ไวยากรณ์ วากยสัมพันธ์ และ ชนิดของคำ

[DavidHouston]

I would like to ask our experts their opinions regarding Thai grammar and its utility for us struggling students. The bookstores are replete with books on Thai grammar and there are at least two major works in English.

First question, is Thai grammar as taught to children in schools a native Thai organization of its language or is the grammar an adaptation of Western grammatical structures? For example, are the notions of "parts of speech" and its sub-elements, such as คำนาม บุรุษ ลิงค์ พจน์ สรรพนาม and กริยา, native to Thai or are they an adaptation by Western and foreign-educated Thai linguists?

Second, is it helpful for foreign students of Thai to learn grammar in its incarnation familiar to us? If we do wish to learn how Thai sentences are constructed both in the spoken and written contexts, for example, should be be learning rules and conventions or is it more efficient to absorb by practice?

Edited March 4, 2008 by DavidHouston

[withnail]

Firstly, as I'm sure you know, there are two ways of looking at grammar; prescriptively and descriptively. The first lays out a set of rules and terms to be remembered and followed, and the second says this is what people say and this is what it means. As far as the English language goes we have developed over the years to realise that the second is more important for learning how to use a language than the first. However, traditionally it would be the first that would be studied in schools and I feel that this is the case in this country. To place value on colloquial spoken language steers the focus away from what is considered more beautiful language such as poetry.

I have asked Thai teachers in the past to help me with grammar and it seems, as a rule, that they don't really understand what I mean by this. One teacher tried to oblige and brought me a selection of worksheets on the issue which I found didn't help at all, they went through the parts of speech and gave examples but it certainly seemed that the focus was on remembering the terms rather than showing different ways the words could be used, or anything else a foreign language learner might find useful. At school when I learned we were taught "patterns" which I found useful, but I don't get the impression that this is something you would ever find in a Thai book.

As far as any presentation of advanced conversational structures goes I've only ever really seen this in English language books, the focus as far as I can see for Thai students of Thai then usually shifts to etymology and poetry.

I recall however an old student of mine asking me what I thought about a question which she had just had in a Thai exam which was: "What part of speech is หน้าแดง." To which, the answer was a verb.

I'd love to find a Thai grammar book which dealt with the language in a way that was useful to us but so far I think the best two are Smythe, and Higbie's both of course, in English. Incidentally, I prefer Smyth's explanations but wish the book went into more complex structures.

Edited March 4, 2008 by withnail

[mangkorn]

I concur heartily in withnail's post.

Coming from a native language that is very strict on grammatical rules of construction, it is difficult for me to comprehend languages without that. But I have been to numerous Thai bookstores asking about books of grammar, and get only blank stares or "mai mee ka..."

It's a good thing that Smythe and Higbie have done a lot of the heavy lifting for us.

Cheers.

[siamesekitty]

me too.. (seems to be a recurring pattern tonight, eh? )

My Thai classes in (Thai) high school, and Entrance exam prep tutoring classes, were more about stuff like the origins of words (คำสมาส, คำสนธิ, คำประสม..) reading comprehension, the proper language for various social settings, Rachasap, etc. It's assumed that if you were Thai and knew how to speak Thai, you didn't need to be taught "grammar"!

[tgeezer]

I would like to ask our experts their opinions regarding Thai grammar and its utility for us struggling students. The bookstores are replete with books on Thai grammar and there are at least two major works in English.

First question, is Thai grammar as taught to children in schools a native Thai organization of its language or is the grammar an adaptation of Western grammatical structures? For example, are the notions of "parts of speech" and its sub-elements, such as คำนาม บุรุษ ลิงค์ พจน์ สรรพนาม and กริยา, native to Thai or are they an adaptation by Western and foreign-educated Thai linguists?

Second, is it helpful for foreign students of Thai to learn grammar in its incarnation familiar to us? If we do wish to learn how Thai sentences are constructed both in the spoken and written contexts, for example, should be be learning rules and conventions or is it more efficient to absorb by practice?

All I can say is I have found it a lot more enjoyable than the grind of comprehension. The word grammer frightens people, structure is a better word. It is not difficult and takes no academic ability, kids learn it, or should, so I bought the kids books and it is fun. Whether it is needed; obviously not, if you study long enough you can assimilate all of it without knowing what you have said. I don't know how a dictionary makes sense without a little structure. Most languages are murdered all the time, Thai is referred to as ภาษาดิ้น learning a little grammer may ensure that I don't contribute.

[Rikker]

First question, is Thai grammar as taught to children in schools a native Thai organization of its language or is the grammar an adaptation of Western grammatical structures? For example, are the notions of "parts of speech" and its sub-elements, such as คำนาม บุรุษ ลิงค์ พจน์ สรรพนาม and กริยา, native to Thai or are they an adaptation by Western and foreign-educated Thai linguists?

