Introduction
The origin of the Old Khmer vraḥ/braḥ is still a warmly debated topic among experts. Most dictionaries, whether they be bilingual or monolingual, trace the word from the Sanskrit or Pali word vara- “excellent, splendid, noble” (Renou et al. Reference Renou1978 [1932]: 627 for Sanskrit; Davids and Stede [1921] Reference Davids and Stede2001: 602 for Pali). The other commonly held view is that braḥ would be an autochthonous Mon-Khmer word (Shorto Reference Shorto, Sidwell, Cooper and Bauer2006; Vickery Reference Vickery1998). This study demonstrates that v/braḥ originated in a reduction of the Sanskrit word brāhmaṇa (> braḥ). It will also be demonstrated that the Old Khmer v/braḥ was borrowed into Thai through the written Khmer form braḥ [pʰráʔ]. From the Thai braḥ [pʰráʔ] may have originated the Burmese bhurā: [pʰəjɑ́ː]/[pʰɹɑ́ː], whose written form was borrowed by the Tai Ahōm phūra: [pʰraːA2].
1. Original semantics of the Old Khmer v/braḥ
The semantics of the Old Khmer v/braḥ is not as obvious as it might seem. Was it originally an honorific term of address or, rather, was it a noun meaning “brahmin”, “Buddha” or some other deity? This study concludes that braḥ was initially used as an honorific. Two major arguments are used to support this hypothesis: (1) braḥ was used as an honorific prefix in its first epigraphic attestations; and (2) there are distinct terms to name the “Brahmin”, or the “Buddha”.
1.1. “Braḥ” used as an honorific in the first epigraphs
In the earliest inscriptions, braḥ is typically used as an honorific, whether in Old Khmer, Old Siamese or Old Burmese (in its Old Burmese form phurā). The word braḥ precedes names of high-ranking officials as well as those of deities.
Let us first consider the attestations of “Buddha” in the Old Khmer epigraphy. To name the Buddha, Khmer often adds the prefix v/braḥ before the noun “Buddha” (buddh(a), vuddha) in the earliest epigraphs, for example vraḥ vuddha in k.237 dated from 989 śaka (ad 1067); it has been consistently attested as such until its present usage in Modern Khmer [prὲəh pùt] “Buddha” (or [prὲəh ʔəɩsoː] “Śiva”, [prὲəh prùm] “Brahmā”). This would indicate that Buddha and braḥ have been kept semantically distinct.
In Old Khmer, one of the first attestations of v/braḥ is an honorific prefix, e.g. in k.6 from ad 578 vraḥ kamratāṅ ’añ “His High Lord”. The Old Siamese Ramkhamhæng stele dated from ad 1292 attests braḥ rāmgaṃhæṅ (side 1, line 10) “The Revered Ramkhamhæng”. The first epigraph in Old Burmese, the Myazèdi or Rājakumāra stele (ad 1113), also attests purhā used as an honorific prefix: purhā skhaṅ “The Revered Lord, His Lordship” (lines 1, 16, 18, 39).
It is quite clear that the original morpho-semantic function of braḥ in each of these languages (Old Khmer, Old Thai, Old Burmese) was that of an honorific prefix. The noun normally preceded by braḥ/purhā can be omitted when the context is clear enough, for example, braḥ (buddha) in (Old) Khmer or purhā (buddha) in (Old) Burmese “The Venerable (Buddha)”; braḥ (rājā) in (Old) Khmer or purhā (skhaṅ) in Old Burmese “His Majesty (the King)”, etc. But, otherwise, the term braḥ/purhā does not occur as a bare noun.
1.2. Attestation of distinct terms to name the Brahmin
The function of the Brahmins in Southeast Asia was rather limited to the sphere of the royalty. Their duties were primarily to provide some local rulers with a new symbolic foundation for their power. They were just one of the vectors of “Power and Knowledge” which allowed some local clans to legitimize, and impose, their power upon other clans.
The words v/braḥ and v/brāhmaṇa are often found side-by-side in one edict, which would indicate that both terms were semantically treated differently; therefore, v/braḥ is most likely not to have meant “Brahmin”. Moreover, the title as well as the responsibilities of the Brahmin seem to have been lexicalized in the terms v/brāhmaṇa or puṇṇā. From an areal perspective, there are two distinct ways to name the Brahmins: a “Mon-Burmese area” where the Brahmin is called through the Indo-Aryan term puṇya, etc. meaning “value, merit” on the one hand, and a “Khmer-Thai area” where the Brahmin is named through the Sanskrit word brāhmaṇa, on the other.
The Khmer-Thai area makes use of the Sanskrit-Pali term brāhmaṇa to name the Brahmin. This term is still found in Modern Khmer and Siamese in its form brahma[ṇa] [prìam] in Khmer and [pʰraːm] in Siamese.
On the other hand, the “Mon-Burmese area” attests unexpected forms derived from the Sanskrit puṇya, Pali puñño or Prākrit puṇṇa, all of which mean “merit, work of merit”. These various forms were borrowed in the “Mon-Burmese area” to name a Brahmin versed in astrological practices.Footnote 2 All Mon or Burmese attestations revolve around the semantics “act of merit, work of merit, meritorious or praiseworthy person”.
Old Mon attests puṇya [pʌn] “merit, work of merit” (Shorto Reference Shorto1971: 235), obviously originating in Sanskrit, and a semantically similar puñ [pun] probably descending from Pali. The Sanskrit puṇya gave rise to the Old Burmese phūn and ’aphun “wealth, power, work of merit”,Footnote 3 and Modern Burmese bhun: [pʰǫɷ́n] “glory; beneficent power; merit of good actions in the past” (Bernot 1988: 124). However, the semantics of their Prākrit counterpart puṇṇā is quite remarkable; Old Mon attests puṇṇa, “meritorious person, praiseworthy”. From this Prākrit word would derive the Old Mon attestations buṃnaḥ/bimnaḥ/bamnaḥ [bəmnah] which were used to name Brahmins prominent in royal rituals (Shorto Reference Shorto1971: 269). The Modern Mon bamnaḥ [pənɜ̤h/hənɜ̤h] “astrologer” (Shorto Reference Shorto1962: 157) derives from the above-mentioned Old Mon forms. The Old Mon forms were probably borrowed later into the Old Burmese pumṇā/pumnā “Brahmin versed in the astrological sciences” (Hla Pe Reference Hla Pe1967: 79), Standard Burmese puṇṇā: [pǫɷ̀n nɑ́ː] “Brahmin”.
The Khmer-Thai area, on the other hand, does not attest any use of a Prākrit form puṇṇa with the meaning “Brahmin versed in the astrological sciences”. The Sanskrit and Pali forms are the only ones to be attested, as in Khmer puṇya (dān) [bɷn (tìan)] “religious celebration” or in Siamese Pali puña/puñña [ɓun] “merit, virtue; resulting from meritorious deeds; pure, sacred” (McFarland 1944 [1960]: 484; Haas Reference Haas1964: 292).
2. A Mon-Khmer etymon?
Before developing the working hypothesis according to which the Old Khmer v/braḥ would be a borrowing from Sanskrit (brāhmaṇa), it will be demonstrated that this term does not belong to the proto-Mon-Khmer lexical stock.
First of all, Shorto (Reference Shorto, Sidwell, Cooper and Bauer2006: 524, #2060) connects the Old Khmer v/braḥ with the proto-Mon-Khmer [*brah] and glosses it “divine being”, which is quite problematic. Actually, [*brah] is only attested in Khmer and in dialects which have been in long-standing contact with Khmer. That [*brah] is attested in some Bahnaric dialects such as Biat [brah] “spirit”, does not imply a Mon-Khmer origin per se, because the Bahnaric peoples have been in contact with the Khmers for quite a long time; Bahnaric [brah] is besides rightly identified as a loan from Old Khmer by Sidwell and Jacq (Reference Sidwell and Jacq2003: 59). It is also attested in Pearic (for example in Chong [pʰrà̤ʔ pʰṳ̀t] “Buddha's statue”) or in Khmuic (for example in Khmu [praʔ]/[pʰráʔ] “monk”) but these terms are late loans from Siamese or Lao. Incidentally, many Katus or Khmus have access to education while studying in Buddhist monasteries, precisely where the word [pʰráʔ]/[pʰāʔ] is widely used in Siamese or Lao. The “avatars” of the Old Khmer v/braḥ are attested in Mon-Khmer and Thai only in areas that were dominated by the Khmers, a fact that would remove any support for a proto-Mon-Khmer origin.
