Sig

"Thai politics..."? I think you would have been just as accurate if you left out the word "Thai".

The people of... deserve better. It seems to be a popular trend. Just take a look at the U.S., Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Germany, France, Ukraine, Russia, Libya, DR Congo, Yemen, Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, Haiti, Bosnia, and on and on I'm sure it could go. That's just off the top of my head....

Generally, I agree with that. The 'g' can be discernible, but it can be very close to voiceless. Ending with a 'k' could be voiced or voiceless. It really depends on the speaker and their understanding of how it should be pronounced. If people knew what a glottal stop was and there were an internationally recognized (by the general population) symbol for it, that would be ideal. Using the International Phonetic Alphabet's symbol for the glottal stop would just cause confusion because it looks so much like a question mark. That could be fun though... then the street sign would look just like how it is when you ask someone for directions around here! You never know if the directions you're getting are real and are often very questionable! ???????? But IF the International Phonetic Alphabet were taught throughout school years in language instruction and someday everyone became familiar then it could all be solved ???? And the 'o' or 'au' or 'aw' sound along with it being a long vowel, with lengthened vocalization, all together with the glottal stop could be printed intelligibly - ɔːʔ But then again, then nobody would be able to complain or make fun about it in forums like these ???? What fun would that be!? Maybe they should just leave it as 'Ok'!????????

Or Auk, comes to mind, e.g., Aukland. Or even Awk. But yeah, Ork is pretty much just as bad as Ok.

Definitely... because we know Thailand would be sure to steward your taxes better and not a baht would go to waste.

As if anyone expected any sort of truth or justice to come about on his return.... All of this "News" is a complete and meaningless distraction.

It's amazing how people will be so swayed by a movie! I remember the insane flood of Chinese tourists that came to Chiangmai after that movie around 10 years ago (something like "Lost in Thailand"? I forgot... never saw it). It was nuts!! During that time, one friend of mine who owns a tourist/motorcycle/car rental shop downtown told me that he'd rather lose all of that business if it could go back to how it was before, even though he was cashing in on the influx bigtime. It was a huge headache dealing with them, not only in his business, but for the city at large and to some degree, the rest of the country. It would be so beautiful if this movie could do the same in reverse! They should make an entire series out of it!???? Then make it even better by getting the producers to visit Thailand and arrest them upon arrival at the airport for defamation!???? hmmm I guess they can't do that... the CCP wouldn't approve.????

Yep, and don't forget the place that is talked about even less than East Turkistan (the minorities in the west that you mentioned), that is, Inner Mongolia, not to mention Tibet.... I doubt many tourists will be coming from those regions, so I guess nobody cares....

That was a bizarre sentence to end the article with... are we supposed to know who Jia Xueqiong is????

Should be public executions for stuff like this. Sad for that little one beyond words....

He had a pimple in the pics on his way back to Thailand and it's gone now....????

Kazakhastan would be a fascinating place to visit. But a country of 20 million wouldn't be a place I'd figure there'd be an influx of tourists from to the degree to worry about the infrastructure of being able to handle them, especially when you have countries around you who are much more wealthy and more populous by a large margin and travel more, like South Korea, Japan, and Australia and other more populous countries right nearby that may not be as rich, but have a lot of people and they travel like Malaysia, Indonesia, India, etc... but noooooo here comes Kazakhastan!!????‍♂️????‍♂️ Well... at least they are trying?

Well... maybe the immigration authorities should have some sort of star rating system for airports around the world! I wonder how they would find a way to award themselves 5+ stars here???? But, in actuality, I've had a MUCH better experience with immigration over the past 6 or 7 years than the previous 15+. Maybe I've just been lucky? That's hilarious, but not hilarious at all in other respects, re the English ability at a 5+ star resort! It's also, sadly, not surprising. What I'd like to know is, who on earth says they are a 5+ star resort!??? Do these places give themselves that status?

Their insurance should cover it. It shouldn't result in higher prices for one incident. I don't think anyone was insinuating that they should get a huge settlement for hurt feelings. There is not enough information in the article to know what might make a settlement reasonable. And it said nothing about demanding a "huge" settlement either. Apparently NONE was offered. There's a world of difference between ZERO and some kind of settlement. Maybe she and her husband would be in complete agreement with you and would be fine with "a little more" or a few days free stay. Maybe they think there is a principle involved here. Maybe they aren't complete self-serving idiots. Maybe they are highly educated and incredibly generous and even magnanimous people. Maybe there's a good reason the law has provisions for awarding personal injury cases damages for "pain and suffering". Maybe we don't have any idea what kind of pain and suffering they or their 3 year old son may be bearing. Maybe we shouldn't assume things that we don't know.

It said they were in the pool for 20 minutes. It didn't say they were being slightly electrocuted for 20 minutes.

