(he) Should Have (gone Earlier)

[taxexile]

what is the simplest and best way to translate the meaning of "should have " in thai.

e.g. i should have bought three of them.

you should have phoned me first.

we shouldnt have paid so much for it.

i should have listened to my thai teacher during the "should have" lesson.

thanks.

[meadish_sweetball]

English has a clearer tense system than Thai. For cases such as this, Thai uses the same construction as in the present.

น่าจะซื้อ ๓ [classifier] มา/ไว้ naa ja sue saam [classifier] maa

In some cases, an altogether different construction with ทำไม will express a similar idea, i.e. regret or mild scolding of oneself or somebody else in retrospective, with a rhetorical question... it will not always work though:

ทำไมไม่ได้ซื้อ ๓ [classifier] ไว้/มา thammai mai dai sue 3 [classifier] waai/maa

ไว้ expresses something like 'for use/benefit in the future' and could work to convey a sense of past here. มา shows direction, both in space and time... and could also work.

At least that is what I would use, there may be better options available though.

It is important to learn to let go of some distinctions one is used to making in one's own language (even if they are handy), and instead listen to how a native Thai would express it... tense is often not necessary because in spoken language, the context will make clear what you mean.

we shouldnt have paid so much for it.

เราไม่น่าจะซื้อ แพงขนาดนั้น rao mai naa ja sue phaeng khanaad nan

[In the Rai!]

English has a clearer tense system than Thai. For cases such as this, Thai uses the same construction as in the present.

น่าจะซื้อ ๓ [classifier] มา/ไว้ naa ja sue saam [classifier] maa

In some cases, an altogether different construction with ทำไม will express a similar idea, i.e. regret or mild scolding of oneself or somebody else in retrospective, with a rhetorical question... it will not always work though:

ทำไมไม่ได้ซื้อ ๓ [classifier] ไว้/มา thammai mai dai sue 3 [classifier] waai/maa

ไว้ expresses something like 'for use/benefit in the future' and could work to convey a sense of past here. มา shows direction, both in space and time... and could also work.

At least that is what I would use, there may be better options available though.

It is important to learn to let go of some distinctions one is used to making in one's own language (even if they are handy), and instead listen to how a native Thai would express it... tense is often not necessary because in spoken language, the context will make clear what you mean.

we shouldnt have paid so much for it.

เราไม่น่าจะซื้อ แพงขนาดนั้น rao mai naa ja sue phaeng khanaad nan

yep or you could use ควร kuuwan

ผมควรจะจ่ายเงินเท่าไร pom kuuwan ja jai ngeun tao rai (How much should I pay?)

Reason for edit: forgot to add that you can replace น่า with ควร and vice versa...

ITR

[Briggsy]

I would use น่าจะ as detailed in Meadish's comprehensive and articulately expressed post. I'm not so confident about ควร giving the same meaning. This is only because I can't recall ควร used to mean "should have" in this way. It may well be possible.

I often preface the น่าจะ sentence with the sentence ผมพลาด or ผมผิดพลาด to make it clearer.

[taxexile]

thanks for the replies , i dont hear ควร used nearly as much as น่าจะ though , but now that that word has been "underlined" in my subconscious , i will probably notice it a lot more !

[rak sa_ngop]

yep or you could use ควร kuuwan

ผมควรจะจ่ายเงินเท่าไร pom kuuwan ja jai ngeun tao rai (How much should I pay?)

Reason for edit: forgot to add that you can replace น่า with ควร and vice versa...

ITR

Simplistically does this mean you generally can use both ควรจะ kuuwan ja or น่าจะ naa ja when wanting to express 'should' in future actions but only น่าจะ naa ja for past 'should have' actions ?

[Briggsy]

yep or you could use ควร kuuwan

ผมควรจะจ่ายเงินเท่าไร pom kuuwan ja jai ngeun tao rai (How much should I pay?)

Reason for edit: forgot to add that you can replace น่า with ควร and vice versa...

ITR

Simplistically does this mean you generally can use both ควรจะ kuuwan ja or น่าจะ naa ja when wanting to express 'should' in future actions but only น่าจะ naa ja for past 'should have' actions ?

I am definitely not definite about this one. It may be a level of formality difference rather than a time difference with ควร being more formal than น่าจะ. I only suggested hesitance in using ควร in the past as I had never heard it used like that. I'll leave this to more advanced users, I think.

[taxexile]

quoting from Higbie and Thinsans Reference Grammar.( pages 117-9)

my thai keyboard abilities are too slow to give thai transliterations , apologies.

1.should / should have.

least strong , na ja , also na thee ja...... "ought to" , "had better" and "supposed to."

ja is optional but usually included with future actions or to emphasize hypothetical meanings with "should have"

2. stronger form , kuan is stronger than na , ja is optional when it means "should" , but needed with "should have"

3. mai kuan , is "shouldnt" or "ought not" , meaning that its improper or inappropriate to do the action.

ja and leuy are included with "shouldnt have."

4. "its likely that" , both na ja and kuan ja may be used.

