Talk:Tai Noi script

Diacritics

@Glennznl: What are the writing system's diacritics like? --Apisite (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Apisite: The most complete overview I have found is this one on page 9. The script is not yet standardized and not yet encoded in Unicode, so hopefully in the future a full and proper inventory of all diacritics could be displayed on the page. --Glennznl (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming

“Tai Noi” is pejorative, even though it is commonly used, rather than regurgitating an implicit bias that implies there is a “standard” I think the article should be “Lao Buhan” and note that “Tai Noi” is an alternative. There is sufficient literature on the use of “Tai” and the politicization of Thai historiography and linguistics to change the title.--StampyElephant (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@StampyElephant: I fail to see to whom "Tai Noi" would be pejorative, as historically it was often used for the Siamese, while the Shan were the "Tai Yai" or Great Tai. Aside from this, Tai Noi/Thai Noi as a name for the script is much more common on Google Scholar than Lao Buhan. I would personally prefer Lao Buhan too, as I feel like the current name does not reflect the "Lao origin" of the script, but we should stick to WP:COMMONNAME. If the most commonly used name changes in the future, a change would be justified. --Glennznl (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Glennznl: The ethonym "Tai" is generally accepted, but when you add to it it become an "exonym." I'm glad you brought up the "Tai Yai"- both are exonyms and so political by nature. Neither the Shan nor the Lao refer to themselves as "Tai Yai" or "Tai Noi" and in the sources very few academics use the term...Lorillard doesn’t ...Isn't that strange? The Digital Library of Lao Manuscripts- refers to the scripts/texts as “Lao Buhan.” See Grabowsky, Keyes, Diller, etc. for the issue of how Central Thai is used to subsume minorities (n.b. They all use Lao Buhan when referring to the script too.) See Iijima "the invention of Isan History" for the process of how in the 19th and 20th centuries minority histories and languages were suppressed and their texts were burned. The linguistic terms are based on nineteenth century classifications- even Thai historian, Jit Phumisak acknowledged the distinction between "Tai Yai" and "Tai Noi" is that "Tai Yai" went on to create civilizations on the Salaween and Chaophraya (so Siam/Thai) rivers- and the "Tai Noi" were essentially "tribal" and inhabited regions of Vietnam and the Mekong Valley. The Lao themselves certainly don't call themselves "Lesser Tai" or "Small Tai" and refer to their own script as Lao Buhan- so why not use that term? The same problem exists for "Thai Yuan" the Northern Tai of Lan Na- that translates to "Tai Foreigner" There is an implicit issue- and that is that the use of Central Thai to promulgate comparisons based on 19th century theories. I'd refer you to Frederic Pain, "an introduction to Thai Ethnonymy" for just how complex the issue is and how the idea of "tai migration" needs reevaluation within the context of all the bogus theories which preceded it--StampyElephant (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@StampyElephant: That's all correct, but Wikipedia should not lead the way with political issues, but instead follow the majority view. Other known scholars like Draper use "Tai Noi". Instead of comparing article counts between Tai Noi and Lao Buhan, we could make a comparison of known scholars and the terms they use. However, I do not see any evidence of the Tai Isan ever using "Lao Buhan", while today most attention for this script comes from Isan as it is the "original Isan script" that was banned during Thaification, and now seeing some revival. In this context, the page should not be called "Lao Buhan" if this term is completely unknown to Isan. --Glennznl (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, see also the footnote here on the first page: [1]. --Glennznl (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Using "Tai Noi" is "leading the way with political issues" the article is good and researched, my issue is with the name. From a purely academic standing- Draper is being overused in this context most of your sources are only from him. I did my own "google scholar" search and "Lao Buhan" is certainly more widely used in the current literature. On a very basic level- "Tai Noi" means "Lesser Tai" and "Lao Buhan" means "ancient Lao" you can't reasonably deny, even if it were widely used (which it isn't anymore), that one of those terms is demeaning. Since it is demeaning it is outdated, which is obviously why very very few use "tai noi" other than Draper and this wikipedia page. In terms of your discussion on Isan- i'm really at a loss. Read Grabowsky or Iijima and it become apparent why calling something "Lao" wouldn't be the case in Isan. Are you suggesting that Isan wasn't part of Lan Xang or the Lao cultural area? Askew demonstrates clearly and takes photos of trans-Mekong areas that were destroyed which were clearly Lao towns. Iijima takes photocopies of source material being altered at the National Library of Thailand to deny and alter texts which reference "Lao" identity. Your argument above also deprives the use of "Lao Buhan" in Laos- this article isn't "Tai Noi Script in Isan." The Digital Library of Lao Manuscripts, the single largest collection of these scripts- and we are talking about scripts on this wikipedia page, refers to "Lao Buhan" without any mention of "Tai Noi." The reason is obvious, the academic terms have evolved. Lastly, the term "Lao Buhan" wouldn't be unknown in Isan, but the term "Isan" was definitively contrived by Damrong and the Thai to deny the ethnic "Lao" origin of that area - see Streckfuss, Breazeale, Iijima, Enfield, Diller etc.--StampyElephant (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding the “common name” see “ When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.” There should also be a nonjudgmental descriptive title. Calling a culture “lesser” or “small” is plainly judgmental. “Lao Buhan” or “old/ancient Lao” is a statement of fact--StampyElephant (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@StampyElephant: "Lao Buhan" gives me 7 results since 2017, "Tai Noi" 77 and "Thai Noi" 32. I did not count the accuracy of each and every result, but the common term as counted by the quantity of results is Tai Noi/Thai Noi. I do recognize that results of Tai Noi/Thai Noi include a lot of Thai authors, but I don't want to write them off as "biased" that easily without further research.

You keep repeating that "Tai Noi" is derogatory per se, but this claim needs some evidence. See the following paper: [2] which says "In Thai, the name for Shan is Tai Yai [Big Tai], in contrast to one of the historical names for the Thai, Tai Noi [Little Tai], possibly in reference to historical relations and settlement patterns." See also [3] which says "'Tai jai" (Greater Tai) is a term usually applied to the people also known as "Shan", and should probably include the Ahom and other Tai groups of Assam. The associated term is "Tai noi" (Lesser Tai) used to include, probably, all others in the southwestern branch. These are 'Tai" terms and appear not to have superogatory or derogatory implications."

I am aware of the Lao character of Isan, but Isan and Laos have diverged as Isan is part of a different country. Therefore it is not that simple to call something in Isan "Lao". My point is that this script receives the most attention in Isan, if "Lao Buhan" is not used in contemporary Isan, I believe that "Lao Buhan" should not be "imposed" on the people most interested in the script, therefore some evidence is needed. Finally, it would help if a list is created of known scholars and their prefered name, included citations. Then we could count more accurately, without authors producing more papers (Draper) weighing in more heavily. Pinging @Drmccreedy, Kwamikagami, and Paul 012: for thoughts on this matter. --Glennznl (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)