Thai Citizenship

[PvtDick]

I wouldn't say it's "racist", since the barriers are equally high for all races. It's just not easy to get citizenship, that's all. Which is par for the course in most countries of the world that are not looking to boost their populations.

[britainmal]

Actually, it is racist against all foreigners. I don't think it has nothing to do with not wanting to increse their population. I think the rich Thais just want protection against foreign competition To make life easier.

I also think they are racist because if a child is born from a foreign family they are not entiltled to citizenship. Only Thai blood which is totally wrong. Look at the Foreign Business Act and other racist acts that prevent foreign investment. Last year, a total of 24 billion USD capital from foreigners flew out of Thailand. Even they have job occupation restriction laws that prevent foreigners from taking up jobs position, which is also another fear of competing with foreigners for jobs.

[PvtDick]

"Racist" is such an ugly word, and what you are describing is not racism. What you are describing is "nationalism", "xenophobia", or "exclusionism", because it is based on nationality, not race.

If the Thai had in place a policy of easy naturalization for other Asians over caucasians or blacks, THAT would be racism. We're not talking about a bias based on the color of one's skin, but on one's nationality.

Sorry, but I just hate to see the "R" word used when it is not really justified.

[bangkokjedi]

Well as much as i love Thailand, i personally believe that some immigration laws are really unfair to some foregners, this of course i only what i feel.

I am Italian, my wife is Thai. Once we moved to Italy she imediatly became a resident, she could work anywhere in Italy without asking for any work permit or other paper, just like an Italian and after only 6 months living there (as my wife) she was able to apply to became an italian citizen.

Now we live in Thailand. As a foreigner, married to a Thai, i need to apply for a supporting visa, 1 year by 1 year, to get that i need to have some money in the bank, if i want to became a resident i need to wait 3 years and hope that when i will apply i will be 1 within the 100 ONLY italian applying at that time. Then 5 or 10 years later (whatever, it is 3 years already) i may apply for thai citizenship (which from what i heart it is not easy or simple to get at all... ).

In the main time, i cannot work free, i need always to have a work permit, to get that i need to apply for special jobs where i can be paid eneugh so that i will get it.

I am lucky and this is not causing me too many problems BUT for a very normal and simple guy who marries a thai and have no high education, money in the bank or amazing business skills.. what is the solution? go back to his own county or break his family, cause without supporting money in the bank or work permit he wont be able to stay here, and anyway he wont be able to work just anywhere.. I don't think it is fair, expecially in a family case, to put such hard condition.

So again i love thailand and i like thai people, but i condider immigration laws here, in many cases little too complicated and unfair.

[Axel]

A bit difficult to understand why males and females married to Thais are treated differently. Seems Thailand still has to do a lot of work to get the equal rights thing up.

Naturalization is a different story but certainly not racist as the rules are applied across the board. Check in your own country, how long it will take for your Thai-wife to obtain your nationality. Even within the EU there are different rules applied for each country as well as against origin country. Automatic naturalization by marriage, however, should no longer be allowed by nearly every country.

Another idea, I mentioned before. Everybody from 40 countries around the world, can visit Thailand and is allowed to stay here, visa exempted, for 30 days.

Why can Thais not reciprocally visit these countries at equal rights, I mean without having to apply for a visa?

[Richard W]

The "NA" in a Thai surname like "Khunying Na Ayutthaya" originally comes from "DA" in a Portuguese surname like "Senora Da Silva"

What's this got do with Portuguese ancestry?  'Na X' simply means of the royal (or princely) family of X.

QUOTE=snowleopard,Thu 2004-05-13, 19:29:02]The "NA" in a Thai surname like "Khunying Na Ayutthaya" originally comes from "DA" in a Portuguese surname like "Senora Da Silva"

The "na" in Thai is derived from "da" in the Portuguese language!

Check the origin of that etymon please!

If you don't believe me,do your own googling and then you might get my post?  

I've done some googling and the best I could come up with is Portuguese Colonial Remains. It gives as an example the derivation of the Thai surname 'Na Silawan' from 'da Silva', which does contradict the implication of a royal or princely origin. However, this of itself does not prove the origin of the construction in names.

[samran]

I know a lot of foreign males not married to a Thai, but who are mangers of businesses that have been in Thailand on a non-immigrant 1 year visa for 5 years straight.

They were told by immigration that they do not qualify for PR. Getting a visa to stay is not problem because the Thai govenrment wants foreigners to come here and spend money, but the minute they want to open shop or get settled down here the racist restrictive gate open ups.

I am not trying to be smart, but I would call it bureaucracy in action. Plus, its not simply that you have to have 5 years worth non-immigrant B visa to qualify for PR.

Have a look at the list again on the Thai police website. There are two dozen things you need there. They are particular with what you need to show for an application, and that everything is presented as they want it. If you haven't dotted your "i's" and crossed your "t's" then they reject your application. In a way it is no different if you want to apply to migrate to Australia or the US. The paperwork is extensive, but for some reason people here think that it is a matter of putting in form a waiting for a positve result.

I know I am not going to convince you that it isn't racism, but my (educated) guess is that your mates who were told that they didn't qualify for PR most likely didn't have their paper work in order. Simple as that. You are talking about a Thai burecrat who isn't able to give you any lattitude with how things are presented.

I too have had friends who have applied, been rejected, and have re-applied. They accept the process for what it is, and don't go about falsely accusing others of unfounded racism.

