"contradictions" In Learning Thai

[my benny rai]

I realize that there are some difference in usage when learning a language. For example, จะ (ja) is listed as either mid or low tone. It should be low tone but many people seem to pronounce it in mid tone. I tend to use mid tone to make it easier, but low tone when I speak slowly for emphasis.

Nevertheless, different books of mine and sources on the net list 20 or 21 initial consonant sounds. For example, http://thaiarc.tu.ac.th/thai/thindex.htm says there are 20 whereas http://www.thai-language.com/default.aspx?ref=consonants states there are 21. I have consulted my many language books and it is a toss up between 20 and 21.

What do you think is the cause of this difference in opinion? Is there a guilty consonant who is causing all this controversy? 555 I am going to look over my books again tonight, but I would be interested if we could find out this mystery together. It will be interesting if we can come up with the reason why there is a difference in opinion.

See you back here later.

[kriswillems]

the silent อ might or might not be considred as an initial consonant sound.

Edited March 15, 2007 by kriswillems

[jeabsun]

To be honest, I do not know even though I am Thai. I actually have no idea about it. But I think I may have the answer for the question about the word "Ja". I am not really know which word you are talking about. At this point, I can think of two different words which can be written as "Ja". This is the difficulty of learning Thai because transliteration cannot represent all Thai words. For this case, Ja could be "จะ", which you mentioned in your post, or "จ๊ะ" which has a bit higher tone. You can distinguish these two words from the context. If it is at the end of the sentence, I think it is more likely to be "จ๊ะ" (higher tone). But if it in the middle of the sentence and it normally comes before the verb of the sentence, it should be "จะ"low tone). For example, "Chun ja pai wat" which means I am going to a temple.

[meadish_sweetball]

the silent อ might or might not be considred as an initial consonant sound.

I think you have found the point of contention right there. Nice one!

[rgs2001uk]

To be honest, I do not know even though I am Thai. I actually have no idea about it. But I think I may have the answer for the question about the word "Ja". I am not really know which word you are talking about. At this point, I can think of two different words which can be written as "Ja". This is the difficulty of learning Thai because transliteration cannot represent all Thai words. For this case, Ja could be "จะ", which you mentioned in your post, or "จ๊ะ" which has a bit higher tone. You can distinguish these two words from the context. If it is at the end of the sentence, I think it is more likely to be "จ๊ะ" (higher tone). But if it in the middle of the sentence and it normally comes before the verb of the sentence, it should be "จะ"low tone). For example, "Chun ja pai wat" which means I am going to a temple.

sorry if i get this wrong, but to clarify for me, sorry no thai keyboard.

ja, at the end of a sentence, i always thought this implied agreement, eg , yes or ok

ja in the middle of the sentence before a verb, eg chan ja bai wat, i thought this meant, i will go to the temple, in the near future. does, chan bai wat, not mean , i am going to the temple, as opposed to i will go?

thanks for any help

[jeabsun]

rgs2001uk,

If you say just the word "Ja", it means ok or yes. But when it is at the end of the sentence, it could be meaningless, like putting "ka" or "krab" at the end of the sentence to make it more polite. However, "Ja" is normally used when you speak with your friends, boyfriends, or girlfriends. It is not commonly used for a formal conversation such as speaking to your boss (except that he does not mind).

For your second question, when you say "Chun Ja Pai Wat", it means "I am going to go to the temple". I am planing to go there. It is not necessary to be in the near future (like tomorrow). It could be next week or next month. However, we normally also mention the time at the end of the sentence for the case that we are not going there right now. Actually, there is another word that we put in front of "Ja" (which is kum-lung) if we are going to go there (or doing something) right now. So the complete sentence will be "Chun Kum-Lung-Ja Pai Wat" which means that I am going to the temple right now. However, thai language is flexible. You can also use "kum lung ja" for the cases that you are not doing it right now. In this case you should tell when you are going to go (or do) at the end of the sentence. For example, "Chun Kum Lung Ja Pai Wat" <--- I am going to the temple right now, and "Chun Kum Lung Ja Pai Wat subda na" <--- I am going to the temple next week. The phrase "subda na" means next week. I think in many cases, we just shorten the sentence by reducing "Kum-Lung-Ja" to "Ja". In my opinion, when I use "Kum-Lung-Ja" and mention that when I am going to go there (or to do it), it means that I have made a plan for that.

