mikenyork

Actually I think ตาม อำเภอใจ is very good!

The problem with ยิตอิสระ is that it means independent spirit or heart. Free spirit doesn't mean, in my opinion, independent, as much as it means whimsical, uncaring for social norms. Here is Dictionary.com's definition: "–nouna person with a highly individual or unique attitude, lifestyle, orimagination; nonconformist.

จิตอิสระ is certainly superior to what the tatooist suggested, but I don't think it conveys the full idea.

Neither says "spirit". Both say "independent belief (system)". I don't think any Thai person would get the idea of "free spirit" from the words used in either example. I'm far from confident that there is any concise way to express this idea in Thai. Maybe some of our "chao khong phasa" (owners of the language, i.e., native speakers) will contribute.

One possible idea is เลื่อนลอย which means to drift. Another might be ตามใจผม "up to me"

KISO(key informant/significant other) says that ดอกฟ้า is a woman above ones station in terms of education, wealth, social status and so forth. So I guess the phrase in question means something like "Don't think that you will be able to get a high-class woman"

การไม่ยอมถกกันด้วยเหตุและผล ไม่ไช่การชนะการเถียงกัน

or

หากสองคนเถียงกันและถ้าฝ่ายไหนไม่ยอมพูด นั้นไม่ได้หมายความว่าอีกฝ่ายเป็นฝ่ายชนะ

We are talking about มัน here, right? I've never heard a Thai adult refer to a child in the third person using any other word. Not in person. Not on TV soap operas. Worked in a gov't school for two years. ALL teachers referred to all students using this term (for third person). I also hear Thais use this word for adults in the third person without apparently intending any particular disrespect. Two friends talking about a third friend will usually use มัน. I don't think this is limited in any way to the "under class" or "working girls". I think it's common in the language. What isn't common is for anyone to refer to their spouse this way, except working girls referring to their johns (and often as not to their farang husbands). Even then, many ex-working girls refer to their husbands as เขา. But kids---มัน every time.

There are likely going to be a lot of varying responses to this question. I myself struggled for years to try to understand why I didn't fit into my family's pronoun structure (in my case, I was invariably referred to in both second and third person as Khun.....). It's pretty mysterious to me, partly because immigrant Chinese are automatically fitted into a standard family pronoun structure (although the pronouns used are often Chinese, rather than Thai--Je, Sim, Muay, Tii, etc.).

Eventually, this is the explanation I worked out for myself. Thais have a tribal identity that starts with fellow Thais, works outward to include Laos, other SE Asians, Chinese Japanese, Koreans, Filipino's, etc. This concept is hard for westerners, particularly Americans like myself, to understand. White Americans are taught that tribal identity is positively evil (Nazi, KKK, White Supremacist, etc.). Therefore, we are "outside" the tribe. "I" and "You" are a recognition of this fact. It isn't impolite. It doesn't show a lack of respect (at least not in and of itself). But it does reflect a mental/emotional boundary that, in my experience at least, is pretty much not crossable.

This is all just IMHO. I understand Thai WORDS pretty well. ThaiLAND???? Oh...that might be a problem.

English: You're a classy person. Or, you have class.

Thai: คุณเป็นคนมีศักดิ์ศรี

Key Informant/Significant Other says it is a northern Thai (curry-like) topping for Khanom Jiin.

I cheated and used gf as my source. The best I can get is "behaving in an attention getting, objectionable and affected way'. Similar to แก่แดด or ดัดจริต, one of those words that one says to friends "with a smile" (cf. The Virginian). Going into paroxysms of loud, shrill screaming at the sight of a famous rock star would qualify for this kind of behavior.

1. What level are you at?

I'm fluent, I guess. That is, I don't miss many words in many situations.

2. Can you read and write Thai?

I can read, albeit slowly. I can write but I can't spell so my writing tends to send Thais into spasms of uncontrolled laughter.

3. How long have you been learning for?

An embarrassingly long time. Began Thai language school at DLI in Monterrey in 1964 (!!!!!!) In my defense, I spent most of the intervening decades in the States.

4. How did you learn?

Language school initially. But immersion is the key. Have to be in situations that force you to stretch, stretch, stretch. From what I've heard of China, English isn't widely spoken. In Bangkok, especially if you stick to the 'main drags', English is very widely spoken and this is a big disadvantage for learning the language. Upcountry is far better. If you had a choice, a central province town would be ideal because you could listen in on other people's conversations in Thai instead of Issan (Lao).

5. What other languages could you speak before Thai?

Spanish, which I took up and put down a few times in my life. Romance languages are many, many times easier for a native English speaker than are Asian languages. Cognates are plentiful (in both French and Spanish). The conceptual frameworks are virtually identical (although English has simplified its grammar more than has either French or Spanish).

Overall advice--be patient. Don't be intimidated. I agree with an earlier poster who noted that there isn't any conceptual difference between Mandarin and Thai. Both are monosyllabic, tonal, don't decline verbs (or other parts of speech), don't have gender identities in nouns, don't have tense in verbs, etc. And, God knows, writing Thai, even with the vagaries of spelling, is a complete piece of cake compared to the horrors of Chinese ideographs! Relax and be confident. You will get this language. The thing that is an absolute obstacle for some Westerners is tone deafness. But if you were tone deaf you would have never had any luck with Mandarin, so that cannot be your problem.

Item 1 pregnancy exam

item 2 physical exam

It took a couple of days for me to come up with the proper rendering of this quote (yup, I'm not as young as I used to be--almost certainly this was an example of early onset you know what). Anyway.....

นับถือ can mean a lot of things--one of them is adherent of a particular religion. "Are you a Christian?", for example is "คุณนับถือศาสนาคริสต์หรือ(khun nap theu sasana Christ reu?)". This got me thinking that what Suthep said could be rendered "I am not a 'farang-maniac'". When Mr. Suthep said that he doesn't 'nap theu farang', it doesn't mean he hates or even lacks respect for farangs. It means he doesn't blindly worship our culture or think that we are, by definition, somehow smarter, more capable or less corrupt than Thai people. And therefore he doesn't approve of the appropriateness or the necessity of involving outsiders in Thai elections.

cf: An·glo·ma·ni·a

   [/url][ang-gluh-mey-nee-uh, -meyn-yuh] –nounan intense admiration of, interest in, or tendency to imitateEnglish institutions, manners, customs, etc.

I have to add that I completely agree with an earlier poster who noted that this seemingly endless thread says a lot more about the expat farang community here than it does about Thai culture or Thai people or even about Mr. Suthep.

I will concede that your translation is more literal than mine. However, the phrase นัิบถีอ does not mean exclusively respect. Esteem is a perfectly acceptable translation of this word. And one can view the next phrase as being explanatory of the first sentence. "I don't esteem farangs. (That is), I don't think farangs are better than Thai people." IMHO, the overall sense of the quote is that Suthep doesn't think outsiders should be involved in monitoring Thai elections. He thinks Thais are perfectly capable of handling this task themselves. He resents the idea of having Thais run to the international community to solve problems that they can and should solve themselves. He's not talking about whether or not he has respect for farangs as human beings or not.

Therefore, maybe I should have been more literal in my translation. But on the issue of whether his remarks can be fairly understood as being focused on his feelings for farangs as people worthy of "respect" or not, I stand by my original position. This was not what he meant. He may (or may not) be a racist, but this quote doesn't show that he is.

Here is a pretty accurate translation of the context of Suthep's remarks from the newspaper Thai Daily News http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/1583

Regarding whetherthe Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) leaders wanting to inviteinternational organizations to observe the elections in Thailand, would behelpful in investigating have otherbenefits, Mr Suthep said, "The (redshirt) leaders have strange (ideas). They don't respect the sovereignty of their own (country). There are many Thai organizations. (Thai) media (representatives), universityprofessors or students or whatever. Whyshould anyone esteem westerners to thatextent? I don't like this sort ofthing. The (red shirts) like to getoutsiders involved in our internal affairs. I don't think they should. Itisn't appropriate.

