Richness Of The Thai Language

[bangon04]

There has been a lot of hype recently regarding the 1 Millionth word entering the English Language. How does the Thai language compare in terms of nuance and complexity?

Of course my Thai is barely enough for daily routine, but listening to politicians in parliamentary debates and "highbrow" discussion programmes on TV, I get the impression that the language used is still relatively simple and monosyllabic (or I wouldn't be able to understand any of it otherwise...). The fact that I can follow the gist of it suggests to me that these learned people are using pedestrian form of the language.

Can the experts here give me some idea about the high poetry / philosophy / abstract in Thai language. I am hoping that Thai pop songs are not the pinnacle of poetry in the langauge. I guess that the language of Court uses long complicated words. How would Shakespeare or Dickens be translated?

[meadish_sweetball]

There has been a lot of hype recently regarding the 1 Millionth word entering the English Language.

I would call that a bit of a canard. This article explains why: http://www.slate.com/id/2139611/

[bangon04]

There has been a lot of hype recently regarding the 1 Millionth word entering the English Language.

I would call that a bit of a canard. This article explains why: http://www.slate.com/id/2139611/

Agreed - your article quoted does make it clear that it is hype, not fact.

So is it true that Thai language is relatively sparse in terms of vocabulary available? Is it fair to say that Thai lacks depth because of linguistic devices such as conditionals, subjunctives, adverbial clauses, adjectival phrases etc etc ?

[Shotime]

Canard must be the 1 millionth word.

I sometimes use an English-Thai dictionary to explain certain things to my TGF. I always start by saying "I bet they don't have a word in Thai for this."

[Naam]

Canard must be the 1 millionth word.

actually it is age old, used in nearly all european languages. it's french for "duck", most of the time translated in the local language depicting bullsh.. media news.

[meadish_sweetball]

Is it fair to say that Thai lacks depth because of linguistic devices such as conditionals, subjunctives, adverbial clauses, adjectival phrases etc etc ?

I am not sure that it's a case of 'the language with the most specific grammatical tenses and idiosyncrasies, wins'. If that were the case, Finnish, Hungarian, Russian and Greek would be considered some of the deepest languages on the planet.

One could also claim English is superficial compared to German since German grammar is more complex, etc.

The aversion to monosyllables that one sometimes encounters among English speakers may be a reflection of how a Germanic speaking people were invaded by a Romance language speaking people, which then formed the elite in England for three hundred years, looking down on the peasants who spoke English, who in turn developed an inferiority complex over their 'deficient' vernacular as opposed to the Normand dialect of their rulers.

Perhaps it is also a reflection of how Latin and Greek words dominate science in European languages, and these two languages tend to have more syllables.

The decision to create a scientific language for Thai purposes by creating words with Sanskrit/Pali roots may well be influenced by the knowledge that this is what the Europeans had done...

But I don't believe it can be argued convincingly that Greek or Latin are richer languages because they have more or longer words - rather I think these languages gained status and an exact vocabulary due to the cultural, political and economic strength and influence of their speaker base.

And along the same lines, we find English is now in a similar position (actually in an even stronger position given the numbers who speak it and its almost absolute pervasiveness in the field of science and technology).

Put simply, back then, any ambitious/sharp mind that wished to partake of the latest writings and knowledge, had to learn Latin. Now, the same thing is true for English. It also means that much of the original thinking of our age is first formulated in the English language, or at any rate, quickly translated into and published in English.

Conversely, Thai does not have anywhere near the same number of speakers, nor the same cultural status or pull as Anglo culture does. It also happens to be a language of a country that still has large income disparities and not a particularly strong tradition of book learning or intellectual pursuits. For that reason, within the area of abstract thinking and philosophy I am sure most concepts will be borrowed from outside.

Still, cultures and languages are in a state of constant development - if Thailand at some time in the future rises to become a super-power, that situation is likely to change.

Rikker has taken the time to compose an eminent brief introduction into Thai poetry and literature. He is right on the money about the intricate structure in Thai poetry.

[bangon04]

Is it fair to say that Thai lacks depth because of linguistic devices such as conditionals, subjunctives, adverbial clauses, adjectival phrases etc etc ?