Second, Pou and Jenner (Reference Pou and Jenner1980: 284–5) postulate an etymology in a hypothesized Mon-Khmer derived word [*b-rah] whose base *rah would mean “light”, hence Old Khmer braḥ [brah] “bright or shining one”. Two objections may be raised though. First, from a morphological point of view, the prefix [*b-] is not attested in Mon-Khmer. Second, from a semantic point of view, [*b-rah] “bright or shining one” sounds pretty much like a Judaeo-Christian cultural concept, where “light” may be associated with God (the halo of Christ, the blinding light of Heaven, etc.). However, no similar culture-bred semantics can be associated to a Mon-Khmer reality, nor to any Southeast Asian one.Footnote 4
3. Old Khmer vraḥ/braḥ
3.1. Semantics and epigraphic attestations of v/braḥ
(1) Semantics
In Old Khmer (pre-Angkorian and Angkorian alike, Jenner Reference Jenner2009a: 477; Reference Jenner2009b: 574), v/braḥ was used as a noun to name a divine or royal being or object, a liṅga, an image, a sanctuary, a shrine housing a divinity; it is also used as an adjective meaning divine, sacred or a prefix preceding divine or royal beings or objects. In Modern Khmer, braḥ [prὲəh] is also used as a noun to name a deity, as an adjective meaning excellent, sacred or divine; it is also used as a prefix before the members of the royal family, priests, monks, Buddha, God or before deified elements.Footnote 5
A similar semantics is also attested in the various languages in which this braḥ is used. As will be addressed in §5, we might nevertheless wonder whether braḥ would not originally have been an honorific used before any sacred, divine or royal objects or beings. Indeed, in its first pre-Angkorian attestations, vraḥ was used as an honorific and not as a full morpheme, for example in pre-Angkorian epigraphs k.1 (500 śaka, ad 578) vraḥ kamratāṅ ’añ “The Venerable Lord”, k.664 (500 śaka, ad 578) vraḥ kloñ “The Venerable Master” or k.728 (600 śaka, ad 678) vraḥ śrībhadreśvara “The Great Śrībhadreśvara”. Moreover, an abridged form of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa is likely to have been used for a long time as an honorific in Southeast Asia, especially in the 扶南 Fúnán confederation that constitutes the core of the subsequent Khmer polities (Ferlus Reference Ferlus2005).
(2) Epigraphic attestations
The prefix v/braḥ is attested almost 4,000 times in Khmer epigraphy, from k.1 (500 śaka, ad 578) to k.261 (1561 śaka, ad 1639). There are more than 3,800 attestations of vraḥ stretching from k.1 (500 śaka, ad 578) to k.470 (1249 śaka, ad 1327). The form braḥ is attested no fewer than 150 times between 844 śaka, ad 922 (k.99) and 1561 śaka, ad 1639 (k.261). Other epigraphic attestations, rarer if not marginal, are vraḥh, vrah, vrāḥ, braḥh, brah and vras.
In the next section, it will be shown that v/braḥ most likely originates in a monosyllabized form of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa. We shall also address the issue of why an etymology with the Sanskrit-Pali vara- is not as convincing as it might first seem.
3.2. Monosyllabization process: from Sanskrit brāhmaṇa to Old Khmer v/braḥ
It will be posited that braḥ might derive from brāhmaṇa; this claim is based on three arguments. First, the inclination of the Mon-Khmer languages towards monosyllabization, then the retention of the Sanskrit voiced glottal [ɦ] through the Khmer visarga -ḥ [-h], and finally the trace of an ancient use of an abbreviated form of brāhmaṇa as an honorific in the Fúnánese polity, a confederation of Indianized city-states ethnically dominated by the Khmers.
(1) Monosyllabization processFootnote 6
One of the diachronic features of the Mon-Khmer languages, and the languages in contact with Mon-Khmer, is the syllabic depletion from two syllables to one through an intermediary sesquisyllabic stage. The evolution affects both Mon-Khmer words and loanwords from Indo-Aryan. The syllable loss can be predicted by the location of the stress: when the second syllable is stressed in Mon-Khmer, the first one falls and when the first syllable is stressed in Indo-Aryan, the second is dropped.
In Mon-Khmer the second syllable is stressed, as shown in Table 1.
The monosyllabization of Indo-Aryan polysyllabic loanwords in the everyday language is widely attested in Khmer (as well as in Mon):
In Khmer:
Trisyllabic Skt. yavana “foreigner, Greek” > monosyllabic Khmer yuon [jùən] “Vietnamese”
Disyllabic Skt. kīrti “reputation, honour” > monosyllabic Khmer (in compound names) ker(r)ti [keː]
In Mon:
Trisyllabic Skt. vihāra “monastery” > monosyllabic Mon bhā [pʰε̤a] “monastery”
Disyllabic Skt. rāṣṭra “country” > monosyllabic Mon raḥ [rε̤h]
The first syllable brāh- supports a heavier phonetic weight than the last two syllables -maṇa because: (1) it is stressed in Indo-Aryan [‘braɦ-mʌɳʌ]; and (2) its phonetic structure is strengthened by a medial trill [-r-] and a final laryngeal [-ɦ].
The tendency to reduce polysyllables to monosyllables is consistent with the hypothesis of a monosyllabization of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa in an Old Khmer v/braḥ.
(2) Retention of the Sanskrit laryngeal [-ɦ] in the Old Khmer -ḥ [-h]
It might be counter-argued that such a phenomenon would also explain the monosyllabization of the Sanskrit-Pali vara- to the Old Khmer braḥ. This counterargument can be properly raised, but it would pass over the retention of the Sanskrit voiced laryngeal [ɦ] (brāh-maṇa [braɦ-mʌɳʌ]) in the Old Khmer forms in final laryngeal [-h] (written with the visarga -ḥ) braḥ [brah]. Indeed, the laryngeal is retained in all Old Khmer attestations, be they vrāḥ, vrah, vraḥh or braḥ, braḥh and brah.Footnote 7
Sanskrit brāh-maṇa [‘braɦ-mʌɳʌ] > Old Khmer braḥ [brah]
As will be tackled in the next paragraph, a reduced form of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa may have been used for quite a long time in Khmer in Fúnán, which was likely dominated by the Khmers, politically and ethnically.
(3) Ancient use of a shortened form of brāhmaṇa as an honorific
The use of a popular reduced form of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa as an honorific is rather old. We learn from the Chinese annals reporting political facts on Indianized Southeast Asia that a reduced form of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa might have been used as an honorific in royal titles in Fúnán as early as the third century ad. According to Vickery (Reference Vickery1998: 50), third-century Fúnán attested at least three rulers whose royal name consisted of a prefixed reduced form of brāhmaṇa.Footnote 8 Ferlus (Reference Ferlus2005) reconstructs Early Middle Chinese (EMC) [brʌm] for the local title transcribed 范 fàn in Chinese.Footnote 9 The EMC pronunciation of the first Funanese sovereign's name, 范帥蔓 fàn shīmàn, mentioned in the 南齊書 Nánqíshū (“History of the Southern Qí” [479–502]) reporting events dating from the third to the fourth centuries ad can be reconstructed as [brʌm sriː maːn] and we can infer from this reconstruction that the transcribed name might have been brāhm srīmāra “His Venerable Highness Māra”, as Cœdès (Reference Cœdès1948 [1989]: 81) thought. In that case, a reduced form of brāhmaṇa would have been used as an honorific prefix by the third or fourth century ad.
