ให้ - Usage

[Lithobid]

I presented my teacher with the sentence

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากเราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต (no the sentence does not pertain to the teacher!)

She corrected it with adding ให้

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากให้เราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต

I said, "I always have trouble with that verb"

She said, "This time it isin't a verb."

Question 1. If it isin't a verb here what part of speech is it?

2. Can I still think of it as the verb "to give" even though it isin't, and if not, what should I think of it as compared to English? (If you can compare!?! - I know many times you can't)

Cheers

Lithobid

[ashacat]

I'm no (cunning) linguist, but in my understanding it looks like a verb in this context???....

[Lithobid]

That's what I thought and my teacher may be confused, but I've learned not to question, because I'm usually wrong!

Hence questioning here..

Cheers

[DavidHouston]

I presented my teacher with the sentence

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากเราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต (no the sentence does not pertain to the teacher!)

She corrected it with adding ให้

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากให้เราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต

I said, "I always have trouble with that verb"

She said, "This time it isin't a verb."

Question 1. If it isin't a verb here what part of speech is it?

2. Can I still think of it as the verb "to give" even though it isin't, and if not, what should I think of it as compared to English? (If you can compare!?! - I know many times you can't)

Cheers

Lithobid

Shoichi Iwasaki and Preeya Ingkaphirom, "A Reference Grammar of Thai", Cambridge University Press, 2005, section 27.2.2, page 328:

"The /hay/ causative is the opposite of the /tham/ causative in that it is a "weak" causative. It shows a clearer intention on the part of the causer (usually human/animate), but allows the causee (also usually human/animate) to take part in his own destiny."

Under the section for "causative verbs" Reference Grammar includes three kinds: 1. the /tham/ causative; 2. the /hay/ causative; and, 3. the /tham-hay/ causative.

And, there you have it. This book also contains other uses of the /hay/ verb, for example, 27.3.1,the 'inducive' /hay/, and 27.3.2, the adverbial /hay/, and 27.3.3, the non-interventive /hay/. I do not know how universal this categorization is in the linguistic/grammar world. I suspect that you can find A Thai Reference Grammar in your university library, if you do not already own it yourself. Best of luck.

Edited February 19, 2009 by DavidHouston

[DavidHouston]

In a parallel manner, David Smyth in "Thai An Essential Grammar", Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2002, Section 5.11, pages 77 - 80, deals with the subject of "Causatives". A number of examples are provided.

[Richard W]

She corrected it with adding ให้

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากให้เราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต

I said, "I always have trouble with that verb"

She said, "This time it isin't a verb."

Question 1. If it isin't a verb here what part of speech is it?

2. Can I still think of it as the verb "to give" even though it isin't, and if not, what should I think of it as compared to English?

It'd be a conjunction. The English equivalent would be 'that', which is not particularly precise. I'd say you're better off thinking it as an idiomatic use of the verb to give, just as when the word means 'to' or 'for'.

[DavidHouston]

I had never thought of ให้ as being a conjunction before Richard mentioned it, but it appears that Ajarn Nawawan also raised the possibility of this word being a conjunction. In "ไวยากรณ์ไทย" by นววรรณ์ พันธุ้มธา, last printed 2551 (2008), page 232-233, Ajarn Nawawan says the following:

"คำว้า ให้ ก็อาจมีผู้ถือเป็นคำช่วยกรียา หรือในบางกรณีอาจถือเป็นคำเชื่อมกรียา . . . ในหนังสือเล่มนี้จะถือว่า . . . ให้ . . . เป็นคำกรียา แต่เป็นกรียาที่ไม่อาจอยู่ตามลำพังได้ ต้องมีคำกรียาอื่นอยู่ด้วย"

"As for the word ให้, some people believe that it is a "helping verb" or in some circumstances it might serve as a conjunction. In this (grammar) book the word ให้ will be considered to be a verb. However, it is the type of verb which cannot be used all by itself. It must be used in connection with another verb." (Others are welcome to provide a more cogent translation.)

Professor Nawawan goes on to provide a number of examples; I'll look to see if she includes the notion of a "causative verb".

[kokesaat]

In sentences like ขอให้คุณมีความสุข, I've always thought of the ให้ as a preposition.........Wishing (for) you to have happiness......

[DavidHouston]

In sentences like ขอให้คุณมีความสุข, I've always thought of the ให้ as a preposition.........Wishing (for) you to have happiness......

I wonder if in that sentence there is an implied noun phrase, to wit:

ขอ (สิ่งศักดิ์สิทธิ์ทั้งหลาย) ให้คุณมีความสุข

"May (all the powers that be) grant you happiness."

I know that it is never stated this way but I wonder whether this is the implication; in that case "ให้" is the normal "give" or "grant".

Edited February 19, 2009 by DavidHouston

[kriswillems]

Maybe it's not English but I think about ให้ in this context as the verb "let" and อยาก as "want to".

ผมอยากให้เราเป็นเพื่อนกัน

I want to let us be friends

It just depend on how you look at it. If you look at it this way ให้ is a verb.

If you translate the sentence as "I want that we be friends" ให้ is a conjunction.

Personally I like the first translation a bit more (although it might not be good English). The words "want to let" are also a "weak causative", while "want that" is a hard causative. If you "want to let" the causee or anything else can still take part in his own destiny. But if you say "I want that" the causee really has not much freedom, he's almost obliged to become friends.

If you want to say the same sentence with a "hard causative" in Thai, you would say:

ผมอยากเป็นเพื่อนกัน

Edited February 19, 2009 by kriswillems

[DavidHouston]

I had never thought of ให้ as being a conjunction before Richard mentioned it, but it appears that Ajarn Nawawan also raised the possibility of this word being a conjunction. In "ไวยากรณ์ไทย" by นววรรณ์ พันธุ้มธา, last printed 2551 (2008), page 232-233, Ajarn Nawawan says the following:

"คำว้า ให้ ก็อาจมีผู้ถือเป็นคำช่วยกรียา หรือในบางกรณีอาจถือเป็นคำเชื่อมกรียา . . . ในหนังสือเล่มนี้จะถือว่า . . . ให้ . . . เป็นคำกรียา แต่เป็นกรียาที่ไม่อาจอยู่ตามลำพังได้ ต้องมีคำกรียาอื่นอยู่ด้วย"

"As for the word ให้, some people believe that it is a "helping verb" or in some circumstances it might serve as a conjunction. In this (grammar) book the word ให้ will be considered to be a verb. However, it is the type of verb which cannot be used all by itself. It must be used in connection with another verb." (Others are welcome to provide a more cogent translation.)

Professor Nawawan goes on to provide a number of examples; I'll look to see if she includes the notion of a "causative verb".

And, indeed, Professor Nawawan does included the notion of causation. On page 234 she begins here discussion of "ให้" with the following: คำว้า ให้ ใช้แสดงสาเหตุของกรียา จึงใช้หน้ากรียาอื่น ประธานของ ให้ เป็นผู้เป็นสาเหตุโดยตั้งใจ

"The word 'ให้' is used to indicate causation of (a related) verb so it is used before another verb. The subject of the word "ให้" is the person who causes (the action) intentionally."

[Lithobid]

I presented my teacher with the sentence

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากเราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต (no the sentence does not pertain to the teacher!)

She corrected it with adding ให้

แค่นี้ผมรักคุณและผมอยากให้เราเป็นเพื่อนกันตลอดชีวิต

I said, "I always have trouble with that verb"

She said, "This time it isin't a verb."

Question 1. If it isin't a verb here what part of speech is it?

2. Can I still think of it as the verb "to give" even though it isin't, and if not, what should I think of it as compared to English? (If you can compare!?! - I know many times you can't)

Cheers

Lithobid

Shoichi Iwasaki and Preeya Ingkaphirom, "A Reference Grammar of Thai", Cambridge University Press, 2005, section 27.2.2, page 328:

"The /hay/ causative is the opposite of the /tham/ causative in that it is a "weak" causative. It shows a clearer intention on the part of the causer (usually human/animate), but allows the causee (also usually human/animate) to take part in his own destiny."

Under the section for "causative verbs" Reference Grammar includes three kinds: 1. the /tham/ causative; 2. the /hay/ causative; and, 3. the /tham-hay/ causative.

