Passive Voice Construction In Thai

[Richard W]

How about this Thai sentence which uses the verb หัก "hahk"?

เขาแขนหักเนื่องจากอุบัติเหตุทางรถจักรยานสองล้อ "kaow kaen hahk neung-jaahk oba-dtee-heaht taang rot-jahk-a-yaahn sorng looh""=His arm was broken in a bicycle accident.

หัก is still intransitive in your example. I'm not sure how to analyse เขาแขนหัก /khau khAAn hak/ (/AA/=<ae>), but I think the last two words from a new verb, meaning 'to suffer a broken arm'. Perhaps someone can offer an informative alternative analysis. I've a vague recollection of a process called something like 'subject possessor promotion' (i.e. rearranging a sentence to make the possessor of the subject the subject of the new sentence), of which the Thai sentence would be an example.

If I break something, it breaks. 'Break' is active in both halves of the previous sentence, so I don't actually see the point of your sentence, which could be rendered, 'His arm broke in a bicycle accident'. I think a better rendering would be, 'He suffered a broken arm in a bicycle accident'. The best way of promoting the person to the subject in a translation is probably 'He broke his arm in a bicycle accident'.

Did the arm "actively" break itself in the accident or did he break his arm on purpose?

Self-destructive like Usama's kamikaze pilots?

Is there some point to this last paragraph?

[snowleopard]

How about this Thai sentence which uses the verb หัก "hahk"?

เขาแขนหักเนื่องจากอุบัติเหตุทางรถจักรยานสองล้อ "kaow kaen hahk neung-jaahk oba-dtee-heaht taang rot-jahk-a-yaahn sorng looh""=His arm was broken in a bicycle accident.

หัก is still intransitive in your example. I'm not sure how to analyse เขาแขนหัก /khau khAAn hak/ (/AA/=<ae>), but I think the last two words from a new verb, meaning 'to suffer a broken arm'. Perhaps someone can offer an informative alternative analysis. I've a vague recollection of a process called something like 'subject possessor promotion' (i.e. rearranging a sentence to make the possessor of the subject the subject of the new sentence), of which the Thai sentence would be an example.

If I break something, it breaks. 'Break' is active in both halves of the previous sentence, so I don't actually see the point of your sentence, which could be rendered, 'His arm broke in a bicycle accident'. I think a better rendering would be, 'He suffered a broken arm in a bicycle accident'. The best way of promoting the person to the subject in a translation is probably 'He broke his arm in a bicycle accident'.

Did the arm "actively" break itself in the accident or did he break his arm on purpose?

Self-destructive like Usama's kamikaze pilots?

Is there some point to this last paragraph?

หัก is still intransitive in your example.  I'm not sure how to analyse เขาแขนหัก /khau khAAn hak/ (/AA/=<ae>), but I think the last two words from a new verb, meaning 'to suffer a broken arm'.

If I break something, it breaks.  'Break' is active in both halves of the previous sentence, so I don't actually see the point of your sentence

Did you actively break your arm or did it get passively broken due to the accident?

Did the arm "actively" break itself in the accident or did he break his arm on purpose?

Self-destructive like Usama's kamikaze pilots?

Is there some point to this last paragraph?

Did the terrorists actively kill themselves in the suicide attack or did they get passively killed like the innocents?

If there is no point taken by you there Rickie;then I guess you've made your point quite clear right there!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

Did the arm "actively" break itself in the accident or did he break his arm on purpose?

Self-destructive like Usama's kamikaze pilots?

Is there some point to this last paragraph?

Did the terrorists actively kill themselves in the suicide attack or did they get passively killed like the innocents?

If there is no point taken by you there Rickie;then I guess you've made your point quite clear right there!

I'll make the wild assumption that you're not playing word games, but are thinking in Swedish, unlikely though the latter is.

Whereas English has many transitive/intransitive pairs, in some European languages the form corresponding to the English intransitive is reflexive, which can easily turn into a passive for verbs in general (e.g. French, Russian, and, I think, Swedish). However, in the English intransitive verbs like 'break', there is no implication as to agent - the concept of agent is completely absent.

We should also remember that in the original formulation, the passive is a voice, contrasted in Greek with the active and middle. There is no reason why a language cannot have several passives - it can be said that English has two passives, a 'be' passive and a 'get' passive (I can't put my finger on the semantic difference - may be it's subtle, like the Greek and especially the Sanskrit active/middle contrasts), and I'd be tempted to set up active v. reflexive v. passive for French.

We also have the spectacle, at least in Latin, of a deponent verb (i.e. a verb with passive forms only, no active forms) having a direct object. The (peculiar?) English habit of allowing any object, even of a preposition, to be made the subject in a passivisation, might come to yield similar oddities.

Examples of the English peculiarity:

• The dog was given a bone. (You (Snowleopard) have already given an example of this sort.)
  
• Your bed wasn't slept in last night.
  

[snowleopard]

Did the arm "actively" break itself in the accident or did he break his arm on purpose?

Self-destructive like Usama's kamikaze pilots?

Is there some point to this last paragraph?

Did the terrorists actively kill themselves in the suicide attack or did they get passively killed like the innocents?

