รัฐสภาภิวัตน์ And ตุลาการภิวัตน์

[DavidHouston]

I would like to address a question to Khun Rikker. I a recent blog article you discussed the term "โลกาภิวัตน์" (http://rikker.blogspot.com/2007/07/etymologist-5.html). Since reading that very cogent and helpful analysis on your blog, I have seen two more instances of that construction.

In today's Matichon, this sentence:

ฉะนั้น การยุบสภาน่าจะเป็นทางออกในขณะนี้ ต้องมีรัฐสภาภิวัตน์ควบคู่กับการเมืองภาคประชาชน

From a prior article comes this definition of ตุลาการภิวัตน์: . . . การกำหนดโครงสร้างของสังคมและประชาธิปไตย โดยศาลเป็นผู้วางหลักเกณฑ์ผ่านคำตัดสินคดีสำคัญๆ ต่างๆ

How would you translate these two terms, รัฐสภาภิวัตน์ and ตุลาการภิวัตน์ in a way which is meaningful to us English speakers.

Thanks.

[Rikker]

Hmm.. I'd say parliamentarization and judicialization, I guess.

There's English precedent on the web for both of those terms, though I don't know if the Thai terms were modeled on English or simply modeled on โลกาภิวัตน์ (which was modeled on English 'globalization').

ตุลาการภิวัตน์ appears to have been around for a while--without looking too hard I found it used in a 2006 article. Perhaps influenced by similar complaints in English about the "judicialization" of politics. It even has its own brief Wikipedia entry.

รัฐสภาภิวัตน์ appears to be a brand new word, at present returning only 11 Google hits for me.

Based on Google, there's still a lot of misspelling of the root วัตน์ '-ization' as วัฒน์, though, no doubt because of the semantic mental connection with (ว/พ)ัฒนา progress and change. There are more hits for the spelling ตุลาการภิวัฒน์ than the (ostensibly more correct) ตุลาการภิวัตน์ (50,000 vs 30,000). Prof. นิธิ even spells it ตุลาการภิวัฒน์ in this article.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[Rikker]

Alternate to parliamentarization, perhaps "congressionalization" .. also a new word in English, still used in quote marks the few times it appears on the web.

[DavidHouston]

On April 11th of this year, I saw the term referred to in Matichon Weekend as "Judicial Review" as follows

"ด้านหลักๆ ของตุลาการภิวัตน์ (Judicial review) ก็คือ

ก. การขยายพื้นที่ความยุติธรรมให้กว้างขวางขึ้น ให้ภาคประชาชน-สังคมมีโอกาสฟ้องร้องดำเนินคดีได้กว้างขวางขึ้น ซึ่งจะช่วยให้ประชาชน-สังคมได้ปกป้องสิทธิของตนเอง กำกับตรวจสอบนักการเมืองและภาครัฐได้ดีขึ้น"

"The expansion of the scope of justice to be as broad as possible ; to enable the People and Society to have an opportunity to seek redress and bring lawsuits on a broader basis. This helps the People and Society to protect their rights and to oversee and investigate their elected officials and the State more (than they have been able to do in the past)."

The use of the term "judicial review" seems misplaced to me in this context. It is my understanding in the American context that judicial review is the ability of the judiciary, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to rule on the constitutionality of any particular laws passed by Congress or any act of the Executive branch.

Perhaps an easier pronounceable term for "ตุลาการภิวัตน์" might be "the ascendancy of the judiciary" or "the increased power of the judiciary in the body politic", of which the legal concept of "Judicial Review" is merely a subset.

The term "รัฐสภาภิวัตน์" seems to have currency as a reaction to the recent claims by the leadership of the PAD that the parliamentary system is in retreat world-wide and that its time has passed, especially in the current Thai political atmosphere. Here I am a bit more hesitant to come up with a term to fit "รัฐสภาภิวัตน์" in this context. Demosthenes might have a hard time with "parliamentarization", pebbles and all, although the word fits nicely into the established pattern.

Thank you, Khun Rikker, for your analysis and thoughts. So many of us follow your blog regularly and appreciate your thoughtful content.

[Rikker]

A bit more on ตุลการภิวัตน์.

วัตน์ is defined in RID (under the entry วัตนะ) as ความเป็นไป or ความเป็นอยู่.

As I wrote in that blog entry you linked, โลกาภิวัตน์ is a สนธิ compound of โลก + อภิวัตน์ (and อภิวัตน์ is a สมาส compound of อภิ + วัตน์). The purpose of อภิ here seems to be to indicate that it's a change in the general way of things, a significant change. So อภิวัตน์ = -ization.

It seems that ตุลาการภิวัตน์, coined by analogy with โลกาภิวัตน์, doesn't correctly follow สนธิ compounding rules, unless I'm misinterpreting the intended roots.

I think ตุลาการ+ภิวัตน์ is based on the misanalysis of โลกาภิวัตน์ as being divisible into โลกา + ภิวัตน์, and so then only ภิวัตน์ is used in the new compound.

It's kind of like English -aholic/-oholic, clipped from alcohol+ic, and applied to chocoholic, workaholic, shopaholic, etc.

Another variant with a few hits ตุลากาภิวัฒน์ (note that it uses ฒ not ต), which isn't much better. How is that supposed to be analyzed? ตุลาก + อภิวัตน์? It's a psuedo-สนธิ compound.

I think ตุลาภิวัตน์ is probably the "correct" form, if we are to talk about compounding rules, although so far that form is still rare on the web and is misspelled with ฒ more often than not.

Very interesting issue, though. The "wrong" form of ตุลาการภิวัตน์ would indicate that it was coined by someone who knows more about politics than linguistics. That means the educated public is taking the lead from the Royal Institute and coining new words using RI-coined terms as a model.

As for its meaning, I think it's being used in the same sense as English "judicialization", as in "the judicialization of politics". That is, the judicial system is playing an increasing role in politics, where you have the courts deciding case after case that have the potential to upend the government. We could cite the 2000 Supreme Court ruling that allowed George Bush to take office, for example, and Thailand has virtually endless examples of this.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

It seems that ตุลาการภิวัตน์, coined by analogy with โลกาภิวัตน์, doesn't correctly follow สนธิ compounding rules, unless I'm misinterpreting the intended roots.

I think ตุลาการ+ภิวัตน์ is based on the misanalysis of โลกาภิวัตน์ as being divisible into โลกา + ภิวัตน์, and so then only ภิวัตน์ is used in the new compound.

I can't say if this is a correct สนธิ word or not. It can be correct if the word ตุลาการ can be pronounced as ตุ-ลา-กา-ระ which I have no evidence about it. But consider from some words which ended with การ such as อาการ can be pronounced อา-กา-ระ, then I think one who coined this word might think it could be done the same.

Another variant with a few hits ตุลากาภิวัฒน์ (note that it uses ฒ not ต), which isn't much better. How is that supposed to be analyzed? ตุลาก + อภิวัตน์? It's a psuedo-สนธิ compound.

I think ตุลาภิวัตน์ is probably the "correct" form, if we are to talk about compounding rules, although so far that form is still rare on the web and is misspelled with ฒ more often than not.

For both ตุลาก or ตุลา + อภิวัตน์ in this case are totally incorrect since the word ตุลาการ is a compound word from สมาส compound rules to be a new word. So, ตุลาก or ตุลา can't work in this case.

But for English version, I agree with Rikker.

[Rikker]

I can't say if this is a correct สนธิ word or not. It can be correct if the word ตุลาการ can be pronounced as ตุ-ลา-กา-ระ which I have no evidence about it. But consider from some words which ended with การ such as อาการ can be pronounced อา-กา-ระ, then I think one who coined this word might think it could be done the same.

