Spelling Of My Baby's Name In Thai.

[soundman]

Hi all,

Just something for the serious students of Thai Language to ponder.

My wife & I just had a second child. We decided to call him Arkira. Not a common Thai name nor one listed in any of the Thai naming books we bought.

When trying to work out how to spell it in Thai, we have been informed it should be spelt like this. อคิราภ์ I'm assuming this is correct but why would there be "por sumpao garun" tacked onto the end?

Any input on this would be greatly appreciated because I'm just sitting there scratching my head.

Thanx,

Soundman.

[BambinA]

When trying to work out how to spell it in Thai, we have been informed it should be spelt like this. อคิราภ์ I'm assuming this is correct but why would there be "por sumpao garun" tacked onto the end?

Because อคิราภ์ is a TH word which it has a meaning. (อคิรา without "por sumpao garun" has no meaning in TH)

อคิราภ์ = Sun , Sunlight

[withnail]

Whilst I don't have an exact answer the simple answer is this: It is most probably due to the etymology i.e. origins of the word. Most polysyllabic words in Thai come from the classic Indian languages and therefore spelling in Thai often reflects this more than it does their correct pronunciation.

Much like with Thai loan words that come from the English language such as สปอร์ต (sport) where the roh rua garan does not reflect the pronunciation but rather the original English word.

[mangkorn]

It seems the inimitable BambinA has nailed it here. Or, in the event that the person who gave you the spelling in the first place was unaware of the word that she cites, that person would have thought it to be some other word of foreign origin, and thus the "garun" (as withnail suggests).

But I'd bet on her version, because it explains the inclusion of the "por sumpao" in the first place. Your transliteration doesn't seem to suggest any reason for that letter; it would be interesting to know whence you came up with the name? Did you choose it knowing it was a Thai word for sunlight, or did you get it from elsewhere?

[withnail]

What Bambina, as a native speaker, is saying is that the word without the final 2 characters is not recognisable to a Thai person. She is of course right but I don't think it explains the reason to the OP. I am unaware of the exact etymology of the word but I think my explanation at least outlines why any word may have unusual spelling.

This brings up an interesting point. When learning a language there is a difference between what we would like to know and what we need to know. Bambina has basically said I don't know why that is why it is but I know that it's correct. Someone with an interest in etymology (cue Rikker) might be able to give an answer but who of the two is the better Thai speaker.

In my job I have to watch a number of English language teachers, many of whom are new to teaching and they are often presented question to which they don't know the answers. Some they should really be able to answer but others are often questions like this where the student doesn't really need to know.

For example if someone says why is food spelt with an f whereas phone is spelt with the letters ph what is the answer and why does it matter? I can look in a dictionary now and tell you that food is from Old English foda, of Germanic origin; related to fodder and phone is C19: from Greek phone 'sound, voice. However, in the 5 minutes I would have spent explaining this the student could have been learning or practising something far more useful. There are times when these explanations can really help cement the understanding of particular words but often it is not necessary.

I hold my hat up to the likes of Rikker who have a deep interest in languages and their origins but for the likes of me with a memory like a drunk goldfish the explanation that etymology affects spelling is sufficient enough.

Edited July 27, 2007 by withnail

[soundman]

Thanx for the replies guys!

To BambinA - Thanks for the answer - that is exactly what my wife said! It would be exactly the same way I would answer if you had asked me why "enough" is spelled like this and not "enuff". Couldn't even begin to explain why.

To mangkorn - We chose the word knowing it means "sunlight" however you would be surprised how few Thai's actually have heard it, can pronounce it - or even understand the meaning, let alone spell it! It was actually a retired university lecturer who gave us the correct spelling!

Withnail - Thanx for taking the time to present the position that the spelling of the word has more to do with its origins rather than its current pronunciation. I really should have learn't that lesson allready with the number of everyday words in Thai you come accross falling in similar categories. Everytime you learn one, a different example pops up & makes you scratch your head.

Cheers guys,

Soundman.

[BambinA]

I treid to search the words as Sun,Sunlight,A ray of the sun and Sun beam from Dictionaries

อคิราภ์ may come from these words.

1)Sunskrit-English

http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/

agira m. , the sun L. , fire L. ; a Ra1kshasa L.

Arki m. a son or descendant of Arka or the sun ; N. of the planet Saturn

arcis n. ray of light , flame , light ,

paTara m. or n. a ray (of sunlight)

2)Pali -English

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/dict-pe/dictpe-01-a.htm

acirappabhā : [f.] lightning

and withnail esplain the reason for me

Whilst I don't have an exact answer the simple answer is this: It is most probably due to the etymology i.e. origins of the word. Most polysyllabic words in Thai come from the classic Indian languages and therefore spelling in Thai often reflects this more than it does their correct pronunciation.

[BambinA]

Or it may come from

Sanskrit + Bali

as Arki /Agira + ābhā / pabhā

= sun + light

Eng-Pali sourece

http://www.dicts.info/dictionary.php?k1=1&k2=442

light = ābhā - (f.)

light = pabhā - (v.t.)

light = pabhāseti - (v.t.)

light = pabhāsita - (v.t.)

light = padippati - (v.t.)

light = paditta - (v.t.)

light = padīpeti - (v.t.)

light = padīpita - (v.t

[mangkorn]

Both BambinA and withnail seem to explain it pretty fully (from different directions). Words that derive from Sanskrit very often have the "garun" - same as words adopted from English or other languages - because Thais have chosen to transliterate those words by putting Thai letters to correspond to all the original letters in the other language, even when they are silent letters.

