Burma v. Myanmar (was: A BrSc a? & Nyuu Romaji)

Roger wrote:

>Certainly one of the problems here is that we don't know (1) the intricacies
>of Burmese script (of South Indian derivation IIRC), (2) when it was
>codified (a long time ago, I suspect) and (3) sound changes that have
>affected spoken Burmese since that time.  I do know that the written symbol
>"s" is now pronounced as [T], and I seem to recall that "ky" is [tS]
>(logical enough). Perhaps "r" is now [j], and silent in word-final position
>(suggests it might have been an American-style r).  Plus, there's simply no
>accounting for how the Brits might or might not have (mis)interpreted the
>pronunciation. (Or, for that matter,  the Burmese authorities who decided to
>cleave to the "original" spelling.  Perhaps in the 13th C. or so, "myanmar"
>somehow reflected the real pronunciation???)
I worked with a native Burmese speaker back in Taiwan, and what I
gleaned from him, IIRC, is that these are two separate words for the
same thing. I know no Burmese, but to my ear, his pronunciation of
what we spell "Burma" was something along the lines of /bVmV/, while
"Myanmar" was sump'n like /mjVmmV/ (I know from him that there are
three tones in Burmese, but don't know what they are or how to mark
them in romanization). IIRC, he said you could kinda-sorta use them
interchangeably, but there were political considerations involved
(ie: if a government official is standing within earshot, use
"Myanmar"; if among friends, anything goes).

Reply