I don't see how it can be correct, because it can't be extracted into ตุลาการ + อภิวัตน์. My point was that analyzing โลกาภิวัตน์ as โลกา + ภิวัตน์ is a misanalysis, and so building new words on X + ภิวัตน์ must also be wrong.

No matter how you slice it, I don't think there's any way that ตุลาการ + อภิวัตน์ could result in ตุลาการภิวัตน์ if proper สนธิ rules are followed. That said, I have no problem with the word itself, it's just likely to get re-formed by linguistic experts at some point. (That is, unless I'm mistaken in my analysis of ตุลาการภิวัตน์ as being formed by analogy with โลกาภิวัตน์.)

For both ตุลาก or ตุลา + อภิวัตน์ in this case are totally incorrect since the word ตุลาการ is a compound word from สมาส compound rules to be a new word. So, ตุลาก or ตุลา can't work in this case.

It was also my point to say that ตุลากาภิวัตน์ is obviously wrong, because ตุลาก is not a word.

However, I don't see what's wrong with suggesting ตุลาภิวัตน์ as an alternate form, much less what's "totally incorrect" about it. Isn't it a valid สนธิ compound of ตุล + อภิวัตน์, which results in the long vowel ตุลาภิวัตน์ (similar to โลก + อภิวัตน์ = โลกาภิวัตน์).

What am I missing?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

I don't see how it can be correct, because it can't be extracted into ตุลาการ + อภิวัตน์. My point was that analyzing โลกาภิวัตน์ as โลกา + ภิวัตน์ is a misanalysis, and so building new words on X + ภิวัตน์ must also be wrong.

I don't think they analyzing the word as you thought.

In case IF it can be pronounced ตุลาการะ,

The สนธิ compound rules is acceptable in this case. It might be a rare case, ex. พราหมณ + อธิบาย becoems พราหมณธิบาย, ลักษณ + อภิเษก becomes ลักษณภิเษก, so, why ตุลาการ + อภิวัตน์ can't be ตุลาการภิวัตน์?

However, I don't see what's wrong with suggesting ตุลาภิวัตน์ as an alternate form, much less what's "totally incorrect" about it. Isn't it a valid สนธิ compound of ตุล + อภิวัตน์, which results in the long vowel ตุลาภิวัตน์ (similar to โลก + อภิวัตน์ = โลกาภิวัตน์).

Sorry, I might misunderstand your point. You are correct if we don't talk about the meaning of it according to the word we are discussing about, 'ตุลาการภิวัตน์'. I just meant to say you can't use the word ตุลาภิวัตน์ to mean the same as the word 'ตุลาการภิวัตน์'.

Edited September 10, 2008 by yoot

[DavidHouston]

Sorry, I might misunderstand your point. You are correct if we don't talk about the meaning of it according to the word we are discussing about, 'ตุลาการภิวัตน์'. I just meant to say you can't use the word ตุลาภิวัตน์ to mean the same as the word 'ตุลาการภิวัตน์'.

Back to the definitions, if I may. For both of you, even if I cannot understand the English equivalent, please explain the meanings of these two words. Thanks.

[Rikker]

It's true I was thinking of ตุลาภิวัตน์ as a possible alternative to ตุลาการภิวัตน์. My thinking went like this: ตุลาการ refers to the person--i.e. the judge, and while ตุล(า) literally means "scale", the meaning "to judge" is a figurative extraction from it--to weigh a situation. So for a word meaning "judicialization", maybe ตุล + อภิวัตน์ would work, to form ตุลาภิวัตน์.

I'm interesting to hear how Yoot will interpret ตุลาภิวัตน์, though.

[yoot]

Rikker,

From the definitions of both words;

ตุล น. คันชั่ง, ตราชู; ชื่อกลุ่มดาวรูปคันชั่ง เรียกว่า

ราศีตุล เป็นราศีที่ ๖ ในจักรราศี, ราศีดุล ก็ว่า.