And, there you have it. This book also contains other uses of the /hay/ verb, for example, 27.3.1,the 'inducive' /hay/, and 27.3.2, the adverbial /hay/, and 27.3.3, the non-interventive /hay/. I do not know how universal this categorization is in the linguistic/grammar world. I suspect that you can find A Thai Reference Grammar in your university library, if you do not already own it yourself. Best of luck.

David, it's not the accuracy of your replies, it just seems like they are in a language that I can't understand! You linguist you!

I appreciate all the replies. After posting I thought about and some of you touched on it.

ผมอยากไห้เราเป็นเพื่อนกัน - I translated as "I would like us to be friends"

I didn't initially put ไห้ in the sentence, because I thought เป็น was taking care of all the action. In this case, I translated ไห้ definitively as the modal "would" that modifies อยาก implying a concept of time, in meaning that we are not friends now, but I would like to be.

What do all you brain trusts think about that nonsense? Any good?

Cheers

Lithobid

[tgeezer]

I had never thought of ให้ as being a conjunction before Richard mentioned it, but it appears that Ajarn Nawawan also raised the possibility of this word being a conjunction. In "ไวยากรณ์ไทย" by นววรรณ์ พันธุ้มธา, last printed 2551 (2008), page 232-233, Ajarn Nawawan says the following:

"คำว้า ให้ ก็อาจมีผู้ถือเป็นคำช่วยกรียา หรือในบางกรณีอาจถือเป็นคำเชื่อมกรียา . . . ในหนังสือเล่มนี้จะถือว่า . . . ให้ . . . เป็นคำกรียา แต่เป็นกรียาที่ไม่อาจอยู่ตามลำพังได้ ต้องมีคำกรียาอื่นอยู่ด้วย"

"As for the word ให้, some people believe that it is a "helping verb" or in some circumstances it might serve as a conjunction. In this (grammar) book the word ให้ will be considered to be a verb. However, it is the type of verb which cannot be used all by itself. It must be used in connection with another verb." (Others are welcome to provide a more cogent translation.)

Professor Nawawan goes on to provide a number of examples; I'll look to see if she includes the notion of a "causative verb".

That is interesting suggesting that there are various opinions on the class of the word but hers is that it is a verb. The other quote you gave, is the explanation of a 'helping verb' if in a sentence in a form of, who made who, do what? at least one thing. ให้เขา ทำ/ไป/ กิน ฯ The verb which needs questioning is อยาก is it modifiing ผม In speach ผม might not be there. Of course nothing is being done, that pesky verb เป็น just describes a situation, but เราเป็นเพื่อนกัน does affect the subject ผม so that makes it a predicate doesn't it? I would say that the main verb is ให้ the extra verb!

Edited February 20, 2009 by tgeezer

[mangkorn]

ผมอยากไห้เราเป็นเพื่อนกัน - I translated as "I would like us to be friends"

I didn't initially put ไห้ in the sentence, because I thought เป็น was taking care of all the action. In this case, I translated ไห้ definitively as the modal "would" that modifies อยาก implying a concept of time, in meaning that we are not friends now, but I would like to be.

What do all you brain trusts think about that nonsense? Any good?

I thought kriswillems' explication was quite good. The above translation "I would like us to be friends," is sometimes said as "I would like for us to be friends." The implied, or spoken, "for us" (or "that," as in kris' example) is a function of ไห้. Coming between the verbs อยาก and เป็น it expresses a desire for something "to be/become true" that the speaker himself cannot necessarily make happen alone. ผมอยากเป็น... on the other hand, means "I want to be..." The difference between "I would like to be your friend," and "I would like (for us) to be friends," may be semantic, but both ways of expressing the idea do exist in English. In Thai, ผมอยากเป็นเพื่อนของคุณ is probably acceptable to express the first, while ผมอยากให้เราเป็นเพื่อนกัน is the same construction as the second.

[bhoydy]

Funnily enough i was looking at ให้ in the dictionary today and was surprised to find it listed as a to or for in the conjunctive sense. It gives a new look to the phrase ถือให้หน่อย which i would have previously thought to transalate as -give a little carry 555. Now it makes more sense as - carry for (me) a little while