If there is no point taken by you there Rickie;then I guess you've made your point quite clear right there!

I'll make the wild assumption that you're not playing word games, but are thinking in Swedish, unlikely though the latter is.

Whereas English has many transitive/intransitive pairs, in some European languages the form corresponding to the English intransitive is reflexive, which can easily turn into a passive for verbs in general (e.g. French, Russian, and, I think, Swedish). However, in the English intransitive verbs like 'break', there is no implication as to agent - the concept of agent is completely absent.

We should also remember that in the original formulation, the passive is a voice, contrasted in Greek with the active and middle. There is no reason why a language cannot have several passives - it can be said that English has two passives, a 'be' passive and a 'get' passive (I can't put my finger on the semantic difference - may be it's subtle, like the Greek and especially the Sanskrit active/middle contrasts), and I'd be tempted to set up active v. reflexive v. passive for French.

We also have the spectacle, at least in Latin, of a deponent verb (i.e. a verb with passive forms only, no active forms) having a direct object. The (peculiar?) English habit of allowing any object, even of a preposition, to be made the subject in a passivisation, might come to yield similar oddities.

Examples of the English peculiarity:

• The dog was given a bone. (You (Snowleopard) have already given an example of this sort.)
  
• Your bed wasn't slept in last night.
  

However, in the English intransitive verbs like 'break',

Are you trying to say that this English verb is not transitive or are you just fogging the whole thing?

The verb "to break" is both a transitive and an intransitive one Richard.

The M.Webster dictionary lists 24 transitive uses of "break"while the number of intransitive definitions reaches only 19!

The definition "to fracture or break a bone" is definitely a transitive one!

"He breaks down",is an intransitive use of the verb "to break".

I'll make the wild assumption that you're not playing word games, but are thinking in Swedish, unlikely though the latter is.

Maybe I'm thinking mostly in Thai nowadays because I speak only that lingo except while teaching English.

English is definitely my first language but I speak at least 4 others fluently!

Maybe six if I'm not too strict with my definition of fluency.

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

I'll make the wild assumption that you're not playing word games, but are thinking in Swedish, unlikely though the latter is.

It seems I was wrong on both counts.

However, in the English intransitive verbs like 'break',

Are you trying to say that this English verb is not transitive or are you just fogging the whole thing?

The verb "to break" is both a transitive and an intransitive one Richard.

That some English verbs are both transitive and intransitive (with the subject of the intransitive verb corresponding to the agent of the transitive verb) was my starting point. However, หัก /hak/ 'break' is always intransitive. Contrariwise, I think French casser 'break' is always transitive - an equivalent of the intransitive is formed by using the reflexive.

As we do not treat the use of intransitive 'break' in English as the use of a passive of transitive 'break' in English, I feel we should not see the complete removal of the agent and the promotion of the patient to subject as forming the passive in Thai. The only difference I see is that as far as I am aware the latter process can be done with all transitive verbs in Thai, but I am not so sure about English. Can we say that a certain food 'eats well'?

There is another difference in Thai - Thai transitive verbs with expressed subjects seem to require expressed objects, whereas objects can be freely omitted in English without having to use an 'anti-passive'. (This used to confuse me - I used to wonder if they were intransitive if they were used without objects!)

[sabaijai]

The definition "to fracture or break a bone" is definitely a transitive one! 

Not always. Ex:

"When I hit the ground, my arm broke in three places."

[snowleopard]

I'll make the wild assumption that you're not playing word games, but are thinking in Swedish, unlikely though the latter is.

It seems I was wrong on both counts.

However, in the English intransitive verbs like 'break',

Are you trying to say that this English verb is not transitive or are you just fogging the whole thing?

The verb "to break" is both a transitive and an intransitive one Richard.

That some English verbs are both transitive and intransitive (with the subject of the intransitive verb corresponding to the agent of the transitive verb) was my starting point. However, หัก /hak/ 'break' is always intransitive. Contrariwise, I think French casser 'break' is always transitive - an equivalent of the intransitive is formed by using the reflexive.

As we do not treat the use of intransitive 'break' in English as the use of a passive of transitive 'break' in English, I feel we should not see the complete removal of the agent and the promotion of the patient to subject as forming the passive in Thai. The only difference I see is that as far as I am aware the latter process can be done with all transitive verbs in Thai, but I am not so sure about English. Can we say that a certain food 'eats well'?

There is another difference in Thai - Thai transitive verbs with expressed subjects seem to require expressed objects, whereas objects can be freely omitted in English without having to use an 'anti-passive'. (This used to confuse me - I used to wonder if they were intransitive if they were used without objects!)

However, หัก /hak/ 'break' is always intransitive. 

Look at these two examples Richard,and then tell me that you still subscribe to the viewpoint that the English verbal phrase "to break a bone" is only intransitive.

Example 1.

"Poor little Ricardo's left arm was broken by some thugs from the Mob yesterday because he hadn't paid his dues on time."

Example 2.

"Ricardo has exactly one week to cough up the cash and pay his debt;or else,his right arm will be broken by the same gang of hoodlums,and both his kneecaps will be pulverized too"!

The thugs and hoodlums are the agent here but who's the patient?

Please tell us,and the Webster dictionary,why the English verb "to break" cannot be used transitively to construct passive voice sentences as I've done in the above examples!

I'm sure our poor little traumatized friend,Ricardo,would also be very interested in hearing the rationalizations and logical reasons you'll give him while explaining that the English verb "to break"is just an intransitive one and;thus,his bones couldn't possibly have been broken by those goons with him as a passive victimized patient!

He wouldn't have to worry about being kneecapped by them in passive voice either!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

Look at these two examples Richard,and then tell me that you still subscribe to the viewpoint that the English verbal phrase "to break a bone" is only intransitive.

Have you stopped beating you wife? I.e., where did I say that the phrase 'to break a bone' was only intransitive? I did say that หัก was intransitive; why are you confusing it with the English verb 'break'?

Actually, I'm not sure the phrase as given is transitive, even though you can just about say, 'The loan shark was broken a debtor's bone for free.' I don't think 'to break a debtor's bone' is a constituent of 'to break the loan shark a debtor's bone'. (Moreover, 'The bed wasn't slept in' doesn't make 'sleep' transitive.) Of course, 'break' in 'to break a bone' is transitive, just as 'break' is intransitive in 'for a bone to break'.

[snowleopard]

Look at these two examples Richard,and then tell me that you still subscribe to the viewpoint that the English verbal phrase "to break a bone" is only intransitive.

Have you stopped beating you wife? I.e., where did I say that the phrase 'to break a bone' was only intransitive? I did say that หัก was intransitive; why are you confusing it with the English verb 'break'?

Actually, I'm not sure the phrase as given is transitive, even though you can just about say, 'The loan shark was broken a debtor's bone for free.' I don't think 'to break a debtor's bone' is a constituent of 'to break the loan shark a debtor's bone'. (Moreover, 'The bed wasn't slept in' doesn't make 'sleep' transitive.) Of course, 'break' in 'to break a bone' is transitive, just as 'break' is intransitive in 'for a bone to break'.

Richard W Posted on Sat 2004-08-14, 00:33:56 However, หัก /hak/ 'break' is always intransitive.

Now you seem to have gotten yourself bilingually confused about the verb หัก "huck"="break",being only an intransitive one.

Look at this transitive example Richard.

แขนของเขาถูกตำรวจลับหักเมื่อซักถามโดยใช้การทรมาน=His arm was broken by the secret police while he was being tortured during the interrogation process.

Here's a little brainteaser in Thai for you to contemplate on Rickie!

เธอโกรธที่ผมหักหน้าเธอเกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้หรือเปล่า

Don't confuse yourself now,and please don't project your confusion onto me with subsequent blame,will you?

If it's too confusing for you,then just ask your wife for guidance.She might oblige without being ...!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

Richard W Posted on Sat 2004-08-14, 00:33:56 However, หัก /hak/ 'break' is always intransitive.

Now you seem to have gotten yourself bilingually confused about the verb หัก "huck"="break",being only an intransitive one.

Now you finally get to the point. I am curious as to why you have not given any active sentences with หัด as a transitive verb. However, the wrong verb meaning 'break' had lodged in my memory as being only intransitive. I withdraw the claim that หัก is not transitive.

The verb I should have quoted is แตก, which is not actually a synonym of หัก. If you think แตก can also be transitive outside set phrases, please give clear examples of transitive use. There do seem to be some idiomatic uses where the verb is transitive, but the normal related transitive use is in the phrase ทำ ... แตก, which argues that the verb is intransitive.

[snowleopard]

Richard W Posted on Sat 2004-08-14, 00:33:56 However, หัก /hak/ 'break' is always intransitive.

Now you seem to have gotten yourself bilingually confused about the verb หัก "huck"="break",being only an intransitive one.

Now you finally get to the point. I am curious as to why you have not given any active sentences with หัด as a transitive verb. However, the wrong verb meaning 'break' had lodged in my memory as being only intransitive. I withdraw the claim that หัก is not transitive.

The verb I should have quoted is แตก, which is not actually a synonym of หัก. If you think แตก can also be transitive outside set phrases, please give clear examples of transitive use. There do seem to be some idiomatic uses where the verb is transitive, but the normal related transitive use is in the phrase ทำ ... แตก, which argues that the verb is intransitive.

However, the wrong verb meaning 'break' had lodged in my memory as being only intransitive.  I withdraw the claim that หัก is not transitive.

The verb I should have quoted is แตก, which is not actually a synonym of หัก.

please give clear examples of transitive use.  There do seem to be some idiomatic uses where the verb is transitive, but the normal related transitive use is in the phrase ทำ ... แตก, which argues that the verb is intransitive.

So now you're using a red herring and are claiming that it is actually the verb dtaek",which is only intransitive,instead of หัก "huck"!

Dig yourself a foxhole and take cover now old chap.

Let's see how you can weather the shelling from this sortie.

Here are some active and passive sentences which use of the transitive verb แตก "dtaek".

1.ถังขยะหน้าบ้านผมถูกรถชนแตก=The trash-can in front of my house was smashed by a car.

