Chiang Mai Vs Chaingmai

[george]

Is the name of this beautiful northern Thai city "Chiangmai" or "Chiang Mai" ?

Subsequently, is it "Chiangrai" or "Chiang Rai" ?

[snowleopard]

Is the name of this beautiful northern Thai city "Chiangmai" or "Chiang Mai" ?

Subsequently, is it "Chiangrai" or "Chiang Rai" ?

I think both the local derby matches that pitted Chiangmai against Chiang Mai and Chiangrai vs Chiang Rai ended in draws with no team scoring a winning goal at full time!

As for sudden death,I'm not sure!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[snowleopard]

Is the name of this beautiful northern Thai city "Chiangmai" or "Chiang Mai" ?

Subsequently, is it "Chiangrai" or "Chiang Rai" ?

Your pick is as good as mine!

Chiang Mai can be translated as New Town. In Thai script it is written in one word. Until recent years there has been no official method of transliterating Thai into Romanized form and many different versions of the name can be found.

Here is a collection of 120 different spellings from various books, letters, personal communications, and maps.

Ralph Fitch, the Englishman who visited Chiang Mai in 1587 (four hundred years ago) spelt the town Iamahey. In 1615 The East India Company favored Jangoma, while the early Portuguese used Chiangmai. The French called the place Xieng Mai, though the Dutch preferred Ischeen May and Tsieengh Maeij.

King Mongkut (r. 1851-1872), who wrote English well, seemed a bit uncertain in his own mind as to how he should spell the name of this town. He used the styles of Chiang May and Chiang-may as well as Zam-may.

1861 Ca-nah-ma; 1863 Changmai; 1828 Chang Mai; 1822 Chang-mai; 1865 Changmai; 1868 Cheangmai; 1866 Cheang Mai; 1873 Chengmai; 1839 Chengmie; 1884 Cheung Mai; 1822 Che-ung Mai; 1828 Che-ung Mai; c1552 Chiamai; 1691 Chiamai; c1552 Chiamai; 1750 Chia Mai; 1572 Chiamay; c1544 Chiammay; 1950 Chiangmai; 1936 ChiangMai; 1967 Chiang Mai; c1857 Chiang-mai; 1859 Chiang May; 1859 Chiang-may; 1803 Chiengma.

1890 Chienghmi; c1870 Chieng Mai; 1932 Chiengmai; 1910 Chieng-Mai; 1906 Chieng-mai; 1980 Chieng-mai; 1971 Chieng May; 1380 Chimai; 1883 Chiungmai; 1858 Chung Mai; 1937 C'ieng Mai; c1587 Iamahey; c1587 Iamayhey; c1647 Ischeen Mey; 1647 Ischeen Mey; c1615 Jagama; 1615 Jagoma; 1615 Jagomai; 1615 Jagoman; 1588 Jamahay; 1588 Jamahey; 1861 Ja-mah-ma; 1614 Jangama; c1615 Jangamay; 1640 Jangema.

1612 Jangemay; 1615 Janggamay; 1822 Jang-mai; 1615 Jangnna; 1836 Jangoma; 1553 Jangoma; c1545 Jangomaa; 1615 Jangomai; c1615 Jangoman; 1615 Jangomay; 1599 Jangomi; 1636 Jangonia; c1615 Janguma; c1544 Jangumaa; ? Jienghmai; 1636 Jiengmai; 1636 Jongoma; 1614 Kiangmai; 1860 Kiang Mai; 1615 Kiang-mai 1373 Lanna Xieng May; c1930 Sandabul; 1855 Saymmay; 1908 Schiengmai; 1791 Shiamai; c1800 Shiamai; 1752 Shia mai; 1794 Shiamay; 1794 Shia may; 1855 Shiangmai; 1918 Siang Mai; 1588 Tamahey; ? Tiongh May; ? Tjiang Mai; ? Tschieng Mai

