Hello,

Would like to know the difference between and in what instance should I use the the following:

????? nâa jà - had better

????? kuan jà - ought to

They both mean the same to me...

Hello,

Would like to know the difference between and in what instance should I use the the following:

????? nâa jà - had better

????? kuan jà - ought to

They both mean the same to me...

actually, it's a bit tricky to explain, because the words can be used in various ways.

ok, first, think about:

"you should take responsibility for the safety of your children"

'should' here means you have a moral obligation. for this sense of 'should', the better word to use is 'kuan ja' (ควรจะ).

compare this to:

"you should drop by klongtom and check out the guitar shops"

'should' here means you might enjoy it, it's a recommendation. for this sense, 'na ja' (น่าจะ) is the better word to use.

'kuan ja' will also be used for another sense of 'should' - when a doctor, for example, is giving orders:

"you should take both types of tablets three times daily"

here it's not a moral imperative, just a professional's advice.

it gets a bit trickier because - particularly when talking about the past - 'na ja' can carry a meaning that is closer to the 'moral obligation' sense.

"khun na ja ma bawk phom gawn na ni"

you really could have let me know before now.

"khun khuan ja ma bawk phom gawn na ni"

you should have told me before now.

both are complaints about 'right conduct' or 'polite conduct'. the difference is more one of degree of feeling, with 'na ja' expressing a mild regret or disappointment and 'kuan ja' getting closer to a condemnation.

all the best.

ps. (and just one more variation) 'na ja' can also be used to express a guess, expectation, forecast

"khao na ja pen kon krungthep"

i'd guess he's probably from bangkok.

"proong nee fon na ja tdok"

i think it might rain tomorrow.

Edited January 18, 200818 yr by aanon

Thanks Aanon for your thorough explanation! This has really helped.

Hello,

Would like to know the difference between and in what instance should I use the the following:

????? nâa jà - had better

????? kuan jà - ought to

They both mean the same to me...

"nâa jà" often is used in the sense of "it would be nicer (or better) that..." as opposed to "kuan jà" which has the more neutral sense of "ought to".

This is how my teacher explained it:

"na dja" is used when the reality is different or might be different from what you thought it would or should be.

"kuan dja" is used when you suggest something and expect it to become reality.

This is how my teacher explained it:

"na dja" is used when the reality is different or might be different from what you thought it would or should be.

"kuan dja" is used when you suggest something and expect it to become reality.

Well that must explain the past two decades of miscommunication between me and the wife. All these years I thought kuan ja was best translated as "should" or "ought" whilst the entire time it translates as "you must do this or else have body parts fed to the ducks".

I can only recommend reading and digesting aanon's very thorough post, because just like he points out, the meaning changes with the context.

ditto

From what I heard when I asked in the first month I was in Thailand was that:

naa ja = ought to ... like a soft meaning like 'you ought to have a bf cuz ur even hotter than the sun

kuan ja = you should .... like stronger ... you should do you homework ... or .... you should not be rude to falang despite how much they all suck

That's more or less true, but also be a bit careful with "naa ja". If you use it to talk about something in the past, what they "should have done", it can turn out to be "well, you really should've ..... instead", which is a bit annoying (and would sound "nagging" rather than "soft") :-P

And we haven't even touched on คงจะ 'khong ja' yet

And we haven't even touched on คงจะ 'khong ja' yet

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!