Thank you Richard.
Your example
บาปpApa (S3Br. xiv , also %{pA4pa}) mf(%{I} older than %{A} ; cf. Pa1n2. 4-1 , 30)n. bad , vicious , wicked , evil , wretched , vile , low RV. &c. &c. ; (in astrol.) boding evil , inauspicious Var. ; m. a wicked man , wretch , villain RV. &c , &c. ; N. of the profligate in a drama Cat. ; of a hell VP. ; (%{A}) f. a beast of prey or a witch , Hcat ; n. (ifc. f. %{A}) evil , misfortune , ill-luck , trouble , mischief. harm AV. &c. &c. often %{zAntam@pApam} , `" heaven forefend that evil "' R. Mr2icch. Ka1lid. &c.) ; sin , vice , crime , guilt Br. Mn. MBh. &c. ; (%{a4m}) ind. badly , miserably , wrongly AV. ; (%{a4yA}) ind. id. RV. AV. ; %{-papa4yA7muyA4} , so badly , so vilely ib.
is ... lovely.
My theory would now suggest that the first part (?) of the term was loaned in-between 1200-1900 whereas the second part (?), or final consonant respectively, was loaned in the 20th century. But the practice of loaning, and coining, clearly contradicts my theory.
I consider
บาป as ... funny
บาป;
บาป- /
บาบ;
บาบ-
ปะ-/ {Pali/Sanskrit:
ปาป} ... ooops, what went wrong when? Oooops
Reading my preceding post ... else than the high number of typos I find it now curious, reading it again and again, that obviously the Royal Institute uses '
ป.' as an abbreviation of the THAI term (
ภาษา)
บาลี. Seeing this I recalled that Achan Thonglo lists "Akson Sanskrit" and "Akson Pali". The heading of Akson Pali/Bali reads (correctly)
อักษรบาลี but the list itself doesn't know a bo Bali, or a bo bai-mai. It knows the po pla only.
I continue to conclude that coining Thai terms from PaliSanskrit was done, before Achan Thonglo published his Lak Phasa Thai, by transliterating (Sanskrit or Pali) /p/ with
บ and since then (or starting in about 1900-1910) with
ป.
Having said this
บาป continues to look like a "coining accident".