'man..' As A Pronoun. How Disrespectful Is It?

[Yimmy]

Just how disrespectful is the pronoun ‘man’?

I was with a friend of a friend today, went looking at sofas, came back and she was chatting to a friend, she said ‘Man hen sofas…..’ referring to me. The friend left and I asked her about it, she got all nervous and said she uses it whenever talking about people.

I don’t speak Thai but on a one day introduction course when going through the pronouns the teacher was laughing telling us to not use ‘man’ when speaking about people, she said that ‘get ready to fight!!’ if you do... and that it means ‘it’ as in an animal like a dog.

I told her that I’m going to refer to her as ‘Man’ from now on as well and she was in a bit of a huff for the next 10 minutes.

I usually only see her with her colleagues, so when I do I want to start doing it… so I have a few Q’s to ask about that too.

Can I use it when talking to her, or only about her to others. For example if she’s just eaten, can I say ‘Man im lao mai?’ to her….. or does it have to be to a third person ‘Man gin khao lao mai?’ with reference to her?

Thanks.

And the original question, how disrespectful is it. Seeing as she called me it?

Thanks.

I should add that's she's from Sisaket in case there are differing regional uses.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Yimmy

[Lancelot]

My understanding is man = it. Not very nice....

[eek]

Oh my.

PersonaIIy I wouId be very offended to be referred to as "man". TotaI Iack of respect.

[Yimmy]

So it's really that bad...

And when I use it when refering to her for a dose of som nam na, can I use it when talking to her directly, or only when talking about her to a third party?

[meadish_sweetball]

I don't think we should make a literal translation of มัน to 'it' and then proceed to interpret the issue as if somebody had referred to you as 'it' in English because the usage and connotations are not the same.

I hear Thais I know, mainly from Chiang Mai, using มัน to refer to third persons in casual conversation with people they are close to, and/or who are of the same age.

It is not a respectful manner of reference, but from what I have observed, it does not necessarily seem to be a strong marker of disrespect either.

My wife, and her brother, sister and cousins use it about each other (but not as a substitute for a second person pronoun i.e. not like 'you' in English - just when relating a story about person B to person C, where 'man' would be equivalent to 'him/her'). It's quite clear from the context that they don't look upon each other as animals or inanimate objects, or use this pronoun out of a clear intention to show disrespect.

It just seems like a sloppy or casual way of referring to somebody in the third person.

So based on my experience, you could classify it as a bad habit word perhaps, but not something to be as upset about as you might be if somebody talked about you as 'it' in English.

[neverdie]

Yimmy,

Before you get too ready to shape up about a word, you might want to get a bit more understanding under your belt, theres no point going to a gun fight with a target on ur forehead.

A number of times I have heard different things & been unhappy with what was said at the time, to later realise, it wasnt the way I first thought it was said.

I think the meedish sweetballs has explained the above, very well

ps: that nic gets me every time, is it sweedish meatballs, sweet balls, sweedish, grr, very funny

Edited April 1, 2009 by neverdie

[Yimmy]

Sounds fair enough, thanks... am still going to refer her as 'man' at least once though... just to see how it goes down! (can always plead ignorance)

[eek]

I don't think we should make a literal translation of มัน to 'it' and then proceed to interpret the issue as if somebody had referred to you as 'it' in English because the usage and connotations are not the same.

I hear Thais I know, mainly from Chiang Mai, using มัน to refer to third persons in casual conversation with people they are close to, and/or who are of the same age.

It is not a respectful manner of reference, but from what I have observed, it does not necessarily seem to be a strong marker of disrespect either.

My wife, and her brother, sister and cousins use it about each other (but not as a substitute for a second person pronoun i.e. not like 'you' in English - just when relating a story about person B to person C, where 'man' would be equivalent to 'him/her'). It's quite clear from the context that they don't look upon each other as animals or inanimate objects, or use this pronoun out of a clear intention to show disrespect.

It just seems like a sloppy or casual way of referring to somebody in the third person.

So based on my experience, you could classify it as a bad habit word perhaps, but not something to be as upset about as you might be if somebody talked about you as 'it' in English.

Thats reaIIy interesting, thanks. Ive not personaIIy noticed มัน being said in company before. I wiII keep my ear tuned out for it.

But, aIthough you say you wouId classify it as a bad word habit, rather than disrespectfuI, do you think that it is stiII impoIite and not reaIIy something one shouId say?

Is there a more detaiIed exampIe you can give or maybe a simiIar exampIe in EngIish (if possibIe)?

Tnx.

[meadish_sweetball]

But, aIthough you say you wouId classify it as a bad word habit, rather than disrespectfuI, do you think that it is stiII impoIite and not reaIIy something one shouId say?

Well, personally I avoid using it to refer to people. Using it as a general 'it' in speech, as in มันไม่ใช่เรื่องง่าย (man mai chai rueang ngaai - "it's no easy matter") seems ok although it's not necessary to use a pronoun in that sentence.

