@Kwamikagami, Lancepark, and Htawmonzel: Back in 2017 user Kwamikagami merged this page together with Old Mon script as they were duplicate articles. In 2021 user Lancepark recreated this article by shifting content from Mon language. The articles overlap heavily, however, and the premise that the modern Mon script is merely an adaption from the Burmese script (as this page stated before user Hwtamonzel's edits) is concluded from a Unicode document without this document directly stating so. Meaning that this page has little reason to exist on its own. To my understanding and knowledge, the Old Mon/Mon script was probably the source of the Burmese script, but was brought under Burmese influence later on, and now Unicode encoded these scripts as one character set. The same thing happened to the Shan script. These scripts growing closer together over time does not mean that they were not originally seperate developments, and we should now call them variants of Modern Burmese script. So, what should happen to this page? I propose merging it back to Old Mon script. Glennznl (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
If we had an orthography section at Mon language, then this would be redundant. But we should have that info somewhere.
-
I'm not sure Old Mon and Burmese script are distinct. Appears to be different stages of the same script, though I really should get a decent ref before saying so. — kwami (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
-
The earliest Mon inscriptions have been dated to the 6th century CE. Its are found both in Thailand and Burma/Myanmar. The earliest Burmese inscription is Myazedi inscription. It inscribed in 1113 CE (12th century). Myazadi inscription is written in four languages, Pyu, Pali, Mon and Burmese.In Pyu is written in Pyu script and In Pali, Mon and Burmese are written in Old Mon script/Mon script. There also have Mon inscriptions in Burma from early 11th century CE and some can be dated about 8th century. There are extant evidence linking the Old Dvaravati Mon script and the Old Mon script from 11th century to the mordern script that Mons and Burmese using today. Htawmonzel (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
-
@Kwamikagami: We could restore the alphabet section of Mon language (which was spun-off to create this page) and then merge this page with Old Mon script. Although I think the name Mon script should be the title as there is no "New Mon script". --Glennznl (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Agreed on both points. We should have a hat note at top for the modern Mon alphabet. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Glennznl agreed on your both points. From 6th to 8th centuries CE the Mon used Granth script (Pallava and Kadamba script). About 8th century the Mons developed its own script. It finds in lower and central Burma and in Thailand it has only been found in Lamphun. From this time until nowadays Mon script it is not so much change. What I want to say it the Mons doesn't have New Mon script. They always use the same script from ca. 8th century until now. Htawmonzel (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Kwamikagami and Htawmonzel: How should we go about doing this? I think to preserve the page history, we should merge Mon scripttoOld Mon script, and then request Old Mon script to be renamed to Mon script. --Glennznl (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Yes, if that's the direction we want to go.
-
If user Htawmonzel is correct, then the Burmese and Mon scripts are the same, and we should call it one or the other, or perhaps "Mon-Burmese script", and the article should be at "Old Mon alphabet".
-
But if the genealogy diagram someone shared on another page (I forget where) is correct, then we don't actually know that Burmese descends from Mon and that the modern Mon alphabet is a direct continuation of the old Mon script. In that case we should do as you suggest.
-
I often fall back on Daniels & Bright. They're not the best source in many cases (at least, their coverage of the Asian scripts I'm familiar with is rather amateurish), but they're reasonably complete.
-
[TBC when I can access them] — kwami (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
We can also call Mon-Burmese script. Because Burmese and Mon had been sharing the same script since 12th century. But I know most of (Burmese) will not like it. It is the best if the page Old Mon script to be renamed to Mon script. Htawmonzel (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
But then we'd need to delete Burmese script. We can't have two articles on the same topic under different names. That's a WP:content fork. So you need to choose: is it the Mon script, the Burmese script, or the Mon-Burmese script? But that's pending RS confirmation that what you say is correct. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Glennznl: Daniels & Bright supports @Htawmonzel:, but are contradicted by that other chart we saw.
There are two relevant chapters in D&B: 41, the Spread of Brahmi Script into Southeast Asia, and 42, Burmese Writing.