I am not sure that it's a case of 'the language with the most specific grammatical tenses and idiosyncrasies, wins'. If that were the case, Finnish, Hungarian, Russian and Greek would be considered some of the deepest languages on the planet.

Isn't Russian one of the greatest literary languages of all time? Think of all the great works by Russian writers and thinkers. After all, you cannot get the true feeling for Shakespeare unless you read it in the original Russian....

So does Thai have great poetry? And can "deep" works (to use your word) be translated into Thai retaining all their depth?

[meadish_sweetball]

So does Thai have great poetry?

To be honest with you, my Thai is still not good enough that I am able to understand and fully appreciate Thai poetry. I've stagnated somewhere on the intermediate stage.

And can "deep" works (to use your word) be translated into Thai retaining all their depth?

I would think they can, although naturally it requires an exceptionally gifted translator to do justice to the greatest literary works the world has produced. So what we should ask is probably, is there a Thai translator well versed enough in the source language and possessing excellent writing skills in Thai?

Given such a person (and each country tends to have them in my experience) the answer is yes.

[harrry]

.

Isn't Russian one of the greatest literary languages of all time? Think of all the great works by Russian writers and thinkers. After all, you cannot get the true feeling for Shakespeare unless you read it in the original Russian....

So does Thai have great poetry? And can "deep" works (to use your word) be translated into Thai retaining all their depth?

And Tolstoi is not the same unless read in the original English,

[Rikker]

I realize that you pose this question earnestly, so I'll try to be gentle with my answer.

It's ridiculous to say that English has 1,000,000 words. Any armchair linguist worth his salt can debunk that in 30 seconds or less. There are millions of scientific words alone, and millions upon millions upon millions of proper nouns that tend not to get counted as words. The simple fact is, there is no way even to define "word" in a way everyone agrees on. Even in English, let alone for every language.

Thai is *different* from English, but it is certainly not more shallow or less capable of describing the world. For every concept one could come up with that Thai "doesn't have a word" for, I'll give you a Thai one that English doesn't, either.

Thai has great poetry. It is difficult to understand. It is governed by extremely complex and intricate rules for internal rhyme, meter, alliteration, tone, and word choice. One has to have an extremely advanced understanding of Thai, far beyond anything needed to hold a lengthy conversation, to read a modern novel, or to read the newspaper.

Some of the underlying stories of its classic literature is inherited from India and neighbor countries (which were also influenced by India). The first thing most any Thai will cite is the Ramakien -- the Thai version of the classic Indian epic the Ramayana, and the basis for much of the traditional dance, puppetry, and music that Thais prize so much.

Another important work is "The Three World According to King Ruang" (ไตรภูมิพระร่วง or ไตรภูมิกถา) dates back to the Sukhothai era, some 650 years ago. It is rather like a Thai version of Dante's "Inferno", and has been translated into English in at least two versions.

More recently, you have the nationally prized works of the "drunken poet" Sunthorn Phu (สุนทรภู่), who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Phra Aphai Mani (พระอภัยมณี) is probably his best known work, though he's also believed to have written a portion of the Khun Chang Khun Phaen (ขุนช้างขุนแผน), another classic Thai work of poetry (and deftly translated by Chris Baker and his wife, Pasuk Phongpaichit).

You also have the plays traditionally attributed to Rama II -- Sangthong (สังข์ทอง), Kraithong (ไกรทอง), Maniphichai (มณีพิชัย), Chaichet (ไชยเชษฐ์), คาวี (Kavi).

Even more recently, Rama VI was also a capable poet, translating several of Shakespeare's works into Thai poetry -- I know of at least Romeo and Juliet and The Merchant of Venice.

All of these have been extremely influential on the modern language, arts, and culture. Every bit as influential as Shakespeare or the King James bible has been on English. The idioms, the adages, the stories themselves are everywhere. Even when you know Thai well, it's difficult to grasp how much allusion there is to the country's classic literature everywhere around you. In English we're used to it. We hear "Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties" and immediately recognize the Dickens reference. In Thai it's the same -- you constantly see references to its own literary works, even in the most trivial of places.

