Is Thai Really That Hard To Learn?

[katana]

.......

บุญมี

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I ask Boon Mee a question: how come you spell your name that way? Like Booy Mee? My g/f says her dad's name is similar, with a ญ in it, but pronounced like a น, and she doesn't know why it's like that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

ญ has a Y-sound at the beginning of a syllable, and an N-sound at the end.

[RDN]

.......

บุญมี

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I ask Boon Mee a question: how come you spell your name that way? Like Booy Mee? My g/f says her dad's name is similar, with a ญ in it, but pronounced like a น, and she doesn't know why it's like that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

ญ has a Y-sound at the beginning of a syllable, and an N-sound at the end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks katana! Obvious, really

[sabaijai]

Then again it all depends on what you call fluent. On a 5-point scale where 5 would be functionally native proficiency, most Thai language learners will have attained no more than level 2 or 2+ after two years of study and immersion. Yet often people I would guess are at that level describe themselves as 'fluent'.

Back in July on this branch there was a thread about what it means to be 'fluent' or proficient in Thai. You might want to have a look.

fluency or proficiency?

It's a sticky topic. If you wanted to find out where you stand according to professional methods of language proficiency evaluation, you could pop by the Peace Corps office on Si Ayuthaya Rd, ask to meet with one of the Thai language  staff trained in administering the FSI oral exam and then make an appointment to be tested after hours. Often the Thai language instructors there moonlight as tutors, so it should be relatively easy to arrange. Ask to see Ajahn Uthai, the head of the Thai training program.

Erm, I don't think that I'll go and take a test just to find out if I'm fluent or not. Let's just say, according to my imperfect standards, I consider myself to be fluent in Thai. That is, if I consider myself to be fluent in English, then I consider my Thai to be at least at the same level. I've always scored an A in English classes as well as Thai classes, but then that doesn't mean much. Perhaps the fact that I'm a very avid bookworm helped speed my learning process (I have several thousand books, both Thai and English, and have read through all at least twice). I can understand everything that I read (if it's not totally specialty-tech-speak) and hear and can understand most Thai jokes. I use Thai 90% of the time now, and think in Thai (yes, in THAI) most of the time, and my English is suffering from misuse (which is one reason I frequent these forums). It's come to point where I have to speak in perfect English to a Thai for him to know that I'm not a native Thai speaker.

In the end, I think I'm fluent enough (when "fluent" means "like any native" and not "an expert in the language that can be be called to testfity in court") to say so without blushing. Others may think as they will, but I'm not about to jump through hoops to change their minds.

Starting a thread with a claim to fluency that most here would call dubious is a bit of hoop-jumping in itself.

[meadish_sweetball]

Firefoxx

โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ดิฉันไม่คิดว่าผู้ที่ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเป็นภาษาแม่ จะสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ทั้งพูดอ่านเขียน ได้ภายในระยะเวลาสองปีตามที่คุณอ้างถึง เพราะภาษานั้นไม่ได้ตายตัวอยู่ที่กฎหลัก ของการนำไปใช้ หากแต่อยู่ที่ความเข้าใจและคุ้นเคยทางวัฒณธรรมและประเพณี และยังรวมไปถึงระดับของการใช้ภาษา ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการตัดคำ คำพ้องรูป คำพ้องเสียง ที่หากนำไปใช้ผิดที่ ผิดเวลาแล้ว อาจจะทำให้ความหมายเปลี่ยนไปได้ค่ะ

โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ดิฉันไม่คิดว่าผู้ที่ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเป็นภาษาแม่ จะสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ทั้งพูดอ่านเขียน ได้ภายในระยะเวลาสองปีตามที่คุณอ้างถึง

เขาอ้างถึงสองปีที่นี่แต่สิบปีที่อื่น ผมเห็นด้วย ถ้าจะให้สมบูรณ์สิบปีอาจจะไม่พอ

เพราะภาษานั้นไม่ได้ตายตัวอยู่

ผมคิดว่าทุกภาษาไม่ตายตัว ขึ้นอยู่กับสถานการณ์ ผมพูดได้หลายภาษา ไม่มีภาษาแม่

เสือดาว

ไม่มีภาษาแม่

เนื่องจากคำก่ลาวของคุณ เสือดาวด้านบนนี้ ผมขอถามว่าคุณเกิดเติบโตที่ประเทศอะไรครับ

[snowleopard]

Firefoxx

โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ดิฉันไม่คิดว่าผู้ที่ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเป็นภาษาแม่ จะสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ทั้งพูดอ่านเขียน ได้ภายในระยะเวลาสองปีตามที่คุณอ้างถึง เพราะภาษานั้นไม่ได้ตายตัวอยู่ที่กฎหลัก ของการนำไปใช้ หากแต่อยู่ที่ความเข้าใจและคุ้นเคยทางวัฒณธรรมและประเพณี และยังรวมไปถึงระดับของการใช้ภาษา ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการตัดคำ คำพ้องรูป คำพ้องเสียง ที่หากนำไปใช้ผิดที่ ผิดเวลาแล้ว อาจจะทำให้ความหมายเปลี่ยนไปได้ค่ะ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ดิฉันไม่คิดว่าผู้ที่ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเป็นภาษาแม่ จะสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ทั้งพูดอ่านเขียน ได้ภายในระยะเวลาสองปีตามที่คุณอ้างถึง

เขาอ้างถึงสองปีที่นี่แต่สิบปีที่อื่น ผมเห็นด้วย ถ้าจะให้สมบูรณ์สิบปีอาจจะไม่พอ

เพราะภาษานั้นไม่ได้ตายตัวอยู่

ผมคิดว่าทุกภาษาไม่ตายตัว ขึ้นอยู่กับสถานการณ์ ผมพูดได้หลายภาษา ไม่มีภาษาแม่

เสือดาว

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ไม่มีภาษาแม่

เนื่องจากคำก่ลาวของคุณ เสือดาวด้านบนนี้ ผมขอถามว่าคุณเกิดเติบโตที่ประเทศอะไรครับ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

