Modern Burmese e Book22 HoppleP Structure Burmese
75 percent in lexical and grammatical particles. The reason the written language can be used successfully to the extent it has, is because the same basic, underlying template is employed
for both languages. This grammatical framework, particularly the phrase structure and the functions of postpositional particles, has remained quite stable over time. The surface forms
may be quite different, but the arrangement of information between the two “languages” is basically the same. Thus, the exercise of switching between the two codes is principally a
matter of lexical and particle substitution. This would be like the language learners dream where, knowing one language, all one needed was to learn word forms to refill the structural
positions in another language. The regularity of pattern keeps the two languages “together” and usable as “one” social communicative form, called Burmese.
The result is that technically one rarely, if ever, pronounces words the way they are written as they were written hundreds of years ago, but this is not noticed by native speakers
since everyone reads the written form with basically the same pronunciation. The modern speaker is unaware that long ago the same spelling sounded different, perhaps as different as
local vernacular forms of Burmese or its northern language cousins. Native speakers are aware of lexical changes. They can simply substitute the Formal Burmese particle for the
Colloquial Burmese particle through a process of lexical-functional equivalence, change nominal and verbal lexical variants to a higher speech-register lexicon, increase the number
of word pairs as a kind of elegant doubling, and smooth over the whole operation for consistency, coherence, and overall naturalness.
This summary is an over-simplification, nevertheless, the transformation between Formal written Burmese FB and Colloquial spoken Burmese CB occurs primarily in
the lexicon. The difference in usage between written and spoken Burmese is one of appropriateness of social context. It is quite likely that there is a gradient quality to the
transition from “written” to “spoken” Burmese.
Since the phonology, lexicon, and postpositional markers all have shifted over time between the two forms of Burmese, modern linguists utilize Burmese for historical linguistic
purposes to compare dialects of modern Tibeto-Burman spoken languages focusing on the changes. Also profitable are studies which examine the historical rules for changes in
modern CB as compared to FB. By comparing and contrasting the underlying system that has held it all together over time, a system is displayed that promotes the subconscious view that
these two languages are the “same.” This study will explicate a portion of that underlying template.