范 fàn is quite likely an Old Chinese transcription of Sanskrit brāhm[aṇa] rather than of the god brahma even if the Brahmins did not belong to the Southeast Asian socio-cultural stock, unlike in India. This Sanskrit term was emptied of its Indian connotation and was probably used as a term denoting a position of prestige. The caste system in Cambodia most likely lost (if it ever had) its Indian connotation and did not have any local sociological root, as demonstrated by Khmer inscriptions according to which “there were interethnic and interclass marriages with good levels of interaction between social groupings” (Harris Reference Harris2005: 27). Furthermore, the very word caturvarṇa (“the four castes”) was only used rhetorically (Pou Reference Pou, Klokke and Bruijn1998: 127) and in the Khmer context the word jāti meant nothing other than “birth, origin” (Pou Reference Pou, Klokke and Bruijn1998: 127). This observation also seems valid for “Indianized” Southeast Asia as a whole; anthropological studies on the Balinese realm where the Brahmins are supposed to be the descendants of the Javanese Majapahit invaders who therefore enjoyed a position of prestige and power should remind us of this fact. As Pigeaud (Reference Pigeaud1962: 8) wrote, the very notion of caste in the Old Javanese world was not used in a similar manner to India. When dealing with Indian representations in Southeast Asia, one must always question the local use of Indian lexical items (Wolters Reference Wolters1999: 109–10; Pain Reference Pain2017a).
In the languages of Southeast Asia, śrī māra was pronounced [sriː mar]; the final Indo-Aryan unstressed -a [ʌ/ə] regularly falls in Khmer and Mon (māra [marʌ]>[mar]). Early Middle Chinese no longer had trill codas, and the Chinese observer-listener must have interpreted the rhyme [-ar] (in [sriː mar]) by the emc rhyme [-aːn] in which the coronal-alveolar articulation of the trill was kept (emc [sriː maːn]).Footnote 10
That [brʌm sriː maːn] is mentioned in the stele of Võ Cạnh in its Sanskrit counterpart śrīmārarāja as an illustrious ancestor by local lords to justify their power should not be surprising; as Bourdonneau (Reference Bourdonneau2007: 131) pointed out, the importance of Fàn Shīmàn's (śri māra) conquests at the turn of the second century ad should not be underestimated. Local oral traditions made of him a charismatic figure, as evidenced by the fact that pretending to belong to his descendants seems to have been sufficient to legitimate some local lords’ power. We should not misjudge the prominence of the local oral traditions in legitimating the power;Footnote 11 according to the tradition, brāhmaṇa kauṇḍinya would have been the founder of the Funanese dynasty, and the first of its lords had titles beginning with hùn 混 (oc [*ɣʌn]), which is a mere Chinese transcription of an abridged form of kauṇḍinya transcribed hùn-tián 混滇 ([*ɣʌn diεn]) or jiāo chénrú 憍陳如 ([*kɨw ɖin ɲʌːˀ]). I believe that hùn [*ɣʌn] (kauṇ[ḍinya]), hùn-tián [*ɣʌn diεn] (kauṇḍiny[a]) and brahm *brʌm (brāhm[aṇa kauṇḍinya]) are all honorific titles referring to the mythical founder of the Funanese dynasty: brāhmaṇa kauṇḍinya. The Old Khmer honorific braḥ may be part of this trend.
3.3. The graphic alternation v~b in Old Khmer
It could be objected that the form vraḥ (or, as we shall see, its preponderance over the form braḥ in the Old Khmer epigraphic attestations) might attest a stronger link with the Sanskrit etymon vara-. In this section it will be demonstrated that the forms vraḥ and braḥ can be accounted for by a “Prākritism”. Furthermore, the writing system reached the Khmer realm with Indians reading Sanskrit through a Prākrit phonetics where the phonemes [b] and [v] merged or were merging.
The Khmer epigraphy attests vraḥ and braḥ with a clear inclination towards the forms in onset <v->. So, there are more than 3,800 epigraphic attestations of vraḥ in Old Khmer between 500 śaka (ad 578, k.1) and 1,249 śaka (ad 1327, k.470). To those, about 30 epigraphic attestations can be added, such as vrāḥ, vrah, vras or vraḥh, stretching from 500 śaka (vraḥh in k.38) to 1,041 śaka. (vrāḥ in k.194). On the other hand there are only around 150 epigraphic attestations of braḥ ranging from 844 śaka. (ad 922, k.99) to 1,561 śaka. (ad 1639, k.261).Footnote 12
The Old Khmer lexicon attests some flimsiness in the transcription of the phonemes [b] and [v]; the Old Khmer phoneme [b] is sometimes attested with the graph <v> and sometimes with the graph <b>, and the phoneme [v] sometimes with the graph <v> and sometimes with the graph <hv>, which yields confusion between the phonemes [b]~[v] in Old Khmer. It is only at the dawn of the Angkorian period that an etymological spelling of the bilabial plosive [b] was introduced, mainly in the autochthonous Khmer lexicon, with the introduction of a new symbol <b>, which might have been borrowed from Mon (Ferlus Reference Ferlus1992: 82).Footnote 13
This aberrant etymological use of graphs <b> and <v> regularly occurs in one single epigraph as, for example, in k.256 dated from 600 śaka (cu ’ājñā vraḥ kamratāṅ ’añ brāhmaṇa), where an etymologically correct spelling (brāhmaṇa) is attested together with an erroneous one (vraḥ instead of braḥ). The graph alternation between <b> and <v> in Old Khmer is above all a problem of Indo-Aryan dialectology and historical phonetics; indeed, this inconsistency in transcribing the phonemes [b] and [v] originates in the fact that the Khmers were Indianized by speakers of a Prākrit variety where the phonemes [b] and [v] had already merged or were merging, including in the Indo-Aryan reading of Sanskrit texts. So-called “Classical” Sanskrit was not a homogenous and immutable linguistic entity; it was not a language impervious to dialectal influences as Pāṇini's grammar would suggest. The very fact that Sanskrit was attested quite late in epigraphs – the first epigraphs carved in India were in Prākrit and not SanskritFootnote 14 – made this language vulnerable to various “Prākritisms”. One of these is precisely the merger of the phonemes [b] and [v], already attested in Vedic Sanskrit where the phonemes -bh- [b̥] and -v- [v] were merging. This kind of merger is also sporadically attested in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (Edgerton Reference Edgerton1953: 17, §.2.30; Damsteegt Reference Damsteegt1978: 39-41), an apparent composite Prākrit which underwent a Sanskritization process aiming at giving a literary aura to a vernacular.
The alternation of the forms vraḥ and braḥ with an obvious inclination towards vraḥ would suggest that the Khmers were initiated to the Pallava alphasyllabary (from which the modern Khmer writing system derives) by Indians who pronounced Sanskrit through a Prākrit phonetics in which the phonemes [b] and [v] had merged. Accordingly, the predominance of vraḥ over braḥ in the Old Khmer epigraphy does not constitute a decisive factor in opting for an etymology with vara- instead of brāh[maṇa].
3.4. Origin in the Sanskrit-Pali “vara-”?
The word vara- means “excellent, splendid, best, noble; as attribute it either precedes or follows the noun which it characterizes” in Pali (Davids and Stede Reference Davids and Stede2001 [1921]: 602) and in Sanskrit (Renou et al. Reference Renou1978 [1932]: 627).