สวัสดีครับคุณมาร์ติน แม่ของผมเกิดที่ฟินแลนด์แต่ย้ายไปอยู่ประเทศแคนาดาหลังจากสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง ผมเติบโตที่สวีเดนและที่ประเทศอื่นๆอีกหลายประเทศ ผมมีญาติอยู่ในเมืองไทยและอีกห้าประเทศ ราชอาณาจักรสวีเดนก็มีด้วย เมื่อยังเด็กอยู่พูดภาษาแม่ได้แต่เดี๋ยวนี้ไม่เคยใช้เลย

เสือดาว

[alleypanda]

snowleopard, มีเคล็ดลับอย่างไร ถึงพูดภาษาไทยและภาษาอื่นๆ ได้ดีคะ

[snowleopard]

snowleopard, มีเคล็ดลับอย่างไร ถึงพูดภาษาไทยและภาษาอื่นๆ ได้ดีคะ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

มีเคล็ดลับอย่างไร

เคล็ดลับหรือ เป็นความลับนะครับ แต่ขยันเรียนสำคัญที่สุด

เสือดาว

[bannork]

เเม่นอยู่

บ้านนอก

[snowleopard]

snowleopard, มีเคล็ดลับอย่างไร ถึงพูดภาษาไทยและภาษาอื่นๆ ได้ดีคะ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alleypanda_การเรียนโดยไม่คิดอะไรย่อมเสียแรงเปล่า แต่การคิดโดยไม่มีการเรียนรู้ย่อมเป็นอันตราย

Snowleopard.

[taxexile]

i find the hardest part of learning thai to be correctly hearing what is said to me , and learning from it.

the grammar , sentence construction and vocabulary present no real problems.

it's catching the tones that i find difficult.

i was told by my thai teacher that the important information in any thai word or syllable is the middle part of that word or syllable , (ie. the tonal part) and the important part of any western word (non - tonal word) will be the first and last sound of that word.... (this will give information about the tense and other grammatical pointers.)

the western ear / brain is trained to pick up the beginning and ending sounds of the word whilst the thai ear/brain concentrates on the middle sounds. re-training the ear/brain to concentrate on the middle part is a long process.....well it is for me.

this might also explain why the speakers of tonal languages have as much trouble with the endings of the words of western languages as western speakers have with the middle parts of the words of tonal languages.

[RDN]

i find the hardest part of learning thai to be correctly hearing what is said to me , and learning from it. .....

this might also explain why the speakers of tonal languages have as much trouble with the endings of western languages as western speakers have with the middle parts of the words of tonal languages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very good point about the endings of western languages - I often correct my g/f for not pronouncing a final 'S' and she thinks I'm being 'picky'.

So then I get her to pronounce the following words:

suspicious

torch

toast

squirrel

throat

oil

...and try hard not to laugh too much (just getting my own back for all the times I've been laughed at by Thais.)

To practice listening to Thai, I like to watch the English guy on channel 3 (I think) at about 6 am - Andrew Biggs. I enjoy trying to understand what he's saying - and it's also good to hear when, where and why he says "Khrap". He is probably a good role model. Also good to see a shaven headed farang being 'popular' on Thai TV.

[Boon Mee]

My wife has never had a problem with words like toast/torch/suspicious but to listen to her pronounciation of "squirrel" 'bout cracks me up! Even after 25 years of wedded bliss...

บุญมี

[Boon Mee]

.......

บุญมี

Can I ask Boon Mee a question: how come you spell your name that way? Like Booy Mee? My g/f says her dad's name is similar, with a ญ in it, but pronounced like a น, and she doesn't know why it's like that!

Hi,

ญ has a Y-sound at the beginning of a syllable, and an N-sound at the end.

Thanks katana! Obvious, really

ขอบคุณมากครับ katana

When first learning to spell my name I, too, was curious about the pronunciation of ญ yaw ying vs. ณ naw nehn. But as the expression goes when learning a "foreign" language, don't ask questions, just follow the rules!

บุญมี

[Firefoxx]

Firefoxx

โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ดิฉันไม่คิดว่าผู้ที่ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเป็นภาษาแม่ จะสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ทั้งพูดอ่านเขียน ได้ภายในระยะเวลาสองปีตามที่คุณอ้างถึง เพราะภาษานั้นไม่ได้ตายตัวอยู่ที่กฎหลัก ของการนำไปใช้ หากแต่อยู่ที่ความเข้าใจและคุ้นเคยทางวัฒณธรรมและประเพณี และยังรวมไปถึงระดับของการใช้ภาษา ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการตัดคำ คำพ้องรูป คำพ้องเสียง ที่หากนำไปใช้ผิดที่ ผิดเวลาแล้ว อาจจะทำให้ความหมายเปลี่ยนไปได้ค่ะ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ผม*ไม่เคย*พูดเลยนะครับว่าผมสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้*สมบูรณ์* ผมบอกว่าผมพูดได้คล่อง ก็คือ "fluent" ไม่ใช่ "master" (จะย้อนกลับไปอ่านก็ได้ครับ) คนที่พูดและเขียนภาษาไทยได้สมบูรณ์จริงในโลกก็คงมีไม่กี่คน คุณเองก็เช่นกันครับ การพูดเขียนไทยได้คล่องในความคิดของผมก็หมายถึงว่าผมทำได้ในระดับเดียวกับคนไทยทั่วไป และความจริงก็เป็นเช่นนั้น ผมไม่ใช่ปรมจารย์ด้านภาษาไทยและไม่เคยอ้างว่าผมเป็นเช่นนั้นเลย ผมก็เขียนผิืดบ้าง พูดผิดบ้าง แต่จะมีคนไทยซักกี่คนที่ไม่ทำเช่นนั้นในชีวิตประจำวัน ผมสามารถเรียงร้อยถ้อยคำออกมาได้ในระดับเดียวกับคนไทยทั่วไป เช่นนั้นยังไม่พออีกเหรอ หรือจะต้องให้ผมไปจบปริญญาเอกด้านภาษาไทยที่จุฬาซะก่อน คุณๆถึงจะยอมรับ

