Reply (r)

[sayagyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear Martin Smith

Greetings!

I accept and appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I agree with yours. However, in the ears and eyes of Burmese, "Daw Suu Kyi"
is an insult, not the name given by the military regime.

I was worried to read as such on the writings of respected Burma observer
like you. The suspicion was that you agreed with propaganda tool of
SLORC/SPDC.

"Daw Suu" is fine. "Suu Kyi" can be more comprehensible than "Daw Suu Kyi".
"Suu" means personally too close to her. Many Burmese become familial with
lacking "Daw" or "U".

When the first batch of Burmese students arrived in India in 1988, they
were asked if they knew "You Nu Takin"? They didn't know Indians correctly
pronounce "U" as "You". The questioner politician was disappointed when
nobody said "Yes". What young Burmese students knew was "Thakhin Nu" or "U
Nu".

Best wishes!

Tint Swe




At 03:23 PM 8/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Dr Tint Swe
>
>Thank-you for your email re. the BCN book which has been forwarded to me. I
>am sorry that you might even begin to think that there could be any negative
>intentions at all behind the way Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is referred to by name
>in the book. In fact, the intention was very much the reverse, and the idea
>was to give her name proper courtesy and respect when the book was written
>in 1997 and went through the editorial process.
>
>In cultural terms, there are problems in transferring Burmese names and
>titles into the English language in everyday speaking and writing. For books
>and newspapers, the general practice in the English language is to give the
>full title first time (e.g. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Mr Tony Blair) and
>subsequently give shortened forms (e.g. Blair or Mr Blair). To write only a
>christian name would sound too familiar (e.g. Tony).
>
>In the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, there has been a changing dilemma over
>the past decade because the shortened form by which most newspapers and
>media (and hence much of the public) call her in the international community
>-- Suu Kyi -- is not widely used in Burmese and there have also been
>objections to this usage in the past. Similarly, using only 'Aung San' (as
>has sometimes been suggested) could leave the door open to confusion. In
>contrast, 'Daw Suu', using the honorific title, is probably the most popular
>form of usage or abbreviation in Burma today. However, as I mention, simply
>to use 'Suu' can sound too familiar in the English language (where there is
>also the name Sue), while 'Daw Suu' is not always understood by Western
>audiences and editors where the form 'Suu Kyi' has become almost standard. I
>would also add that to use only 'Aung San Suu Kyi' means no title is being
>used at all.
>
>Thus it was to try and rectify some of these inconsistencies and put the
>proper Burmese honorific 'Daw' together with the widely used English
>abbreviation 'Suu Kyi' that the form 'Daw Suu Kyi' was employed back in
>1997. That was the only intention. But, of course, her full title was also
>used so there could be no doubt about her full name and proper title.
>
>Subsequently, as you hint, there have been doubts over this form too, not so
>much in the English language  but rather over how Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
>should be addressed in Burma and the Burmese language.
>
>So I take your point, but wish to assure you that any negative implications
>you imply were certainly not intended by either myself or BCN. Please rest
>assured, then, that subsequent re-printings will take account of your
concerns.
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>Martin Smith
> 
> 
>Martin Smith    (msmith@xxxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>