--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, pakdi yanawaro <prapakdi@...> wrote:

Thank you for replying.

> Do you know the Thai alphabets and do you have Thai fonts in
your computer?

I know the alphabet, but only an outline of its history between the
ancestral Brahmi alphabet and the modern, extended form. I do have
Thai fonts installed.

This posting is best viewed using the Thai encoding, but should still be
understandable in Western European encoding.

> Usually we equate Thai and English alphabets as follows : º=b, »
=p, ¼¾=ph, ½¿=f, À=bh

> ÇÔËÒÃ =vihaara in pali, but pronounced in Thai as vihaan

The (Thai) Royal Institute Dictionary (RID) (
http://rirs3.royin.go.th/ridictionary/lookup.html ) derives this word from =

Pali and Sanskrit, for it is the same in both languages. But the doublet
¾ÔËÒÃ "phihaar" /phihaan/ it derives only from Pali, but still gives the Pa=
li
original as ÇÔËÒÃ "vihaara" - not *¾ÔËÒÃ *"bihaara". (I'm using linguists'=

notation - * denotes a form that is not found; // encloses
pronunciation; "" encloses spellings - <> confuses some HTML-based
mail systems; and I use __ for quoted words in the Roman alphabet to
provide italicisation.)

> ¸ÃÃÁ = dhamma(pali) = ¸ÃÚ in sansakrit (By the way,I don't know
sansakrit) .
> All ÃÃ(à Ëѹ) words are derived from sansakrit e.g.ÀÃÃÂÒ ÏÅÏ

Where does ÃÃ(à Ëѹ) come from? I notice that the RID does *not* use
it for Sanskrit words. I know it appears in Thai words whose Sanskrit
originals contain -ar- in a closed syllable.

I suspect Thai has reintroduced ÃÃ (double ro) in some words that
actually come from Pali. For the benefit of those who cannot view Thai
characters, I will translitierate it as "RR", though the normal
transliteration is as "a" or "an". I have ignored the silencing of letters=
in
my transliterations here.

I will first give a simple, typical case that illustrates what you are
saying. Thai ÊÇÃäì "sawRRkh" /sawan/ seems to come from Sankrit
_svarga_, not from Pali _sagga_.

Some words are more difficult - Thai ¤ÃÃÀì "khRRbh" /khan/ 'womb'
seems to come from Sanskrit _garbha_, not Pali _gabbha_. (The RID
doesn't mention the Pali form!) But there is a rare Thai form
¤ÃÃÀ "khRRbh" /khabh/ that sounds as though it originally came from
Pali.

The reverse pattern occurs with Thai ¾Ãä "phRRkh" /phak/ 'party,
faction' (doublet ÇÃä "wRRkh" /wak/ 'phrase, section, line of poetry;
pause, space in writing') and its further doublet
¾Ãäì "phRRkh" /phan/ 'group, class'. The first two sound as though
they derive from Pali _vagga_, but the last form seems to come from
Sanskrit _varga_.

I don't know if this apparent spelling change, the reintroduction of
double ro, has happened in most loans from Pali. Do you know of many
examples where it has not? The only example I could think of is the
rare Thai form ÊÁѵ¶ "samatth" /samat/ from Pali _samattha_. There is
a different spelling, ÊÁÃö "samRRth" /samat/ from Sanskrit
_samartha_ . They have similar meanings to the commoner form,
ÊÒÁÒö "saamaarth" /saamaat/ 'capable, able'. The form matching Pali
is so rare that it is not even in the RID! I could only find it in the on=
-line
dictionary at thai-language.com ; that dictionary says that the form I
derive from Sanskrit actually comes from Pali. I will see if I can find ou=
t
why the form with double ro is ascribed to Pali, not Sankrit.

Richard.