เอาเถอะครับ ใครจะคิดยังไงก็ตามใจ ความเร็วในการเรียนภาษาของแต่ละคนไม่เหมือนกัน คนไทยบางคนเสียเวลามากมายกว่าจะสามารถพูดภาษาอังกฤษได้แบบงูๆปลาๆ บางคนก็สามารถพูดได้คล่องภายในปีสองปี

ถ้าใครต่อใครคิดว่าผมไม่สามารถทำแบบนั้นผมก็ไม่มีอะไรจะพูดอีกแล้วละครับ

Right now I'm REALLY sorry that I started this thread. The only reason I said that I was fluent after two years was as another example of why I thought that Thai wasn't that hard to learn (because I didn't have to learn radically new concepts, as stated before). Now I'm getting battered left and right, and my example is considered to be a case of snotty arrogance.

When I came to Thailand, I was only 10 years old. I knew no Thai. I was sent to a Thai school (no, not a language school, I mean a typical Thai elementary school). I read Thai books, at least 5 a week. I lived in a Thai home where Thai was spoken all the time. I watched only Thai TV (no UBC then). Try it, folks. You'll learn the language REAL QUICK. Two years is not such a long time when you can't function without the language.

The other day I met an American who was haggling in Thai like a pro, although with a slight accent (yes, I know an accent when I hear one). I asked him how long it took him to become that good, and he said three years. Is it that hard to believe? Stranger things have happened.

[sabaijai]

Firefoxx

โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ดิฉันไม่คิดว่าผู้ที่ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเป็นภาษาแม่ จะสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ทั้งพูดอ่านเขียน ได้ภายในระยะเวลาสองปีตามที่คุณอ้างถึง เพราะภาษานั้นไม่ได้ตายตัวอยู่ที่กฎหลัก ของการนำไปใช้ หากแต่อยู่ที่ความเข้าใจและคุ้นเคยทางวัฒณธรรมและประเพณี และยังรวมไปถึงระดับของการใช้ภาษา ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการตัดคำ คำพ้องรูป คำพ้องเสียง ที่หากนำไปใช้ผิดที่ ผิดเวลาแล้ว อาจจะทำให้ความหมายเปลี่ยนไปได้ค่ะ

ผม*ไม่เคย*พูดเลยนะครับว่าผมสามารถพูดภาษาไทยได้*สมบูรณ์* ผมบอกว่าผมพูดได้คล่อง ก็คือ "fluent" ไม่ใช่ "master" (จะย้อนกลับไปอ่านก็ได้ครับ) คนที่พูดและเขียนภาษาไทยได้สมบูรณ์จริงในโลกก็คงมีไม่กี่คน คุณเองก็เช่นกันครับ การพูดเขียนไทยได้คล่องในความคิดของผมก็หมายถึงว่าผมทำได้ในระดับเดียวกับคนไทยทั่วไป และความจริงก็เป็นเช่นนั้น ผมไม่ใช่ปรมจารย์ด้านภาษาไทยและไม่เคยอ้างว่าผมเป็นเช่นนั้นเลย ผมก็เขียนผิืดบ้าง พูดผิดบ้าง แต่จะมีคนไทยซักกี่คนที่ไม่ทำเช่นนั้นในชีวิตประจำวัน ผมสามารถเรียงร้อยถ้อยคำออกมาได้ในระดับเดียวกับคนไทยทั่วไป เช่นนั้นยังไม่พออีกเหรอ หรือจะต้องให้ผมไปจบปริญญาเอกด้านภาษาไทยที่จุฬาซะก่อน คุณๆถึงจะยอมรับ

เอาเถอะครับ ใครจะคิดยังไงก็ตามใจ ความเร็วในการเรียนภาษาของแต่ละคนไม่เหมือนกัน คนไทยบางคนเสียเวลามากมายกว่าจะสามารถพูดภาษาอังกฤษได้แบบงูๆปลาๆ บางคนก็สามารถพูดได้คล่องภายในปีสองปี

ถ้าใครต่อใครคิดว่าผมไม่สามารถทำแบบนั้นผมก็ไม่มีอะไรจะพูดอีกแล้วละครับ

Right now I'm REALLY sorry that I started this thread. The only reason I said that I was fluent after two years was as another example of why I thought that Thai wasn't that hard to learn (because I didn't have to learn radically new concepts, as stated before). Now I'm getting battered left and right, and my example is considered to be a case of snotty arrogance.

When I came to Thailand, I was only 10 years old. I knew no Thai. I was sent to a Thai school (no, not a language school, I mean a typical Thai elementary school). I read Thai books, at least 5 a week. I lived in a Thai home where Thai was spoken all the time. I watched only Thai TV (no UBC then).

You didn't mention earlier that you were 10 years old when you began learning Thai. That puts a whole new light on things. For babies all languages are equally simple or complex, and by age 10 you're still comfortably low on the cline assumed by the 'critical age hypothesis'. The latter presumes that language learning becomes more difficult as you become older, particularly post puberty. I'm sure everyone here assumed you were an adult learner.

For English-speaking adult learners it's a fact that Thai is one of the more difficult languages to learn. It's also a fact that most native English-speaking adult learners of Thai or any language never progress beyond 2+ or 3 on the ILR scale, and certainly not in two years.

Try it, folks.  You'll learn the language REAL QUICK.  Two years is not such a long time when you can't function without the language.

Yes, if you're 10 years old. I lived pretty much as you described for two years, beginning at age 23. Even after five years continuous study, two of them in the Peace Corps, and two of them studying Thai at graduate university level (including reading classics such as Phra Aphaimani, regular reading of Thai poetry and Kukrit Pramoj's weekly columns in Siam Rath newspaper) I had only reached about a level 3+ on the 5-point Inter-Language Roundtable scale.