[samran]

I also think they are racist because if a child is born from a foreign family  they are not entiltled to citizenship.  Only Thai blood which is totally wrong. 

Most countries in the world don't allow children born to foreigners to gain citizenship of the country they are born in. This includes dear old blighty where only children of those with PR or UK nationality get UK nationality. The only two OECD nations which do allow automatic nationaity if born there are the US (cause its in the constitution) and Ireland (although that is fast changing).

Even they have job occupation restriction laws that prevent foreigners from taking up jobs position, which is also another fear of competing with foreigners for jobs.

Every country does this to protect certain sectors in one way shape or form. They UK does it in round about ways though simply not issuing work permits for occupations that don't require a degree/advanced qualification of some sort.

[snowleopard]

Under the Siamese monarchy, princely rank is lost over no more than five**generations: princely titles go from Jao Fa (Crown Prince, child of a king) and Phra Ong Jao (child of a king from a minor wife or grandchild of a king through a Jao Fa) to Morm Jao [MomCho,MC], Morm Rarchawong [MR] and finally Morn Luang [ML]. The following generations are commoners, yet allowed to flaunt their distant royal origin by adding “na...”, meaning “From Somewhere”, to their surname—for example, Wisoot Suphalak na Ayutthaya.

http://bookstore.manager.co.th/BookView.asp?ID=83

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong either, Snowleopard, but I would very much like to see you quote some substantial verifiable source to back up your statements. Samran's discussion of "na" covers what I have learned about the word as well. It is used as a preposition in formal Thai, and by its spelling appears to be derived from the ubiqiutous Sanskrit.

I suppose it is theoretically possible that the *practice* of using "na" evolved from glancing at a European model ("da, de, von, af, of" etc.), but to state that the word "na" actually is a loan from Portuguese is something else.

Samran

wow snowleopard. But are you sure?

My Thai dictionary reckons "na" was simply derived from the pali or sanskrit which is generally used to mean in modern Thai "by, upon, in, near". In modern usage it can mean "at a place" or something to do with a locality or a place in time.

For instance, when your are flying in Thailand you will often here the crew announce formally "The flight time "na" Bankgkok international airport will be..."

Although used for decendents of the aristocracy, "na" simply is supposed to denote one who is from a certain place, whether that be a geographical one or a blood line.

I don't see any reason why "na" cant have evolved parallel to most other languages, and have the same meaning.

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong either, Snowleopard

Samran's discussion of "na" covers what I have learned about the word as well. It is used as a preposition in formal Thai, and by its spelling appears to be derived from the ubiqiutous Sanskrit.

wow snowleopard. But are you sure?

Hi there Meadish and Samran,

We are talking about two completely different words here!

Both are unfortunately transliterated and Romanized into our Latin characters in the same way from Thai script!

Namely as "NA"!

1.The first "NA" is written นะ and is a particle used at the end of a clause like this:"หนังสือเล่มนี้ดีนะ"="This book is good,hey"!

(eller på Svenska,="Den här boken är ju bra!Fy fan vet du"!)

It can also be used to mean "please".Like this "ขอนั่งที่นี้นะ"=Please let me sit here!

It is similar to the word หนอ used as a question like, "ทำไมหนอ.; or an interjection, "จริงๆ หนอ"

2.The second "NA" is written ณ ,and it is the one used to denote origin and heritage and which is derived from the Portuguese "DA" !

It is similar in importance to other distinguished names such as "van Halen","Scrooge McDuck","Senora da Silva", "Countess af Lejonhufvud" and "Baron Äggbert von Pinkenstråle"!

This is the (ณ) "NA"="DA" that Richard W could find a link to after having googled the World wide web!

It's written by using only the single Thai letter ณ

คุณหญิง ณ อยุธยา="Khunying Na' Ayutthaya"!

I hope this clarifies the whole situation!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

My Thai dictionary reckons "na" was simply derived from the pali or sanskrit which is generally used to mean in modern Thai "by, upon, in, near". In modern usage it can mean "at a place" or something to do with a locality or a place in time.

For instance, when your are flying in Thailand you will often here the crew announce formally "The flight time "na" Bankgkok international airport will be..."

Although used for decendents of the aristocracy, "na" simply is supposed to denote one who is from a certain place, whether that be a geographical one or a blood line.

I don't see any reason why "na" cant have evolved parallel to most other languages, and have the same meaning.

What's the actual form in Sanskrit and Pali? <Na> (or <n.a> or <.na> or ณะ, depending on your convention)? I couldn't find it in the on-line Sanskrit and Pali dictionaries I consulted, and the server for the on-line Royal Institute Dictionary isn't working.

The other reason why this doesn't seem intuitive (and I am not saying you are wrong BTW) is that my old Thai teacher hammered into me that words which used rare thai letters or were spelt irregularly were generally derived from Pali or sanskrit words.

A good counterexample is native ฆ่า 'kill', whose etymologically correct spelling is ข้า, but which got its spelling by association with Sanskrit-derived ฆาต 'killing'.

Incidentally, where does the spelling of อังกฤษ 'English' come from?

[samran]

Snowleopard, I actually was talking about this version of "na" (ณ). Still not saying that you are wrong though.

Richard W: I was looking at the Thai english dictionary by Dr. Wit Tiengboonyatham, pg 442 which amongst other things says "It is an extremely rare as a word-initial consonant, but occurring in some fairly common words of Pali and Sanskrit origin (prep.) at, by, on, in or near.

