This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Thailand C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Southeast Asia: Laos C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Laos.

The reason that Northern Thai people consider Yuan to be pejorative is that they don't know what it means. They confuse it with the now-pejorative term for the Vietnamese, which is a homophone, though the two are spelled differently. In point of fact, the Northern Thai (khon mueang, whatever) never referred to themselves as Yuan or Tai Yuan. The term is a purely literary one, derived from the Pali word Yavana, which in turn is derived from the Greek Ionia. In the original Pali usage Yavana referred to (1) speakers of the Greek language, and (2) the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in what is today Afghanistan/Pakistan. The name was later applied to the Chiang Mai region in the Pali-language chronicles (such as the Camadevivamsa) as part of a general trend to re-map the classical world of Indic Buddhism onto southeast Asia.

--Mrrhum 22:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are there any Fluent Speakers of Northern Thai here on WP? I'd love to see this article expanded to resemble the "Isan Thai" and "Standard Thai" pages. I'd also like to see an article on the tua mueang script.--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm semi-fluent in Northern Thai in that I've heard my mother and family members speak it often. (Thus, I've only been introduced to the spoken aspects. I have no clue about the written language, except that I've seen it written on temple signs and have mistaken it for Laos.) I know that students in Chiang Mai learn a few Northern words in school, although mainstream (central) Thai is officially taught.

I've expanded the article to include vocabulary differences, but I don't want to take this article the wrong way. I may be treating it as a subset of Thai, rather than considering it a unique language or dialect (not more associated with either Thai or Laos).

Wikky Horse 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be nice to make at least a reference to the dialect spoken around Pitsanulok ans Sukothai which is half way between Central Thai and Northern Thai with even some influence of Ysaan words. Local people have a name for their dialect but i forgot how is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.192.79 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know which of the open vowels /a/ in คำเมือง front [a] or back [ɑ]? I changed the transcriptions so they're consistent with the Thai script page. Also, how do you add a macron to "ɑ" to make it a middle tone? We can replace the "˧" tone symbols. Wikky Horse (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're not really front or back. In this very common case, the rule is to use /a/. Now, you might want to argue that the short vowel is actually slightly higher, [ɐ], but that should be a sourced aside. For phonemes, we should just keep to /a/ v. /aː/. RichardW57 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tern Thai Yuan is considered pejorative, but I've yet to find a published source to state specifically why. One may get a sense of why from the article on the Dali Kingdom. I added:

Historians, however, relate that the "traitor" was the last king of Dali, himself, who first fought and then surrendered to the forces of Kublai Khan, to be spared and later appointed by Möngke Khan (also known as Mengu) as the region's first Native Chieftain.^[1]

Du Yuting; Chen Lufan (1989) give ample reason to surmise the last king of Dali was the first Thai Yuan, and that the term subsequently applied to native chieftains subservient to the Yuan dynasty. —Pawyilee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We ought to include a Gedney box. Should it go under 'Tones' or 'Similar Words'? If we put it under 'similar words' we can compare and contrast the Siamese and Northern Thai tones. There are two different categories of tone differences - regular differences and irregular differences such as Siamese หญิง v. Northern Thai ญิง. In this particular case, Lao has both forms! RichardW57 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put the potentially final version in today. I put it in under 'Similar Words', but I may shift it to the section on tones. The applicability to Chiang Rai would benefit from such knowledgeable input, if only for some citations. RichardW57 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see a source for the tones and meanings of the NT word /kàm.nɤ̀ːt/. There's no guarantee that the meanings in Khmer and Siamese have transferred to Northern Thai. I can't find the word in the Maefahlunang (MFL) dictionary of Udom Rungruengsi. We could always replace it by by the simplex form /kɤ̀ːt/ ᨠᩮᩥ᩠ᨯ. RichardW57 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/kàm.nɤ̀ːt/ is a noun in Northern Thai, although it can be used idiomatically as verb. I know this from my knowledge of Northern Thai (dialect spoken in Wang Nuea District, Lampang and Wiang Pa Pao District in Chiang Rai). I don't see it in the (rather rudimentary) dictionary I have on hand though, so all I have is OR right now. It would be fine to replace it with the verb form /kɤ̀ːt/, which is in my dictionary and would still represent a borrowing from Khmer. It's probably better anyway as it would be more easy for the reader to verify as well.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find /xūan/ in my dictionaries. I'd like to see a source, or at least a check, that it isn't a mistake for /kūan/, which I can find. /kuan/ is the form that one would expect, but perhaps it has been replaced by the Siamese form. RichardW57 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps a de-thaification is needed for this article. It is called 'Northern Thai' but that is a neologism, and anachronistic. Since this is a language and not a dialect, it would be best to start with its own definition and history rather than seeing it as an offshoot of Central Thai. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As most English-speakers who encounter Northern Thai will first encounter Thai, it is useful to have comparisons. The tone identification section on for Chiang Mai helps make sense of the Thai script spellings given. (Possibly we should have some Chiang Rai Tai script spellings as well - there is a very strong bias in the information around towards Chiang Mai speech.)