Twenty years later. a full-time Thailand resident married to a Thai to whom I speak only Thai, I've probably progressed to a 4, maybe 4+ on a really good day. Thais say I sound like a native speaker (even going so far as to say I speak Thai 'better than Thais') but Thais do like to flatter and I don't take these compliments seriously at all. Every time I pick up a Thai newspaper and read it back to back I'm reminded how much vocabulary I still lack. At this point I accept I'll never quite reach R-5 (reading with functionally native proficiency) as defined by the Inter-Agency Language Roundtable:

R-5 FUNCTIONALLY NATIVE PROFICIENCY

Reading proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of the well-educated native reader. Can read extremely difficult and abstract prose: for example, general legal and technical as well as highly colloquial writings. Able to read literary texts, typically including contemporary avant-garde prose, poetry, and theatrical writing. Can read classical/archaic forms of literature with the same degree of facility as the well educated, but non-specialist native. Reads and understands a wide variety of vocabulary and idioms, colloquialisms, slang, and pertinent cultural references. With varying degrees of difficulty, can read all kinds of handwritten documents. Accuracy of comprehension is equivalent to that of a well-educated native reader.

http://www.govtilr.org/ILR_scale4.htm

I don't know any 12-year-old Thai that rates an R-5 either, so if you're saying you speak Thai as well as a 12-year-old, then that's an achievement, but not functionally native proficiency.

That you presumably were able to reach a higher level of Thai proficiency (if you have) is probably more a testimony to the age at which you began learning Thai than it pertains to the relative difficulty of Thai or any particular talent you may have for languages.

[Spee]

I don't know any 12-year-old Thai that rates an R-5 either, so if you're saying you speak Thai as well as a 12-year-old, then that's an achievement, but not functionally native proficiency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree having "12-year-old" R/W skills is quite an achievement. I've been at it for about a year and am hopefully reaching kindergarden equivalent (almost have the alphabet down, and can read and write very simple words and phrases).

I think for adults, especially falang adults, trying to learn is especially tricky because the only way to start getting the hang of the tones and pronounciation is to use transliteration.

Transliteration is a double-edged sword, I think, because it helps you get started surely, though if one continues to rely on it to learn, it starts slowing one down.

In his book Smythe recommends trying to get away from transliteration as soon as possible. I never realized how important that statement was until about 2 months ago when I started my first formal class in Thai.

Getting the alphabet and pronounciation down pat seems to be the key to really progressing. Trying to go forward rapidly with transliteration almost seems like an exercise in futility after a while.

This is a really good thread for helping me to learn. I'm still trying to work through the earlier scripted posts from all of you with advanced skills. Thanks!

[Firefoxx]

First off, I never did mention anything about when I started learning Thai. Everyone assumed I was an adult when I started and everyone shouldn't have assumed, since I never said so. It was a short statement added as an afterthought, merely to support my main argument, yet everyone seems to want to jump on it.

Secondly, it was already discussed thoroughly in another thread (and somewhat in this thread) that the word "fluency" can be defined differently by different people. I therefore clarified my meaning (long ago) to be "indistinguishable from a native". I didn't mention anything about R-levels or tech-speak. If people are still comparing my "fluency" to scientific methods of measurement and total mastery of the language, then it's not my fault. So, in my case, I was "indistinguishable from a native" when I was twelve, meaning I was talking/writing/reading like any 12 year old Thai. Does a 12 year old Thai speak/read/write Thai well enough to function? I think so. I hope that the people here don't actually expect a 12 year old to speak like an adult.

Thirdly, different people learn at different rates. If I could speak like a native after two years, it doesn't mean that everyone can. It also doesn't mean that it's impossible. Look at American SAT scores. I scored a 92 percentile in verbal, which means I did better than 92% of the people taking the test, most of which were near my own age (at the time I took it) and American. I'm not being arrogant or showing off. I'm trying to get through everyone's conscience that people are individuals. If you haven't seen it done, it doesn't mean that others can't do it.

I think if Thais took the R-levels, very very few adults would be able to achieve the highest level. Yet Thais can function perfectly well as Thais. Are they fluent? In my definition of the word, yes. Am I fluent? In my definition of the word, yes. Is sabaijai fluent? Judging from what he says, and in my definition of the word, probably yes (or close).

Do you really think that most adult Thais can read the Thai newspaper, front to back, without stumbling on a few words? Thai newspapers use incredible amounts of formal-speak (even though their headlines are a mash of tabloid-isqe slangs and nicknames) and it would take a very good education and lots of work to know all the terms. Ask a highly-educated (university degreee) Thai if he were to know all of the archaic forms and Royal words, and he would be stumped. Ask any highly-educated Chinese if he could read a Chinese newspaper front to back. Same goes for any language, even English. I probably could find at least a few words in each newspaper that I wouldn't have a clue about, and I read much more than the average Joe. Yet, am I fluent in English? In my definition of the word, yes.

Look at university and college applications. They ask if you're fluent in English. Do you say yes? Of course you do, even though you don't know the majority of technical words and have now clue how to use your thees and thous. Yet you can read Shakespeare and the Canterbury Tales well enough. Are you fluent in your native language? Yes, fluent enough to say so in an official university application. Do you have to know those archaic forms by heart? Of course not, or precious few would be able to claim fluency.

I apologize for the long Thai-language tirade in the previous reply. I was addressed in Thai, so I had to reply in Thai. Failure to do so would probably show how incompentent in Thai I was.

[Spee]

Failure to do so would probably show how incompentent in Thai I was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never doubted what you said for a minute FF! Keep the advice and knowledge transfer coming!

Cheers!

Spee

[Boon Mee]

Look at university and college applications.  They ask if you're fluent in English.  Do you say yes?  Of course you do, even though you don't know the majority of technical words and have now clue how to use your thees and thous.  Yet you can read Shakespeare and the Canterbury Tales well enough.  Are you fluent in your native language?  Yes, fluent enough to say so in an official university application.  Do you have to know those archaic forms by heart?  Of course not, or precious few would be able to claim fluency.

