อมาตยาธิปไตย

[DavidHouston]

Dear Friends,

What is the meaning of this term " อมาตยาธิปไตย"? The term appears to refer to a form of government different from "democracy" in that it tends to minimize the role of directly elected representatives. The term also seems to be an amalgym of

อมาตย์[อะหฺมาด] น. อำมาตย์, ข้าราชการ, ข้าเฝ้า; ที่ปรึกษา.

(ส.; ป. อมจฺจ).

"noun. court official, civil servant, royal attendant, consultant" and the word for "to rule" or "sovereignty"

อธิปไตย[อะทิปะไต, อะทิบปะไต] น. อํานาจสูงสุดของรัฐที่จะใช้บังคับ

บัญชาภายในอาณาเขตของตน. (ป. อธิปเตยฺย ว่า ความเป็น

ใหญ่ยิ่ง). (อ. sovereignty)

. Does the full word, " อมาตยาธิปไตย" mean "rule by bureaucracy"? I have been unable to find the English equivalent in any of the dictionaries I have. The on-line RID contains other political forms of government in this series, along with their English equivalents as follows: ราชาธิปไตย - monarchy; อนาธิปไตย - anarchy; อัตตาธิปไตย - autocracy; อภิชนาธิปไตย - rule by the aristocracy.

The most recent use of this term " อมาตยาธิปไตย" has been in the PDA suggestion for a legislative body which is 70% appointed and 30% elected. Although heretofore unstated, the concept could be based on the Singaporean model of "benevolent despotism" or " a beneficial oligarchy". Perhaps, the notion is the "Chinese Model" - robust economic capitalism within the context of minimal democratic institutions. I would like to see how this is described in Thai, if any of you have seen this discussion.

Thanks.

Edited September 3, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Rikker]

It seems there are multiple forms of this word from the same root. The form I've seen is อำมาตยาธิปไตย, with the translation "bureaucratic polity". So yeah, rule by the bureaucracy.

I first ran across it in an article by historian ชาญวิทย์ เกษตรศิริ, who is behind the current movement to change Thailand's name back to Siam, who used the term in reference to Field Marshal P. Phibunsongkhram's government in the 30s-50s. He also used the term อำนาจนิยม "authoritarian(ism)", which was a new one to me.

Another one being bandied about that might come in handy: ธนาธิปไตย "plutocracy (rule by the wealthy)".

Edited September 3, 2008 by Rikker

[Rikker]

And by the way, you piqued my curiosity about the equivalent Thai term for "oligarchy" (rule by a few). I found คณาธิปไตย.

I have trouble remembering what all the different -archies are, since I don't know the Greek roots. The Thai actually makes it easier for me to remember the English!

[Rikker]

Did a little more digging. Seems the English term was coined with direct reference to Thailand, and the Thai term is coined from it.

I found an interesting aticle, "State, Bureaucracy and Polity in Modern Thai Politics" by James Ockey, in Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 34, 2004. I could only access an excerpt. Perhaps someone with Questia access, say on a college campus, could get the full article. Here's the excerpt:

The Thaksin Shinawatra government has recently implemented the most extensive reforms of the Thai bureaucracy since King Chulalongkorn sought to modernize it in the 19th century, an attempt to reform a bureaucracy it sees as unresponsive, inefficient, and unwieldy, as a barrier to democracy. Interestingly, the reforms come at a time when most scholars have declared the death of the "bureaucratic polity," and the victory of democracy and civil society (e.g. Prizzia (1985), Pisan and Guyot (n.d. [1986?]), Bidhya (1989), Anek (1992), Ockey (1992), Pasuk and Baker 1995, 1996; Yoshinori 2002). If the bureaucratic polity is indeed dead, why does the Thaksin government conceive of the bureaucracy as such a barrier to democracy? And why does the "bureaucratic polity" continue to haunt scholars of Thai studies, so that it must repeatedly be declared dead? To answer these questions, we begin by briefly outlining the influence of the "bureaucratic polity" model on scholars of Thai politics. I will argue that even in the way it is being abandoned, it continues to affect Thai studies. We then turn to contemporary Thai politics to sketch out the nature of the Thai state, the bureaucracy, the regime, and the polity. Finally, borrowing and adapting an existing model for examining the state, we look at the implications of recent changes in the bureaucracy and the polity for conceptualizing Thai politics.

The Misconstrued Bureaucratic Polity

The term "bureaucratic polity" was developed by Fred Riggs (1966) to describe his model for understanding the Thai political system as he found it in the 1960s. Where Riggs intended it as a model for analysis, the concept has since been misconstrued by most scholars as a description of reality, rather than an analytical model. Since our concern here is with the way the model has impacted on scholars of Thai Studies, we focus on aspects of the model that have been used, rather than the model as it was formulated. (1) The aspects of Riggs book that have impacted on the field of Thai studies include several core elements. Put briefly, he argued that the 1932 overthrow of the absolute monarchy had not been a popular uprising, but an uprising of the bureaucracy, for the bureaucracy. The nobility who had previously dominated cabinet positions were replaced by high-ranking bureaucrats. Bureaucratic norms came to control decision-making processes. Access to that process was entirely through personalistic ties to high-ranking bureaucrats in the cabinet and the ministries. To avoid persecution, "pariah entrepreneurs" were forced to develop such ties, and pay for them. Thus the rich, the bourgeoisie, were in a position of dependency on the bureaucratic elite. As for the people, Riggs argued that as long as the policies of the bureaucratic polity were moderate, the people would remain quiescent (1966:esp. 311-329).