When asked if theoversight of Thai elections was of a sufficiently high standard to ensure thateverything was done in a fair manner, Mr. Suthep said, "I don't esteemwesterners as being better than Thai people. Don't bring westerners here to control Thai people. I think our (own) Election Commission issufficient to the task. If you want tosupplement the oversight of the Election Commission or examine the ElectionCommission itself, then make use of the views of Thai people. The media, the academic sector, the privatesector, the business sector, and students (all) can contribute. (We should) do away with the notion that one ought to run and submit (oneself) to westerners for (the solution to all one's problems). [end translation]

I think it's pretty clear that he was trying to say that he didn't want outside interference and that Thailand was perfectly capable of solving its own political problems. Imagine what American politicians might say at the prospect of giving an international body oversight of American elections! The quote that "I don't respect farangs." is not reflective of the complete quote and does not convey his meaning well.

I don't think the translation is accurate.

The original ThaiRath article refers a verbatim quote from Suthep:

ผมไม่นับถือฝรั่งก็แล้วกัน ผมไม่เห็นว่าฝรั่งจะดีกว่าคนไทย อย่าเอาฝรั่งมาข่มคนไทย

This means

I don't respect western foreigners (farangs).

I don't think that western foreigners (farangs) would be better than Thai people (in overseeing the election).

Don't bring western foreigners (farang) here (into Thailand) to control Thai people.

The controversial first sentence here is concluded with ก็แล้วกัน which could be translated as "and that's that" or "if you want to put it like that". The statement is self-contained and even separated from the next sentence with a space which would not be necessary or would even be incorrect if there was any junction with the next sentence. In the second sentence Suthep may have tried to backtrack from the first, but the meaning "I don't esteemwesterners as being better than Thai people" cannot be inferred here IMHO.

Paul Simon, "The Boxer" "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." It's absolutely clear from reading the entire quote that Suthep was making a point almost 180 degrees different from what the lifted partial quote that was carelessly translated by the Nation implied. His point was that Thais are just as good as "Farangs", absolutely not that Thais are better than Farangs.

Moreover, the entire thing was aimed, not in any way at all at Farangs, per se, but rather at the Red Shirts. Suthep has, in part, a job very similar to that of the Vice President of the US--to say the tough things that his boss cannot possibly say, but which, in the rough and tumble of Thai (or any other kind of) politics, need to be said. Corrupt elections notwithstanding, this is nothing more nor less than just democracy in action.

As to the word Farang, everyone has their own view on this and nothing I can say here will settle the matter. But if one takes the position that it is an ethnic epithet (which some of the posters here appear to), then one has to explain how a racial epithet can be used equally well to praise as to condemn. And there is no arguing that the word farang is used in everyday Thai discourse to do both with equal ease. As a though experiment, think of your favorite ethnic epithet in English (please note in passing that if you are a native speaker you have a wealth of choices, a veritable cornucopia of slurs, for almost any non-Northern European group you would like to use in your example). Then imagine seriously saying something like, "Those (insert favorite ethnic epithet here) sure have better (streets, public services, medical care) than we do." Does the resulting sentence sound a little nonsensical? That's because of the conflict between the epithet and the praise. But these kinds of sentences can be said in Thai using the word Farang and no one will even begin to think anything of it.

For all those posters who are sure that Thais (especially Thai men) hate them and who themselves reflect in their posts a total lack of respect for Thai people, all I can say is that I pity you. It's unlikely that you were brought here in shackles. It's unlikely that there's any insurmountable barrier to your going back to where you came from or, in the alternative, going somewhere that you felt accepted and for whose people you could feel respect. For myself, I cannot imagine living somewhere about which I had the feelings reflected in many of these posts. Life is way, way too short!!!