I apologize for the long Thai-language tirade in the previous reply.  I was addressed in Thai, so I had to reply in Thai.  Failure to do so would probably show how incompentent in Thai I was.

Don't apologize, Firefoxx - it's gives those of us who don't have a real good grip on written Thai some homework!

Excellent points you bring up. Chaucer is not that hard but given some of his spellings, it could be without some study. Or, how about a simple example of the Readers Digest "Improve your Vocabulary" excercises? Bet everyone reading this thread couldn't get all the words correct out of, say, 10 editions of the magazine.

Thanks for all the help you and the others are providing here and I look forward to fruitful discourse in this thread!

[samran]

เอาเถอะครับ

Them's there fighting words!!!!

Bit of action comes to the Thai language forum

[sabaijai]

First off, I never did mention anything about when I started learning Thai.  Everyone assumed I was an adult when I started and everyone shouldn't have assumed, since I never said so.  It was a short statement added as an afterthought, merely to support my main argument, yet everyone seems to want to jump on it.

Secondly, it was already discussed thoroughly in another thread (and somewhat in this thread) that the word "fluency" can be defined differently by different people.  I therefore clarified my meaning (long ago) to be "indistinguishable from a native".  I didn't mention anything about R-levels or tech-speak.  If people are still comparing my "fluency" to scientific methods of measurement and total mastery of the language, then it's not my fault.  So, in my case, I was "indistinguishable from a native" when I was twelve, meaning I was talking/writing/reading like any 12 year old Thai.  Does a 12 year old Thai speak/read/write Thai well enough to function?  I think so.  I hope that the people here don't actually expect a 12 year old to speak like an adult.

Thirdly, different people learn at different rates.  If I could speak like a native after two years, it doesn't mean that everyone can.  It also doesn't mean that it's impossible.  Look at American SAT scores.  I scored a 92 percentile in verbal, which means I did better than 92% of the people taking the test, most of which were near my own age (at the time I took it) and American.  I'm not being arrogant or showing off.  I'm trying to get through everyone's conscience that people are individuals.  If you haven't seen it done, it doesn't mean that others can't do it.

I think if Thais took the R-levels, very very few adults would be able to achieve the highest level.  Yet Thais can function perfectly well as Thais.  Are they fluent?  In my definition of the word, yes.  Am I fluent?  In my definition of the word, yes.  Is sabaijai fluent?  Judging from what he says, and in my definition of the word, probably yes (or close).

Do you really think that most adult Thais can read the Thai newspaper, front to back, without stumbling on a few words?  Thai newspapers use incredible amounts of formal-speak (even though their headlines are a mash of tabloid-isqe slangs and nicknames) and it would take a very good education and lots of work to know all the terms.  Ask a highly-educated (university degreee) Thai if he were to know all of the archaic forms and Royal words, and he would be stumped.  Ask any highly-educated Chinese if he could read a Chinese newspaper front to back.  Same goes for any language, even English.  I probably could find at least a few words in each newspaper that I wouldn't have a clue about, and I read much more than the average Joe.  Yet, am I fluent in English?  In my definition of the word, yes.

Look at university and college applications.  They ask if you're fluent in English.  Do you say yes?  Of course you do, even though you don't know the majority of technical words and have now clue how to use your thees and thous.  Yet you can read Shakespeare and the Canterbury Tales well enough.  Are you fluent in your native language?  Yes, fluent enough to say so in an official university application.  Do you have to know those archaic forms by heart?  Of course not, or precious few would be able to claim fluency.

I apologize for the long Thai-language tirade in the previous reply.  I was addressed in Thai, so I had to reply in Thai.  Failure to do so would probably show how incompentent in Thai I was.

Congratulations on the good fortune to have begun Thai when you were 10. To use that good fortune to generalise about how long it should take the rest of us who started in our 20s, 30s, 40s, etc, to become fluent, well for me the argument just doesn't wash.

I can only guess that your intention in arguing that learning Thai is a piece of cake is to suggest that your quick acquisition of the language comes from above-average talent. As if starting at age 10 had nothing to do with it (no one's jumping on that statement, but it makes a huge difference, obviously).

As for the newspaper analogy, I'd say that if you can read a Thai newspaper at a relatively fast pace and with complete comprehension (understanding the gist of every single sentence, if not every single word), then you're fluent in Thai. If you can't, you're not. That's about as simple a criterion as I'd be willing to accept. The vocabulary used in Thai newspapers is not at all difficult, for the average Thai. Neither is the average English language newspaper, for a native English speaker; both are typically written at grammar school levels.

When I read an English-language newspaper cover to cover on an average day, I come across zero words I don't know. Maybe once in a while I'll see a word I don't know but it's pretty rare. When I read a Thai newspaper back to back the number of words I don't know can probably be counted in the hundreds. Yet any of my Thai friends, even those without a university education, will know virtually every word. I know this because whenever I ask them about a word I don't know in a Thai newspaper, they can tell me the meaning immediately.

Yes I'm fluent in Thai if you define that term fairly liberally (my own definition would be a 4 on a scale of 5 -- you can easily administer an an ILR-type test yourself), but it took a lot longer than two years to reach that level even though during the time I was formally studying the language - five years in all - I was told I was an above-average student (if that was true it was probably because I had a multiple-language upbringing, having lived in both Europe and America as a kid, ie, good fortune, not in-born talent).

The point is, virtually no English-speaking adult would be fluent in Thai in two years. You can protest that notion all you want but, within the language teaching/learning community at least, you'll be epxressing a tiny minority view on the topic. Ask any Thai instructor and they'll tell you it takes four to five years for the average English-speaking adult to reach a broad enough language and culture base from which to become 'fluent' in Thai.

Yes earlier fluency does happen, but it's very, very rare. And it didn't happen in your case, since you weren't an adult learner.

