Thai confusion

[taih]

Why is the "thai" in สุโขทัย written differently from the "Thai" in ไทยแลนด์/เมืองไทย/ประเทศไทย?

Was Sukhothai always called or spelt the way it was in Thai and English?

Was there ever a ภาษาสยาม?

[Richard W]

The simple explanation is that the name 'Sukhothai' is derived from Sanskrit; it does not contain the word 'Thai'. The history of the spelling ไทย is more complicated. The presence of the redundant consonant is related to the limited phonetic repertoire of Pali, but I don't accurately recall the history of how this affects Thai.

Note that the vowel ใ used to be pronounced differently to ไ.

[taih]

The simple explanation is that the name 'Sukhothai' is derived from Sanskrit; it does not contain the word 'Thai'. The history of the spelling ไทย is more complicated. The presence of the redundant consonant is related to the limited phonetic repertoire of Pali, but I don't accurately recall the history of how this affects Thai.

Note that the vowel ใ used to be pronounced differently to ไ.

So if the name does not contain the word "thai", then what was it called?

[BuddhistVirus]

The simple explanation is that the name 'Sukhothai' is derived from Sanskrit; it does not contain the word 'Thai'. The history of the spelling ไทย is more complicated. The presence of the redundant consonant is related to the limited phonetic repertoire of Pali, but I don't accurately recall the history of how this affects Thai.

Note that the vowel ใ used to be pronounced differently to ไ.

So if the name does not contain the word "thai", then what was it called?

Maybe this?

Sukhothai (Sanskrit: Sukhodaya)

"The name derives from Sanskrit words Sukha (Pleasure) and Udaya (Ascent or Dawn) and translates as 'The rise/dawn of pleasure/happiness'." From Wikipedia

[Mole]

Keep in mind that although it's Romanized as "thai", it's not the same "thai" with same meaning as in "Thailand". That's why it's also spelled differently in Thai.

It's like some English words which are pronounced the same, but spelled differently.

[taih]

Was the language itself always called ภาษาไทย and spelt this way?

[Aforek]

Keep in mind that although it's Romanized as "thai", it's not the same "thai" with same meaning as in "Thailand". That's why it's also spelled differently in Thai.

It's like some English words which are pronounced the same, but spelled differently.

Modern example with " "Thai Watsadu", nothing to do with " Thai ", because in Thai language, it's " ไทวัสดุ"

[Mole]

The word "ไทย" or "ไท" is of a more recent history.

However, as you can see the "thai" in Sukhothai is spelled "ทัย" which is completely different, although it is pronounced the same as "ไทย" and "ไท", the meaning and origins are completely different.

When transcribing ไทย/ไท and ทัย to Latin characters, they naturally end up being written the same as "thai" because of the identical pronunciation of both words in Thai language.

It's like the English: mole and mold, which are pronounced exactly the same, so they would be transcribed exactly the same to Thai or other non Latin script. But both word has no connections whatsoever.

[Mole]

Actually, the "ไท" in ไทวัสดุ is of the same origins and meaning as ไทย.

ไทย used to be written only as ไท, but when it became the name of the nation of Thailand (ประเทศไทย) they decided to add the ย at the end to ไทย to differentiate it from ไท, although the meaning is exactly the same. The ย at the end would according to Thai orthography not be pronounced.

Similar if one would have the word "mol" and "mole" which in English would have been pronounced the same.

[Mole]

For the record, ไท/ไทย means "free/liberty" (free as in free speech), while the "ทัย" in Sukhothai comes from the word อุทัย.

Sukhothai as explained in wikipedia derived from from 2 Pali/Sanskrit loan words, "sukha" which in Thai is written as สุข [suk] (which means happiness/bliss) and "udaya" (meaning ascent/dawn) written in Thai as อุทัย [uthai]. Both words combines to Sukh-othai [สุโขทัย]. So as you can see, the "thai" in Sukhothai, isn't actually "thai", but "othai" from the Sanskrit (udaya). Thai language has habit of transcribing the "d" sound from Sanskrit words to "th" (as in English "t") sound.

So, udaya becomes uthaya, but Thai language doesn't pronounce the "a" at the end like in Sanskrit, so it turns to uthay or uthai.

You can compare it to many English words with "e" at the end which is not pronounced, while it is pronounced in other European languages.

[taih]

So was the Thai language originally called ภาษาไท? I'm confused.