For Headley et al. (1977: 684), Khmer braḥ originated in the Sanskrit–Pali vara-; the same etymology is also postulated in Reinhorn (Reference Reinhorn2001: 1515) for the Lao b(r)aḥ and in the Burmese–English Dictionary by the Myanmar Language CommissionFootnote 15 (1993: 323) for the Burmese bhurā:. However, this etmology is not convincing. Although an origin in vara- is not to be categorically ruled out, the hypothesis of a reduced form of the Sanskrit brāh[maṇa] is linguistically more relevant, as we have just seen.Footnote 16 The following paragraphs aim to demonstrate that the Sanskrit–Pali vara- has a different history in the Southeast Asian languages.Footnote 17
The Mon words wuiw and lwuiw correspond to vara-. The graph <l-> in lwuiw [wɜ̤] “blessing” (Shorto Reference Shorto1962: 187) is a graphic hypercorrection. The Mon form has long been attested through the Old Mon war and the Middle Mon wuiw (Shorto Reference Shorto1971: 346). The final graph <-w> is nothing but a spelling attesting the phonetic change that the Old Mon final <-r> [-r] underwent: [-r]>[-w]>[-#]; it does not play any role in determining the reading.Footnote 18
In Khmer, vara- was borrowed as bar [pɔ̀ː] “wish, blessing; best, most excellent or eminent; preferable; according to wish” (Headley et al. 1977: 637).
The Modern Lao reflex of the borrowing corresponding to vara- is [pʰɔ́ːn] “wish, blessing; excellent” (Reinhorn Reference Reinhorn2001: 1591). The final nasal [-n] is regular: lengthening of the open-mid vowel [ʌ] before the final trill [-r] in Khmer; merger of the labial plosive [v] with the labial fricative [b] (>[pʰ] in Modern Lao) due to the influence of Indo-Aryan speakers, and evolution of the final trill [-r] to the final nasal [-n] in Lao. Other examples: Modern Khmer ṭœr [ɗaə] was borrowed in Siamese [ɗɤːn] “to walk”; Modern Khmer vihāra [pəhìa] was borrowed in Siamese–Lao [wíː hǎːn] “convent, monastery, playground”.
3.5. Conclusion
The Old Khmer v/braḥ originated in a popular reduction of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa- through monosyllabization. Furthermore, the etymology in the Sanskrit–Pali vara- might not be relevant, primarily because of the retention of the laryngeal in the various Old Khmer forms. Moreover, it was made clear that the <v->/<b-> graphic alternation in the forms vraḥ and braḥ are better explained by the fact that some Indian speakers read Sanskrit through a Prākrit phonetics where the phonemes [v] and [b] had merged.
4. The Siamese phráʔ
4.1. Semantics
In Siamese, braḥ [pʰráʔ] means a “title given to a priest, a clergyman, a monk; a term indicating the highest respect; a prefix denoting royalty, holiness, perfection; an adjective meaning precious, excellent, noble” (McFarland 1960: 566). In Lao b(r)aḥ [pʰāʔ] may be a borrowing from Siamese (although a direct borrowing from Old Khmer is not to be ruled out) which means “the Buddha, monk; pref. indicating something sacred, referring to God, the Buddha, a deity, a monk or a king” (Reinhorn Reference Reinhorn2001: 1515).Footnote 19
4.2. Old Thai loan from Old Khmer: linguistic considerations
Two phonetic changes will be dealt with: first, the evolution of the proto-Southwestern Tai (pswt) [*br-]>[pʰr-] and a low series tone and, second, the evolution of the Old Khmer laryngeal [-h] to a Thai glottal stop [-ʔ] to stress on the shortness of the vocalic nucleus.Footnote 20
(1) pswt [*br-]>[pʰr-] and a low series tone in Thai
The Thai languages were affected by a devoicing phenomenon of the initial voiced plosives [*b- *d- *ɟ- *g-]>[p- t- c- k-] and a voicing phenomenon of the initial preaspirated sonorants [*ʰm- *ʰn- *ʰl- …]>[m- n- l- …]. The word whose onset was an initially voiced plosive evolved into a low series tone word. To be more specific, as far as Siamese–Lao is concerned, a three-level tone paradigm should be reconstructed: (1) a high series after the initials [ʰm>m ʰn>n ʰl>l] [ɓ ɗ] [p t c k]; (2) a middle series after the initials [pʰ tʰ kʰ]; and (3) a low series after [b>pʰ d>tʰ ɟ>cʰ g>kʰ] [m n l].Footnote 21
The Old Khmer v/braḥ [brah] naturally evolved into [pʰráʔ] in Siamese, the proto-voiced plosive [*b-] regularly evolved in [pʰ-] and a low series tone [brah]>[pʰráʔ].
(2) Old Khmer [-h]>[-ʔ] in Old Thai
Linguistically, the Siamese braḥ [pʰráʔ] can only be a borrowing from Khmer;Footnote 22 the Khmer laryngeal [-h] was interpreted as a glottal plosive [-ʔ] in Siamese, which accounts for the shortness of the vocalic nucleus. Visarga forms were carried over from written transmission in Khmer; it should be noted that the visarga is exclusively confined to loanwords (see Table 3).
We should recall that braḥ is a written loan from Old Khmer. In the stele of Ramgamhæng (thirteenth century), the only attestation of the honorific is braḥ. Subsequent attestations without visarga in the corpus of Sukhothai down to the sixteenth centuryFootnote 23 are also to be found in ligatured forms but this peculiarity can be explained by the very fact that Old Siamese had to render a final Old Khmer laryngeal [-h] (bra-h) lost for long in Old Siamese; the pswt final [-a -ah -aʔ] had already evolved into a three-tone opposition when the Old Khmer v/braḥ [brah] was borrowed in the thirteenth century. The final glottal stop [-ʔ] just marks the shortness of the vowel nucleus.
4.3. First epigraphic attestations
The word braḥ was borrowed quite early in Thai; we find it engraved as soon as in the Wang Bāng Sanuk Stele, the first epigraph in the Thai realm dated from ad 1219Footnote 24 written in Pali (the first lines) and in an Old Thai dialect (the rest of the text). It is also frequently used in the Ramkhamhæng Stele, dated from ad 1292,Footnote 25 where braḥ is used as an honorific. It is used alone in braḥ rāmgaṃhæṅ (face 1, line 10) “The Venerable Ramkhamhæng” or used together with nobiliary titles as in bo khun braḥ (rā)mgaṃhæṅ “The Venerable King Ramkhamhæng” (face 4, line 1), a title which is only attested in this stele. The Sukhothai inscriptions also make use of braḥ as a member of a compound. For example, the Sukhothai samtĕc braḥ refers to a queen; samtĕc [sǒmɗèt] originates from the Angkorian Khmer saṃtac/saṃtāc/saṃtec [səmɗac] “noble, prince”. This term is also attested in Lao, either alone as in sŏmtăt [sǒmɗét] with the meaning “prince” or in compound together with a Thai nobiliary title sŏmtăt cau2 [sǒmɗét cáw] “patriarch, chief bonze” or in sŏmtăt baḥ cau2 [sǒmɗét pʰāʔ cáw] “His Majesty”.
In the inscriptions from the Sukhothai period (1238–1583),Footnote 26 the titles braḥñā, bañā and braḥyā are used as prefixes to name kings. The Thai bañā was borrowed through the Middle Mon bañā [bəɲa] (Shorto Reference Shorto1971: 258). The prefixes braḥñā and braḥyā are still used in Modern Siamese. Braḥñā is attested in the nobiliary title cau2 braḥyā [câw pʰrájaː] “prefix given to the highest rank of nobility” and in the name of the river Menam mæ1 nām2 cau2 braḥyā [mε̂ː náːm câw pʰ(ra)jaː]; its second syllable -ñā would originate in a popular reduction of ātyā/ājyā, from Sanskrit ājñā- “power, authority”. In Lao, yā [ɲáː] is quite productive and braḥ would have been prefixed to it. Lao attests bāyā [pʰaɲáː] “princely title”. The Siamese braḥñā [pʰajaː] has simplified into Lao bia [pʰiǎ], which spread to the Thais in Vietnam.