[snowleopard]

Under the Siamese monarchy, princely rank is lost over no more than five**generations: princely titles go from Jao Fa (Crown Prince, child of a king) and Phra Ong Jao (child of a king from a minor wife or grandchild of a king through a Jao Fa) to Morm Jao [MomCho,MC], Morm Rarchawong [MR] and finally Morn Luang [ML]. The following generations are commoners, yet allowed to flaunt their distant royal origin by adding “na...”, meaning “From Somewhere”, to their surname—for example, Wisoot Suphalak na Ayutthaya.

http://bookstore.manager.co.th/BookView.asp?ID=83

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong either, Snowleopard, but I would very much like to see you quote some substantial verifiable source to back up your statements. Samran's discussion of "na" covers what I have learned about the word as well. It is used as a preposition in formal Thai, and by its spelling appears to be derived from the ubiqiutous Sanskrit.

I suppose it is theoretically possible that the *practice* of using "na" evolved from glancing at a European model ("da, de, von, af, of" etc.), but to state that the word "na" actually is a loan from Portuguese is something else.

QUOTE (snowleopard @ Thu 2004-05-13, 19:29:02)

The "NA" in a Thai surname like "Khunying Na Ayutthaya" originally comes from "DA" in a Portuguese surname like "Senora Da Silva"

Richard W

What's this got do with Portuguese ancestry? 'Na X' simply means of the royal (or princely) family of X. Thus 'na Ayutthaya' in a surname simply means descended (in the male line) from one of the kings of Thailand. As a mark of continuity with the old capital, 'na Ayutthaya' is used by members of the Rattanakosin family who are comoners. The descendants of the princes of Chiangmai use 'na Chiangmai' as their surname, and similarly for Songkhla.

Samran

wow snowleopard. But are you sure?

My Thai dictionary reckons "na" was simply derived from the pali or sanskrit which is generally used to mean in modern Thai "by, upon, in, near". In modern usage it can mean "at a place" or something to do with a locality or a place in time.

For instance, when your are flying in Thailand you will often here the crew announce formally "The flight time "na" Bankgkok international airport will be..."

Although used for decendents of the aristocracy, "na" simply is supposed to denote one who is from a certain place, whether that be a geographical one or a blood line.

Snowleopard

2.The second "NA" is written ณ ,and it is the one used to denote origin and heritage and which is derived from the Portuguese "DA" !

It is similar in importance to other distinguished names such as "van Halen","Scrooge McDuck","Senora da Silva", "Countess af Lejonhufvud" and "Baron Äggbert von Pinkenstråle"!   

This is the (ณ) "NA"="DA" that Richard W could find a link to after having googled the World wide web!

It's written by using only the single Thai letter ณ

คุณหญิง ณ อยุธยา="Khunying Na' Ayutthaya"!

I hope this clarifies the whole situation! 

Cheers. 

Snowleopard.

Samran

Snowleopard, I actually was talking about this version of "na" (ณ). Still not saying that you are wrong though.

Meadish_Sweetball

Under the Siamese monarchy, princely rank is lost over no more than five**generations: princely titles go from Jao Fa (Crown Prince, child of a king) and Phra Ong Jao (child of a king from a minor wife or grandchild of a king through a Jao Fa) to Morm Jao [MomCho,MC], Morm Rarchawong [MR] and finally Morn Luang [ML]. The following generations are commoners, yet allowed to flaunt their distant royal origin by adding “na...”, meaning “From Somewhere”, to their surname—for example, Wisoot Suphalak na Ayutthaya.

Hi there Meadish Swedish(i.e."Svenska Köttbullen"),Samran,Richard W, et.a.!

It's correct that the royal rank is lost over five generations but it's even more to the story of "peer vs peerless" than that.

For the sake of convenience,let us now invent a hypothetical blueblood who has one of the royal ranks listed above;and,to whom we can give the beautiful name "Thaksin Malakhun na' Ayutthaya"!

Once upon a time,our fictional friend Malakhun was living happily with his hereditary peers,as peers of the Realm,under royal patronage of the Siamese court!

The royal Siamese blood was proudly moving around in Malakhun's cardio-vascular system.This was more than five generations ago when Siam was still an absolute monarchy.

Malakhun sired a biological son with his lawful peeress,and their offspring,of course,inherited his royal blood;but later he also adopted another son who had only "normal" plebian blood running in his veins!

The story does not explain why Malakhun needed to adopt this boy,who didn't even carry any of his own genes,but it might be that he took a "dek-bhun-tham" to make merit and improve his karma in good old Buddhist tradition!

Either it was this;or it could even be that he instinctively felt an urge to improve the genepool and protect his advantageous societal position from inbreeding!

An ancient insurance policy?

His two sons were not biological brothers,neither were they identical twins nor fraternal twins;and they certainly were not "Siamese twins"!!

Excuse the pun! I just couldn't resist the overwhelming temptation for that one!

Both his sons were allowed to use the title "na' Ayutthaya" at the end of their names but only the biological son could use the surname "Malakhun"(มาลากุล) because it's royal!

After the five-generation-grace period is up and the bilogical descendants have run out of their inherited ranks to show off with and must reluctently go out to fend for themselves in the real world,then they can still proudly display their forefather's royal surname and the "na' Ayutthaya" suffix too!

They are now technically commoners;although, with royal blood and a distant kinship to the Siamese court .

They can still use their surname to good advantage in order to gain a better position in their society's hierarchical pecking order.