Or,

ตุลา แบบ) น. คันชั่ง, ตราชู; ชื่อมาตราวัดนํ้าหนักมคธ

เท่ากับ ๑๐๐ ปละ. (ป., ส.).

They means balance, a pair of scales, an ancient measure or weight (1 ตุลา=100 ปาละ), October(เดือนตุลา), name of the seventh sign of zodiac.

ตุลาการ (กฎ) น. ผู้มีอํานาจและหน้าที่ในการพิจารณา พิพากษาอรรถคดี. - judge. But it can refer to justice system too in some context.

From the meaning of the word ตุล or ตุลา itself, it's a noun and has nothing to do with the verb 'to judge'.

Then the word ตุลาการ was coined. If we consider the literal meaning of each words it would means 'one who act as a pair of scales. 'A pair of scales' has a sign of 'justice'. Hence, ตุลาการ is 'one who bring the justic to peple' or 'the justice system'.

ก. การขยายพื้นที่ความยุติธรรมให้กว้างขวางขึ้น ให้ภาคประชาชน-สังคมมีโอกาสฟ้องร้องดำเนินคดีได้กว้างขวางขึ้น ซึ่งจะช่วยให้ประชาชน-สังคมได้ปกป้องสิทธิของตนเอง กำกับตรวจสอบนักการเมืองและภาครัฐได้ดีขึ้น"

From this quote by Khun David, this might be the reason why someone use the term 'ตุลาภิวัตน์' which might be correct if you want to mean so. But the actually meaning of ตุลาการภิวัตน์ is 'เป็นการให้อำนาจแก่ฝ่ายตุลาการในการตรวจสอบถ่วงดุลสองอำนาจใหญ่คือฝ่ายบริหารและฝ่ายนิติบัญญัติ'. They are different.

I found this article interesting and might give you the idea why both terms are different.

[Rikker]

From the meaning of the word ตุล or ตุลา itself, it's a noun and has nothing to do with the verb 'to judge'.

I think you're taking a rather narrow view of word's meaning.

The Thai word ตุล is from Sanskrit tul. From Monier Williams' dictionary (bold emphasis added by me):

tul

to determine the weight of anything by lifting it up , weigh , compare by weighing and examining , ponder , examine with distrust MBh. &c ;

to make equal in weight , equal , compare (with instr. e.g. na brāhmaṇais tulaye bhūtam anyat , " I do not compare any other being with Brahmans " BhP. v ; or with an adv. terminating in -vat) R. VarBr2S. &c ;

And the related form tulā, equivalent to Thai ตุลา:

tulā

(H2) tulā́ [L=86113] f. a balance , weight VS. xxx S3Br. xi Mn. &c (°layā dhṛ or °lāṃ with Caus. of adhiruh , " to hold in or put on a balance , weigh , compare " ; °lāṃ with Caus. of adhi-ruh , " to risk " Pan5cat. i , 16 , 9 ; °lām adhi- or ā- or sam-ā-ruh , " to be in a balance " , be equal with [instr.] ; the balance as an ordeal Ya1jn5. ?? ii Mr2icch. ix , 43)

The verb senses of this word, both literal weighing and figurative weighing, pre-exist in the source language, and thus are fair game for their Thai offspring, I would argue. But if the word ตุลาการภิวัตน์ is already in common use and agreed upon, then as stated, I have no beef with it.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rikker

[Rikker]

One more thing. Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's unlikely that native speakers would pronounce this [ตุ-ลา-กา-ระ-พิ-วัด] of their own volition? That is, without coaching or specific instruction? I'd guess [ตุ-ลา-กาน-พิ-วัด] is how pretty much anyone would read it.

That's part of why I thought for sure it had to be coined by analogy with โลกาภิวัตน์, based on misanalysis as โลกา + ภิวัตน์.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

I think you're taking a rather narrow view of word's meaning.