2.แจกันดอกไม้ของฉันถูกแมวหลังบ้านชนแตก=The flower pot behind my house was cracked by cats.

3.ฝูงนกพิราบที่เกาะอยู่ตามหลังคาโบสถ์ พอได้ยินเสียงปืนก็พากันแตกสลายไปคนละทิศละทาง=When the gun was fired,the flock of roosting pigeons on the temple roof scattered in all directions.

4.กลุ่มนักเรียนที่จับกลุ่มตีกัน พอเห็นตำรวจก็พากันวิ่งหนีแตกสลายตัวไปในที่สุด=When the gangs of rival students,who were slugging it out in a donnybrook,saw the cops coming,they finally fled together for their lives.

Are you shell shocked now Rickie?

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

Dig yourself a foxhole and take cover now old chap.

Let's see how you can weather the shelling from this sortie.

Here are some active and passive sentences which use of the transitive verb แตก "dtaek".

1.ถังขยะหน้าบ้านผมถูกรถชนแตก=The trash-can in front of my house was smashed by a car.

2.แจกันดอกไม้ของฉันถูกแมวหลังบ้านชนแตก=The flower pot behind my house was cracked by cats.

3.ฝูงนกพิราบที่เกาะอยู่ตามหลังคาโบสถ์ พอได้ยินเสียงปืนก็พากันแตกสลายไปคนละทิศละทาง=When the gun was fired,the flock of roosting pigeons on the temple roof scattered in all directions.

4.กลุ่มนักเรียนที่จับกลุ่มตีกัน พอเห็นตำรวจก็พากันวิ่งหนีแตกสลายตัวไปในที่สุด=When the gangs of rival students,who were slugging it out in a donnybrook,saw the cops coming,they finally fled together for their lives.

Are you shell shocked now?

It looks like mere covering fire! You certainly generated plenty of smoke.

1. In none of the two cases (two examples each) is แตก used on its own as the verb!

2. In examples 1 and 2, why isn't ถูก...ชนแตก a collocation of the passive of ชน and intransitive แตก? An analogous constuction in English is 'if the window is hit and shatters'. (You may have an answer to this question; I don't.)

3. In examples 3 and 4, แตกสลาย is two intransitive verbs reinforcing themselves.

4. Do you at least admit that แตก can't be used as a transitive verb in the active voice?

[snowleopard]

Dig yourself a foxhole and take cover now old chap.

Let's see how you can weather the shelling from this sortie.

Here are some active and passive sentences which use of the transitive verb แตก "dtaek".

1.ถังขยะหน้าบ้านผมถูกรถชนแตก=The trash-can in front of my house was smashed by a car.

2.แจกันดอกไม้ของฉันถูกแมวหลังบ้านชนแตก=The flower pot behind my house was cracked by cats.

3.ฝูงนกพิราบที่เกาะอยู่ตามหลังคาโบสถ์ พอได้ยินเสียงปืนก็พากันแตกสลายไปคนละทิศละทาง=When the gun was fired,the flock of roosting pigeons on the temple roof scattered in all directions.

4.กลุ่มนักเรียนที่จับกลุ่มตีกัน พอเห็นตำรวจก็พากันวิ่งหนีแตกสลายตัวไปในที่สุด=When the gangs of rival students,who were slugging it out in a donnybrook,saw the cops coming,they finally fled together for their lives.

Are you shell shocked now?

It looks like mere covering fire! You certainly generated plenty of smoke.

1. In none of the two cases (two examples each) is แตก used on its own as the verb!

2. In examples 1 and 2, why isn't ถูก...ชนแตก a collocation of the passive of ชน and intransitive แตก? An analogous constuction in English is 'if the window is hit and shatters'. (You may have an answer to this question; I don't.)

3. In examples 3 and 4, แตกสลาย is two intransitive verbs reinforcing themselves.

4. Do you at least admit that แตก can't be used as a transitive verb in the active voice?

It looks like mere covering fire!  You certainly generated plenty of smoke.

In none of the two cases (two examples each)  is แตก used on its own as the verb!

Richard W Posted on Mon 2004-08-16, 05:07:57 I withdraw the claim that หัก is not transitive.

The verb I should have quoted is แตก, which is not actually a synonym of หัก.

Cower inside your cover won't save you this time,Tricky-Ricky!

I'm gonna smoke you out of your hole in the ground ,you cagey little foxy you!

After breaking cover,you can run but you can't hide,not even behind your own smoke screens.

Having been an initial recalcitrant,you've been converted and have already openly admitted that หัก "huck" is actually a transitive verb too, after all.

Following hot on the heels of "huck",the time is now ripe for you to make the public confession that แตก "dtaek" is a transitive verb as well as an intransitive one.

Both of them are both transitive or intransitive.

Take a good look at these two easily comprehensible examples,which are both using the transitive verb แตก "dtaek"!

1.ถังขยะแตกโดยคนขี้เมา="taang-kaya dtaek doy kon-kee-maow"=The trash-can was cracked by a drunkard.

2.แจกันดอกไม้แตกโดยแมว="jae-gun dohk-mai dtaek doy maew"=The flower pot was broken by cats.