These elements of Riggs' bureaucratic polity model were influential because taken together, they simplified Thai politics in an enticing but inaccurate way. The state, the ruling government, and the polity were all conflated into a single entity. A diverse state, both civilian and military components, was further represented as "the bureaucracy." Furthermore, due to the hierarchical nature of the bureaucracy, only a small group of people at the top was important. "The bureaucracy as a ruling group, therefore, constituted but a tiny fraction of the total population. At its core were a dozen or two, who, at any given...

[DavidHouston]

Thank you, Khun Rikker.

Using your references, and applying your language, I found this passage from ไทยรัฐ Thai Rath 13 ต.ค. 49 - 16:28 (13 October 2006)

ประเทศไทยกลับไปปกครองด้วยระบอบอมาตยาธิปไตย คือการปกครองโดยพรรคข้าราชการอีกครั้งหนึ่ง

Thailand has returned yet one more time to a system of governance called “bureaucratic polity”, that is, government through a faction of bureaucrats . . .

หลังจากที่ปกครองด้วยระบบการเลือกตั้ง โดยคณะนักธุรกิจการเมืองติดต่อกันมาหลายปี

. . . after being governed by a system of elected (officials). That is, a cabal of business men who are involved in politics have been colluding with each other for many years.

แต่มีเสียงวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ว่า เป็นการปกครองแบบธนาธิปไตย และมีการทุจริตคอรัปชันอย่าง กว้างขวาง

But there is considerable criticism that this is governance by plutocracy and that it is beset by widespread corruption . . .

ไร้การตรวจสอบและถ่วงดุลอำนาจ จึงต้องแก้ไขปัญหาด้วยการยึดอำนาจ

. . . without any checks and balances on its power. Therefore, (the people) need to solve this problem through a seizure of power.

Edited September 3, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Rikker]

David, thanks for the additional info. After doing this digging, I created a Thai Wikipedia entry for the term.

Another Wikipedia editor noted that อำมาตยาธิปไตย is "incorrect" because the form อำมาตย์ can't be used in a สนธิ compound. I don't know the specific rule for why that is, but I'll buy it. So it looks like อมาตยาธิปไตย is the proper form, and อำมาตยาธิปไตย is an alternate form. The "wrong" one actually gets more hits on Google, so perhaps it is the older form, and someone created อมาตยาธิปไตย to replace it, but it hasn't entirely caught on yet.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

David, thanks for the additional info. After doing this digging, I created a Thai Wikipedia entry for the term.

Another Wikipedia editor noted that อำมาตยาธิปไตย is "incorrect" because the form อำมาตย์ can't be used in a สนธิ compound. I don't know the specific rule for why that is, but I'll buy it. So it looks like อมาตยาธิปไตย is the proper form, and อำมาตยาธิปไตย is an alternate form. The "wrong" one actually gets more hits on Google, so perhaps it is the older form, and someone created อมาตยาธิปไตย to replace it, but it hasn't entirely caught on yet.

Rikker,

What is the correct pronunciation: อำ-มา-ตะ-ยา-ธิป-ปะ-ไตย or อำ-มาต-ตะ-ยา-ธิป-ปะ-ไตย ?

[Rikker]

I'd say the first one, but I think both are possible, based on analogy with other words.

[yoot]

อมาตย์ + อธิปไตย = อมาตยาธิปไตย

อำมาตย์ is corrupted from อมาตย์ which is pronounced อะ-หมาด so อำมาตย์ has to be pronounced as อำ-หมาด.

อำมาตยาธิปไตย is incorrect because อำมาตย์ can't be used in a สนธิ compound. But if you want to pronounce this word it has to be อำ-หมาด-ตะ-ยา-ทิบ-ปะ-ไต.

in a สนธิ compound words which can be compounded have to be Pali or Sanskrit, well, mostly.

อมาตย์ is counted as having Sanskrit origin while อำมาตย์ has been corrupted, so, it can't be counted as a word which has Sanskrit origin.

[Rikker]

Seems strange to say it "can't be counted" as having a Sanskrit origin. We can't very well say it's a native Thai word. A bastard is still his son's father, after all.

I didn't check the pronunciation in RID, so I didn't know อำมาตย์ is pronounced อำ-หมาด. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

However, syllable boundaries are frequently rearranged when words take their combining forms: อนาถ [อะ-หฺนาด] becomes อนาถา [อะ-นา-ถา], etc.

If that were the case for this word, boundaries might fall like this: อ|มา|ต|ยา|ธิ|ป|ไตย instead of like this อ|มาต|[ตะ]|ยา|ธิ|ป|ไตย, in which case it's reasonable to expect that the pronunciation could also be อะ-มา-ตะ-ยา-ธิป-ปะ-ไตย.

As for [อะ-หมาด] vs. [อำ-หมาด], the reason this sort of change takes places has to do with articulatory phonetics. In reality, there is very little difference in the pronunciation of these two forms in connected speech. Just like มกราคม [มะ-กะ-รา-คม] becomes [มัก-กะ-รา-คม], [อะ-หมาด] becomes [อำ-หมาด]. The difference here is that an alternate spelling of มกราคม hasn't caught on, whereas the alternate ("corrupted") form of อำมาตย์ has.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

Seems strange to say it "can't be counted" as having a Sanskrit origin. We can't very well say it's a native Thai word. A bastard is still his son's father, after all.

I might use the wrong word. I meant to say the word which has been corrupted can be use in สนธิ compound although it's corrupted from Pali/Sanskrit.

Word which is corrupted considered as a new Thai word which sometimes the meaning might be changed from the original one.

However, syllable boundaries are frequently rearranged when words take their combining forms: อนาถ [อะ-หฺนาด] becomes อนาถา [อะ-นา-ถา], etc.

If that were the case for this word, boundaries might fall like this: อ|มา|ต|ยา|ธิ|ป|ไตย instead of like this อ|มาต|[ตะ]|ยา|ธิ|ป|ไตย, in which case it's reasonable to expect that the pronunciation could also be อะ-มา-ตะ-ยา-ธิป-ปะ-ไตย.

It's possible but I don't think it would work if you consider from the pronunciation provided in RID:

อมาตย์ [อะหฺมาด] น. อำมาตย์, ข้าราชการ, ข้าเฝ้า; ที่ปรึกษา.

(ส.; ป. อมจฺจ).

อำมาตย, อำมาตย์ [อำหฺมาดตะยะ, อำหฺมาด] น. ข้าราชการ, ข้าเฝ้า; ที่ปรึกษา;

แผลงมาจาก อมาตย์. (ส. อมาตฺย; ป. อมจฺจ).

By the way, อนาถ [อะ-หฺนาด] becomes อนาถา [อะ-นา-ถา] is not a good example in this case because the structure of the word has been changed by adding สระอา for the word อนาถา.

Just like มกราคม [มะ-กะ-รา-คม] becomes [มัก-กะ-รา-คม]

I never heard of it. มกราคม can be pronounced both มะ-กะ-รา-คม and มก-กะ-รา-คม.

As for [อะ-หมาด] vs. [อำ-หมาด], the reason this sort of change takes places has to do with articulatory phonetics.

I suggest you to read the section คำแผลง in Thai grammar books. you would understand it much better than my explanation.

[Rikker]

Word which is corrupted considered as a new Thai word which sometimes the meaning might be changed from the original one.

I see what you meant. Regardless, it's still an Indic word. Just like อุดร is an Indic word, even though it has been "corrupted" in Khmer before Thai borrowed it. As soon as a word gets borrowed into a language and the phonology is nativized, then in a sense it's a new word, and it can be adapted and changed in any number of ways--semantic, phonetic, what have you.

I'd argue that saying อมาตย is more "pure" than อำมาตย is kind of a pointless thing to say, since they're both changed from their original forms the minute they get adopted into Thai. It serves no academic purpose to make such claims, in other words. They're both Thai words that come from Sanskrit.

By the way, อนาถ [อะ-หฺนาด] becomes อนาถา [อะ-นา-ถา] is not a good example in this case because the structure of the word has been changed by adding สระอา for the word อนาถา.

That was my point--likewise, อมาตย receives สระอา and becomes อมาตยา(ธิปไตย) when it combines, and thus we might reasonably expect the syllable boundaries to shift. Not that they must, but that simply there is precedent in Thai for both scenarios, so I don't think you can say with 100% certainty how the word must (or will) be pronounced.

Just like มกราคม [มะ-กะ-รา-คม] becomes [มัก-กะ-รา-คม]

I never heard of it. มกราคม can be pronounced both มะ-กะ-รา-คม and มก-กะ-รา-คม.

You're not aware of it, but it's happening. Different nearby sounds exert influence over one another. "Sandwich" in English is pronounced "samwich" by most folks because of the influence of the [w] over the [n], turning it into an [m] (and the [d] gets dropped).

Likewise, in connected Thai speech, short vowels lose their final glottal stops in non-word-final position. Compare the สะ in สะพาน (no glottal stop, centralized vowel) with the สะ in สะใจ (clear glottal stop, clear short /a/ vowel). So in words like มกราคม and อมาตย์, short unstressed /a/ tends to adopt the initial consonant of the following syllable as its final consonant in fluid speech. With the glottal stop gone, it's inevitable.

For an example of where the spelling has changed, take ศัตรู vs. สตรี. In both cases they're pronounced with the initial syllable [สัด]. Straight from RID: สตรี [สัดตฺรี] and ศัตรู [สัดตฺรู]. The ไม้หันอากาศ appears in one, but not the other.

