"ought" & "must"

[Boon Mee]

According to my Becker (don't have my Haas w/me right now) both "ought" and "must" are defined as: ต้อง.

Plus, one of my AUA books has "ought" defined as "naa" w/rising tone.

We all know "naa" - depending on the tone is either a rice field or face etc. but this is the first time I've seen it in this application unless it's a typo.

The main question is whether there's a distinction in Thai for "must" and "ought"?

If I use the sentence: ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

ขอบคุณมายคับ

บุญมี

[Spee]

According to my Becker (don't have my Haas w/me right now) both "ought" and "must" are defined as: ต้อง.

Plus, one of my AUA books has "ought" defined as "naa" w/rising tone.

We all know "naa" - depending on the tone is either a rice field or face etc. but this is the first time I've seen it in this application unless it's a typo.

The main question is whether there's a distinction in Thai for "must" and "ought"?

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

ขอบคุณมายคับ

บุญมี

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No expert Boon, but here is 2b worth to consider ....

On page 424, P-Becker also defines /f/naa as "ought to" or "might like to."

But then on p425, she gives additional uses to make it sound like this word might be used alone only infrequently.

For example, she uses /f/naa /l/aan as an example for "worth reading" which I guess could also be interpreted as ought to read.

That's one thing I do when I use P-Becker's dictionary for new words. When I use the english word to find the transliterated and Thai words, then I also go to those sections of the book to see if the definitions are the same or lead to additional meanings.

HTH

[Boon Mee]

According to my Becker (don't have my Haas w/me right now) both "ought" and "must" are defined as: ต้อง.

Plus, one of my AUA books has "ought" defined as "naa" w/rising tone.

We all know "naa" - depending on the tone is either a rice field or face etc. but this is the first time I've seen it in this application unless it's a typo.

The main question is whether there's a distinction in Thai for "must" and "ought"?

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

ขอบคุณมายคับ

บุญมี

No expert Boon, but here is 2b worth to consider ....

On page 424, P-Becker also defines /f/naa as "ought to" or "might like to."

But then on p425, she gives additional uses to make it sound like this word might be used alone only infrequently.

For example, she uses /f/naa /l/aan as an example for "worth reading" which I guess could also be interpreted as ought to read.

That's one thing I do when I use P-Becker's dictionary for new words. When I use the english word to find the transliterated and Thai words, then I also go to those sections of the book to see if the definitions are the same or lead to additional meanings.

HTH

Thanks Spee - let me grab my Becker and check that out. I do like how she has separated the dictionary into three parts in order to make it much easier than other references.

I'm still curious as to how to use ต้อง in a sentence. Perhaps one of the "big guns" can help us out.

บุญมี

[RamdomChances]

Well, I have'nt got a Becer or Haas and only a little gun but for what its worth I always thought :-

Dtrong was must/need

Naa if just thought was a prefix meaning something like "able"

ie naa yoo- liveable, naa kit- worth thinking about

ought not sure, i'd use should = kuan

Might not be right and you'll have to wait for one of the others who can write thai for the spellings.

Cheers RC

[Boon Mee]

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread. Perhaps he can shed more light?

[RamdomChances]

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it

[Boon Mee]

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it

No offense meant!

Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

[RamdomChances]

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No offense meant!

Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No offence taken mate.

I know "kuan" is "should" I was suggesting that you could use it insted of "ought".

not saying you ought to use it, but mabye should use it,...... or

not saying you should use it , but mabye you ought to use it

Oh you forgot meadish...... again

[Boon Mee]

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it

No offense meant!

Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

No offence taken mate.

I know "kuan" is "should" I was suggesting that you could use it insted of "ought".

not saying you ought to use it, but mabye should use it,...... or

not saying you should use it , but mabye you ought to use it

Oh you forgot meadish...... again

You're right...sorry 'bout that, Meadish.

No hard feelings?

