This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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
Primarily a linguistic study, comparing and contrasting Ahom terms with similar terms in Shan and Siamese.
Terwiel, Barend Jan (1983).
"Ahom and the study of early Tai society"(PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. Vol. 71. Siam Society Heritage Trust: pp. 42−62. Retrieved February 25, 2013. {{
cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (
help); |volume= has extra text (
help)
@
Glennznl: I think we will need some details about how this phonological repertoire was reconstructed. Do your sources mention it? Obviously it could not have been through standard means of surveys. As far as I know some Phake and Aiton speakers (some names are quite frequently mentioned) have been working to recreate the phonology.
Chaipau (
talk)
11:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
There are different linguistic theoretical frameworks for the presentation of the elements within a syllable. In one theoretical framework, all vowel initial words are actually preceded by a glottal stop [ʔ], and this is represented in writing by [] in the Ahom script. In our analysis, the glottal stop is not a phoneme of Tai Ahom, and vowel initial syllables are permitted. For further discussion, see Morey, The Tai Languages of Assam, p. 111.
@
Chaipau: I think we should use both the consonant and vowel inventories on page 37. The inventories are not very different but the reconstruction is superior to earlier works and therefore more reliable. --
Glennznl (
talk)
23:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Glennznl: I tend to agree but I am concerned that a new inventory might yet emerge. The one on page 37 looks like it is version two to Morey 2005. We will likely get Duangthip 2012 version 2 soon, I think. @
Austronesier: could you please suggest how we could present the current status keeping an eye on RECENTISM? Nevertheless, I am amazed at the work Morey is doing, especially after Terweil was so dejected with his findings. I will not be surprised if Morey reconstructs the tonal system too.
Chaipau (
talk)
09:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I haven't read the paper thoroughly, but I wouldn't hesitate to use it here as representing the current state of research, especially with Pittayaporn as co-author. The discrepancies with Duangthip could be mentioned in a footnote (e.g. an efn with an extra-line at the bottom of the table with a {{notelist}}). –
Austronesier (
talk)
10:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I know that pretty much no one knows about the Tai Ahom tones. If you know then please tell us what are the tones. I wonder if they don't know about the tones, how so many Tai Ahom speakers can speak the language, understanding each other.
223.231.97.41 (
talk)
10:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply