Updated Pali website (viz., mine); Lao & Thai Pali

My website has finally been updated --some of the material has been
long-delayed in being "published" to the web.

The page now makes use of Unicode glyphs; you may want to use
"Firefox" rather than "Microsoft Internet explorer" to display it
(both are free programmes).  If you see a page full of Chinese glyphs,
the software you're using cannot properly display Unicode HTML; try
selecting "View", then set the "Encoding" option to UTF-8 if you can't
read it properly on first inspection.

http://pali.pratyeka.org/

I previously posted the material on Burmese-pali "phonology" to this
list (it was revised somewhat before being added to my website in its
current form) but I'll now post the material on Lao and Thai
pronunciation.  This quotes a few fairly obscure Thai studies articles
on Sk. & Pali loan-words in Thai that will be of interest to a few
list-members.  Other new material on the updated web-page includes
maps of the organization of the canon and its commentaries, etc.
E.M.
----
Lao (Pali) Pronunciation and Phonology
The Lao pronunciation of Pali cannot be explained without reference to
the orthography; it is both the case that some orthographic changes
have been imposed upon the phonology, and, obversely, the phonological
changes made to Pali cognates (appropriated into vernacular Lao) are
now foisted onto the pronunciation of the classical language. Such
confusion is both natural and inevitable in the interchange of two
radically different languages. Lao is comprised of tonal
monosyllables, whereas Pali is non-tonal and polysyllabic, the former
is synthetic and grammatically complex, the latter is in some measure
analytic and agglutinative, with a grammatical system of protean
simplicity (e.g., Lao does not distinguish words according to gender,
number, nor case/declension).

In future, I'll likely publish a more extensive article on this
subject, but, for the time being, I'll provide the following
observations in brief.