[sabaijai]

must = ต้อง

ought to = น่าจะ

should = ควรจะ

น่า + verb, when used as an adjectival, can give the meaning 'worth (doing, whatever the verb is)' or '-able', when translated to English. Within the Thai context it's just another way of saying 'ought' ...

One problem sorting this out is that the English terms 'should' and 'ought to' are almost indistinguishable in most contexts. Seeing a nice lake with clear water, you could say either 'We oughta go for a swim," or "We should go for a swim." In Thai you would be more likely to use น่าจะ than ควรจะ in such a context.

ควรจะ connotates that an action is 'appropriate' so is more often used when you're talking about the proper time or situation for doing something. If someone were to advise you to wai an elder, they'd probably use ควรจะ.

In Thai I see a shade of difference, but in English not so much.

ควร often crops up as part of สมควร, an adjective/adverb which means 'perfect', 'suitable' or 'appropriate' depending on the context. สม itself carries the meaning of 'appropriate' so this is one of the many terms in Thai where two words with the same meaning are sandwiched together for extra effect (not that it intensifies the meaning, it just looks more 'solid' or more literate to the Thai eye).

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

That should read ฉันน่าจะไปโรงเรียนวันนี้ , meaning 'I ought to/should go to school today'.

You can't mix ต้อง and น่าจะ in the same verb phrase. If you want to say 'I must go to school today' then you'd write:

ฉันต้องไปโรงเรียนวันนี้

Hope this helps.

[Boon Mee]

must = ต้อง

ought to = น่าจะ

should = ควรจะ

น่า + verb, when used as an adjectival, can give the meaning 'worth (doing, whatever the verb is)' or '-able', when translated to English. Within the Thai context it's just another way of saying 'ought' ...

One problem sorting this out is that the English terms 'should' and 'ought to' are almost indistinguishable in most contexts. Seeing a nice lake with clear water, you could say either 'We oughta go for a swim," or "We should go for a swim." In Thai you would be more likely to use น่าจะ than ควรจะ in such a context.

ควรจะ connotates that an action is 'appropriate' so is more often used when you're talking about the proper time or situation for doing something. If someone were to advise you to wai an elder, they'd probably use ควรจะ.

In Thai I see a shade of difference, but in English not so much.

ควร often crops up as part of สมควร, an adjective/adverb which means 'perfect', 'suitable' or 'appropriate' depending on the context. สม itself carries the meaning of 'appropriate' so this is one of the many terms in Thai where two words with the same meaning are sandwiched together for extra effect (not that it intensifies the meaning, it just looks more 'solid' or more literate to the Thai eye).

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

That should read ฉันน่าจะไปโรงเรียนวันนี้ , meaning 'I ought to/should go to school today'.

You can't mix ต้อง and น่าจะ in the same verb phrase. If you want to say 'I must go to school today' then you'd write:

ฉันต้องไปโรงเรียนวันนี้

Hope this helps.

Thanks very much, sabaijai!

Your help is always greatly appreciated.

'Am too heavily dependent on "Spell Check" in English and don't have that in Thai - left out the ป in ไป and inserted ว for ง - apologize for that.

[bannork]

talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

[bannork]

.

'ควรจะ connotates that an action is 'appropriate' so is more often used when you're talking about the proper time or situation for doing something. If someone were to advise you to wai an elder, they'd probably use ควรจะ.'(sabaijai)

So we would use ควรจะ when a sense of responsiblity or duty was involved, thanks for that sabaajai, now a slight poser concerning English; the difference between 'must' and 'have to'. I read somewhere the difference was 'have to' implied an outside force was compelling one,ie 'I have to go to school'(but I don't want to) whilst 'I must go to school' suggests an interior motivation; but I contend the inner drive may be entirely due to external rules and hence make the distinction irrelevant.

sorry to take up anyone's time on such a frivolous topic.

bannork.

