Why the name change from siam to thailand and why thai land?

[ThePlant]

as i read all these posts i now understand that many of us need to find something useful to do. way to much time on our hands, spittle flows from our keyboards like it would from a 93 year old farts lips while eating oatmeal. :-)

Well as most of the posts on this thread have shown a decent amount of understanding of the subject at hand apart from yours, I'd say your post is aimed at yourself so cover up them 'fart lips'

[ThePlant]

DP......

Edited December 21, 2014 by ThePlant

[AyG]

Don't know if it means any thing but Siem Reap is Cambodian for Siam defeated.

Do you have anything to suggest that is true, other than dodgy sources such as Wikipedia which repeat folk etymologies?

The Wikipedia reference for this translation is Article 6 of the "Convention between France and Siam Amending the Stipulations of the Treaty of 8 October 1904, Concerning the Territories and the Other Arrangements, Signed at Paris, the 13th February 1904." That doesn't sound to me like a reference to a scholarly work of etymology.

And looking up "defeat" in a couple of Khmer dictionaries doesn't give anything remotely approximating "reap" as a translation.

[thailiketoo]

Ambassadors don't declare war countries do.

It is their duty to 'deliver' the official declaration of war which Seni Pramoj refused to do in Washington.

From the American Ambassador to Thailand's web site.

Note: Thailand declared war on the United States January 25, 1942. Ambassador Peck was initially interned and then freed. He departed Thailand on June 29, 1942.

Note: Normal relations between Thailand and the United States were resumed after the war in October 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_Thailand

[aTomsLife]

Don't know if it means any thing but Siem Reap is Cambodian for Siam defeated.

Do you have anything to suggest that is true, other than dodgy sources such as Wikipedia which repeat folk etymologies?

The Wikipedia reference for this translation is Article 6 of the "Convention between France and Siam Amending the Stipulations of the Treaty of 8 October 1904, Concerning the Territories and the Other Arrangements, Signed at Paris, the 13th February 1904." That doesn't sound to me like a reference to a scholarly work of etymology.

And looking up "defeat" in a couple of Khmer dictionaries doesn't give anything remotely approximating "reap" as a translation.

Why task others with what you could easily google yourself?

If you're so disinclined to believe that Siem Reap means what AyG says it does (he's right, btw), go ahead and put in the search terms yourself: Siem Reap; meaning; Thailand

Siem Reap, literally means “flattened Siamese”

Edited December 21, 2014 by aTomsLife

[crusty]

A few reasons. First is to save face (no kidding) and dis-associate their name is being the ally of Japan during WW2. Secondly, Siam aka siamese, well, Laotians and cambodians and burma can be called siamese people as they were part of the Siamese kingdom in ancient times, or something like that, not sure but it's something I have read before.

The name change from Siam to Thailaut was an attempt to cover up their political chicanery after Siam actually declared war on the allies but was not on record as the Thai ambassador in America refused to present the declaration. After the war the Thais had the cheek to try and march in the allied victory parade but were refused by the allied commander Lord Louis Mountbatten.

Where did that parade take place?

There was parade in Rangoon and another in Singapore

[macapie]

May be wrong, but I always believed that the PM at the time of change went for Thailand, meaning " Lovely Land " sounded better than Siam. Considering the fallacy of the meaning today I believe Siam is more appropriate and sounds more Thai anyway.

[Neeranam]

Whenever a poser like this comes up I ask my good lady. So I just asked her what does the Thai word "thai" mean...I got the usual answer...Mi-loo. I asked her what is the Thai word for "free" or "freedom"...she rattled off something that was a million miles from the word "thai". I come across this a lot. I could ask 20 Thai people what a certain word means and get 20 different answers. I also sometimes ask Thai people what a word I hear regularly in use means...and a lot of the time i get "Mi-loo" again. Kinda puzzles me how people use a word a lot of the time and don't actually know what it means. One I have been trying to find a meaning for is "Na"....as in "Na-Krap". I have never met a Thai person who can tell me what the "Na" means even though is used a million times a day by many people?

Why not buy a dictionary or even better learn Thai yourself?

[AYJAYDEE]

May be wrong, but I always believed that the PM at the time of change went for Thailand, meaning " Lovely Land " sounded better than Siam. Considering the fallacy of the meaning today I believe Siam is more appropriate and sounds more Thai anyway.

lol! trust a farang to decide that a word used by foreigners meaning "brown skin" sounds more suitable for thai people!!