The above evidence of "Dtaek" being a transitive verb is conclusive;so, you'd better confess and do your plea bargaining right now in the "Crack and Pot Case"!

The judge's Question to Richard: แจกันดอกไม้แตกได้อย่างไร "jae-gun dok-mai dtaek dai yaang-rai"?=How was the flower pot cracked?

Richard's Answer:มันแตกเอง "mun dtaek aeyng"=It was cracked by itself!

Let's hope the judge ain't no "crackpot" so you can receive more than one good sentence from him.

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

Can't you do selective quoting? No-one else is joining in in this ding-dong.

4. Do you at least admit that แตก can't be used as a transitive verb in the active voice?

Still unanswered!

I'm gonna smoke you out of your hole in the ground ,you cagey little foxy you!

So this is not a pursuit of the truth?

Take a good look at these two easily comprehensible examples,which are both using the transitive verb แตก "dtaek"!

1.ถังขยะแตกโดยคนขี้เมา="taang-kaya dtaek doy kon-kee-maow"=The trash-can was cracked by a drunkard.

2.แจกันดอกไม้แตกโดยแมว="jae-gun dohk-mai dtaek doy maew"=The flower pot was broken by cats.

Actually, the verb's intransitive in these sentences.

The judge's Question to Richard: แจกันดอกไม้แตกได้อย่างไร "jae-gun dok-mai dtaek dai yaang-rai"?=How was the flower pot cracked?

Richard's Answer:มันแตกเอง "mun dtaek aeyng"=It  was cracked by itself!

Falsifying the court record? Tut tut! You don't want to go the way of Lord Archer, do you?

คิดว่าแมวทำให้ตกแล้วก็แตกครับ

Let's hope the judge ain't no "crackpot" so you can  receive more than one good sentence from him.

At this stage I'd be inclined to ask for your case to be dismissed and costs awarded against you.

[meadish_sweetball]

Just to refer back to the original topic of this thread:

"Could it be that the unpleasant nature of Thai passives have poisoned the debate courtesy...?", the little fly on the wall wondered to himself.

[Richard W]

"Could it be that the unpleasant nature of Thai passives have poisoned the debate courtesy...?"

I fear not. Snowleopard dislikes something about me. Recall his comments about me in Swedish. I was surprised when he explicitly invited me to comment on whether the apparent transform NP1 VP NP2 to NP2 VP with no other marking formed a passive.

I'm inclined to wonder if 'valency theory' has something useful to say on the topic. However, my knowledge on it is very limted, and you are one of the few who might know something useful from the theory. Therefore I've kept to traditional terminology, though I worry about it's applicability to Thai.

As to traditional terminology, I'm sure I read somewhere that there was a project to determine what the parts of speech are in Thai. Perhaps it is just fiddling with the classifications, but perhaps there is some genuine doubt. What, for example are the adjectives? It's claimed that all languages have adjectives, but even someone making the claim admitted that one language had no more than ten - it may even have had only four adjectives!

[snowleopard]

(Richard W @ Fri 2004-08-20, 03:23:09)

Can't you do selective quoting?  No-one else is joining in in this ding-dong.

(Richard W @ Thu 2004-08-19, 01:58:55)

4. Do you at least admit that แตก can't be used as a transitive verb in the active voice?

Still unanswered!

(snowleopard @ Thu 2004-08-19, 16:18:12)

I'm gonna smoke you out of your hole in the ground ,you cagey little foxy you! 

Richard W @ So this is not a pursuit of the truth?

snowleopard @Take a good look at these two easily comprehensible examples,which are both using the transitive verb แตก "dtaek"!

1.ถังขยะแตกโดยคนขี้เมา="taang-kaya dtaek doy kon-kee-maow"=The trash-can was cracked by a drunkard.

2.แจกันดอกไม้แตกโดยแมว="jae-gun dohk-mai dtaek doy maew"=The flower pot was broken by cats.

Richard W @Actually, the verb's intransitive in these sentences.

 

snowleopard @The judge's Question to Richard: แจกันดอกไม้แตกได้อย่างไร "jae-gun dok-mai dtaek dai yaang-rai"?=How was the flower pot cracked?

Richard's Answer:มันแตกเอง "mun dtaek aeyng"=It  was cracked by itself! 

Richard W @

Falsifying the court record? Tut tut! You don't want to go the way of Lord Archer, do you?

คิดว่าแมวทำให้ตกแล้วก็แตกครับ

snowleopard @ 

Let's hope the judge ain't no "crackpot" so you can  receive more than one good sentence from him. 

At this stage I'd be inclined to ask for your case to be dismissed and costs awarded against you.

the way of Lord Archer

Lord Archer

Your pride and role model Richard,peer Lord Archer,the pinnacle of success who is the product of your English peer system.The quintessential John Bull.

"First Among Equals"!

So here you are once again my little lad_cap in hand-begging for another good spanking from your master.

Some of you English whipping boys never seem to break away from your mental bondage_the vicious circle of being the passively receiving masochist in your sadomasochistic rituals.Those rituals of subjugation which you have been conditioned into enduring ever since you were victimized during childhood.

