# Talk:Khmer language

==Scouting in Khmer

script==

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Khmer script? Thanks! Chris 02:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some questions, the article mentions three main dialects while listing four.  Also, Cardamom and Surin are listed while Khmer Krom isn't at all.  I am sure that Khmer Krom is its own independent dialect with just as much or even more speakers than the Khmer Surin dialect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.27.231 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 

"Khmer numerals, which were inherited from Indian numerals, are used more widely than Hindu-Arabic numerals."  As in Thailand, the spread of mobile phones has inluenced the way that people write numbers - especially telephone numbers and addresses; though this may be confined to urban centres. --Steve (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain? Besides the fact that Western numerals can also be used (moreso technology-wise), this isn't an abnormal borrowing. I've also seen the 正 unary numeral system used in some places in Cambodia as well. - Io Katai (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the exact meaning of what you're trying to say, but since Khmer numerals function exactly as hindu-arabic numerals, I don't see why technology would changed its status. Joshotoken (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is it?  Is it a sprachbund or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.162 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 

Not sure whether the concept is a valid one, but in the article it seems to be intended to mean that the similarities are more due to common Sanskrit and Pali influence than to mutual language contacts... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where that term came from, but it has bothered me for a while as well. Languages in the Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area have had extensive mutual contact and the similarities due to much more than just "common Sanskrit and Pali influence" (which is arguably the most superficial of similarities).  Shared areal features can be seen in the morphology, syntax, lexicon, grammar and phonology of the languages in question.William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone find any resources discussing the Phnom Penh dialect?  Colloqial Phnom Penh has seperate pronunciation and certain grammatical differences from standard Khmer, and it does merit longer mention. ស្នេហា​១​សែន​ឆ្នាំ​ 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amamekmesumlovin (talk • contribs)  

I downloaded the Unicode script following the instructions like I was supposed to, but I still can't view it properly! Kanzler31 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean that you can't view it properly? Does the khmer script show up at all? Have you tried restarting your browser or computer? Otherwise, you can try going into your browser's internet options, find the font tab, then select the Khmer language and choose the Khmer OS font. In Internet Explorer, that's Tools > Internet Options, click the Fonts button at the bottom, and select Khmer from the dropdown language script list. In Firefox, go in Tools > Options, switch over to the Content tab, click the Advanced button under the Fonts & Colors section, and select Khmer from the first dropdown list. — Io Katai Talk 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm using Safari. Kanzler31 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please anyone reply. And btw, I properly installed the fonts and went to fonts in internet options in control panel and still does not fix the problem. In fact, I can't even see the font. No squares appear either, it just disappears! Is it the browser I'm using?
khmer Tep Soden (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