[Neeranam]

who said mi is pronounced mee?

cos you spell the word to look like it's pronounced as me. Like some ppl misspell me as mi. It's pronounced "mei" Not me.

How do you pronounce the words "mike" and "bike" and "spike"?

Mi is a word - it comes after doh and ray.

What about miserly, Milan, Michigan, Mitchel, military, micro, Midas.?

[micmichd]

Is Midas here in the Forum?

[micmichd]

Whenever a poser like this comes up I ask my good lady. So I just asked her what does the Thai word "thai" mean...I got the usual answer...Mi-loo. I asked her what is the Thai word for "free" or "freedom"...she rattled off something that was a million miles from the word "thai". I come across this a lot. I could ask 20 Thai people what a certain word means and get 20 different answers. I also sometimes ask Thai people what a word I hear regularly in use means...and a lot of the time i get "Mi-loo" again. Kinda puzzles me how people use a word a lot of the time and don't actually know what it means. One I have been trying to find a meaning for is "Na"....as in "Na-Krap". I have never met a Thai person who can tell me what the "Na" means even though is used a million times a day by many people?

Why not buy a dictionary or even better learn Thai yourself?

Well, what does "well" mean?

[The manic]

To aid in enforcing the power of the Military and other elites over the the 25 million Issan, Lao, Kymer and tribals. These are the same people who want to change the government via democratic voting to get more representation in the capital, Bangkok or better still full partition and separation from the light skinned urban elite representing the 50 main families who own Thailand. It's a construct hence the lack of stability. Thailand does not really exist.

[personchester]

Thai, as in Thailand = free is folk etymology. Google 'Tai' and you will see what I mean. A country called Siam sided with the Japanese during WW2. In typical Thai fashion, in 1949 they decided to change the name to Thailand.

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

no, they first changed it in 1939

The country name "Thailand" was firstly entered in 1939 at the beginning of WW 2, (Japan occupied Thailand) and in 1945 at the end of WW 2 the country went back to the name Siam and in 1949 the name Siam was changed again to the name Thailand.

There is now a crowing public intention to return the Thailand name back to the name Siam, if the growing public intention increases then it might happen that the country will be called Siam again.

[micmichd]

To aid in enforcing the power of the Military and other elites over the the 25 million Issan, Lao, Kymer and tribals. These are the same people who want to change the government via democratic voting to get more representation in the capital, Bangkok or better still full partition and separation from the light skinned urban elite representing the 50 main families who own Thailand. It's a construct hence the lack of stability. Thailand does not really exist.

Like Germany or Great Britain.

Are you sure you understand the OP's question?

[aTomsLife]

For those seeking a more indepth explanation of the how and why of the initial name change and, secondly, one argument in favor of changing the name back:

http://www.chiangmai-chiangrai.com/siam-thailand-name.html

http://www.thailandqa.com/forum/showthread.php?29229-Why-we-should-change-back-to-Siam

[HerbalEd]

who said mi is pronounced mee?

cos you spell the word to look like it's pronounced as me. Like some ppl misspell me as mi. It's pronounced "mei" Not me.

How do you pronounce the words "mike" and "bike" and "spike"?

Mi is a word - it comes after doh and ray.

What about miserly, Milan, Michigan, Mitchel, military, micro, Midas.?

Of course "mi" can have a different pronunciation (sound) depending upon the word. That was my point.

[HerbalEd]

disregard

Edited December 21, 2014 by HerbalEd

[The manic]

To aid in enforcing the power of the Military and other elites over the the 25 million Issan, Lao, Kymer and tribals. These are the same people who want to change the government via democratic voting to get more representation in the capital, Bangkok or better still full partition and separation from the light skinned urban elite representing the 50 main families who own Thailand. It's a construct hence the lack of stability. Thailand does not really exist.

Like Germany or Great Britain.

Are you sure you understand the OP's question?

Yes you got it. Like The Soviet Union or Yugoslavia or The United Kingdom or Iraq. The difference is that some of these geopolitical entities worked pretty well and some did not. Since the creation of Thailand out of political expediency it did not work for the majority of people. Hence the backwardness, corruption, feudal political system, and constant coups. No it did not work. Britain did by and large work.. Sure I understand the question in all its depth. You apparently do not and yet again find yourself out of your depth when picking silly arguments with more educated, more experienced people than yourself. I do not mean to be cruel but you do ask for it.

[AYJAYDEE]

who said mi is pronounced mee?

cos you spell the word to look like it's pronounced as me. Like some ppl misspell me as mi. It's pronounced "mei" Not me.