I was just trying to explain the physiological/phonetic process behind why a form like อำมาตย์ would come in existence in the first place. This stuff happens in every language.

I suggest you to read the section คำแผลง in Thai grammar books. you would understand it much better than my explanation.

I've read my share. They never deal with the underlying causes, they just focus on identifying the various patterns. But I'm sure I don't know everything.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

Today my barber renamed "กลุ่มพันธมิตร . . ." to "อันธพาลมิตร". I guess one could conjure a new form of kleptocracy called "อันธพาลธิปไตย"

[yoot]

I'd argue that saying อมาตย is more "pure" than อำมาตย is kind of a pointless thing to say, since they're both changed from their original forms the minute they get adopted into Thai. It serves no academic purpose to make such claims, in other words. They're both Thai words that come from Sanskrit.

I agree that they're both Thai words that come from Sanskrit. But what I have learned, it's อำมาตย์ แผลงมาจากคำว่า อมาตย์. That means อมาตย was happened before อำมาตย์, just that.

By the way, อนาถ [อะ-หฺนาด] becomes อนาถา [อะ-นา-ถา] is not a good example in this case because the structure of the word has been changed by adding สระอา for the word อนาถา.

That was my point--likewise, อมาตย receives สระอา and becomes อมาตยา(ธิปไตย) when it combines, and thus we might reasonably expect the syllable boundaries to shift. Not that they must, but that simply there is precedent in Thai for both scenarios, so I don't think you can say with 100% certainty how the word must (or will) be pronounced.

Sorry for didn't clarify that. I mean the structure of the word อนาถา has been changed because ถ in this new word doesn't act as a final consonant which is not the same as อมาตยา(ธิปไตย), ต in this word is still act as the final consonant of the syllable.

I don't think I can say with 100% certainty how the word must(or will) be pronounced but I said, consider from the pronunciation provided in RID, อำมาตย, อำมาตย์ [อำหฺมาดตะยะ, อำหฺมาด] then it should be pronounced as it should be.

You're not aware of it, but it's happening. Different nearby sounds exert influence over one another. "Sandwich" in English is pronounced "samwich" by most folks because of the influence of the [w] over the [n], turning it into an [m] (and the [d] gets dropped).

Someone might pronounce the word มกราคม as มัก-กะ-รา-คม but it doesn't mean this can be counted as a correct pronunciation. It's happened because people try to pronounce it correctly with either มะ-กะ-รา-คม or มก-กะ-รา-คม but got it mixed up instead.

If this discussion is between linguist, I would agree with you. They have so many things about how to prononce the words which still can't make conclusion. But for learners, I think we have to rely on what they have provided and consider as correctness at this moment until they have further changing.

[mangkorn]

Different nearby sounds exert influence over one another. "Sandwich" in English is pronounced "samwich" by most folks because of the influence of the [w] over the [n], turning it into an [m] (and the [d] gets dropped).

And how about "Wednesday"?

[Rikker]

Well, the contracted pronunciation "Wenzday" apparently dates back over 500 years, so the written hasn't matched the colloquial for a long old time. As for the specific forces that resulted in that particular pronunciation, I'm no expert, so I won't mislead you by guessing.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Rikker

[meadish_sweetball]

Well, the contracted pronunciation "Wenzday" apparently dates back over 500 years, so the written hasn't matched the colloquial for a long old time. As for the specific forces that resulted in that particular pronunciation, I'm no expert, so I won't mislead you by guessing.

I hear it was a bastardization by the popular Germanic Cultist Conglomeration, the Wutan Clan.

On a different note, thank you all for a very interesting topic.

[Rikker]

Sorry for didn't clarify that. I mean the structure of the word อนาถา has been changed because ถ in this new word doesn't act as a final consonant which is not the same as อมาตยา(ธิปไตย), ต in this word is still act as the final consonant of the syllable.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. If we look at how other similar words are pronounced, we see that both "rules" are followed. For example: วาทย์ is [วาด], but วาทย- is either [วาทะยะ] or [วาดทะยะ]

The fact is, even though there is an unstressed vowel in between ตย in Thai, that's not there in the Sanskrit. Consonant sequences like these from Sanskrit thus have a tendency to behave more cluster-like. Back to my original (imperfect) example, อนาถ becomes อนาถา, the syllable boundary shifts from อ|นาถ to อ|นา|ถา.

So when a word like วาทย์ becomes วาทยา, the boundary can either shift or not. It can be วาท|[ทะ]|ยา, with an unstressed syllable inserted, or วา|ท|ยา, where the ทย behave not unlike they're a single unit.

The relevance of the following is arguable, but we can observe that the equivalent of many Sanskrit consonant pairs like this actually do correspond to single consonants in Pali (or the same consonant doubled). Some Thai words that correspond in this way:

Sanskrit ทย ~ Pali ช, as in:

วิทยา ~ วิชา/วิชชา ('knowledge')

วาทยา ~ วาจา ('speech')

Sanskrit ตย ~ Pali จ, as in:

สัตย์ ~ สัจจา ('truth')

นิตย์ ~ นิจ ('forever')

ปัตยุบัน (obsolete) > ปัจจุบัน ('present')

Sanskrit กษ ~ Pali ข, as in:

กษัตริย์ ~ ขัติยา ('king')

เกษตร ~ เขต ('district')

(The Pali equivalent of อมาตยะ- is อมัจจะ-, by the way.)

