Talk:ฤ

It is not a letter. Thai Wikipedia has it listed as a vowel, and it is named ligature here http://www.thai-language.com/id/143095 — This unsigned comment was added by Pawyilee (talk • contribs) at 10:23, 18 August 2012‎ (UTC).

That doesn't mean it's not a letter. —Angr 22:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Tea Room discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

ฤ

What should this be described as? A letter? A symbol? A vowel? A Ligature? See Talk:ฤ. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why it isn't a letter. Vowels are sounds, not orthographic symbols, but vowels are represented by letters. (Can you imagine someone saying of the English alphabet, "'A' isn't a letter, it's a vowel"?) Ligatures are letters too, although in fact, this doesn't seem to be a ligature anyway. People may be thrown off by the fact that this letter stands for two sounds in Thai (according to w:Thai alphabet it stands for [rɯ] or [ri]), but that doesn't mean it's not a letter. 'X' stands for two sounds in English ([ks]), but it's still a letter. —Angr 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. :) - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It’s a letter, although it does not usually appear in the Thai alphabet. It is usually considered to be a vowel, but it is said to have originally been a ligature in Sanskrit (perhaps it was रि). It appears in almost all the Modern Indic languages and is generally considered a vowel. It is definitely a letter, definitely not a Thai ligature. More of a vowel than anything else. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, "it does not usually appear in the Thai alphabet" sounds like something that should be in a usage note. You know more about the letter than I do: care to formulate the note? - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a letter, IMO. Thai is not an alphabet. It's an abugida, and vowels are not usually considered to be letters in abugidas (usually, they're mandatory diacritics). Stephen, I will let you write whatever you want as a usage note and trust your superior knowledge of the subject, but I fundamentally disagree with you. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In most instances of vowels in abugidas, the vowels are not letters but either diacritics or modifications to the base consonant. However, there are numerous instances of vowels in abugidas where the vowel is a letter. For example, most of the Indic scripts include independent vowels, and these are letters...इ is a letter, ि is a diacritic; ऋ is a letter,  ृ is a diacritic. In Thai, โ is a letter, ◌็ is a diacritic; ฤ is a letter,  ◌ู is a diacritic —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That basically contradicts what I've learned about abugidas (I mean, just look at abugida and it seems to claim that such a system must have features that Thai does not). If you're going to say that, in a script that is nominally an abugida where consonants ought to be letters and vowels ought to be diacritics, the circular diacritic that gives the final m in (deprecated template usage) นำ (num) is not a letter, and yet the vowel า is, then it would seem that something is very wrong. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with and cannot comment on Thai, I can confirm Stephen's comment that scripts called "abugidas" can have vowel letters. In addition to his examples: Ojibwe's abugida contains vowel letters like ᐁ/ᐁ. Perhaps this means that even linguists and other specialists technically misapply or have broadened the meaning of "abugida"... then again, the word "abugida" derives from the Ge'ez አቡጊዳ ((’)ä-bu-gi-da), which begins with a vowel letter (if I am not grossly misunderstanding it). - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this entry: Appendix:Thai alphabet claims it and other symbols "are semi-vowels or diphthongs written with consonant symbols". - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule that writing systems must be pure and simple. Arabic, for example, is a abjad, but it can also be use as a true alphabet. When Arabic is used to transliterate foreign words or names, the abjad rules go out the window and it works like an alphabet. In other contexts, such as when Arabic script is used to write the Qur'an, it is an abugida. The English alphabet, described as a true alphabet, also has some syllables like a syllabary...consider the word union, where the first letter is not the simple vowel /u/, but a syllable composed of a consonant + vowel /ju/. In the Wikipedia article Abugida, it states as follows (Description of an abugida): "Vowels not preceded by a consonant may be represented with a zero consonant letter, modified to indicate the vowel, or separate letters for each vowel, that are distinct from the corresponding dependent vowel signs." The Thai abugida in modern use comes closer to being an alphabet than almost any other abugida.

Concerning the claim in Appendix:Thai alphabet that it and other symbols "are semi-vowels or diphthongs written with consonant symbols", Atitarev wrote that. I think it is a valid way of looking at it, although not the only way. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I can accept that. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)