For the sentence "Chun Pai Wat", I would say that I will say that if I've already been there. It is like a past tense for me. However, it depends on the context. Normally we will say like that when someone asks us like "where did you go last night", for example. So, we reply "Chun Pai Wat ma" which "means I went to the temple" (putting "ma" at the end of the sentence will make it complete). In this case, if you say "Chun Ja Pai Wat", it will sounds funny. It 's similar to the situation that you ask me "Where did you go last night?" and I reply "I am going to the temple"!

[rgs2001uk]

jeabsun

thanks for taking the time to reply.

as you say , thai language has many surprises, i find the more i learn, sometimes the more confused i get.

as you say, a lot of it depends on who you are talking to, and the context of the conversation.

i find sometimes people are almost talking in a form of shorthand, the context is understood by the people talking, but to the casual listener, it is not so easy to understand.

i like also the subtle use of words like saap, as oppossed to roo/roojak, or as you say sapda na as oppossed to athit na.

i also find most of the time, gam lang is omitted, eg tamarai instead of gam lang tamarai.

i find most of the time the context or tense will come at the end of the sentence, as in bai nai ma, this usually tell me the how to answer in the past tense.

sorry to talk about such basic matters, but i feel you have to get the foundations right to build on.

again thank you for your help.

[ColPyat]

jeabsun

thanks for taking the time to reply.

as you say , thai language has many surprises, i find the more i learn, sometimes the more confused i get.

as you say, a lot of it depends on who you are talking to, and the context of the conversation.

i find sometimes people are almost talking in a form of shorthand, the context is understood by the people talking, but to the casual listener, it is not so easy to understand.

i like also the subtle use of words like saap, as oppossed to roo/roojak, or as you say sapda na as oppossed to athit na.

i also find most of the time, gam lang is omitted, eg tamarai instead of gam lang tamarai.

i find most of the time the context or tense will come at the end of the sentence, as in bai nai ma, this usually tell me the how to answer in the past tense.

sorry to talk about such basic matters, but i feel you have to get the foundations right to build on.

again thank you for your help.

The difficulty here with the different words are forms of politeness.

'Sabdaa' is more polite than 'athit'. But one has to be careful in which social context to use the politer words. Either you sound to snotty in a common setting, or, if you use the more colloquial forms in a formal setting you will offend people there, and sound like a hick.

There are many words used in different classes/social settings. 'Eating' for example: the outright rude 'daek' (good though when closed friends joke), the common 'kin', but in a formal setting you should use 'tan', then even more formal 'labatan', and the royal 'savoy'.

The minimalism of colloquial Thai, leaving out all unnecessary parts if the context is clear, is one of the nice aspects of Thai, good for lazy people.

[rgs2001uk]

thanks for the reply ColPyat

i sometimes feel i am learning 2 different languages, the language of the soi as spoken by locals, and television thai as spoken in the news etc.

i suppose its like watching the bbc news and then going down to your local bar, 2 different languages.

now i tend to err on the side of caution, and speak the formal language, unless its obvious which form to speak, depending on your location and or company

[ColPyat]

thanks for the reply ColPyat

i sometimes feel i am learning 2 different languages, the language of the soi as spoken by locals, and television thai as spoken in the news etc.

i suppose its like watching the bbc news and then going down to your local bar, 2 different languages.

now i tend to err on the side of caution, and speak the formal language, unless its obvious which form to speak, depending on your location and or company

For me, it is actually even more than two languages.

The language as spoken in the sois, the polite language (both i am comfortable with), the language as spoken in the news (i still have difficulties to understand it properly), the written language (i need people to interpret it for me, as it uses terms i have never encountered in spoken Thai), and the royal language (which i have not the slightest clue about as i don't move in palace circles).

And that is just central Thai...

[meadish_sweetball]

The language as spoken in the sois, the polite language (both i am comfortable with), the language as spoken in the news (i still have difficulties to understand it properly), the written language (i need people to interpret it for me, as it uses terms i have never encountered in spoken Thai), and the royal language (which i have not the slightest clue about as i don't move in palace circles).

And that is just central Thai...

Agreed, but don't forget the written newspaper language, which is even more stylized than the language used on the TV news.

[Johpa]

the silent อ might or might not be considred as an initial consonant sound.

I think you have found the point of contention right there. Nice one!