copy 10.36.37.206.185(talk)14:24,7 September 2024 (UTC)កូនសុខខ 36.37.206.185 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Or at least include this link in the present one.  It's the only online signlist for the Old Khmer writing system: (in French)
http://www.efeo.fr/espace_prive/paleoCIK.html
Glyphist (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've twice reverted the addition of an external link that has been added by two IPs, as it looks a bit dodgy. The site is http://veayo.com/dictionary_installer.html, and claims it's a Khmer translation extension for Firefox. But when you try it, it tries to install something called "Select-n-Go", which Firefox blocks - and if you bypass the block you get a warning about possible malicious software - I decided not to go beyond that point. Beware if you see it added again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Note, IPs were from two different ISPs in Phnom Penh -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks shady indeed. Thanks for weeding that out. --Dara (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a source for this, but I do notice this is how many Cambodians pronounce /f/. In words such as telephone (in the US), it is pronounced something like /teːiləpoːun/, with a /p/ rather than a /pʰ/. --Dara (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khmer language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Speciate (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is my first GA review, so I might be totally wrong. But I looked at the other language articles that have achieved GA status, and this one is not like them. Speciate (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Most of article is sourced via the ref/footnote system, making the couple of inline refs (Sidwell 2009:107) duplicative, jarring and pointless; the reader can click the blue number if they want the source
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Missing comparative tables of words found in many other language articles. Writing system section needs expansion.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
No real images. No map, no picture of script on the wall of a temple, only a weird gif.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Sorry, the lack of images is the most pressing issue. Look at other articles and see who made the maps for them, and ask for assistance. Speciate (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your reasons for summarily failing the article seem to be easily fixed issues of style rather than content.  The in-line citations can (will) be easily remedied and I will work on looking for images Although images aren't as relevant for an article about a spoken language as they would be for other topics, I agree at least a map should be included.  Since there are no real content or stability issues, I believe you should at least put the article on hold and allow editors to implement the suggested improvements instead of simply failing it.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree strongly the notion that "images aren't as relevant for an article about a spoken language". It'll take longer than a week to get a good map made, especially if it includes dialects. The GA rule (heck, even Start-class) requires images without exception, and a map of were a language is spoken graces nearly every article on a major language, even non-GA ones. What about an image of Khmer script like this? Speciate (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well that seems to be a matter of wiki-philosophy and we'll have to agree to to disagree.  I don't believe in adding images unless they provide substantive informational value.  The distribution range of the language is described in the text. There are examples of Khmer script in the text as well as links to the Khmer script page.  Images of these just seem redundant and superfluous in an academic encyclopedia.  But if adding images for the sake of having images in an article is what the community wants then I will acquiesce and find/make some to add.  (By the way, I don't see anywhere where images are "required without exception". Criteria 6 says "illustrated if possible" by "(b)images relevant to the topic".  Vowel tables, consonant tables, etc are suitable for "illustrating" a spoken language.)
Most people are visual learners. Aside from a map which is worth a 1000 words to show where the language and dialects are spoken, there are vowel diagrams. Speciate (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khmer language/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: G Purevdorj (talk · contribs) 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I will start reviewing this article in the next few days. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead section is to summarize the entire article, not just part of it. It lacks, for example, a typological characterization of Khmer. Whenever Khmer script is employed (which is not hyperlinked at all in the lead), a transcription or transliteration is needed next to IPA - there are many people out there who won’t feel comfortable with IPA.
History section:
Following the end of the Khmer Empire the language lost the standardizing influence of being the language of government and accordingly underwent a turbulent period of change in morphology, phonology and lexicon.
Not clear for a lay reader. The language itself changed all the time, just that a conservative written standard stopped being applied.

The language of this transition period, from about the 14th to 18th centuries, is referred to as Middle Khmer and saw borrowing from Thai, Lao and, to a lesser extent, Vietnamese.
Style! Maybe better two sentences. “saw borrowing” sounds unidiomatic (to me as a non-native, at least).

The changes during this period are so profound that the rules of Modern Khmer can not be applied to correctly understand Old Khmer.
That statement is more or less trivial. The article would gain something from a more specific picture, i.e. that a modern speaker couldn’t make any sense of a modern text. Just a parallel: a modern German reader cannot “correctly understand” a text written just 300 years ago, misinterpreting any number of details, but she will most probably get the gist right.

The language became recognizable as Modern Khmer, spoken from the 19th century till today.
Style!
The language family affiliation should precede the section on later history!

Phonology section
Jargon is used quite heavily here. You may use terminology, but it is often so easy to create contexts that provide a non-linguist reader with an idea what the words in question might mean. This is not the case here.
The vowels are cast into the face of the reader, overwhelming her with their sheer number, but if there is anything like a vowel system in Khmer, it doesn’t emerge from the article.
” As Khmer is primarily an analytic pro-drop language” - fun for the lay reader! The point here is simple that syntactic roles are neither indicated by morphology nor necessarily by overt NPs. The author of a lexicon article has to get this across to non-linguists! G Purevdorj (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Word classes are but one element of grammar. Building up this part around a number of functions such as predication, negation, syntactic roles (including adjuncts), comparison, clause linking and so forth would make more sense to me, but many of these don’t get addressed at all.
The two sections on dialect have to be integrated with each other and possibly with the history section.
Except for wording, the section on social registers seems quite okay.
Who will benefit from a table of the numerals? At a short gaze, the article on numerals in Khmer seems quite useful, but this table without any text and explanations is close to worthless.
G Purevdorj (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
After enumerating these particular points, I might summarize:

