กสิกรรม And เกษตรกรรม

[DavidHouston]

There seem to be two sets of parallel agricultural words in Thai with roots of กสิ . . . and เกษตร . . . .

For example, the words for "agriculture" are กสิกรรม and เกษตรกรรม; the words for "farmer" are กสิกร and เกษตรกร.

The RID shows "กสิ, กสิ- [กะ-] น. การทํานา, การเพาะปลูก. (ป.)", that is, "กสิ" means farming and planting, where as "เกษตร [กะเสด] น. ที่ดิน, ทุ่ง, นา, ไร่; (โบ) แดน เช่น พุทธเกษตร"; "เกษตร" means agricultural land.

The word for the study of agriculture is (Lexitron) " เกษตรศาสตร์ [N] agricultural science; agriculture; agronomy; science of agriculture", where as the name of what used to be the Thai Farmer's Bank is "ธนาคารกสิกรไทย"ใ

Is there any difference in common or technical usage between these two word sets?

Thanks.

Edited November 11, 2008 by DavidHouston

[patri]

There seem to be two sets of parallel agricultural words in Thai with roots of กสิ . . . and เกษตร . . . .

For example, the words for "agriculture" are กสิกรรม and เกษตรกรรม; the words for "farmer" are กสิกร and เกษตรกร.

The RID shows "กสิ, กสิ- [กะ-] น. การทํานา, การเพาะปลูก. (ป.)", that is, "กสิ" means farming and planting, where as "เกษตร [กะเสด] น. ที่ดิน, ทุ่ง, นา, ไร่; (โบ) แดน เช่น พุทธเกษตร"; "เกษตร" means agricultural land.

The word for the study of agriculture is (Lexitron) " เกษตรศาสตร์ [N] agricultural science; agriculture; agronomy; science of agriculture", where as the name of what used to be the Thai Farmer's Bank is "ธนาคารกสิกรไทย"ใ

Is there any difference in common or technical usage between these two word sets?

Thanks.

I think กสิกรรม is only used for rice farming, while เกษตรกรรม is farming in general.

[DavidHouston]

Excellent, Patri. That seems to be the distinction that the RID makes:

กสิกรรม น. การทําไร่ไถนา.

เกษตรกรรม . . . การใช้ที่ดินเพาะปลูกพืชต่าง ๆ รวมทั้ง การเลี้ยงสัตว์ การประมงและการป่าไม้.

[Rikker]

ทำไร่ไถนา is a rhyming expression meaning agriculture in general, not just rice farming. Thai makes the distinction between นา (usually) rice field, ไร่ (usually) non-rice crop field, and สวน orchard, but the distinction between which crops are planted in a ไร่ versus a สวน is not always clearcut.

I think it's just a distinction of word origin. กสิ is from Pali, เกษตร is from Sanskrit. In the past words like กสิกรรม and กสิกร were more widely used than today (and still survive in the names of various organization like กสิกร bank), but the favored terms now are เกษตรกร and เกษตรกรรม.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Rikker

[yoot]

Excellent, Patri. That seems to be the distinction that the RID makes:

กสิกรรม น. การทําไร่ไถนา.

เกษตรกรรม . . . การใช้ที่ดินเพาะปลูกพืชต่าง ๆ รวมทั้ง การเลี้ยงสัตว์ การประมงและการป่าไม้.

The distinction of these terms is exactly as given by the RID.

กสิกรรม(farming and planting) is a part of เกษตรกรรม(agriculture).

เกษตรกรรม is consisted of กสิกรรม(farming and planting), ปศุสัตว์( domesticated animals), ประมง(fisheries) and ป่าไม้(forests).

[Rikker]

That jives with this radio transcript from the Royal Institute. They note that กสิกรรม equates to English "farming", meaning crop cultivation, whereas เกษตรกรรม equates to English "agriculture", and consists of everything included in กสิกรรม, as well as fishing, forestry, animal raising.

This other page gives a technical legal definition of กสิกรรม that includes cultivation and animal raising, but not fishing or forestry.

So depends on who you prefer to take as the authority. The law or the Royal Institute.

[withnail]

This other page gives a technical legal definition of กสิกรรม that includes cultivation and animal raising, but not fishing or forestry.

Do you think that's maybe because a farmer in the 'farming and planting' sense could also raise some animals but is less likely to be involved in fishing or forestry i.e. that there is less of a connection?

Do you still feel that กสิกรรม is less widely used today? What are your thoughts on this Yoot?

[yoot]

This other page gives a technical legal definition of กสิกรรม that includes cultivation and animal raising, but not fishing or forestry.

Do you think that's maybe because a farmer in the 'farming and planting' sense could also raise some animals but is less likely to be involved in fishing or forestry i.e. that there is less of a connection?

Do you still feel that กสิกรรม is less widely used today? What are your thoughts on this Yoot?

