[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Myanmar, bama, oh heck, simply Burm
- Subject: Myanmar, bama, oh heck, simply Burm
- From: m.win@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:37:00
Subject: Myanmar, bama, oh heck, simply Burma
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF4A5C.44931600
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Nation - December 19, 1999
Mailbag=20
Myanmar, bama, oh heck, simply Burma
The letter from ''A Samut Prakan Resident'' makes some interesting =
points (The Nation Dec 11), but it was not the British who ''named =
Myanmar Burma''.=20
The once British colony has always been called Burma in English and bama =
or myanmain Burmese. The best explanation of the difference between bama =
and myanma is to be found in the old Hobson Jobson Dictionary, which =
despite its rather unorthodox name remains a very useful source of =
information:=20
''The name (Burma) is taken from Mranma, the national name of the =
Burmese people, which they themselves generally pronounce Bamma, unless =
speaking formally and empathically.'' Both names have been used =
interchangeably throughout history, with Burma being the more colloquial =
name and Myanmar a more formal designation, somewhat similar to Muang =
Thai and Prathet Thai in Thai.=20
If Burma meant only the central plains and Myanmar the Burmese and all =
the other nationalities, how could there be, according the Myanmar =
Language Commission, a ''Myanmar language''? I have at home their latest =
Myanmar English Dictionary (1993), which also mentions a ''Myanmar =
alphabet''. Clearly, Burma and Myanmar (and Burmese and Myanmar) mean =
exactly the same thing, and it cannot be argued that the term =
''Myanmar'' includes any more people within the present union than the =
name ''Burma'' does.=20
But the confusion is an old one and when the Burmese independence =
movement was established in the 1930s, there was a debate among the =
young nationalists as to what name should be used for the country: bama =
or myanma. The nationalists decided to call their movement the Dohbama =
Asiayone (''Our Burma Association'') instead of the Dohmyanma Asiayone.=20
The reason, they said, was that ''since the dohbama was set up, the =
nationalists always paid attention t the unity of all the nationalities =
of the country ... and the thakins (Burmese nationalists) noted that =
myanma meant only the part of the country where the myanma people lived. =
This was the name given by the Burmese kings to their country. =
Bamanaingngan is not the country where only the myanma people live. Many =
different nationalities live in this country, such as the Kachins, =
Karens, Kayahs, Chins, Pa-Os, Palaungs, Mons, Myamars, Rakhines and =
Shans. Therefore, the nationalists did not use the term myanmanaingngan =
but bama naingngan. That would be the correct term. All nationalities =
who live in Bamanaingngan are called bama.'' Thus, the movement became =
the Dohbama Asiayone and not the Dohmyanma Asiayone (''A Brief History =
of the Dohbama Asiayone'', an official government publication published =
in Burmese in Rangoon in 1976).=20
The Burmese edition of the Guardian monthly, another official =
publication, concluded in February 1971: ''The word myanma signifies =
only the myanmars=20
whereas bama embraces all indigenous nationalities.''=20
In 1989, however, the present government decided that the opposite was =
true, and it is that view which many foreigners keep on repeating. The =
sad truth is that there is no term in Burmese or in any other language =
which covers both the bama/myanma and the ethnic minorities since no =
such entity existed before the arrival of the British. Burma with its =
present boundaries is a creation of the British, and successive =
governments of independent Burma have inherited a chaotic entity which =
is still struggling to find a common identity. But insisting that myanma =
means the whole country and in some way is a more indigenous term than =
bama is nonsense.=20
Rangoon or Yangon is another reflection of the same kind of =
misunderstanding. Rangoon begins with the consonant ''ra gaut'', or =
''r'', not ''ya palait'' or ''y''. In English texts, Rangoon is =
therefore a more correct spelling. The problem is that the old ''r'' =
sound has died out in most Burmese dialects (although not in Arakanese =
and Tavoyan, which both have a very distinct rround, Rrrangoon, almost) =
and softened to a ''y'' sound in the same way as ''r'' often becomes =
''l'' in Thai. The usage of ''Yangon'' is as childish as if the Thais =
insisted that Ratchaburi had be spelt ''Latbuli'' in English, or Buriram =
Bulilam.=20
Further, there is another dimension to the recent ''name changes'' in =
Burma. It was not only the names of the country and the capital which =
were ''changed''. In the minority areas names also changed, and here it =
was a real change. A few examples from Shan State: Hsipaw became Thibaw, =
Hsenwi became Theinli or Thinli, Kengtung became Kyaingtong, Mong Hsube =
came Maing Shu, Laihka became Laycha, Pangtara became Pindaya and so on. =
The problem here is that the original names all have a meaning in the =
Shan language; the ''new'' names are just Burmanised versions of the =
same names, with no meaning in any language. This undermines the =
argument that the changes were done in order to make them ''more =
indigenous'' and not only reflecting the majority Burmans.=20
Bertil Lintner=20
CHIANG MAI
=20
--------------
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF4A5C.44931600
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>
<DIV align=3Djustify>The Nation - December 19, 1999</DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>Mailbag </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><BR>Myanmar, bama, oh heck, simply Burma</DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>The letter from ''A Samut Prakan Resident'' makes =
some=20
interesting points (The Nation Dec 11), but it was not the British who =
''named=20
Myanmar Burma''. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>The once British colony has always been called =
Burma in=20
English and bama or myanmain Burmese. The best explanation of the =
difference=20
between bama and myanma is to be found in the old Hobson Jobson =
Dictionary,=20
which despite its rather unorthodox name remains a very useful source of =
information: </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>''The name (Burma) is taken from Mranma, the =
national name of=20
the Burmese people, which they themselves generally pronounce Bamma, =
unless=20
speaking formally and empathically.'' Both names have been used =
interchangeably=20
throughout history, with Burma being the more colloquial name and =
Myanmar a more=20
formal designation, somewhat similar to Muang Thai and Prathet Thai in =
Thai.=20
</DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>If Burma meant only the central plains and Myanmar =
the=20
Burmese and all the other nationalities, how could there be, according =
the=20
Myanmar Language Commission, a ''Myanmar language''? I have at home =
their latest=20
Myanmar English Dictionary (1993), which also mentions a ''Myanmar =
alphabet''.=20
Clearly, Burma and Myanmar (and Burmese and Myanmar) mean exactly the =
same=20
thing, and it cannot be argued that the term ''Myanmar'' includes any =
more=20
people within the present union than the name ''Burma'' does. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>But the confusion is an old one and when the =
Burmese=20
independence movement was established in the 1930s, there was a debate =
among the=20
young nationalists as to what name should be used for the country: bama =
or=20
myanma. The nationalists decided to call their movement the Dohbama =
Asiayone=20
(''Our Burma Association'') instead of the Dohmyanma Asiayone. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>The reason, they said, was that ''since the dohbama =
was set=20
up, the nationalists always paid attention t the unity of all the =
nationalities=20
of the country ... and the thakins (Burmese nationalists) noted that =
myanma=20
meant only the part of the country where the myanma people lived. This =
was the=20
name given by the Burmese kings to their country. Bamanaingngan is not =
the=20
country where only the myanma people live. Many different nationalities =
live in=20
this country, such as the Kachins, Karens, Kayahs, Chins, Pa-Os, =
Palaungs, Mons,=20
Myamars, Rakhines and Shans. Therefore, the nationalists did not use the =
term=20
myanmanaingngan but bama naingngan. That would be the correct term. All=20
nationalities who live in Bamanaingngan are called bama.'' Thus, the =
movement=20
became the Dohbama Asiayone and not the Dohmyanma Asiayone (''A Brief =
History of=20
the Dohbama Asiayone'', an official government publication published in =
Burmese=20
in Rangoon in 1976). </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>The Burmese edition of the Guardian monthly, =
another official=20
publication, concluded in February 1971: ''The word myanma signifies =
only the=20
myanmars </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>whereas bama embraces all indigenous =
nationalities.'' </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>In 1989, however, the present government decided =
that the=20
opposite was true, and it is that view which many foreigners keep on =
repeating.=20
The sad truth is that there is no term in Burmese or in any other =
language which=20
covers both the bama/myanma and the ethnic minorities since no such =
entity=20
existed before the arrival of the British. Burma with its present =
boundaries is=20
a creation of the British, and successive governments of independent =
Burma have=20
inherited a chaotic entity which is still struggling to find a common =
identity.=20
But insisting that myanma means the whole country and in some way is a =
more=20
indigenous term than bama is nonsense. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>Rangoon or Yangon is another reflection of the same =
kind of=20
misunderstanding. Rangoon begins with the consonant ''ra gaut'', or =
''r'', not=20
''ya palait'' or ''y''. In English texts, Rangoon is therefore a more =
correct=20
spelling. The problem is that the old ''r'' sound has died out in most =
Burmese=20
dialects (although not in Arakanese and Tavoyan, which both have a very =
distinct=20
rround, Rrrangoon, almost) and softened to a ''y'' sound in the same way =
as=20
''r'' often becomes ''l'' in Thai. The usage of ''Yangon'' is as =
childish as if=20
the Thais insisted that Ratchaburi had be spelt ''Latbuli'' in English, =
or=20
Buriram Bulilam. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>Further, there is another dimension to the recent =
''name=20
changes'' in Burma. It was not only the names of the country and the =
capital=20
which were ''changed''. In the minority areas names also changed, and =
here it=20
was a real change. A few examples from Shan State: Hsipaw became Thibaw, =
Hsenwi=20
became Theinli or Thinli, Kengtung became Kyaingtong, Mong Hsube came =
Maing Shu,=20
Laihka became Laycha, Pangtara became Pindaya and so on. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>The problem here is that the original names all =
have a=20
meaning in the Shan language; the ''new'' names are just Burmanised =
versions of=20
the same names, with no meaning in any language. This undermines the =
argument=20
that the changes were done in order to make them ''more indigenous'' and =
not=20
only reflecting the majority Burmans. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><BR>Bertil Lintner </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify>CHIANG MAI<BR> <BR>--------------</DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> </DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF4A5C.44931600--