Chapt. 41 has a genealogy of SE Asian Brahmic scripts, descending from Pallava script. There is a regional Mon variety by 650 CE, that at least for ⟨ta⟩ is almost identical in shape to the Indian prototype. By 800 CE, Mon script is a little blockier; by 1200 CE it's lost its top stroke. By 1550, Burmese script (a direct, linear descendant of Mon) looks modern. At bottom is modern Mon/Burmese. The only mention of this branch of the family in the text is a quotation of Damais (1955) who says that Pallava is found "in the Mon country", which the editor explains is "in the Chaophraya River basin in Thailand".
Chap. 42 says,
The Burmese script, attested in stone inscriptions at least as far back as the early twelfth century C.E., is a phonologically based script, adapted from Mon, and ultimately based on an Indian (Brahmi) prototype. [...] Traditionally, it is thought that Mon scribes, brought to the city of Pagan after the sack of their capital by the Burmese king Anawrahta in 1057 C.E., provided the stimulus for adapting the Mon script to the writing of Burmese. There have been some changes since the inscriptional period, most notably: consistent use of the "rounded" rather than the "square" style of letters, changes in permissible combinations of vowel and final consonant signs, and the stabilization of the system for marking tones.
That's all consistent with what Htawmonzel says, in other words that the Burmese alphabet is an instantiation of Mon script. Of course, Latin is an instantiation of Etruscan script, but we nonetheless call it "Latin". The difference is that Mon is still written, and it's written with the same letter forms as Burmese, without anything I've read suggesting that they ever switched scripts. If this is accurate, then the modern Mon alphabet is Mon script, but so is the Burmese alphabet. I don't know if Htawmonzel's suspicions are correct, that if we classified the Burmese alphabet as Mon script there would be outrage / edit-warring, but if Bengali/Assamese is any guide, it might be best to call the script "Mon-Burmese". The Old Mon article would then be the historical stage of the script before its adoption by the Burmese, not a separate script.
So Glennznl, I wouldn't move Old Mon script to "Mon script", because that article already exists at Burmese script. Rather, I'd argue, based on D&B, that it's Burmese script that needs to be moved, either to "Mon script" or to "Mon-Burmese script". That's assuming that the preponderance of modern RS's confirm D&B. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Ok, I agreed with Kwami. So I think the page "Burmese script" need to be renamed as "Mon-Burmese script". Htawmonzel (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Kwamikagami: Thank you for citing Daniels & Bright. Do you mean the chart found on Shan script? Atleast some parts of that are no longer considered accurate ("early Shan"/Lik Tho Ngok is now held to be derived from Burmese script).
-
-
[Yes, that's what I was thinking of. — kwami (talk)]
-
So now we have to consider 4 pages, Mon script (the modern variant), Old Mon script (the old variant), Burmese script (the Burmese script family) and Burmese alphabet (the alphabet used for Burmese specifically). The last page title does not need any changing, so only the first three need sorting out. In my opinion, Old Mon script and Burmese script more or less describe the same thing, the Mon/Burmese script (family) which was adopted for use by other languages. Old Mon script nicely adds what Burmese script lacks, a history section. I think these two pages should thus be merged. To my surprise both "Mon-Burmese script" and "Burmese-Mon script" are already existing terms, when searching on Google Scholar and Google. "Mon-Burmese script" seems to be a bit more common and I prefer this name myself, so the merged page would be Mon-Burmese script. Then we still have Mon script left. In my opinion this should describe (like it already does), the modern alphabet (based on the Mon-Burmese script) for the Mon language, similar to the way Burmese alphabet is named. Thus, I propose renaming Mon scripttoMon alphabet, for the sake of consistency. I hope you can agree to these points. --Glennznl (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Glennznl: Yes, I agree with all of that. I also prefer the "Mon-Burmese" order, because Mon has historical precedence. The other order would be POV, prioritizing Burmese because of its cultural dominance. That would be like claiming that the Romans wrote in the English script.
-
The move would also have the benefit of making it clear that the "script" and "alphabet" articles deal with different topics, something that isn't clear if you're not familiar with WP's in-house script/alphabet distinction.
