ศาลาชุมนุม

[mangkorn]

Good point, Khun Riga.

While จำนงค์ ทองประเสริฐ may be one of those old guys who insist on antiquated transcriptions of loanwords like ศีรษะ - it doesn't make much more sense than many of the ridiculous versions of Indic loanwords adopted into Thai that are then transcribed into Roman alphabet today, such as "Suvarnabhumi" (which, when any foreigner pronounces it as written, sounds nothing like the way that Thais actually say it).

Yes, the "system" for transcribing loanwords has been amply explained by the linguists - as an effort to be "faithful" to the original Sanskrit, or other language - but in fact it doesn't have much utility, when the original contains consonants that are not pronounced in Thai. Is the point of transcribing to satisfy some ivory-tower academic's sense of esoteric order, or to allow the people to properly understand those words?

The spellings of many loanwords have been modified over time to be more practically understood (ศรีสะเกษ may be one of them, I'm not sure). One wonders why the persistence of an antiquated "system" for other words that even the average Thai person may have trouble reading? Seems to me that being "faithful" to an ancient foreign spelling of a word from a different alphabet is not as practical as a contemporary, phonetic pronunciation in the local alphabet.

A fair amount of Thai people are confused by esoteric spellings of words that are not commonly spoken, and it's not their fault.

Neither is it the fault of the unknowing tourist when he/she incorrectly says "Suvarnabhumi," or "River Kwai."

[r2d2]

* * * * *
ส่วนคำว่า “ศีรษะ” นั้นเป็นคำสันสกฤษ ตรงกับคำบาลีว่า “สีส” (สี-สะ) พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน ให้ความหมายใว้ว่า “น. หัว (เป็นคำสุพาภ ใช้แก่คน).”

As for the word “ศีรษะ”, this is a Sanskrit word which is the equivalent to the Pali word “สีส”. The Royal Institute Dictionary provides the following definition: “Noun. Head (the polite word [for head], used only for human beings [and not animals, for example]).

In HK: zIrSa (Sanskrit, better ศีรฺษ as -ะ not needed), sIsa (Pali)

Please note this while advertising to write Sisaket with sara i on ro ruea (it is zIr in Sanskrit but not zrI ... and sI in Pali) +/- ศี/สี.

Replacement of so sala by so suea, and vice versa, is a phenomenon observable in Thai language as old as the King Ramkhamhaeng stele, so not that new.

The cultural background for the latter phenomenon - a "typo" such as สรีสะเกษ ... again, Pali is สีส(ะ), sIsa, and Sanskrit is ศีรษ(ะ), zIrSa; in doubt Pali-like is easier to pronounce...

[r2d2]

Hi all,

...

All dictionaries that I have that provide a phonetic spelling say that it is pronounced [สี สะ], however, all phonetic rules that I am aware of would only allow the following pronunciations:

• [สี ระ สะ]
• [สีน สะ]
• [สีน ระ สะ]

-oevna

Hi Oevna,

although not applying always all phonetic rules on 3 "pseudo-clusters" I know are mentioning the following:

จร = /จ/ (the famous จริง)
สร/ศร = /ส/ (สรวง [สวง]; ศรัย [ไส])
ทร = /ซ/ (ทรง [ซง])

I do not found these phonetic rules as very helpful since in the case of จร = /จ/ จริง appears to be the only example for the rule, and for the others there are more exceptions from the rule than sample terms. But ศีรษะ is a typical example for the rule. The proper position of sara I was discussed by David. For claiming that the position of the sara i precludes ro ruea being part of a cluster/pseudoclsuster see ศรัย [ไส]

[r2d2]

While จำนงค์ ทองประเสริฐ may be one of those old guys who insist on antiquated transcriptions of loanwords like ศีรษะ -

The method for coining Thai terms from Pali-/Sanskrit terms is transliteration but not transcription. The transliteration output from zIrSa would be ศีรฺษ.

Your critique on further adoption to Thai phonetic/spelling rules should start here (note that Thai does not use phinthu).