I was taught not to use มัน as a personal pronoun when I studied, and I stick to that - my philosophy is that as a foreigner and second language learner it's better to err on the side of politeness, especially here in Thailand where as a foreigner you are often held to a different standard.

Is there a more detaiIed exampIe you can give or maybe a simiIar exampIe in EngIish (if possibIe)?

I'll try to catch some authentic contexts where people use it and post back. I want to make sure I get it right - the exact wording of sentences in casual speech and dialect are more difficult for me to remember as I don't master them myself.

[PhilHarries]

I was taught not to use the word as a personal pronoun when I studied, and I stick to that - my philosophy is that as a foreigner and second language learner it's best to err on the side of politeness.

And that's what I was taught in the Thai lessons I took, if in doubt err on the formal (polite) side. Holds true for any second language really.

In fact it should hold true for any language, if you are not sure of the relationship between yourself and the subject use the polite term/phrase.

[too true]

My husband also uses it in everyday speech with friends, relatives, neighbours, anyone he sees on a regular basis. He's from Chiang Mai. As a result, I, too use it when talking with Thai people I'm quite familiar/comfortable with - but only in with northern people and sometimes isaan people who live in the north. I'd never talk like that to Bangkokians.

Here are a couple of examples that spring to mind.

We go to a friend's kaomangai shop to buy rice for the kids.

Hubby says: Seu gap khao heu luuk. Heu man gin tee baan.

He's talking with friends about a guy who's left early.

Man glab baan leaw. Glua mia man ja daa.

I'm talking to a neighbour and am irritate because hubby is an hour late and I'm hungry and he's asked me to wait so we can eat together.

Ja ting man laew. Pai haa pua mai dee gwa. (always makes the neighbour across the street laugh)

Anyway he always uses it to refer to a third person.

Hope those examples are helpful.

Cheers,

tt

[Lancelot]

I don't think we should make a literal translation of มัน to 'it' and then proceed to interpret the issue as if somebody had referred to you as 'it' in English because the usage and connotations are not the same.

I hear Thais I know, mainly from Chiang Mai, using มัน to refer to third persons in casual conversation with people they are close to, and/or who are of the same age.

It is not a respectful manner of reference, but from what I have observed, it does not necessarily seem to be a strong marker of disrespect either.

My wife, and her brother, sister and cousins use it about each other (but not as a substitute for a second person pronoun i.e. not like 'you' in English - just when relating a story about person B to person C, where 'man' would be equivalent to 'him/her'). It's quite clear from the context that they don't look upon each other as animals or inanimate objects, or use this pronoun out of a clear intention to show disrespect.

It just seems like a sloppy or casual way of referring to somebody in the third person.

So based on my experience, you could classify it as a bad habit word perhaps, but not something to be as upset about as you might be if somebody talked about you as 'it' in English.

I suppose its best to give someone the benefit of doubt and let it go. Personally I would not want to have any further contact with a "friend of a friend" that refered to me as "it."

Best friends often joke around with informal pronouns and/or slang references but its accepted because everyone knows the score. I don't think many of us would refer to a Thai (or any guest nationality) as an "it" back home.

I understand that we are guests in this country and must "get along" but sometimes I wish we were viewed in a more positive light.

Whatever

Lance out

[Lozfranco]

Just how disrespectful is the pronoun ‘man’?

I was with a friend of a friend today, went looking at sofas, came back and she was chatting to a friend, she said ‘Man hen sofas…..’ referring to me. The friend left and I asked her about it, she got all nervous and said she uses it whenever talking about people.

I don’t speak Thai but on a one day introduction course when going through the pronouns the teacher was laughing telling us to not use ‘man’ when speaking about people, she said that ‘get ready to fight!!’ if you do... and that it means ‘it’ as in an animal like a dog.

I told her that I’m going to refer to her as ‘Man’ from now on as well and she was in a bit of a huff for the next 10 minutes.

I usually only see her with her colleagues, so when I do I want to start doing it… so I have a few Q’s to ask about that too.

Can I use it when talking to her, or only about her to others. For example if she’s just eaten, can I say ‘Man im lao mai?’ to her….. or does it have to be to a third person ‘Man gin khao lao mai?’ with reference to her?

Thanks.

And the original question, how disrespectful is it. Seeing as she called me it?

Thanks.

I should add that's she's from Sisaket in case there are differing regional uses.

Did you purchase your horse whip already? "man hen horse whip" see if she starts to cower.

[Roota]

Personally I would not want to have any further contact with a "friend of a friend" that refered to me as "it."

The whole point of this discussion is that มัน doesn't bear a one-to-one relationship with the English 'it'. (Though mind you I once heard someone refer to HM the King's dog Thongdaeng as 'มัน' and that definitely didn't go over well.)

[Jeddah Jo]

I would definitely not use it back at her as that smacks of being 'spiteful' which will not go down at all well.

They know it is not very proper speech, so when you called them out on it, they were probably embarassed. Basically, do not look to take offence at things so easily, especially a language you are not entirely familiar with.