If you read an English translation of Thai poetry, though there aren't many, the author will always confess that it is impossible to maintain the detailed structure of the original text. Often the attempt is abandoned entirely, as translating the meaning is a large enough task as is. Perhaps English is too deficient to capture it? Of course, this isn't the case. The languages are different. They write great literature differently. It is impossible to render the one to the other exactly.

I'm sure there's more to be said, but I'll leave it at that. The idea that "exotic" Asian languages are deficient because they have shorter words, if that is even actually the case, or that they are incapable of expressing certain ideas, is probably a remnant of the age of imperialism. So I think it's pretty much bogus.

[Rikker]

Also, virtually all of the lauded works of foreign literature have been translated into Thai. All translators are not created equal, but if it weren't possible to translate these works "deeply", then these translations probably wouldn't have been done at all, let alone in such abundance. Why should Tolstoi, Mishima, Camus, or anyone be better when translated into English than when translated into Thai?

[bangon04]

Thai has great poetry. It is difficult to understand. It is governed by extremely complex and intricate rules for internal rhyme, meter, alliteration, tone, and word choice. One has to have an extremely advanced understanding of Thai, far beyond anything needed to hold a lengthy conversation, to read a modern novel, or to read the newspaper.

I'm sure there's more to be said, but I'll leave it at that. The idea that "exotic" Asian languages are deficient because they have shorter words, if that is even actually the case, or that they are incapable of expressing certain ideas, is probably a remnant of the age of imperialism. So I think it's pretty much bogus.

I am grateful for this thoughtful reply. It is comforting to know that there is more - even though I will never reach such a level of Thai, I appreciate the fact that it is there. I suppose that Thais with average university education are not always able to appreciate this either. I find it sometimes disappointing that public speakers present economic or political arguments in what appears to be simplistic language, even in formal settings.

Chinese script has a form which can be manipulated to reflect shades of meaning. Does Thai have any equivalent to this?

[bangon04]

Also, virtually all of the lauded works of foreign literature have been translated into Thai. All translators are not created equal, but if it weren't possible to translate these works "deeply", then these translations probably wouldn't have been done at all, let alone in such abundance. Why should Tolstoi, Mishima, Camus, or anyone be better when translated into English than when translated into Thai?

Agreed - in a perfect world, works of art would only be read in their original form to be properly appreciated.

[Johpa]

For a brief introduction to the underlying thesis here, look up on Wikipedia either Benjamin Whorf (not related to Klingon) or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

As a speaker of three unrelated languages, I am not a big fan of the concept of linguistic relativity other than in its weaker form which recognizes that some languages allow one to express some thoughts in a more parsimonious manner than other languages. But to start speaking of subjective norms of one language being more "rich" or more "advanced" than another is a fruitless enterprise as the underlying mechanism, that gray matter encased in your skull, is the same across all languages.

[aanon]

I am grateful for this thoughtful reply. It is comforting to know that there is more - even though I will never reach such a level of Thai, I appreciate the fact that it is there. I suppose that Thais with average university education are not always able to appreciate this either. I find it sometimes disappointing that public speakers present economic or political arguments in what appears to be simplistic language, even in formal settings.

You may be noticing that complex concepts, when not expressed by using purpose-made pali/sanskrit based words, are often expressed by putting a number of common words together, for example การแตกแยก (disunity). These multi-word terms become quite fixed and so are able to both do their job and build up the nuances and associations that arise over time.

Then there is the separate issue that particular speakers may tailor their message for their intended audience. This has nothing to do with the available 'richness' of the language.

[MiG16]

The first thing most any Thai will cite is the Ramakien -- the Thai version of the classic Indian epic the Ramayana, and the basis for much of the traditional dance, puppetry, and music that Thais prize so much.

Another important work is "The Three World According to King Ruang" (ไตรภูมิพระร่วง or ไตรภูมิกถา) dates back to the Sukhothai era, some 650 years ago. It is rather like a Thai version of Dante's "Inferno", and has been translated into English in at least two versions.

More recently, you have the nationally prized works of the "drunken poet" Sunthorn Phu (สุนทรภู่), who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Phra Aphai Mani (พระอภัยมณี) is probably his best known work, though he's also believed to have written a portion of the Khun Chang Khun Phaen (ขุนช้างขุนแผน), another classic Thai work of poetry (and deftly translated by Chris Baker and his wife, Pasuk Phongpaichit).

all very true Rikker, but the main concern for me is....how many newer generation thais still learn these things?