Nowadays,we might therefore run into the titleless commoner "Mr Suchon Malakhun na' Ayutthaya"(คุณสุชน มาลากุล ณ อยุธยา)

The Malakhun family name shows that he's supposedly the "real McCoy" descendant of that ancient royally-ranked-title-holder,namely our buddy Malakhun himself;eventhough,it was way "back in them good old days of Ayutthaya,now long gone by"!!

The adopted "bastard" son's descendants would have another non-royal surname but still with the prestigious "na' Ayutthaya" suffix!

A present day descendant of that illegitimate son might carry the name "Mr Suchon Imsabai na' Ayutthaya"(คุณสุชน อิ่มสบาย ณ อยุธยา).His surname of "Imsabai" is non-royal!His suffix "na'Ayutthaya" must have been given and not taken or adopted by himself.

Another twist to the whole story is that it seems like surnames first began to be issued for Thai subjects during the "Rattanakosin" period of the "Chakri" dynasty , which started when the capital had already been moved from Ayutthaya to Thonburi/and then Bangkok!

The Chakri dynasty began in A.D.1782 with King Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (Rama1) and it is still going strong to this very day.

By the way,King Rama 1 was born in Ayutthaya!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[simon43]

Wow, 2 very interesting and intertwined threads here!! The first about Thai citizenship and the second ... er .... about the word 'na'.

But a question about the main theme of this thread. What wonderful reason is there to actually seek Thai citizenship? The previous answers seemed to be that you can own Thai land, you can own 100% of a Thai company and you don't need a work permit. Is that it??!! I can't really see that those factors justify seeking Thai citizenship. These factors all have quite reasonable solutions for non-Thais.

So am I missing something here, or are there some really useful reasons for seeking Thai citizenship? Because from what I've read to date, I can't see them

Please don't get me wrong. Good luck for any non-Thai who feels that he/she must become a Thai citizen. But does the end justify the means?

[britainmal]

No, Samran You are wrong. It is very easier to get ciitizenship in all western countries. Western countries do not discrinimnate against men like Thailand does. Men and Women can get citizenship through marriage in all western countries. I am not taking about paperwork process because every country has this. I am talking about for example the person from Italy. You see how easier it was for a Thai wife to get citizenship and how hard it was for the Italian guy to get Thai citizneship. As far I know most countries whether you are just born or part of the country blood are granted citizenship to the children at least except embassy workers. So, Somran you information is incorrect. Thailand only reconginizes and cares about if they have Thai Blood. They even have a separate birth certiifcate in Thailand that states if you are Thai blood or foreign blood(except if you have PR).

Did you here about the vietenmanese male who was denied entry to Chulakoren University because he wasn't a Thai citizen. If you discriminate against all foreigners this constitutes racism because it is against a certain group of people which are foreign naltional and in relation to Thailand's marriage law against males. Yes, Racism is a stronge word ,but this is what the Thai government thinks is right just to protect the Thai blood and compettition in its economy against foreigners. Just imagine Thai companies have it so easy in Thailand because the government makes sure that no foreignals can compete against them. The hill tribe that were in Thailand before Thailand was Thailand are not allowed to have citizenship or take part in the political process, altleast IN USA native American can run for office , don't pay taxes , have there own territory to run their own affairs. Thailand and Thai people need to change their mentalaity or Western countries should do the same to their nationals. I love Thailand I love Thai people , but I hate their mantality. Don't forget the PM only became rich through corruption. If Thailand had a world class football team I am sure no foreign national would be able to own a share of the pie.

[samran]

As far I know most countries whether you are just born or part of the country blood are granted citizenship to the children at least except embassy workers.  So, Somran you information is incorrect.  Thailand only reconginizes and cares about if they have Thai Blood. 

Frankly, I think you are a troll.

As to your information, what you "think" you know, I am afraid to say you are wrong.

But don't beleive me, look at your own country's official web site on this stuff.

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=1465

As I said, most developed nations in the world have gotten rid if the concept of automatic aquisition of nationality through being born on that nations soil. EVEN THE FRIGGING UK HAS!!! The only two OECD exeptions are Ireland and the US.

Only way to get citizenship these days if born in the UK, is if you parent is UK national or a permanent resident. To be eligable for PR in the UK, you must have lived there for 4 years. Similar principals apply in Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and most of the EU, and most every othe country in the world.

So, as far as I can gather, all you are whinging about that as a spouse of a Thai citizen, you don't get some preferential access to Thai citizenship, am I correct?

So, you aren't complaing about that fact that:

- you arent' allowed to apply for Thai citizenship (cause you are);

- that as a caucasian you get worse treatment than others (cause you won't);

- that if you are married to a Thai that your children and grand children wont be allowed to get Thai citizenship (cause they will be allowed Thai nationality);

.......But you are complaining about the fact that YOU can't jump the queue and get Thai nationality??

Is that right?

Nowhere does the law say you are not allowed to apply for Thai citizenship based on your race. We have examples of Farangs who have thai PR and citizenship, so we see it is not impossible. Difficult yes, but not impossible.

Thailand and Thai people need to change their mentalaity or Western countries should do the same to their nationals.

Fine with me.

Next time you come to Thailand for a holiday, why not line up in the rain at the Thai embassy in London, open for only 2 hours in the morning.

- Lets make you prove that you have a job each time you want to go anywhere for a short holiday.

- Lets make you translate all your documentation into Thai, through a registered Thai tranlslator, and have that documentation certified by some unknown bureaucrat who will take 3 days to do it.