[meadish_sweetball]

talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in  Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

ํI know what you mean. When I came to Thailand after my first year of Thai studies in Sweden, I stayed at a guest house. The fan in my room was broken, and I told the staff at the reception. One of the male staff went by me and asked to reconfirm if the fan was broken, and I meant to tell him it was, but that he did not have to fix it right away since I was on my way out for the day anyway. For this, I used the construction

"ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ " "mai tawng sawm diaownii khrap" which he clearly took to mean as an order NOT to repair it.

In hindsight, I think

"ยังไมจำเป็นต้องซ่อม" "yang mai jam pen tawng sawm" instead would have worked better... but somebody else might have an even more elegant solution for this (apart from not using ต้อง at all which is the easiest way out).

[Richard W]

talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in  Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ " "mai tawng sawm diaownii khrap" which he clearly took to mean as an order NOT to repair it.

In hindsight, I think

"ยังไมจำเป็นต้องซ่อม" "yang mai jam pen tawng sawm" instead would have worked better... but somebody else might have an even more elegant solution for this (apart from not using ต้อง at all which is the easiest way out).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It definitely seems to me that the textbook distinction between

ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ [F]mai [F]torng [F]sawm [R]diau[F]nii [H]khrap 'It needn't be repaired now.'

and

ต้องไม่ซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ [F]torng [F]mai [F]sawm [R]diau[F]nii [H]khrap 'It shouldn't be repaired now.'

is not made in normal Thai. The second meaning seems to be the usual meaning of the first contruction - I can't actually recall hearing the second construction! I first realised that the textbook distinction was not to be trusted when reading a love letter.

I suspect this shift in meaning is a 'universal' tendency - e.g. in English 'I don't want to meet him' may mean 'I want avoid meeting him'. I've even heard English "You don't have to" mean "You mustn't", though it's normal meaning remains "You needn't".

[snowleopard]

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sabaijai Posted Today, 2004-11-29 13:14:49

  must = ต้อง

ought to = น่าจะ

should = ควรจะ

Hi folks,

You're right BoonMee.I was lurking around a bit before but I had a hangover from yesterday's binge so I went back to bed!

Sabaijai's post was informative and I'll try to provide some more info about "MUST"...

First we should remember that both English and Thai are separate languages,which exist on their own,and both are comprehensible to mono-lingual speakers of either language without being translated back and forth.

The English "must"/"have to" can be served by several different words in Thai,depending on the necessity.

Here are some of those Thai words with examples...

1.ต้อง "dtorng" (not so strong expression with must)

เขามีการบ้านต้องทำ "kaow mee gaan baan dtorng tum"=He's got some homework he must do.

2.จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"(more emphatic expression with must)

เขาจำเป็นต้องขออนุญาตครูก่อน "kaow jum-bpen dtorng ano-yaat kroo gorn"=He must ask permission from his teacher first.

3.จำเป็น "jum-bpen"(When "jum-bpen" is at the end of the sentence,"dtorng" is not necessary)

ผมไม่ชอบฆ่าคนถ้าไม่จำเป็นจริง ๆ "pom mai chop kaa kon taa mai jum-bpen jing jing"=I don't like killing people unless I must do it.

4.คง "kong"(sometimes translated as may_sometimes as must)

ผมคงทำลูกกุญแจหล่นหายไปแล้วแน่ ๆ "pom kong tum luhk-kohn-jae lon haai bpai nae nae"=I must have lost my key.

5.จง "jong"

จงระวังตัวให้ดี "jong ra-wang dto-a hai dee"=You must take good care of yourself.

6.จำต้อง "jum-dtorng"

คืนนี้ฝนตกหนักมาก การขับรถอาจมีอันตราย ดังนั้น เราจำต้องค้างที่นี่อีกหนึ่งคืน "keun nee fon dtok nuk maak,gaan cup rot aat mee ahnta-raai, dung nun raow jum-dtorng kaang tee nee eek neung keun"=It's raining so heavily tonight that driving might be hazardous;therefore,we must lodge here for another night.