-
I think this current article is perhaps well enough developed to continue to stand on its own, and I think it might be a bit too much per WP:WEIGHT to merge it back into Mon language. But I don't have a strong opinion on that, and wouldn't object to merging it. Assuming we keep it separate, then yes, we should move it to "Mon alphabet". But following WP conventions, the rd should then be changed tothe article on Mon-Burmese script (after fixing any double redirects). — kwami (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Kwamikagami: Good, then we should start doing that. The mentioned articles often use Aung-Thwin as a source and rely too much on it, while some critical responses have been written regardings Aung-Thwin's conclusions, for example by Donald M. Stadtner. After the mergers and moves we should add some different sources to correct this. --Glennznl (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Glennznl: Okay. I moved the script article to 'Mon-Burmese'. You seemed interested in merging Old Mon into the history section. Do you want to take care of that? — kwami (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
The file labeled "Old Mon script 35 characters" and the 2nd table of characters look quite recent, so I deleted them -- I think we can safely omit them when copying the section over. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Kwamikagami: I performed the merger. The resulting history section looks a bit messy still and might need some work. --Glennznl (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Yeah, it should get better over time.
-
I tagged 'Mon alphabet' for quick deletion so we can move this article there. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
What should we do with sporadic claims in info boxes that MB derives from Pyu script? E.g. ref'd to Aung-Thwin, Michael A. (2005). The Mon Paradigm and the Origins of the Burma Script. University of Hawai'i Press. pp. 154–178. ISBN 9780824828868. JSTOR j.ctt1wn0qs1.10.. We're inconsistent, and should probably follow the preponderance of RS's as worked out on the MB page. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Kwamikagami: I've tried looking for other authors that attribute the Mon-Burmese script to Pyu (that aren't citing Aung-Thwin), and so far I have not found any. I have found many more examples of the opposite, there being no direct connection between the Pyu and Mon scripts. Diringer says quite strongly: "The Pyu character is not connected with the Mon script or its offshoots; it seems to have derived from another South Indian variety, namely from the Kadamba script of Vanavasi in northern Kanara, to the west of South India." We could mention "alternative views", citing Aung-Thwin in one sentence, instead of dedicating half the article to the Pyu debate. --Glennznl (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
I have suspicions that nationalism might be involved here. That may be unfair to Aung-Thwin -- I don't know anything about them -- but that would appear to be an idiosyncratic view. I suggest we remove mentions of Pyu ancestry from all but the main script article, where we present it as the view of a single scholar who is refuted by others. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Someone certainly seemed interested in repeating that claim on as many articles as possible. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
It's a delight to see how simple things can be. Kwami, Glennznl, nice job! And btw, "Mon-Burmese" has a precedent in a couple of scholarly articles, so your arrangement stands on established ground. –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Good cleanup. I have a couple questions:
-
Should Old Shan script redirect to Mon-Burmese script?
-
Should it be Mon–Burmese script, with a dash instead of a hyphen?
-
Michael Aung-Thwin is a reputable historian. Hybernator may have an idea of how "mainstream" his more revisionist opinions are or are not. Srnec (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
Michael Aung-Thwin, who recently passed, was probably the preeminent expert on the Pagan period. He was not a fringe historian. He was known for his hard-data-driven analyses. As far as I'm aware, his research and views on the Pagan period have largely been accepted by the majority, if not most of the modern Burma/Myanmar/SEAsia historians like Victor Lieberman, Kenneth Hall, Martin Ricklefs, Geok Yian Goh, etc. He collaborated and published books throughout the 2000s and the 2010s. Easy to look them up. Donald M. Stadtner, AFAIK, is an art historian. He was defending how certain inscriptions (without a date) could be dated to an era; because the 6th century date of Siam Mon is purely conjectural. After all, the earliest securely dated Siam Mon is in the 16th century; while Burma Mon is 1093. The earliest extant instance of Burmese script is 1035/36; while an 18th century recast inscription says 984/985. (The claim that the Myazedi inscription is the earliest Burmese inscription is stupendously just wrong. Even colonial era historians didn't make the claim. (Harvey 1925) gives 1058 for example.) Anyway, I'll follow up on this when I have a bit more time. Hybernator (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
I look forward to it.
-
-
I changed the link in your response to the article on the inscription, and tagged the claim there as dubious. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
-
@Hybernator: Thank you for your input. I hope you can clarify the acceptance of Aung-Thwin's Pyu hypothesis, which as written above, I did not find much evidence of. --Glennznl (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply