Siam Not Thailand T-shirt

[Rikker]

Looking for the definition of "Siam" in www.sealang.net Khmer dictionary gives these results;

syaam

1. blue, sky blue. ETY; Sanskrit, syama 'black, dark blue.'

2. sky, cloud.

3. Siam, Thailand.

Does the etymology apply to all three entries, or just the first?

If it does apply to "Siam, Thailand", wouldn't Thai etymology follow the same route?

That isn't the common Khmer word for Siam, which is សៀម /siem/ (As in the province Siem Reap = สยายมราบ, or "Defeat of Siam"). My guess would be that the form ស្យាម /syaam/ is borrowed from the Thai form สยาม. The Sanskrit word in Thai is ศยาม. Its entry in RID says [สะหฺยาม] ว. ดํา, คลํ้า. (ส.).

This is the etymology still popularly believed in Thailand, that สยาม = ศยาม. It's my understanding that this (very probably false) etymology was popularized during the Phibunsongkhram government as a way of legitimizing the name change (which was made without public input). Associating it with the color black gives it a negative connotation, and thus it's easier to sell the change to the public after the fact.

David sent me an article last November by Michael Wright, in which he proposed this new theory:

เซียม/สยาม might come from สุวรรณ(ภูมิ), because:

a.) In Tamil, the vowels u and i are somewhat confused and sometimes interchangeable, due to a discrepancy between their written and spoken language. He sites a few examples: the English call them Tamil, but the French call them Tamoul; also, standard Tamil has a word /paruppu/ 'bean curry', known to the Tamil speakers of Southern India as /parippu/; standard Tamil has the word /aambil/ 'sour', which is called /aambul/ in the south. So the possibility for alternation between these two vowels exists in India.

b.) There are no diphthongs in either spoken or written Tamil, such as เรียม /riam/ or รวม /ruam/. They would instead by interpreted as two syllables, using /y/ or /w/, respectively: /riyam/ or /ruwam/. And /y/ and /w/ are also sometimes interchangeable in Tamil. His example is the name of a certain palace, which is composed of two words, /ko/ meaning เจ้า and /il/ meaning เรือน. When the two words are combined, in modern standard Tamil the name is pronounced /koyil/. But ancient and Tamil dialects tend to both write and pronounce it /kowil/. The phonetic reason being that in one case, the /i/ influences the preceding /o/, causing a sound /y/ to be inserted. In the other case, the opposite happens, and the /o/ influences the /i/, causing insertion of a /w/ sound. He also provides another example of this.

So that's how he proposes /suwan/ might have become /siyam/. If it happened this way, he goes on, it would like have been the result of oral transmission from different linguistic groups that came into contact, which explains the lack of inscriptional evidence, and it likely would have occurred before Angkor Wat was built in the 12th centure A.D. So when the name was transcribed at Angkor Wat as (the Khmer equivalent of) สฺยำ, the likely already did not know the origin of the name.

The other "leg" of evidence for his theory is from the Chinese chronicles. The basic thread is that Chinese Xian/Sian/Siam comes from characters pronounced at the time เจียมพวม, which he posits are a Chinese corruption of สุวรรณ ภูมิ.

This is just a rough summary/translation, but it's certainly an interesting theory that demonstrates from two separate language families/nations how the change could have occurred. I definitely don't know enough to comment with any authority, but it sounds linguistically plausible to me.

[myauq]

Looking for the definition of "Siam" in www.sealang.net Khmer dictionary gives these results;

syaam

1. blue, sky blue. ETY; Sanskrit, syama 'black, dark blue.'

2. sky, cloud.

3. Siam, Thailand.

Does the etymology apply to all three entries, or just the first?

If it does apply to "Siam, Thailand", wouldn't Thai etymology follow the same route?

That isn't the common Khmer word for Siam, which is សៀម /siem/ (As in the province Siem Reap = สยายมราบ, or "Defeat of Siam"). My guess would be that the form ស្យាម /syaam/ is borrowed from the Thai form สยาม. The Sanskrit word in Thai is ศยาม. Its entry in RID says [สะหฺยาม] ว. ดํา, คลํ้า. (ส.).

This is the etymology still popularly believed in Thailand, that สยาม = ศยาม. It's my understanding that this (very probably false) etymology was popularized during the Phibunsongkhram government as a way of legitimizing the name change (which was made without public input). Associating it with the color black gives it a negative connotation, and thus it's easier to sell the change to the public after the fact.