It was only natural for folks here to doubt you achieved fluency in two years because it's simply too far from the norm. Your initial post wasn't 'I was able to achieve fluency more quickly than average' but rather 'I don't think learning Thai is difficult'.

Of course we assumed you learned as an adult, since everyone else on this branch of the forum came to Thai as an adult. Knowing you started at age 10, it's much easier to believe you made great strides in two years, because that's the way it goes for children.

So rest easy, enjoy your fluency and your good luck.

[Firefoxx]

Congratulations on the good fortune to have begun Thai when you were 10. To use that good fortune to generalise about how long it should take the rest of us who started in our 20s, 30s, 40s, etc, to become fluent, well for me the argument just doesn't wash.

I can only guess that your intention in arguing that learning Thai is a piece of cake is to suggest that your quick acquisition of the language comes from above-average talent. As if starting at age 10 had nothing to do with it (no one's jumping on that statement, but it makes a huge difference, obviously).

As for the newspaper analogy, I'd say that if you can read a Thai newspaper at a relatively fast pace and with complete comprehension (understanding the gist of every single sentence, if not every single word), then you're fluent in Thai. If you can't, you're not. That's about as simple a criterion as I'd be willing to accept. The vocabulary used in Thai newspapers is not at all difficult, for the average Thai. Neither is the average English language newspaper, for a native English speaker; both are typically written at grammar school levels.

When I read an English-language newspaper cover to cover on an average day, I come across zero words I don't know. Maybe once in a while I'll see a word I don't know but it's pretty rare. When I read a Thai newspaper back to back the number of words I don't know can probably be counted in the hundreds. Yet any of my Thai friends, even those without a university education, will know virtually every word. I know this because whenever I ask them about a word I don't know in a Thai newspaper, they can tell me the meaning immediately.

Yes I'm fluent in Thai if you define that term fairly liberally (my own definition would be a 4 on a scale of 5 -- you can easily administer an an ILR-type test yourself), but it took a lot longer than two years to reach that level even though during the time I was formally studying the language - five years in all - I was told I was an above-average student (if that was true it was probably because I had a multiple-language upbringing, having lived in both Europe and America as a kid, ie, good fortune, not in-born talent).

The point is, virtually no English-speaking adult would be fluent in Thai in two years. You can protest that notion all you want but, within the language teaching/learning community at least, you'll be epxressing a tiny minority view on the topic. Ask any Thai instructor and they'll tell you it takes four to five years for the average English-speaking adult to reach a broad enough language and culture base from which to become 'fluent' in Thai.

Yes earlier fluency does happen, but it's very, very rare. And it didn't happen in your case, since you weren't an adult learner.

It was only natural for folks here to doubt you achieved fluency in two years because it's simply too far from the norm. Your initial post wasn't 'I was able to achieve fluency more quickly than average' but rather 'I don't think learning Thai is difficult'.

Of course we assumed you learned as an adult, since everyone else on this branch of the forum came to Thai as an adult. Knowing you started at age 10, it's much easier to believe you made great strides in two years, because that's the way it goes for children.

So rest easy, enjoy your fluency and your good luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arrgh, I never said anything about Thai being a piece of cake. The original premise was that Thai is widely considered to be one of the hardest languages in the world to learn, and I was just saying that it wasn't all that dissimilar to English, and therefore shouldn't be as hard as people view it. I really hate it when people put words in my mouth. Again, my example of two years is FOR ME. I never generalized. If I say "I can run 100 meters in 8 seconds" it doesn't mean that everyone can. It's just a statement *that it can be done*.

You can read an English newspaper, front to back, sports section, leisure section, entertainment section, etc. etc. without missing a single word? Then you must be very educated indeed. I still find words that will stump me, especially in the sections that I normally don't read (sports, for example, and politics). As for a Thai newspaper, ask any Thai to read it front to back, every single word, and he will stump on at least a few (royal terms? abbreviations? whaa?). Just the fact that they know the words you don't know doesn't mean that they know *all* the words. In your case, I said "probably yes (or close)", because I've never met you, and, like I said, I was making a quick guess from what you stated. Maybe you're not, who knows. Please don't take it as a statement of fact.

Again, *fluency in my definition of the word*. Yes, it did happen in my definition of the word, which I have stated repeatedly. I thought I had repeated it often enough, I seem to have not gotten through. In your definition of the word, it didn't happen, but that's *your* definition, which I wasn't using, and which I made *very* clear long ago. If others persist on replacing my definition with their own *after the fact*, then it's out of my hands. Let me reiterate: My definition of "fluent" is "indistinguishable from a native". In other words you speak, read, write, swear, shout, and *think* like a Thai.

My original words were "I often hear that Thai is one of the top ten "difficult to learn" languages of the world. I really don't think so... in fact, I think that it's easier to learn than English." This doesn't mean that I think it's *easy*, but *easier* than English (which is actually hard). My case was special, but it was to show that it's possible to learn the language quickly, and that it's actually possible to talk/read/write like a native in a short time. Things started to get ugly when people took it on to themselves to assume my age (when I started learning) and the meaning of "fluent".

All in all, I really don't want people to get the impression that Thai is hard to learn. It isn't, not for me, not for my sister (who started when she was around 14, and took about the same time). My *example* was just to illustrate that *it's possible* to learn Thai (to the level of a native) in a short time, and so therefore I think that it's not as hard as people make it out to be. It *doesn't* mean that every single person can do the same, regardless of age. I never stated as such, and never argued as such. I only defended my own fluency, not every adult learner of Thai. If I were to say "Running is not harder than jogging, I can run 100 meters in 8 seconds" it *doesn't* mean "Running is a piece of cake, everyone can run 100 meters in 8 seconds".

I never said I was an adult. I also never said I was senior citizen, or a Catholic, or an amputee, or African American, or Somalee, or autistic, or whatever. If you want to assume, you can, but please don't use your own assumptions in an argument. You say that "everyone in this branch of the forum". Yet I am a person in this branch of the forum, and I started when I was a child. Was there a survey ever taken? A questionaire? Statistics? Again, is it my fault that others just "assumed" and used that assumption to jump on me?