I just explained how the word could work in THAI language, and from what the meaning of both word in Thai. If the word could be worked as a verb in Thai language, then it should be provided in the dictionary. And the most important, the construct of this word should be nouns compounded, not verb+noun.

Another Thai word which came from this Sanskrit tul is ดุล. For this word it can be used as a verb or modifier. So, if you takes that definition to consider, I think the word ดุล might match with it more than ตุล or ตุลา.

One more thing. Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's unlikely that native speakers would pronounce this [ตุ-ลา-กา-ระ-พิ-วัด] of their own volition? That is, without coaching or specific instruction? I'd guess [ตุ-ลา-กาน-พิ-วัด] is how pretty much anyone would read it.

That's part of why I thought for sure it had to be coined by analogy with โลกาภิวัตน์, based on misanalysis as โลกา + ภิวัตน์.

You were the one who argued about how word can be pronounced differently, and I agree with that. But one thing you should know, if people don't favour any pronunciations then those pronunciations would be gone.

The word การ in Sanskrit, technically can be pronounced as กา-ระ. But it seems it 's not favorite to pronounce as this , so most words which have this word compounded will only have one pronunciaiton, that's กาน, except some words like อาการ and อุปการ.

Since the word การ technically can be pronounced as กา-ระ, then the compound of the word (ตุลา+การ)+(อภิ+วัตน์) is acceptable by the สนธิ rules. If you are still not convinced, I think you should study about the rules again.

Edited September 11, 2008 by yoot

[Rikker]

I just explained how the word could work in THAI language

I anticipated that response. The thing is, this type of word coining is built upon taking roots from Pali/Sanskrit and making new Thai words from them. There was no word โทร- in Thai until it was specifically selected to be the Thai equivalent of "tele-" in words like "telegraph", and later "telephone", "television", "telecommunications", etc. It's still not a standalone word--it only exists in ศัพท์บัญญัติ. So in a way it's an entirely "artificial" Thai morpheme.

That's why I think restricting word coining to only definitions given in RID is misguided. Particularly when the Royal Institute is the official word coining body. Doing so might just create some kind of infinite loop whereby everyone's brain would explode. Or maybe a tear in the space-time continuum. Either way, some brains are going to be exploding.

Since the word การ technically can be pronounced as กา-ระ, then the compound of the word (ตุลา+การ)+(อภิ+วัตน์) is acceptable by the สนธิ rules. If you are still not convinced, I think you should study about the rules again.

Maybe I'm dense. By the rules I've read, and have just gone and re-read, this isn't valid. I see the rule for อะ + อะ = อา, but no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ.

Citing cases like พราหมณ + อธิบาย = พราหมณธิบาย, or ลักษณ + อภิเษก = ลักษณภิเษก only prove that there are exceptions to the rule. But aren't you taking the exception and making a new rule out of it?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

I anticipated that response.

Not more than what I expected it would come from you.

No matter what you tried to convince me, there are reasons on my explanation. I don't argue with you that many words are built upon taking roots from Pali/Sanskrit. But that would be from old time when we didn't have many words in used like in present time.

I have questions to ask you.

Do you know there are many Thai words which came from Pali/Sanskrit but Thai words are used in the different meaning ?

When you want to invent a new word, will you use the meaning of each words which people already know or use a new meaning from the root word but no one know about it? Honestly.

The word in our discussion is clearly known by Thai people, well, at least the basic of it not in details.

Maybe I'm dense. By the rules I've read, and have just gone and re-read, this isn't valid. I see the rule for อะ + อะ = อา, but no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ.

Citing cases like พราหมณ + อธิบาย = พราหมณธิบาย, or ลักษณ + อภิเษก = ลักษณภิเษก only prove that there are exceptions to the rule. But aren't you taking the exception and making a new rule out of it?

Once again, I suggest you to read the rules thoroughly again before accusing me making a new rule out of it. There are many parts in the book explain about it, not just one.