- Then we'll come and make you line up in the afternoon to pick up your visa, only to tell you that your visa application is refused, cause we don't belive that you have any intention to return to the UK once you arrive in Thailand.

[Richard W]

As far I know most countries whether you are just born or part of the country blood are granted citizenship to the children at least except embassy workers.  So, Somran you information is incorrect.  Thailand only reconginizes and cares about if they have Thai Blood. 

...

As to your information, what you "think" you know, I am afraid to say you are wrong.

But don't beleive me, look at your own country's official web site on this stuff.

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=1465

As I said, most developed nations in the world have gotten rid if the concept of automatic aquisition of nationality through being born on that nations soil. EVEN THE FRIGGING UK HAS!!! The only two OECD exeptions are Ireland and the US.

Only way to get citizenship these days if born in the UK, is if you parent is UK national or a permanent resident. To be eligable for PR in the UK, you must have lived there for 4 years.

Indefinite leave to remain implies 'PR' as you term it, and spouses get that after two years. The law talks in terms of being 'settled' in the UK, not having 'PR'. I'm not sure about the position of other EU nationals, i.e. when they count as 'settled'. I think they normally count as settled almost immediately, for otherwise they wouldn't be able to bring fiancé(e)s over as easily as they do.

(I wonder if the UK law is having problems yet? The documentary chain is going to become more and more complex as the generations pass - it currently relies on foreign travel being common, for passports and birth certificates are the only common evidence for British nationality.)

[samran]

PR is just a common way of saying the same thing. The UK uses all sorts of different terms, "Leave to Enter" or "Entry Clearance". Was just trying to communicate in a commonly accepted way

[britainmal]

Ok , No you are totally wrong. If you think Western countries are harder to obtain citizenship then Thaialnd you are joking. Lets talk about the marriage laws in Thaialnd and Western countries. In western countries man and women can get citizenship through marriage,but in Thailand only women In the UK if you are a

foreigner invester you will get a visa and residence right away, unlike Thailand you only get a visa and you have to wait three years in order to apply for residence. In Western countries they don't have job occupation law restrictions like Thailand has. No job field is off limist to foreigners on work visa and work permits in Western countries except mililary or national security realted jobs and even these job if youy are foreign PR status you can work these jobs. I know alot of Thais who are Taxi Drivers in Isreal for example. My friend had all the correct paper work and he is a manger for a language and worked here for 5 yaers on a one year visa. No, The paper work was not the problem even he took off a day of work to get everything straight. Thaialdn is a homgunius society, they don't want to open up to foreigners. In Western countries , you can own land everybody , in Thailand only Thais . If you think that Western countries make it harder to become citizenship than Thaialnd you must be joking.

[Richard W]

I was looking at the Thai english dictionary by Dr. Wit Tiengboonyatham, pg 442 which amongst other things says "It is an extremely rare as a word-initial consonant, but occurring in some fairly common words of Pali and Sanskrit origin (prep.) at, by, on, in or near.

The Online Royal Thai Institute Dictionary is working again. I looked the word up, but the space for the etymology of ณ is blank. I therefore very much doubt that this word comes from Sanskrit or Pali.

[snowleopard]

My Thai dictionary reckons "na" was simply derived from the pali or sanskrit which is generally used to mean in modern Thai  "by, upon, in, near". In modern usage it can mean "at a place" or something to do with a locality or a place in time.

For instance, when your are flying in Thailand you will often here the crew announce formally "The flight time "na" Bankgkok international airport will be..."

Although used for decendents of the aristocracy, "na" simply is supposed to denote one who is from a certain place, whether that be a geographical one or a blood line.

I don't see any reason why "na" cant have evolved parallel to most other languages, and have the same meaning.

What's the actual form in Sanskrit and Pali? <Na> (or <n.a> or <.na> or ณะ, depending on your convention)? I couldn't find it in the on-line Sanskrit and Pali dictionaries I consulted, and the server for the on-line Royal Institute Dictionary isn't working.

The other reason why this doesn't seem intuitive (and I am not saying you are wrong BTW) is that my old Thai teacher hammered into me that words which used rare thai letters or were spelt irregularly were generally derived from Pali or sanskrit words.

A good counterexample is native ฆ่า 'kill', whose etymologically correct spelling is ข้า, but which got its spelling by association with Sanskrit-derived ฆาต 'killing'.

Incidentally, where does the spelling of อังกฤษ 'English' come from?

A good counterexample is native ฆ่า 'kill', whose etymologically correct spelling is ข้า, but which got its spelling by association with Sanskrit-derived ฆาต 'killing'.

Hi there Richard W,

This is interesting information.Thank you.

It's quite plausible that you could be correct in your assertion that "ข้า" is the etymologically correct spelling for "ฆ่า"=kill?

King Ramkhamhaeng of Sukothai compiled the first Thai alphabet some seven hundred years ago(A.D.1283) and several words from Sanskrit were there at that time.

It has words from Chinese,Mon,Khmer,Sanskrit,Pali and now even English in it!

I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with a link somewhere on the web where I could check that claim out myself!

Where did you obtain this information?

There are a few points that need some clarification regarding; 1."ฆ่า=kill" ; 2."ฆาต=death"; 3."ข้า=I,me"

First! The verb "kill"

1."ฆ่า"=kill This word is usually used as a verb unless it's joined with an affix to get a noun.For instance,the noun "a killer" can be made by using either the verb "ฆ่า=kill" or the noun "ฆาต=death".This example shows how both "ผู้ฆ่า" and "ฆาตกร" can mean "killer"!