If we look at English grammar, we find many of the rules--that often go against actual native usage--are based on Latin. (Things like forbidding split infinitives, not ending a sentence with a preposition, etc.)

I don't know the specifics for when the grammatical concepts you mention became known in Thai, but I'm sure none of them are native concepts, just like none of our English grammatical concepts are native. In general, Thai has a similar relationship with Pali and Sanskrit that English has with Latin and Greek. And the Indians had the first grammars, even before Greek and Latin. So it's not native, no, like the orthography isn't native, like a huge chunk of the vocabulary isn't native. Nothing wrong with that, though.

Some aspects of grammar fit Thai better than others, and some match English grammar better than others. The part of speech วิเศษณ์ includes both of what we call adjectives and adverbs in English. There is a further subdivision of วิเศษณ์ into คูณศัพท์ (adjective) and กริยาวิเศษณ์ (adverb), but these terms are coined to match Western (i.e. English) grammars, so Thai is rarely classified in these terms. Obviously, terms like ลิงค์ (gender), and เอกพจน์/พหูพจน์ (singular/plural) are only useful for describing non-Thai languages.

Here's another grammatical oddity. The spurious part of speech นิบาต, 'invented' by the Royal Institute, and applied to only one word: ก็. In Sanskrit, nipāta is not a part of speech at all, but an 'indeclinable particle', something that has no parallel in Thai as far as I know. Go figure.

For me, I don't worry about the nitty gritty of grammar too much. I just try to internalize grammar through observation of native speech and writing. It's useful to have names for parts of speech/word classes and other terms that describe how words interact within a sentence (and thus help to understand it). It's also occasionally useful to be able to describe subject (ประธาน) and object (กรรม) in a sentence.

But with things like passive voice (กรรมวาจก) and active voice (กรรตุวาจก), or nominative case (กรรตุการก) and accusative case (กรรมการก)--there are Thai terms for all of them, and I know those terms, but it's not like it has any functional value for me. Who am I going to discuss them with? Thais don't even learn them...

Edited March 5, 2008 by Rikker

[grtaylor]

It's assumed that if you were Thai and knew how to speak Thai, you didn't need to be taught "grammar"!

Pretty much how I remember English lessons at school back in the UK. I don't remember being taught any formal grammar.

Which is why, I guess, things which Rikker mentions like "nominative" and "accusative" cases don't really mean anything to me. This caused me quite a problem when, as part of a university degree course in Music, I had to study German for a year. I just could not get the hang of it at all . . . . .

G

Edited March 6, 2008 by grtaylor

[withnail]

The terms Rikker mentioned above remind me of the worksheets I mentioned earlier which I also agree have no functional value. They exist so that people can be tested on the terminology itself and not so that people can analyse how The Thai language uses these elements within speech/writing to show certain meaning.

Many modern English grammars now focus on the meaning rather than the terminology (or certainly don't focus too much on it) and therefore a word/phrase as commonly used as ก็ (for example 'have' or 'be going to') would have it's own page or pages showing it's usage rather than bother to mention whether it's a นิบาต or not.

These books exist however because over the years there has been an increasing demand from EFL students/teachers which, let's face it, doesn't quite exist yet for the study of the Thai language.

[ElZorro]

In my humble experience learning foreign languages, a grammar book is something you can reach for when you are feeling curious or puzzled about the language you are learning and want to make some sense of it, but it's not something you need to study if you want to make progress. Yes, there is grammar in every use of the language and yes, you must get familiar with that, but there is no need to worry about it, because the more you use the language, the more you internalize its rules. That's why native speakers can tell you with certainty whether something is correct or not, but quite often they can't give you a reason why. This quote from a japanese learning blog puts it nicely:

Do not: learn grammar rules. Do get a feel for grammar, do read about grammar if you feel like it, but learning grammar rules in order to use a language is like learning quantum physics in order to drive a car. Sure, grammar rules are the rules of a language like quantum physics is the rules of the physical world. But it's not practical. You shouldn't be thinking of grammar rules as you try to speak any more than you should be crunching Schroedinger equations as you speed down the highway.

[siamesekitty]

^ I like that example

[meadish_sweetball]

In my experience, trying to describe Thai with commonly used Western grammatical terms is somewhat akin to trying to insist that an octagon fits perfectly in a triangular hole, or the other way around.

My honest opinion and advice is that in order to describe and learn Thai the way it is actually used, one should focus on established usage rather than prescriptive definitions - to which there will almost inevitably be so many exceptions as to make them irrelevant.