Edited September 11, 2008 by yoot

[DavidHouston]

Do you know there are many Thai words which came from Pali/Sanskrit but Thai words are used in the different meaning ?

When you want to invent a new word, will you use the meaning of each words which people already know or use a new meaning from the root word but no one know about it? Honestly.

The word in our discussion is clearly known by Thai people, well, at least the basic of it not in details.

This is precisely why the work that Khun Rikker is doing is so important. Apparently, he is matching current dictionary definitions of words with their etymological origins and showing us how the change in the words and their meanings migrated throughout time. Perhaps Khun Rikker can explain his process to us more fully. I understand that there are some who believe that if one wants to know the meaning of a particular Thai word, all one needs to do is to research its antecedents. I believe that this is only half the story. As the form of words migrate through time, so does their meanings and usages. One needs to understand the dynamics of a particular word before one can fully appreciate the word in its entirety.

As His Majesty the King once said, "...ภาษาไทยหรือภาษาทั้งหลายที่ใช้กันในปัจจุบันกระนั้นเป็นภาษาที่มีชีวิต เป็นภาษาที่ประชาชนใช้ ย่อมต้องมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในความหมาย" ("The Thai language or other languages that are in current use are living languages. These are languages which people actually use so there will naturally be changes in word meanings.")

I want to thank you both again for your instruction and for allowing us to have the benefit of your dialog.

Edited September 11, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Rikker]

Once again, I suggest you to read the rules thoroughly again before accusing me making a new rule out of it. There are many parts in the book explain about it, not just one.

I'll take a closer look at กำชัย tonight. It seems that lately your responses to my specific questions are variations on the theme "you don't know what you're talking about" ... without answering the specific question. I'm not "accusing" anybody of anything.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rikker

[Rikker]

Apparently, he is matching current dictionary definitions of words with their etymological origins and showing us how the change in the words and their meanings migrated throughout time.

That's the long term goal. I'm still laying the foundation. Eventually (we may be talking decades here) I hope to produce a corpus-based historical dictionary of Thai.

The boon of corpus-based lexicography is that it relies on words as actually used through history. Think OED, but that goal seems almost too lofty even for an egomaniac like myself.

The searchable corpus needed to do this job doesn't exist yet, so it has to be built. There are existing Thai corpus projects, but they're not sharing their data and there's no inkling they ever will. If I have my way, I'll build an open-access corpus, insofar as possible.

The first step is the oldest writings--the inscriptions--and that starts with the Sukhothai era. One thing that needs to be done is to expand an index of words in the Sukhothai inscriptions created in the 70s (and expanded once in the 80s already), for starters. Computers greatly facilitate this process. The text of more than a thousand inscriptions spanning more than half a millennium have been digitized by the Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre. They've also compiled text annotations for the inscriptions from many scholars. They've done a truly huge amount of work.

I've made a good enough case that I have something to contribute that the Fulbright program has given me a grant. I'm still in the preparation stages, waiting to get National Research Council of Thailand approval, etc. Whatever I accomplish, I'll provide the Royal Institute with the results of my work, in hopes their work can benefit from it. They've already expressed interest. And I'll continue to build on this work for future stages of my larger overall project, i.e. my answer to OED for Thai.

If somebody beats me to it I'll be overjoyed. But at the moment it's not looking that way, so here I am.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

Ok, since you asked for it.

I see the rule for อะ + อะ = อา, but no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ.

You failed since you have siad that.

There are at least two parts in the book mentioned about it. One in the part of 'วิธีสนธิ', another is in 'หลักเกณฑ์การสนธิ' which stated that they were just examples(มีหลักเกณฑ์ต่าง ๆ ดังจะยกตัวอย่างมาให้ดูพอเป็นหลักสังเกตในการสนธิ) which means there could be more than that. But the one you said there is no rule about it is in this part too. None of them said it was exeption.

That's why I told you to read it again thoroughly.

