Enough Is Enough

[mangkorn]

Am wondering if there is a rule for the order of using พอ and เพียง together?

Sometimes, it's พอเพียง and other times it's เพียงพอ. I've been corrected in both ways, which is more than a little confusing.

Is there a rule, or could it be that it just sounds better one way - or the other way - depending on the whole of the sentence? (English is like that, wherein you just can't explain sometimes why one word is better than another, according to the sound of the whole phrase.)

Cheers.

[Rikker]

Seems to me that เพียงพอ is more used in the sense of "enough (and not lacking)," as in กับข้าวก็เพียงพอ "there's enough food (but no excess)," (and กับข้าวไม่เพียงพอ would be "there's not enough food'); while พอเพียง is used more in the sense of "enough (and not more)," as with the now well-known phrase เศรษฐกิจพอเพียง "sufficiency economy" (i.e. don't try to live beyond your means).

Of course, I don't think there's any reason why they have to be distinguished in this way. It's just my (completely subjective) sense of the usage trend.

[Torv]

Don't worry about it is what I'd say.

I'm a fluent Thai speaker, and I hardly know what the differences between the two.

[DavidHouston]

Well, the question regarding the difference between the terms "พอเพียง" and ""เพียงพอ" came up today in the context of 2550 Constitution to be voted on by the Thai electorate on August 19th. An article in The Nation quotes Assoc Prof Prasit Pipawattapanich from Thammasat University's Law Faculty in parsing out the two terms in the context of sufficiency of arms for the military:

" . . . The difference between two controversial but crucial articles pertaining to the military in the junta-sponsored draft constitution is that one became headline news and the other has barely been mentioned.

The one that's been attracting attention is Article 309, which grants de facto amnesty for the junta's past and, arguably, even future actions. The article that got little notice in the news media is Article 77, which states that it is the state's duty to "adequately" provide "modern" arms and armed forces.

The words "modern" and "adequate" didn't appear in the 1997 constitution, and critics like Assoc Prof Prasit Pipawattapanich, from Thammasat University's Law Faculty, pointed out that it is quite the opposite of what Article 83 says. Article 83 states that the state must follow the "sufficiency" policy when it comes to arms purchase, but it is "adequacy", or phieng phor in the Thai, and not "sufficiency" or phor phieng that is preferred.

There was virtually no debate on the issue when the junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) penned it, before the junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) speedily approved it, also without any debate or objection."

So, there apparently is a difference. For more, see http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/13...cs_30044769.php.

[mangkorn]

Well, the question regarding the difference between the terms "???????" and ""???????" came up today in the context of 2550 Constitution to be voted on by the Thai electorate on August 19th. An article in The Nation quotes Assoc Prof Prasit Pipawattapanich from Thammasat University's Law Faculty in parsing out the two terms in the context of sufficiency of arms for the military:

" . . . The difference between two controversial but crucial articles pertaining to the military in the junta-sponsored draft constitution is that one became headline news and the other has barely been mentioned.

The one that's been attracting attention is Article 309, which grants de facto amnesty for the junta's past and, arguably, even future actions. The article that got little notice in the news media is Article 77, which states that it is the state's duty to "adequately" provide "modern" arms and armed forces.

The words "modern" and "adequate" didn't appear in the 1997 constitution, and critics like Assoc Prof Prasit Pipawattapanich, from Thammasat University's Law Faculty, pointed out that it is quite the opposite of what Article 83 says. Article 83 states that the state must follow the "sufficiency" policy when it comes to arms purchase, but it is "adequacy", or phieng phor in the Thai, and not "sufficiency" or phor phieng that is preferred.

There was virtually no debate on the issue when the junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) penned it, before the junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) speedily approved it, also without any debate or objection."

So, there apparently is a difference. For more, see http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/13...cs_30044769.php.

Nice catch, David. The question about the subtle difference between the two could be a good test to challenge teachers and other folks with. I'd guess most people haven't given it much thought. Should be interesting to find out. Cheers.

[soundman]

Had a good chat with wife about this last night & she explained to me that one version (sorry I've forgotton which) is used when describing something that has come from a royal (or nobility) command or decree such as the "sufficiency economy" & the other is used by the everyday man in regular conversation.

Cheers,

Soundman.

[LookSaMoon]

For me .. I've heard พอเพียง be used with เศรษฐกิจ( เศรษฐกิจพอเพียง )

and cant think which word or sentense can be fit it as เศรษฐกิจ

For เพียงพอ .. I found it's used in song or in the news or

column that relate to government issue but dont use it in conversation.

If wanna say enough I will just say "พอ" ex มีเงินพอใช้ .

Hmmm... ตอนนี้คิดออกแค่นี้

[DavidHouston]

Many of use stand accused of continuing to flog a dead horse (a reduntant statement?) at times. However, just when I thought I had this thing figured out, I came across the following sentence in yesterday's Matichon:

". . . เมื่อได้วิทยฐานะแล้ว รัฐยังทำทีท่าว่าจะไม่มีเงินจ่ายให้พอเพียงและครบถ้วน ทำให้สะท้อนว่า ปฏิรูปการศึกษาแล้ว ครูมีขวัญกำลังใจแค่ไหน?"

"Once [a teacher] has obtained her educational qualifications, the government acts as if it does not have enought money to pay her a [salary commensurate with her education]. The teacher will think, "even after educational reforms how much enthusiasm can I maintain?"

In this context I would have expected the sentence to use the word "เพียงพอ", not "พอเพียง" to say "sufficient to pay the teacher. But then I noticed another reversal in normal terminology: the word "ทีท่า" instead of "ท่าที". Although I have seen the former used before, I believe the latter is the more common phraseology.

Does anyone have any thoughts?