Talk:ISO 11940

message: Good thing there is now some info on this standard. Since ISO charges high amounts for their standards, I never had the opportunity of seeing it. It seems to be a transliteration in the narrow sense, from which the original spelling can be reconstructed. Apart from that it seems much stricter than, but quite compatible with RTGS. Perhaps it would be useful to add some comments on the comparison.
I have never seen this standard used in practice anywhere. Do you know of any instances?
Small note: perhaps you missed a diacritic on one of the "y"s.
Do you have any information on the vowels?
−Woodstone 14:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what I am doing here... As you say, the standard is not in wide use, and I had a hard time googling it. All that turns up are sites trying to sell you the standard for 56 dollars or so. I ask you! My only source for this is the xml file at unicode. It contains more information, and it conscientiously tells us when it is deviating from ISO. Is it is, this is all unverified. From what I found elsewhere on the net, yes, this is definitely intended as a standard allowing the reconstruction of the original spelling from the romanization (unlike RTGS). dab (𒁳) 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: no, I am sure the vowels in transliteration will be in phonological order. The xml file has some special rules for this afaics. Anything else would be insane, and without precedent in ISO 15919. It's  , not . dab (𒁳) 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work. I've always wondered why ISO tries to keep their standards secret by charging high amounts for them. As I guessed above, the vowels are in spelling order (not phonetic), making the transliterations quite difficult to read. In the vowel section the อ is missing: does it re-use the symbol x given for the silent consonant? The other weird choice is v for ฤ, mentioned both as consonant and as vowel. Quaint is also keeping the h as class indicator. The only deviation from RTGS in consonants, apart from the diacritics, seems to be c for จ (RTGS has ch). I need more time to let it sink in. As bearer for some vowels and diacritics, we have used "–"(–) in other Thai spelling articles. −Woodstone 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: I have found the following layout of Thai consonants useful to see patterns. I think it would show the principles of the ISO system quite well, but I have no time now to work them in. They could replace (or be added to) the RTGS columns.
 	      	labial	labial	dental	dental 	guttural	guttural
class 	forming    	rtgs  	thai  	rtgs  	thai   	rtgs    	thai
high  	aspirated  	ph    	พ ภ   	th    	ท ฑ ฒ ธ	kh      	ค ฆ
high  	fricative  	f     	ฟ     	s     	ซ      	h       	ฮ
high  	nasal      	m     	ม     	n     	น ณ    	ng      	ง
high  	semivowel  	w     	ว     	y     	ย ญ    	   	 
high  	liquid     	 	 	l     	ล ฬ    	r       	ร
high  	palatalised	 	 	ch    	ช ฌ    	   	 
mid   	voiceless  	p     	ป     	t     	ต ฎ    	k       	ก
mid   	voiced     	b     	บ     	d     	ด ฏ    	kh      	 
mid   	palatalised	 	 	j     	จ      	-       	อ
low   	aspirated  	ph    	ผ     	th    	ถ ฐ    	kh      	ข
low   	fricative  	f     	ฝ     	s     	ส ศ ษ  	h       	ห
low   	palatalised	 	 	ch    	ฉ      	   	 
−Woodstone 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabular form 

message: Hi. I'm rather confused by the horn diacritic used for ฅ ↔ k̛h, ฒ ↔ t̛h, and ษ ↔ s̛̄. This is rather strange as to my knowledge the horn U+031B is used in Vietnamese (ơ and ư, and accented), in ALA-LC romanization of Lao (ư ư̄) and Thai (ư ư̄). I would expect the letter prime ʹ U+02B9 as in the Unicode CLDR XML file or perhaps the letter apostrophe ʼ U+02BC (that's what it looks like in the UNGEGN PDF file and book – the HTML page uses the apostrophe ’ U+2019, the punctuation "equivalent" of letter apostrophe ʼ U+02BC). Here's what they look like :
* horn : ฅ ↔ k̛h, ฒ ↔ t̛h, and ษ ↔ s̛̄ 
* letter prime : ฅ ↔ kʹh, ฒ ↔ tʹh, and ษ ↔ s̄ʹ 
* letter apostrophe : ฅ ↔ kʼh, ฒ ↔ tʼh, and ษ ↔ s̄ʼ 
--Moyogo/ (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sequence s̛̄ (U+0073 U+0304 U+031B) from   is rather odd. Its normalized form is s̛̄ (U+0073 U+031B U+0304). Which makes me wonder why would a non normalized character sequence be in a standard. --Moyogo/ (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The real answer is probably that the authors didn't fully understand normalisation.  Also, the standard seems to have sat around for 5 years before being approved in 2003, implying that there were severe doubts as to its usefulness.  Besides, Clause 5.2 requires that the macron be 'typed' before the dot below or horn, and ISO 10646 does not require that equivalent sequences be treated identically.  Finally, phinthu is transliterated to U+0325 COMBINING RING BELOW, so ษฺ is transliterated and normalised to s̛̥̄ U+0073 U+031B U+0325 U+0304 - normalisation makes automated back-transliteration tricky! − RichardW57 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text: In my PDF copy of the standard part 2, it does not look at all like the horns you show, but as a clearly separated upper comma.−Woodstone (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Part 1 says that the character code 031B is involved in the transliteration!  I'd like to use an axiom of competence for interpreting the standard, but I fear that may be inconsistent with the contents.  It seems I'm going to have to fork out for Part 2.  It may be that we will have to add a section on Part 2's misinterpretation of Part 1!  'TiT', I suppose. ISO 11940:1998 remains current (I think as of 2019), so I believe I don't need a new copy of it. RichardW57m (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  horn?