This is certainly, if nothing else, a diverse forum! The immediately preceding post is so replete with inaccuracies and unfounded prejudice that it boggles the mind! Just to choose one at random: "The sad part is that he(suthep) does not even realize that it is the "farangs" who built and develop(ed) (sic) his country and k(ept)(sic) it going." or maybe "who build and develop his country and keep it going". Agreement of tense among verbs in this sentence would be helpful in understanding what the author is trying to say. Either way, whether he means the past or the present, the statement is grossly inaccurate. While it is true that foreigners of all kinds have contributed to the development of Thailand, it is absurd to suggest that westerners were or are the primary force in the development of the country. If any group of foreigners were to have a claim to make in this regard it would be the Chinese, not (we) Farangs!

Here is a pretty accurate translation of the context of Suthep's remarks from the newspaper Thai Daily News http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/1583

Regarding whetherthe Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) leaders wanting to inviteinternational organizations to observe the elections in Thailand, would behelpful in investigating have otherbenefits, Mr Suthep said, "The (redshirt) leaders have strange (ideas). They don't respect the sovereignty of their own (country). There are many Thai organizations. (Thai) media (representatives), universityprofessors or students or whatever. Whyshould anyone esteem westerners to thatextent? I don't like this sort ofthing. The (red shirts) like to getoutsiders involved in our internal affairs. I don't think they should. Itisn't appropriate.

When asked if theoversight of Thai elections was of a sufficiently high standard to ensure thateverything was done in a fair manner, Mr. Suthep said, "I don't esteemwesterners as being better than Thai people. Don't bring westerners here to control Thai people. I think our (own) Election Commission issufficient to the task. If you want tosupplement the oversight of the Election Commission or examine the ElectionCommission itself, then make use of the views of Thai people. The media, the academic sector, the privatesector, the business sector, and students (all) can contribute. (We should) do away with the notion that one ought to run and submit (oneself) to westerners for (the solution to all one's problems). [end translation]

I think it's pretty clear that he was trying to say that he didn't want outside interference and that Thailand was perfectly capable of solving its own political problems. Imagine what American politicians might say at the prospect of giving an international body oversight of American elections! The quote that "I don't respect farangs." is not reflective of the complete quote and does not convey his meaning well.

เข้า เส้น is " she sense(d)" if I had to guess.

I think you could definitely use สะเทือนใจ without offence, but it would need to refer to the fact that the death in question bothered you, not that you were impressed with what was said in the eulogy.

I think สะเทือนใจ is disturbed, not touched. I would say ซึ้งใจ

disk brake pad wear/brake pad

Probably อาย "ay" embarrassed or shy (but with a much more positive connotation than in English--ay is a prized personal attribute in traditional Thai culture for both men and women.

Printing on paper all that has been written about the word farang would only make global warming much worse. I began studying Thai in 1964. I have spent my entire adult life in the Thai community (admittedly an overseas community, primarily, but now here in Thailand for five years). Farang definitely means "outsider", as in "not an Asian", but it is not in any meaningful way a pejorative term. Do some Thais hate "farangs"? Sure. Is there racism here? Well, as far as I know, racism exists in every single place where human beings live, so, yeah. Everyone can make their own evaluation of the extent of such racism. My own experience is that there is much less racism here than a lot of other places. Does the average Thai feel that he/she is using a racial epithet(such as "jek" or "ay meud" which are real racial epithets) when they call someone a "farang"? Absolutely not. There are insulting words for us. "Farang sathun" and "Farang Khii nok" come to mind. But farang on its own? No. We are treated differently from how we would be if we were foreign Asians or Africans or South Asians. And we are certainly treated differently from how we would be treated if we were Thai. Sometimes this works to our disadvantage. Much more often, it redounds to our advantage.