Classifiers (again!)

[gobs]

Hello everyone!

As many others, I suppose, the use of the right classifiers in Thai is sometimes not obvious in the spontaneous daily process of communication. We have just to learn and register them, I know...

I know too that european languages use some classifiers: two glasses of water; three bunches of flowers; and so on...

But it's said: two cars; three dogs; three flowers; I have two chidren... In a row of house, it's said: my house is the white one...

So does anybody know WHY, at the origin, "academics" decided to create such classifiers in Thai?

WHY it cannot be said: song rot; sam maa; sam dokmai; and so on...

I do like to learn and use the Thai, but I'm curious too...

Thanks

Gobs

[thithi]

hmmmm... Tho i'm Thai, know how to use the classifier.... still i don't know exactly why we have to use it.

but all i know is when we only say 3 maa or 3 dok mai, it's quite strange.

and sounds just like when u count things.

1 maa, 2 Maew, 3 dok mai, 4 Pla blah blah

[NaiGreg]

The OP now has responses 2 [of them] to his/her post.

or

dtawn-nee mee kam-dtawp sawng reuang!

(Is reuang [falling] the correct classifier for "answers/responses" ?)

Edited September 22, 2008 by NaiGreg

[Slip]

In English often you use classifiers for non-count nouns. water, rice, and so on. I think it's only in modern times you can say for example "2 beers please". I don't know if it's connected- I'm not a cunning linguist. Mind you then you have flock of sheep, school of fish or pack of politicians all of which are count nouns- it's all very confusing. At least Thai always uses the classifier which should make it easier I'd have thought.

[meadish_sweetball]

It's just differing development and norms between different languages.

To counter - why is it necessary to use a dummy subject in English, (i.e. it)? Many languages just use a verb equivalent to 'Rain or rain[ing]' instead of 'It is raining'... the 'it' gives no additional information.

Same thing with classifiers. Although they are sometimes omitted in speech - 'bia sawng' or 'phat kaphrao saam' is commonly heard in restaurants, instead of the more complete versions 'bia sawng khuat' or 'phad kaphrao saam jaan'.

[Rikker]

It might be helpful to remind ourselves of two general types of classifiers:

Sorting classifiers - based on shape or some other attribute, sometimes arbitrary and specialized

Measuring classifiers - based on some unit of measurement, whether formal or informal

We might say เม็ด is a "sorting" classifier for rice (as in ข้าวสองเม็ด), based on its shape (and the fact that it's literally a seed). Measuring classifiers for rice are many: คำ, ทัพพี, จาน (etc., for cooked rice), and ถุง, กระสอบ, and then more formal measuring terms used generally, like ถ้วย(ตวง), ขีด, กิโล(กรัม), ปอนด์, ตัน, etc.

English has some words that are a bit like sorting classifiers -- two *loaves* of bread, three *ears* of corn. And like pretty much any language, it also has a huge number of words that act just like measuring classifiers. There are fairly close equivalents to the Thai list above: bite, scoop, plate, bag, sack, as well as cup, centigram, kilogram, pound, ton, and so forth.

Also note that Thai has many "repeater" classifiers, in which a noun is (a) repeated as its own classifier, in which case the head noun can often be omitted, leaving only the classifier--มีเรื่องสองเรื่อง gives way to มีสองเรื่อง; or (b ) the main head of a compound is repeated as the classifier, as in ร้านค้าสองร้าน, โรงละครสองโรง, etc.

The use of these words developed naturally. Academics have only gotten involved recently, both in trying to standardize the system and maintain an often cumbersome system.

Language conservatives often complain how youngsters (though in fact it's more widespread than that) use อัน way too much these days, instead of remembering all the classifiers as they "should" do. It's entirely possible that in another hundred years Thai could be back down to only a handful of classifiers. While some view this as a corruption, it's just as natural for them to go away as it was for them to come into use.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Rikker

[mangkorn]

Excellent explanation, Rikker.

[PeaceBlondie]

So, native Thais have a problem with classifiers, all their life? If they cannot recall the correct classifier for a wet, rectangular, long, warm, orange, smelly, cooked vegetable, they call it a whatchamacallit or a thingamabob?

[Rikker]

This topic was studied in a 1999 Chula Master's thesis which I haven't read, but the abstract is available online. To quote:

This thesis attempts to examine the co-occurrence of classifiers and nouns and patterns of noun phrases which contain classifiers used by speakers of modern standard Thai and to study the variation in the use of classifiers according to the age of the speakers. The data was collected from talk shows on television and conversations by two age groups under 25 years old and over 40 years old. It is hypothesized that the modern standard Thai speakers use a lot of generic classifiers and repeater classifiers instead of specific classifiers suggested by the Royal Institude. They are also expected to use more various patterns of noun phrases containing classifiers than the patterns mentioned in grammar books. Concerning the variation according to age, I expect the older speakers to conform more to the Royal Institute and grammatical rules than the younger speakers. The result of the study partly support my hypothesis, i.e., modern standard Thai speakers use a lot of generic classifiers and repeater classifiers instead of classifiers suggested by the Royal Institute and use more various patterns of noun phrases containing classifiers than the patterns in Thai grammar books. However, the point that does not confirm my hypothesis is the co-occurrence of classifiers and nouns. It is found that younger speakers conform more to the Royal Institute than older speakers intheir use of classifiers. This is probably results from the fact that younger speakers are mostly students who are still aware of correct classifiers taught in school. In addition, regarding the use of patterns of noun phrases, it is found that the speakers of two different ages use various patterns of noun phrases with almost the same rate of frequency