Your further critizism on different transcription/transliteration systems applied ON THAI does not fit with the case discussed here.

A remark off subject.

[Richard Wordingham]

สร/ศร = /ส/ (สรวง [สวง]; ศรัย [ไส])
...
But ศีรษะ is a typical example for the rule. The proper position of sara I was discussed by David. For claiming that the position of the sara i precludes ro ruea being part of a cluster/pseudoclsuster see ศรัย [ไส]

But the latter allows application of the rule ศร = /ส/. The sara ii in ศีรษะ gets in the way. The cluster in ศีรษะ is -รษ-. There is one other example - ปารษณี (ปาด-สะ-นี) 'heel'. It's not much of a rule.

[r2d2]

The cluster in ศีรษะ is -รษ-. There is one other example - ปารษณี (ปาด-สะ-นี) 'heel'. It's not much of a rule.

ปารษณี [ปาดสะนี] (แบบ) น. ส้นเท้า. (ส. ปารฺษฺณิ; ป. ปาสณิ, ปณฺหิ).
pArSNi the heel; the extremity of the fore-axle to which the outside horses of a four-horse chariot are attached

My interpreation is that the r is the final consonant of the syllable in both examples (pAr---SNi, zIr---Sa).

Since I consider the r as the final consonant (or part of the final consonant cluster [pArS---Ni], but final in any case), I have much symphathy with the statement of the author quoted by David:

"... do not stick your head outside of the vehicle” [“head” here spelled as “ศรีษะ”]. The correct word “ศีรษะ” was [incorrectly] spelled “ศรีษะ”. This is something I have objected to in the past."

Although I agree that - potentially (???) - putting the sara i on the so sala precludes to read it as a cluster (thus, the issue of the thread - sin-sa, sin-ra-sa etc.): in accordance with the author quoted by David I consider it even more meaningless to put sara i on the ro ruea as this is the final consonant (in the Sanskrit term).

Do you agree that in both samples ศีรษะ/ปารษณี spelling follows the Sanskrit term while the pronounciation is nearer to the Pali term (in the second case ป. ปาสณิ, pA-saNi, or paN-hi)?

I found several time the spelling สรีสะเกษ. Here I would consider สีสะเกษ the most consequent solution (trying to claim that the term has Pali but not Sanskrit roots). Thus, replying to my own question, a spelling mistake as well as ศรีสะเกษ.

Nothing about rules from my side as well. But what you think about ศรีสะเกษ, ศีรสะเกษ, สรีสะเกษ and สีสะเกษ ?

[David and Bui]

Interesting explanation of the name "ศรีสะเกษ" at http://www.mapculture.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=59

ศรี - name of a woman
สะ - สระ - to wash; shampoo; rinse; cleanse
เกษ - hair

For a fuller explanation or for more guesses as to the origins of the name, see the reference above.

[simonbournemouth]

That is an interesting explanation, David. Here's another from Wikipedia;

ศรีสะเกษ, transliteration of Chinese character, literally means "Four colours chrysanthemum".

I'm wondering, what are the reasons for naming the province/city of Sisaket after Chinese characters?

Seems a little far-fetched to me.

[r2d2]

เกษ - hair

btw, are you aware that hair is in Sanskrit keza (เกศ) and in Pali kesa (เกส)? According to my sources keSa (เกษ) is unknown in both languages. Khmer is kaeh (Royal Usage, PaliSanskrit root).

[r2d2]

That is an interesting explanation, David. Here's another from Wikipedia;

ศรีสะเกษ, transliteration of Chinese character, literally means "Four colours chrysanthemum".

I'm wondering, what are the reasons for naming the province/city of Sisaket after Chinese characters?

Seems a little far-fetched to me. 1. Devanagari are Indic letters but not Chinese characters
2. chrysanthemum is in Chinese, Mandarin, huang(2)hua(1)
3. เมืองขุขันธ์ is more famous for its Khmer than its Chinese history, and tradition