Syntax And Clauses

[DavidHouston]

As many here have pointed out, one of the more challenging aspects of learning Thai is to understand the sometimes complex syntax of sentences and clauses. Perhaps you can provide me some assistance in analyzing and parsing out the following paragraph from an article in today's Matichon. Let's not skip to quickly to a smooth rendering in colloquial English, but rather, help me understand the syntax of this series of sentences and/or clauses:

(1) การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า . . .

(1) This election campaign just discussed created a feeling among the grassroots . . .

(2) . . . ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น . . .

(2) . . . who are increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes . . .

(3) . . . เพราะมองว่าคนกลุ่มดังกล่าวได้รับความช่วยเหลือและถูกเอาใจจากรัฐบาลของนายชวน และทอดทิ้งชนชั้นแรงงานให้ตกระกำลำบาก . . .

(3) . . . because they perceive that this aforementioned group received assistance and favoritism from Chuan's government and [that the government] abandoned the labor class to [lives of] poverty.(4) . . . ทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนกลุ่มนี้

(4). . . [this] allowed Col. Thaksin Shinawatra to become the prime minister with the support of this group.

From the use of the Thai words for "who" and "because" in clauses (2) and (3) can we assume that these are subordinate clauses in a larger sentence? If we temporarily eliminate the subordinate clauses, and attempt to isolate the subject, verb, and objects, and/or predicates in this passage what emerges?

Stripped bare, does this paragraph say, ". . .การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า . . . ทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนกลุ่มนี้"?

This election campaign just discussed created a feeling among the grassroots . . . [which] allowed Col. Thaksin Shinawatra to become the prime minister with the support of this group." ?

Again, I am not attempting here merely to get to step one in the translation process, that is, to understand the syntax and flow of the Thai paragraph.

Just to pose a straw man alternative for discussion, it would be much easier for me to understand the paragraph if the Thai clauses (1) and (2) were written as follows:

(1) การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า [ให้] มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

(1) This election campaign just discussed created emotions within the grassroots [to be] increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes.

(By the way, I am using the terms "clause" and "sentence" loosely to identify parts of the larger paragraph. I make no pretentions of folloiwng any specific grammital formulation in the use of these terms.)

Any thoughts? Thank you for your assistance.

Edited October 4, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Rikker]

Maybe I've just read it too many times, but I'm not sure which noun (2) is supposed to be modifying: ความรู้สึก or คนระดับรากหญ้า. It seems like the latter is more likely, because of ที่มี. Anyhow, (3) is a continuation of the thread in (2), so I think you've said it right. The main thought here is (1) (4), and (2) (3) add background to it.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Rikker

[kriswillems]

- I think

ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

refers to

คนระดับรากหญ้า

and not to

ความรู้สึก

Because "a feeling" (ความรู้สึก) can not "have" (มี) prejudice (ความอคติ), but people (คนระดับรากหญ้า) can.

- I understand the sentence the same way as you (David & Rikker).

But I think it a strange sentence, because the feeling is explained nowhere in the sentence. The just say it creates a feeling and the author doesn't explain what kind of feeling. He just tells what the result is of that feeling (Taksin becomes prime minister).

- การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

In this sentence the "increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes", is not a result of the election campaign. The grassroots already felt like this even before or without the campaign.

In your sentence:

การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า [ให้] มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

The "increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes" is a result of the feeling created by the election campaign.

I think is not what the author intended to say. The real reason for the "increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes" was not the election campaign but the fact that the grassroots perceived that Chuan's government supported the rich and abandoned the poor.

Edited October 5, 2008 by kriswillems

[DavidHouston]

Kris,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. With respect to your comment:

"The "increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes" is a result of the feeling created by the election campaign.

I think is not what the author intended to say. The real reason for the "increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes" was not the election campaign but the fact that the grassroots perceived that Chuan's government supported the rich and abandoned the poor. "

If you are saying that my alternative is ambiguous as to this point, how about an augmentation to the following:

"(1) การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า [ให้] มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

(1) This election campaign just discussed created emotions within the grassroots [to be] increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes. "

"This election campaign just discussed created emotions within the grassroots [who are] increasingly [becoming] more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes. "

Question:

As to your comment as to which is the causation, the election or Chuan's government, are you saying that the author's language makes this point or that the author could have rephrased his language to make this point more clearly? Or, am I in my reading misidentifying the subject/noun of the verb "ทำให้ " ? I have assumed that a clause beginning with the word "เพราะ" can only be subordinate, and not be the subject of the verb "ทำให้ ". But, I could be wrong in my parsing of the Thai syntax.