[Mole]

Due to the limitations of Thai orthography and the fact that there are many sounds in Sanskrit which doesn't exist in Thai, many words of Sanskrit origins end up with the same pronunciation in Thai, while they would have been pronounced differently and distinct from each other in Sanskrit.

In additional, some loan words may also end up sounding like native Thai words, but they are most of the time usually written differently in Thai to reflect their different origins and meanings. (such as ไท and ทัย)

If one is able to read Thai, one will immediately see the differences, while if it's transcribed to Latin characters would be written the same.

This is why I find written Thai much more complicated to master than for example Lao, which is written phonetically while a word in Thai, can be written in a numerous of ways, to reflect their origins, but pronounced identically.

[Mole]

The name "Thai" was put in use in 1939. Exactly what the origins of it is kind of obscure and arguable. According to wikipedia (with no citation) ไทย isn't derived from ไท but from the word Tai people (Shans). But I'm not so sure about this, because it's pronounced differently as ไต (tai) and not ไท (thai). So I'm in the camp which believes the origin of the word "Thai" comes from ไท meaning freedom.

Before that, Thailand was called "Siam". So in ancient times, I presume they would have called the language which they spoke for ภาษาสยาม "phasa siam" or Siam language.

The word "Thai" was basically created in 1939 a few years after they abolished absolute monarchy. It was decided that the people of Siam needed a new more modern national identity, so the decision was taken to rename Siam to Thai. But written as ไทย to differentiate it from the existing word ไท.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/siam-becomes-thailand

So to answer your question, ภาษาไทย has always been spelled like this, because before that, it was called ภาษาสยาม because the word "ไทย" simply didn't even existed, only the word ไท, but there's no such thing as ภาษาไท.

[Richard W]

On p788 of Pallegoix's dictionary (1854), 'สัพะ พะจะนะ พาสา ไท sive Dictionarium Linguæ Thaĭ', we find:

ไท Free. - Free man.

ไท The Thai, the Siamese

ภาสา ไท Thai language

เมือง ไท Kingdom of Siam

I'm surprised at Mole's deduction from Shan Tai being different to Thai Thai. The traditional Northern Thai pronunciation of the generic ethnonym is also unaspirated. It is simply part of the general pattern that words written with ท are pronounced /th/ in the Southern dialects (Siamese, Lao) and /t/ in the rest (Shan, Northern Thai, Tai Lue, Zhuang, Tai dialects in Vietnam). (I know matters are more complicated for ทร.)

The English distinction of Tai 'a major ethnic group of SE Asia, extending from Assam to Vietnam and north into China' and Thai 'to do with the country once known as Siam' is reflected in a contrast of ไท and ไทย, but I'm not sure how widely used the contrast is.

[Mole]

Yes, you are right that some words changes from ท -> ต (ที่ -> ตี้), ค -> ก (คำเมือง -> กำเมือง), and พ -> ป (พี่ - > ปี้)

However, I know that it's pronounced ไท in northern Thai, but the Shans calls themselves ไต. This is why I wasn't so sure of the exact origins of "ไทย/ไท". But of course if the dictionary from 1854 already mentions this, then surely both ไท & ไต must come from the same origins.

Perhaps in ancient times, the Tai people where enslaved and when they decided to break free and travel further south and settle around Xishuangbanna, it was maybe then they decided to call themselves คนไต as in the free not enslaved people. This is of course according to the Thai folklore that they were once nomads from the steppes of China and moved and settled further south.

A Thai movie called "Edge of the Empire" คนไททิ้งแผ่นดิน is loosely based on this legend.

So it seems I was wrong and ภาษาไท does indeed exist and this may probably what the Siamese called their own language.

The word ไทย (with ย) however is a fairly recent invention though.

[Mole]

Another thing to note is that whether "Sukhothai" (if it ever existed) was a kingdom in its own right or just a Khmer province.

Most of the historical data about "Sukhothai" is found on the "Ramkhamhaeng stele". The very name "Ram Khamhaeng" is only ever mentioned on this stone and nowhere else.

There's a debate about the authenticity of this menhir inspired stone and scholars are suspecting it could be a forgery ordered by King Mongkut (Rama IV), for it to be later "discovered" by the king.

This subject is of course taboo here in Thailand.

The purpose was to try to portray the history of "Thai" people as a more ancient than Ayutthaya period.