There are two different meanings of the verb "ฆ่า" in Thai and they are:

a.VERB1. ฆ่า=kill,slay,slaughter,assassinate

Example; "เขาถูกฆ่าหลายปีมาแล้ว=He was killed several years ago.

b.VERB 2. ฆ่า=cancel,erase,cross out,delete,rub out

Example; "คุณครูฆ่าข้อความมากมายหลายข้อที่ผมได้เขียนมาแล้ว"=The teacher crossed out several clauses I had written.

Second! The noun "death"

2.NOUN "ฆาต"=death,disaster,end

There are three meanings to this noun.

Example; "ไม่มีใครที่ทราบว่าชีวิตของคนเราจะถึงฆาตเมื่อไรแน่= We don't know for sure when life will end!

Third!The pronoun "I,me";and the noun "servant"

3."ข้า" There are two usages of the word "ข้า" in modern Thai and neither is a verb like "ฆ่า" and the tone is also different!

a.PRONOUN. " ข้า"=The most common use of "ข้า"is that of a pronoun for the first person in either nominative or objective case.That would correspond to I or me in English.It's usually used between friends of equal status or a superior to an inferior.

b.NOUN. " ข้า"=servant;slave

Once again,could you please provide some additional information re these three words because I'm really curious if that is their true etymological history!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[bkk_mike]

Next time you come to Thailand for a holiday, why not line up in the rain at the Thai embassy in London, open for only 2 hours in the morning.

- Lets make you prove that you have a job each time you want to go anywhere for a short holiday.

- Lets make you translate all your documentation into Thai, through a registered Thai tranlslator, and have that documentation certified by some unknown bureaucrat who will take 3 days to do it.

- Then we'll come and make you line up in the afternoon to pick up your visa, only to tell you that your visa application is refused, cause we don't belive that you have any intention to return to the UK once you arrive in Thailand.

Loved this.

Yes - I agree that Thais have a very hard time of it when trying to get a visa for a holiday in Europe / USA / etc, compared to people going in the opposite direction...

However...

Once you prove yourself to the embassy once - you don't have to go back as often...

US embassy - asked for a visa for my mother-in-law to go there for two weeks. - she got a 10 year multi-entry visa. (and fingerprinted - but they start doing that for UK nationals going to the US visa-free later this year as well.)

Similarly - she got a 2 year multi-entry from the UK as we're stopping there on the way to/from the US. (I asked for 10, but the UK is paranoid about letting people in because there is no requirement to carry your passport or an ID card in the UK. - The police have absolutely no way of distinguishing between a legal tourist and an illegal immigrant once people are in the country.)

Where's the Thai multi-year visa? I'd happily queue at the embassy in London (open 3 hours each day for visas), and prove income - if I could get a 10 year multi-entry visa out of it.

[Richard W]

A good counterexample is native ฆ่า 'kill', whose etymologically correct spelling is ข้า, but which got its spelling by association with Sanskrit-derived ฆาต 'killing'.

I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with a link somewhere on the web where I could check that claim out myself!

Where did you obtain this information?

First! The verb "kill"

1."ฆ่า"=kill This word is usually used as a verb unless it's joined with an affix to get a noun.For instance,the noun "a killer" can be made by using either the verb "ฆ่า=kill" or the noun "ฆาต=death".This example shows how  both "ผู้ฆ่า" and "ฆาตกร"  can mean "killer"!

There are two different meanings of the verb "ฆ่า" in Thai and they are:

a.VERB1. ฆ่า=kill,slay,slaughter,assassinate

Example; "เขาถูกฆ่าหลายปีมาแล้ว=He was killed several years ago.

b.VERB 2. ฆ่า=cancel,erase,cross out,delete,rub out

Example; "คุณครูฆ่าข้อความมากมายหลายข้อที่ผมได้เขียนมาแล้ว"=The teacher crossed out several clauses I had written.

I got the information from 'A Handbook of Comparative Tai' by Fang-Kuei Li (University Press of Hawaii, 1977). I fear it's out of print. I got my copy from Asia Books on Sukhumvit Road, but they no longer stock it. The notes on the word end:

The Siamese orthography is spurious, and the Sukhothai inscription shows it has the modified high consonant (ฃ) [khor khuat]with tone C1, presumably pronounced xaa.

There are quite a few words written with a low consonant and mai ek when they should be written with a high consonant and mai tho.

There's an on-line summary at Thai Lexicography Resources. Look the word up as 'khaa'.

Second! The noun "death"

2.NOUN "ฆาต"=death,disaster,end

There are three meanings to this noun.

Example; "ไม่มีใครที่ทราบว่าชีวิตของคนเราจะถึงฆาตเมื่อไรแน่= We don't know for sure when life will end!

I got some of my information from Apte Sanskrit Dictionary Search. I looked it up as ghaata. For words like this, you can check the spelling at the Royal Institute Dictionary rather than guessing which consonants have vowels in Sanskrit. The citation form of the Sanskrit verb is han. This word has cognates in Latin (from which we get English defend etc.) and in Greek (e.g. thanatos 'death' - see IE root gWHen at Bartleby or Pokorny Root gWHen 2. I hadn't realised that bonze and sangha came from this root!