David sent me an article last November by Michael Wright, in which he proposed this new theory:

เซียม/สยาม might come from สุวรรณ(ภูมิ), because:

a.) In Tamil, the vowels u and i are somewhat confused and sometimes interchangeable, due to a discrepancy between their written and spoken language. He sites a few examples: the English call them Tamil, but the French call them Tamoul; also, standard Tamil has a word /paruppu/ 'bean curry', known to the Tamil speakers of Southern India as /parippu/; standard Tamil has the word /aambil/ 'sour', which is called /aambul/ in the south. So the possibility for alternation between these two vowels exists in India.

b.) There are no diphthongs in either spoken or written Tamil, such as เรียม /riam/ or รวม /ruam/. They would instead by interpreted as two syllables, using /y/ or /w/, respectively: /riyam/ or /ruwam/. And /y/ and /w/ are also sometimes interchangeable in Tamil. His example is the name of a certain palace, which is composed of two words, /ko/ meaning เจ้า and /il/ meaning เรือน. When the two words are combined, in modern standard Tamil the name is pronounced /koyil/. But ancient and Tamil dialects tend to both write and pronounce it /kowil/. The phonetic reason being that in one case, the /i/ influences the preceding /o/, causing a sound /y/ to be inserted. In the other case, the opposite happens, and the /o/ influences the /i/, causing insertion of a /w/ sound. He also provides another example of this.

So that's how he proposes /suwan/ might have become /siyam/. If it happened this way, he goes on, it would like have been the result of oral transmission from different linguistic groups that came into contact, which explains the lack of inscriptional evidence, and it likely would have occurred before Angkor Wat was built in the 12th centure A.D. So when the name was transcribed at Angkor Wat as (the Khmer equivalent of) สฺยำ, the likely already did not know the origin of the name.

The other "leg" of evidence for his theory is from the Chinese chronicles. The basic thread is that Chinese Xian/Sian/Siam comes from characters pronounced at the time เจียมพวม, which he posits are a Chinese corruption of สุวรรณ ภูมิ.

This is just a rough summary/translation, but it's certainly an interesting theory that demonstrates from two separate language families/nations how the change could have occurred. I definitely don't know enough to comment with any authority, but it sounds linguistically plausible to me.

interesting, but sorry i don't quite follow. could you sumarise in 3 sentences?

also, i'm not sure how/if the first theory is related to the second one.

[Rikker]

The two theories are only related in that they both purport to explain the same thing.

Super-brief synopsis:

The theory commonly believed by Thais is that สยาม "Siam" is from Sanskrit syama (Thai: ศยาม) meaning "black, dark-colored".

The (new) theory proposed by Wright is that Siam is a corruption of สุวรรณภูมิ, phonetically altered by Indians and passed along to the Chinese. If I understand his argument correctly.

[myauq]

The two theories are only related in that they both purport to explain the same thing.

Super-brief synopsis:

The theory commonly believed by Thais is that สยาม "Siam" is from Sanskrit syama (Thai: ศยาม) meaning "black, dark-colored".

The (new) theory proposed by Wright is that Siam is a corruption of สุวรรณภูมิ, phonetically altered by Indians and passed along to the Chinese. If I understand his argument correctly.

that's great. thanks. i didn't know that thai people had any idea where the name of their country came from, and so the theory is an exegesis of thai common sense? wow - that's daring!

the first theory and second theory do not support each other then.

i would say that although there are obvious indian and chinese historical influences in thailand, the chinese influence in the country's naming would be more plausible because the time that ayutthaya was emerging was a period when modern national identities were forming in the world for the first time. at that time ayutthaya was a major trading centre and transport hub. it's development was not possible without chinese merchants and migrants.

the other thing is that etymologies are usually fairly straight forward to explain, and 'obvious' given the way that meanings are transfered between and among ordinary speakers.

interesting - thai people don't even know the origin of the word 'siam', despite the fact that they still hate burmese people for the sacking of ayutthaya after having this 'selective' history forced down their throats for generations.

[sabaijai]

Mangkorn, the history of the name of Siam Commercial Bank is a bit more complicated than that.

The original name when it was started in 1906 as Thailand's first local commercial bank was บริษัท แบงค์สยามกัมมาจล ทุนจำกัด. Here, กัมมาจล is a "false" Indic word that simply mimics the rough sound of the English word "commercial".

The name was changed in 1939, during the Phibunsongkhram government, the same year that Siam became Thailand. Several organization using the name Siam, including the Siam Society, had name changes forced upon them during this time. Some of these organizations (such as the Siam Society) reverted after Phibunsongkhram was ousted (the first time). In the case of Siam Commercial Bank, only the English name reverted, in 1946.

The inventor of the new Thai name, ธนาคารไทยพาณิชย์, was Prince Wan Waithayakorn, who points out in an article I've read of his that when you actually interpret กัมมาจล, it means something negative (I'll have to check a book I have to confirm precisely what he says the meaning would be).

The name reverted to Siam in the 40s, then back to Thailand (after another Phibun coup) in 1949. Prince Wan Waithayakorn was a hypernationalist who became part of Phibun's push to make Siam more 'Thai', even though at the same time they strongly discouraged Thai traditional dress in favour of western dress, long hair for women instead of short, etc.

Interesting to make a comparison with 'Myanmar' vs 'Thailand' in that there are people who don't accept the use of 'Myanmar' since it was installed by a dictatorship, as was 'Thailand'.

I don't believe that most Thais are taught that Syam comes from the Sanskrit word for 'dark'. It was a Western scholar who put that notion forward, relatively recently.

Most of Thailand's neighbours during the Ayuthaya period, including the Khmer and the Chinese, referred to Thailand and its countrymen as Syan, Sien, Syem, etc. It seems to me that 'Syam' referred to the kingdom. 'Syam' is also related to the word 'Shan', says Jitr Phoumisak in his as-yet-unequalled treatise on language used to describe ethnicity in Thailand.

Etymologically the word ไท seems to have an earlier - perhaps original- meaning simply as 'people'.

[sabaijai]

secondly, according to Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's A History of Thailand, the name 'Siam' originates from the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, which is 'Xian'. when the Portugese came to trade in the nth[?] century, the name changed into the westernised word we know today as 'Siam'. This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Maybe this thread is as good a thread as any to compile the various theories of the word's origin. Perhaps David could post (or summarize) the relatively recent article by Michael Wright making the case for Siam being a corruption of สุวรรณภูมิ. He had some textual evidence, but I need to go back and re-read his precise argument. Myauq, could you post the relevant passage from Baker?

it's from a section in the book which explans the way that areas in the region were divided up and ruled according to mueangs (the theory of this governmenance is described as 'emboxment' as i recall).

baker and phongpaichit's interpretation of the etymology makes sense because the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, 'Xian', is phonetically much closer to the English 'Siam'; and, given the scale of the research in the book about other elements of Thailand's history, i find it much more credible:

Another federation formed among port towns on the lower reaches of the rivers in the Chaophraya basin, and around the upper coasts of the gulf, especially four places which had been founded or refounded under Khmer influence around the eleventh century: Phetchaburi, Suphanburi, Lopburi and Ayutthaya. After a struggle between the ruling families of these places, Ayutthaya emerged as a dominant centre in the late fourteenth century. The Chinese called this region Xian, which the Portuguese converted into Siam (pg 8, Baker & Phongpaichit).

This begs the question of where the Chinese got the name. They weren't in the habit of picking names out of thin air, but rather transcribed them in their own Chinese way. Just as 'Dvaravati' became To- lo-po-ti, and Tou-ho-louo-po-ti. So it's highly probable that 'Xian' was their transcription of an existing name.

[DavidHouston]

Someone sent me an article recently written by Pridi Panomyong some years ago which, inter alia, discusses the presumed origin of the name "Siam" as meaning "dark" and the foreign source for this notion:

" ปรีดี พนมยงค์

๑ บางคนอาศัยพจนานุกรมภาษาสันสกฤต – อังกฤษ ของเซอร์ โมเนียวร์วิลเลียม (พิมพ์ในศตวรรษที่ ๑๘) เป็นหลักในการค้นหามูล

ศัพท์ภาษาไทยนั้นพบว่า มีคำสันสกฤตคำหนึ่งเขียนเป็นอักษรลาตินตามเครื่องหมายออกเสียงสำหรับสันสกฤตว่า "SYAMA" ตรงกับอักษรวิธีไทย

"ศยามะ" แปลว่า "ดำ" "สีคล้ำ", "สีน้ำเงินแก่", "สีน้ำตาลแก่", ฯลฯ . . . "

The article may be found in full at http://www.pridiinstitute.com/autopage/sho...id=8&d_id=7