The debate surrounding the Royal Institute’s plan to change the spelling of 176 words “borrowed” from the English language should focus the public’s attention on the use of Thai language in today’s fast-changing world.
The Royal Institute revealed its aim to change the written form of 176 words borrowed from English, such as “computer”, “nightclub” and “kilometre”, by adding tone marks. The Institute reasoned that the additions would be a guide to correct pronunciation.
The plan sparked debate across a broad section of society, since most Thais are familiar with the old pronunciation of these words. Public opinion is strongly divided.
On the one hand are those who agree with the institute’s effort to make written words correspond with the way they’re pronounced. They argue that the tone mark (wanayuk) will perfectly reflect how Thais have come to pronounce these foreign words.
The other side, however, argues that there are good reasons to preserve the traditional spelling or words borrowed from English. The Royal Institute’s predecessors stipulated that borrowed English words should not carry tone marks because Thais and native English speakers pronounce them differently. Thais in general tend to stress the last syllable, whereas English speakers stress the first or second syllable. The differences in the pronunciation of “computer” and “kilometre” are notable.
However, if the institute plans to use spelling to reflect Thais’ pronunciation of every foreign borrowed word, it will need to change the spelling many more than 176 words. The Thai language as we know it now reflects a long history of “borrowing” from other languages and cultures.
In addition, the focus on spelling and pronunciation prompts questions about whether more important things, such as how to use the words, are being overlooked. Beneath their spelling and sound, the borrowed words carry meanings from their cultural backgrounds that we need to know.
Finding new spellings for words borrowed from symbol-based languages such as Chinese and Japanese would cause further headaches. And we have become accustomed to the spellings and Thai-accented pronunciation of the 176 words in question. Like “borrowed” words in any language, their pronunciation has been changed slightly to fit the native tongue.
The debate nonetheless reveals the challenges faced by the Thai language amid an era of globalisation, marked by the wider use of foreign languages, especially English, as tools for communication.
Instead of focusing merely on adjusting the spellings of Thai words borrowed from English, the Royal Institute should also place emphasis on updating Thai by, for instance, seeking correct and standardised translations of words into English.
In fact, many of 176 borrowed words already had Thai equivalents that were once widely used. For instance, “flat” is “hong chud” in Thai. “Nightclub” is “sa tan ban terng yam ra tree”. These Thai words fell out of use when a younger generation chose to borrow English words for reasons of fashion or convenience.
In addition, the Royal Institute cannot allow people who disagree with the proposed spellings to ignore them, because there needs to be an agreed-upon basic structure for the Thai language when it comes to teaching children.
Language is a mode of everyday communication that naturally evolves in response to users’ lifestyles. As such, many argue that the proposed changes to these “Thai-glish” words are in line with periodic revisions of the dictionary necessary to update vocabulary to reflect changing times. For instance, words set to be added by the Royal Institute include kaem ling (“monkey cheeks”, now a term for special reservoirs) and setthakij por piang (sufficiency economy).
The Royal Institute will conclude its revision on December 12.
The debate over the divergence of borrowed words from their native pronunciations has revealed how languages and people adapt in times of change and globalisation. Perhaps more significantly, it also reveals that, although Thais are often lectured about the importance of learning a second language such as English or Chinese, we still share a passionate sense of ownership of our own tongue.