How do you pronounce the words "mike" and "bike" and "spike"?

Mi is a word - it comes after doh and ray.

What about miserly, Milan, Michigan, Mitchel, military, micro, Midas.?

what about fee fi fo fum?

[Bakeman]

it means land of the free AND land of the thai people. makes perfect sense as it is the land of thai people AND it has remained free from colonialism.

King Rama V made many political journeys to other countries to insure Siam was not colonized. Perhaps this is the reason?????

[micmichd]

To aid in enforcing the power of the Military and other elites over the the 25 million Issan, Lao, Kymer and tribals. These are the same people who want to change the government via democratic voting to get more representation in the capital, Bangkok or better still full partition and separation from the light skinned urban elite representing the 50 main families who own Thailand. It's a construct hence the lack of stability. Thailand does not really exist.

Like Germany or Great Britain.

Are you sure you understand the OP's question?

Yes you got it. Like The Soviet Union or Yugoslavia or The United Kingdom or Iraq. The difference is that some of these geopolitical entities worked pretty well and some did not. Since the creation of Thailand out of political expediency it did not work for the majority of people. Hence the backwardness, corruption, feudal political system, and constant coups. No it did not work. Britain did by and large work.. Sure I understand the question in all its depth. You apparently do not and yet again find yourself out of your depth when picking silly arguments with more educated, more experienced people than yourself. I do not mean to be cruel but you do ask for it.

You're not cruel, you simply don't know much about nation-building.

If I think about the decline of the British Empire and all these separatistic movement inside the UK (Scotland recently) I still have my doubts. Yugoslavia wasn't that bad in the pre-Milosevic era.

[AyG]

Don't know if it means any thing but Siem Reap is Cambodian for Siam defeated.

Do you have anything to suggest that is true, other than dodgy sources such as Wikipedia which repeat folk etymologies?

The Wikipedia reference for this translation is Article 6 of the "Convention between France and Siam Amending the Stipulations of the Treaty of 8 October 1904, Concerning the Territories and the Other Arrangements, Signed at Paris, the 13th February 1904." That doesn't sound to me like a reference to a scholarly work of etymology.

And looking up "defeat" in a couple of Khmer dictionaries doesn't give anything remotely approximating "reap" as a translation.

Why task others with what you could easily google yourself?

If you're so disinclined to believe that Siem Reap means what AyG says it does (he's right, btw), go ahead and put in the search terms yourself: Siem Reap; meaning; Thailand

Siem Reap, literally means flattened Siamese

Oh, but I did Google it, and there was no site I could find which explained in an authoritative fashion, including Khmer script, how this translation was arrived at, and it turns out the translation is wrong.

With a bit of work, I've now been able to look up the constituent words in Headley's Cambodian-English Dictionary (1997), and it turns out that "riep" doesn't mean "defeated" or "flattened". It means (quoting from the dictionary) "to be obedient, submissive, pacified; tame; gentle; calm, quiet; polite".

So, Siem Reap is probably best translated as "Siam Subdued", with none of the triumphalism inherent in words such as "defeated" or "flattened".

[AYJAYDEE]

Don't know if it means any thing but Siem Reap is Cambodian for Siam defeated.

Do you have anything to suggest that is true, other than dodgy sources such as Wikipedia which repeat folk etymologies?

The Wikipedia reference for this translation is Article 6 of the "Convention between France and Siam Amending the Stipulations of the Treaty of 8 October 1904, Concerning the Territories and the Other Arrangements, Signed at Paris, the 13th February 1904." That doesn't sound to me like a reference to a scholarly work of etymology.

And looking up "defeat" in a couple of Khmer dictionaries doesn't give anything remotely approximating "reap" as a translation.

Why task others with what you could easily google yourself?

If you're so disinclined to believe that Siem Reap means what AyG says it does (he's right, btw), go ahead and put in the search terms yourself: Siem Reap; meaning; Thailand

Siem Reap, literally means flattened Siamese

Oh, but I did Google it, and there was no site I could find which explained in an authoritative fashion, including Khmer script, how this translation was arrived at, and it turns out the translation is wrong.

With a bit of work, I've now been able to look up the constituent words in Headley's Cambodian-English Dictionary (1997), and it turns out that "riep" doesn't mean "defeated" or "flattened". It means (quoting from the dictionary) "to be obedient, submissive, pacified; tame; gentle; calm, quiet; polite".

