ศาลาชุมนุม

[Thomas]

Thank you David.

The page refers to a year. I've serious difficulties to read Thai numbers. What do you read there:



I read spontaneously "Year of Buddha 1400". But this does not make much sense...

[David and Bui]

Buddhist year ๑๙๐๐ (1900) or 1357 AD

". . . มาที่เมืองสุโขทัยเมื่อ มหาศักราช ๑๒๘๓ (พ.ศ. ๑๙๐๕)"

[He] arrived in Sukhothai in Royal Year 1283 (Buddhist year 1905) [1362 AD].

[Thomas]

Buddhist year ๑๙๐๐ (1900) or 1357 AD.

1357 (1900-543) is already agreed.

I just wrote Gwindor a PM.

Simplistically spoken, ชฎา, or

1 jaTa mfn. wearing twisted locks of hair g. %{arza-Adi} ; m. metrically for %{-TA} Hariv. 9551 ; (%{A}) f. the hair twisted together (as worn by ascetics , by Siva , and persons in mourning) Pa1rGr2. ii , 6 Mn. vi , 6 MBh. (ifc. f. %{A} , iii , 16137) &c. ; a fibrous root , root (in general) Bhpr. v , 111 S3a1n3gS. i , 46 and 58 ; N. of several plants (= %{TA-vatI} L. ; Mucuna pruritus L. ; Flacourtia cataphracta L. ; = %{-TA-mUlA} L. ; = %{rudra-jaTA} L.) Sus3r. v f. ; N. of a Pa1t2ha or arrangement of the Vedic text (still more artificial than the Krama , each pair of words being repeated thrice and one repetition being in inverted order) Caran2. ; (%{I}) f. Nardostachys Jat2a1ma1n6si1 L. ; (= %{-Ti}) the waved-leaf fig-tree L. ; cf. %{tri-} , %{mahA-} , %{vi-} ; %{kRSNa-jaTA} "'
2 jaTA f. see s.v. %{-Ta}.

may have been written in 1357 as ชฎา but the do chada should be spelt, rather, in 2017, as ชฏา /jaTA/, i.e. with a to pa-tak.

[David and Bui]

By the way, this was recently published on a Facebook page:

[Thomas]

David and Gwindor,

RID (2011):

ชฎา
น. เครื่องสวมศีรษะ รูปคล้ายฝาชี มียอดยาวเรียวแหลม. (ป., ส. ชฏา ว่า ผมที่ขมวดเกล้าสูงขึ้น).

So, the Thai term is spelt with do cha-da. The etymology is seemingly Pali (?) whereas for the Sanskrit term itself the most recent RID is using the to pa-tak.

Of note, a similar phenomenon occurs for the Thai term for Pali itself:

บาลี
(๑) น. ภาษาที่ใช้เป็นหลักในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาท (ป., ส. ปาลิ).

I read: in Thai 'Bali' [RTGS], in Pali 'bAlI' (H-K), in Sanskrit 'pAli' (H-K).

Please note also this remark of thailanguage:

http://www.thai-language.com/id/139836

2. ภาษาบาลี phaaM saaR baaM leeM [noun]
definition
the Pali language

related word ป. phaaM saaR baaM leeM [dictionary abbreviation for] ภาษาบาลี; (Pali)

See
King Rama VI System (1913).

See also the table below the statement

With the introduction of the family name system in 1913 by King Rama VI, a conversion system from the Thai script to the Latin alphabet was developed whereby the written forms of Pali and Sanskrit were retained.

In this table no bo bai mai or do cha-da occur.

The spelling of a PaliSanskrit term in Thai language, thus, gives some information as to the question when it was loaned for Thai language means since RID uses the King Rama VI System (for coining new PaliSanskrit terms for the Thai language, or transliterating terms of Pali and Sanskrit languages for the scope of an etymological dictionary).

[Glenn Slayden]

Is http://thai-language.com/ref/phonetic-organization-consonants relevant or useful to this discussion?

[Richard Wordingham]

Of course it is! Initial /b/ or /d/ for Sanskrit or Pali /p/, /ṭ/ or /t/ is generally a sign that the word was borrowed through Khmer. It reflects an old Khmer rule that ancient /p/ or /t/ before a vowel became /ɓ/ or /ɗ/, while remaining before consonants.

[Thomas]

Both @ Richard and Glenn,

I can add only that I recall this "issue" as a problem as to "old" and more recent (transliteration) rules as follows:

In discussion about 10 (?) years ago a (German) linguist published this table here:

http://www.clickthai.de/UL/th-dev-iast-v2.htm

Once he had published this table he commented his publication with words similar to this: "Damned, I did it according to the old rules".

What I understood was that e.g. here

บ / प / p

the Thai bo bai mai should be, in order to be in accordance with the "recent" (transliteration) rules, a po pla instead.

Same problem applies on this issue here:

ฎ / ट / ṭ (that's what is irritating Gwindor) ... "damned, old rules..."

A question: I'm no expert both for Devanagari and Pali, but here the RI seems to be inaccurate (?) if it would applies its own recent (translieration) rules:

บาลี
(๑) น. ภาษาที่ใช้เป็นหลักในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาท (ป., ส. ปาลิ).