1885 Tsching Mai; ? Tsching-mai; 1640 Tsieeengh Maeij; 1640 Tsieeng May; 1890 Tyima; 1611 Xamoi; 1611 Xhamoi; 1615 Xiengmai; c1850 Xieng Mai; 1856 Xieng mai; c1850 Xieng-mai; 1956 Xieng-mai; 1856 Xieng-mai; 1860 Xieng Me; 1860 Xiengmie; c1854 Xieng-mie, 1791 Yangoma; 1831 Zamee; 1859 Zam-may; c1614 Zangnomang; c1615 Zangomay; c1614 Zangomaye; 1801 Zemee; 1839 Zemmai; 1795 Zemme; 1822 Zimai; 1826 Zimay; 1839 Zimmay; 1871 Zimme; 1885 Zimme; c1885 Zimme; c1885 Zimmei; 1834 Zimmy; c1885 Zinme

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

Do you have the Thai variants to hand as well?

[Ajarn]

Is the name of this beautiful northern Thai city "Chiangmai" or "Chiang Mai" ?

Subsequently, is it "Chiangrai" or "Chiang Rai" ?

I disagree that Chiengmai is a beautiful city anymore...I think the city is 'interesting', 'historic', etc., but not 'beautiful', overall, with the pollution, billboards, ugly new construction, traffic, etc. Beautiful Province, though

[george]

Google lists 919,000 pages for "chiang mai"

and 1,250,000 pages for "chiangmai"

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Is the name of this beautiful northern Thai city "Chiangmai" or "Chiang Mai" ?

Subsequently, is it "Chiangrai" or "Chiang Rai" ?

Your pick is as good as mine!

Chiang Mai can be translated as New Town. In Thai script it is written in one word. Until recent years there has been no official method of transliterating Thai into Romanized form and many different versions of the name can be found.

Here is a collection of 120 different spellings from various books, letters, personal communications, and maps.

Ralph Fitch, the Englishman who visited Chiang Mai in 1587 (four hundred years ago) spelt the town Iamahey. In 1615 The East India Company favored Jangoma, while the early Portuguese used Chiangmai. The French called the place Xieng Mai, though the Dutch preferred Ischeen May and Tsieengh Maeij.

King Mongkut (r. 1851-1872), who wrote English well, seemed a bit uncertain in his own mind as to how he should spell the name of this town. He used the styles of Chiang May and Chiang-may as well as Zam-may.

1861 Ca-nah-ma; 1863 Changmai; 1828 Chang Mai; 1822 Chang-mai; 1865 Changmai; 1868 Cheangmai; 1866 Cheang Mai; 1873 Chengmai; 1839 Chengmie; 1884 Cheung Mai; 1822 Che-ung Mai; 1828 Che-ung Mai; c1552 Chiamai; 1691 Chiamai; c1552 Chiamai; 1750 Chia Mai; 1572 Chiamay; c1544 Chiammay; 1950 Chiangmai; 1936 ChiangMai; 1967 Chiang Mai; c1857 Chiang-mai; 1859 Chiang May; 1859 Chiang-may; 1803 Chiengma.

1890 Chienghmi; c1870 Chieng Mai; 1932 Chiengmai; 1910 Chieng-Mai; 1906 Chieng-mai; 1980 Chieng-mai; 1971 Chieng May; 1380 Chimai; 1883 Chiungmai; 1858 Chung Mai; 1937 C'ieng Mai; c1587 Iamahey; c1587 Iamayhey; c1647 Ischeen Mey; 1647 Ischeen Mey; c1615 Jagama; 1615 Jagoma; 1615 Jagomai; 1615 Jagoman; 1588 Jamahay; 1588 Jamahey; 1861 Ja-mah-ma; 1614 Jangama; c1615 Jangamay; 1640 Jangema.

1612 Jangemay; 1615 Janggamay; 1822 Jang-mai; 1615 Jangnna; 1836 Jangoma; 1553 Jangoma; c1545 Jangomaa; 1615 Jangomai; c1615 Jangoman; 1615 Jangomay; 1599 Jangomi; 1636 Jangonia; c1615 Janguma; c1544 Jangumaa; ? Jienghmai; 1636 Jiengmai; 1636 Jongoma; 1614 Kiangmai; 1860 Kiang Mai; 1615 Kiang-mai 1373 Lanna Xieng May; c1930 Sandabul; 1855 Saymmay; 1908 Schiengmai; 1791 Shiamai; c1800 Shiamai; 1752 Shia mai; 1794 Shiamay; 1794 Shia may; 1855 Shiangmai; 1918 Siang Mai; 1588 Tamahey; ? Tiongh May; ? Tjiang Mai; ? Tschieng Mai