I hope Im wrong, but I get the impression it is in decline. which is really a shame.

You also have the plays traditionally attributed to Rama II -- Sangthong (สังข์ทอง), Kraithong (ไกรทอง), Maniphichai (มณีพิชัย), Chaichet (ไชยเชษฐ์), คาวี (Kavi).

Even more recently, Rama VI was also a capable poet, translating several of Shakespeare's works into Thai poetry -- I know of at least Romeo and Juliet and The Merchant of Venice.

even I know only the first 3, but not the latter 2. didnt know about the translation.

I think I can consider myself still somewhat of the new generation thai, although not as young as teenagers. yet, even people from my own age range, hardly any would know of these things anymore. I do, due in large part from growing up with a grandmother who spent a lot of time in the inner court of thai palaces. not many younger thais have that kind of exposure anymore. certainly not those from the big cities who are more interested in dance and techno music and rap (not that theres anything wrong with such things...)

[Rikker]

all very true Rikker, but the main concern for me is....how many newer generation thais still learn these things?

I hope Im wrong, but I get the impression it is in decline. which is really a shame.

You also have the plays traditionally attributed to Rama II -- Sangthong (สังข์ทอง), Kraithong (ไกรทอง), Maniphichai (มณีพิชัย), Chaichet (ไชยเชษฐ์), คาวี (Kavi).

Even more recently, Rama VI was also a capable poet, translating several of Shakespeare's works into Thai poetry -- I know of at least Romeo and Juliet and The Merchant of Venice.

even I know only the first 3, but not the latter 2. didnt know about the translation.

I think I can consider myself still somewhat of the new generation thai, although not as young as teenagers. yet, even people from my own age range, hardly any would know of these things anymore. I do, due in large part from growing up with a grandmother who spent a lot of time in the inner court of thai palaces. not many younger thais have that kind of exposure anymore. certainly not those from the big cities who are more interested in dance and techno music and rap (not that theres anything wrong with such things...)

I think this is a separate issue, since the question was about whether these things even exist in Thai.

To address the issue you raise, though, the situation with Thai in this regard isn't any different from English. Few ever read Shakespeare or Chaucer anymore outside of class, because they're so relatively inaccessible. The language has changed significantly, for one, so that combined with the style of language used presents a major barrier for simple reading and enjoyment.

For English you get heavily footnoted texts which give lots of help in interpreting archaisms and such. You also have Cliff's Notes and similar study aids and synopses.

In Thai, I've never seen much use of footnotes to demystify these texts, but synopsized and/or prose versions of the classic works are very common, and often much easier to find in print than the actual source text. Even in the standardized (1918) version of ขุนช้างขุนแผน, it includes a synopsis of the whole story from beginning to end.

Oh, and I forgot one of the Rama II plays -- สังข์ศิลป์ชัย. They're published by the Fine Arts Department all in one volume. As are the Rama VI Shakespeare translations, and most of the works I mentioned. If publishers would undertake "critical editions" or "annotated editions" of some of these texts, I think that would be fantastic. They *are* difficult to read without specialized study.

I also wonder if one of the reasons that relatively few Thais learn about these works these days is the persistence of rote learning. Pretty much any subject is boring when you're mostly expected to memorize passages, without being properly taught the skills to analyze and appreciate them independently. I'm not a literature aficionado by any means, but with the right teacher and method, things really come to life. I had a fantastic course on Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in college, which by themselves are impossible to read without explanation. It was one of only 3 literature courses I took in 4 years of my bachelor's degree.

And beyond that, the Thai school system is built on early and virtually irrevocable specialization. Like how you have to you decide around age 14 which course track you're going to study, and that essentially determines what your college major will be forever. Anything not in your track is minimized. So if you opt for the math/science track instead of the arts/language track, then there's no incentive for caring about other courses much at all, beyond the required bare minimum.