1. Reasonably well written? no (jargon in phonology section, lead not representative, and sometimes prose a bit lacking, some sections present twice and not well-coordinated)
2. References? insufficient in grammar section (which has insufficient content anyway)
3. Broad in coverage? Certainly not grammar section. (On the other hand, expanding the section on the writing system of inserting comparative tables wouldn't make sense at all. You don't even need to expand the grammar section: it is rather short, but a high quality text of this length might do.)
4. Neutrality, 5. stability and 6. pics appear to be unproblematic.
Note that my review here is still somewhat superficial, but there are so many concerns that passing this article as it is is just impossible. Note that because of the jargon in phonological matters, it even fails criterion 6 for B class articles:

The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
It is thus, plainly said, still a very good C class article. With some good copyediting, you could get it to B class within a few hours. With some hard work, one could possibly render it into a Good Article within this review. If the nominating editor is willing to address all of my concerns and to try to improve this article within no more than three weeks, I would keep this review open. Otherwise, I would fail the article. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will attempt to address your concerns, but I must admit, I don't understand a few of your objections. I will work on the obvious problems as soon as I have time.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The two sections on dialect have been integrated with each other, and the lead has been improved somewhat, though one would have to decide whether it now reflects the article or not. But as none of the other problems have been addressed during the "on hold" time, there is no way but to fail the article. Due to the too technical, intransparent phonology section, it doesn't confirm to the following B class requirement:
The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
So I leave the article at C class where I found it. G Purevdorj (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammaire de la langue khmère (cambodgien) (1915)
https://archive.org/details/grammairedelala00maspgoog
Vocabulaire français-cambodgien
https://archive.org/details/VocabulaireFranais-cambodgien
Dictionnaire Cambodgien-Français (1902)
https://archive.org/details/abn6261.0001.001.umich.edu
Recherches sur le droit public des Cambodgiens (1894)
https://archive.org/details/recherchessurle00leclgoog
15:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Standard Khmer, or Central Khmer, the language as taught in Cambodian schools and used by the media, is based on the Battambang dialect spoken throughout the plains of the northwest and central provinces.

The reference does not list what page this is mentioned. The phonology section of the source does not mention Battambang dialect (if you can call it that) being the basis of Standard Khmer. Did I miss it somewhere else in the book? It does mention something to the tune of "Standard Cambodian" being considerably different, at a phnonological level, from Phnom Penh and the surrounding region. By that, did the Wikipedia editor just assume this means it is based on the Battambang dialect? --Dara (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On page six (first paragraph of the Phonology section) Huffman says "...standard Cambodian is virtually identical with the dialect spoken...in the central provinces", which although technically would include the eastern part of Battambang, obviously includes the entirety of other provinces as well so "Battambang dialect" would be rather restrictive. I changed it to "...is based on the dialect spoken throughout the Central Plain..."
Regarding your "if you can call it that" remark, I agree the term "Battambang dialect" is ambiguous at best. The speech of Battambang isn't uniform across the province. As I noted, it is Standard Khmer in the low lying eastern regions but vowel quality (and breathiness to a certain extent) varies from the standard noticeably in the more westerly areas. Ratree Wayland wrote an analysis of what she called "Battambang Khmer" or "the Battambang dialect". Although I take issue with the research methodology in some of her papers on Khmer (for example she only interviewed one speaker -- who lived in the U.S. at the time -- as the sole informant for this particular paper; the discrepancies could have been personal idiosyncrasies of the informant), it does paint an accurate picture describing this speech of western Battambang as different from that spoken in the plains. But I digress. In short, there is no single dialect common to all of Battambang making the previous wording ambiguous. Good catch!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The table of consonant pairs and triplets doesn't list "mp" or "mph" as a possible combination. However, the pronunciation of the word for 20 is listed as /mphej/. Expected: either the pronunciation of 20 doesn't contain "mp" at the beginning, or the table lists "mp" as an allowable combination of consonants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.203.58.127 (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 

