lao” in the current ultranationalist environment in Thailand. The usage of “Tai Noi” by the Thai can be traced back to another ultranationalist period. Wichit Wathakan (the intellectual leader of the pan-thai nationalism of the 1930s- one of the main instigators of accelerated ‘Thaification’) “Wichit asserted that Goebbel’s skillful propaganda campaign in which Germans and Austrians were portrayed as one people had allowed the German Reich to absorb Austria peacefully in the Anschluss of April 1938, and claimed that territorial gains could be made by Thais using the same means.” (p.127 “Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of a Thai Identity ) Soren Ivarsson notes “In his 1933 book, Siam and Suwannaphum, as shift in the labelling of racial sub-categories emerges….he divides the overall Thai race into two larger sub-categories the greater Thai (thai yai) and minor Thai (thai noi)” he then divides the “thai noi” into Siamese and Lao. On the other hand, “Wichit points out that the term Lao actually should be avoided, as it is a misnomer: “As for the Lao. I refer to the group occupying the upper part of the left bank of the Mekong today. In reality, however, we should not call them “Lao” at all. The reason why we call them Lao is that they are under French rule today and the French call them Lao.” So it was during the 1930s in ultranationalist Thailand the "Tai Noi" was again co-opted.
 * So the original nineteenth century use of “Thai Noi” is bogus- and using “Tai Noi” in the current era denies the fact that ethnic Lao created the script, used in the past in the area that became modern Laos. The fact that there is a resurgence in Thailand has much more to do with that country’s domestic politics (see Streckfuss, or Draper et al. Racial “Othering” in Thailand: quantitative evidence, causes and consequences)

So why given the above, should the script be “tai noi” and not “Lao Buhan” or ancient Lao (Old Lao script is also fine- since this is English Wikipedia)? StampyElephant (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. User StamperElephant certainly brings up interesting points, and the name used for this script is a little curious for sure (I suppose the name originated in Thai in the last century and then got carried over to English), but the role of Wikipedia is not to question the literature, but to provide an accurate, neutral and balanced view of it. Tai Noi script is still the most commonly used name. I don't think we should haphazardly rename the article to Lao Buhan because it "feels right". How do scholars in Isan call the script? How do Isan language organizations call the script? How many western scholars in the past 10 years use Tai Noi and how many use Lao Buhan? Note also that a future Unicode encoding will probably analyze the name issue as well. The Tai Tham script had very many names before the current most neutral name was selected. --Glennznl (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)