If there were more of a focus on learning for the sake of learning, enjoying what you learn, and a little more freedom of choice to change one's mind, coupled with more modern pedagogy, then maybe we'd see improvement in all areas, including language and literature. Because simply force-feeding it clearly doesn't inspire much appreciation.

[RickBradford]

^^^

If there were more of a focus on learning for the sake of learning, enjoying what you learn, and a little more freedom of choice to change one's mind, coupled with more modern pedagogy, then maybe we'd see improvement in all areas, including language and literature. Because simply force-feeding it clearly doesn't inspire much appreciation.

Interesting. I happened to go to a school where we were forced to learn Latin and Ancient Greek from the age of 9, and believe me, wading through the works of Euripides or Aristophanes on a warm summer afternoon is an experience you want to forget as soon as possible.

Although I hated it at the time, I now recognize that it was extremely valuable in showing me where much of the English language originated (as well as an instant understanding of many complex English words emanating from Latin and Greek even if I'd never seen them before). I can only describe it by saying that it grounded my experience of knowing my own language.

Whether requiring Thai students to understand the evolution of their language and the subtle uses to which it can be put would be valuable, I'm not qualified to say.

[DavidHouston]

If you have an interest in classical Thai literature, the new volume of The Journal of the Siam Society, Volume 97, 2009, contains an article entitled "The Career of Khun Chang Khun Phaen" by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit. See pages 1 - 42.

The journal should be available at Thai libraries or at The Siam Society on Soi Asoke. ( http://www.siam-society.org/publications/JSS/jss097.html )

[kriswillems]

If a rich language is a complex language I think English is not a very rich language. In my whole life I studied not more that 200 hours English. I manage to read English literature and understand the biggest part of it.

I have studied much more Thai than English and I understand much less of it. I only manage to read Thai literature with a good dictionary and at very, very slow speed and even then I don't understand everything of it. I think Thai literature is extremely complex and sophisticated.

I also think the normal Thai speaking language is very rich. By chaining nouns, adjectives, adverbs or verbs together Thai people manage to tell in the very great detail and with a lot of nuances what they mean. In English you can't chain words together like that and you need to look for a specific word that carries the same meaning. Very often you'll not be able find such a word.

For me English is the perfect "middle" language, I use it to communicate with other people that are not native English speakers. It's easy to learn and it enables me to communicate with people from all over the world. I am sure that if Thai, Chinese or Japanese would be the "middle" language, much less people would be able to speak this middle language.

So, I think the richness of English is, for me, the fact it's easy to learn.

[montrii]

If a rich language is a complex language I think English is not a very rich language. In my whole life I studied not more that 200 hours English. I manage to read English literature and understand the biggest part of it.

Hi, Kris, I think maybe you have to be at a deeper level than you are with English to understand its complexity. It's my native language, I've studied the literature in some depth, and the complexity amazes me. I don't mean to disparage your linguistic ability at all, though, and kudos to you for getting good at it with not a whole lot of study. And I do agree with you that Thai is extremely rich, also. In fact it's so rich it drives me crazy! I have read Kafka in German, Virgil in Latin, and Sartre in French, and getting to that level took not too many years. Thai, on the other hand, still keeps handing me word after word that seems common enough but that I've never seen in all my many years of speaking and studying Thai.

I think the difference comes from the fact that I speak a European language, and the European languages are much more closely related than we tend to think. Thai has virtually no cognates to European languages (except for ทับศัพท์ words, which also give me fits), so when we come to it we come to it from the outside it's hard to see the forest for the trees. It is beautifully complex, too, though that complexity is still hard to measure for me, because I need to get much deeper in in order to really do that. Rikker makes the point that Thai poetry requires much more ability than the ability to read a Thai novel, and even that is still hard for me. So I would say, all languages are complex, and all are beautiful. Our ability to learn them quickly and thoroughly generally depends mostly on how closely the other languages we know are to the language we're trying to learn.

What proves that for me is that though I actually learned to speak rather good conversational Thai really quickly, getting to the deeper levels is making me jump through hoops that are much more difficult for me than anything I did with those other languages in college or grad school.

[crocodilexp]

As a speaker of three unrelated languages, I am not a big fan of the concept of linguistic relativity other than in its weaker form which recognizes that some languages allow one to express some thoughts in a more parsimonious manner than other languages. But to start speaking of subjective norms of one language being more "rich" or more "advanced" than another is a fruitless enterprise as the underlying mechanism, that gray matter encased in your skull, is the same across all languages.

