What's The Difference ?

[boxig]

Hi,

รวม and ร่วม

ปรกติ and ปกติ

Thank you

box

[loong]

รวม is used in the sense of combining, adding, mixing etc, it is a verb

ร่วม is used in the sense of united, joining in, participating, almost, in common;it is a verb as well as an adjective

ปรกติ this I didn't know existed, but looking in the dictionary seems to mean the same as ปกติ

ปกติ usually ; normally ; commonly ; regularly ; ordinarily

ธรรมดา has much the same meaning, but to my mind it means natural more than usually, in it's natural state. It's an adverb as well as an adjective, whereas ปกติ is an adverb

[In the Rai!]

ปรกติ this I didn't know existed, but looking in the dictionary seems to mean the same asปรกติ

ปกติ usually ; normally ; commonly ; regularly ; ordinarily

ธรรมดา has much the same meaning, but to my mind it means natural more than usually, in it's natural state. It's an adverb as well as an adjective, whereas ปกติ is an adverb

[/size]

I have heard both used but ปรกติ never as much as his friend ปกติ

As far as I know they both carry the same meaning and can be used in the same way (just different pronounciation)

example sentence, ปกติตอนมีงานเลี้ยงอาหารขาดเเละไม่พอกับจำนวนคน

normally when I have a party I never have enough food for the number of people

This can be chnged to ปรกติตอนมีงานเลี้ยงอาหารขาดเเละไม่พอกับจำนวนคน

and carries the exact same meaning.

ITR

[Rikker]

Yeah, these are just alternate forms of the same word, methinks.

ปรกติ is pronounced [ปรก-กะ-ติ], while ปกติ has two pronunciations, [ปก-กะ-ติ] and [ปะ-กะ-ติ].

From what the entries in RID say, I believe ปกติ comes from Pali, while ปรกติ comes from Sanskrit.

[meadish_sweetball]

ปกติ has two pronunciations, [ปก-กะ-ติ]and [ปะ-กะ-ติ]

This is what I learned at uni as well, but many Thai people have since corrected me, insisting that only ปะ-กะ-ติ is correct.

[In the Rai!]

ปกติ has two pronunciations, [ปก-กะ-ติ]and [ปะ-กะ-ติ]

This is what I learned at uni as well, but many Thai people have since corrected me, insisting that only ปะ-กะ-ติ is correct.

I too have been corrected by Thais Meadish for pronuncing it ปก-กะ-ติ

Whilst ปรก-กะ-ติ has this sound I was told ปะ-กะ-ติ is how to pronounce it.

It is very easy to say ปก-กะ-ติ instead though. Usually I just tell them I slipped a very quiet ร in there as in ปรก-กะ-ติ

ITR

[loong]

too have been corrected by Thais Meadish for pronuncing it ปก-กะ-ติ

Whilst ปรก-กะ-ติ has this sound I was told ปะ-กะ-ติ is how to pronounce it.

It is very easy to say ปก-กะ-ติ instead though. Usually I just tell them I slipped a very quiet ร in there as in ปรก-กะ-ติ

ปก-กะ-ติ is how I always pronounce it, with a very very short "o" (rather like the sound a chicken makes, but with a low tone) and I have never been corrected. ปะ-กะ-ติ is closer to how I would ask for a Bacardi

[boxig]

From what the entries in RID say, I believe ปกติ comes from Pali, while ปรกติ comes from Sanskrit.

Rikker, that sounds reasonable.

I always say ปก-กะ-ติ and was never corrected. It sounds nicer to me than ปรก-กะ-ติ

box

[Rikker]

All three pronunciations are listed in RID, so either the people correcting you are being "hypercorrect" or else this is a case where the RID has assimilated some aspect of common pronunciation that purists don't approve of.

Regardless, since ปกติ pronounced ปก-กะ-ติ is given in RID, combined with the fact that it is common to reduce clusters in Thai, I would say from my experience that ปก-กะ-ติ is the most common pronunciation I hear (and use), whether the person is thinking of ปรกติ or ปกติ in their brain when they speak it, I don't know.

[Edward B]

ปกติ has two pronunciations, [ปก-กะ-ติ]and [ปะ-กะ-ติ]

This is what I learned at uni as well, but many Thai people have since corrected me, insisting that only ปะ-กะ-ติ is correct.