[taih]

So if this distinction between ไทย and ไท were true; where does this leave the Lao language and identity? Aren't they also linguistically ไท people? You're basically implying the Thais magically evolved from the Siamese.

[taih]

On p788 of Pallegoix's dictionary (1854), 'สัพะ พะจะนะ พาสา ไท sive Dictionarium Linguæ Thaĭ', we find:

ไท Free. - Free man.

ไท The Thai, the Siamese

ภาสา ไท Thai language

เมือง ไท Kingdom of Siam

I'm surprised at Mole's deduction from Shan Tai being different to Thai Thai. The traditional Northern Thai pronunciation of the generic ethnonym is also unaspirated. It is simply part of the general pattern that words written with ท are pronounced /th/ in the Southern dialects (Siamese, Lao) and /t/ in the rest (Shan, Northern Thai, Tai Lue, Zhuang, Tai dialects in Vietnam). (I know matters are more complicated for ทร.)

The English distinction of Tai 'a major ethnic group of SE Asia, extending from Assam to Vietnam and north into China' and Thai 'to do with the country once known as Siam' is reflected in a contrast of ไท and ไทย, but I'm not sure how widely used the contrast is.

Does anyone know the original lyrics to the national anthem?

[Mole]

Why are you suddenly mixing in Lao into this? They have always called themselves Lao and not Thai. In ancient times, their kingdom was called the Lan Xang. Although they belong to the Tai group of people and speak same language family Tai-Kadai, they have always identified themselves separately from the Siamese.

Before they changed the name to "Thai", they were called Siam. So, I don't quite understand your statement: "You're basically implying the Thais magically evolved from the Siamese."

In fact, the name Thai ไทย actually was just "magically" invented to create a new identity for the Siamese people.

Reading you replies so far in this thread, I'm not so sure if you are able to comprehend at all what I just wrote...???

[taih]

Yes, I understand what you wrote. I brought up Laos because I wasn't sure, since they were forcibly annexed from Siam into French Indochina. Hence, they are not "free people" according to the Thais.

[Mole]

No, that has nothing to do with it. The Lao identified themselves separately from the Siamese.

Remember that back then, "Thailand" didn't exist yet and only Siam.

You are truly confused on lots of things...

[taih]

Here's the lyrics and mentions of สยาม and ไทย

• คำร้อง ขุนวิจิตรมาตรา
• ทำนอง พระเจนดุริยางค์

แต่งเมื่อ พ.ศ. 2475

แผ่นดินสยามนามประเทืองว่าเมืองทอง

ไทยเข้าครองตั้งประเทศเขตต์แดนสง่า

สืบชาติไทยดึกดำบรรพ์โบราณลงมา

ร่วมรักษาเอกราษฎร์ชนชาติไทย

บางสมัยศัตรูจู่มารบ

ไทยสมทบสวนทัพเข้าขับไล่

ตะลุยเลือดหมายมุ่งผดุงผะไท

สยามสมัยบุราณรอดตลอดมา

อันดินแดนสยามคือว่าเนื้อของเชื้อไทย

น้ำรินไหลคือว่าเลือดของเชื้อข้า

เอกราษฎร์คือกระดูกที่เราบูชา

เราจะสามัคคีร่วมมีใจ

ยึดอำนาจกุมสิทธิ์อิสสระเสรี

ใครย่ำยีเราจะไม่ละให้

เอาเลือดล้างให้สิ้นแผ่นดินของไทย

สถาปนาสยามให้เทิดชัยไชโย

• คำร้อง ขุนวิจิตรมาตรา (บทที่ 1 และ 2), ฉันท์ ขำวิไล (บทที่ 3 และ 4)
• ทำนอง พระเจนดุริยางค์