A study of the Thai nobiliary titles reveals the influences to which the Thais were subjected during their journey from 南詔 Nānzhào to the Menam.Footnote 27 Indeed, at the beginning of the first Thai chiefdoms in southern China we can find some khun [*xunA] and caw [*cawC] whose titles are both of Chinese origin (Haudricourt Reference Haudricourt1970: 28); moreover, the title khun is prefixed to the first Thai lords’ name, starting from their mythical ancestor Khun Borom. While snaking down along the Upper Menam, the Thais took on a form of Khmer writing system and khmerized Sanskrit titles, among them braḥ. In Haudricourt's words (Reference Haudricourt1970: 33), “ils oublieront leurs origines chinoises” (they forgot their Chinese origins) and the socio-cultural content of nobiliary terms such caw and khun lightenedFootnote 28 relative to Sanskrit titles (such indrāditya) or khmerized Sanskrit titles (such as braḥ).
Old Thai braḥ was borrowed from Angkorian Old Khmer. Some languages – including Lao, Middle Mon or Old Burmese – then borrowed the title braḥ from Old Siamese, either directly or through other Thai dialects, including Northern Thai or Shan.
4.4. From Thai Siamese to other languages in contact
The Siamese braḥ [pʰráʔ] was borrowed in languages belonging to the Siamese area of linguistic and socio-cultural influences. First of all, braḥ was borrowed in Lao where the proto-Southwestern Tai initial consonant cluster [*pʰr-] evolved to [pʰ-], and was preserved in Siamese. The reading [pʰrāʔ] or [pʰāʔ], and the archaic spelling of Luang Phrabang clearly shows the political influence Thailand exerted upon Laos.
The Middle Mon attestation bra taja [braʔ təɟaʔ] “a nobleman who completed the rebuilding of the Kelatha pagoda (kyāk kelāsapaw), c. 1450” might be a borrowing from the Siamese braḥ teja or braḥ tujha [pʰráʔ ɗèːt] “high form of address, lit. ‘lord majesty’)” (McFarland Reference McFarland1944: 567).Footnote 29
In Laos, the Khmus name the monk [praʔ]/[pʰráʔ];Footnote 30 although they were not Buddhist, the Khmus were used to going and studying in Lao monasteries (Ferlus, personal communication). Chong (a Pearic language of Thailand) also borrowed the Siamese braḥ through its [pʰrà̤ʔ pʰṳ̀t] “Buddha's statue” (Suwilai Premsrirat et al. Reference Premsrirat2009: 102).
In China, the Tai Dehong, a Shan ethnic group practising Theravada Buddhism, use the term [pʰaːA2 kaːB1] to name the young Buddhist monks or [pʰaːA2 laːA2] for a Buddha's image (Luo Reference Luo1999: 129). In Assam and Upper Burma, Tai Khamtī reads [pʰaːA2] the written form phrā. The change [*br-]>[pʰ-] and a low series tone is regular in Shan and Lao: [*braːk]>[pʰaːkDL2] “to separate” (but [pʰrâːk] in Siamese); [*braː]>[pʰaːC2] “long knife” (but [pʰráː] in Siamese).
It should be noted that the Tai Paw and Tai Yo from Nghệ An (Vietnam) rarely use [pʰaʔA2] as an honorific and prefer the term [ʔoːŋB1] borrowed from Vietnamese. The use of [pʰaʔA2] is due to Lao influence and indicates a higher social status, for Lao is the prestige language used by the Thai nobility in the regions bordering Laos. The forms [ʔoːŋB1 cawC1] and [ʔoːŋB1 cawC1 huaA1] to name “Buddha” and “monk” respectively are then much more frequent than their Laocized counterparts [pʰāʔ cáw] and [pʰāʔ cáw hǔa].Footnote 31
4.4. Historical basis for the proposed borrowing
The historical relationships that bridge the Thais to the Khmers are quite old and well-known; they start on the margins of the Angkorian empire in the Middle Mekong and the Upper Menam, from where the Thai expansion began at the expense of an enfeebled Angkorian power crumbling on its foundations under the weight of its over-expansion and harassed by the Mongol hordes of the yuán 元 Dynasty at the end of the thirteenth century (Cœdès Reference Cœdès1958); the Thais were the major beneficiaries of the collapse of the old Indianized kingdoms.Footnote 32
The expansion of the Angkorian Empire towards northern Thailand is well known. This influence was quite old in northeastern Thailand as steles mention pre-Angkorian kings’ names such as Bhavavarman (second half of the sixth century)Footnote 33 or Citrasena (or Mahendravarman) attested in lots of steles stretching from Ubon to Khon Kæn.Footnote 34 Oral literature from northeastern Thailand also echoes these influences in various royal legends (Uraisi Varasarin Reference Varasarin, Ishizawa, Jacques and Sok2007: 211–5). Angkorian archaeological vestiges are to be found in the northeast of Thailand (in the Isan Land) as well, such as the Angkorian temple complex of Phanom Rung in Buriram province or the Phra That Dum in Sakhon Nakhon province. Furthermore, the Siamese architecture of Sukhothai clearly shows Khmer artistic influence as epitomized by the Wat Phra Phai Luang. The Khmer influence most probably extended to the Sino-Burmese border, as faraway cities like Möng Yong attest some Khmer artistic influences.Footnote 35
The southward expansions of the Thais from China and the chronology of their settlement in the Middle Mekong, the Middle Menam and in Upper Burma are on the other hand poorly documented. Old Cham, Old Burmese and Old Khmer epigraphic attestations encourage researchers to postulate that the Thais had already settled in the Middle Mekong, Middle Menam and Upper Irrawaddy valleys as early as in the eleventh century ad. The first known attestation of syam (here: “Thai”) is to be found in the Cham inscription c.30 in Po Nagar (ad 1050); from this stele we learn that king Jaya Parameśvaravarman [i] (1044–1060) restored the Po Nagar sanctuary and made a donation of some syaṃ (“Thais”),Footnote 36 kvir (“Khmers”), lov (“Lao”) and vukāṃ (“Pagán Burmese”) hulun (“slaves”).Footnote 37 Two twelfth-century short inscriptions engraved below the bas-reliefs of the “Royal Parade” at Angkor Wat attest some syāṃ kuk. The Pagán Old Burmese epigraphy (twelfth to thirteenth centuries) also attests many syam or syaṃ (Luce Reference Luce1958; Reference Luce1959; Reference Luce1985). The Old Cham epigraphic attestation in particular indicates that the Thais had already been in close contact with the Khmers (and the Burmese) at least since the first half of the eleventh century ad.
Whatever the exact chronology of the Thai expansion to the south may have been, the influence of the Khmers on the ThaisFootnote 38 was significant in the organization of the Thai ruling class and in their ideology.Footnote 39 The first phase of their southward expansion from China was that of caw’s, lords, symbolically related to one another by a myth of origin, that of Khun Borom,Footnote 40 a mythical lord, whose seven sons were said to be the ancestors of each caw. It is a typical sort of Thai kinship that characterizes this first migration phase and that legitimates each caw in the power he claimed. The second phase is featured by a highly Khmerized symbolic type of kinship in the sense that the caw’s power was de facto legitimized by matrimonial and matrilineal ties forged with the female members of Angkorian royalty (Condominas Reference Condominas2006: 269). This change clearly displays the political influence that the Angkorian empire had upon the Thai ruling class. It is in this context that we can locate the borrowing of the Old Khmer braḥ as a title symbolizing a kind of power which combined the sacred, the divine and the royal.
4.5. Conclusion
The Thais borrowed the title braḥ from Angkorian Old Khmer when they were on the margins of the Angkorian Empire, while Sukhothai was still under Khmer suzerainty. Afterwards, languages such as Middle Mon, Lao, Khmu and others borrowed their [braʔ], [pʰaʔ], and other autochthonous reflexes of the Siamese braḥ. The Old Burmese purhaḥ (Modern Standard Burmese bhurā: [pʰəjɑ́ː]) is, I would suggest, a borrowing from an Old Thai dialect in Upper Burma, that is, a Shan dialect.