The modern language has fewer consonant sounds than the classical, and
so both the modern orthography and the vernacular phonetic assumptions
are imperfectly mapped onto the full grid of classical consonant
sounds. This yields certain, consistent misapprehensions, such as:
In the modern alphabetic order, a single "j" sound (by the English "j"
I mean the I.P.A. phoneme "dʒ") now stands where the classical
language formerly had a range of four consonants "c-ch-j-jh". The
sibilants (viz., two "s" glyphs, distinguished according to tonality)
have here been interposed (as if to fill in the gap left by the
collapse of these four distinct sounds into one!). One direct result
of this is the imposition of a vernacular "s" sound (writ ຊ, never ສ)
onto words with classical "j", e.g., jāti → sāt, and jarā → salā. This
can apply equally to medial j, jj, or jjh, e.g.: vijjā → visā.
The classical distinction between "k" and "g" has largely disappeared;
the modern use of three remaining "k" glyphs primarily distinguishes
them in respect of tonality (a small degree of aspiration or
consonant-sound variation may or may not mutually distinguish them in
accordance with local dialect, but this can only be considered as part
of the language a posteriori, and with inconsistency).
The vernacular "d" and "plosive d" (distinguished by a phonetic
criterion that did not exist in the classical language) are associated
with "t" and the aspirated "th" respectively. Aspiration is a
distinction that does not exist in the vernacular, with confusion
ensuing. The glyph ຕ, now used to express the "plosive d" sound is,
unfortunately, the same as was used in classical times to represent
one of the "k" sounds (this can still be seen, e.g., in the Lanna "k")
--this opens another possible avenue for confusion. More frequently we
find ຕ (the "plosive d") used where we might logically expect to find
ດ in Pali cognates, viz., representing classical dental-"t" in the
initial position after monosyllabization, e.g., kataveditā → ກະຕະເວທີ;
kattari → ກະໄຕ/ກະຕັດ.
The two vernacular "t" glyphs then have the obverse problem of being
associated with classical "d" and "dh", and also serving as
inconsistent substitutes for the retroflex sounds (ḍ/ḍh) that exist in
the classical, but not the modern language. While the the second (low
tone-class) "t" ("ທໍ-ທຸງ") would be theoretically equivalent to Pāli
"dh" (and as a substitute for Pāli "ḍh"), we find in fact that it is
often used to represent the classical (unaspirated) dental "d" in
cognates, e.g., dāna → tān (ທານ) --this invites further confusion.
Similarly, the pairing of "b" and "abrupt/plosive b" are now used to
represent the classical "p" and "aspirated p" sounds in an uncertain
and inconsistent manner; even the name of the language itself (Pāli)
is sometimes written in Lao with one, sometimes with the other
character (ປາລີ vs. ບາລີ).
There is ever the possibility of confusion between ñ and y in the
contact between the classical and the vernacular, with the proximate
causes being:
The graphical similarity between the two in Lao (ຍ vs. ຢ).
Confusion over which glyph to use due to rules (internal to Lao)
concerning the representation of the y sound in initial vs. final
position.
Confusion in the transcription of classical subscript-"y" forms into
vernacular scripts that either lack such forms entirely, or may employ
the equivalent symbols them with a different logic than the method
used in writing Pali (as in the use subscripts of Lao-Tham for old
vernacular Lao, or Lanna script for vernacular Northern Thai; the
subscripts are graphically the same as those used for Pali, but their
signification is different, especially so far as implied vowels are
concerned). The common concomitant of an alteration arising from this
cause would be the insertion of spurious medial vowels in-between
(classical) compound consonants where a formerly-subscript y was
misinterpreted.
As an example (of historical confusion of ñ vs. y) Prapandvidya
proposes that the Sanskrit word kriyā entered Thai as krayā (กระยา)
from krañā, with the unusual vowel change explained by reference to
the medium of a (supposed) Khmer pronunciaton of the Sanskrit as
kreya; thus, Prapandvidya's semantic claim is that the modern Thai
meaning of "Mode, thing, edible" derives from the ancient (Sanskrit)
meaning of "rite/offering". [Chirapat Prapandvidya, 1996, "The Indic
Origin of Some Obscure Thai Words", Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference of Thai Studies, Theme IV, Vol. I, p.
415-426] It seems more likely to me that the implicit vowel "a"
(in-between the first two letters) has been lost in appopriating one
of the various Pali words starting with kara- and (semantically)
indicating the means of action, mode, or grammatical instrumentality;
thus, any number of Pali words (or compound words) related to karaṇa
would provide a semanitcally appropriate origin for a sequence of