Personally, I'm not assuming the worst for this case. I do see it as a possibility though, as I also see a possibility that the woman is exaggerating due to being so freaked out and fearful or even a tiny possibility in a more extreme case that many seem to immediately jump to in this forum - that the family is trying to take advantage of the situation to make some money out of it (many love jumping to this seriously dubious conclusion because there's an American involved and they aren't shy of their ridiculous stereotyping). At any rate, I don't believe there is anywhere near enough information in the article to be able to make a sound conclusion. There's only the statement by the woman, claiming to have almost died (or something to that effect). Of course, media/journalists always seem to want to put out the most sensational headlines to get views... so they say "electrocuted", which is not inaccurate IF there really were serious injuries. I don't care for that word being used this way, since it used to only mean that death came about by the shock. But, the meaning and usage of the word has changed over time (according to dictionaries and an online community of linguists), so... I guess we gotta get used to it.

I'm not claiming anything about their injuries. I'm not even saying "they got electrocuted". It's simply a question of language. It doesn't take a study in sociolinguistics or historical linguistics to know that language changes over time. The original usage from the 1800's is just how you mentioned - death. Things have changed and it is not uncommon to see the word "electrocuted" to be used in contexts of serious injury. It's not an issue to take up with me about their injuries. Ask the reporter or the claimants. We can't know anything clearly enough from the article other than taking the reporter's article and the statement that the female victim supposedly said (something to the effect that they almost died). If that's true, and there's no evidence solely from that article, to take strong stance against it, then the present day usage of "electrocute" fits, like it or not. You say, "I feel as though you would render the phrase 'electric shock' obsolete, cos apparently even the slightest shock is enough for you to say electrocuted." Now you're just being silly and attributing things to me that are not remotely reasonable from what I said before. The definition of a word has nothing to do with me. Take it up with British and American dictionary publishers and the linguists in their employ. There are myriad other words that have changed over the past few decades, let alone the last century, as in this case. By the way, I never said that I care for this usage. If it matters (I don't think it does), I don't care for this change in meaning and usage, but it is what it is. But there are so many toxic people in this forum picking on me for bringing up a simple issue of language, it is quite revealing! Apparently there are too many stressed out toxic individuals in need of something better to do with their lives.

Congrats on being consistent in your toxicity.

Agreed - debating the meaning of the word isn't necessary, since it has a definition and established usage. And since we don't know the severity of injury, it's not worth debating whether or not using the word was excessive or not. IF the supposed words of the injured woman were taken at face value, it would appear appropriate. But, who knows.... We sure don't. Nothing there to take a stand to debate with one way or the other. On top of that, news stories seem to have a tendency to use sensationalistic headlines at any given opportunity, whether truly warranted or not.

The word "rape" may not have been used, but is not "sexual assault" and bleeding from the girl's vagina not clue you in well enough? You conveniently left out part of my comment, which clearly shows that my desire for the death penalty was with the presumption that it would be due to a trial convicting the perpetrator of rape. How on earth would the civil government (as I specified) impose such a penalty without a trial? I don't believe I should need to spell out every iota and I was quite clear enough. It's plain to see that I wasn't calling for mob justice with no trial.

If you have trouble reading it, just say so from the beginning or just walk on by. No need to be toxic and snarky, although that appears to be the penchant so so many on here....???? What kind of seriously inquiring person asks someone if they know what paragraphs are? Want to make constructive criticism in a true attempt to gain understanding or less difficulty in reading someone's writing? Then do so. No need for disparaging remarks if you really aren't being intellectually dishonest.

This isn't an academic exercise. You are being intellectually dishonest, among other things....

"English lessons"? Lesson for the 21st century - Electrocution/Electrocute: Oxford Reference: "The injury or killing of someone by electric shock" Collins: "If someone is electrocuted, they are accidentally killed or badly injured when they touch something connected to a source of electricity." Merriam-Webster: "to kill or severely injure by electric shock" Longman: "If someone is electrocuted, they are injured or killed by electricity passing through their body." StackExchange: "The term electrocute was originally coined in 1889 by splicing the prefix electro- into the word execute. It originally meant execute (by electric shock). However, its meaning has evolved over time: first to also include accidental death by electric shock and later to include electrical injury, generally serious in nature."

That mean you don't know how to read?

Although I can understand why you may want to equate your experience in some way or another to the point at hand, basing an opinion on personal anecdotal experience isn't the wisest way to form an opinion from which to judge other people's disasters against. Organ damage or brain damage may not be readily known and the unborn child may also be affected. As you mentioned, we don't know the voltage or amperage. We also don't know how long they were shocked for. They don't know either. They have their ideas, but it is not knowable (unless there is something that wasn't reported) if it happened during the last few seconds before they were able to get out or if it was a low level long term exposure. There are so many unknowns, it is ridiculous for people to make their judgments toward this family with such callousness. Electrical shocks also do not affect every person in the same way. You can shock different people in the exact same way and have completely different outcomes - from death to near no effect. The crude mental toxicity on this forum is insane (that isn't directed toward you. I'm just stunned by the level of lunacy in here.).