5. The Old Burmese phurā (Modern Burmese bhurā:)
5.1. Semantic and epigraphic attestations in Old Burmese
Modern written Burmese attests bhurā: (read [pʰəjɑ́ː]/[pʰjɑ́ː]/[pʰɹɑ́ː]) “the Buddha, image of the Buddha, sacred, deity; stupa, pagoda; respectful form of address towards monks, royalty, etc.” (MLC 1996: 323; Bernot 1988: 93). The various phonetics are [pʰəjɑ́ː], and its substandard variants [pʰăjɑ́ː], [ɸăjɑ́ː] or [pʰjɑ́ː] in Standard Burmese. In the conservative dialects: Intha [pʰɾɑ́ː] and Arakanese [pʰəɹɑ́ː] or [pʰɹɑ́ː].
The Epigraphia Birmanica (Duroiselle et al. Reference Duroiselle1919: 26–7), Than Tun (Reference Tun1959: 50), the Burmese–English Dictionary (MLC 1996: 323), Luce (no date b: 85)Footnote 41 and the Mranmā ’Abidhān (1991: 323)Footnote 42 connect bhurā: with the Sanskrit-Pali vara-. The Mranmā ’Abidhān (1978–80, 3: 118) just indicates a Pali etymology but provides no further specific etymological information.Footnote 43
This word has long been attested in Burmese; it was already attested in the first important Burmese epigraph, the stele of Myazèdi dated from ad 1113 under the form purhā. It was also attested in an Old Burmese epigraph dating from ad 1145, where King Alaungsithu (Cañsū [i]) was named purhaḥ hraṅ taw; the word hraṅ is an honorific prefix used when referring to a monk or a member of the nobility (mlc 1996: 419) and the term taw is an honorific affix; the translation we could propose would be “the Venerable and Noble King Alaungsithu”. Its various attestations are the following (Luce no date b: 85 and Nishi Reference Nishi1999: 75):
pre-Standard Old Burmese: purha, pūrha, puhrā, purhaḥ
Standard Old Burmese: purhā, phurā
Middle Burmese: puhrā, purhā, phuhrā, bhurhā, bhurā
Standard Modern Burmese: bhurā: [pʰəjɑ́ː]/[pʰɹɑ́ː]
The word preñā is also attested in Old Burmese (Luce no date b: 86). According to Luce, this term originated in the Middle Mon bañā “Mon royal title”. However, I would rather hypothesize that preñā would be a borrowing from the Old Thai braḥñā because of the initial consonant cluster [pr-] in Old Burmese pre-ñā. According to this hypothesis, Old Burmese pre- reflects the Old Thai braḥ-. The medial trill [-r-] would then be adequately rendered in both languages (in the Old Burmese pre[ñā] and in the Old Thai braḥ[ñā]). Moreover, I would also postulate that preñā might be a borrowing from Tai Ahōm, because this Shan language did not undergo the “yodisation” of the nasal palatal [ɲ>j], unlike the other Shan dialects.
5.2. Old Thai braḥ in Old Burmese: linguistic issue
(1) The problem
The problem of the etymology of the Old Burmese (ob) purhā, phurā, etc. is not simple. Did it develop directly from Sanskrit independently of Old Khmer and result from a reduction of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa? It seems unlikely that such a reduction process developed independently, for the Burmese realm was in contact with socio-cultural fragments of the Khmer world through the Thai cultural and linguistic continuum.
Another possibility is that the various ob purhā, phurā, etc. originate from a common Tibeto-Burman or Lolo-Burmese lexical stock. However, this hypothesis seems unlikely as this word does not have any cognate, either in Tibeto-Burman (Matisoff Reference Matisoff2003), or in Lolo-Burmese (Bradley Reference Bradley1979).Footnote 44
It could also be postulated that the ob phurā would eventually be a borrowing or a “burmanization” of the Sanskrit-Pali vara-. Though this hypothesis has its merits, the Old Burmese phurā probably has the same origin as Old Khmer v/braḥ and Old Thai braḥ because the semantics of the Burmese attestation is identical to the Old Khmer and Old Thai forms.
It might also be suggested that the ob phurā could be a direct borrowing from Old Khmer. This seems quite unlikely, as the Burmese world was not in fact in direct contact with the Angkorian Empire. On the contrary, I postulate that the Old Burmese forms were an indirect borrowing from Old Khmer through an Old Thai oral form of the Old Khmer braḥ. The Thai linguistic and socio-cultural continuum stretching from the margins of the Angkorian Empire in the east to Upper Burma in the west (see Figure 1 below) would rather point to this conclusion.
Figure 1. Angkor, Pagán and Thai Continuum (twelfth century)
(2) Old Burmese phonetic transcription of an Old Thai word
I believe that the Old Burmese phurā, etc. is an Old Burmese phonetic transcription of a borrowing from an Old Thai dialect spoken in Upper Burma. It was an honorific which came into the Old Burmese lexicon through oral transmission rather than through some written supports.
One challenge is to explain the actualization of the Old Thai labial plosive [b-] ([braʔA > braːA])Footnote 45 through its voiceless counterpart in the Old Burmese puhrā [pəʰraː] or phurā [pʰəraː] rather than an expected ob form buhrā. This graphic oddity can be explained in two ways. The first explanation is that the Old Burmese consonant paradigm did not have initial voiced plosives and interpreted the Old Shan voiced plosive [b-] as its voiceless counterpart [p-]: Old Thai (Old Shan) [braːA] > puhrā [pəʰraː] (or phurā [pʰəraː]) in Old Burmese. The second explanation is that the Old Thai dialect from which Old Burmese borrowed its form had already undergone the devoicing of its voiced initial plosives ([b-] > [pʰ-]). In this view, the Old Burmese puhrā [pəʰraː] (or phurā [pʰəraː]) would have been an attempt to transliterate the Old Thai [pʰraːA2]. Both hypotheses are presented below, as it is not possible at this time to choose one hypothesis over the other.
1.- First hypothesis: Lack of voiced plosives in Old Burmese
When Old Burmese borrowed its puhrā from Old Shan, braḥ should still have been pronounced [braːA] and not yet [pʰraːA2] because the devoicing of the initial voiced plosives [*b- *d- *g- *ɟ-]>[p- t- k- c-] had not yet happened. We can then wonder why Old Burmese transcribed the Old Shan voiced initial plosive [b-] ([braːA]) in an Old Burmese voiceless initial plosive [pʰ-] ([pʰəraː]). The explanation that can be put forward for this oddity is simply that Old Burmese had no voiced plosives, as demonstrated by the comparison with Tibetan or other Tibeto-Burman languages. As Luce (no date a: 31) and Nishi (Reference Nishi1999: 75) pointed out, the plosives written g, gh, j, jh, d, dh, b, bh in Old Burmese are almost exclusively attested in loans, and there is no phonemic contrast between voiced and voiceless plosives. The Old Burmese purha, pūrha, puhrā, purhaḥ, phurā must have been pronounced [pəʰraː] or [pʰəraː], acceptable phonetic interpretation of the Old Shan [braːA].
The modern orthography with the written initial bh- can be explained by the fact that p- and ph- were still merging in Middle Burmese.Footnote 46 Furthermore, bh- was often used instead of ph- or p- (as both were merging). This spelling was established during the third spelling reform in the eighteenth century, which ushered Burmese into its modern standard literary period.
2.- Second hypothesis: The Old Thai dialect had already undergone the devoicing process
The alternative explanation would be that the Old Shan dialect from which Old Burmese borrowed its purhā, etc., had already undergone the devoicing process of its voiced initial plosives at the beginning of the twelfth century ad; in other words, [braːA] had already changed to [pʰraːA2] in the twelfth century. The Old Burmese puhrā [pəʰraː] or phurā [pʰəraː] would then be an accurate transcription of a [pʰraːA2] from an Old Shan dialect spoken in Upper Burma.
Not all Thai languages underwent the devoicing process at the same time. Siamese completed its devoicing process of the initial voiced plosives around the seventeenth century; a chapter from Simon de La Loubère's Royaume de Siam (Reference de la Loubère1691), in which he defined the attributions of the Siamese phra khlang [pʰráʔ kʰlaŋ] allows us to reach that conclusion.