substitutions along the lines of karaṇā → karañā → krañā → krayā. The
latter sequence that does not make sense if we assume the source must
be Sanskrit transmitted via Khmer, but it makes perfect sense for Pali
loan word transmitted via Lao (and then transliterated into modern
Thai). The classical retroflex "ṇ" is commonly enough supplanted with
Lao "ñ" (e.g., the realted Pali term karaṇā → ກຣິຍາ, kariñā), and the
latter could then be mis-read as "y" due to Thai confusion when
reading Lao ຍ as if it functioned as the (graphically identical) Thai
ย.
Although the modern and vernacular alphabets have maintained the
pattern of ending each row with a nasal, the dental "n" that concludes
the third row must also serve to represent the classical retroflex ṇ,
as the vernacular affords no closer equivalent. Generally, the
retroflex sounds have dental substitutes, but the nasal sounds are
especially prone to being simplified, especially where a modern reader
would interpret them as being in the final position of a monosyllable,
and so dropping the final vowel thereafter.
Confusion between "b" and "v" has both ancient and proximate causes.
The similarity between the figures used for these glyphs in Fa-Kham
script may be a proximate cause (Fa-Kham is a script adapted from
Cambodian and used extensively in inscriptions in central Thailand
from at least the Sukhothai period); confusion about the separate
existence of the classical "v" seems to have prevailed in all
Khmer/Khom-related scripts from a very early period, and may derive in
part from the South-Indian pronounciation of "b"/"v" in transmitting
Sanskrit to mainland South East Asia [see: Michel Ferlus, 1997 ,"The
origin of the Graph b in the Thai script", in South East Asian
Linguisitc Studies in Honour of Vichin Panupong, Arthur S. Abramson
[ed.], Chulalongkorn University Press, p. 79-82]. While Ferlus's
article [cited] is very useful, it overlooks the fact that substituion
rules and variant spellings within Pali already indicate some
mutability between "v" and "b" before undertaking the passage to
Cambodia, and (as Ferlus notes) no similar confusion can be seen in
the Monic scripts (he posits that the solution was finally to derive a
new "b" in the Khmer group from a Mon source/inspiration, replacing
the pre-11th century square/blob "b"-glyph that, up to that time,
still resembled the form used by Aśoka). Ferlus's article also omits
to mention the source of confusion in the use of vernacular "v/w" as
both a consonant and a semi-vowel in Tai-Kadai langauges, and that
this was sometimes an impetus for orthographic changes (note, e.g.,
that in Lanna script this entails an orthographic distinction between
two subscript forms of "v/w").
The classical language has no "f" sound whatsoever (so the two
vernacular "f" glyphs do not enter into the confusion), but either of
the (tonally distinct) vernacular "p" sounds may now be found
representing the classical "b" sounds, or, less often, will be found
where we should expect a "v" in Pāli (for the reasons outlined above).
The labial row of the alphabet presents a relatively simple instance
of the "inversion" of of the sequence of sounds (viz., the order of
classical "p" and "b" are exchanged, reading the vernacular
equivalents from left to right) more uncertainty will be found in
praxis, as the moderns have had to resolve many complex geminates and
consonant clusters (involving classical "p", "ph", "b", "bh", or
occasionally "v") into simple monosyllables with these
mutually-confusing symbols. Thus, so far as initial consonants are
concerned, we observe the general transformation of classical b/bh
into the two (tonally distinguished) vernacular p sounds, and,
vice-versa, classical p becomes b or "the plosive b", but with less
consistency than the inversions of former rows; thus, e.g., bhāsā →
pāsā (ພາສາ), and padesa → ƀatet (ປະເທດ), though one might instead
expect to find it as ບະເທດ.
Tertiary patterns of simplification of geminate morphemes, and
substitution of dental sounds for retroflexes, etc., are pretty well
self-evident, and are not much worse than the attempts of Europeans to
pronounce Sanskrit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cambodian (Pali) Pronunciation and Phonology
In the future, I may add some further remarks on (the very interesting
subject of) Cambodian pronunciation. For the time being, if you have
the patience, you can try to sort this out for yourself by working
through Huffman & Proum's textbook, that I have scanned and posted
here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thai (Pali) Pronunciation and Phonology
Much that applies to Thai has already been explained in the section on
Lao (above). The problems that are unique to the Thai recitation of
Pali can be most easily (although not with great certainly) explained
by orthographic developments that were ancient in their causes, but
modern in their effects.