I don't think the term กสิกรรม is less widely used today. You might see the term เกษตรกรรม is used more often than กสิกรรม, but you have to consider the fact that we are dealing with the whole part of agriculture, not just one part. The term กสิกรรม will be used when it needs to specify about farming and planting.

If you read on the news you will see how both term are used differently.

I will show you some examples:

From Positioning Magazine

ปี 2549 นับว่าเป็นปีที่ท้าทายสำหรับภาคเกษตรกรรม เนื่องจากคาดการณ์ว่าภาคเกษตรกรรมต้องเผชิญกับปัญหาและปัจจัยเสี่ยงหลากหลายประการ

สินค้าส่งออกที่น่าเป็นห่วงคือ สินค้าในหมวดกสิกรรมโดยเฉพาะข้าว ส่วนสินค้าปศุสัตว์แม้จะมีการคาดการณ์ว่ามูลค่าการส่งออกจะมีแนวโน้มเพิ่มขึ้น

From Thailand China Business Link

สินค้าเกษตรทุกหมวดไม่ว่าจะเป็นกสิกรรม ปศุสัตว์และประมงมีแนวโน้มเพิ่มขึ้น

From Bangkokbiznews

เมื่อเทียบกับช่วงเดียวกันของปีก่อนแล้วเพิ่มขึ้นร้อยละ 21.2 เนื่องจากประเทศผู้ผลิตสินค้าเกษตรรายสำคัญของโลก โดยเฉพาะสินค้ากสิกรรม เผชิญกับปัญหาสภาพอากาศไม่เอื้ออำนวย และปัญหาภัยธรรมชาติ ทำให้ในปี 2550 นี้ความรุนแรงในการแข่งขันในตลาดโลกโดยเฉพาะสินค้ากสิกรรมของไทยลดลง ซึ่งนับเป็นโอกาสทองของการส่งออกสินค้าเกษตรและอุตสาหกรรมเกษตรของไทย

From Stock News Online

รวมทั้งการแข่งขันตลาดโลกมีแนวโน้มรุนแรงขึ้นนับเป็นปัจจัยกดดันราคาสินค้าเกษตรโดยเฉพาะสินค้าหลักในหมวดกสิกรรมไม่ว่าจะเป็นข้าว ยางพาราและผลิตภัณฑ์มันสำปะหลังรวมไปถึงสินค้าในหมวดประมงคือ กุ้งและผลิตภัณฑ์

Or, from this webpage

กสิกรรมบวกปศุสัตว์ ประมงน้ำจืด น้ำกร่อย น้ำเค็มกับป่าไม้ รวมเป็นเกษตรกรรม

I think these should be enough to see how both words are used.

Edited November 11, 2008 by yoot

[Rikker]

It's fair to point out that Thais are confused about the difference, too, as evidenced by the need for the Royal Institute to feature the word in their รู้ รัก ภาษาไทย radio segment (the transcript I linked to). The segment on กสิกรรม-เกษตรกรรม aired May 16, 2007. So this is a very helpful discussion. Thanks, David, for asking, and Yoot for clarifying.

Note that meanings change over the years, too. In 1950, the Royal Institute included mining (การเหมืองแร่) as part of เกษตรกรรม and didn't mention fishing, defining it more generally as "producing things from the land" (การผลิตจากที่ดิน). Whenever they decided to บัญญัติ it as the equivalent to English "agriculture" then the meaning would have been narrowed to whatever was included in agriculture. กสิกรรม in 1950 is defined the same as today.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

I suspect that there would be another subset to add, that is, "เลี้ยงสัตว์น้ำ" or "aquaculture", to the list of agricultural activities.

[Rikker]

It's interesting to me how some fight the influence of English tooth and nail, but at the same time the Royal Institute intentionally molds the language so that it is parallel to English, striving for 1:1 correspondences. Just as long as you don't use the actual English word!

[DavidHouston]

It's interesting to me how some fight the influence of English tooth and nail, but at the same time the Royal Institute intentionally molds the language so that it is parallel to English, striving for 1:1 correspondences. Just as long as you don't use the actual English word!

Don't be myopic. There are valid economic, technical, and scientific reasons for a global or universal set of description terms in all areas of endeavor, agriculture being one of those areas. The use of a parallel lexicography allows scientists, technicians, bureaucrats, and politicians to communicate with each other easily and effectively and to bring understandings which develop to communicate with their local populations.

[DavidHouston]

This other page gives a technical legal definition of กสิกรรม that includes cultivation and animal raising, but not fishing or forestry.

Do you think that's maybe because a farmer in the 'farming and planting' sense could also raise some animals but is less likely to be involved in fishing or forestry i.e. that there is less of a connection?

Do you still feel that กสิกรรม is less widely used today? What are your thoughts on this Yoot?

The sentence, "• กสิกรรม คือ การเพาะปลูก เลี้ยงสัตว์ ไม่รวมถึงการประมงหรือป่าไม้ และทรัพย์จะต้องเป็นของผู้มีอาชีพกสิกรรม" can be found in the on-line document entitled, "การวิเคราะห์แผนประทุษกรรมในความผิดเกี่ยวกับทรัพย์ ในเขตกรุงเทพมหานคร" ("Investigating the Modus Operandi in Crimes involving Property in the Bangkok Area").