1885 Tsching Mai; ? Tsching-mai; 1640 Tsieeengh Maeij; 1640 Tsieeng May; 1890 Tyima; 1611 Xamoi; 1611 Xhamoi; 1615 Xiengmai; c1850 Xieng Mai; 1856 Xieng mai; c1850 Xieng-mai; 1956 Xieng-mai; 1856 Xieng-mai; 1860 Xieng Me; 1860 Xiengmie; c1854 Xieng-mie, 1791 Yangoma; 1831 Zamee; 1859 Zam-may; c1614 Zangnomang; c1615 Zangomay; c1614 Zangomaye; 1801 Zemee; 1839 Zemmai; 1795 Zemme; 1822 Zimai; 1826 Zimay; 1839 Zimmay; 1871 Zimme; 1885 Zimme; c1885 Zimme; c1885 Zimmei; 1834 Zimmy; c1885 Zinme

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

Most informative Snow. Thank you for that contribution.

[Johpa]

Is the name of this beautiful northern Thai city "Chiangmai" or "Chiang Mai" ?

Subsequently, is it "Chiangrai" or "Chiang Rai" ?

Chiang Mai, Chiangmai same same.

Chiang Rai is more properly pronounced Chiang Hai by locals. : )

[sabaijai]

Chiang Rai is more properly pronounced Chiang Hai by locals. : )

Jiang Hai even more local, since the chaw chaang goes to jaw jaan in kham meuang ...

or Siang Hai if from neighbouring Nan ...

[Richard W]

or Siang Hai if from neighbouring Nan ... 

Is that a Shan-style collapse, i.e. PT *c (> Thai จ), *ch (> Thai ฉ), *j (> Thai ช) > /s/ or Lao-style collapse (PT *ch, *j > /s/, but *c remains.)? I'd assumed the Lao collapse progressed *j (ช) > /ch/ (as with other voiced stops in Lao and Central Thai) > /s/. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Shan-style collapse seems to occur in parts of Chiangmai amongst people who reckon they speak Phasa Mueang.

[Johpa]

or Siang Hai if from neighbouring Nan ... 

Is that a Shan-style collapse, i.e. PT *c (> Thai จ), *ch (> Thai ฉ), *j (> Thai ช) > /s/ or Lao-style collapse (PT *ch, *j > /s/, but *c remains.)? I'd assumed the Lao collapse progressed *j (ช) > /ch/ (as with other voiced stops in Lao and Central Thai) > /s/. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Shan-style collapse seems to occur in parts of Chiangmai amongst people who reckon they speak Phasa Mueang.

Well that is getting way too technical for this cowboy, but I have heard countless variations of the initial consonant in "Chiang" ranging from the /ch/ to the /j/ to the sibilant /s/. My Shan acquaintances, my Lao friends, and for some reason my Mong neighbors, tend to use the /s/ sound. The Khon Muang, with their countless sub-dialects, not even including major dialects/languages like Yong, seem to vary between /ch/ and /j/ and often something inbetween although I am sure a phonetician would make a case one way or another.

What I have found amazing over the years in the amount of interest rural Thai people have over the minor differences in pronounciation between even small regions down to the tambon level. They will sit around eating and drinking and entertaining each other with these small linguistic differences.

My wife's village area was originally a K'mu speaking region. Only the elderly still speak K'mu although most men still cuss and use slang amongst each other using K'mu words learned from their fathers. The old folks, few left now, clearly speak Kham Muang with an accent and I have been told that even younger folks speak amongst each other with a slight accent although I do not hear it. When Bangkok folks come to Chiang Mai to the city they seem to understand the Kham Muang spoken there, but when they visit the more isolated rural areas they often need a translator.

[sabaijai]

or Siang Hai if from neighbouring Nan ... 