Absolutely, as the glottal stop represented by a syllable initial อ is not recognized phonemically in English nor in most Indo-European languages although it does exist phonetically. Thus it is often inaccurately described as a "silent" letter. But it is recognized in Thai as well as in other language such as Arabic.

[ColPyat]

The language as spoken in the sois, the polite language (both i am comfortable with), the language as spoken in the news (i still have difficulties to understand it properly), the written language (i need people to interpret it for me, as it uses terms i have never encountered in spoken Thai), and the royal language (which i have not the slightest clue about as i don't move in palace circles).

And that is just central Thai...

Agreed, but don't forget the written newspaper language, which is even more stylized than the language used on the TV news.

Every time my wife reads me an article in the papers i don't understand anything. The problem with the interpretation into common Thai is, that often my wife, not being very educated, has huge difficulties understanding the articles as well.

[my benny rai]

Sorry I have been away for a time and had to put this puzzle on the backburner. I see someone else has also solved it.

I agree with Kris... It is that silly little อ (Aor Ahng). If you count it there are 21 consonant sounds and if you don't count it there are 20 consonant sounds.

Someone said they feel like they are learning different languages while studying Thai. I prefer to look at the Thai language as having many "layers." For me, I am happy enough with my Thai to the point where I can hold a conversation with someone and read notices or memos that concern me, etc. I can always surf the net for English news or watch BBC or CNN.

One thing we need to remember that the Thai language the kids learn past Grade 6 is Thai that is generally not used on a daily basis. (One of the reasons the kids hate the subject so much.) Even many Thais struggle with some things that are written in books or newspapers due to the different "layers" of the language."

Edited March 19, 2007 by my benny rai

[realthaideal]

Agreed, but don't forget the written newspaper language, which is even more stylized than the language used on the TV news.

I totally get what you say about this Meadish. I have also read your news headline thread. Real good idear, that one !

The way I explain how I can speak and read so much and do business, but still can't read a paper is like this:

If the paper said "Bad Man Go in Small Store Shoot Owner Run Away With Money" I would understand it easy. It's plain vocabulary - some of the first 1000 words you learn.

However in English even we use a precise set of owrds not always spoken to get the full impact for minimal space "Robber Shoots Shopkeeper, Flees with Loot"

Some of those words are pretty easy in Thai, but I remember once spending a good half hour trying to decode a similar headline. There are just so many ways to express some concepts like run away / flee /disappear / take off. It just requires getting to around 5000 words to have all the proper synonyms. Thing is, this precise language of the press would also make for animated storytelling with friends, methinks.

[jeabsun]

rgs2001uk,

You are right. we (Thais) often shorten the sentence when we speak. For example, I am talking to you and I want to ask you if you want to go (some place that we have been discussed). I am not going to say the complete sentence like "khun yarg pai mai?" (Do you wanna go?) but I could say just "yarg pai mai?" (wanna go?). We do this a lot. When I am talking to you, I can omit the subject "you" so I just start the sentence with a verb. But if we are talking about the third person, we cannot omit his name because it is not obvious that who we are talking about.

I think you may have a misunderstanding about the meanings of "roo" and "roo-jak". Their meanings are not exactly the same. "Roo" means "know". We know about some stories, some news, and etc. For these cases, we use "roo". But "roo-jak" basically refers to a person or a place. For example, I "roo-jak" this person (or this places). For this case, you cannot say just I "roo" this person (or this place). "Roo-jak" may be able to refer to something else but I think we normally use "roo-jak" when we are referring to a person or a place.

ColPyat, I think that "subda" is not more polite than "athit", but subda is the correct and more formal word. I think "Athit" is a short of wan-athit (Sunday). However, Nowadays, "athit" also refers to "week" in the spoken language. But it still cannot be used for a formal writing. Typically, when we refer to Sunday, we will say "wan-athit" for Sunday. "wan" means "day". "Athit" means "Sun". So, if you say just "See you "Athit na", someone may be confused whether you are referring to next week or next Sunday. However, you should know which one from the conversation you have. But if you say "See you "wan-Athit na". This obviously refers to "Next Sunday".

Edited March 21, 2007 by jeabsun

[rgs2001uk]

jeabsun

thanks for replying, very kind of you.

i was aware of the difference of roo/roojak, but thanks anyway.

will really need to get a thai keyboard, this transliteration doesnt help.

at least being able to read a bit of the language helps with the correct tone and vowel length.

also i find it is good to get a native thai speakers thoughts on where we farangs go wrong.

again thank you.