วิทยานิพนธ์นี้มีวัตถุประสงค์ที่จะวิเคราะห์การเกิดร่วมของคำลักษณนามกับคำนาม และรูปแบบนามวลีที่มีคำลักษณนามของผู้พูดภาษาไทยมาตรฐานปัจจุบัน ตลอดจนศึกษาการแปรในการใช้คำลักษณนามตามปัจจัยอายุ โดยเก็บข้อมูลจากรายการสัมภาษณ์บุคคลทางโทรทัศน์ และการสนทนาของบุคคล 2 รุ่นอายุ ได้แก่ รุ่นอายุต่ำกว่า 25 ปี และรุ่นอายุมากกว่า 40 ปี ผู้วิจัยมีสมมุติฐานว่าผู้พูดภาษาไทยมาตรฐานปัจจุบันมีการใช้คำลักษณะนามกลาง (generic classifiers) และคำลักษณนามซ้ำคำนามแทนคำลักษณะนามที่ราชบัณฑิตยสถานกำหนดไว้เป็นจำนวนมากและใช้รูปแบบนามวลีที่มีคำลักษณนามหลากหลายกว่าข้อสรุปหลักเกณฑ์ทางไวยากรณ์ที่มีมาในอดีตสำหรับการแปรตามอายุผู้วิจัยคาดว่า ผู้พูดที่มีอายุมากจะใช้คำลักษณนามตรงตามหลักเกณฑ์ที่กำหนด โดยราชบัณฑิตยสถานและใช้รูปแปรนามวลีที่มีคำลักษณนามตรงตามไวยากรณ์มากกว่าผู้พูดที่มีอายุน้อย ผลการวิจัยที่ได้ตรงตามสมมุติฐานบางส่วนคือ ผู้พูดภาษาไทยมาตรฐานปัจจุบันใช้คำลักษณนามกลาง และคำลักษณนามซ้ำคำนามแทนคำลักษณนามตามหลักเกณฑ์ของราชบัณฑิตยสถานเป็นจำนวนมาก และใช้รูปแบบนามวลีหลากหลายกว่าข้อสรุปหลักเกณฑ์ทางไวยากรณ์ ส่วนประเด็นที่ขัดแย้งกับสมมุติฐานก็คือ การเกิดร่วมของคำลักษณนามกับคำนามพบว่า ผู้พูดที่มีอายุน้อยใช้คำลักษณนามตรงตามหลักเกณฑ์ที่กำหนดโดยราชบัณฑิตยสถานกว่าผู้พูดที่มีอายุมาก ซึ่งผู้วิจัยคิดว่าน่าจะเป็นผลมาจากผู้พูดอายุน้อยส่วนใหญ่ยังอยู่ในวัยศึกษา จึงมีความใกล้ชิดกับการใช้คำลักษณนามที่ถูกต้องตามหลักเกณฑ์มากกว่า ส่วนในประเด็นการใช้รูปแบบนามวลีพบว่า ผู้พูดทั้งสองรุ่นอายุต่างใช้รูปแบบนามวลี หลากหลายในอัตราส่วนที่ใกล้เคียงกัน

Interesting hypothesis and potentially very interesting results. I'd have to see the study to have an opinion on things like sample choice, etc.

The issue of younger generation Thais supposedly not using proper classifiers was one of several topics discussed in a seminar/debate held in 2001, the transcript of which is published by Chula under the title ภาษาไทยที่ดีเป็นอย่างไร ใครกำหนด "What is good Thai? Who decides it?". It's a slim volume and a relatively quick read. The panel included ดร. กาญจนา นาคสกุล of the Royal Institute (and of Chula before retirement), ดร. อมรา ประสิทธิ์รัฐสินธุ์ currently of Chula, and Dr. วิไลวรรณ ขนิษฐานันท์ of Thammasat, among others.

[DavidHouston]

A classifier one tends not to hear very much anymore is the word "ฟอง" for "ไข่", egg. I tend to hear only "ลูก". The classifier "ใิบ" is also valid but I have not heard this in a while either.

Do you think that this is only a Southern regional thing or is it common in Bangkok Thai also to substitute "ลูก" for "ฟอง"?

Thanks.

[Rikker]

In Bangkok I hear all three, ใบ ลูก ฟอง, though I don't talk about eggs enough to have a good sense of which is more common. Of course, in Bangkok people come from all over, so I wouldn't be surprised if different regions tend to use one more than the others.

Personally, I tend to use ฟอง.