|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Please give Angkor Wat & Angkor Thom in Khmer.
- As far as I know, there is no current Unicode standard for Khmer, as the Cambodian government rejected the proposed encoding - effectively keeping their script offline for another few years. You can enter Khmer against the proposed standard but last time I tried I could not find a font which worked correctly. --prat 21:17, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
- Sure you can input it, but my (unclear) point was you can't always look at it! --prat 04:56, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
This hAPPEND IN 2003
When I saw in the opening paragraph that the name Angkor is a name of Sanskrit origin, I was intrigued and surprised that there was no explanation as to why a Sumerian language influenced the name of a monument in Cambodia. At first I thought that it had been named a Sanskrit name by some archeologist in the 20th century. Then after a little research, I found that the Sumerians themselves influenced this area.
There should be a section dedicated to the name of this site because the name itself is EXTREMELY interesting.
The term "Angkor" is derived from the Sanskrit word "nagara," meaning capital city, and that the term Angkor itself is a "cultural artifact" revealing its long history marked by both phonetic and semantic evolution. Source: http://www.autoriteapsara.org/en/angkor/term_angkor.html
Answer: Sanskrit is not an Sumerian language, it's an old Indo-European language once spoken in India. Because Ankor was Hinduistic and the Hindu religion comes from India, it's not really surprising to find Sanskrit in Ankor.
Sumerian is a language from old Irak, there's no family known of that language. Other languages from old Irak - Babylonian, Assyric - are old Arabic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
J.J. van de Gruiter, The Netherlands
I double whether "Nagara" is the origin for "Angkor". Rather, I think "Angkor" is a modification of "Omkar" (Om), and "Angkor Thom" is actually "Omkar Dhaam". Dhaam means place, so Omkar Dham means place of Omkar (or worship). I am not very sure about this, though.
- I think the part about Angkor being from Sanskrit should be reworded. I'm not sure how exactly, because I don't know for sure what part of Khmer it comes from. Lets see, if Angkor is a word of Middle Khmer origin, then perhaps we should point it that it comes from nokor rather than directly from the Sanskrit word Nagara. Yes, they are related, but they are two different words. As nokor in Khmer is a 'loanword that comes from Sanskrit and it's uses and definition may vary as a loanword.
- Maybe I'm digging to much into semantics, but I think it may give the wrong impression, linguistic-wise. It may not seem much, but this brings up a complex issue with Old Khmer, Middle Khmer, Modern Khmer. If this word has it's origin in Middle Khmer, then it may be more correct to say it is derived from Pali rather than from Sanskrit? --Dara (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pali only became a source language for borrowings into Khmer after Buddhism became prominent (around the 14th century) since Pali was/is considered THE language of Theravada Buddhism. Prior to this, as the religion of the Royal Court and ostensibly, the kingdom, was Hinduism (more specifically, a Shiva cult), Sanskrit was the source of borrowings. In Hinduism, the Sanskrit of the Vedas is considered the perfect language of the gods and as such, the King, the elite class, the Brahmans and Royal Fortune Tellers used Sanskrit much the same as medieval Europe used Latin. So Sanskrit borrowings are seen in words relating to Government, Administration, Fortune Telling, etc. This is a simplification of a complex process, but suffice to say that "Nokor" was borrowed into Old Khmer directly from Sanskrit and as the Khmer language evolved into Middle Khmer after the fall of the Khmer empire and the knowledge of Sanskrit waned, the name of the historical kingdom and building complex came to be pronounced as "Angkor" while "Nokor" continues to be used in it's original sense as an improper noun "a city".
A beautiful start, though I'm not sure how complete this is. It would be good, I think, to provide a short summary of the architectural styles and significances of the sites, in addition to just providing a link to the deeper article. LordAmeth 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
War with the Thai
Somebody has written that some historians believe the Thai found Angkor devastated by an "infestation" as opposed to conquering it. I have not heard this theory. Somebody should support it with a footnote citing sources, or the paragraph advancing the theory should be deleted. DoktorMax (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Javanese designed Angkor
More information required especially on the Javanese influence, design and perhaps funding of the Angkor complex, is required. Jayavarman 2 spent his early years as a hostage prince in the court of Majapahit in Java. He was sent to Camdoia to establish a new Javanese colony- but instead rebelled- which lead to his military defeat and the sacking of his cities by the Javanese. Angkor Wat was also designed and supervised by Javanese architects, a scaled-up model of Prambanan. three are several insciptijs on Ankor which give thanks and tribute to the Javanese architects.Starstylers (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The July 2009 issue of National Geographic, page 32, in the article "Divining Angkor: After rising to sublime heights, the sacred city may have engineered its own downfall", notes, "As many as 750,000 people lived in Angkor, (the Khmer kingdom's) capital, which sprawled across an area the size of New York City's five boroughs, making it the most extensive urban complex in the world." That makes it smaller than the size reported in this article, though. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
^^ The whole entire complex is 3000 square kilometers (1,150) square miles, but the main urban district of Angkor covers 1000 square kilometers (400) square miles! But the real size is actually 1,150 square miles of urban sprawl! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Historic city of angkor
Shouldn't a distinction be made between the historic city of angkor (how it was in 1200 BC) and the present Angkor city (of which some basins have run dry, the drain is destroyed at the dam, new buildings placed?, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Historic Angkor city map
The map in the previously mentioned National Geographic magazine of July 2009 should be included as the main image. I'm guessing that this map isnt complete however? The drain at the dam should probably be continued to the waterway running to the north. Tonlé Sap isnt mentioned on the map neither —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The description "original research" for this section is a polite one for tendentious opinion. This section should be removed; there is no way in which the opinions expressed could be supported by reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Strange Language in Restoration, preservation, and threats
This section opens with "Although there is evidence to the contrary (Leonowens, 1870), many scholars believe the great city and temples remained largely cloaked by the forest until the late 19th century" but the Leonowens source confirms, rather than opposes, this viewpoint. Leonowens is a first-hand account of visiting Angkor Wat and describes it as being cloaked by the forest. The opening line does seem to imply, but does not state, that the Thai were unaware of the ruins, and the source contradicts this view. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "While the city was regularly visited by nearby residents and even made a destination for travellers such as Anna Leonowens, the ruins remained largely cloaked by the forest until the late 19th century." A proper citation for Leonowens' book An Englishwoman in the Siamese Court would also be a welcome addition. 18.104.22.168 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)