anchan42

Teenagers and popstars in the same sentence are contemperaneaous anyway, why on earth would you want to put an era on one of them and not the other? If สมัยนี้ สมัยใหม were not there the sentence still makes sense, it would make more sense to say 'in the past'. Teenagers are influenced by popstars of the past.

Lexitron is not very good at putting English into Thai, probably because it is not written by someone who understands English very well.

As to generations SW doesn't วัย mean generation? Also Thai does have a rule that the adjective is proximate to the noun, but it is only a rule.

English often says too much and Thai too little, there must be a happy medium.

That probably because เด็กวัยรุ่นมักจะเอาอย่างพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้องสมัยนี้ sounds weird. It is grammatically ok but weird because สมัยนี้ is added for no obvious reason. It would be ok to say เด็กวัยรุ่นมักจะเอาอย่างพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้องสมัยนี้แต่ไม่ชอบพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้องสมัยก่อน Now the reason the add "สมัยนี้" in is obvious.

เด็กวัยรุ่นสมัยนี้มักจะเอาอย่างพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้อง in this sentence we have "เด็กวัยรุ่นสมัยนี้" teenager of the present era as oppose to teenager of the previous era "เด็กวัยรุ่นสมัยก่อน" or teenager of the next era "เด็กวัยรุ่นสมัยต่อไป"

สมัยนี้ here is actually an adjective telling us more about เด็กวัยรุ่น

สมัยนี้เด็กวัยรุ่นมักจะเอาอย่างพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้อง "สมัยนี้" is used to introduce a topic or scope that we want to talks about. เด็กวัยรุ่นสมัยนี้ is a noun phase and สมัยนี้เด็กวัยรุ่น is not. In normal speech we would say สมัยนี้ *pause* เด็กวัยรุ่นมักจะเอาอย่างพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้อง. It is unfortunate that comma has very little use in Thai.

You can say เด็กวัยรุ่นสมัยนี้มักจะเอาอย่างพฤติกรรมของดารานักร้องสมัยก่อน

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

I don't have time to think at the minute. Your three examples seem ungrammatical to me.

คนแก่ไปตลาด

ผู้ชายแก่ไปตลาด or ผู้ชายแก่คนหนึ่งไปตลาด

ผู้ชายแก่สองคนไปตลาด

I also believe สวย can be both verb and adjective.

I reconcile the two by thinking of the verb use as primary and taking the attributive use as the use of a participle, so the choice is between 'is beautiful' and 'being beautiful'.

Yoot's explanation is quite good. Noun-phase can be inserted where noun is needed in a sentence and complete sentence can not.

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Khun Anchan and Khun Tgeezer,

I would argue just the opposite: I would say English is currently undergoing more radical changes that perhaps even Thai is. Just as Chaucer would not recognize the English of Shakespeare, it is likely that Shakespeare or Ben Johnson would not recognize an SMS or chat room comment of an English or American teenager. Yes, Thai is changing, much to the chagrin of traditionalists. One thing I have observed is how Thai newspaper journalists have brought English phrases and conventions into their Thai writing, in translated form, not in thap sap form. Others abound in the areas of the arts and movies.

Buddhism teaches us the doctrine of อนิจจัง (impermanence) and nowhere is this doctrine more evident than in the realm of language.

What do you think?

I am sorry. I was in a hurry. I meant to say;

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that you think Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Languages are not developing but constantly changing. Old English, current English, Thai, Chinese etc are linguistically equal. The notion that one language is better then the others is absurd.

1. Not to judge, I am comparing, is there any alternative? Your own language is the only reference point possible, when learning another. The question was specifically about that comparison.

I am not try to be pick on you but just want to understand.

what do you mean by "incomplete thoughts"?

For me เขาสวย and "she is beautiful" conveying exactly the same thought so one can not represent complete thought while other represent incomplete.

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

But, Anchan 42, (or others) I want to return to a question I raised in an earlier post--is it generally true that noun predicates require a verb of being (เป็น or คือ) whereas adjective predicates do not?

Therefore: "เขาเป็นคนแก่" versus "เขาแก่"

I had never thought about this way of dividing Thai sentences using or not using เป็น, but to my non-native ear, this sounds right. Is it?

I think it sounds about right. เป็น must be followed by noun. Generally speaking anyway.

เขาบ้า, เขาเป็นบ้า, เขาเป็นคนบ้า all mean the same things but it probably an exception or บ้า might have a certain attribute in mental dictionary that make it behave this way.

There is noting more practical then a good theory. When a theory does not go along with reality, the reality is hardly at fault.

I must admit that I find your posts confusing and difficult to understand but that probably due to me lacking the ability to handle complete thoughts conveyed in English.

You are trying to use English grammar to judge Thai grammar. I don’t think that is going to work. There are two very different languages.

Setting one up as a standard is a big mistake.

What do you mean by “comparing two nouns” with ผู้หญิงไทยเป็นผู้หญิงที่สวยมาก?

Is สวย a verb, an adjective or both in your opinion?

Talking about the problems for Thailand of Victor Bout, send him to USA and Russia are upset, not send him and USA are dissatisfied, my friend said อยู่ระหว่างเขาควาย to be between the horns of a buffalo, one small wrong move either way and you're in trouble, little room for error. It reminds of the English phrase,to walk a tightrope.

Thanks bannork: you do provide a wealth of lovely and useful idiomatic phrases here.

By the way, the Spanish version translates as "Between the sword and the wall." Thus, we see very clearly how "culture" certainly does inform language, at every turn: English see a tightrope; Thais see a buffalo; Spaniards see a sword - each to their own history/culture, and understandably so - all to say the very same thing.

I think it's a direct translation of "being on the horns of a dilemma"

เจ้าของภาษา are always to be given the final word on these matters. Thank you Anchan 42. Haven't seen your posts for a while. We need native speakers here, so thank you.

There are sentences that require เป็น such as ผมเป็นคนไทย. Is the issue that predicate adjectives (เขาสวย)do not require a verb whereas predicate nominatives do have such a requirement?

These discussions are exposing the fact that my education in Thai grammar is, shall we say, limited (putting it politely--non-existent would be more accurate).

My knowledge of Thai grammar is probably not much more then yours and don't ask me about tone rules or consonant classes.

I did ok with English tests back in school without knowing much about grammar. I developed English weird meter by reading a lot and watching a lot of English movies instead.

This gives me the opportunity to ask something

In this kind of sentence is there a need for the verb 'to be'? I see that Peppy left out the 'เป็น' in his version.

Cheers,

Biff

There is a fundemental difference between verbs in English which only show 'action' and Thai verbs which also show 'condition' 'quality' and 'situation' สวย ดี however they have seen their mistake and mostly these words which used to be verbs are now called คำวิเศษณ์ . It is only interesting since having changed the classification they still insist on treating them as verbs.

English needs the cupola 'is' when using an adjective but the Thais still don't. Maybe with enough exposure to the 'truth' we can eventually say เขาเป็นสวย A complete thought (sentence) must contain a verb,you see, so 'She is beautiful' works in English but no longer does it work in Thai since เขาสวย lacks the verb!

Hmmm, changing the planet status of the Pluto would not make it change its orbit. I think เป็น is a real verb in Thai and have to take nouns as an object. I also believe สวย can be both verb and adjective. Combine those two would make เขาเป็นสวย ungrammatical not to mention that my native weird meter is hitting full scale.

เป็น is not required rather than being dropped in the sentence Peppy used. It just how noun and adjective are put together. For example "this car is red" รถคันนี้สีแดง "red car" รถสีแดง "I think this car is red" ผมว่ารถคนนี้สีแดง

ผู้หญิงสวย "beautiful girl" ผู้หญิงคนนี้สวย "this girl is beautiful" ผมว่าผู้หญิงไทยสวย "I think Thai girls are beautiful"

Thank you

I notice you use ว่า rather than คิดว่า, so is คิด not needed because of the context?

คิดว่า is more formal then ว่า. They are used when you want to express your opinion. You should hear ว่า far more often then คิดว่า in normal speech.

เป็น is not required rather than being dropped in the sentence Peppy used. It just how noun and adjective are put together. For example "this car is red" รถคันนี้สีแดง "red car" รถสีแดง "I think this car is red" ผมว่ารถคนนี้สีแดง

ผู้หญิงสวย "beautiful girl" ผู้หญิงคนนี้สวย "this girl is beautiful" ผมว่าผู้หญิงไทยสวย "I think Thai girls are beautiful"

If you both can use emails and can put up with a few days delay sometimes, I can do it for free provided that the emails are not ridiculously long. Just PM me the messages.

Dear Khun Kriswillems

According to your texts that say

"It was amazing to see how each of those Thai people (with a masters degree) didn't manage to explain the tone rules of the Thai language (although they knew with tone to use). I guess using the tones correctly was just obvious for them and they never suspected that it might be a problem for foreigners."

it is quite surprising for me.. you know if you learn how to read and right Thai .. they should've taught you about 5 basic tones we got .. and 3 different kind of alphabet that we manage by tones of the alphabet... low tone alphabets , middle tone alphabet (which could mix with long sound vowels and the tone marks and make the right tone of every tone marks such as กา ก่า ก้า ก๊า ก๋า ... ) , and High tone alphabet. It is hard to explain by text but if you speak it out you will understand.

There's my trick about the tones which I mixed the singing skill with the tones. I don't have enough time to explain about that but I will do it later.

By the way ... TONES are first things that I will teach because it's so important .. plus .. the shape of the mouth when you speak Thai can't be the same as the shape when you speak English or other language ... I will have to teach them to learn that too .. then .. I will teach the words bit by bit ..

sounds like a teaching plan huh? you know it's just like the way i studied English in school

I had to learn how to say THREE ... I bet some Thai people still say like TREE or TEA ..

in the same way foreigners find it's hard to tell the different between ป ปลา and บ ใบไม้ I really hope that my student can learn from me to say it right .

I find Kris comment quite understandable. Tone rules and 3 class of alphabet are taught in primary school and , for most Thai who do not study language major,are soon forgotten.

Implicit and explicit knowledge of language are tow different things. Acquiring language as a child and learning it as an adult are also different.

Tone rules are acquired at very young age and do not need to be taught explicitly. If you are a native Thai speaker, you don't really need to know 3 class of alphabet to be able to read.

I know that ถี่ and ที่ read differently without having to even think about alphabet class. To explain why would be totally different matter.

Having a native speaker's input is undoubtedly helpful. Having a trained native speaker's input can make big difference. I struggled with some consonant cluster sounds for years before I met a profession English teacher who solved it in 10 seconds.

Some context would help a lot. It sounds like the speaker is answering to someone comment using จ๊ะ to indicate that she or he agreeing with the comment.

[nosize=3][nobold]

"the special graft court" ha ha ha yeah right !!!!!!!!!!! I wonder how they and their jealous friends will divide it amongst themselves. He floated the company on the stock market nimrod, he didn't have to pay taxes. [/nobold][/nosize] As usual, the eggheads didn't act fast enough therefore enabling the company in Singapore to buy it all. Look it up.

K. Thaksin seems to have used a loophole in Thai law in order to avoid paying taxes. It's not clear (to me) whether it was really him, his proxies, his children or his 'Amply Rich' offshore company. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter much. As Prime Minister he should be an example to all and a GOOD, HONEST, LAW-ABIDING example at that. He started his PM-ship with an NCCC case which ending in a very controversial 'not guilty, really he made an honest mistake'.

As for the confiscated 46+ BBaht, it will be dumped in the treasury and probably be used to reduce the overall budget shortfall.

Right on. He should have plug the hole and not using it himself. If he paid the tax and amend the law, he would still be prime minister today. It just plain wrong to gain that much money without paying tax.

Probably similar to top US executives taking large sum of bonuses while their companies are asking for governments' bailout. Not against the law but just plain wrong.

Not really, I am saying that a Thai friend when asked if it refered to noodles too said 'of course' or words to that effect. I won't use it though, I think that ทำอาหาร seems fine.

It would be very peculiar to refer to making noodle as ทำกับข้าว.

One thing you have to aware off is that a Thai will normally agree to anything as long as it get a inquisitive farang off their back.

ทำอาหาร is too formal in everyday life. You would not hear it in normal Thai kitchen.

Probably some pretentious hi-so use it.

"Making something to eat"

A direct translation of that would be ทำอะไรมากินหน่อย. The implication of it is that the speaker does not really care if it is ข้าว with กับข้าว or noodle or anything else.

It would help a lot to make clear distinction between ข้าว and กับข้าว.

ข้าว is rice and to cook it is หุงข้าว. The verb หุง is normally used with rice only. Other type of food take verb ทำ e.g.

ทำกับข้าว ทำขนม etc. This probably reflects special status rice has in Thai culture.

Traditionally in Thais' main meals, rice is a must have. กับข้าว can change daily but the rice will stay.

In old Thai way, one of the sentence for greeting friends is วันนี้กินข้าวกับอะไร = what did you have with rice today?

When people ask กินข้าวยัง what they actually mean is "have you been eaten(the main meal)yet? Eating rice without กับข้าว or กินข้าวเปล่า is a very strange thing to do.

ทำกับข้าวให้หน่อย = Could you cook me some stuff that go with rice?

Would you make some rice? = หุงข้า่วให้หน่อย

*tone correction, the last part should be

*rob[3]-guan

Hmmm I don't think average electrician in Thailand would know what it is.

You might need a lot of explanation. Another way of doing it is to buy the thing yourself and ask an electrician to install it for you.

You could try ตัวกรองสัญญาณรบกวน ie noise filter.

"พจนานุกรมฉบับมติชน ("Matichon Dictionary of the Thai Language"), First Edition, 2004, page 395:

"ถล่มตัว (สแลง) ถ่อมตัว, พูดในเชิงถ่อมตน"

" . . . to be modest and humble; to speak in a humble manner."

ถ่อมตัว [V] [is] humble; modest (from Lexitron)

1. This definition seems to be exactly what Bannork indicated; note that Matichon indicates that this is a slang usage, currently.

2. Does Matichon qualify as a "guess"?

3. Maybe you need an eighth dictionary.

Best of luck!

Thanks

1. It is virtually as I guessed from the context it was used in in a meeting of Thais. The sniggering that followed its usage suggested some other nuance than just a straight meaning of 'modest', though. Perhaps a sarcastic tone was also used. I would have thought the majority of Thais understood its meaning. They all did at this meeting and it is used widely in the press, in headlines as I mentioned.

2. Definitely not a guess, a specific source. Perhaps my comment has kept the guessers away from this thread.

3. Indeed a ninth perhaps. You can never have enough dictionaries. Its 'slang' classification would very likely be connected to it not being in the dictionaries I have.

You guess right in most part. For normal sincere usage it is ถ่อมตัว. ถล่มตัว can be used sarcastically or jokingly probably with close friends whom you have no need to ถ่อมตัว with.

Try this.

ข้าว long vowel

เข้า short vowel

ก้าว long

เก้า still long??

ท่าน sometime informally written ทั่น obviously reflect the fact that it is short vowel.

It is being used figuratively comparing ธรรมะ to friends.

One other thing about แมงดา --it is used as the flavoring in a particularly evil smelling น้ำพริก.

Good Sir, your biological description of the species is quite accurate as well as the metaphorical usage in Thai, however I daresay the cuisinary outburst is uncalled for and rather inaccurate as the food mentioned is considered by some, including myself, quite tasty and not in any manner evil smelling.

As to the OP, you were insulted, but do yourself a favor and never, ever confront a drunk Thai over his/her words. Just keep on truckin.

Hmmm. I thought แมงดา was a species of cockroach but bigger in size and stronger in smell. I do like it though especially ไข่แมงดาย่าง which pretty much หากินยาก.

Agree with tod-daniels. I have heard the word แมงดา used to describe a low-life male who controls women through fear and threat of violence. More often than not this type of guy is usually also described as a จิ๊กโก๋ which means something like hooligan, thug or tough-guy.

จิ๊กโก๋ is from gigolo?