Edited September 12, 2008 by yoot

[Rikker]

I finally managed to take a close look at this section of กำชัย's book. Indeed, there is no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ, but he does include a หมายเหตุ (N.B.) at the end of the section saying that sometimes this is the case, and cites exactly the two examples that Yoot has provided here: พราหมณ + อธิบาย = พราหมณธิบาย, ลักษณ + อภิเษก = ลักษณภิเษก.

So I'd say these still represent rare exceptions to the rule, and perhaps should not be used in forming new สนธิ words, when there's no pressing reason not to conform to the more common rule. But feel free to disagree with my opinion!

Edited September 15, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

I finally managed to take a close look at this section of กำชัย's book. Indeed, there is no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ, but he does include a หมายเหตุ (N.B.) at the end of the section saying that sometimes this is the case, and cites exactly the two examples that Yoot has provided here: พราหมณ + อธิบาย = พราหมณธิบาย, ลักษณ + อภิเษก = ลักษณภิเษก.

So I'd say these still represent rare exceptions to the rule, and perhaps should not be used in forming new สนธิ words, when there's no pressing reason not to conform to the more common rule. But feel free to disagree with my opinion!

คุณริกเกอร์ครับ

To return to a long-standing discussion we have been having, if you do not mind, you mention Kumchai's statement of "rules". Are these "rules" plus "exceptions" or merely descriptions of conventions which one finds in the majority of cases of combining forms with other combining forms in a minority of cases? Or, is this distinction merely sophistry?

And, BTW, in the Kumchai context to which you refer (pages 95 - 104), are these not referred to as "การผลงสระ", that is "transformations" when Pali or Sanskrit words are taken into Thai? Kumchai seems to call these ". . . ให้พึงเข้าใจว่ามิใช่เป็นกฎตายตัว เป็นแต่เพียงแบบอย่างที่โบราณเคยแพลงใช้มาแล้วเท่านั้น", " . . . one should understand that these are not hard and fast rules, but are merely mutations which have been utilized from time immemorial."

Thanks.

Edited September 15, 2008 by DavidHouston

[DavidHouston]

I finally managed to take a close look at this section of กำชัย's book. Indeed, there is no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ, but he does include a หมายเหตุ (N.B.) at the end of the section saying that sometimes this is the case, and cites exactly the two examples that Yoot has provided here: พราหมณ + อธิบาย = พราหมณธิบาย, ลักษณ + อภิเษก = ลักษณภิเษก.

So I'd say these still represent rare exceptions to the rule, and perhaps should not be used in forming new สนธิ words, when there's no pressing reason not to conform to the more common rule. But feel free to disagree with my opinion!

คุณริกเกอร์ครับ

To return to a long-standing discussion we have been having, if you do not mind, you mention Kumchai's statement of "rules". Are these "rules" plus "exceptions" or merely descriptions of conventions which one finds in the majority of cases of combining forms with other combining forms in a minority of cases? Or, is this distinction merely sophistry?

And, BTW, in the Kumchai context to which you refer (pages 95 - 104), are these not referred to as "การผลงสระ", that is "transformations" when Pali or Sanskrit words are taken into Thai? Kumchai seems to call these ". . . ให้พึงเข้าใจว่ามิใช่เป็นกฎตายตัว เป็นแต่เพียงแบบอย่างที่โบราณเคยแพลงใช้มาแล้วเท่านั้น", " . . . one should understand that these are not hard and fast rules, but are merely mutations which have been utilized from time immemorial."

Thanks.

Sorry, misspelling. "การผลงสระ" should be "การแผลงสระ"

[Rikker]

To return to a long-standing discussion we have been having, if you do not mind, you mention Kumchai's statement of "rules". Are these "rules" plus "exceptions" or merely descriptions of conventions which one finds in the majority of cases of combining forms with other combining forms in a minority of cases? Or, is this distinction merely sophistry?