5. somkuan , the formal form of kuan

this book , whilst covering every eventuality thoroughly , i find hard to learn from.

[In the Rai!]

yep or you could use ควร kuuwan

ผมควรจะจ่ายเงินเท่าไร pom kuuwan ja jai ngeun tao rai (How much should I pay?)

Reason for edit: forgot to add that you can replace น่า with ควร and vice versa...

ITR

Simplistically does this mean you generally can use both ควรจะ kuuwan ja or น่าจะ naa ja when wanting to express 'should' in future actions but only น่าจะ naa ja for past 'should have' actions ?

I would use and have heard it used in the past aswell. Probably not as much as น่าจะ though. IMO ควรจะ is stronger than น่าจะ . It ควรจะ can be at times used like a strong "ought to eat" etc, whereas น่าจะ is not as strong.

As for the past ควร can be used and it is only when you really should have done something, but you didnt.

ตอนเช้าวันนี้ผมบอกกับตัวเองว่า ควรลดอาหาร เเต่ก็ยังกีนมากอยู่ดี

This morning I told myself that I should reduce the amount of food I eat but I still ate alot anyway.

ITR

[meadish_sweetball]

quoting from Higbie and Thinsans Reference Grammar.( pages 117-9)

my thai keyboard abilities are too slow to give thai transliterations , apologies.

1.should / should have.

least strong , na ja , also na thee ja...... "ought to" , "had better" and "supposed to."

ja is optional but usually included with future actions or to emphasize hypothetical meanings with "should have"

2. stronger form , kuan is stronger than na , ja is optional when it means "should" , but needed with "should have"

3. mai kuan , is "shouldnt" or "ought not" , meaning that its improper or inappropriate to do the action.

ja and leuy are included with "shouldnt have."

4. "its likely that" , both na ja and kuan ja may be used.

5. somkuan , the formal form of kuan

this book , whilst covering every eventuality thoroughly , i find hard to learn from.

Hi Tax,

I also have Higbie's book. While I thoroughly respect the monumental effort they have made in putting it together, I do not trust it 100%.

I have found David Smyth's 'Thai - An Essential Grammar' more valuable. Even though it is a lot less extensive, it does seem to be spot on in every claim it makes.

As for which one to use, I think I ended up choosing น่าจะ because it is more spoken language. Also ควร has a sense of 'what is appropriate/right and proper' from a moral sense, that did not really ring with your examples.

Still, I would not say ควรจะ is wrong, it does work. Just did not feel 'as right' to me.

The following is shamelessly copied from Paknam Web Forum because it is such an excellent explanation:

so essentially is can use either ควรจะ or น่าจะ. by any chance, does น่าจะ carry a more "authoritative" expression than ควรจะ?

excellent question! I'm about to post about it. Actually it is other way round

ควรจะ is more authoritative, like when doctors said you should take the tablet twice a day, or you should stop smoking etc. it will be ควรจะ;

ควรจะ also has little hint of order in it like teacher tell the class that they should read the next chapter of the book before next lesson. นักเรียนควรอ่านบทต่อไปก่อนที่จะมาเรียนชั่วโมงหน้า

น่าจะ is kind of giving suggestion or opinion like you suggest to your wife that she should eat before go out so she won't have to buy an expensive sandwich, คุณน่าจะทานอะไรก่อนออกไปข้างนอก she might or might not do what you said.

It is also use when it is past tense, like "we should have done this and that" e.g. you and your wife are in the middle of nowhere and the petrol ran out, you can say to her that we should have stopped at the last petrol station 2 km ago. (เราน่าจะแวะที่ปั๊มน้ำมันเมื่อ 2 กิโลก่อน). Or your wife who gone out without eating before in contrary to your suggestion now hungry and have to pay for expensive food, she can say to herself ฉันน่าจะืทานอะไรก่อนออกมาข้างนอก.

another case where you use น่าจะื is when you are uncertain of what you say, like you wife asks you when will you come back home, you think it should be about 5pm = น่าจะกลับบ้านประมาณ 5 โมงเย็น

Therefore, from you example, it depends on who say to whom and what is the purpose;

e.g.

- teacher said to a student that took so long to do a task and not even finish yet; it should not take you that long => เธอไม่ควรจะใช้เวลานานขนาดนี้

- a disabled person tells a fully active friend that it took him half an hour to walk from here to the shop but it should not take you that long = คุณไม่น่าจะใช้เวลานานขนาดนี้

note that since the sentence is "it should not take you that long"; in thai word order --> You should not take that long to do it. therefore my above translation has เธอ/คุณ (You) as a Subject of the sentence instead of มัน (it)

However, if your sentence is just "it should not take that long" (without you) then มัน is the subject and to translate this to Thai, it would be มันไม่(น่าจะ/ควรจะ)(ใช้เวลา)นานขนาดนี้ (e.g. you wife told you that she was waiting for the bus for over an hour so you said "it should not take that long" (it=the bus) hence มันไม่น่าจะนานขนาดนี้

that's it .. hope my lenghty post not gonna confuse anyone