Negatives..."Must not" vs. "Don't have to"...

7.ห้าม "haam"(must not)

ห้ามไปที่นั่นเพราะว่ามีอันตราย "haam bpai tee nan pro-waa mee ahnta-raai"=You must not go there because it is dangerous.

8.ไม่ต้องก็ได้ "mai dtorng goh dai"(don't have to)

ไม่ต้องไปที่นั่นก็ได้นเพราะว่ามันไม่สนุกเลย "mai dtorng pai tee nan goh dai pro-waa mai sanohk ley"=You don't have to go there cuz it ain't no fun.

Hope this is useful.

Cheers,

Snowleopard.

[RDN]

....Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please! I am so embarrassed . No, really, I am definitely not a "big gun" - I just use the Lexitron a lot ( http://lexitron.nectec.or.th ) and am quick on the keyboard .

The current real "big guns" (in alphabetical order) are:

bannork

Firefoxx

meadish_sweetball

Richard W

sabaijai

Snowleopard

(and probably alleypanda - but I've only noticed him write in Thai )

And we haven't heard much from Edward B recently.

Apologies to any 'big guns' left off the list.

[Boon Mee]

....Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

Please! I am so embarrassed . No, really, I am definitely not a "big gun" - I just use the Lexitron a lot ( http://lexitron.nectec.or.th ) and am quick on the keyboard .

The current real "big guns" (in alphabetical order) are:

bannork

Firefoxx

meadish_sweetball

Richard W

sabaijai

Snowleopard

(and probably alleypanda - but I've only noticed him write in Thai )

And we haven't heard much from Edward B recently.

Apologies to any 'big guns' left off the list.

Jeeez...I forgot Alleypanda too.

Sorry, Khun Panda...

[Spee]

....Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please! I am so embarrassed . No, really, I am definitely not a "big gun" - I just use the Lexitron a lot ( http://lexitron.nectec.or.th ) and am quick on the keyboard .

The current real "big guns" (in alphabetical order) are:

bannork

Firefoxx

meadish_sweetball

Richard W

sabaijai

Snowleopard

(and probably alleypanda - but I've only noticed him write in Thai )

And we haven't heard much from Edward B recently.

Apologies to any 'big guns' left off the list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeeez...I forgot Alleypanda too.

Sorry, Khun Panda...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks to all for another interesting and educational thread.

Spee

... a BB pistol among Colt 45's ...

[Boon Mee]

To echo Spee - everyone's help is very much appreciated. Thanks Snowleopard for further illumination into the usage(s) of "dtorng".

Would like to add that I consider the "big guns":

*bannork

*Firefoxx

*meadish_sweetball

*Richard W

*sabaijai

*Snowleopard & Alleypanda light years in advance of my feeble efforts but if I can pass the P6 exam in a few years, I'll be happy!

[Edward B]

And we haven't heard much from Edward B recently.

Apologies to any 'big guns' left off the list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Been busy as a beaver in a dam building contest. I promise to check back here more often.

talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

ํI know what you mean. When I came to Thailand after my first year of Thai studies in Sweden, I stayed at a guest house. The fan in my room was broken, and I told the staff at the reception. One of the male staff went by me and asked to reconfirm if the fan was broken, and I meant to tell him it was, but that he did not have to fix it right away since I was on my way out for the day anyway. For this, I used the construction

"ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี้ครับ " "mai tawng sawm diaownii khrap" which he clearly took to mean as an order NOT to repair it.

In hindsight, I think

"ยังไมจำเป็นต้องซ่อม" "yang mai jam pen tawng sawm" instead would have worked better... but somebody else might have an even more elegant solution for this (apart from not using ต้อง at all which is the easiest way out).

How about "ไม่ต้องรีบก็ได้ครับ" (No [need to] rush!)