Third!The pronoun "I,me";and the noun "servant"

3."ข้า" There are two usages of the word  "ข้า" in modern Thai and neither is a verb like "ฆ่า" and the tone is also different!

a.PRONOUN.  " ข้า"=The most common use of "ข้า"is that of a pronoun for the first person in either nominative or objective case.That would correspond to I or me in English.It's usually used between friends of equal status or a superior to an inferior.

b.NOUN.  " ข้า"=servant;slave

My source for the following is Weera Ostapirat's Ph.D. thesis, 'Proto-Kra' (UCB 1999):

(Précis, actually)

Kra is reconstructed as the native name of the speakers of a range of minor dialects distantly related to Thai and spoken from Guizhou province of China to the Lon Sa province of Vietnam.  The ancestors of the Thais cut through their area as they expanded from Guangxi to Yunnan and then to Burma, Assam, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.  Kra then came to mean 'inferior man', 'slave' in the form  "ข้า".  ข้าไท has been proposed as the Thai form of the new name Kra-Dai of the language family also known as Daic or Tai-Kadai.  Tai-Kadai is rendered in Thai as ไท-กะได, which literally means 'ladder Thai', and elicits funny looks when Thais first here the term!

I don't know whether the pronoun is in origin the same word; it's not impossible.

[snowleopard]

A good counterexample is native ฆ่า 'kill', whose etymologically correct spelling is ข้า, but which got its spelling by association with Sanskrit-derived ฆาต 'killing'.

I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with a link somewhere on the web where I could check that claim out myself!

Where did you obtain this information?

First! The verb "kill"

1."ฆ่า"=kill This word is usually used as a verb unless it's joined with an affix to get a noun.For instance,the noun "a killer" can be made by using either the verb "ฆ่า=kill" or the noun "ฆาต=death".This example shows how  both "ผู้ฆ่า" and "ฆาตกร"  can mean "killer"!

There are two different meanings of the verb "ฆ่า" in Thai and they are:

a.VERB1. ฆ่า=kill,slay,slaughter,assassinate

Example; "เขาถูกฆ่าหลายปีมาแล้ว=He was killed several years ago.

b.VERB 2. ฆ่า=cancel,erase,cross out,delete,rub out

Example; "คุณครูฆ่าข้อความมากมายหลายข้อที่ผมได้เขียนมาแล้ว"=The teacher crossed out several clauses I had written.

I got the information from 'A Handbook of Comparative Tai' by Fang-Kuei Li (University Press of Hawaii, 1977). I fear it's out of print. I got my copy from Asia Books on Sukhumvit Road, but they no longer stock it. The notes on the word end:

The Siamese orthography is spurious, and the Sukhothai inscription shows it has the modified high consonant (ฃ) [khor khuat]with tone C1, presumably pronounced xaa.

There are quite a few words written with a low consonant and mai ek when they should be written with a high consonant and mai tho.

There's an on-line summary at Thai Lexicography Resources. Look the word up as 'khaa'.

Second! The noun "death"

2.NOUN "ฆาต"=death,disaster,end

There are three meanings to this noun.

Example; "ไม่มีใครที่ทราบว่าชีวิตของคนเราจะถึงฆาตเมื่อไรแน่= We don't know for sure when life will end!

I got some of my information from Apte Sanskrit Dictionary Search. I looked it up as ghaata. For words like this, you can check the spelling at the Royal Institute Dictionary rather than guessing which consonants have vowels in Sanskrit. The citation form of the Sanskrit verb is han. This word has cognates in Latin (from which we get English defend etc.) and in Greek (e.g. thanatos 'death' - see IE root gWHen at Bartleby or Pokorny Root gWHen 2. I hadn't realised that bonze and sangha came from this root!

Third!The pronoun "I,me";and the noun "servant"

3."ข้า" There are two usages of the word  "ข้า" in modern Thai and neither is a verb like "ฆ่า" and the tone is also different!

a.PRONOUN.  " ข้า"=The most common use of "ข้า"is that of a pronoun for the first person in either nominative or objective case.That would correspond to I or me in English.It's usually used between friends of equal status or a superior to an inferior.

b.NOUN.  " ข้า"=servant;slave

My source for the following is Weera Ostapirat's Ph.D. thesis, 'Proto-Kra' (UCB 1999):

(Précis, actually)

Kra is reconstructed as the native name of the speakers of a range of minor dialects distantly related to Thai and spoken from Guizhou province of China to the Lon Sa province of Vietnam.  The ancestors of the Thais cut through their area as they expanded from Guangxi to Yunnan and then to Burma, Assam, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.  Kra then came to mean 'inferior man', 'slave' in the form  "ข้า".  ข้าไท has been proposed as the Thai form of the new name Kra-Dai of the language family also known as Daic or Tai-Kadai.  Tai-Kadai is rendered in Thai as ไท-กะได, which literally means 'ladder Thai', and elicits funny looks when Thais first here the term!

I don't know whether the pronoun is in origin the same word; it's not impossible.

Hi there Richard W,

ขอบคุณมากที่อธิบายเกี่ยวกับเรื่องจุดเรื่มต้นและแหล่งกำเนิดของคำที่ได้ใช้ในภาษาไทยเป็นยุคสมัยปัจจุบันนี้=Thank you very much for explaining the origin and source of words used in the modern Thai language of today!

I really appreciate your taking the time to write that post and for providing those links!

I will read the information on those web sites soon and then digest it carefully!