ทางราชการประกาศรับรองให้ใช้ได้ เมื่อ พ.ศ. 2477

แผ่นดินสยามนามประเทืองว่าเมืองทอง

ไทยเข้าครองตั้งประเทศเขตต์แดนสง่า

สืบเผ่าไทยดึกดำบรรพ์โบราณลงมา

รวมรักษาสามัคคีทวีไทย

บางสมัยสัตรูจู่โจมตี

ไทยพลีชีพร่วมรวมรุกไล่

เข้าลุยเลือดหมายมุ่งผดุงผะไท

สยามสมัยบุราณรอดตลอดมา

อันดินสยามคือว่าเนื้อของเชื้อไทย

น้ำรินไหลคือว่าเลือดของเชื้อข้า

เอกราษฎร์คือเจดีย์ที่เราบูชา

เราจะสามัคคีร่วมใจ

รักษาชาติประเทศเอกราชจงดี

ใครย่ำยีเราจะไม่ละให้

เอาเลือดล้างให้สิ้นแผ่นดินของไทย

สถาปนาสยามให้เทอดไทยไชโย

เหล่าเราทั้งหลายขอน้อมกายถวายชีวิต

รักษาสิทธิ์อิสสระ ณ แดนสยาม

ที่พ่อแม่สู้ยอมม้วยด้วยพยายาม

ปราบเสี้ยนหนามให้พินาศสืบชาติมา

แม้ถึงไทยไทยด้อยจนย่อยยับ

ยังกู้กลับคงคืนได้ชื่นหน้า

ควรแก่นามงามสุดอยุธยา

นั้นมิใช่ว่าจะขัดสนหมดคนดี

เหล่าเราทั้งหลายเลือดและเนื้อเชื้อชาติไทย

มิให้ใครเข้าเหยียบย่ำขยำขยี้

ประคับประคองป้องสิทธิ์อิสสระเสรี

เมื่อภัยมีช่วยกันจนวันตาย

จะสิ้นชีพไว้ชื่อให้ลือลั่น

ว่าไทยมั่นรักชาติไม่ขาดสาย

มีไมตรีดียิ่งทั้งหญิงทั้งชาย

สยามมิวายผู้มุ่งหมายเชิดชัยไชโย

[Zlabermacht]

Hmmm, so what are you trying to say? Or to understand?

[taih]

No, that has nothing to do with it. The Lao identified themselves separately from the Siamese.

Remember that back then, "Thailand" didn't exist yet and only Siam.

You are truly confused on lots of things...

Of course they did, but just keeping in mind that it was under the tributary of Siam prior to its annexation. Also, the Isaan people are essentially "Thaified" Lao-speaking people.

[taih]

Hmmm, so what are you trying to say? Or to understand?

Trying to understand all things Thai in this country

[Zlabermacht]

the Isaan people are essentially "Thaified" Lao-speaking people.

Even more than that: they are Lao people in Thailand! Or thaified Lao people. Just like the thaified Lanna people. But what this has to do with the original -ทัย / ไทย / ไท matter? They are just different words.

[Johpa]

For what it's worth, I have maintained a home up in the rural north for nearly 30 years now and when the locals refer to someone as being 'Thai' they are referring specifically to someone not being Khon Muang, a native speaker of Northern Thai (kham muang) bur rather someone from Bangkok or the central plains and a speaker of standard Central Thai.

[Richard W]

Why are you suddenly mixing in Lao into this? They have always called themselves Lao and not Thai.

I'm not sure I understand your denial. Do you mean, 'They have always called themselves Lao and not Siamese', or do you mean 'They have always called themselves Lao and not Tai'?

I look the Lao word literally transliterated as ไท up in my Lao-English dictionary and I find three meanings - 'Thai', 'Tai' and 'people'. This backs up my expectation that the Lao consider themselves as part of the Tai people. (They use the Lao form of that ethnonym, so aspirated as in Thai.) They apparently use this word in some designations of groups of lowland Lao, which may account for the translation as 'people'. If you find that confusing, consider English Dutch, usually meaning 'of the Netherlands', but 'German' in Pennsylvania Dutch, and German Deutsch 'German'.

'Lao' once designated a wider group of Tai people, including the Northern Thai, the Tai Lue and the Lao. This usage is at least Siamese and European.

[taih]

the Isaan people are essentially "Thaified" Lao-speaking people.

Even more than that: they are Lao people in Thailand! Or thaified Lao people. Just like the thaified Lanna people. But what this has to do with the original -ทัย / ไทย / ไท matter? They are just different words.

Err, to distinguish themselves from Laos proper that they are “free people”? Northern Thailand (Lanna) has been part of the kingdom since ancient times.

[taih]

For what it's worth, I have maintained a home up in the rural north for nearly 30 years now and when the locals refer to someone as being 'Thai' they are referring specifically to someone not being Khon Muang, a native speaker of Northern Thai (kham muang) bur rather someone from Bangkok or the central plains and a speaker of standard Central Thai.

Hah, I guess Thaification did come up shorter in the North and Northeast, compared to the Central and South. The politics plays into this as well.