I think the key point in the discussion is that some languages allow expression of certain concepts in more terse terms.

In terms of language richness, this characteristic allows one to use a fine English term "schadenfreude" instead of the clunky German for "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others". However, you'll generally see that languages are terse and rich in areas that are connected to the underlying culture -- when discussing computers, English is undoubtedly richest and easiest to use, but when talking about Muay Thai, Thai/Khmer Dance or kinds of rice, Thai would be a better choice.

Richest language may well be the one with most information published in it... There is no strong alternative to English when discussing modern technology and science. This does not have much to do with superiority or sophistication of English-speaking cultures, just with the fact that it's a common language that picks up reference terminology covering most fields. Latin used to be in the same position few centuries back. Artificial attempts to put other languages on an equivalent footing (e.g. by the French Academy) are childish and futile.

[sekondnature]

There has been a lot of hype recently regarding the 1 Millionth word entering the English Language. How does the Thai language compare in terms of nuance and complexity?

Of course my Thai is barely enough for daily routine, but listening to politicians in parliamentary debates and "highbrow" discussion programmes on TV, I get the impression that the language used is still relatively simple and monosyllabic (or I wouldn't be able to understand any of it otherwise...). The fact that I can follow the gist of it suggests to me that these learned people are using pedestrian form of the language.

Can the experts here give me some idea about the high poetry / philosophy / abstract in Thai language. I am hoping that Thai pop songs are not the pinnacle of poetry in the langauge. I guess that the language of Court uses long complicated words. How would Shakespeare or Dickens be translated?

I am surprised that you make such an arrogant comment, considering that you openly admitted your Thai is barely enough for daily routine. Would you have confidence translating what was spoken at the parliamentary debates and these so called "high brow discussion programs" and if not how can you say that you have an understanding of what was discussed? I find it strange that people are so comfortable judging others without much thought or knowledge. Having said that, your comments have started up an interesting debate and Rikker's comments were of particular educational value. Thanks Rikker. It was the way in which you posted your opinion, that made me raise my eyebrow and question if you wanted to start up an intellectual debate or if you wanted express some underlying feelings of superiority.

[RickBradford]

Serious thinkers may be interested in this article, in which an academic describes research done on how different language shape our thought.

[Harcourt]

.

Isn't Russian one of the greatest literary languages of all time? Think of all the great works by Russian writers and thinkers. After all, you cannot get the true feeling for Shakespeare unless you read it in the original Russian....

So does Thai have great poetry? And can "deep" works (to use your word) be translated into Thai retaining all their depth?

And Tolstoi is not the same unless read in the original English,

Thankyou Harry.

[Harcourt]

For a brief introduction to the underlying thesis here, look up on Wikipedia either Benjamin Whorf (not related to Klingon) or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

As a speaker of three unrelated languages, I am not a big fan of the concept of linguistic relativity other than in its weaker form which recognizes that some languages allow one to express some thoughts in a more parsimonious manner than other languages. But to start speaking of subjective norms of one language being more "rich" or more "advanced" than another is a fruitless enterprise as the underlying mechanism, that gray matter encased in your skull, is the same across all languages.

And crcodilexp's mention of expressing more tersely, are actually replying to the gist of the OP's question.

Just as (purportedly) Innuit has 18 ways to describe the colour of snow, some languages DO have much larger vocabularies than others...it follows that a bigger vocabulary is better equipped to be more expressive in fewer words, and thus more comprehensible in dealing with complex concepts, and more flexible in creating poetry or prose.

If artistic language is about creating imagery, and a picture paints a thousand words surely the converse is true. Wouldn't it be great to be able to describe a scene in all it's detail, in one sentence? Every language has limitations.

Take the concept of "size". In English there are numerous ways to describe the size of an object, not just the two opposite extremes, "big" and "small". In Fijian and other Polynesian languages, things are either big or small in comparison to the norm.

Colours are another good example: we have the primaries, but also innumerable hues can be described with just one word.