Go ahead folks, take my words out of context as much as you want. I really can't stop you.

[sabaijai]

Congratulations on the good fortune to have begun Thai when you were 10. To use that good fortune to generalise about how long it should take the rest of us who started in our 20s, 30s, 40s, etc, to become fluent, well for me the argument just doesn't wash.

I can only guess that your intention in arguing that learning Thai is a piece of cake is to suggest that your quick acquisition of the language comes from above-average talent. As if starting at age 10 had nothing to do with it (no one's jumping on that statement, but it makes a huge difference, obviously).

As for the newspaper analogy, I'd say that if you can read a Thai newspaper at a relatively fast pace and with complete comprehension (understanding the gist of every single sentence, if not every single word), then you're fluent in Thai. If you can't, you're not. That's about as simple a criterion as I'd be willing to accept. The vocabulary used in Thai newspapers is not at all difficult, for the average Thai. Neither is the average English language newspaper, for a native English speaker; both are typically written at grammar school levels.

When I read an English-language newspaper cover to cover on an average day, I come across zero words I don't know. Maybe once in a while I'll see a word I don't know but it's pretty rare. When I read a Thai newspaper back to back the number of words I don't know can probably be counted in the hundreds. Yet any of my Thai friends, even those without a university education, will know virtually every word. I know this because whenever I ask them about a word I don't know in a Thai newspaper, they can tell me the meaning immediately.

Yes I'm fluent in Thai if you define that term fairly liberally (my own definition would be a 4 on a scale of 5 -- you can easily administer an an ILR-type test yourself), but it took a lot longer than two years to reach that level even though during the time I was formally studying the language - five years in all - I was told I was an above-average student (if that was true it was probably because I had a multiple-language upbringing, having lived in both Europe and America as a kid, ie, good fortune, not in-born talent).

The point is, virtually no English-speaking adult would be fluent in Thai in two years. You can protest that notion all you want but, within the language teaching/learning community at least, you'll be epxressing a tiny minority view on the topic. Ask any Thai instructor and they'll tell you it takes four to five years for the average English-speaking adult to reach a broad enough language and culture base from which to become 'fluent' in Thai.

Yes earlier fluency does happen, but it's very, very rare. And it didn't happen in your case, since you weren't an adult learner.

It was only natural for folks here to doubt you achieved fluency in two years because it's simply too far from the norm. Your initial post wasn't 'I was able to achieve fluency more quickly than average' but rather 'I don't think learning Thai is difficult'.

Of course we assumed you learned as an adult, since everyone else on this branch of the forum came to Thai as an adult. Knowing you started at age 10, it's much easier to believe you made great strides in two years, because that's the way it goes for children.

So rest easy, enjoy your fluency and your good luck.

Arrgh, I never said anything about Thai being a piece of cake. The original premise was that Thai is widely considered to be one of the hardest languages in the world to learn, and I was just saying that it wasn't all that dissimilar to English, and therefore shouldn't be as hard as people view it. I really hate it when people put words in my mouth. Again, my example of two years is FOR ME. I never generalized. If I say "I can run 100 meters in 8 seconds" it doesn't mean that everyone can. It's just a statement *that it can be done*.

You can read an English newspaper, front to back, sports section, leisure section, entertainment section, etc. etc. without missing a single word? Then you must be very educated indeed. I still find words that will stump me, especially in the sections that I normally don't read (sports, for example, and politics). As for a Thai newspaper, ask any Thai to read it front to back, every single word, and he will stump on at least a few (royal terms? abbreviations? whaa?). Just the fact that they know the words you don't know doesn't mean that they know *all* the words. In your case, I said "probably yes (or close)", because I've never met you, and, like I said, I was making a quick guess from what you stated. Maybe you're not, who knows. Please don't take it as a statement of fact.

Again, *fluency in my definition of the word*. Yes, it did happen in my definition of the word, which I have stated repeatedly. I thought I had repeated it often enough, I seem to have not gotten through. In your definition of the word, it didn't happen, but that's *your* definition, which I wasn't using, and which I made *very* clear long ago. If others persist on replacing my definition with their own *after the fact*, then it's out of my hands. Let me reiterate: My definition of "fluent" is "indistinguishable from a native". In other words you speak, read, write, swear, shout, and *think* like a Thai.

My original words were "I often hear that Thai is one of the top ten "difficult to learn" languages of the world. I really don't think so... in fact, I think that it's easier to learn than English." This doesn't mean that I think it's *easy*, but *easier* than English (which is actually hard). My case was special, but it was to show that it's possible to learn the language quickly, and that it's actually possible to talk/read/write like a native in a short time. Things started to get ugly when people took it on to themselves to assume my age (when I started learning) and the meaning of "fluent".

All in all, I really don't want people to get the impression that Thai is hard to learn. It isn't, not for me, not for my sister (who started when she was around 14, and took about the same time). My *example* was just to illustrate that *it's possible* to learn Thai (to the level of a native) in a short time, and so therefore I think that it's not as hard as people make it out to be. It *doesn't* mean that every single person can do the same, regardless of age. I never stated as such, and never argued as such. I only defended my own fluency, not every adult learner of Thai. If I were to say "Running is not harder than jogging, I can run 100 meters in 8 seconds" it *doesn't* mean "Running is a piece of cake, everyone can run 100 meters in 8 seconds".

I never said I was an adult. I also never said I was senior citizen, or a Catholic, or an amputee, or African American, or Somalee, or autistic, or whatever. If you want to assume, you can, but please don't use your own assumptions in an argument. You say that "everyone in this branch of the forum". Yet I am a person in this branch of the forum, and I started when I was a child. Was there a survey ever taken? A questionaire? Statistics? Again, is it my fault that others just "assumed" and used that assumption to jump on me?

Go ahead folks, take my words out of context as much as you want. I really can't stop you.