JJ

[katana]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Mun-t37518.html

[eek]

Thanks for that link. มัน generates a lot of heated responses!

After what I have read, if i ever hear myself being referred to as มัน, i will consider the context and try not to be offended (although Im still not comfortable with the idea of being referred to as มัน) Personally I will stick to เขา!

[Slip]

A friend of mine explained this to me. Apparently if the person that is being spoken about is not present, then it would not be seen as rude, but rather as informal, and would be perfectly normal. To say it in someone's presence though, would be impolite. Strange rules.

[appleman]

The first time I heard the word "mun" used was back in the 60s when the "professional" ladies would all refer to their American GI Johns as "mun". That's one context. Occasionally one will refer to their own children as "mun" especially if they have done something wrong. I accidentally used it with a neighbor's child and that was a big faux pas. A wife or girlfriend will use "mun" when speaking about her partner when she is angry at him. If someone regularly used it about me when casually speaking with others then I would say that it shows a lack of respect. If there is a big age difference between you and your partner then she should be referring to you as Pi or Lung. But for me mun would be unacceptable. I would never, never use it with someone I cared about.

[uhuh]

A friend of mine explained this to me. Apparently if the person that is being spoken about is not present, then it would not be seen as rude, but rather as informal, and would be perfectly normal. To say it in someone's presence though, would be impolite. Strange rules.

yes, otherwise i agree with tootrue and meatball

note that in all of tootrue's examples the person referred to as "man" is not present.

Edited April 6, 2009 by uhuh

[Gaccha]

A friend of mine explained this to me. Apparently if the person that is being spoken about is not present, then it would not be seen as rude, but rather as informal, and would be perfectly normal. To say it in someone's presence though, would be impolite. Strange rules.

yes, otherwise i agree with tootrue and meatball

note that in all of tootrue's examples the person referred to as "man" is not present.

No, no no. It is quite okay if used in front of you. But it would only be acceptable if you are with a close group or associates. English speakers with their unchanging pronouns struggle with this. There is a basic rule: informal pronouns sound affectionate if you are close to the person speaking, and very rude if you are not.

[Lithobid]

I think Meadish is right on here, I hear it the same in CM, also, context, context, context, this is such a conceptual language, it's unbelieveable.

Personally I would never use มัน to refer to another person, or the C, D, E character in a story, but that's only because I'm such a novice speaker.

A few classes ago, I'm with my teacher one on one, and we're talking about house hold chores, and I'm telling her what I would do ect... ช่วยดัวเอง came out in the sentence about fixing something, and my hand imediately went to my mouth as I gasped. She laughed and rolled her eyes and said, it's the context, that's not always going to mean masturbate. Lol, gotta love this crazy lingo.

Peace

Lithoid

[gonzobrains]

A friend of mine explained this to me. Apparently if the person that is being spoken about is not present, then it would not be seen as rude, but rather as informal, and would be perfectly normal. To say it in someone's presence though, would be impolite. Strange rules.

yes, otherwise i agree with tootrue and meatball

note that in all of tootrue's examples the person referred to as "man" is not present.

No, no no. It is quite okay if used in front of you. But it would only be acceptable if you are with a close group or associates. English speakers with their unchanging pronouns struggle with this. There is a basic rule: informal pronouns sound affectionate if you are close to the person speaking, and very rude if you are not.

does this rule apply to "goo rak mueng" as well? haha

[gonzobrains]

Personally I would not want to have any further contact with a "friend of a friend" that refered to me as "it."

The whole point of this discussion is that มัน doesn't bear a one-to-one relationship with the English 'it'. (Though mind you I once heard someone refer to HM the King's dog Thongdaeng as 'มัน' and that definitely didn't go over well.)

What is the proper way to refer to .... ? Thongdaeng? (not sure of the pronoun to use)

[Roota]

What is the proper way to refer to .... ? Thongdaeng? (not sure of the pronoun to use)

Apparently you're supposed to call her เขา. I was tempted to try ท่าน as well but that's probably over the top, even for a royal dog.

In recent years I notice a growing number of Thais calling their pets เขา rather than มัน. Maybe part of the whole trend of treating them less like animals and more like children?

[DavidHouston]

From http://www.showded.com/myprofile/mainblog....amp;jnId=111727 comes the following:

. . . คุณทองแดงก็เข้ามาอยู่ในวัง ส่วนแม่ของคุณทองแดงก็มีผู้รับไปเลี้ยงดูแลเมื่อเข้ามาอยู่ในวังคุณทองแดงก็เป็นที่โปรดปรานของพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวเนื่องจากเป็นสุนัขที่ฉลาดมาก . . .

. . . Thong Daeng came to live in the palace. As for Thong Daeng's mother, someone took her as a pet when Thong Daeng went to live in the palace. Thong Daeng became the favorite pet of the King because Thong Daeng was such a smart dog. . . .

Note the use of the term "คุณ" as the honorific; the repetition of the honorific and noun, rather than a pronoun, when referring to Thong Daeng; and the use of the word "สุนัข", rather than "หมา" for "dog".