Is that a Shan-style collapse, i.e. PT *c (> Thai จ), *ch (> Thai ฉ), *j (> Thai ช) > /s/ or Lao-style collapse (PT *ch, *j > /s/, but *c remains.)? I'd assumed the Lao collapse progressed *j (ช) > /ch/ (as with other voiced stops in Lao and Central Thai) > /s/. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Shan-style collapse seems to occur in parts of Chiangmai amongst people who reckon they speak Phasa Mueang.

I don't really understand the mechanics behind it, but any meuang dictionary, say from CMU, not to mention all the pseudo-meuang signs plastered all over the city, transcribe the /ch/ --> /j/ change. And you can certainly hear it. I was a guest on a local radio program last week where all that was spoken was kham meuang (except for me, I can understand the dialect but not speak it very well, so I spoke klaang) and every time they said the name of the city it came out jiang mai.

The ch --> s I've heard myself in Nan and of course farther east in Isan, and yes it seems to follow the same rule as the ch --> s in Lao.

Not to get into the way the Burmese still pronounce the name, Zin Me ... or the Thai Khun ...

[Richard W]

Thai Great Consonant Shift

The mechanics of the Thai great consonant shift are simple enough. Temporarily ignoring ด and บ, the contrast of e.g. ก v. ข v. ค initially represented what was or had recently been the same contrast /k/ v. /kh/ v. /g/ as in the Indian languages. The combinations such as หง do seem to have come to represent simply a voiceless nasal, as seems to have happened in the history of English with the combinations hl-, hr- and hn-. (In English, hw-, now spelt wh-, has resisted the process with varying degrees of success.)

The key change in the Thai great consonant shift was that the contrast between voiceless and voiced consonants was lost. What was left was intonation differences and a 'breathy' quality to the vowels following what were initially voiced consonants. The technical term for this is 'register'. Voiceless resonants became voiced, and voiced stops and fricatives became voiceless. In one geographical grouping of dialects, including Central Thai and Lao, but not Northern Thai, the breathiness following stops was interpreted as aspiration. Finally, breathiness not so interpreted was lost. We thus get the divergent developments /g/ > /kh/ in Central Thai and Lao, but /g/ > /k/ in Northern Thai.

This also had it effect on the distribution tones. Where a formerly voiced consonant was now differentiated from a formerly voiceless consonant only by the tone and breathiness effects, we have a contrast between low and high consonants.

The ancestor of the sounds represented by ด and บ seem to have been 'pre-glottalised', probably sometimes realised as implosives. These sounds were not associated in high-low pairs, and the pre-glottalised stops / implosives were free to adopt voicing as their distinctive feature. These and similar sounds (full set is บ ด อ อย) became 'middle consonants'. The tones on words beginning with these consonants could develop with the high set, the low set, or even go their own way.

In Central Thai, initial /k/, /c/, /t/, /p/ (written ก จ ต ป) were not involved in the contrast, and they too are middle consonants. In Northern Thai, there was a new set of /k/, /c/, /t/, /p/, still written ค ช ท พ in the Lanna script, so the old ก จ ต ป are not middle consonants in Northern Thai (or indeed in the Tai dialects North of Thailand), but high consonants.

One might expect the old /kh/, /ch/, /th/ and /ph/ (written ข ฉ ถ ผ) to become 'mid' consonants. However, they seem to have been too connected to the fricatives, which contrasted the old voiceless set /x/, /s/, /f/ (written ฃ ส ฝ - high consonants) with the former voiced set (written ฅ ซ ฟ - low consonants). I am not certain that /x/ existed in Northern Thai before the great consonant shift, but it exists in White Tai and at least some dialects of Tai Lue. Based on one reluctant informant, /γ/ (<ฅ>) certainly existed. The modern reflex in that speaker's dialect is neither /k/ nor /kh/, but some variety of [h].

The Thai great consonant shift was not restricted to Tai languages. It embraced Khmer and Mon as well, and the same or a very similar shift even seems to have affected Chinese.

I don't know how much of a simplification my description is. There may easily be complications as there are in, say, the differences between Low and High German, which are themselves not as massively different as one might think. In a six-tone system, the difference between the Northern /g/ > /k/ and Central /g/ > /kh/ could amount to whether or not to aspirate stops in certain tones. Aspiration of stops is reported to be used as a social register in some Northern comunities, but whether the rule they use is as simple as I suggest I do not know.

