"we" instead of "I"

[XGM]

Heard the word เรา being used various times when the speaker clearly refers to himself / herself and not to some plural "we". When is that a correct usage?

 

Similar question about เขา when used as "I" instead of the standard "he" or "she", and also ตัวเอง that apparently can be used as both "you" / "yourself" as well as "I" / "Me" ?!

[Lorry]

 

เรา for "I" is informal usage by females or gays, speaking with friends

เขา for "I" is even more intimate, said by females to close female friends or to a boyfriend. In youth language it is also used by men.

 

In English,  you can ask your buddy "Hungry?" instead of "Are you hungry?".  In Thai,  every sentence works like this (pronouns are not necessary). 

And just like your buddy's answer "Yes, bloody hungry!" means "I am hungry" without having to say "I", the meaning of ตัวเอง is clear from the context. 

 

43 minutes ago, XGM said:

standard "he" or "she"

Beware: what old textbooks and teachers might call "standard" is very, very formal, up to a point where it's just plain wrong. "Chan rak khun" is not a Thai sentence. "I love you" translates into "รัก".

[XGM]

1 hour ago, Lorry said:

เขา for "I" is even more intimate, said by females to close female friends or to a boyfriend. In youth language it is also used by men.

I was corrected, apparently the right word in this case should be เค้า rather than เขา ?

[carlyai]

7 hours ago, Lorry said:

 

เรา for "I" is informal usage by females or gays, speaking with friends

เขา for "I" is even more intimate, said by females to close female friends or to a boyfriend. In youth language it is also used by men.

 

In English,  you can ask your buddy "Hungry?" instead of "Are you hungry?".  In Thai,  every sentence works like this (pronouns are not necessary). 

And just like your buddy's answer "Yes, bloody hungry!" means "I am hungry" without having to say "I", the meaning of ตัวเอง is clear from the context. 

 

Beware: what old textbooks and teachers might call "standard" is very, very formal, up to a point where it's just plain wrong. "Chan rak khun" is not a Thai sentence. "I love you" translates into "รัก".

"Chan rak khun". 

'Chan' means male or female, (to me anyway), so a male or female or LGBXYZ can say it.

So I don't see why "Chan rak khun" is not a Thai expression. ????

[BritManToo]

29 minutes ago, carlyai said:

"Chan rak khun". 

'Chan' means male or female, (to me anyway), so a male or female or LGBXYZ can say it.

So I don't see why "Chan rak khun" is not a Thai expression. ????

Love is intimate

Chan/khun is impersonal. 

So they don't go in the same sentence. 

 

Rak tur, would be more normal. 

[Lorry]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Love is intimate

Chan/khun is impersonal. 

So they don't go in the same sentence. 

 

Rak tur, would be more normal. 

Correct.

When in love, what a Thai whispers into the ear of his/her partner is just "rak" or "rak xxx", xxx being the nickname of the partner, e.g. "rak Kai".

[carlyai]

From what I remember at school, a sentence in the English language has a subject verb and object.

Is a Thai sentence different?

 

[Lorry]

17 hours ago, carlyai said:

From what I remember at school, a sentence in the English language has a subject verb and object.

Is a Thai sentence different?

 

Yes. Very different. 

 

But even in English many sentences don't have an object: 

"It's hot."

"Saddam was hanged".

 

English sentences without a subject are rare. 

"Fancy a threesome?"

"Fűck off!"

 

In Thai, subjects are necessary only if they convey information.  Otherwise,  they are often omitted:

 

Wanni rawn maak!  Today it's very hot!

The English subject "it" conveys no information. In Thai, this kind of "empty" subject is omitted. 

 

Hiu khao!  I am hungry! Even the English are smart enough to figure out from context who is the person that's hungry, but they still have to use the subject "I". Thais don't have to do this.

 

Objects, on the other hand,  are often necessary in Thai where they would not be necessary in English:

 

I am hungry! Hiu khao! The object "rice" is not necessary in English. 

Tham arai yu? An nangsi. What are you doing? I am reading.  In Thai, both subjects ate omitted, but the object "a book" is not necessary in English and usually omitted.

 

 

[KhaoNiaw]

On 5/18/2023 at 10:24 PM, Lorry said:

 

เรา for "I" is informal usage by females or gays, speaking with friends

เรา is used much much more widely than that. Even in quite formal situations. Listen for it. This is a culture where the 'we' is often more important than the 'I'. And people also look for ways to avoid 'I'.  

[kokesaat]

3 hours ago, KhaoNiaw said:

เรา is used much much more widely than that. Even in quite formal situations. Listen for it. This is a culture where the 'we' is often more important than the 'I'. And people also look for ways to avoid 'I'.  

Or, people will speak in the third person.....me, being Uncle John:

ลุงจอห์นอยากไปสวนสัตว์ instead of ผทอยากไปสวนสัตว์ 

[kokesaat]

That should have been 

ผมอยากไปสวนสัตว์ 

 

•  
• Quote

 

[Lorry]

6 hours ago, kokesaat said:

That should have been 

ผมอยากไปสวนสัตว์ 

 

•  
• Quote

 

Most simple way to say this: อยากไปสวนสัตว์ 

If you really want to use "I" you can use just your name (usually young people do this,  especially females, it may for some people sound gay if a male does it)

or just "lung", "phi" or whatever term of relationship is appropriate. 

"Relationship + name" is rarely used. 

[Lorry]

11 hours ago, KhaoNiaw said:

And people also look for ways to avoid 'I'. 

I agree.

Another way to avoid a Thai word for "I" is to use the English word  "I" (and also the English word "you") when speaking Thai.  Used with friends by people who are  not too old (cut-off age maybe 45, not sure about this)

[XGM]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:04 PM, Lorry said:

Correct.

When in love, what a Thai whispers into the ear of his/her partner is just "rak" or "rak xxx", xxx being the nickname of the partner, e.g. "rak Kai".

Or just "rak na"

[XGM]

On 5/20/2023 at 2:12 PM, KhaoNiaw said:

people also look for ways to avoid 'I'.

Can you expand on the reasons for that? trying to be less assertive? Even the mention of "I" is considered somewhat vulgar or forward?

[XGM]

On 5/20/2023 at 6:04 PM, kokesaat said:

Or, people will speak in the third person

In some cases this freaks me out, for example, retired school teachers who still refer to themselves as "Ajahn" years after they stopped teaching and when talking to people that never have been and never will be their students.