[traveller5000]

one should focus on established usage rather than prescriptive definitions -

if i'm understanding you correcty,

In regard to the Higbie book, would it then be more effective for me to memorise (partly or fully) the examples rather than memorise the "rules" ?

[withnail]

Grammatical rules of any language can be useful (providing you are aware of their limitations). Anyway, books like the Higbie book or Smyth's don't really deal with prescriptive definitions, but rather analyse common speech. A prescriptive definition would be like saying all sentences must consist of a subject and a predicate or you mustn't start a sentence with a conjunction.

[tgeezer]

In my experience, trying to describe Thai with commonly used Western grammatical terms is somewhat akin to trying to insist that an octagon fits perfectly in a triangular hole, or the other way around.

When I advocate learning some structure it is for people who can already get around town. I don't use English in study unless I think that I need to know the meaning of a word, often I find I could have done without knowing. Comparing Thai grammer to English is pointless except for interesting discussions. In fact I think it is easier if you don't know any English grammer, all is explained in the kids books in Thai. I wish that I had started years ago, and strongly advise those who are curious to give it a go.

Edited March 8, 2008 by tgeezer

[mangkorn]

I suppose it depends on what you consider the word "grammar" to mean. For me, it isn't a matter of esoteric terminology, but practical grammatical uses. If, for instance, you know that "big house" is correct, and "house big" is incorrect, then you know something about grammar.

The grammatically correct way to construct Thai sentences is what I seek, and I thought that was what withnail was referring to also. I don't care how linguists label grammatical terms, but rather the proper ways of sentence construction. Some farangs think they can speak Thai well, but until we know how to build complex sentences in the ways that Thais do, we haven't gotten there yet.

In that sense, some practical grammar guidance would certainly be useful.

[DurianChips]

I was fascinated to see this thread, because this is something I've been frustrated lately. When I was in school, we used to be taught to diagram a sentence. I'm sure other people had to do this too. Is there any equivalent in Thai? My wife doesn't seem to think so. I often find that I am reading a sentence, and I recognize every word, yet I still can't make heads or tail of it.

I found an additional book in addition to the ones mentioned:

A Reference Grammar of Thai (2005) / Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom

I found it at the local university library; I don't know how widespread is the availability. It's definitely the most technical of the books I've seen, for people that like that kind of stuff.

[withnail]

I suppose it depends on what you consider the word "grammar" to mean. For me, it isn't a matter of esoteric terminology, but practical grammatical uses. If, for instance, you know that "big house" is correct, and "house big" is incorrect, then you know something about grammar.

The grammatically correct way to construct Thai sentences is what I seek, and I thought that was what withnail was referring to also. I don't care how linguists label grammatical terms, but rather the proper ways of sentence construction. Some farangs think they can speak Thai well, but until we know how to build complex sentences in the ways that Thais do, we haven't gotten there yet.

In that sense, some practical grammar guidance would certainly be useful.

Exactly. As soon as someone mentions the word grammar people presume you are referring to rules and terminology and discount both as being of no use to a second language learner.

It is true that grammar is the rules of a language; it is the rules concerning how words are used (changed/combined/arranged) to give certain kinds of meaning. It is this meaning which we are looking for and is often left unexplained. A native speaker instinctively knows this meaning and can apply the rules, although they don't actually know them. For this meaning to be transferred to us though, some explanation is required and books that we have mentioned already go some way in doing so. The problem is though that they are not complete, are too few in number and perhaps not written in a style suited for everyone.

The book DurianChips mentions has been on my wanted list now for a while but if you google it you'll find that it's very expensive. If someone knows where I might find one I could borrow or buy second hand I'd be very interested.

[DurianChips]

The book DurianChips mentions has been on my wanted list now for a while but if you google it you'll find that it's very expensive. If someone knows where I might find one I could borrow or buy second hand I'd be very interested.

I got it here in the US from the library at the University of Maryland. It's intended less for language learners and more for professional linguists.

Checking the web catalogues for Thammasat and Chulalongkorn University libraries, I see it listed in both catalogues, although the Thammasat one is currently checked out. My wife says the public can go to the Thammasat library for a nominal fee (20 baht for visitors when she was a student there, which was a few years ago).

[withnail]

Thanks DurianChips, perhaps I'll get round to doing that one day.

[meadish_sweetball]

I was fascinated to see this thread, because this is something I've been frustrated lately. When I was in school, we used to be taught to diagram a sentence. I'm sure other people had to do this too. Is there any equivalent in Thai? My wife doesn't seem to think so. I often find that I am reading a sentence, and I recognize every word, yet I still can't make heads or tail of it.