From about the 13th century until the modern period, central Thai
vernacular languages were written in a tradition of "Fa-kham" scripts
that were derived from classical Cambodian, but were modified in
response to the phonetic (and tonal) needs of Thai languages,
developing in a separate line of succession (as it were) from the
scripts used to write Pali (viz., Khom [classical Khmer] script in the
south, and the Lanna/Tham/Monic scripts in the north of what is now
Thailand). There are now many monstrous problems of interpretation
that Thai speakers encounter both when reading Pali (or Sanskrit)
cognates in their own language, and also when attempting to learn or
recite Pali (or Sanskrit), precisely because the vernacular
modifications that the Fa-Kham orthographic tradition underwent have
now been foisted back onto the classical language.

While Lao orthography has been modernized to be almost perfectly
phonetic, modern Thai has moved somewhat in the opposite direction:
official spellings are heavily Sanskritized, as if to draw special
attention to both the Indic and classical Cambodian origins of much of
its vocabulary. This only makes it more difficult for native Thai
speakers to pronounce Pali (or Sanskrit) correctly, as they are
accustomed to eliding so many Sanskritic elements that appear in their
written language, but are not now (and likely never were) part of the
spoken-vernacular form. For example, "…confusion may arise because
there is no indication if two consonants are a compound or not, such
as: candra may be pronounced can-tha-ra, can-thra, or even can-thom."
["Changes of Pali-Sanskrit Loan-words in Thai", Prof. Visudh Busyakul,
in Sanskrit in Southeast Asia, 2003, Sanskrit Studies Centre,
Silpakorn University, Bangkok, pg. 522]

The example just given also shows that Thais are burdened with an
inherently confusing system of implicit vowels, and, when faced with
Pali text (or cognates) in their own script, will frequently
misapprehend where the implied vowel is "a", "o", or none at all. A
native Thai reader will be accustomed to guessing where to reduce a
consonant to a nasal sound, or where to treat it as non-final and
assign an implicit vowel sound following it (note, above,
"can-tha-ra", vs. "can-thom"). On the whole, this entails that Thais
are highly inclined to omit/elide morphemes from Pali words, ranging
from the simplification of initial compound consonants, to the
reduction of medial geminates to terminal consonants, or, very often,
the omission of the entire terminations of polysyllabic words, i.e.,
making it impossible to determine the grammtical significance of
any/all words in a sentence.

So far as Pali is concerned, it may be complained that these problems
are not endemic to the Thai orthography (per se), but merely arise
from the inappropriate (vernacular) assumptions of native speakers in
reading it. Naturally, the overlap of the modern and the ancient in
the form of cognates used in everyday language has a powerful
influence over the interpretation of the classical language (as the
script used for both is now one and the same). In reading classical
cognates (etc.) the reader has no clear direction or consistent rule
to follow (in modern Thai script), and so inevitably develops a habit
of anticipating what is left indeterminate by the script. Needless to
say, these "anticipations" (that serve to fill in the unwritten
portion of the phonics of ancient words) are subject to variations of
dialect and locality, and project social status and ethnicity within
Thai society.

I have already made reference to a very short article on this subject
(less than four pages) titled "Changes of Pali-Sanskrit Loan-words in
Thai", by Prof. Visudh Busyakul[Op. cit. supra]. One of the
peculiarities of the article is that it describes the changes in the
Thai pronunciation of Sanskrit (and, thus, by extension, Pali) quite
as if they were part of an intentional plan carried out by king Ram
Khamheng. Busyakul thus regrets that some phonological distinction
between the first four consonants of the classical alphabet was not
devised by the latter king (who may well be fictional, N.B., as
according to Michael Vickery's articles in The Ramkhamheng
Controversy, etc.), as the Khmer distinction (by means of vowel
changes) was lost, leaving the sequence that was originally
"k-kh-g-gh" to read as a nearly undifferentiated sequence of four "k"
sounds. This would indeed be an astounding error if we beleived that
any such change was actually devised by a single man's conscious
intention. Ferlus instead presumes that at a remote date ancient Thai
distinguished "a non-voiced dorsal fricative" and also a "voiced
dorsal fricative", and that these have since dropped out of the spoken
language, leaving their fossils (so to speak) in the odd array of k/g
glyphs that were modified from Khmer to make up the first row of the
Fa-Kham alphabet. [Op. cit. supra, p. 79-80]

Busyakul's account of Thai phonological simplifications (of the
classical language) provides another detail of significance in
contrast to Lao: "As a rule," he writes, "the unaspirated sonant and
aspirated sonant of all five series [i.e., rows of the alphabet] are
pronounced as the aspirated surd of the corresponding series". [Op
cit., pg. 521] Thus, e.g., he would define the Thai pronunciation of
the second line of the Indic alphabet as "ca-cha-cha-ña". This is a
significant difference from the Lao interpretation of the equivalent
row of glyphs (see above), and my limited experience would tend to
affirm that the central Thais do apply a hard "cha" sound to many
Pali/Sanskrit loan-words where a Laotian would read "s" (the classical
spelling of the words in question being a "j" sound).