Thanks again; I appreciate your assistance.

[aanon]

David,

After you so clearly set out the rules, I'd just like to ask one question: can I change the rules? For me, I need to understand the sentence as a whole before trying to dissect it. Below is my best guess at what the sentence was intended to mean.

การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า [ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น เพราะมองว่าคนกลุ่มดังกล่าวได้รับความช่วยเหลือและถูกเอาใจจากรัฐบาลของนายชวน และทอดทิ้งชนชั้นแรงงานให้ตกระกำลำบาก] ทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนกลุ่มนี

The campaign touched the hearts of the working class [who had become even more biased against the middle class in the belief that the middle class had been assisted and pandered to by Chuan's government, while they had been abandoned] and their subsequent response gave victory to Thaksin.

Since you asked the question earlier, I do think that this passage is poorly written or at least poorly edited. I say so...

1) because of the ambiguous use of คนกลุ่มนี้ in the last line,

2) because I'd expect ก่อเกิดความรู้สึก to be followed by a description of the feeling

3) because the sentence literally says that the middle class, rather than Chuan's Government, abandoned the working class to their hardship. I'm assuming that it is meant to be the other way around.

The other guess I am making above is that the article is talking about Thaksin's campaign resonating with the working class, rather than his opposition's offending them.

I know this is not really what you're after, but perhaps you can throw these musings into your pot.

All the best.

Edited October 5, 2008 by aanon

[Rikker]

Nice point by aanon... และ should actually be ซึ่ง, right? "...who had become even more biased against the middle class, since the middle class had been assisted and pandered to by Chuan's government, and abandoned the labor class to its own problems..." to "...which had abandoned..."

Surely it's not the middle class that was doing the abandoning.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

Thanks, guys.

The name of the article in Matichon is "วิถีการเมือง กับเรื่องความขัดแย้งของคนในชาติ" and the author is "อภิชาติ จันทร์แดง อาจารย์ประจำสถาบันสันติศึกษา มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์". Since Apichart is a professor at Songkhla Nakarin, one assumes that he is an articulate writer. In any event, I always assume as a basic premise that a native author knows how to write his or her language correctly and articulately. If this premise is correct when applied to this case, then our reading leaves something to be desired. However, if this premise is not correct in this case, then we can restate his articulation to communicate the thoughts in a more understandable manner.

Perhaps his writing was fine but a Matichon editor compressed or cut out portions to fit into the alloted space; perhaps he gave his ideas to a graduate student who actually did the writing. And, by the way, what is "The Institute for Peace Studies"? I found it at http://peacestudies.psu.ac.th/ but know nothing more than is at the website.

I very much appreciate all of your restatements of the sentence; I only wish we had the good professor's email address so we can ask him directly.

[Rikker]

If you want it, here it is: [email protected]

Found at this link.

After Googling this guy, turns out he has some interesting work, including a book or two I might pick up if I see them on the shelf.

[kriswillems]

Hi David,

I think your modified sentence:

(1) การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า [ให้] มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

Can not be translated to:

This election campaign just discussed created emotions within the grassroots [who are] increasingly [becoming] more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes. "

Your first translation:

(1) This election campaign just discussed created emotions within the grassroots [to be] increasingly more prejudiced against the middle and higher classes. "

was better because "[ให้] มี ..." explains how the feeling of the lower class (that was created by the election) is: it is prejudiced.

In your last translation (...who are...) you just say the lower class is prejudiced but you don't link that to the feeling created by the election campaign.

My comments on your modification are:

I don't think the election campaign created a feeling of being biased.

The explanation "เพราะ....." also doesn't make sense in your modification.

I think we all know what the author wants to say, but his sentence construction is strange.

I think the same as aanon, the feeling is nowhere described in the sentence. The sentence just doesn't make sense.

Thai language invites people to make very complex constructions. At some point these constructions become so complex that even the author starts making mistakes.

I admire you for the time you spend reading complex sentences, I would have given up somewhere in the middle

Edited October 5, 2008 by kriswillems

[aanon]

I think I may have been wrong in my first interpretation. After sleeping on it, it occured to me that the 'feeling' is defined: it is a feeling of prejudice. And so, I'm slowly coming around to the alternative reading you proposed in your first post.

การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น เพราะมองว่าคนกลุ่มดังกล่าวได้รับความช่วยเหลือและถูกเอาใจจากรัฐบาลของนายชวน และทอดทิ้งชนชั้นแรงงานให้ตกระกำลำบาก ทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนกลุ่มนี้

The campaign* created a feeling in the working class of even greater bias** against the middle and upper classes because workers perceived that those classes were being assisted and pandered to by the Chuan Government while workers were being neglected***, and led to Thaksin becoming Prime Minister on the back of working-class support.

* or 'such campaigning'

** I'm not sure that 'bias' or 'prejudice' is a great translation. It's probably more natural to speak about division, animosity or discontentment. Nonetheless, it's only a side issue here.

*** or past tense: "because they perceived that the middle class had been assisted and pandered to by the Chuan Government while they had been neglected".

What's described in the preceding text - Chuan's campaign or Thaksin's? What about them?

Apologies for my flip-flopping. It's been an interesting passage to think about. I for one would be interested to read about the author's comments, if it comes to that.

All the best.

[kriswillems]

Hi Aanon,

ความรู้สึกที่มีความอคติ

You translate ที่ (มี) as "of": a feeling of bias

If I look for ที่มีความอคติ on google, I find only examples with people (ผู้, พวก, รัฐบาล, ใคร, คน) not with feelings.

But if you think about it, a feeling can also have a bias.

I just wonder why the author didn't just say

การหาเสียงดังกล่าวทำให้คนระดับรากหญ้ามีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

Could you give other examples where ที่ should be translated as "of"?

I think am missing the point here.

Edited October 6, 2008 by kriswillems

[kriswillems]

Or why the author didn't say:

การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความอคติของคนระดับรากหญ้าติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่ง

[yoot]

From this passage "การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้าที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น เพราะมองว่าคนกลุ่มดังกล่าวได้รับความช่วยเหลือและถูกเอาใจจากรัฐบาลของนายชวน และทอดทิ้งชนชั้นแรงงานให้ตกระกำลำบาก ทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนกลุ่มนี้"

I believe that this article have mentioned the campaign of Chuan's party before this passage, so, this passage is written to clarify the result of it which can be shorten to "จากการหาเสียงดังกล่าวของฝ่ายตรงข้าม กลับทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ได้ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนระดับรากหญ้า".

Or, if the previous passage mentioned about TRT party's campaign, then this passage can be shorten to ""การหาเสียงดังกล่าว ทำให้ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ได้ก้าวขึ้นสู่ตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรีด้วยเสียงตอบรับจากคนระดับรากหญ้า".

The passage on your post is understandable but not in a good written form.

From this sentence: การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้าที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น

การหาเสียงดังกล่าว is a subject.

ได้ก่อเกิด is a verb.

ความรู้สึกของคนระดับรากหญ้า is a noun phrase acting as an object.

ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไป is a modifier of the object.

มากยิ่งขึ้น is a modifier of ความรู้สึกที่มีความอคติ which is not a good written form to write it separately as in the passage. Because it makes the sentence sound like "ที่มีความอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไป" is a modifier of "คนระดับรากหญ้า" which change the meaning of it somehow.

So, if we rephrase it, it should be "การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อเกิดความรู้สึกที่มีอคติของคนระดับรากหญ้าต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น" or even clearer if it's rewritten to"การหาเสียงดังกล่าวได้ก่อให้คนระดับรากหญ้าเกิดความรู้สึกมีอคติต่อคนชั้นกลางขึ้นไปมากยิ่งขึ้น".

[aanon]

Well, I could make up a sentence, I suppose:

มันเป็นความรู้สึกที่จุกอยู่ในลำคอ

it's a feeling of having something stuck in your throat

On the other hand, the sentence could work without the ที่. Also, I agree with you that there would be simpler ways to express the same idea in David's sentence -- assuming that I have the correct interpretation -- and your sentences are on the right track.

It would be helpful to get a native speaker's opinion on all of this, including the correct interpretation and whether they find the writing unclear and/or excessively wordy.

All the best.

ps. Yoot has just posted a very helpful response while I've been typing this. Thank you.

Edited October 6, 2008 by aanon

[rch1023]

A novice at interpreting written Thai, I looked into this thread.