Have a nice day!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[sabaijai]

RE the word ? -- if you're going to look it up in a Pali dictionary using Roman script, the common translit is ñ (an 'n' with a tilde over it, pronounced 'ny-') and of you're going to look in a Sanskrit dictionary it's 'jñ-'. The placement of this letter in Thai, Pali and Sanskrit dictionaries shows how the P/S originals were palatal consonants, i.e., following 'j' (?)and 'ch' (?). My guess that in either case it derives from the PS root ja- meaning to be born from, to spring from. Just a little juggling of the palatal. ...

I've misplaced my Sir Monier-Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary -- not so easy to do considering what a large honker it is -- or else I'd let you know what it says as it would probably have something on it. I'd say it's unlikely to come from the Portuguese 'da' You'd have to first answer the question, why change to 'd' to an 'n' (or ñ/jñ)? Secondly you don't ordinarily see the Pali/Sanskrit-derived letters used for Thai vocab borrowed from European languages.Reading that one-line reference, I'd say they were emphasising the borrowing of 'Silva' rather than of 'da'.

Still looking for Sir Monier-Monier ...

Edited May 19, 2004 by sabaijai

[Richard W]

RE the word ? -- if you're going to look it up in a Pali dictionary using Roman script, the common translit is ñ (an 'n' with a tilde over it, pronounced 'ny-') and of you're going to look in a Sanskrit dictionary it's 'jñ-'. The placement of this letter in Thai, Pali and Sanskrit dictionaries shows how the P/S originals were palatal consonants, i.e., following 'j' (?)and 'ch' (?). My guess that in either case it derives from the PS root ja- meaning to be born from, to spring from. Just a little juggling of the palatal.

It's a shame the bulletin board isn't clever enough to make English and Thai letters the same size, instead of shrinking the Thai letters to allow space for marks above and below. Then Sabaijai wouldn't have misread ณ (no nen) as ญ (yo ying). I quite like the idea of a derivation from Sanskrit jan, but it won't work directly (or via Pali). I wonder, though, might the word may have come through Burmese or Mon? What would a Burmese or Mon pronunciation of initial ญ sound like to a Central Thai? (Come to that, what does an Isan pronunciation sound like to a Central Thai nowadays?)

I'd say it's unlikely to come from the Portuguese 'da' You'd have to first answer the question, why change to 'd' to an 'n' (or ñ/jñ)?

The change of /d/ to /n/ is not as strange as it seems. Modern Thai /d/ (initial ด) and /b/ (initial บ) were originally pre-glottalised (i.e. preceded by a glottal stop, as in Estuarine "wa'er" for English "water") and Cambodian certainly had similar sounds. I think Mon did too. In Shan (arguably the Western extension of Northern Thai) the sounds to developed to /l/ and /m/. In the more distantly related Tai dialect of Po-ai (South-Eastern China) the corresponding sounds are /n/ and /m/. (Li is my source again.) The development of Cambodian and Mon consonants have parallelled the general Tai developments, so I would not be surprised if a development of foreign /da/ to indigenous /na/ occurred in Mon. Any Mon experts to correct me?

Secondly you don't ordinarily see the Pali/Sanskrit-derived letters used for Thai vocab borrowed from European languages.

That would be in breach of the principles laid down by the Royal Institute! However, I can refer you to อังกฤษ 'England', ฝรั่งเศส 'France' and ญี่ปุ่น 'Japan'.

[Richard W]

I quite like the idea of a derivation from Sanskrit jan, but it won't work directly (or via Pali).

Thai already has one derivative, ญาติ 'kin'.

The development of Cambodian and Mon consonants have parallelled the general Tai developments, so I would not be surprised if a development of foreign /da/ to indigenous /na/ occurred in Mon.  Any Mon experts to correct me?

I don't need them. The Mon equivalents of Thai /d/ and /b/ are implosive, so that blows this theory out of the water.

[sabaijai]

Then Sabaijai wouldn't have misread ? (no nen) as ? (yo ying).

I didn't misread it. But I did mistransliterate from PS! Back to square one. So ? must have originally been a dental -- any idea what the original P/S equivalents were then? Seeing as how ? comes in the dictionary positioned between two dentals, the idea it may come from Portuguese 'da' is seeming more plausible to me.

[Richard W]

Then Sabaijai wouldn't have misread ณ (no nen) as ? (yo ying).

I didn't misread it. But I did mistransliterate from PS! Back to square one. So ณ must have originally been a dental -- any idea what the original P/S equivalents were then?

I'm not sure what the question is, but I think I answered it above. ณ is the retroflex (a.k.a. cerebral) nasal, and its presence in Sanskrit words is usually due to 'r' earlier in the word or to its following other retroflexes (themselves often due to RUKI) in the same consonant cluster. (Incidentally, these Sanskrit rules are of very limited help in spelling Thai. They only really help with the combination กษ.) Thai consonants have the same order as the usual Devanagari consonants for Classical Sanskrit (I am deliberately excluding ฬ); it's just that Thai has about 10 extra consonants.

Initial retroflex consonants in Sanskrit don't have any clear source - they don't develop internally in Sanskrit, and Dravidian does not have initial retroflex consonants. That is why they are so rare. (เฒ่า ought to be spelt เถ้า, but that word ought to be spelt เท่า!)

[britainmal]

Save this disscussion for another forum. The topic in this forum is foreign males obtaining Thai citizenship. Let's talk about this.

[Richard W]

Save this disscussion for another forum.

I've continued the language thread at Origin Of Na In Na Ayutthaya, Portuguese? Pali? Sanskrit? Native?.