It's a very common expression (in both languages).

[sabaijai]

Just a couple clarifications.

2.จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"(more emphatic expression with must)

เขาจำเป็นต้องขออนุญาตครูก่อน "kaow jum-bpen dtorng ano-yaat kroo gorn"=He must ask permission from his teacher first.

More commonly (and correctly) with จะ as จำเป็นจะต้อง. Colloquially จะ may sometimes be omitted, but not by educated speakers. Or at least that's my impression.

4.คง "kong"(sometimes translated as may_sometimes as must)

ผมคงทำลูกกุญแจหล่นหายไปแล้วแน่ ๆ "pom kong tum luhk-kohn-jae lon haai bpai nae nae"=I must have lost my key.

Its literal meaning is 'sure, solid, stable,' etc, and when used as a modal (i.e., in conjuction with a verb), คง (or its full form, คงจะ) is thus more commonly translated as 'probably' rather than either 'may' (not strong enough) or 'must have' (too strong).

[snowleopard]

Just a couple clarifications.

2.จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"(more emphatic expression with must)

เขาจำเป็นต้องขออนุญาตครูก่อน "kaow jum-bpen dtorng ano-yaat kroo gorn"=He must ask permission from his teacher first.

More commonly (and correctly) with จะ as จำเป็นจะต้อง. Colloquially จะ may sometimes be omitted, but not by educated speakers. Or at least that's my impression.

4.คง "kong"(sometimes translated as may_sometimes as must)

ผมคงทำลูกกุญแจหล่นหายไปแล้วแน่ ๆ "pom kong tum luhk-kohn-jae lon haai bpai nae nae"=I must have lost my key.

Its literal meaning is 'sure, solid, stable,' etc, and when used as a modal (i.e., in conjuction with a verb), คง (or its full form, คงจะ) is thus more commonly translated as 'probably' rather than either 'may' (not strong enough) or 'must have' (too strong).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More commonly (and correctly) with จะ as จำเป็นจะต้อง.

I think you're wrong in your assertions about both "commonly"and "correctly".

จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"is more commonly used than จำเป็นจะต้อง "jum-bpen ja dtorng";but both of them are correct.

In my sentence,the meaning is more direct and stronger without "ja" so I think it's the better choice.

Colloquially จะ may sometimes be omitted, but not by educated speakers. Or at least that's my impression.

Wrong impression...

and,it's definitely better to know some Thai than to only know some Thais.

  คง= 'may' (not strong enough) or 'must have' (too strong).

If you consider แน่ ๆ "nae nae" at the end,I'd still say that "must have" is the best translation of my Thai sentence.

ผมคงทำลูกกุญแจหล่นหายไปแล้วแน่ ๆ "pom kong tum luhk-kohn-jae lon haai bpai nae nae"=I must have lost my key.

Cheers,

Snowleopard.

[sabaijai]

I've worked as a Thai translator and interpreter since 1981, so am quite picky when it comes to translation. None of your translations for คง is optimum for the Thai examples you gave as far as I'm concerned. I see your point about nae nae at the end, but that's like saying 'I probably left my keys ... for sure," and sounds as awkward in Thai as it does in English.

At any rate 'must have' in your translation is an idiomatic use of the Engish 'must' and has nothing to do with Boonmee's orginal inquiry about 'must' in its imperative connotations. คง never means 'must' in its canonical sense, as in 'you must do something'. คง is used to express likelihood. You can qualify it with other adverbs like nae nawn or nae nae but then you might as well not use คง in the first place.

I disagree about the correctness of จะ as well.

and,it's definitely better to know some Thai than to only know some Thais.

I agree, if you actually know Thai that is. But it's better to know Thai as Thais actually speak it than it is to know Thai as read in dictionaries or reference grammars.

Just a couple clarifications.