Is your latent-...hmm...let's say...err-only... behavior,the downside of the English boarding school system for boys,class society and cruel corporal punishment, meted out by the ruling masters and mistresses?

You and peers have to unsuccessfully act out your childhood trauma in perpetuity,don't you?

Observing your behavior and then extrapolating from that the suffering you've endured,this Thai proverb comes to mind:"รักวัวให้ผูกรักลูกให็ตี" Keep a stiff upper lip now old fellow,like your heroic peer his lordship himself could do all throughout his tribulation!

4. Do you at least admit that แตก can't be used as a transitive verb in the active voice?Still unanswered!

Unanswered only in your lost mind Richard!You're not all there,are you?

You're just trying to impose your own arbitrary parameters on the transitive verb "dtaek",with leading question because you've got vested intrests and a dishonest agenda in this issue.Your agenda is to prove that "dtaek" is only intransitive,just because you want it to be so and have declared that it should be so!

You first claimed that "dtaek" is only intransitive and now you are backing away from that statement.Your tactics consist of passively hiding behind yet another smoke screen and then gainsaying everything I actively state without backing it up with proof.

You have never introduced any sentences in Thai yourself Ricky;but rather you've passively taken some potshot from your foxhole at my examples in a cowardly fashion.Never mind though;I've got a degree in psychiatry and have worked with your personality type before so I've already called your hand and know where you come from!

Because of your Anglo-Saxon background,your mind has been brainwashed and indoctrinated into projecting the ingrained English language structures onto other languages in an attempt at making them comprehensible to yourself.

Verbs in Thai and English are used differently.

In Thai you can join a whole string of verbs together without having to worry about tense,infinitives and such.

For example, if the "food part" is understood then this verb phrase could be stringed together and used,ไปซื้อกิน "pai seu gin"=go buy eat!

ถูกแตก "toohk dtaek" is okay and ถูกหัก "toohk huck" is okay too because both are transitive verbs.

You can also say มันแตกเองภายใน,ทำให้แตก,ทำแตก,แตกเอง,หัก,แตกหัก,ตกแตก,ชนแคก, แตกใบ,แตกแยกแตกปลี,แตกฉานซ่านเซ็น etc.

แตก,itself,is a transitive verb,and,for example แตกกระเจิง is too!

 

คิดว่าแมวทำให้ตกแล้วก็แตกครับ This post has been edited by Richard W on Fri 2004-08-20, 14:16:43

Your sentence became more and more moronic each time you came back to edit it in order for it to fit your deceptive agenda!Here's some Thai for you.

หลักฐานมีเพิ่มต่ออีกไหมครับ เสือดาวและผู้พิพากษาตัดสินคดีทั้งสองนายเข้าใจว่าเธอพยายามที่จะทำให้แมวเป็นผู้รับเคราะห์แท่น ผมเสือดาวเป็นทนายความของแมวในคดีการฟ้องร้องเรื่องนี้จึงจะช่วยเแมวเต็มทีไม่เป็นแพะรับบาปจากเธอในคดีนี้เลย ที่สามารถเห็นได้อย่างชัดเจนเนื่องจากสีบสวนหลักฐานโดยรายละเอียดคือว่า...ผู้ร้ายตัวที่ทำผิดไวยากรณ์ภาษาไทยข็อกรรมวาจก ก็มันเป็นเธอเอง Richard W!

 

Richard W Posted on Mon 2004-08-16, 05:07:57 I withdraw the claim that หัก is not transitive.

The verb I should have quoted is แตก, which is not actually a synonym of หัก.

 

So this is not a pursuit of the truth?

In the eternal quest for the truth,one is bound to raise a few eyebrows,step on a few toes,butt heads and much worse-and in that process a few pevaricators,like yourself,are bound to get their share of hurt.

By you foxy dude Rick,the truth might even be declared "sour grapes".

Keep a stiff upper lip like your peer Archer now.

 

snowleopard Posted on Thu 2004-08-19, 22:18:12 Take a good look at these two easily comprehensible examples,which are both using the transitive verb แตก "dtaek"!

1.ถังขยะแตกโดยคนขี้เมา="taang-kaya dtaek doy kon-kee-maow"=The trash-can was cracked by a drunkard.

2.แจกันดอกไม้แตกโดยแมว="jae-gun dohk-mai dtaek doy maew"=The flower pot was broken by cats.

 

Richard W Posted on Fri 2004-08-20, 03:23:09 Actually, the verb's intransitive in these sentences.

Now,do you have anything to back that up with Ricky,except having been told so by your Anglican mommy?You both spoke Thai as your mother tongue now,didn't you?

I'm pursuing the truth Richard and I'm trying to do you a favor by pointing it out for you and enlighten you as well.

'Dtaek" is transitive and intransitive.Hope that information will penetrate your thick skull and lodge in your brain soon.

If you don't wanna believe me,then just look the verb "dtaek" up on your own,right there in your own Thai dictionary.You will find out that it is both transitive and intransitive,like I've truthfully taught you.

Checked it out yet?