I've got some regional tone charts and other material to slot in which I'm working on at [User:RichardW57/NT draft] - it's a slow business doing the tables and footnotes, so I'm preparing the material on a temporarily separate page. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree and disagree (to OP). on a pure definition, "northern thai" is wrong. But language conveys a meaning. And because of the fact of countries and borders, it is intuitive to refer to a Thai-family language of an area inside Thailand, that is currently more influenced by modern Thai, and currently uses Thai script, as "northern thai language".

One might consider though to change the title and use various redirect links.

What should be the headline?? Kam Mueang?? Lanna? I know both of those, and I will only use kam mueang. but we are writing English here unfortunately, and no headline is clearer and easier to access in English than simply northern Thai. Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is Lanna not a dialect of standard Thai? Who among us is qualified to draw that distinction? Source?

Kortoso (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to a formal source, the answer is that it would appear to have met the ISO-693 requirements to be treated as a separate language. It is also a 'recognised minority language' in Thailand, whatever that's worth. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, you might also ask whether it is a separate language from Tai Lue. Note that it would probably be a western Tai Lue dialect - it has the same tone system as western Tai Lue, and it seems that 70 years ago Northern Tai and Tai Lue were mutually intelligible in practical terms. (The facts I'm relying on date to the Second World War.) Now, Northern Thai seems to be fairly phonetically conservative compared to most Tai Lue - it mostly preserves at least two of the three old diphthongs /ia/, /ua/ and /ɯa/. Of course, Central Thai has had a pretty massive influence on it, and the same phenomenon may be one of the arguments that Isan Thai (code: tts) is not Lao (code:lo). --RichardW57 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kinship words, demonstratives, interrogatives and conjunctions seem to have a lot of differences. Sentence final particles and most of the polite pronouns are quite different from Standard Thai. I'm not sure how significant that is. Perhaps it isn't - a lot of the more intellectual conjunctions are very similar, so perhaps there are big differences between Standard Thai and local Central Thai speech. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most laymen's definition of "dialect" is what a known linguist called "a language without an army". So in this layman sense, it is a dialect. Northern Thais nowadays use Thai script. Most Northern Thai speakers also speak Thai as a second language, and so on.

But linguistically, Northern Thai is as much a "language" as central Thai, Laotian, etc are. I think the above discussion is simply between what "dialect" is meant to be here.

Northern Thai has its own script too. It has a massive vocabulary that is either distinct, or semi distinct from central Thai. The thing is that many current speakers are not pure northern Thai speakers, but use a lot of central Thai too. So you have the old people with a large distinct northern vocabulary, and many of the younger generations, who are not as "full speakers" as the older ones. This is yet another quite confusing element. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure where the programming of it is located. and not sure why.

Did the whole "lana" script thing in wiki got deleted somehow? Or some changes in html coding?

anyhow, it now cannot show all those lana script letters along the whole article, which is a pity Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's still working in Firefox 64.0 on Ubuntu 16.04.3, so what have you changed? Or when did you last see it working? The text (in Unicode) is wrapped in ((script|Lana|...)), and at least on my machine that expands to, for example:

You may have a problem with the lack of a generic fallback if you have none of those fonts on your machine, and I think all those fonts have problems with Windows. A few years back, HarfBuzz switched to the Universal Script Engine, and that broke the Lanna fonts that used script-specific OpenType shaping. Firefox was already using HarfBuzz at the time.

Just possibly, you had been relying on a web font. Those don't seem to be be provided any more. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on the following systems it is not working for me: (forgive me for not checking more extensively)

Windows 10 - Chrome latest. IE some version. Firefox some version.

