Jump to content

where does Thai come from?


Recommended Posts

In my experience, Thai people say their language comes from Sanskrit, and they pretty much leave it at that. 

 

But the few (farang-authored) materials I've read say that Thai language descends largely from Chinese and, after adopting a Sanskrit-based alphabet/abugida some 700 yrs ago, began to incorporate many Sanskrit words. I realise something called "Old Khmer" figures in here somewhere. 

 

How would y'all describe Thai origins?

 

Also, prior to using a Sanskrit-based writing system, did the Thai language ever use Chinese characters?   ((I've heard conflicting (and vague) answers to this question.))

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will get different answers from different people.

 

Go to this website, it is the most accurate I have found on origin of Thai people and language.

 

It has many other ethnic groups origins as well.

 

Happy reading!!

 

http://eastasiaorigin.blogspot.com/2017/06/ethnic-origin-of-thai.html

 

http://eastasiaorigin.blogspot.com/2017/08/origin-of-thai-language.html

 

Edited by EricTh
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

If you can read Thai, this is a great book by Sujit Wongthes on the origins of the Thai people, which of course has to deal with the language as well.  

sw.jpg

Catchy title.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Damrongsak said:

Catchy title.

A lot of his work has catchy titles. But you won't find a better way to learn about genuine Thai history, very readable and a fine writer and historian.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this can be simplyfied:

 

DNA and language clearly points to mainly southern chinese origins. The written language, abandoning chinese "picture-language" to a ABC modus can only be interpreted as the willingness of the southern China immigrants to detach themselves from the chinese "Homeland". For whatever reason.

 

Along the way, influences from India played a major role, as in the very early stages, Angkor-Vat was clearly devoted to origional old "Indian-Gods". (Language Sanskrit among the religious elite only. Same as Latin in Catholic-Churches performed today). Buddhism came later. (A second wave of indian immigrants?)


Also noticable, the farther south from China, the less predominant the "asian eyelid-fold" becomes, replaced by "almond-eyes".
Clearly, the indian tradesmen/sailors of old days, must have found out that Thailand is easier to reach than mainland China. They (obviously) must have left their mark. Mix and mingle. Result = Almond eyes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KhaoNiaw said:

If you can read Thai, this is a great book by Sujit Wongthes on the origins of the Thai people, which of course has to deal with the language as well. 

Thanks for the tip.  

 

I suspect my reading skills ain't quite there yet. Vocab still a bit limited. Maybe in a few months. I've put him on my to-read list. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, swissie said:

Also noticable, the farther south from China, the less predominant the "asian eyelid-fold" becomes, replaced by "almond-eyes".
Clearly, the indian tradesmen/sailors of old days, must have found out that Thailand is easier to reach than mainland China. They (obviously) must have left their mark. Mix and mingle. Result = Almond eyes.

I've noticed that BKK has a lot of women who almost look like foxy Latinas....So would you think they are genetically Indian for the most part?

 

Also, I've noticed that areas like Ramkhamhaeng (the neighborhood), have a lot of women who are like 1.7 metres or close to 1.8 metres tall, not fat but large bones, and big feet. And they're not khatoeys either (I can usually distinguish at this point).  What in the world is their genetic background?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 4:27 AM, JHicks said:

Personally, I find Wikipedia a lot more convincing than the blog linked to above.

 

I am not sure whether you realize that ANYBODY can edit Wikipedia even amateurs.

 

There have been many 'edit wars' between different authors on the same topic in Wikipedia in the past when different authors write contradictory statements, fighting with each other. You can see their 'edit history'.

 

While it's true that Wikipedia is partially correct but I have found inaccuracies there as well.

 

I've found that blog contains many information that Wikipedia is missing. So I would say it supplements Wikipedia rather than saying Wiki is 'more convincing' which I don't find to be true at all.

Edited by EricTh
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...