Still not convinced and converted to the truth?_then please push back the chair in front of your computer and stand up_now walk over to the bookcase and pull out your English dictionary_look up the letter H and then proceed to the noun "hypocrite"_now,pronounce it out loudly and clearly while simultaneously looking at yourself in the mirror_suck slowly and hard on every single syllable-Hy-Po-criTe_look at the definition_and,VOILA_now you've found the most fitting label for describing yourself Ricky.

This label will stick to your cyber persona like glue till you redeem yourself by accepting the truth.

By the way,the Thai word for your epithet would be ผู้เสแสร้ง "pooh sae-saeng"!

Lord Archer and Richard W,indeed a pride of peers!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.

[Richard W]

4. Do you at least admit that แตก can't be used as a transitive verb in the active voice?Still unanswered!

Unanswered only in your lost mind Richard!

So I take it that this means that you are in denial.

You have never introduced any sentences in Thai yourself.

Do you expect me to produce examples of a usage I don't believe exists?

ถูกแตก "toohk dtaek" is okay and ถูกหัก "toohk huck" is okay too because both are transitive verbs.

A google search found only 4 examples of ถูกแตก. I give the URLs, but I don't recommend clicking on them directly; indeed, several are only accessible via the Google cache.

• As a keyword in a list of search topics - apparently one request. The URL begins http://www.songtoday.com/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/ .
  
• จาก : ถูกแดก - 04/09/2002 14:35 at http://board.dserver.org/h/hopefulness/00000149.html. This appears to be an example of the meaning 'sprout (tr., intr.), burst out', related to the intransitive meaning 'break'.
  
• 29 ถูกแดก ตามเคย ฮ่าๆ at http://it06.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/webboard/question.pl?1024This looks like another list of web searches, and the meaning again seems to be roughly 'sprout'.
  
• From http://sirisuk.diaryhub.net/?20021001, I found:

  โทรไปหาแม่ บอกว่าวันนี้ ได้หวยมา
  26 95 14 แม่เราเลยซัดซะ ตัวละ 200 ถูกแดก เรียบ
  แม่เล่าให้ฟังว่าขณะที่แม่จดหวยอยู่นั้น
  มีตำรวจ นอกเครื่องแบบ เข้ามา จับแม่
  ตกใจ มือเย็น ตีนเย็นกันใหญ่
  แต่สุดท้ายก็พูดไกล่เกลี่ย และตำรวจ ก็ผละออกไป
  เฮ้ออออ....โดน อีกแล้ว

  I find this difficult to make sense of - this might just be the example Snowleopard needs, but I don't think so. Could someone please provide an intelligible and word-for-word understandable translation of the sentence containing 'ถูกแดก'.
  

If you don't wanna believe me,then just look the verb "dtaek" up on your own,right there in your own Thai dictionary.You will find out that it is both transitive and intransitive,like I've truthfully taught you.

From my Thai-English dictionary, it appears to be intransitive only.  I did wonder about what appeared to be some set expressions, but consulting the Royal Institute Dictionary (on-line version) clarified them.  แตก has a related meaning 'sprout, break/burst out in/with', and this can be transitive, but not in the sense 'cause to break'.  In the other senses, 'break, scatter', it is intransitive.

Checked it out yet?

I had already checked it out in my Thai-English dictionary. In response to your question, I then checked the RID.

Unless the quality of the argument improves, I will have to abandon this thread because of the increasing rudeness. It would not do for one of us to be banned or suspended.

[Richard W]

Take a good look at these two easily comprehensible examples,which are both using the transitive verb แตก "dtaek"!

1.ถังขยะแตกโดยคนขี้เมา="taang-kaya dtaek doy kon-kee-maow"=The trash-can was cracked by a drunkard.

2.แจกันดอกไม้แตกโดยแมว="jae-gun dohk-mai dtaek doy maew"=The flower pot was broken by cats.

Actually, the verb's intransitive in these sentences.

Now,do you have anything to back that up with...?

Yes.

พวกเขาไปโรงเรียนโดยรถประจำทาง=[F]phuak[H]khao [M]pai [M]roong[M]rian [M]dooy [H]rot [M/L]pra[M]jam[M]thaang=They are taken to school by a bus.

By your argument, this shows that ไป [M]pai 'to take (tr.), go (intr.)' is a transitive verb as well as an intransitive verb. (Perhaps it actually has two direct objects - the second would be the destination - making it ditransitive / transitive!)

Because of your Anglo-Saxon background,your mind has been brainwashed and indoctrinated into projecting the ingrained English language structures onto other languages in an attempt at making them comprehensible to yourself.

Verbs in Thai and English are used differently.

Pots and kettles?

[RamdomChances]

Unless the quality of the argument improves, I will have to abandon this thread because of the increasing rudeness. It would not do for one of us to be banned or suspended

I don't think that will happen as you two are probably the only ones left that actually understand what you are talking about

(oh mabye sabijai and swedish as well)

Is this the most polite and techincal "flame war" in thaivisa history??

Sorry guy's for taking the p!ss, I had'nt read this thread form about page 2 until last night, cos you lost me about then.

Brilliant keep it up

Anyway I agree with snowy, cos he's clever and funnier

[snowleopard]

Take a good look at these two easily comprehensible examples,which are both using the transitive verb แตก "dtaek"!