Well, strictly speaking, "rule" and "exception" are my terminology, since they're English. But I use the word "rule" to correspond with what กำชัย calls หลักเกณฑ์การสนธิ. But I can't say for certain how much he has extrapolated from actual Thai usage and how much of that corresponds to the "real" sandhi rules of Pali and Sanskrit. I don't know enough to comment on that.

So you're right, it may be pointless anyway to try to say what's a rule versus an exception. Perhaps it's better to phrase it in terms of what's "usual" and what's "unusual". I'd say this is an unusual formation, which is why I suspected it was coined by someone who knew more about politics than language. I don't know who actually coined it, though.

And, BTW, in the Kumchai context to which you refer (pages 95 - 104), are these not referred to as "การผลงสระ", that is "transformations" when Pali or Sanskrit words are taken into Thai? Kumchai seems to call these ". . . ให้พึงเข้าใจว่ามิใช่เป็นกฎตายตัว เป็นแต่เพียงแบบอย่างที่โบราณเคยแพลงใช้มาแล้วเท่านั้น", " . . . one should understand that these are not hard and fast rules, but are merely mutations which have been utilized from time immemorial."

I was actually referring to 131-138 (the section called สนธิ). I think the section on แผลง is more about how Thai happens to "transform" these foreign words, while the สนธิ section is to some degree or another based upon the previously existing sandhi rules in Sanskrit. So the แผลง section is probably entirely built upon observation and extrapolation of patterns, rather than rules of any sort.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

And, today, yet another copycat word: " ประชาภิวัฒน์". From this weekend's Matichon Weekly comes this sentence regarding the PAD and its continuing opposition to the government:

'สำหรับม็อบพันธมิตรประชาชนเพื่อประชาธิปไตย ซึ่งยังคงปักหลักชุมนุมยึดเอาทำเนียบรัฐบาลเป็นศูนย์กลางในการขับไล่รัฐบาล พรรคพลังประชาชน และสถาปนาการเมืองใหม่ "ประชาภิวัฒน์"'

'The PAD mob is still encamped at the seized Government House which serves as their center for driving out the current government as well as the People's Power Party, and as the place where their New Politics is being established, [called] "ประชาภิวัฒน์".'

And, here is another sentence from the same article:

'สำหรับการเมือง "ประชาภิวัฒน์" ซึ่งระยะหลังถูกนำมาโหมประโคมบนเวทีปราศรัยโดยยังขาดรายละเอียดถูกมองเป็นเพียงการเสนอขึ้นมาเพื่อกลบเกลื่อน เนื้อหาการเมืองใหม่ 70 : 30'

'The [notion of] "ประชาภิวัฒน์" politics which has recently being trotted out and strenuously proclaimed from the speaker's platform, although still lacking in [essential] details, is now being viewed as merely a trial balloon in order to conceal the real substance of their 70:30 [system] of New Politics.'

Now we are faced with yet another potential multi-syllable word, "democratization". This would be a great word for the PAD because it's meaning is so fuzzy as to connote only good images. Can anyone provide any more appropriate language as a translation for the subject term? How about, "Power to the People"?

[Richard W]

I finally managed to take a close look at this section of กำชัย's book. Indeed, there is no rule for อะ + อะ = อะ, but he does include a หมายเหตุ (N.B.) at the end of the section saying that sometimes this is the case, and cites exactly the two examples that Yoot has provided here: พราหมณ + อธิบาย = พราหมณธิบาย, ลักษณ + อภิเษก = ลักษณภิเษก.

Looking around, there is quite a general lack of the Pali sandhi rule -a a- > -a- in Thai words. Almost all the examples I can find follow the Sanskrit rule, namely -a a- > -A-, so for example พจน์ 'word' + อนุกรม 'sequence; order; series' > พจนานุกรม 'dictionary'.

I can add a third example of the Pali Sandhi rule, one that's actually in the RID - โลก + อัตถ์ + จริยา = โลกัตถจริยา.