Application to Nan Dialect

Given that the Northern pronunciation of Chiangmai never had /ch/, but instead the initial consonat developed /j/ > /c/, you can see my surprise that the initial consonant should be /s/ in the Nan dialect. In Lao, we should have had the change /j/ > /ch/ as in Central Thai, and then /ch/, whether from original /ch/ <ฉ> or from original /j/ <ช>. has become /s/. Indeed, Lao does not have a /ซ/ distinct from /ช/. On the other hand, /c/ <จ> remains intact.

I forogt to mention that the Shan change keeps the /s/ etymologically corresponding to Thai จ ฉ ช distinct from the /sh/ corresponding to Thai ส ซ.

Thai Scripts

You may have noted that I am not a great fan of the Unicode policy of treating the various Thai scripts derived from the Sukhothai script as separate alphabets. (A starting point would be to note that one can fairly happily write Sanskrit in the Thai alphabet, so why all the fuss?) Thus I have no qualms about equating corresponding Thai and Lanna letters.

[chanchao]

I'd spell it loose, not together. That Thais write it together doesn't mean much; they also spell phranakhornsriayudthaya together.

In English when you spell stuff together it suggests a single word/thing. As 'Chiang' can obviously used with other names as well and appears in the dictionary by itself, I'd go with a space in between. (Same for Chiang Rai, Chiang Khong, Chiang Kham, Chiang Saen and a bunch of others.)

I also spell New York and not Newyork.

Cheers,

Chanchao

[chanchao]

> I disagree that Chiengmai is a beautiful city anymore...I think

> the city is 'interesting', 'historic', etc., but not 'beautiful', overall,

> with the pollution, billboards, ugly new construction, traffic, etc.

By Thailand standards it's a beautiful city. I sometimes drive along the moat with the water, greenery, old walls, fountains, flowers, trees, temples and so on and do actually think it's a beautiful city. Like, compared with Had Yai or Khon Kaen or Khorat or whatever. :-)

Cheers,

Chanchao

[Alphonsyus A Skrunge-Worzle]

Can't help but agree with Chanchao. Chiang Mai, two words, has always seemed to be more appropriate to me.

Must say my mind has been totally blown by other parts of this thread.

[Aranya]

This is a very informative post! May I suggest that Chiangmai is written in one word instead of two because in Thai, most words in a sentence are attached?

[sabaijai]

I'd spell it loose, not together.  That Thais write it together doesn't mean much; they also spell phranakhornsriayudthaya together.

In English when you spell stuff together it suggests a single word/thing.  As 'Chiang' can obviously used with other names as well and appears in the dictionary by itself, I'd go with a space in between.  (Same for Chiang Rai, Chiang Khong, Chiang Kham, Chiang Saen and a bunch of others.)

I also spell New York and not Newyork. 

Cheers,

Chanchao

The Royal Thai General Transcription system has a logical rule on when place names are to be written in separate Romanised chunks. If the name can be divided into separate words (words that are in general usage on their own, rather than as prefixes/suffixes, etc) then they're Romanised that way, just as in English.

Thus Chiang Mai rather than Chiangmai; Nong Khai rather than Nongkhai, etc.

Not that Thai officialdom is terribly consistent in following this rule, but for most city names the standard is to separate words.

One occasionally sees road signs or printed literature separating syllables that shouldn't be separated according to the RTGT, such as Buri Ram rather than Buriram.

Edited June 27, 2004 by sabaijai

[chanchao]

Right.. :-) I sometimes see signs indicating Lam Phun and Lam Pang.

But erm.. why not Buri Ram separated? Surely Buri and Ram could be seen as separate? I know they don't separate with Kanchanaburi, Suphanburi and a truckload of otherburi's, but still..

Cheers,

Chanchao

[Richard W]

Right.. :-) I sometimes see signs indicating Lam Phun and Lam Pang.

But erm.. why not Buri Ram separated? Surely Buri and Ram could be seen as separate? I know they don't separate with Kanchanaburi, Suphanburi and a truckload of otherburi's, but still..

Cheers,

Chanchao

Kanchanaburi is a single word:

1) There's a town of that name in Sanskrit literature

2) It's spelt กาญจนบุรี, not กาญจนาบุรี (13 hits as opposed to 57,500 for the first form), so it can't be split as กาญจน(า) + บุรี.

For the other gold town, Suphanburi, the only argument is that suphan 'gold' + buri 'town' is the wrong way round for Thai. The linking -a- must have been dropped at some time.

I agree with Chanchao, though, for Buriram (10-1 in favour on the Internet) looks like two words stuck together according to the rules of Thai noun phrases.

New York is no precedent. England has plenty of places such as Newhaven, Newport and Newtown. New + <old place name> seems to be a different pattern, so the two villages called 'New York' are little evidence. French names such as Neufchâteau (= English Newcastle) back up the pattern.

[sabaijai]

I agree with Chanchao, though, for Buriram (10-1 in favour on the Internet) looks like two words stuck together according to the rules of Thai noun phrases.

As far as the Internet goes, Chiangmai is also more common than Chiang Mai.

Yes บุรี comes from the Sanskrit puri but I've never heard it used as a discrete word in Thai, only as a suffix or prefix. Thus it seems to me it follows the same rule for not separating Thon Buri, etc. If you write 'Thonburi' than you have to write 'Buriram', no? I see no difference.

Also somewhere I've seen an RTGT 'official' list of province names and I think 'Buriram' was on the list. Could be misremembering though.

But Buri Ram or Buriram, however you prefer to spell it is fine by me.

By the way, a lot of folks in Buriram refer to their city as Ramburi in everyday conversation ...

[Richard W]

Yes บุรี comes from the Sanskrit puri but I've never heard it used as a discrete word in Thai, only as a suffix or prefix. Thus it seems to me it follows the same rule for not separating Thon Buri, etc. If you write 'Thonburi' than you have to write 'Buriram', no? I see no difference.

Is 'Chiang' an independent word?

The difference between Ramburi and Buri Ram is like the difference between Sawankhalok and Nakhon Sawan. The analogy is not perfect.

I've found a problem with cross-language comparisons. Newcastle Emlyn (in Carmarthenshire, Wales) is Castell Newydd Emlyn in Welsh. Welsh offers a better parallel, though. Aber means 'mouth of a river', and is an independent word (e.g it has a plural, ebyr if my memory serves me right.) However, in place names it forms a single word, such as Abergwaun, Aberystwyth. Flipping the order of elements can make a difference between one word or two. Welsh has the same word order in noun phrases as Thai - noun + adjective, noun + genitive, so as a once off phrase, 'river horse' would be march afon. Flip them round and you get one word, afonfarch 'hippopotamos'. (The change of 'm' to 'f' is cognate with the insertion of -a- in P/S compounds in Thai and -o- in Greek compounds in English.)

[sabaijai]

Yes บุรี comes from the Sanskrit puri but I've never heard it used as a discrete word in Thai, only as a suffix or prefix. Thus it seems to me it follows the same rule for not separating Thon Buri, etc. If you write 'Thonburi' than you have to write 'Buriram', no? I see no difference.

Is 'Chiang' an independent word?

The difference between Ramburi and Buri Ram is like the difference between Sawankhalok and Nakhon Sawan. The analogy is not perfect.

I've found a problem with cross-language comparisons. Newcastle Emlyn (in Carmarthenshire, Wales) is Castell Newydd Emlyn in Welsh. Welsh offers a better parallel, though. Aber means 'mouth of a river', and is an independent word (e.g it has a plural, ebyr if my memory serves me right.) However, in place names it forms a single word, such as Abergwaun, Aberystwyth. Flipping the order of elements can make a difference between one word or two. Welsh has the same word order in noun phrases as Thai - noun + adjective, noun + genitive, so as a once off phrase, 'river horse' would be march afon. Flip them round and you get one word, afonfarch 'hippopotamos'. (The change of 'm' to 'f' is cognate with the insertion of -a- in P/S compounds in Thai and -o- in Greek compounds in English.)

I have a problem with cross-language comparisons too, and thus don't find Welsh relevant in this case.

