Talk:Tai Tham script

Tham
How similar/dissimilar is the Tai Tham script, from the one that is dicussed in this article, called Lao Tham? Are they, in fact, the same? V85 (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They are the same script. Unfortunately, there are a couple of characters that weren't included in the Unicode proposal for the initial tranche of characters - Michael Everson's justification was that there are only about six people who use Lao Tham. 'Tai Tham' was a compromise between 'Lanna' (proposed by those associated with Thailand, mostly with Chiang Mai) and 'Old Tai Lue' (proposed by the Chinese) as the name of the script. RichardW57 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pali Usage
The Pali usage section is wrong for the Northern Thai tradition(s). The letter used for Pali &lt;p&gt; (as in the Western notation) is the letter used for /b/ in Northern Thai; indeed, the text elsewhere identifies the letter used for high class /p/ as an addition for Tai languages. The current text claims that the letter used for high class /p/ in Northern Thai is the one used for Pali.

Lao sources (e.g. Kourilsky's https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2005/05166-dekalb-gk-vb.pdf ) give the opposite pattern - the letter for Lao /b/ in the Tai Tham script is the additional letter, used for Lao not Pali. Given the Unicode encoding, the interpretation has to be that Pali uses U+1A37 TAI THAM LETTER BA in Northern Thailand (and the Shan States), while it uses U+1A38 TAI THAM LETTER HIGH PA in Laos. Confusingly, the fancy Northern Thai glyph for HIGH PA, as given in the images on this page, matches the glyph for Lao Pali &lt;p&gt;! RichardW57 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Palaungic Usage
There are scattered reports of Palaungic groups using the Tai Tham script. Sai Kam Mong gives an example of a mix of Pali and Palaung (presumable Samlong) text in a manuscript from Nam Hsan in the Shan states. There's a similar example of Tai Tham script usage reported by scriptsource for a Palaung group (not the Blang) living amongst the Tai Lue in Yunnan. RichardW57 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've found reference to a report of use of the script for Blang (aka Pulang) in. The citation is:

Dao Shixun, 1980, "Xishungbanna Daǐwén" [Xishuanɡbanna Tai lanɡuaɡe] Minzu ɡowen 1, Beijinɡ, Chinese Academy of Social Science Press

quoted in "Tai Lue of Xishuangbanna in China's Yunnan Province: Description and a study of the OV order in the ?AU construction" by Ngampit Jagacinski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardW57 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Obsoleteness of HIGH KXA
HIGH KXA (ᨢ) ฃ isn't totally obsolete. The Maefahluang Northern Thai-Thai dictionary uses it for primary entries of words. The reason for creating it from HIGH KHA (ᨡ) still existed in Cheng Tung (either SE Sipsongpanna or Vietnam - accounts differ) as recorded in an article by Li Fang-Kuei published in 1964. The most recent confirmation I can find is noted in  A Sociolinguistic Survey of Lue in Mong Yawng. It seems that the speakers thought of themselves as Tai Lue, but actually spoke White Tai, where the difference lives on. Unfortunately, I can't find the Vietnamese or Chinese name of Cheng Tung. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obsolete. 2001:FB1:BE:801A:A9DE:E773:155F:7BFE (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Native names
Why have you replaced the language tagging of ᨲ᩠ᩅᩫᨾᩮᩥᩬᨦ and ᨲ᩠ᩅᩫᨵᨾ᩠ᨾ᩼ by script tagging? I have a feeling the first of these two names is specific to (Northern) Thai, in that 'tua mueang' goes with 'kam mueang'. The second name used to be tagged as Tai Lü, though I suspect it is acceptable throughout the range of the script. A native Jinghong pronunciation would be very different to a Chiang Mai pronunciation, in both tone and vowels, being something like [tó mɤ̂ŋ]. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should gather the native 'Tham' names together - Northern Thai, Tai Khuen/Mong Yawng, Jinghong and Lao - or take a sample, e.g. ᩋᨠ᩠ᨡᩁᨵᩢᨾ᩠ᨾ᩺ from Northern Thai and ᨲ᩠ᩅᩫᨵᨾ᩠ᨾ᩼ from Tai Lü. We might add a section on the multitudinous names, but arguably that rather belongs on Wiktionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Unicode Rules
In the last Vision you undid my edition that in unicode rules indicated that if we input, procedurally it should be ᩠ᨿ+ᩮ. However we all know that even the newest vision for Taitham script is insufficient, for example if you want to type"hnai", you type it procedurally. it will be ᩉ+᩠ᨶ+ᩱ=ᩉ᩠ᨶᩱ, But if we just change the procedure to ᩉ+ᩱ+᩠ᨶ, it will be normal in ᩉᩱ᩠ᨶ. and some problem that letter also occurs in tones. For another example 'Ning'(B2) in Sipsaungpannaa's Orthography, it is"ᨶᩥ᩠᩵ᨦ" inᨶ+ ᩥ+ ᩵+ ᩠ᨦ if you do it procedurally in ᨶ+ ᩥ+ ᩠ᨦ+᩵, it will be ᨶᩦ᩠ᨦ᩵， The tone sign and vowels will overlap. To show letters correctly I thinks sometimes must change some typing steps before our Alphabets will be wildly used. --ᩈᩣ᩠ᩅᨾᩮᩦ᩠ᨦᩃᩨ᩶ (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your problem well, as I'm a font developer myself. However, this is the problem of the font you use, that is not designed to fully support the Unicode input method. There are many fonts out there that conform with the Unicode input method. The font I am using is 99% Unicode conform and does not have the problem you have. Personally, I do not like the Unicode rules for various reasons. But we're writing an article in an encyclopedia. So, we can't just impose our own personal rule onto it. Instead, we must conform to the international standard, which is the Unicode. The status quo of the input method of Tai Tham should remain to conform with the official Unicode standard (2007). Noktonissian (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Unicode rule 2007 suggests the order of ᨶᩥ᩠᩵ᨦ is ᨶ+ ᩥ+ ᩵+ ᩠ᨦ as the tone mark is grouped with vowels above for their ordering, and the complete order of vowels are.
 * leading vowels
 * vowels below
 * vowels above
 * Tone mark
 * trailing vowels
 * The Unicode input order of Tai Tham, the 2007 version..
 * Or going to the page Tai Tham (Unicode block)
 * Noktonissian (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)