I found an additional book in addition to the ones mentioned:

A Reference Grammar of Thai (2005) / Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom

I found it at the local university library; I don't know how widespread is the availability. It's definitely the most technical of the books I've seen, for people that like that kind of stuff.

My teachers at uni had developed a table into which you could feed any Thai sentence in order to break it down into parts of speech. I learned how to use it at the time, but in all honesty have not used it since and I think it may still be back in Sweden.

Patterns such as those described in grammar books (Smyth, Higbie etc.) are without a doubt beneficial to language learning.

What I am opposed to is the attempts to try to fit Thai into the strait-jacket of Western grammar which is a tradition based on the structure of Latin.

It would be fine to create a modified, or even separate, system that would be more meaningful to Thai, and I know some linguists have attempted to do so.

I'd be interested to know more about the books for children you mention, tgeezer. Could you list them here, or link to any previous post where you have mentioned them?

[tgeezer]

I was fascinated to see this thread, because this is something I've been frustrated lately. When I was in school, we used to be taught to diagram a sentence. I'm sure other people had to do this too. Is there any equivalent in Thai? My wife doesn't seem to think so. I often find that I am reading a sentence, and I recognize every word, yet I still can't make heads or tail of it.

I found an additional book in addition to the ones mentioned:

A Reference Grammar of Thai (2005) / Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom

I found it at the local university library; I don't know how widespread is the availability. It's definitely the most technical of the books I've seen, for people that like that kind of stuff.

My teachers at uni had developed a table into which you could feed any Thai sentence in order to break it down into parts of speech. I learned how to use it at the time, but in all honesty have not used it since and I think it may still be back in Sweden.

Patterns such as those described in grammar books (Smyth, Higbie etc.) are without a doubt beneficial to language learning.

What I am opposed to is the attempts to try to fit Thai into the strait-jacket of Western grammar which is a tradition based on the structure of Latin.

It would be fine to create a modified, or even separate, system that would be more meaningful to Thai, and I know some linguists have attempted to do so.

I'd be interested to know more about the books for children you mention, tgeezer. Could you list them here, or link to any previous post where you have mentioned them?

I think that you have already seen them, โรงเงีนสาธิตจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย They are just the basic books and I have years 4 two bools 5 and 6 two books. I have had a look ahead to answer you, I am on 4/2 now, and found that they do not mention คำตาย at all! I wanted to find out how they explained the rules but it seems the kids just assimilate it without knowing. Incidentally apart from ผันเสียง can you think of any other reason for designating คำตาย? They are culturally significant too I think, you can see polite words, rajasap, exclamations in use and can imagine the teacher coaching on smiles and wais.

Edited March 10, 2008 by tgeezer

[mangkorn]

What I am opposed to is the attempts to try to fit Thai into the strait-jacket of Western grammar which is a tradition based on the structure of Latin.

I don't recall anyone attempting to do any such thing - certainly not withnail nor I.

Quite exactly the opposite, in fact. It is patently obvious that Thai grammar is very distinct from Latin-based structures, ergo: it does make perfect sense to want to know how this particular unfamiliar grammar is structured.

Why is that a point of contention?

If Thai did follow the Latin-based structures, it would be easy for native speakers of Romance languages to suss out the grammar rules. But since it isn't, how is a foreign student supposed to know the acceptable and unacceptable norms of grammatical construction in Thai?

One can say: just get familiar with it, "because the more you use the language, the more you internalize its rules." Okay, that's fine; that comes over a long period of time.

But, where does the "teaching" part of it fit into the equation? Why should this be a hunt for hidden treasure without the benefit of a map?

Thai has an alphabet that is vastly different than the Roman alphabet, and that is taught, right from the very start. Nobody is told to just figure out the alphabet without having any guide to follow. The tone rules are taught. So why should fundamental usage/construction rules be any different?

Thai does have grammar rules. It seems eminently reasonable to want some sort of a guide for knowing some of those rules. Frankly, I cannot understand this resistance to a very basic learning concept for students of non-native languages.

Cheers.

[meadish_sweetball]

I was merely giving my personal opinion on the second question of the OP, mangkorn. Note the phrase 'in its incarnation familiar to us' which I took to mean 'using grammatical terms derived from analyzing the structure of Latin'. Perhaps I misunderstand what David actually meant although I can not seem to interpret that passage any other way.

Regardless of which, I did not mean to discount your opinion or withnail's. I hope it's ok that I do add my personal opinion here now and then, too?

Second, is it helpful for foreign students of Thai to learn grammar in its incarnation familiar to us? If we do wish to learn how Thai sentences are constructed both in the spoken and written contexts, for example, should be be learning rules and conventions or is it more efficient to absorb by practice?