The difference between Ramburi and Buri Ram is like the difference between Sawankhalok and Nakhon Sawan.

'Khalok' isn't a separate word, just the tail end of the name, ie, '-galoka'.

Chiang is a discrete word in Thai.

So what's your argument for Buri Ram vs Buriram? I don't see it.

Edited June 28, 2004 by sabaijai

[Richard W]

The difference between Ramburi and Buri Ram is like the difference between Sawankhalok and Nakhon Sawan.

'Khalok' isn't a separate word, just the tail end of the name, ie, '-galoka'.

Sawankhalok (สวรรคโลก) = svarga-loka is literally 'heaven world', following the Sanskrit (and English) pattern of possessor + possessum or adjective + noun. This is very much composed as a single Sanskrit word (a tatpurusha compound, to be technical), which is why the ค is sounded. Nakhon Sawan (นครสวรรค์) = nagara + svarga is literally 'city of heaven' and follows the Thai (and Welsh) pattern of possessum + possessor or noun + adjective. Furthermore, both nakhon and sawan are common independent words. (I couldn't find chiang in my Thai-English dictionaries, and according to the RID it's principally an element of placenames.)

So what's your argument for Buri Ram vs Buriram? I don't see it

If we assemble ram 'beautiful' (of Sanskrit origin) and buri 'town', we either have the Sanskrit one-word pattern Ramburi or the potentially two-word Thai pattern Buri Ram.

If we follow the Sanskrit pattern strictly, we ought to have *Ramaburi. However, there are a lot of examples where place names in -buri dispense with the the link vowel -a-, e.g. Lopburi (13th Century Khmer Lavodayapuri), Suphanburi (13th Century Khmer svar.napura) and Sukhothai inscriptions show phechrapuri and phachrapuri cf. modern Petburi, though two of the Sukhothai inscriptions explicitly refer to Kamphaeng Phet.

[sabaijai]

Sawankhalok (สวรรคโลก) = svarga-loka is literally 'heaven world', following the Sanskrit (and English) pattern of possessor + possessum or adjective + noun. This is very much composed as a single Sanskrit word (a tatpurusha compound, to be technical), which is why the ค is sounded. Nakhon Sawan (นครสวรรค์) = nagara + svarga is literally 'city of heaven' and follows the Thai (and Welsh) pattern of possessum + possessor or noun + adjective. Furthermore, both nakhon and sawan are common independent words. (I couldn't find chiang in my Thai-English dictionaries, and according to the RID it's principally an element of placenames.)

Yes I realise it comes from separate words in Sanskrit but in this case it's a compound, whether in Skrt or in Thai. So that's why you don't split them up, it has nothing to do with linking vowels.

McFarland has a detailed entry on chiang as a separate word, p302. McFarlandHe says the word is of Lao origin.

Ratchabandit likewise has an entry, p372, defining it as the word for city from the 'Phayap' region northwards.

Edited June 29, 2004 by sabaijai

[eyespan]

Boy...... STROLL, if you are reading this, I thought your sign was dizzying enough, WARNING, overload.

[Richard W]

Sawankhalok (สวรรคโลก) = svarga-loka is literally 'heaven world', following the Sanskrit (and English) pattern of possessor + possessum or adjective + noun. This is very much composed as a single Sanskrit word (a tatpurusha compound, to be technical), which is why the ค is sounded. Nakhon Sawan (นครสวรรค์) = nagara + svarga is literally 'city of heaven' and follows the Thai (and Welsh) pattern of possessum + possessor or noun + adjective. Furthermore, both nakhon and sawan are common independent words. (I couldn't find chiang in my Thai-English dictionaries, and according to the RID it's principally an element of placenames.)

Yes I realise it comes from separate words in Sanskrit but in this case it's a compound, whether in Skrt or in Thai. So that's why you don't split them up, it has nothing to do with linking vowels.

McFarland has a detailed entry on chiang as a separate word, p302. McFarlandHe says the word is of Lao origin.

Ratchabandit likewise has an entry, p372, defining it as the word for city from the 'Phayap' region northwards.

Are we agreed that Sawankhalok is definitely one word?