Shouldn't this read, rather:

๑) น. ภาษาที่ใช้เป็นหลักในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาท (ป. ปาลิ, ส. ปาลิ).

I.e in Devanagari = प?

The table to which Glenn refers is interesting as such since it claims (as far as I understand) that

The transliteration of the corresponding Sanskrit or Pali letter is shown in parentheses.

บ b (p) ป bp (p)

... how to say this ... that there is a single "Pali or Sanskrit letter" (IAST p, Devanagari प) which is transliterated either into bo bai mai or po pla. This is wrong - as long as I use present tense for my statement/my understanding of the claim of the table.

According to [url]current[/url] transliteration rules a IAST b is a Thai พ and IAST p is a ป (but not letter บ)

Correct?

[Richard Wordingham]

A question: I'm no expert both for Devanagari and Pali, but here the RI seems to be inaccurate (?) if it would applies its own recent (translieration) rules:

บาลี
(๑) น. ภาษาที่ใช้เป็นหลักในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาท (ป., ส. ปาลิ).

Shouldn't this read, rather:

๑) น. ภาษาที่ใช้เป็นหลักในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาท (ป. ปาลิ, ส. ปาลิ).

I.e in Devanagari = प?

I think the RID etymological statement is potentially ambiguous. It could mean that the Pali is as Thai, or it could mean that Pali and Sanskrit are the same. There are also quite a few examples where Pali or Sanskrit is given as the source language with the implication is that they are the same as Thai, but a little knowledge of phonology or orthography soon shows that the Pali/Sanskrit is not spelt the same as Thai. It is not clear how much knowledge the interested reader is supposed to have.

The table to which Glenn refers is interesting as such since it claims (as far as I understand) that

The transliteration of the corresponding Sanskrit or Pali letter is shown in parentheses.

บ b (p) ป bp (p)

... how to say this ... that there is a single "Pali or Sanskrit letter" (IAST p, Devanagari प) which is transliterated either into bo bai mai or po pla. This is wrong - as long as I use present tense for my statement/my understanding of the claim of the table.

According to [url]current[/url] transliteration rules a IAST b is a Thai พ and IAST p is a ป (but not letter บ)

Correct?

The statement is "The transliteration of the corresponding Sanskrit or Pali letter is shown in parentheses". This statement is correct, for in the Thai lexicon บ and ป both correspond to the letter used in Sanskrit and Pali for /p/. A good example is บาป, which derives from Pali pāpa. This correspondence is from Thai to Sanskrit and Pali, not from Sanskrit and Pali to Thai. Now, one might want to give the characters for writing Pali and Sanskrit in the same table, but that might overload the system, as we would then have to explain the two different Pali orthographies, namely the abugida (which the RID uses) and the alphabet (which most chanting books for laymen seem to use).

[Thomas]

Thank you Richard.

Your example บาป

pApa (S3Br. xiv , also %{pA4pa}) mf(%{I} older than %{A} ; cf. Pa1n2. 4-1 , 30)n. bad , vicious , wicked , evil , wretched , vile , low RV. &c. &c. ; (in astrol.) boding evil , inauspicious Var. ; m. a wicked man , wretch , villain RV. &c , &c. ; N. of the profligate in a drama Cat. ; of a hell VP. ; (%{A}) f. a beast of prey or a witch , Hcat ; n. (ifc. f. %{A}) evil , misfortune , ill-luck , trouble , mischief. harm AV. &c. &c. often %{zAntam@pApam} , `" heaven forefend that evil "' R. Mr2icch. Ka1lid. &c.) ; sin , vice , crime , guilt Br. Mn. MBh. &c. ; (%{a4m}) ind. badly , miserably , wrongly AV. ; (%{a4yA}) ind. id. RV. AV. ; %{-papa4yA7muyA4} , so badly , so vilely ib.

is ... lovely.

My theory would now suggest that the first part (?) of the term was loaned in-between 1200-1900 whereas the second part (?), or final consonant respectively, was loaned in the 20th century. But the practice of loaning, and coining, clearly contradicts my theory.

I consider บาป as ... funny

บาป; บาป- /บาบ; บาบ-ปะ-/ {Pali/Sanskrit: ปาป} ... ooops, what went wrong when? Oooops

Reading my preceding post ... else than the high number of typos I find it now curious, reading it again and again, that obviously the Royal Institute uses 'ป.' as an abbreviation of the THAI term (ภาษา)บาลี. Seeing this I recalled that Achan Thonglo lists "Akson Sanskrit" and "Akson Pali". The heading of Akson Pali/Bali reads (correctly) อักษรบาลี but the list itself doesn't know a bo Bali, or a bo bai-mai. It knows the po pla only.

I continue to conclude that coining Thai terms from PaliSanskrit was done, before Achan Thonglo published his Lak Phasa Thai, by transliterating (Sanskrit or Pali) /p/ with บ and since then (or starting in about 1900-1910) with ป.

Having said this บาป continues to look like a "coining accident".