I gather that some or all of the material you write below within square brackets is the names of marks (vowel, tone, diacritic, whatever), making your example(s) less than perspicuous!

If the two Thai words(?) look exactly the same, then they will have the same transliteration.

If you are indicating in your roman-letter version that they are in fact two different words that are pronounced differently, then you are giving transcriptions.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...



----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Wordingham <richard@...>
To: qalam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:44:01 PM
Subject: Re: Theory of transliteration?

--- In qalam@... com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@. ..> wrote:

> HISTORICALLY, THE <O> IS AN <E> PLUS AN <A>, BUT SYNCHRONICALLY IT
ISN'T. THE HISTORY ISN'T INTERESTING HERE.IT REPRESENTS NOTHING OTHER
THAN AN /O/ PRONOUNCED AFTER THE CONSONANT(S) IT SURROUNDS.

> >> For English a transliteration might choose
> >> to differentiate homgraphs such as 'sow', 'lead' and 'read'. A

> > THEN IT'S NOT A TRANSLITERATION.

> Do you have a name for it?

> i DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING!

This takes us back to the issue of the two Thai words written <sara
e><pho phan><lo long><sara aa> and respectively transcribable as
'pheelaa' and 'phlao'. The first is two aksharas, and using an
etymologically- based transliteration, that fact, if admissible,
justifies transliterating it as 'bela:'. The second is a single
akshara and that, if admissible, justifies transliterating as 'blau'.
Both forms back-transliterate to the original modern Thai spelling.

You are arguing that transliteration cannot use any inputs but the
text being transliterated (and a set of rules). Sometimes it is
useful to add extra information. Is there presently a name for such
schemes?

Richard.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]