So, Siem Reap is probably best translated as "Siam Subdued", with none of the triumphalism inherent in words such as "defeated" or "flattened".

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/subdue?s=t

[aTomsLife]

Don't know if it means any thing but Siem Reap is Cambodian for Siam defeated.

Do you have anything to suggest that is true, other than dodgy sources such as Wikipedia which repeat folk etymologies?

The Wikipedia reference for this translation is Article 6 of the "Convention between France and Siam Amending the Stipulations of the Treaty of 8 October 1904, Concerning the Territories and the Other Arrangements, Signed at Paris, the 13th February 1904." That doesn't sound to me like a reference to a scholarly work of etymology.

And looking up "defeat" in a couple of Khmer dictionaries doesn't give anything remotely approximating "reap" as a translation.

Why task others with what you could easily google yourself?

If you're so disinclined to believe that Siem Reap means what AyG says it does (he's right, btw), go ahead and put in the search terms yourself: Siem Reap; meaning; Thailand

Siem Reap, literally means flattened Siamese

Oh, but I did Google it, and there was no site I could find which explained in an authoritative fashion, including Khmer script, how this translation was arrived at, and it turns out the translation is wrong.

With a bit of work, I've now been able to look up the constituent words in Headley's Cambodian-English Dictionary (1997), and it turns out that "riep" doesn't mean "defeated" or "flattened". It means (quoting from the dictionary) "to be obedient, submissive, pacified; tame; gentle; calm, quiet; polite".

So, Siem Reap is probably best translated as "Siam Subdued", with none of the triumphalism inherent in words such as "defeated" or "flattened".

My apologies then, if you've been making an effort yourself.

But you're splitting hairs, nevertheless. How many researchers do you think were tasked with compiling Headley's Cambodian-English Dictionary? Sure it sounds authoritative enough, but it's still probably just one guy who submitted his interpretation of the word. To each his own, though. If you prefer that translation in the face of all the other people--including many bilingual Cambodians--who use the one aforementioned, go right ahead.

[sipi]

Yeah. I could never understand why they changed Old Zealand to New Zealand.

[wabothai]

I like Siam better, more like the old days.

I think better to change back to Siam.

[The manic]

To aid in enforcing the power of the Military and other elites over the the 25 million Issan, Lao, Kymer and tribals. These are the same people who want to change the government via democratic voting to get more representation in the capital, Bangkok or better still full partition and separation from the light skinned urban elite representing the 50 main families who own Thailand. It's a construct hence the lack of stability. Thailand does not really exist.

Like Germany or Great Britain.

Are you sure you understand the OP's question?

Yes you got it. Like The Soviet Union or Yugoslavia or The United Kingdom or Iraq. The difference is that some of these geopolitical entities worked pretty well and some did not. Since the creation of Thailand out of political expediency it did not work for the majority of people. Hence the backwardness, corruption, feudal political system, and constant coups. No it did not work. Britain did by and large work.. Sure I understand the question in all its depth. You apparently do not and yet again find yourself out of your depth when picking silly arguments with more educated, more experienced people than yourself. I do not mean to be cruel but you do ask for it.

You're not cruel, you simply don't know much about nation-building.

If I think about the decline of the British Empire and all these separatistic movement inside the UK (Scotland recently) I still have my doubts. Yugoslavia wasn't that bad in the pre-Milosevic era.

The last time I saw the news we had decided to stay part of the Union, after a democratic vote. Some geopolitical entities work some don't. The Slovak and Czechs may not have benefited as much as they had hoped from separation. There are plenty of examples of both negative states and positive ones. Thailand is not a success especially for the disenfranchised people of the North and the muslims of the south. An independent Issan is on the cards. A dissolution of Thailand and the creation of a Democratic Republic in its place seceeding from the Central Thai power elite and militarists is one way out of the present mess. It is interesting that you mention the colonial occupation and the decline of the empire. This indeed is what is happening now in what used to be briefly called Thailand. Perhaps the occupation of one race over another is coming to and end and a new freer, better, happier Siam will be reborn. Yes I did understand the question. I am pleased that you do not take my cruelty to heart. You must get used to it from many people I guess.

[AyG]

the disenfranchised people of the North

Really? Disenfranchised? Who do you think brought Thaksin to power? Elected Yingluck? And would undoubtedly choose the winning candidate if there were an election today.

These are the people whose political power has brought them massive subsidies for their farming, generous handouts for local development projects, cheap loans (which haven't really needed to be paid back).

Disenfranchised they most certainly are not.