With Nakhon Sawan and Chiangmai it is more difficult to determine whether they are one word or two. When the names were new, they will have been two words. Agreed?

The original name of Chiangmai was, according to M.L. Manich Jumsai, 'Nopburi Sri Nakawn Ping Chiengmai', and a poetic name was 'Pingkanakawn'. (I can only guess how the latter was spelt.) The 'Chiengmai' part feels like an explanation of 'Nopburi'. (Has anyone tried to claim it means 'nine cities'?)

Could Nakhon Sawan be a Sanskrit compound? The words seem to be in the wrong order. However, I'm no expert in Sanskrit.

It may be difficult to determine when such a phrase has become a single word. As a recent English example, does one use a 'test bed' or a 'testbed'? In English, the differences of sandhi can be used to make a judgement - 'test' is reduced to 'tes' more often in 'testbed'.

Even this test may not be reliable. Is พรุ่งนี้ 'tomorrow' (assimilated from พรุ่กนี้ (spelling?) and probably shortened from *พรูกนี้ ) one word or two? The existence of synonymous พรุ่ง in isolation suggest two words (but be wary of applying that test to English _tomorrow_!).

[Richard W]

McFarland has a detailed entry on chiang as a separate word, p302. McFarlandHe says the word is of Lao origin.

Ratchabandit likewise has an entry, p372, defining it as the word for city from the 'Phayap' region northwards.

One could therefore argue that chiang is not a word in common usage, but a dialect word! On that basis, by the RTGT, Chiangmai would be correct for transcribing Siamese!

Notes for the mind-blown:

1. Linguists use the term 'Siamese' to mean Standard Thai, and to exclude Northern Thai, Isaan and Southern Thai.

2. I'm also responding to the suggestion that Thailand be renamed Siam. I've recently read a paper, Cambodia and its Neighbours in the 15th Century which suggest that Siam didn't become securely Thai (as opposed to a mix of Mon, Khmer and Thai) until the Burmese installed Maha Dhammarat on the fal of Ayuthaya c. 1569. If anyone wants to discuss that, I'd recommend starting a new thread, and reading the forum rules.

[sabaijai]

Could Nakhon Sawan be a Sanskrit compound? The words seem to be in the wrong order. However, I'm no expert in Sanskrit.

It may be difficult to determine when such a phrase has become a single word. As a recent English example, does one use a 'test bed' or a 'testbed'? In English, the differences of sandhi can be used to make a judgement - 'test' is reduced to 'tes' more often in 'testbed'.

Agreed. There are definitely grey areas, and I suppose Buriram is a good example of such. In the case of Chiang Mai, it still does not strike me as a compound word but rather as two separate words, so I'll continue to write it that way. Obviously in Thai you don't have to worry about the distinction.

Buriram, to me, is no different from Ramburi since -buri/buri- has never existed on its own in Thai, so I see it as a compound. 'Chiang' appears to have existed as a word on its own, perhaps interchangeably with vieng/wiang, regardless of its origins (and I think McFarland may be wrong that it comes from Lao) .

As we see from public signs and from Web searches, no one spells any of these names in any 100% consistent way. When even philologists like ourselves can't agree on a 'correct' way to do it, then obviously it will always be problematic.

2. I'm also responding to the suggestion that Thailand be renamed Siam. I've recently read a paper, Cambodia and its Neighbours in the 15th Century which suggest that Siam didn't become securely Thai (as opposed to a mix of Mon, Khmer and Thai) until the Burmese installed Maha Dhammarat on the fal of Ayuthaya c. 1569. If anyone wants to discuss that, I'd recommend starting a new thread, and reading the forum rules.

Where to start the thread? This is an interesting topic, esp since few Thais at the moment are questioning the underlying assumption that 'Siam' isn't itself an ethnically linked term.

Edited July 4, 2004 by sabaijai

[meadish_sweetball]

I would choose "Chiang Mai", because even though "chiang" is not central Thai for "city", it comes from a Tai dialect. Most Central Thais would be able to identify its meaning as "meuang" and thus, it should be treated differently than words of Khmer or Indic origin.

If the Khon Meuang of the city were to name it by their standards, I think they'd choose "Wiang Mai".