1.ถังขยะแตกโดยคนขี้เมา="taang-kaya dtaek doy kon-kee-maow"=The trash-can was cracked by a drunkard.

2.แจกันดอกไม้แตกโดยแมว="jae-gun dohk-mai dtaek doy maew"=The flower pot was broken by cats.

Actually, the verb's intransitive in these sentences.

Now,do you have anything to back that up with...?

Yes.

พวกเขาไปโรงเรียนโดยรถประจำทาง=[F]phuak[H]khao [M]pai [M]roong[M]rian [M]dooy [H]rot [M/L]pra[M]jam[M]thaang=They are taken to school by a bus.

By your argument, this shows that ไป [M]pai 'to take (tr.), go (intr.)' is a transitive verb as well as an intransitive verb. (Perhaps it actually has two direct objects - the second would be the destination - making it ditransitive / transitive!)

พวกเขาไปโรงเรียนโดยรถประจำทาง=[F]phuak[H]khao [M]pai [M]roong[M]rian [M]dooy [H]rot [M/L]pra[M]jam[M]thaang=They are taken to school by a bus.

พวกเขาไปโรงเรียนโดยรถประจำทาง

You're an amusing clown,aren't you Ricky!Who are you kidding with this pathetic little charade? Yourself?

The English verb"go" is intransitive so you can't use that to compare with the transitive verb "break".

The translation you used from Thai to English is so silly that it just reinforces the impression that you're a clueless clown who's just winging it while fumbling along in ignorant darkness.

I'll give you the real translation for free but don't try to say again that your confusion is my argument because everyone can see you're prevaricating and then projecting your lies onto me as usual.

The verbs "GO" and "TAKE" are no synonyms!The former "go" is an intransitive verb while the latter "take" is a transitive one.

With the above translation,you're trying one of your dishonest tricks by spreading disinformation again Richard.

Here's the honest translation:

พวกเขาไปโรงเรียนโดยรถประจำทาง=They go to school by bus.(poo-ak kaow pai rong-ree-an doi rot-pra-jahm-taang)

Go "pai" is intransitive in both Thai and English.

Now look what can be done with your sentence if the transitive-ส่ง "song"-"SEND" is used instead of "go".

A passive voice sentence can be used in Thai with or without ถูก "toohk".

In other words either ส่ง "song";or,ถูกส่ง "toohk song".

Look at this example:พวกเด็กๆส่งไปโรงเรียนโดยรถตู้ทุกเช้าเพราะว่าพ่อแม่ไม่ให้อนุญาตไปเอง "poo-ak dek-dek song pai rong-ree-an doi rot-dtoo tuhk chaow pro-waa poh-mae mai hai anuh-yaat pai eyng"=The children are sent to school by van every morning because the parents won't let them go by themselves.

Now,if you want to substitute the transitive "take,taken" instead of "send,sent" you can do so without problem.

"The children are taken to school by van every morning because the parents won't let them go by themselves."

If you would like to use the "toohk song",then the sentence can be written like this in Thai:

พวกเด็กๆถูกส่งไปโรงเรียนโดยรถตู้ทุกเช้าเพราะว่าพ่อแม่ไม่ให้อนุญาตไปเอง "poo-ak dek-dek toohk song pai rong-ree-an doi rot-dtoo tuhk chaow pro-waa poh-mae mai hai anuh-yaat pai eyng"!

Hope my argument helps clear away some of the foggy confusion that your lingering brain cloud seems to to have caused you Ricky.

Do us both a favor,will you Richard?Get real for a change!

Let me cheer you up with a funny little sentence using the intransitive "go"!

"That stupid old git,our peer Count Retch'lard,has become so senile that he is totally gone now.His nemesis Alzheimer's got him before the "Grim Reaper" could."

QUOTE 

โทรไปหาแม่ บอกว่าวันนี้ ได้หวยมา

26 95 14 แม่เราเลยซัดซะ ตัวละ 200 ถูกแดก เรียบ

แม่เล่าให้ฟังว่าขณะที่แม่จดหวยอยู่นั้น

มีตำรวจ นอกเครื่องแบบ เข้ามา จับแม่

ตกใจ มือเย็น ตีนเย็นกันใหญ่

แต่สุดท้ายก็พูดไกล่เกลี่ย และตำรวจ ก็ผละออกไป

เฮ้ออออ....โดน อีกแล้ว

You shouldn't copy and paste your own family affairs on the world wide web in that fashion Richard.

Are you crying out for help?

One of your Thai wives is obviously having a private conversation there about one of your mothers-in-law in Thailand!Or should they be called "out-laws" now!

I'm sure you already knew that your relatives are involved in the "underground" lottery and therefore got a visit from plainclothes officers!

Shame on you Rickie for having publicly exposed their and your secret affairs like that.

The tabloids and paparazzi might begin to stalk you now like they did with your peer Lord Archer.

I don't want to comment on your personal affairs Richard so don't count on me to help you get any scandalous exposure in the media by translating your shady dealings into English

Let your story break by itself in passive fashion without leaking too much.

Archer and other good peers traditionally seem to have done it like that!

Cheers.

Snowleopard.