Another example in the history of Thai phonetic and orthographic
shifts is examined at some length by Michel Ferlus, op. cit. supra.
Ferlus provides some interesting illustrations as to how the Fa-Kham
scripts (that were to be later reduced to modern Thai) both initially
diverged from Cambodian (to suit Thai phonetic requirements) and then
changed over time with the vernacular.

The interchange of classical "t" for modern "d", and "p" for "b" (I
described at length for Lao, above) is very simply accounted for by
Busyakul as follows: "...these words have been imported into Thai not
directly, but through the Khmer medium." [Op cit., pg. 522] Although
there is some small measure of truth to this, I honestly do not see
how the Cambodians can be blamed any more than Ram Khamheng. Briefly,
the Khmer system provides vowel-sound distinctions as substitutes for
classical consonant distinctions (i.e., the listener can distinguish
one classical consonant from another by hearing a difference in the
associated vowel sound). By design or by accident, the Thais dispensed
with this system, and (as mentioned briefly above) have instead
created new grounds for confusion as to which vowels are associated
with which consonants (both for cognates and classical text in modern
script); but even so, the problem discussed would not have existed
before the mid-19th century, when vernacular Thai script was suddenly
foisted onto the ancient language, and a combination of
Western-missionary schools and Thai state education replaced the
monastic transmission of literacy, with predictable results for the
Pali tradition.

So far as listening comprehension of Pali chanting, the issues in
Thailand are largely similar to those with modern Lao in the "Buddhist
heartland" of Thailand, viz., the Issan country in the North-East,
where the predominant language remains lowland-Laotian (but state
education is entirely in central-Thai). Although the Issan country is
among the regions least often visited by tourists in Thailand, all the
quantitative measures of Buddhist education and religious activity
seem to affirm what many would report anecdotely, i.e., that the Issan
remain (disproportionately) the staunchest supporters of Buddhist
monasticism in Thailand. Thus, while some students who are new to the
field may find it odd that so much attention is given to Lao on this
web-site, the fact is that the language spoken in the environs of the
monasteries (in modern Thailand) where so many Westerners ordain is
not Thai, but Lao (e.g., Wat Nanachat outside of Ubon Ratchathani, or
the famous Dhutanga monasteries along the Mekong, both to the west and
east of Nong Khai). Thus, the Lao section will be of more utility for
those itending to ordain in Thailand than they might at first suspect.

Although I have more enthusiasm for adapting my ear to dialectical
changes of this kind than most Western scholars, it must be complained
that the paucity of (mutually-distinguishable) consonant sounds in the
vernacular (without the Khmer remedy of systematically-associated
vowel changes) when combined with the tendency toward
"monosyllabization" (e.g., omitting final sounds, and so depriving the
classical language of its marks of declensions and conjugations) has
resulted in the real incomprehensibility of Pali as it is recited in
most of Thailand today. This reduction of the languge to
un-grammatical, mutually-indistinguishable, and genuinely
incomprehensible monosyllables in the context of ritual performance
has encouraged the tendency of religious followership to presume to
take the source texts as tabula rasa, attributing to them both
pre-Buddhist myths that are wildly at variance with the texts in
question, or, with equal ease, taking the texts as a corroboration for
relatively recent innovations in the popular faith. Obversely, I must
imagine that it is discouraging to a native Thai reader to have to
figure out the obtuse way in which the familiar (vernacular) script is
made to express the classical sounds, with an unfamiliar system of
both implicit vowels and explicit consonant values --although it is a
very small minority of monks in Thailand who learn even this much
about the ancient language. The tradition of Thai word-glosses (which
is the one part of the Pali tradition that is indispensible for
sermons and rituals) effectively severs the study of lexis from
grammar or even pronunciation, and, in modern Thailand, it is
primarily the ability to gloss Pali words in isolation that is
cultivated among the clergy.