Le Prà-Clang ou par corruption des Portugais, le Barcalon, est l'officier qui a le département du commerce […].Footnote 47
We can conclude from this observation that (1) when the Portuguese landed in Siam in the early sixteenth century, the consonantal group [br-] (Barcalon) had not yet been affected by the devoicing process, and (2) when de La Loubère (Reference de la Loubère1691) wrote his Royaume de Siam, this consonant cluster had already undergone the devoicing of the voiced initial plosive [br-]>[pʰr-] (Prà-Clang). The devoicing process had not yet taken place at the beginning of the sixteenth century but was complete at the end of the seventeenth century at the latest.
Tai Yo, a Thai dialect spoken in Nghệ An province, Vietnam, underwent this process much later; handwritten notes taken by Georges Maspero in the 1920s describe a dialect that had not yet completed its devoicing process.
It was therefore a long process which spread across the entire Thai area stretching from the seventeenth century for Siamese to the early twentieth century for Tai Yo. Assuming that the Old Shan dialect from which Old Burmese borrowed its phurā had already been affected by the devoicing process means that this phenomenon would date back in time about five or six centuries; this phenomenon would consequently have lasted almost a millennium of areal diffusion to its completion: from the eleventh century in Old Shan in Upper Burma to the twentieth century in the Tai Yo dialect in Vietnam. Such a long duration seems reasonable if we consider, comparatively, that the devoicing phenomenon is still ongoing in some Mon-Khmer languages while it was completed several centuries ago in Mon and in Khmer.
(3) Monosyllabic pronunciation of the Old Burmese purhā
The linguistic consideration that will now be dealt with is the syllabic structure of the Old Burmese phurā, etc. Was it a dissyllable [pʰuraː], a sesquisyllable [pʰəraː], or a monosyllable [pʰraː]?
I would postulate a monosyllabic [pʰraː] or a sesquisyllabic pronunciation [pʰəraː] rather than a dissyllabic one [pʰuraː] for the Old Burmese phurā, etc. The comparison of epigraphic variants for the same word in the Old Burmese lexicon strengthens this hypothesis. For example, pre-Standard Old Burmese (that is to say roughly the beginning of the eleventh century) attests sikhaṅ “lord, lady, the reverend, husband, master” which might graphically be represented as a dissyllable together with forms like skhaṅ or skhiṅ, graphically similar to a mono- or sesquisyllable. This example is quite interesting as it demonstrates that pre-Standard Old Burmese had already become a mono- or sesquisyllabic language as the alternative epigraphic orthographies verify it: sikhaṅ and skhaṅ. We should also add that pugaṃ “Pagán” in Modern Burmese is not pronounced [pugɑ̀n] but [pəgɑ̀n].
(4) Consonant cluster plosive + [r]
Having assumed that the Old Burmese phurā, etc. must have been a monosyllable or, at most, a sesquisyllable, another diachronic issue should still be addressed: the evolution of the plosive + [r] consonant cluster.
The Standard Modern Burmese phonetic actualization [pʰəjɑ́ː]/[pʰjɑ́ː] of the written bhurā: might be confusing. The initial consonant cluster [pʰj-] in Standard Modern Burmese is just the consequence of a regular phonetic change: Old Burmese [pʰr-]>[pʰj-] in Standard Modern Burmese. In most cases, only the conservative Burmese dialects Arakanese and Intha have maintained the Old Burmese pronunciation for this initial consonant cluster: Arakanese [pʰəɹɑ́ː]/[pʰɹɑ́ː] and Intha [pʰəɾɑ́ː]/[pʰɾɑ́ː].Footnote 48 The Intha and Arakanese pronunciations indicate that the Old Burmese pronunciation of the written Old Burmese phurā, etc. would have been something like [pʰraː] or [pʰəraː].
(5) Why not a creaky register in Old Burmese?
It may seem rather disturbing that the Burmese form lacks a creaky voice to mark the short vowel of the Old Thai [pʰráʔ]. Why is the Old Burmese form [pʰraː], instead of a short vowel with a creaky phonation-type register [*pʰrɑ̰]? This long vowel in Burmese is, in fact, not as unexpected as it might seem, if we consider that Old Burmese phurā was borrowed from an Old Thai dialect spoken in Upper Burma (a Shan dialect) which sporadically lengthens the final vowel [-aʔ > -aː], as evidenced by the form [pʰaːA2] (and not [pʰaʔA2]) in Tai Khamtī and Tai Dehong or in Tai Yai (Burmese Shan) attesting phrā: [pʰraːA2] “deity, object of worship” (Cushing Reference Cushing1914: 464) and not [pʰraʔA2].Footnote 49
Accordingly, the Old Burmese purhā is most likely a loan from Shan since this group of Thai dialects has lengthened the vocalic nucleus [pʰraʔA2]>[pʰraːA2]. Had the Old Thai vowel from the borrowing been short [pʰraʔA2], Old Burmese would have most likely pronounced it in a creaky register [pʰrɑ̰] because the Ajawlat (or Dhammāraṃ-krī) inscription (ad 1165–66) attests a first attempt to account for the supra-segmental features, which indicates that Old Burmese was already, if not a tonal language, in any case a phonation-type language.
5.3. Historical roots of the loan
(1) The Thai continuumFootnote 50
In order to understand how the Old Siamese braḥ (from Angkorian Old Khmer) yielded the Old Burmese phurā through an Old Shan oral form, it seems reasonably relevant to introduce the “Thai linguistic and socio-cultural continuum”. The “Thai continuum” was the socio-political, linguistic and geographical bridge that connected the various Thai peoples, and which stretched, by the twelfth century, from southwestern Yúnnán 雲南 to the Middle Mekong and Middle Menam in the southeast, and to the Upper Irrawaddy and Upper Salween in the west. The Thai continuum extended further westwards during the thirteenth-century Tai Ahōm migration into northeastern India (Upper Assam). The Thai continuum can be considered to be a loose network of Thai chiefdoms.
The example of the Tai Ahōm nobiliary titles in Upper Assam (and also Tai Yai ones in Upper Burma) illustrates the concept of “Thai continuum”, in particular the attestation of the Tai Ahōm doublet ph(r)ā - phūra: (Tai Yai phrā: - phyā:), one of the few Shan words of “Indo-Khmer” origin.
(2) The Thai continuum: the Tai Ahōm example
In ad 1228 prince Sukhaphā, quarrelling with his brother the king of Möng Maw, immigrated to Upper Assam with his army and followers to seek his fortune. Tai Ahōm is noteworthy because it was spoken at the edge of the continuum and represented the Thai last step westwards; it was also somewhat isolated from the continuum and maintained archaic linguistic features. From Indo-Khmer, Tai Ahōm just kept the honorific prefix phrā - phūra:; its nobiliary titles are strictly Thai and are probably very old, when they were not replaced by Assamese terms. Incidentally, Tai Ahōm, more than any other Thai language, retained Thai titles indicating a hierarchy of rank and social status. For example, the term [cawC1 pʰaːA2] (Tai Yai [sʰawC1 pʰaːA2]), which is attested quite early in the Tai Ahōm nobiliary titles, resurfaced quite late in the sixteenth–seventeenth century in Siamese. Vickery (Reference Vickery1974: 162) and Terwiel (Reference Terwiel1983: 56-7) connect this term with the pre-Sukhothai tradition.