As we sometimes say in English, the definition of "agriculture" in this legal context is the exception which proves the rule. This document is used as a text in the Police Academy to train cadets and likely reflects the criminal law in general. It limits the definition of agricultural products for purposes of this particular section of the criminal law to farming production and animal husbandry. Were the law and the text not so specific and exclusive, readers would normally use the common, more inclusive definition. Quod erat demonstratum!

Can anyone confirm? Thanks.

Edited November 12, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Rikker]

Don't be myopic. There are valid economic, technical, and scientific reasons for a global or universal set of description terms in all areas of endeavor, agriculture being one of those areas. The use of a parallel lexicography allows scientists, technicians, bureaucrats, and politicians to communicate with each other easily and effectively and to bring understandings which develop to communicate with their local populations.

Quite so. Conventions are important, and I'm well aware and in favor of the benefits this sort of language modernization provides. Given this truth, it's the demonization of English that I find ironic. English was referred to a number of times (only half-jokingly) as the ภาษาศัตรู "enemy language" at the Royal Institute's recent conference on language planning.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Rikker

[DavidHouston]

Quite so. Conventions are important, and I'm well aware and in favor of the benefits this sort of language modernization provides. Given this truth, it's the demonization of English that I find ironic. English was referred to a number of times (only half-jokingly) as the ภาษาศัตรู "enemy language" at the Royal Institute's recent conference on language planning.

Khun Rikker,

Have there been any papers published from the conference and, if so, are they available on-line? Perhaps you could give us a summary of some of the ideas brought out in the conference.

Were there book publishers and vendors there and did you see anything new and interesting?

Thanks.

[Rikker]

There will be a conference proceedings published at some point, but I don't know when. The name of the conference, for those unaware, was National Language Policy: Language Diversity for National Unity. Only a few talks were about Thai, but there were panels about language planning and other general topics. I only attended one panel and sessions with talks relating to Thai.

I was preoccupied with preparing my own talk, so I didn't take many notes, but I'll try to go back and look at what I have and see what might interest you. It was in the panel I attended that a couple of references (again, half in jest) were made to English as the "enemy language", and I ended up referencing back to that in my talk, mentioning that Pali and Sanskrit have invaded Thai far more than English, and perhaps a thousand years ago some resented the massive influence of those languages, too.

I just checked back at the website set up for the conference, and I see there are a few interesting-looking articles from an earlier local conference that I wasn't aware of. The one by Dr. Udom about Plaek Phibunsongkhram's Cultural Edict #9 (about the use of Thai language) looks of particular interest.

Anyhow, I'll get back to you when I have something more to report.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Rikker

[meadish_sweetball]

I think everybody who speaks a relatively small language has at least a partially ambivalent attitude to English. At least that is certainly true for me.

While I really like the English language and realize how beneficial it is with a lingua franca for the world, as well as using universally accepted and clearly defined terms, the influence of English is so extremely pervasive all over the world that for somebody who loves their native tongue just as much or even more, one cannot help but hurting inside, if only a little, when straight translations from English are adopted and favoured over what you personally feel are more colourful and expressive ways of speech in your native tongue.

It is silly from a technical point of view I know, but it just feels like the benefits of standardization do not always warrant the loss of the quirks one has grown up with.

As a parallel I remember an American writing about how 'you can't feel the temperature with the centigrade scale as you can with Fahrenheit, everybody knows what an 88 feels like but a 32 doesn't tell me anything.'

Obviously a completely irrational and insular point of view but that doesn't make it go away.

[Rikker]

Thanks for the interesting response, Meadish. I know there are those who feel the same way about Thai. One comment I heard from a translator friend is that so much "modern" Thai, from the news to academic writing, reads/sounds like it was translated from English. And in a sense it was.

I think speakers of minority languages must feel the same way. A majority language can overtake and kill off a language in just a couple of generations. Hawaiian is said to have only a couple hundred native speakers left. Certainly life has changed in Thailand's extremities since the advent of universal compulsory education in standard Thai, as well as nationwide radio, TV, and now the internet.

I don't think it's really illogical to feel the way you do. We have no historical precedent on such a scale as today, really. Are we moving toward a single world language? It seems impossible, but the world keeps getting smaller and smaller. Where will we be in 1000 years?

[mangkorn]

I think everybody who speaks a relatively small language has at least a partially ambivalent attitude to English. At least that is certainly true for me.

While I really like the English language and realize how beneficial it is with a lingua franca for the world, as well as using universally accepted and clearly defined terms, the influence of English is so extremely pervasive all over the world that for somebody who loves their native tongue just as much or even more, one cannot help but hurting inside, if only a little, when straight translations from English are adopted and favoured over what you personally feel are more colourful and expressive ways of speech in your native tongue. ....

Excellent observation, meadish.