I have always thought that it would be far better to transliterate phonetically, but that's not the way Thais do it. Hence, when they transliterate from Thai into the Roman alphabet, you get all those maddeningly incorrect examples like "Suvarnabhumi," etc. (Too bad there isn't a Roman equivalent of the "garun" - that final "i" in the airport name is just crying out for one...)

Cheers.

[mangkorn]

withnail: and how would you satisfy a student who wonders why the participle of "to spell" is sometimes written as "spelt," and other times written as "spelled?" What justifies that?

Good grief, but English is the most-confusing language in the world to learn, bar none...

Cheers.

[Richard W]

Both BambinA and withnail seem to explain it pretty fully (from different directions). Words that derive from Sanskrit very often have the "garun" - same as words adopted from English or other languages - because Thais have chosen to transliterate those words by putting Thai letters to correspond to all the original letters in the other language, even when they are silent letters.

But there's usually a reason for letters being silent - generaly that they don't fit Thai phonology. That does not explain the pho samphao being silent rather than /p/.

withnail: and how would you satisfy a student who wonders why the participle of "to spell" is sometimes written as "spelt," and other times written as "spelled?" What justifies that?

These two past forms should be pronounced differently.

[gampaan]

Interesting... our daughter's name is Kira. My wife spells it, เคียร่า. I originally spelled it a bit differently, I think with a short vowel ( i can't even remember how now after 3 yrs.). Neither of us are writing experts, certainly not me, but I thought my wife would get closer than I did. Just wondering what BambinA or withnail thought about that.

BTW she spells her name , Rose, รโส And my name, Dave, เดฟ

Just wondering.....

dave

[withnail]

Both BambinA and withnail seem to explain it pretty fully (from different directions). Words that derive from Sanskrit very often have the "garun" - same as words adopted from English or other languages - because Thais have chosen to transliterate those words by putting Thai letters to correspond to all the original letters in the other language, even when they are silent letters.

But there's usually a reason for letters being silent - generaly that they don't fit Thai phonology. That does not explain the pho samphao being silent rather than /p/.

withnail: and how would you satisfy a student who wonders why the participle of "to spell" is sometimes written as "spelt," and other times written as "spelled?" What justifies that?

These two past forms should be pronounced differently.

With regards to Thai phonology I presume what you mean is that the garan is there to prevent the word from being pronounced akiraap with a falling tone on the final syllable. This is of course correct but the reason for the phor samphao being there still stands I believe.

As for the past simple and past participle of spell (sorry for not answering that mangkorn) the reason is that us Brits pronounce and spell it with a t rather than an ed ending. Both forms are accepted and actually there is a trend in British English to spell (but not pronounce) it with the ed ending.

Edited August 1, 2007 by withnail

[soundman]

Interesting... our daughter's name is Kira. My wife spells it, เคียร่า. I originally spelled it a bit differently, I think with a short vowel ( i can't even remember how now after 3 yrs.). Neither of us are writing experts, certainly not me, but I thought my wife would get closer than I did. Just wondering what BambinA or withnail thought about that.

BTW she spells her name , Rose, รโส And my name, Dave, เดฟ

Just wondering.....

dave

I would have thought Kira, as we say it in English, would be spelled คิรา. As your wife has spelt it, from my understanding, that would be pronounced kiara as in tiarra.

cheers,

Soundman.

[mangkorn]

withnail: my query on the spelling of spelled/spelt was a rhetorical one. I do understand the distinction, but a beginning student of English gets absolutely flummoxed upon hearing: "well, actually, you can spell the same word in a few different ways..." That means there are no rules, or that the rules that may exist don't matter anyway. Yet, they are not synonyms; they are the same word! Maddening, surely. Something to think about whenever we get frustrated by parts of Thai language (which I do). Cheers.

[gampaan]

Interesting... our daughter's name is Kira. My wife spells it, เคียร่า. I originally spelled it a bit differently, I think with a short vowel ( i can't even remember how now after 3 yrs.). Neither of us are writing experts, certainly not me, but I thought my wife would get closer than I did. Just wondering what BambinA or withnail thought about that.

BTW she spells her name , Rose, รโส And my name, Dave, เดฟ

Just wondering.....

dave

I would have thought Kira, as we say it in English, would be spelled คิรา. As your wife has spelt it, from my understanding, that would be pronounced kiara as in tiarra.

cheers,

Soundman.

Soundman, I believe that is probably correct. With my wife's accent when saying Kira, at least before she got used to saying it, it DID sound more like Kiara than Kira. Perhaps that is what she meant...

thx...dave

[Richard W]

But there's usually a reason for letters being silent - generally that they don't fit Thai phonology. That does not explain the pho samphao being silent rather than /p/.

With regards to Thai phonology I presume what you mean is that the garan is there to prevent the word from being pronounced akiraap with a falling tone on the final syllable. This is of course correct but the reason for the phor samphao being there still stands I believe.

The purpose of the karan is to silence the pho samphao. But why should it be silent? The only suggestion I can make is that the name is a blend of อคิราภ and อคิรา.