NOTES.
N. B. References by numeral are to the numbered lines of the Text and of the Transliteration. With these also correspond the numbered lines of the Translation, so far as differences of idiom permit. References by letter are to publications named in the Bibliography, as follows:—
- B. Bastian: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1864.
- S. Schmitt: Deux Anciennes Inscriptions Siamoises, 1885.
- P. Pavie: Mission Pavie; Études Diverses II, 1898.
- RS. เรื่อง เมือง สุโขไท (Rüăng Sŭkhothăi,) Bangkok, 1908.
It has not been thought neccessary to perplex the reader with unfamiliar spellings, save in cases where the text itself is in question. Ordinarily, therefore, words are cited in their modern form.
1. The first word พ่ is of interest as showing that the names of the Siamese letters were pronounced then as they are now; that is, with the อ-vowel instead of with the ă-vowel of Indian usage. Simple อ-vowel final therefore is nowhere written in this text, it being inherent in the preceding consonant. But อ medial always appears. Thus we have บ่, ฏ่ 7, and ฃ 23; but น่อง, ท้อง 2, ฉอด 4. Other important points wherein the early usage of this letter is at variance with the present are illustrated in this same context, and will therefore be considered together here. a) The vowel ◌ื did not then require an อ 'supporter' after it any more than did any other simple vowel See ◌ื่ช (ชื่อ) 1, ◌ื่ซ (ซื่อ) 26, ◌ืถ (ถือ) 88. The อ must now be written after every open (final) ◌ื-vowel, but the usage is wholly anomalous. b) An initial vowel sound regularly required the อ-'supporter' then, as it always does now. But the second word in the Prince's title —◌ีนทรา for อินทรา—appears without it both here and in 98, suggesting that the theory was not then fully grasped. c) Another token of imperfect-mastery of the system is seen in the use of the letter in diphthongs of the เมือง type. In closed syllables with these diphthongs the อ appears, properly enough,