Good point. For now, I'll change the pronunciation of 20 to the form given by Huffman (who is the source for the set of possible consonant combinations), though I think I have seen it given as [mph-] elsewhere. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That is because the experts all contradict each other when analyzing Khmer phonology. As Pinnow pointed out way back in 1980 ("Reflections of the History of the Khmer Phonemic System"; Mon-Khmer Studies Journal VIII:103-30), "The situation is all the more complicated by the...different writers who disagree in many cases in their interpretations of the articulation of vowels and consonants and of their place in the phonemic systems." For example, Pinnow himself analyzes aspirated consonants (e.g. /cʰ/) as a cluster of two phonemes (/c/ followed by /h/), a position with which most (including myself) have historically disagreed.
The word for 20 is indeed often given as [mpʰɨj], even by authors who don't list /mpʰ/ as a possible cluster. I think it is because in the modern Khmer orthography, the word is written "m" with "jeurng pʰ" under it which indicates a cluster with no intervening vowel. However the word is actually a contraction. Old Khmer used a base 20 number system for counting things. Twenty was bhay (modern /pʰɨj/), forty was phlon (modern ផ្លូន /pʰloːn/) or two twenties, etc. So one twenty, /muəj pʰɨj/, has evolved over time to be pronounced as /məpʰɨj/ and written as a single inseparable word. As for how to analyze the cluster, Pinnow, in that same paper (pg 28), states that clusters with an initial /m/ followed by aspirated stops (e.g. /mkʰ/, /mpʰ/) are possible but are realized with a "junctural /ə/".  I personally prefer /məpʰɨj/ as it is true to the sesquisyllabic nature of Khmer words and both faithfully reproduces the pronunciation and avoids any possibility of the sequence /mpʰ/ being misconstrued as either a prenasalized stop ([ᵐpʰ]) or a syllabic nasal [m̩] followed by /pʰ/. In any case, WPUzer's edit did correct the vowel which is definitely /ɨ/ not /e/--William Thweatt TalkContribs 10:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khmer language/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


### Review
I'll review this article over the next weeks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Will need some tightening for FA quality, but is definitely well enough written for GA.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: I think the Lead could do better as a summary of the entire article, but it is adequate for GA.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
I think some additional high quality sources would be good- Haiman 2011, Jacobs & Smyth 1993, Bisang in Sidwell & Jenny (2015) would be really useful sources. Many uncited statements in the phonology section. I was happy that Haiman 2011 was of use. I still think most of the "further reading" should eventually be incorporated as cited sources, and that a bibliography with linked harvard references would be an improvement. This is irrelevant at this point however.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
The phonology section is much more (I would say too much) detailed than the grammar section, which is inadequate. Given that khmer is an isolating language it is really not acceptable that there is no description of basic syntax, and no examples of sentences. There is no overview of grammatical categories, and no description of how grammatical relations are expressed (not to mention pragmatic functions), and no overview of different types of sentence construction (interrogation, imperative, subordination, relative clauses etc.) At this point the grammar section is amazingly well developed, and probably even on the long side. For FA I would consider condensing it and moving some of the shave off to the rather incipient article on Khmer grammar. One thing I think could be moved right away is the table of prefixes - which is too large and breaks the section flow, and frankly seems unnecessarily detailed. I also think the table of permitted consonant clusters could be dispensed with. It is however, more than sufficient for GA level quality.
B. Focused: 
Yep.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#Overall:
Pass or Fail: Requires some expansion and work to pass. I will put it on hold meanwhile. Definitely pass. A very nice article which was greatly improved through the review process.
@Maunus: I believe I've addressed your concerns and additionally made a few other minor improvements along the way. Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be done before promotion to GA. Thanks.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Khmer language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425153023/http://emile.uni-graz.at/pub/05s/2005-05-0219.PDF to http://emile.uni-graz.at/pub/05s/2005-05-0219.PDF
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120111832/http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-927311-1.pdf to http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-927311-1.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821053921/http://dict.ant.com.kh/dictionaries/ to http://dict.ant.com.kh/dictionaries/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Khmer language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ip-173-201-189-182.ip.secureserver.net/archives/mks/pdf/29:81-95.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cmsdata.iucn.org.iucn.vm.iway.ch/downloads/cambodia_situation_analysis_stung_treng_province_camboida_english_pdf_1.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171011131733/https://sealang.net/archives/mks/pdf/7:183-200.pdf to https://sealang.net/archives/mks/pdf/7:183-200.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171011131733/https://sealang.net/archives/mks/pdf/7:183-200.pdf to https://sealang.net/archives/mks/pdf/7:183-200.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