Noteworthy is the existence of the doublet ph(r)ā - phūra: in Tai Ahōm. for which we can deduce the pronunciation [pʰraːA2].Footnote 51 These words are honorific prefixes with a similar semantics to Old Khmer and Old Siamese; however, they were obviously borrowed from different sources. The word phūra: is clearly borrowed from Written Burmese and it probably arrived from Burma into Upper Assam through the Buddhist scriptures along with the Burmese writing system (Pain Reference Pain2017b: 456–8). On the other hand ph(r)ā cannot originate from Burmese and its origin should be sought somewhere on the Thai margins of the Angkorian Empire, which indicates that contacts were kept between the two edges of the Thai continuum, namely from the northern margins of the Angkorian Empire to Upper Assam.Footnote 52 In addition, we can hypothesize that Tai Ahōm phrā [pʰraːA2] originates from an Upper Burma Shan dialect (Tai Yai or Tai Khamtī) as Tai Yai attests both phrā: [pʰraːA2] “deity, object of worship” most likely originating from the Thai margins of the Angkorian Empire, and phyā: (in phyā: ’in [pʰjaːA2 ʔinA2] “Indra”) which originates from an oral Burmese form. The migration path from east to west for this word may be the following: Siamese or Northern Thai braḥ [pʰráʔ] > Shan phrā: [pʰraːA2] > Tai Ahōm phrā [pʰraːA2]. Both edges of the Thai continuum therefore attest the “Indo-Khmer” honorific v/braḥ.
This “Continuum” concept is important to understand how a word was carried orally from the Middle Menam in Thailand to Upper Burma. The Thai chiefdoms kept in touch during the eleventh–thirteenth centuries.Footnote 53
The very fact that the Old Burmese phurā, etc. was attested in the epigraphy a century before the Old Siamese braḥ might seem to contradict the hypothesis according to which the Old Burmese form would be a phonetic transcription of the Old Shan [braːA] (or [pʰraːA2]). The explanation for this paradox is likely both the existence of a Thai continuum from the Middle Menam to Upper Burma in the eleventh and twelfth centuries on the one hand, and the ancient contacts kept up between the Shans in Upper Burma and the Burmese. This linguistic and socio-cultural environment is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Transmission of Old Khmer braḥ
(3) Upper Burma Thais (Shans) and the kingdom of Pagán
Very little is known about the history of the Thai people in Upper Burma; the chronology of their southward migration from Southern China along the Irrawaddy upper valley and the eastern plateau remains quite obscure. Local chronicles give us some pieces of information but they are often unreliable, contradictory and rooted in the halos of mythology. Some chronicles trace the Thai (Shan) settlement in Upper Burma around the seventh century ad, others trace their settlement during the reign of the first Shan lord Khun Lai around ad 568. On the other hand the Hsenwi Chronicle reports that a Shan kingdom would have developed at the border area between Yúnnán and Burma in ad 763 under the lead of its king, Khun Tung Kham, while Khun Lai would have been the third Shan king whose reign would have begun in ad 951. Whatever the accurate dates might have been, the Chinese annals from the Táng 唐 dynasty (ad 618–907) alluded to the existence of a Thai political entity in the border region, but the date of the formation of the kingdom remained somewhat vague. Be that as it may, a decentralized Thai power, the authority of which was slipping from one lord to another (Fernquest Reference Fernquest2006), was to be found in the border regions between Yúnnán and Upper Burma by the ninth or tenth century ad. For our purposes, what matters is the antiquity of the contacts between the Burmese and the Upper Burma Thais or Shans.Footnote 54
The Burmese and Shans were in constant and conflicting contact for quite a long time. As early as Anoratha's reign (1044–77), the king felt it necessary to protect his kingdom from the Shan chiefdoms by setting up a line of defence in 43 military posts along the eastern plateau; it was also crucial to defend the rice perimeter of the new kingdom of Pagán against the Shans. This information can be gleaned from the Glass Palace Chronicle (Pe Maung Tin and Luce Reference Tin and Luce1960: 96–7) and is confirmed by archaeology (Berliet Reference Berliet2010). Moreover, a donation of Shan workers (together with fields and cows) to a monastery is mentioned in ad 1081 (Aung-Thwin Reference Aung-Thwin1985: 43). The Burmese and the Shans have thus been in contact since the eleventh century at the latest. As we learn from Robinne (Reference Robinne2000), oral traditions in the eastern plateau are prolix on conflicts which opposed the kingdom of Pagán to various Shan chiefdoms; the Inle Lake region is furthermore dotted with shrines where the guardian spirits of the villages (rwā coṅ. nat) are associated with Shans who fought against the Burmese.
The Shan lords’ or shaw phā’s power, quite hierarchical, was considered a serious threat by Pagán, and they constituted a serious opposition force to the central power. Matrimonial alliances were soon regarded as an honourable compromise to these conflicting relations. The Burmese chronicles relate that Anoratha married a Shan princess named Saw Hla Mon, a Shan lord's daughter, to ensure the allegiance of the Shan shaw phā.Footnote 55 The kingdom of Pagán may be regarded as an entity which was politically dominated by three main ethnic groups: Burmese, Mon and Shan. The last two had some political prestige, for the Burmese kings would address the Mon and Shan lords with the honorific noṅ tō “elder brother” while the Mon and Shan lords addressed Burmese kings with the expression ñi tō “younger brother” (Aung-Thwin Reference Aung-Thwin1985: 62), which demonstrates that the relationships to the Shan and Mon lords were clearly respectful.
The transmission of the Old Shan [braːA] ([pʰraːA2]) and its transliteration in Old Burmese as phurā must have occurred in this context of relationships with the Shans, that can be traced back from the beginning of the eleventh century, if not earlier.
6. Conclusion: braḥ, the word which travelled from Angkor to Assam
Throughout this paper it was hypothesized that the Old Khmer v/braḥ resulted from a reduction of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa through a monosyllabization process. Some doubts were also uttered about a connection between v/braḥ and the Sanskrit–Pali vara. The socio-political situation, sometimes favourable to the Khmers, sometimes to the Thais and sometimes to the Burmese, facilitated the transmission, from the margins of the Angkorian Empire, of the “Old-Khmerized” Sanskrit braḥ [brah > prὲəh] into Siamese braḥ [braʔA > pʰráʔ], then from Siamese into Burmese [pʰ(ə)raː > pʰ(ə)jɑ́ː] through oral transmission and a phonetic transcription of a Shan dialect in Upper Burma [braːA > pʰraːA2] and finally from Burmese into the Tai Ahōm phūra: [pʰraːA2] in Assam.
Moreover, as v/braḥ is assumed to be a shortened form of brāh[maṇa] used as an honorific term of address, the question of the importance of the Brahmin in the Old Khmer world has been raised. A first attempt to use a reduced form of the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa as an honorific may be evidenced in the word [brʌm] found in the name of the first Funanese ruler that the Chinese sources mention: 范帥蔓 fàn shīmàn is, in Early Middle Chinese, a phonetic transcription [brʌm sriː maːn] of brāhm śrīmāra, or “His Venerable King Māra”. We do not think that the Ancient Funanese Khmers used a reduced form of brāhmaṇa to show respect to the status of the Brahmins in general, but rather to show their reverence to their dynastic myth according to which the Funanese ruling clan would descend from, and legitimize its power by the degree of affiliation with, brāhmaṇa kauṇḍinya. More than an expression of interest for the alleged status of some obscure Indian Brahmins, it was most likely a mark of respect and reverence the first clan to have ruled over an embryonic state dominated by the Khmers. Some Indo-Aryan words arrived in Southeast Asia emptied of their Indian connotation; a signifier emptied of its signified in some way. When, in Modern Burma, reverence is openly shown to a monk by to addressing him with the honorific term [pʰjɑ́ː], it is actually, etymologically, to the first Khmer lords of Fúnán that deep reverential respect is uttered.
Finally, one might wonder why an Indo-Aryan word such as brāhmaṇa originally designating a human being yielded the Old Khmer honorific v/braḥ, a term which refers to both humans and deities. This might be related to the issue of terms of respect associated with the erection of a new type of statecraft. It must have been a way to render the sanctity of the royal figure in the establishment of an innovative type of power. This is a frequently recurring feature in the formation of the first Indianized states in Southeast Asia (including Ancient Java). The Indo-Aryan word brāhmaṇa was emptied of its Indian (Hinduistic) culture-based semantics and was re-connoted according to Southeast Asian socio-political contingencies. It ultimately comes down to the question that Wolters (Reference Wolters1999: 109–10) raised: What is the local connotation of Indo-Aryan terms?