Given that virtually everyone on this forum appears to be an adult and began learning Thai as an adult, I think it's pretty natural we assumed you were an adult when you learned Thai. But if you think it's some kind of transgression that that assumption was made, I for one apologise.

All assumptions aside then, would you concede that your case (fluent in two years) is unique because of the age at which you began learning? Or would you assert that the average native English-speaking adult (let's say post-20 to standardise the argument) can become fluent in Thai in two years?

Just to clarify one thing, the reason Thai is rated one of the top 10 most difficult languages in the world to learn for an English-speaking adult is because of the average time it takes the latter to learn Thai (compared to learning other languages). Does that sound like a reasonable proposition to you?

It isn't the same for children since children have an equal ability to learn all languages at birth (but in declining capacity with ever passing year, due to the 'critical age hypothesis'). When L1 (first language) hasn't been fully learned yet, then the distance between L1 and L2 (second language) isn't as great.

No one put words in your mouth, though I'm guilty of questioning your intentions. Your original assertion was 'I think that [Thai is] easier to learn than English' and I merely pointed out that the comparison comes out very differently depending on whether you're talking about learning these languages as L1 or L2, and at what age. Age is the most critical factor, followed by language distance. The intrinsic diffculty of each language is virtually meaningless, because so much depends on age and language distance.

You posed the question 'Any comments on my theories?' and you got comments. I for one enjoy this sort of discussion (I studied applied linguistics at uni, especially SLA - second language acquisition - so I'm used to it) but I apologise if anything I've written has made you feel uncomfortable or put upon.

[samran]

I think 'disingenuous ' is the word we are looking for....

[snowleopard]

QUOTE(Firefoxx @ 2004-11-15 05:24:22)

(I have several thousand books, both Thai and English, and have read through all at least twice)

I'm a very avid bookworm

What would you be without those books?

An Internet worm.

Snowleopard.

[sabaijai]

I think 'disingenuous ' is the word we are looking for....

brilliant word choice, samran ...

[Firefoxx]

I'm not going to quote, the original response is up there.

I asked for comments on my theories. Theories is the word here. I did get comments on my theories, but mostly I got accusations of being an outright liar, for a statement of *my own experience*. Why? Why is it so hard for people to think that *others may be different*. I specifically stated "In my case". If I'm black, does everyone have to be black?

Again, assume all you want about anything you want, including how people in this forum learn Thai, and at what age, and whatever else. Just don't throw it around when you're arguing a point. Facts, please. The uncontrolled abuse of assumptions is what started this in the first place.

Again: "If I say "I can run 100 meters in 8 seconds" it doesn't mean that everyone can. It's just a statement *that it can be done*." I (originally) never said *how* I did, at *what age* I did it, and *in what circumstances*. I don't have to take back what I never said. Do I have to take back what everyone assumes? It's not mine to take back. It's not *my* assumption to concede. You made it up, *you* take it back.

But to settle the matter, this is my "official stance": For an English-speaking adult between the ages of 20 and 40, caucasion, of the human race, of average build and intelligence, from either sex, with a typical American upbringing, gaining "native" proficiency in the popular Thai dialect within a period of two years of typical study in typical language classes in any country would be unlikely. (But not impossible. Never say never.)

Your proposition is sound, yes, and I echo it in my "official stance". However, I never mentioned anything about "English speaking" or "adult" in my original theories. Other people pegged those on, without any help on my part. What I did do was compare it to English (because English is another language that I speak, and if the bashers here are correct, I'm also not "fluent" in) in terms of difficulty to learn. Was I to compare it to, say, Swahili? Not only that, it was a statement of opinion, which is why I asked for comments, not a statement of fact.

BTW, "disingenuous" is a word I have absolutely no clue about. None. Yet look at my SAT score (since I have no other way of showing my "fluency" in English, and people will jump on that fact). What does this show? Not much, but I can assume (please let me, everyone's doing it, I wanna try it on for size) that your English is ten times as good as mine and 100 times as good as the average American adult. One of these days I'll go through the Washington Post and ThaiRut word for word and jot down the ones I don't know. I'll keep you posted on the results.

The big issue here, folks, is that I'm being hanged for things that I never said. It's OK to read between the lines, but to actually use that ethereal content to condemn someone is simply ridiculous. Hardly anything is known about me, yet it seems like that's more than enough to pass judgement.

Snowleopard, congrats on yet another unnecessary insult. I was wondering when you were going to whip out one.

[samran]

I think 'disingenuous ' is the word we are looking for....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

brilliant word choice, samran ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

à»Ô´à¼Â might be another word to learn here too

[thatguy]

generally,

anyone over the age 7~10 will retain an accent when learning a new language.

which languages you've studied may influence your accent.

no new language is "easy"

Mark Twain once commented that:

" i'd much rather decline a good drink, than a german noun"

the fact that thai has no tenses, pluruls, declensions, etc,

does not make it simple,

i cannot imagine learning all the "class" words, and the proper use of their application; "i have two (round things) xxxxx."

nuttin' easy,

how do you get to carnegie hall?

practice, practise, practice

xtg

[sabaijai]

dis·in·gen·u·ous

adj.

Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).

Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-na๏f.

disin·genu·ous·ly adv.

disin·genu·ous·ness n.

Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as “tough love.” This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning “playfully insincere, faux-na๏f,” as in the example “I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!” he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

disingenuous

\Dis`in*gen"u*ous\, a. 1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; as, disingenuous conduct or schemes.

2. Not ingenuous; wanting in noble candor or frankness; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.

So disingenuous as not to confess them [faults]. --Pope. -- Dis`in*gen\"u*ous*ly, adv. --T. Warton. -- Dis`in*gen\"u*ous*ness, n. --Macaulay.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

disingenuous

adj : not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness; "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who...exemplified...the most disagreeable traits of his time"- David Cannadine; "a disingenuous excuse" [syn: artful] [ant: ingenuous]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

----------------------------------------------------

Just playing with you, I'll take your word for it that you weren't อวดฉลาด . . . not allowed here