မြန်မာဘာသာ SweSwelay (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"The more colloquial registers have influenced, and have been influenced by, Thai, Lao, Vietnamese, and Cham, all of which, due to geographical proximity and long-term cultural contact, form a sprachbund in peninsular Southeast Asia.[5]"

Cited source does not mention anything about colloquial forms of Khmer. Furthermore, if this is in reference to convergence in the MSEA linguistic area, Khmer is treated as a peripheral participant lacking, for example, monosyllabicity, tonality, and limited initial clusters. If it is to refer to the linguistic exchanges between Khmer and other Southeast Asian languages, there needs to be more specificity about the impact and domains of loanwords. For example, Thai influence is more apparent in poetic styles of Khmer than the colloquial register, in words relating to trade (e.g. numerals), and in some Tai-specific political terms (e.g. Chaofah). I will be removing this section.
"It is also the earliest recorded and earliest written language of the Mon–Khmer family, predating Mon and by a significant margin Vietnamese,[6]"

What does "significant margin" refer to? And why does it matter that Khmer predates Vietnamese by a significant margin? I will be removing this.
"Pre-Angkorian Khmer, the Old Khmer language from 600 CE through 800, is only known from words and phrases in Sanskrit texts of the era."

I don't know where this information is sourced, but this is absolutely false. If pre-Angkorian refers to texts written before the founding of Angkor, than there are undoubtedly many inscriptions in Old Khmer from 611 A.D. onwards until then. Please check Jenner 2009's dictionary of pre-Angkorian Khmer. I will be removing this.
"Old Khmer (or Angkorian Khmer) is the language as it was spoken in the Khmer Empire from the 9th century until the weakening of the empire sometime in the 13th century. Old Khmer is attested by many primary sources and has been studied in depth by a few scholars, most notably Saveros Pou, Phillip Jenner and Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow. Following the end of the Khmer Empire the language lost the standardizing influence of being the language of government and accordingly underwent a turbulent period of change in morphology, phonology and lexicon. The language of this transition period, from about the 14th to 18th centuries, is referred to as Middle Khmer and saw borrowing from Thai, Lao and, to a lesser extent, Vietnamese. The changes during this period are so profound that the rules of Modern Khmer can not be applied to correctly understand Old Khmer."

First issue, Old Khmer has been studied by more than "a few scholars," and while the aforementioned scholars are important, there's no explanation for what contributions they've made or why it is important to mention them here.
Second issue, Khmer was never not the language of governance for any subsequent polity in Cambodia. The two hundred year gap in epigraphic documentation, from the 15th to the 16th century, cannot be taken as evidence of lack of use. Furthermore, it is bad linguistics to suggest that the "turbulent changes" underwent by the language is due to a lack of a "standardizing influence." Furthermore, there's more extent Khmer prose and poetry in the Middle Khmer period than the Old Khmer period.
Third issue, there is no specificity in what domain of loanwords come from Thai, Lao, or Vietnamese. There has been studies of Thai influence on Khmer during the Middle Khmer period in literary registers of the language, but none of the other two. Unless someone wants to add systematic studies documenting this, it stands as nothing more than conjecture.
None of this is in the citations cited.
"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."

