Social Registers
Khmer employs a system of registers in which the speaker must always be conscious of the social status of the person spoken to. The different registers, which include those used for common speech, polite speech, speaking to or about royals and speaking to or about monks, employ alternate verbs, names of body parts and pronouns. This results in what appears to foreigners as separate languages and, in fact, isolated villagers often are unsure how to speak with royals and royals raised completely within the court do not feel comfortable speaking the common register. As an example, the word for "to eat" used between intimates or in reference to animals is /siː/. Used in polite reference to commoners, it's /ɲam/. When used of those of higher social status, it's /pisa/ or /tɔtuəl tiən/. For monks the word is /cʰan/ and for royals, /saoj/. Another result is that the pronominal system is complex and full of honorific variations, just a few of which are shown in the table below.
| Situational usage | "I, me" | IPA | "you" | IPA | "he, she, it" | IPA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intimate or addressing an inferior | អញ់ | /aɲ/ | ឯង | /aɛ̯ŋ/ | វា | /ʋiə̯/ | |
| neutral | ខ្ញុំ | /kʰɲom/ | អ្នក | /neə̯̆ʔ/ | គេ | /ke:/ | |
| Formal | យើងខ្ញុំ or ខ្ញុំបាទ |
/yə:ŋ kʰɲom/ /kʰɲom ba:t/ |
លោក (or kinship term, title or rank) |
/loːk/ | គាត់ | /kɔə̯t/ | |
| Layperson to/about Buddhist clergy | ខ្ញុំព្រះករុណា | /kʰɲom preə̯̆h kaʔruʔna:/ | ព្រះតេជព្រះគុណ | /preə̯̆h daɛ̯c preə̯̆h kun/ | ព្រអង្គ | /preə̯̆h ɑŋ/ | |
| Buddhist clergy to layperson | អាត្មា or អាចក្តី |
/a:ttma/ /a:ckdəj/ |
ញ៉ូមស្រី (to female) ញ៉ូមប្រុស (to male) |
/nhoum srey:/ /nhoum bros:/ |
ឧបាសក់ (to male) ឧបាសិកា (to female) |
||
| when addressing royalty | ខ្ញុំព្រះបាទអម្ចាស់ or ទូលបង្គុំ (male), ខ្ញុំម្ចាស់ (female) | /kʰɲom preə̯̆h ba:t aʔmcah/ | ព្រះករុណា | /preə̯̆h kaʔruʔna:/ | ទ្រង់ | /truə̯̆ŋ/ |
Read more about this topic: Khmer Language
Famous quotes containing the words social and/or registers:
“The social forces that operate on a family during the daughter’s formative years continue to shape her experience. Thus the families, schools, and jobs that involve poor women are likely to be very hierarchically arranged, demanding conformity, passivity, and obedience—all unsupportive of continued intellectual growth.”
—Mary Field Belenky (20th century)
“We may prepare food for our children, chauffeur them around, take them to the movies, buy them toys and ice cream, but nothing registers as deeply as a simple squeeze, cuddle, or pat on the back. There is no greater reassurance of their lovability and worth than to be affectionately touched and held.”
—Stephanie Martson (20th century)