Android latest - Chrome latest.

I am not sure I understand your webfont term. I am a programmer by history, but not updated..... Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Has the script display previously worked without the user having to install fonts on their end? I don't remember. Anyway, you could add the relevant CSS to call the relevant Noto font to your user style sheet, e.g. as I have done here, to enable it for your user. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Tai Tham fonts do you have installed on your devices? Do you also get a massive failure with incubator:Wp/nod/User:RichardW57/sandbox. I ask for confirmation, as to my surprise that worked with iPhone and a fairly recent version of iOS. (I don't have access to the iPhone at the moment to check this page.) The font looked like Noto Sans Tai Tham.

A webfont is a font that may be automatically downloaded to enable the reading of a webpage. It is supposed only to be used for that page. For example, one test page [1] downloads the fonts it tests browsers against. (It also tests the browser's default font for Tai Tham.) --RichardW57 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can see it on my iPad now. iOS 12 or 11 relatively new device Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this need to be change to tai yuan language because not all northern thai are tai yuan and use tai yuan language Lalalulilalia (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reasons not to make the change to 'Tai Yuan language', see mentions of 'Yuan' above. The conclusion is wrong because the English name of the language is 'Northern Thai'. The reason given is interesting. What is the difference? Are you under the misapprehension that 'Northern Thai' means a Thai from northern Thailand? Or are you saying that some ethnic Northern Thais do not speak Northern Thai? RichardW57 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Autoisme: The usual English name of this language is Northern Thai. 'Nuea' (meaning Northern) is also used by native speakers to refer to the language. Further, there was no consensus to change the title of the article. I have therefore reverted the rename from 'Kam Mueang language. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If one goes by ordinary parlance (check Google), 'live' (c. 1800) is commoner than 'smooth' (c.1200)! --RichardW57 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57: Thank you. I did not use Google. That is why I got different results. Targeting nonspecialists who use common speech seems appropriate for this page, so using "live syllables" is a good idea. I used Google Scholar, and "smooth syllables" were mentioned in 217 works, whereas "live syllables" were mentioned in 164 works. "Live syllables (and dead syllables)" (likely translated from Thai พยางค์เป็น [กับพยางค์ตาย]) seem to be used to describe Thai and related languages more compared to tone languages in general. Maybe we can use both "smooth" and "live" syllables here (e.g., X syllable, also known as Y syllable)? --A.S. (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have realized that my original edit had to do with "smooth" versus "unchecked," not "smooth" versus "live." However, I hope my response contributed to the discussion! --A.S. (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't like 'smooth'. Possibly that's because it's not a term I am familiar with. I really wouldn't trust it for general use. Is a breathy vowel smooth? The Cao Bằng dialect [2] shows a tendency to breathy vowels after the murmured stops resulting from Proto-Tai voiced stops. Now it's not Northern Thai, but it would be good to have a uniform terminology for articles on Tai dialects. To me, it's not surprising that the original author settled on 'unchecked'. It's ugly, but it works, without exposing the reader to specifically Tai (or maybe southern Tai) terminology. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57: Thank you for your response. I am not an expert on phonation contrasts, but I think a breathy vowel can occur in a smooth syllable because it is my understanding that whether a syllable is a smooth or checked syllable depends on the type of its coda. If the coda is a sonorant consonant or if there is no coda (i.e., the syllable is open), then the syllable is a smooth syllable. The breathiness mentioned in the work of Pittayaporn and Kirby you cited seems to be coming from an onset, not a coda.

"To me, it's not surprising that the original author settled on 'unchecked'." Did you mean the original author of the Northern Thai language page on Wikipedia? It looks like the author may have been me in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Thai_language&type=revision&diff=587593860&oldid=587592934). If memory serves, at that time, I was personally using "CV(V)O syllables" and "CVV/CV(V)S syllables" instead of "checked syllables" and "smooth syllables" respectively in my reports for school, so I likely was not familiar with "checked" or "unchecked" when I used either word here in 2013.

For Wikipedia, we should use a term that is known to the general public. If it is "live" then, we should use that, or we can use more than one term. Perhaps the gap between the general public and the academic world should be bridged especially now that we are becoming more connected through the internet.

I am not sure which term is used more often when describing a Tai language. Gedney (1989) used "smooth syllables" (p. 202, [3]). Pittayaporn's (2009) dissertation used "non-checked" syllables (e.g., p. 273, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/13855). --A.S. (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57: Based on my searches on Google Scholar, I think this order is more common: DS or DL + initial consonant category. Do you think this is accurate? If it is, "DS1-3, DS4, DL1-3, and DL4" could be used instead of "D1-3S, D4S, D1-3L, and D4L" respectively. --A.S. (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alifshinobi: I'm heavily influenced by Li's Handbook of Comparative Tai (1977). I don't know if you've read it - it seems to have become a collector's item. (It really ought to be regularly reprinted.) He tags vocabulary items by tone class (A/B/C/D) and 1 for old voiceless initial and 2 for old voiced initial. Where relevant, he uses a suffixed H/M/N/G for the split tones, so he has A1H v. A1M for Siamese and I think A1N v. A1G for Northern Thai. He does make the point that consonant shifts can affect the phonation, so from his *pra:k (I think Pittayapon's *p-ta:k) 'to expose to the sun', we get Siamese and Northern Thai taak_A2, but in T'ien-Pao it's regularly thaaʔ_A1, with the aspiration determining the tone. He also makes the point that vowel lengths might have changed before tones were assigned, so a word can be D1S in one dialect and D1L in another. I think there are some examples of that between Siamese and Northern Thai, especially with back unrounded vowels. Thus, old tone - phonation - length feels better to me. It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that the patterns are D1S ~ D2S but DS1 ~ DS2 ~ DS3 ~ DS4. --RichardW57 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57: Li's work (which I do not own but read parts of about 10 years ago) was one of the works that inspired me to learn more about tonogenesis. Have you read the origin of tones in Vietnamese (1954)? It is another inspiring work. --A.S. (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, though it took a long time for me to come across Haudricourt's article itself. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I wonder who was the first person to use 1-4 to refer to Gedney's four initial consonant categories across all tones. Was it Gedney himself? Previous studies that used 1-4 such as the studies by Owen (2012, p. 14) (link) and Osatananda (1997, e.g., pp. 168-177) (link) seemed to have used a tone box adapted from the one used in Gedney's (1972 or 1989) article called "a checklist for determining tones in Tai dialects" (link). His box had 1-4 and 5-20 (e.g., his B7 is B3 in the 1-4 system). I like the 1-4 system more than the 1-20 system because it is easier to understand. Do you know who did the adaptation? Thank you. --A.S. (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't got a subscription to see the relevant part of Osatanada's thesis. I first came across the 1/2/3/4 system at http://thaiarc.tu.ac.th/dialect/, which comes from something in 1982, but may have taken its current form in 2001 or 2002. I note that uses notations such as DS3. I remember reading the big article on the dialectology of the tones of Southern Thai, and feeling that its use of the numbers 1 to 20 was obfuscatory.

I don't see any split between 1-4 and 5-20 in Gedney's paper. He puts a number 1 to 20 in each box, so modern B2 is his box 7, not 'B7'. --RichardW57 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC) --RichardW57 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57: Thank you for your explanation. I am not sure why Gandour (1977), who used Gedney's tone box, used B7 and other higher numbers (link). --A.S. (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alifshinobi: Gandour is using Gedney's box numbering but adding the tone (and length) numbering to make it clearer. He does this for all 20 boxes, so also has A1 and DL20. At least, that is the effect. It significantly improves the readability of the text. He may have been influenced by a table for Li's system. The next evolutionary step is to reduce the numbers modulo 4 to 1 to 4, but we still haven't found out who took that step. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just removed a load of spurious initial cluster combinations, or at least, spellings that found no support in Rungrueangsi or the Northern Thai dictionary of Palm Leaf Manuscripts. The one's I removed were combinations with letters primarily for Indic loanwords and ones that use MEDIAL RA to mark aspiration. We have one left which is not supported by them, ᩉ᩠ᩃ᩠ᩅ, which would be an alternative spelling of ᩉᩖ᩠ᩅ for those who do not like ᩉᩖ. Does anyone have source to back up its inclusion? The best I can do is ᩉ᩠ᩃ᩠ᩅᩣ᩠ᨷ in a set of examples of how to decode Tai Tham spellings, but I have no confidence that the list is based on real spellings, as the table it is in includes clusters such as /fw/. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just got a nasty shock when I saw the word quoted as evidence for ᩉ᩠ᨿ᩠ᩅ - the bottom consonants for the two half stacks were overlaid by Noto Sans Tai Tham, and I misread it as ᩉ᩠ᨿᩣ᩠ᩅ It's one of the many problems to be fixed in that font. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a native speaker of the eastern (sub-) dialect and I'd like to add some audio to the article too. However, I found the article is almost based on the western (sub-) dialect (Chiang Mai dialect) so I'm not sure if it is possible to do so. Here's an example of the audio. [4] Ymrttw (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiang Rai data is good to have; just label it as such. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many dead tones does Chiang Rai (and Northern Thai in general, if there is an answer) have for each vowel length? Most studies I can find just assume the Gedney box covers everything. If we took that approach to Standard Thai, we'd get two tones for each length, whereas we know that Standard Thai has three tones for each length, and that they can be considered the same for each length. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, when I first read your mention about three tones for each length, I just had no clue at all because, for me and some native Standard Thai speakers, it is just two tones for each length. (This is what we learned from high school.)

Similar to this section, กาญจนา นาคสกุล (2013) (p. 177, 182) says that this phenomenon occurs only in loanwords and onomatopoeia. She also provides some word examples. I switched them to Northern Thai and read them aloud, then I found that in my Northern Thai, there is no such a special (exclusive) rule for loanwords and onomatopoeia. So I would say that, for dead syllables, there are four tones in total as mentioned in the article. Ymrttw (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the point is that it is (mostly) new words rather than irregular developments that you would expect to see filling a new word shape. For example, if you look at Standard Thai words starting with ฮ you will mostly find onomatopoeia and foreign (or dialect) loanwords. Another possible category for Northern Thai would be 4-syllable alliterating intensives, along the lines of the famous ᨸᩃ᩶ᩣᩴᨸᩉᩖᩮᩬᩥᩋ. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, let me correct myself. There is indeed such a phenomenon in my native language too. I think almost all long dead syllables of loanwords (from western countries) are pronounced in high level tone, which may not be found in native words.

Example 1: 'metre' → [meːt˦] (Standard Thai: [meːt˦])

Example 2: 'Mark' → [maːk˦] (Standard Thai: [maːk˦])

Example 3: 'notebook' → [noːt˦ buk˦] (Standard Thai: [noːt˦ buk˦])

However, it seems that there is no falling tone in short dead syllables which can be observed in Standard Thai. Instead, many of them are pronounced in high level tone, similar to long dead syllables.

Example 4: 'make-up' → [meːk˦ ʔap˦] (Standard Thai: [meːk˦ ʔap˦˨])

Example 5: 'focus' → [foː˧˥ kat˦] (Standard Thai: [foː˧ kat˦˨], or in younger speakers, [foː˧ kat˦])

Example 6: 'trumpet' → [tʰam˧˥ pet˨] (Standard Thai: [tʰram˧ pet˦˨]) - For some reasons I do not yet understand, we don't pronounce as [tʰam˧˥ pet˦], and feel awkward to do so.

I uploaded an audio comparing Chiang Rai dialect to Standard Thai here.[5] Ymrttw (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked through Udom [Runrueangsi]'s Maefahluang dictionary, and found several words with short vowels and falling tones, and they don't look like English: อั้บ 'to bestow', อิ้บ 'booked, reserved'. It's not a coincidence that they begin with the same letter; a lot of words beginning with the glottal stop are outside the Gedney box. I don't know how widespread these words are; for all I know, they could be Chiang Mai words. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know such words before and cannot figure out how to pronounce them correctly. I'll ask my family members and friends later whether they know these words. Ymrttw (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My parents said that they don't know the word 'อั้บ' (or 'อั๊บ'), but they do use the word [ʔip˦] 'อิ๊บ' (high level tone, not falling tone,) meaning 'to reserve, to book' as in the sentence [pɤn˧˩ ʔip˦ ʔan˧˥ niː˦˨ nɤː˦˨] 'I'll reserve/book this one.' Ymrttw (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for [tʰam˧˥ pet˨] rather than *[tʰam˧˥ pet˦], the former better matches the overall falling pitch pattern such English words are perceived to have. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ᨯᩁᨽᨡᩫᩉᩧᨿᩫᨦᨳᨲᨻ 65.18.117.174 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]