2.จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"(more emphatic expression with must)

เขาจำเป็นต้องขออนุญาตครูก่อน "kaow jum-bpen dtorng ano-yaat kroo gorn"=He must ask permission from his teacher first.

More commonly (and correctly) with จะ as จำเป็นจะต้อง. Colloquially จะ may sometimes be omitted, but not by educated speakers. Or at least that's my impression.

4.คง "kong"(sometimes translated as may_sometimes as must)

ผมคงทำลูกกุญแจหล่นหายไปแล้วแน่ ๆ "pom kong tum luhk-kohn-jae lon haai bpai nae nae"=I must have lost my key.

Its literal meaning is 'sure, solid, stable,' etc, and when used as a modal (i.e., in conjuction with a verb), คง (or its full form, คงจะ) is thus more commonly translated as 'probably' rather than either 'may' (not strong enough) or 'must have' (too strong).

More commonly (and correctly) with จะ as จำเป็นจะต้อง.

I think you're wrong in your assertions about both "commonly"and "correctly".

จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"is more commonly used than จำเป็นจะต้อง "jum-bpen ja dtorng";but both of them are correct.

In my sentence,the meaning is more direct and stronger without "ja" so I think it's the better choice.

Colloquially จะ may sometimes be omitted, but not by educated speakers. Or at least that's my impression.

Wrong impression...

and,it's definitely better to know some Thai than to only know some Thais.

  คง= 'may' (not strong enough) or 'must have' (too strong).

If you consider แน่ ๆ "nae nae" at the end,I'd still say that "must have" is the best translation of my Thai sentence.

ผมคงทำลูกกุญแจหล่นหายไปแล้วแน่ ๆ "pom kong tum luhk-kohn-jae lon haai bpai nae nae"=I must have lost my key.

Cheers,

Snowleopard.

Edited November 30, 2004 by sabaijai

[snowleopard]

I've worked as a Thai translator and interpreter since 1981, so am quite picky when it comes to translation.

Translator of the Thai language? For free I hope.

I see your point about nae nae at the end, but that's like saying 'I probably left my keys ... for sure," and sounds as awkward in Thai as it does in English.

How about.."I must have lost my key"

คง never means 'must'

Never say never.

I disagree about the correctness of จะ as well.

จำเป็นต้อง "jum-bpen dtorng"is more commonly used than จำเป็นจะต้อง "jum-bpen ja dtorng";but both of them are correct.

In my sentence,the meaning is more direct and stronger without "ja" so I think it's the better choice.

Snowleopard.

[meadish_sweetball]

And we haven't heard much from Edward B recently.

Apologies to any 'big guns' left off the list.

Been busy as a beaver in a dam building contest. I promise to check back here more often.

talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

ํI know what you mean. When I came to Thailand after my first year of Thai studies in Sweden, I stayed at a guest house. The fan in my room was broken, and I told the staff at the reception. One of the male staff went by me and asked to reconfirm if the fan was broken, and I meant to tell him it was, but that he did not have to fix it right away since I was on my way out for the day anyway. For this, I used the construction

"ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี้ครับ " "mai tawng sawm diaownii khrap" which he clearly took to mean as an order NOT to repair it.

In hindsight, I think

"ยังไมจำเป็นต้องซ่อม" "yang mai jam pen tawng sawm" instead would have worked better... but somebody else might have an even more elegant solution for this (apart from not using ต้อง at all which is the easiest way out).

How about "ไม่ต้องรีบก็ได้ครับ" (No [need to] rush!)

It's a very common expression (in both languages).

Yes, that's a very elegant and idiomatic solution.

[bannork]

'How about "ไม่ต้องรีบก็ได้ครับ" (No [need to] rush!)

It's a very common expression (in both languages).

Yes, that's a very elegant and idiomatic solution.'

The trouble is the ไม่ต้อง may not be related to time so the ไม่ดัองรีบ wouldn't work, in that case I guess ไม่จำเป๊น would suffice.

bannork.