I would remark that academics writing in newspapers are not models of eloquence. There is usually strife between the editor's desire for simplicity of message and the academic's desire for expressing some deep thought. Furthermore, things written in newspapers are not written for posterity; the background for the message is supposed to be known to the readers, whereas the background would be explained to readers not au fait with current affairs. These things are generally true whether the paper is Thai or English, or Esquimaux.

I would suggest taking examples from literature rather than newspapers - and didn't I notice a thread on newspaper syntax?

- Roger -

[montrii]

A novice at interpreting written Thai, I looked into this thread.

I would remark that academics writing in newspapers are not models of eloquence. There is usually strife between the editor's desire for simplicity of message and the academic's desire for expressing some deep thought. Furthermore, things written in newspapers are not written for posterity; the background for the message is supposed to be known to the readers, whereas the background would be explained to readers not au fait with current affairs. These things are generally true whether the paper is Thai or English, or Esquimaux.

I would suggest taking examples from literature rather than newspapers - and didn't I notice a thread on newspaper syntax?

- Roger -

Hi, Roger, I think the fact that this example came from a newspaper is irrelevant: what these guys are trying to get at is what the meaning of the text actually is, and, if it is bad writing, how to recognize that. Yoot suggests that the proper meaning can be gotten from it, but that it would better be expressed another way.

This example could have come from a novel, but that wouldn't mean that it should have been discussed in a thread particularly about writing in novels. David had a question about syntax and clauses, so I can't see why it shouldn't fit here, in the syntax and clauses thread. In any case, some sharing of knowledge, and some learning has taken place here, that's what it's really all about.

[mangkorn]

Well said, montrii. For those who are not novice, and do read newspapers or other periodicals, syntax can be very difficult at times. And reading the newspapers is a fairly important thing to do, wherever one lives, in order to be an educated citizen. Far better than spewing out the typical, uninformed knee-jerk farang drivel about Thai politics and society, without understanding it in any depth. Thanks to all who have worked to parse this particular, difficult construction - especially, of course, David and khun yoot.

Edited October 6, 2008 by mangkorn

[DavidHouston]

Roger,

Three points:

We students of the Thai language learn in the various milieus in which Thais communicate with one another. These milieus include everyday conversation; interface with the marketplace; watching television and listening to the radio; reading newspapers; delving into Thai literature; going to the movies, and much more. We as foreign learners cannot decide which is valid expression and which is not. Our task is to understand these various modes of expressions; to learn to integrate them into our consciousness; and, to become one with the culture we live in. For us to discard an entire mode of expression, like newspapers, because we think that some writing might not meet a certain standard of expression, eliminates an important cultural link in our learning experience.

Second, my primary desire is to use the Thai language as a mode of expression both to internalize the Thai world around me (through reading and listening) and to be able to express myself fully (through speaking and writing). Thai newspapers give us a window into the Thai world in a way that local English language newspapers do not. For example, metaphors used in the Thai press provide us insight into a range of cultural expression which we cannot access through the Bangkok Post or The Nation. My goal is not to learn Thai as a sterile set of mathematical expressions but to gain access to the intellectual and culture life of this environment; newspapers are a critical part of that life.

Finally, I certainly do not reject forays into Thai literature. I think you have a great idea there, if I understand you correctly, to bring Thai expression and syntax from literary sources into these forums for us to analyze and understand. Can you personally take on a project to implement this idea?

Thanks, Roger, for your insight and suggestions. I look forward to hearing more from you.

[rch1023]

Gentlemen

Let me clarify my novice status. I have been here four years, and can almost communicate with taxi drivers. My wife is English, and semi-invalid, and doesn't want to go out, so my opportunities for social converse are very limited. I have progressed to grade 2 readers ( taken from the government site ), and continue to make progress at reading and writing, but this is not enough to handle real sentences. Do Thais have sentences, or merely phrases?

I would like to be able to read the (simple articles in) the newspapers, but find the journalese far beyond me. Even in the readers, I am often lost, at having failed to appreciate that a word is, in fact, someone's name.

I am afraid I have no competence to investigate the syntax and so-on of literature. But that is where I would start, if I reached the necessary level of understanding. Equally, I recognise that the grammar of ANY written language is probably going to be different from the grammar of the spoken language [a fact not functionally recognised by the Teaching-English-To-Foreigners-textbooks].

I will watch the discussion of my masters in the language.

- Roger -