Yes, RID gives [อำหฺมาดตะยะ], that's only the สมาส version, of the word--notice they don't include the pronunciation if vowel is สระอา (as in the compound อมาตยาธิปไตย). So that particular scenario is still up for debate.

That is all my roundabout way of saying you're probably right, but you might not be.

Someone might pronounce the word มกราคม as มัก-กะ-รา-คม but it doesn't mean this can be counted as a correct pronunciation. It's happened because people try to pronounce it correctly with either มะ-กะ-รา-คม or มก-กะ-รา-คม but got it mixed up instead.

I'm talking about natural, unconscious, inevitable phonetic shift. Dare I say, you do this, too. What we actually say and what we perceive ourselves as saying are two separate things.

If this discussion is between linguist, I would agree with you. They have so many things about how to prononce the words which still can't make conclusion. But for learners, I think we have to rely on what they have provided and consider as correctness at this moment until they have further changing.

Again, my point in opening this whole can of worms was to explain the phonetic basic behind the origin of a "corrupted" form like อำมาตย์. So the whole discussion is purely academic. I'm not trying to actually teach people to say มัก-กะ-รา-คม. I'm just pointing out that it is the linguistically natural (and even inevitable) result of saying มะ-กะ-รา-คม in fast and connected speech. It just becomes มัก-กะ, even if you don't realize it. And it will not be perceived as wrong by fellow native speakers, either.

Try an experiment: try pronouncing ศัตรู as [สะตรู] in a sentence at completely normal talking speed, and then do the same with [สัด-ตรู]. It's very difficult to tell the difference, and thus for all intents and purposes, something like อำมาตย์ and อมาตย์ are two different written representations of the same spoken word. Perhaps the more interesting question is why both forms have persisted to this day.

This is a great discussion (for me, at least). Very stimulating, and great food for thought!

[DavidHouston]

Sorry for didn't clarify that. I mean the structure of the word อนาถา has been changed because ถ in this new word doesn't act as a final consonant which is not the same as อมาตยา(ธิปไตย), ต in this word is still act as the final consonant of the syllable.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. If we look at how other similar words are pronounced, we see that both "rules" are followed. For example: วาทย์ is [วาด], but วาทย- is either [วาทะยะ] or [วาดทะยะ]

The fact is, even though there is an unstressed vowel in between ตย in Thai, that's not there in the Sanskrit. Consonant sequences like these from Sanskrit thus have a tendency to behave more cluster-like. Back to my original (imperfect) example, อนาถ becomes อนาถา, the syllable boundary shifts from อ|นาถ to อ|นา|ถา.

So when a word like วาทย์ becomes วาทยา, the boundary can either shift or not. It can be วาท|[ทะ]|ยา, with an unstressed syllable inserted, or วา|ท|ยา, where the ทย behave not unlike they're a single unit.

The relevance of the following is arguable, but we can observe that the equivalent of many Sanskrit consonant pairs like this actually do correspond to single consonants in Pali (or the same consonant doubled). Some Thai words that correspond in this way:

Sanskrit ทย ~ Pali ช, as in:

วิทยา ~ วิชา/วิชชา ('knowledge')

วาทยา ~ วาจา ('speech')

Sanskrit ตย ~ Pali จ, as in:

สัตย์ ~ สัจจา ('truth')

นิตย์ ~ นิจ ('forever')

ปัตยุบัน (obsolete) > ปัจจุบัน ('present')

Sanskrit กษ ~ Pali ข, as in:

กษัตริย์ ~ ขัติยา ('king')

เกษตร ~ เขต ('district')

(The Pali equivalent of อมาตยะ- is อมัจจะ-, by the way.)

Yes, RID gives [อำหฺมาดตะยะ], that's only the สมาส version, of the word--notice they don't include the pronunciation if vowel is สระอา (as in the compound อมาตยาธิปไตย). So that particular scenario is still up for debate.

That is all my roundabout way of saying you're probably right, but you might not be.

Someone might pronounce the word มกราคม as มัก-กะ-รา-คม but it doesn't mean this can be counted as a correct pronunciation. It's happened because people try to pronounce it correctly with either มะ-กะ-รา-คม or มก-กะ-รา-คม but got it mixed up instead.

I'm talking about natural, unconscious, inevitable phonetic shift. Dare I say, you do this, too. What we actually say and what we perceive ourselves as saying are two separate things.

If this discussion is between linguist, I would agree with you. They have so many things about how to prononce the words which still can't make conclusion. But for learners, I think we have to rely on what they have provided and consider as correctness at this moment until they have further changing.