I cannot find this in the citations. And this conjecture seems both uninformative and orientalizing. Should we expect the average English person to be well-versed in speaking to the English royal and nobility?
Lafleuve (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
វិប្បដិសារៈ
(បទព្រហ្មគីតិ បែបផ្កាឈូករីក)
ស្ដាយប្រាណធ្លាប់បីបម                         ស្ដាយធ្លាប់ថ្នមព្រួយរក្សា
ស្ដាយខានបានកេសា                            ស្ដាយរូបាខានបមបី ។
ស្ដាយខានអង្អែលប្រាណ                       ស្ដាយកល្យាណបែរមានថ្មី
ស្ដាយរសគន្ធាស្រី                                 ស្ដាយខានបីត្រកងស្ងួន ។
ស្ដាយស្នេហ៍ធ្លាប់បានស្និទ្ធិ                      ស្ដាយវរមិត្រចាកពីខ្លួន
ស្ដាយរសស្នេហ៍ពុំមួន                             ស្ដាយខ្លឹមខ្លួនបានទៅគេ ។
ស្ដាយចិត្តធ្លាប់ស្នេហា                             ស្ដាយជីវ៉ាស្រស់មាសមេ
ស្ដាយនាងមានឆោមកេរ                         ស្ដាយមាសមេចាកចោលបង ។
ស្ដាយខានបីបមស្និទ្ធិ                              ស្ដាយវរមិត្រឆោមនួនល្អង 
ស្ដាយចិត្តធ្លាប់ស្នេហ៍ស្នង                        ស្ដាយមាសបងបានឃ្លាតទៅ ។
ស្ដាយមិនបានរក្សា                                 ស្ដាយជីវ៉ាឆោមពាលពៅ 
ស្ដាយរូបឆោមឥឡូវ                                ស្ដាយមិននៅក្បែរឱរ៉ា      ។
ស្ដាយវរលក្ខណ៍ល្អល្អះ                            ស្ដាយខ្លាំងណាស់ណាជីវ៉ា
ស្ដាយហួសវិស័យថា                               ស្ដាយកេសាធ្លាប់ក្រងលេង ។
ស្ដាយសៀងសំនៀងនៅ                          ស្ដាយឥឡូវអូនវង្វេង 
ស្ដាយណាស់ស្ទើរភ្លេចគេង                      ស្ដាយឆោមក្មេងវង្វេងថ្នាំ ។
ស្ដាយរូបសស្អាតប្រាណ                          ស្ដាយកល្យាណលែងចងចាំ 
ស្ដាយចិត្តវង្វេងថ្នាំ                                    ស្ដាយកូនចាំថ្នាំញៀននេះ ៕
កូយ សុខគង់(ត្រចៀកកាំមាស)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by កូយ សុខ (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 

The speaker is not a native speaker and struggles to express himself. 203.144.73.121 (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

He's not a native speaker at all! The grammar is off everything is off he struggles with vowels and doesn't sound like who knows how to speak Khmer! 58.97.225.85 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It would probably make more sense to use a different clip of someone speaking Khmer than someone "trying" to speak Khmer. I'm sure there's a lot out there, but I don't know which ones Wikipedia has the right to. Should it just be removed until someone finds one? Xiphactinus B (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we use Ethnologue to update the updated number of first and second language speakers? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

If this language does have Sanskrit influence, it would be a feudal language. That means, there will be different word forms for different social and other levels of individuals. Can anyone confirm this fact and add this to the main article? 
Sanskrit is a feudal language. And all languages of South Asia that has Sanskrit influence in them can be feudal languages. 150.129.102.175 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The Khmer script always seems to be bolded in all wikipedia articles, is there a reason for this?
دانيالوه (talk) دانيالوه (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the same thing too, i'm confused whether this was intended so that it can be much more visible, or is it some kind of mistake on the template code? Need some answer though, because it sure is not good looking, though readable for most. Dogukeppanohokutotenkachojo (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It is likely a problem with whatever font is being used to display Khmer by default on your device, as there is nothing in the page itself that would cause this to happen. Remsense诉 11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I've researched about it, the font appear normal on my desktop, but not on my mobil device. Surely there are some devices that did not have the specific khmer font to be used, so it instead render the bold one, Thanks. Dogukeppanohokutotenkachojo (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)