Same here. From asking around, the word ปกติ only has one correct pronunciation: [ปะ-กะ-ติ]. The other pronunciation [ปก-กะ-ติ] is common but is actually incorrect (so I am told). Perhaps when hearing the other form ปรกติ [ปรก-กะ-ติ], we are not hearing the ร, I presume because many Thais have a problem this letter.

Is it possible that RID has errors?

[Rikker]

It's certainly does have errors, but I don't think that it's an error in the sense that it's unintentional. RID is supposed to be the arbiter of what is "correct" and "incorrect" in Thai, so if it's included, then that's a citable authority for correctness that many educated Thais would accept if you pointed it out to them (although people tend to be set in their ways, so there's no real point in trying to prove our Thai friends wrong, since that can be a face-losing act anyway).

If well-educated Thais think ปก-กะ-ติ is wrong, then as I mentioned above it is possible that RID is including it because it is a common pronunciation. In this way they are "allowing" this pronunciation because it's so common.

(Oh, and Edward B, since ร and ล in consonant clusters get dropped by nearly everyone in casual speech, I'd say that this is not so much a problem that some speakers have as a bona fide feature of the spoken language, which happens to lack prestige. It's completely normal to pronounce ปก-กะ-ติ for ปรกติ.

Notions of "correct" and "incorrect" are always so subjective, and even when you speak a language which *has* a legal authority on linguistics matters like Thai does, it doesn't mean people always accept it.

[Edward B]

It's completely normal to pronounce ปก-กะ-ติ for ปรกติ.

Not sure what this means. Normal as in common/accepted (even if it is technically incorrect) or as in technically correct? According to RID the correct pronunciation is ปฺรก-กะ-ติ, and nothing else.

How about January (มกราคม): มะ-กะ-รา-คม or มก-กะ-รา-คม and communication (คมนาคม): คะ-มะ-นา-คม or คม-มะ-นา-คม? RID lists both as correct, but every Thai I ask says only one version (the first) is technically correct.

The month 'February' in English may be a good analogy, where the first r is commonly dropped, and nobody really gives a hoot in any case.

[Rikker]

I was using "normal" to mean that the vast majority of people do drop their ร's and ล's from consonants clusters in informal speech (even though formally incorrect).

The difference in English is that there is no overtly prescriptive English dictionary. While there have been some dictionaries over the years whose editors felt the need to impose their idea of correct on readers, the best English dictionaries are descriptive--showing how the language is actually used (and giving usage notes on things like register, region used, etc.) instead of trying to say how the language should be used. Often dictionaries like this receive a trouncing by language purists and self-styled "experts" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, published in 1961, being a primary example), but they're always vindicated by time.

Thai, sadly, is still lacking a comprehensive (what used to be called "unabridged") descriptive dictionary.

If you haven't guessed, I'm strongly on the descriptive side of things. That doesn't mean there is no right and wrong, but a language exists as people actually use it, not as a standardized ideal laid forth by a small group of scholars. Much like with English, the existence of "standard Thai" is a myth. Nobody speaks "standard Thai" natively, as contained in the books and as taught in Thai classrooms. But also as with English, years and years of schooling drills a lot of (often arbitrary) rules into a person. Such that speakers will say to us that [มะ-กะ-รา-คม] is correct, even if they would usually say [มก-กะ-รา-คม] or even just [มก-กะ-รา].

I think the comparison with February is a good one, same with Wednesday pronounced [wensday] (although there are definitely people who will insist on pronouncing them the way they are spelled). And sometimes there is more than once correct answer, for whatever reason, sometimes because people at different times and in different places are taught different standards. Times change, so does language.

Very interesting to think about (and discuss), though. I guess it's especially relevant for us non-native speakers, since we get corrected on things that any native speaker could get away with. But again, I believe we tend to do the same thing with non-native English speakers.

[loong]

When general usage gets to a certain level, then it should be accepted as language evolves.

ทำ น้ำ

tam and náam, shouldn't the vowel sound in these 2 words be the same? I would think so, but almost without exception น้ำ is pronounced with a flatter "a" sound and maybe slightly longer. This seems to be accepted as part of evolving language