Again, my point in opening this whole can of worms was to explain the phonetic basic behind the origin of a "corrupted" form like อำมาตย์. So the whole discussion is purely academic. I'm not trying to actually teach people to say มัก-กะ-รา-คม. I'm just pointing out that it is the linguistically natural (and even inevitable) result of saying มะ-กะ-รา-คม in fast and connected speech. It just becomes มัก-กะ, even if you don't realize it. And it will not be perceived as wrong by fellow native speakers, either.

Try an experiment: try pronouncing ศัตรู as [สะตรู] in a sentence at completely normal talking speed, and then do the same with [สัด-ตรู]. It's very difficult to tell the difference, and thus for all intents and purposes, something like อำมาตย์ and อมาตย์ are two different written representations of the same spoken word. Perhaps the more interesting question is why both forms have persisted to this day.

This is a great discussion (for me, at least). Very stimulating, and great food for thought!

". . . thus for all intents and purposes, something like อำมาตย์ and อมาตย์ are two different written representations of the same spoken word. "

However, there is more than just a word-ending difference here, isn't there? In the case of "อำมาตย์" the second syllable is clearly a "เสียงโท" while in อมาตย์ the second syllable is more likely a "เสียงเอก". The Thai native would certainly hear this difference! Also, compare the pronunciations of "อำนาจ" and "อนาถ"

Edited September 4, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Rikker]

RID gives the pronunciation of the second syllable in both อมาตย์ and อำมาตย์ as [หฺมาด], low tone (เสียงเอก).

[yoot]

Wow. I didn't think just a simple question 'how to pronounce the word' could come this far. Thanks for this food for thought.

For example: วาทย์ is [วาด], but วาทย- is either [วาทะยะ] or [วาดทะยะ]

Yeah, if you gave this example first instead of อนาถา, there should not be this discussion. There are so many good examples but you just picked the wrong one first time.

I'm aware of this pattern, that's why I said it's possible.

Yes, RID gives [อำหฺมาดตะยะ], that's only the สมาส version, of the word--notice they don't include the pronunciation if vowel is สระอา (as in the compound อมาตยาธิปไตย). So that particular scenario is still up for debate.

If it can be pronounced อำมาตะยะ, RID would provide it the same as the pronunciation of the word วาทย-. When สระอา is included(as in the compound อมาตยาธิปไตย) the first three syllables are still pronounced the same just the forth syllable would change. Just like the word วาทยา can be both วาทะยา or วาดทะยา.

I'm talking about natural, unconscious, inevitable phonetic shift. Dare I say, you do this, too. What we actually say and what we perceive ourselves as saying are two separate things.

Try an experiment: try pronouncing ศัตรู as [สะตรู] in a sentence at completely normal talking speed, and then do the same with [สัด-ตรู]. It's very difficult to tell the difference

For this perception from you, for people who can read or speak clearly Thai, they are much difference. And we can hear the difference very easily.

But I agree that your perception should be true for major people.

something like อำมาตย์ and อมาตย์ are two different written representations of the same spoken word. Perhaps the more interesting question is why both forms have persisted to this day.

The reason why both forms have persisted to this day might be the same as why เกิด and กำเนิด are still in used. Well, or at least they are still useful in writing poem which is one of the reason for having คำแผลง as in this quote from กำชัย ทองหล่อ:

เหตุที่เราคิดแผลงคำไทยนั้น เกิดจากความนิยมคล้อยตามวิธีของเขมร บาลี และสันสกฤต ประการหนึ่ง และอีกประการหนึ่ง เกิดจากกวีที่คิดแปลงคำให้มีสำเนียงนุ่มนวลไพเราะในการอ่าน และให้มีพยางค์มากพอที่จะบรรจุเข้าเป็นคณะถูกต้องตามที่มีบัญญัติไว้ในฉันทลักษณ์

Edited September 4, 2008 by yoot

[Rikker]

You'd think we would have said all we could say on this issue by now. But indulge me on a couple more points.

If it can be pronounced อำมาตะยะ, RID would provide it the same as the pronunciation of the word วาทย-. When สระอา is included(as in the compound อมาตยาธิปไตย) the first three syllables are still pronounced the same just the forth syllable would change. Just like the word วาทยา can be both วาทะยา or วาดทะยา.

It's like the old adage about testing for bugs in software: it can only prove the existence of bugs--it can't prove their absence. Similarly, RID is so incomplete that it proves the existence of a certain form in the language--but its absence is hardly evidence of its nonexistence! Try looking up ผลไม้ in RID!

(But again, you're probably right--I would simply warn against being dogmatic about the authority of RID.)

For this perception from you, for people who can read or speak clearly Thai, they are much difference. And we can hear the difference very easily.

You're making a number of silly assumptions here. Unless you're secretly my next door neighbor, the only things you know about my speaking and oral reading abilities are based on your own preconceived notions about the "difficulty" of Thai! (News flash: it's no more difficult than any other language on earth.) I'll simply make the observation and then let it go that you're assuming I can't speak or read clearly because I'm a foreigner..

The reason why both forms have persisted to this day might be the same as why เกิด and กำเนิด are still in used.

เกิด and กำเนิด serve different pragmatic purposes: เกิด is common, กำเนิด is polite. They're both Khmer words, but perhaps because the อำ(น)- infix in กำเนิด makes it "more" Khmer, it's thus become the more polite form. Is there any such distinction between อมาตย์ and อำมาตย์, or are they truly interchangeable?

เหตุที่เราคิดแผลงคำไทยนั้น เกิดจากความนิยมคล้อยตามวิธีของเขมร บาลี และสันสกฤต ประการหนึ่ง และอีกประการหนึ่ง เกิดจากกวีที่คิดแปลงคำให้มีสำเนียงนุ่มนวลไพเราะในการอ่าน และให้มีพยางค์มากพอที่จะบรรจุเข้าเป็นคณะถูกต้องตามที่มีบัญญัติไว้ในฉันทลักษณ์

I consider this an unsatisfactory and out-of-date analysis--not surprising, since it's from a book written more than 50 years ago. It doesn't account for the natural, evolutionary element that drives phonetic and phonological change in language. This is, after all, how Thai became a tonal language, and how it went from a three-tone language to a five-tone language, and how the sounds of ฅ and ฃ merged with ค and ข, respectively, leading to the eventual obsolescence of those two letters. There was no committee, no expert, no formal choice to make these changes. They just happened naturally. So it can be with คำแผลง and many other types of word variants. The underlying principles are universal, and they can't be ignored in Thai any more than other language.

But back to คำแผลง specifically--so many of these were borrowed สำเร็จรูป. In other words, already modified. Thai has lots of pairs like เกิด and กำเนิด, ตรวจ and ตำรวจ, etc. Given that in these cases both forms exist in the source language (Khmer), it's highly unlikely that Thai created their own คำแผลง in these cases--rather, they borrowed both forms. Khmer inscriptions are so abundant, and predate Thai inscriptions by 600 years or so, so there's ample and irrefutable evidence of the antiquity of many, many Khmer words borrowed into Thai. There may well be cases of unique Thai-isms built using the Khmer-style อำ(น) infix, but I don't know of any. Does someone else?

This is a huge gap in RID, by the way--out of nearly 40,000 entries, they attribute less than 500 words to Khmer, which is laughably low. From what I know of the RI dictionary committee's working dynamic, I'd wager that the reason a more thorough job has never been done with respect to tracing Khmer and Chinese words in Thai is due to arguments like--"How do you know they didn't borrow it from us?"

Whew! About time for some thoughts from somebody else, I'd say.

[Rikker]

By the way, this gets my vote for favorite thread of the week/month/year.

[yoot]

You're making a number of silly assumptions here. Unless you're secretly my next door neighbor, the only things you know about my speaking and oral reading abilities are based on your own preconceived notions about the "difficulty" of Thai! (News flash: it's no more difficult than any other language on earth.) I'll simply make the observation and then let it go that you're assuming I can't speak or read clearly because I'm a foreigner..

Hmmm. I thought we were neighbors since you said "Dare I say, you do this, too."

Well, seriously, when I made that statement, I refered to Thai people. I don't dare to say or judge any foreigners about Thai language, as you said I don't know them well enough. No intention to mean you or any foreigners.

It's like the old adage about testing for bugs in software: it can only prove the existence of bugs--it can't prove their absence. Similarly, RID is so incomplete that it proves the existence of a certain form in the language--but its absence is hardly evidence of its nonexistence! Try looking up ผลไม้ in RID!

If the word is exist in the list, the information they provided is complete enough. Don't talk about why they don't address the origin of some words because I have no idea about it. It might because they can't make decision should it be counted as original loan word or not.

Why trying looking up ผลไม้ in RID? I don't expect to see any compound words which have clear meaning by itself in it anyway.

เกิด and กำเนิด serve different pragmatic purposes: เกิด is common, กำเนิด is polite. They're both Khmer words, but perhaps because the อำ(น)- infix in กำเนิด makes it "more" Khmer, it's thus become the more polite form. Is there any such distinction between อมาตย์ and อำมาตย์, or are they truly interchangeable?

I don't think กำเนิด is politer than เกิด but the differnce of both word is the usage which sometimes it can be used interchangeably.

As for the words อมาตย์ and อำมาตย์, they are truly interchangeable just like many set of words which have the same meaning and still exist. Ex. กำจร-ขจร, เจริญ-จำเริญ, ติ-ตำหนิ, อมฤต-อำมฤต, สราญ-สำราญ, etc.

For your other points, I think it's needless to say since you have your own answer for it and I have my own which I think if I start, it would end up running around the loop.

[DavidHouston]

While we are on the subject of etymology, as Khun Rikker has raised the question of Khmer origins, have any of you seen any dictionary of Thai etymologies? It seems to me that with current systems tools and the vast number of dictionaries in electronic form, some smart academic (or a university with hordes of graduate students) ought to be able to provide inter-language links for oriental languages related to Thai and be able to produce an etymological dictionary. Any suggestions or finds in this area?

[yoot]

Just a side note to this discussion. We are taught to notice the origin of words without bothering to see if RID has provided it or not in our Thai lessons.

You can see some explanations about it from this page.

P.S. After checking words which have Khmer origin from RID, I believe words which the form are still exist in Khmer have been addressed the origin in RID, except words which have been totally changed to Thai words haven't provided the origin.

[Rikker]

If the word is exist in the list, the information they provided is complete enough. Don't talk about why they don't address the origin of some words because I have no idea about it. It might because they can't make decision should it be counted as original loan word or not.

I've sat with the dictionary committee and know their working style, have interviewed them about their methods, etc. Based on the end result we see in the dictionary, it's clear their foreign language expertise weighs heavily towards Pali and Sanskrit. They do a good job of giving the Indic origin of those words.

But they're very conservative in other areas. Currently on the committee is Karnchana Nacaskul, who has done rather extensive work with Khmer, so I'm a bit surprised their etymologies aren't better than they are. But then, maybe things will be better in the next edition.

Issues of national pride undoubtedly come into play, though. So much of modern polite Thai is Sanskrit, Pali, and Khmer. Native Thai words like กู and กิน are relegated to colloquial use or worse, in favor of words like ดิฉัน (ดิฉัน is from เดรัจฉาน, ult. from Pali) and รับประทาน (ประทาน is ult. from Sanskrit). And ราชาศัพท์ in particular is virtually all borrowed Khmer, dating from the days when the several Tai kingdoms were vassal states of the Khmer empire, when Khmer would have been the ภาษาราชการ of its day, and thus had prestige status.

Why trying looking up ผลไม้ in RID? I don't expect to see any compound words which have clear meaning by itself in it anyway.

I agree that to some degree not every possible word combination should be included, but at 40,000 entries, RID is hardly unabridged, anyway. It could easily be doubled or tripled in length without running out of new words. They're selective in what is deemed worthy of entry, though.

Besides, where do you draw the line about what is transparent or not? Why include ดีใจ? You feel ดี in your ใจ. But that's just it--dictionaries don't just serve to tell you what the basic meaning of a word is, but to make clear subtle nuances of meaning. I don't think ผลไม้ is really a transparent compound, even for Thais. Is a tomato ผัก or ผลไม้? Are all ผัก also ผลไม้? How about vice-versa? An entry in the dictionary would certainly be useful.

I don't think กำเนิด is politer than เกิด but the differnce of both word is the usage which sometimes it can be used interchangeably.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. The two aren't wholly interchangeable, certainly. When was the last time you said วันนี้ขอเลี้ยงวันกำเนิด or asked กำเนิดอะไรขึ้น? If you don't think กำเนิด is more 'polite', how would you characterize the difference? More formal? It seems to be limited to more formal speech. How about เดิน vs ดำเนิน?

[Rikker]

While we are on the subject of etymology, as Khun Rikker has raised the question of Khmer origins, have any of you seen any dictionary of Thai etymologies? It seems to me that with current systems tools and the vast number of dictionaries in electronic form, some smart academic (or a university with hordes of graduate students) ought to be able to provide inter-language links for oriental languages related to Thai and be able to produce an etymological dictionary. Any suggestions or finds in this area?

If there were one, I'd be trumpeting its existence on the mountaintops. But don't worry. I'm working on it.

[Rikker]

P.S. After checking words which have Khmer origin from RID, I believe words which the form are still exist in Khmer have been addressed the origin in RID, except words which have been totally changed to Thai words haven't provided the origin.

That hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny--I have a native Khmer speaker at arm's length, so I just did some checking. เกิด, กำเนิด, ตรวจ are just a few Khmer words still common in Khmer that have no origin given in RID (however, ตำรวจ is noted as being from Khmer).

What do you mean by "totally changed" anyway? I don't understand how that makes it acceptable to provide no etymology.

Ideally, a Thai dictionary would provide an etymology for every word, and would only claim Tai origin when supported by the evidence from other dialects and languages.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

"I agree that to some degree not every possible word combination should be included, but at 40,000 entries, RID is hardly unabridged, anyway. It could easily be doubled or tripled in length without running out of new words. They're selective in what is deemed worthy of entry, though.

Besides, where do you draw the line about what is transparent or not? Why include ดีใจ? You feel ดี in your ใจ. But that's just it--dictionaries don't just serve to tell you what the basic meaning of a word is, but to make clear subtle nuances of meaning. I don't think ผลไม้ is really a transparent compound, even for Thais. Is a tomato ผัก or ผลไม้? Are all ผัก also ผลไม้? How about vice-versa? An entry in the dictionary would certainly be useful."

And, remember, the RID has published a number of supplemental, special purpose dictionaries in various subject matters. See, for example, http://www.royin.go.th/th/printing/index.p...=5&TopView= . These include dictionaries for geographical names, gems and minerals, psychology, geology, thermodynamics, insurance, philosophy, air conditioning, Buddhist terms, geography, engines and mechanics, a number of volumes on historical literature, foreign religions, art, computers and information technology, non-Thai music, medicine, law, population, forestry, energy, linguistics, pharmacy, pharmacology, political science, engineering, and economics.

Some of these tomes are bilingual, others are Thai only.

Rikker,

To your knowledge are these books supplemental of the major RID or are they largely supplemental?