Myanmar Etymologyetymology of Myanmar
Weird outliers:: From an etymological point of view Myanmar = Burma: Phase Two
but it seems to endure to repeat itself before this sorrowful land disappears from ours. Being a frequent NewsHour observer, I find it hurtful for two main factors to see Jim teacher speak Myanmar as ME-and-Mar. One of these is the same why Englishspeaking people are insisting on speaking Kyoto in three syllables.
You can speak Kieu in one word (like in'white ball'), but not kyo. I am sure that Jim can speak in a single word, as in "musing", but not in a single one. But I wouldn't have bothered to tell you if I hadn't overheard Jim offering a sluggish piece of CW to tell you why he insisted on using the name he couldn't say, rather than the name he could say.
From an etymological point of view, Myanmar and Burma are the same term, but spoken differently. The one is more general and slang, the other is figurative and literature. "Myanmar/Burma", by Bertil Lintner, in Ethnicity in Asia, edited by Colin Mackerras (RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), p. 174: The Burmese army regime in 1989 renamed the Burmese land Myanmar.
This is because the UK Colonies called it "Burma" after the country's most important ethnical group, the Burmese, who live in the centre. Myanmar', it was claimed, encompassed the Burmese and all other'ethnic races', among them the Shan, the Karen, the Mon, the Kachin and more than 100 other nations.
This once-in Britain settlement was always referred to as Burma in English and Burma or mya. For the best explanations of the differences between the two dictionaries, the Hobson-Jobson dictionary is a very useful dictionaries. The name[ Burma] comes from Mran-ma, the name of the nation of the Myanmar tribe, which they themselves generally use for Bam-ma, unless they speak with formality and emphasis.
In the course of time, both have been used in an interchangeable way, with Burma being more commonly spoken and Myanmar more religious. Myanmar and Burma (and Burma and Myanmar) mean exactly the same thing, and it is difficult to say that the concept of "Myanmar" would involve more than the name "Burma" in the present EU.
No concept exists in the vernacular that encompasses both the Burmese and the ethnic minorities, since before the British arrived in the 19th cent. there was no land with the frontiers of today's Burma. Burma, with its present limits, is a colorful collection of inner contradictions and split.
He too is insisting that Burma should not be called Myanmar[but for politics]. Burma, MYAN-mar, my-uhn-MAR, MEE-and-mar, ). Update: I am far out of my league on the question of spelling in Burma, but as far as I know, the relation between writing and speaking Myanmar is diglossian, perhaps similar to that between classical Arabic and the wealth of Arabic or between classical Mandarin and Chineses and dialects that have been used in the day.
Authored Mandarin was drastically reformed in the early twentieth centuries to mirror contemporary Mandarin, but Burmese is still waiting for such orthographical reform. It is possible to speak Burmese as it was said 1000 years ago (e.g. Mran-ma), but to speak the same words as they were after 1000 years of tonal changes (e.g. Bam-ma), and even spell thousands of years old grammar items that are today either ancient or outdated in the vernacular.
It' as if all Englishspeaking people had no script system except an Anglo-Saxon rune one.