Languages with smaller vocabularies usually revert to comparing colours, eg "The colour of the suchandsuch flower".... easier and more concise to simply say "chartreuse".

Richness is another thing altogether (and "rich" does not carry connotations of "better", but depth of expressiveness).

Consider Dickens' The Jabberwocky; "Twas brillig and the slithy toves, did gire and gimble in the wabe....", a nonesense, certainly, but poetic and I daresay impossible to translate to any other language.

My Oxford English-Thai dictionary is as big as a phone book, but many definitions of the English words are not just an equivalent Thai word but one or more sentences, implying that there is no one word in Thai for that English word.

I have no doubt that there are probably Thai single word concepts for which English does not have an equivalent single word translation.

But overall, I'm betting that Thai will have a smaller lexicon than English.

[bannork]

For a brief introduction to the underlying thesis here, look up on Wikipedia either Benjamin Whorf (not related to Klingon) or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

As a speaker of three unrelated languages, I am not a big fan of the concept of linguistic relativity other than in its weaker form which recognizes that some languages allow one to express some thoughts in a more parsimonious manner than other languages. But to start speaking of subjective norms of one language being more "rich" or more "advanced" than another is a fruitless enterprise as the underlying mechanism, that gray matter encased in your skull, is the same across all languages.

And crcodilexp's mention of expressing more tersely, are actually replying to the gist of the OP's question.

Just as (purportedly) Innuit has 18 ways to describe the colour of snow, some languages DO have much larger vocabularies than others...it follows that a bigger vocabulary is better equipped to be more expressive in fewer words, and thus more comprehensible in dealing with complex concepts, and more flexible in creating poetry or prose.

If artistic language is about creating imagery, and a picture paints a thousand words surely the converse is true. Wouldn't it be great to be able to describe a scene in all it's detail, in one sentence? Every language has limitations.

Take the concept of "size". In English there are numerous ways to describe the size of an object, not just the two opposite extremes, "big" and "small". In Fijian and other Polynesian languages, things are either big or small in comparison to the norm.

Colours are another good example: we have the primaries, but also innumerable hues can be described with just one word.

Languages with smaller vocabularies usually revert to comparing colours, eg "The colour of the suchandsuch flower".... easier and more concise to simply say "chartreuse".

Richness is another thing altogether (and "rich" does not carry connotations of "better", but depth of expressiveness).

Consider Dickens' The Jabberwocky; "Twas brillig and the slithy toves, did gire and gimble in the wabe....", a nonesense, certainly, but poetic and I daresay impossible to translate to any other language.

My Oxford English-Thai dictionary is as big as a phone book, but many definitions of the English words are not just an equivalent Thai word but one or more sentences, implying that there is no one word in Thai for that English word.

I have no doubt that there are probably Thai single word concepts for which English does not have an equivalent single word translation.

But overall, I'm betting that Thai will have a smaller lexicon than English.

Didn't Lewis Carroll write the Jabberwocky? It doesn't sound like Dickens' style.

I think you have to also use a Thai- English dictionary to see how many Thai words English has a singular equivalent to.

More Pali than Thai, has anyone seen the number of terms to describe the varying states of consciousness and actions in Buddhist teachings? It's a whole language in itself.

[Harcourt]

Doh! Thanks Bannork...I had an inkling I was wrong...indeed it was Carroll. What the dickens was I thinking?

You bring up a very good example of what I was trying to say with the words for the varying states of consciousness in the Thai language.

It's all about the size and variety of the vocabulary, and in different cultures some concepts are more "natural" to the vernacular's "mentality".

A language with more "words" IS indeed more descriptive and carries greater depth of concept.

[sekondnature]

Doh! Thanks Bannork...I had an inkling I was wrong...indeed it was Carroll. What the dickens was I thinking?

You bring up a very good example of what I was trying to say with the words for the varying states of consciousness in the Thai language.

It's all about the size and variety of the vocabulary, and in different cultures some concepts are more "natural" to the vernacular's "mentality".

A language with more "words" IS indeed more descriptive and carries greater depth of concept.

I agree that there might be more potential for description, but I don't know if I necessarily agree if there is greater depth of concept. Could you give an example? If in fact this is true, do you think it is because of the incorporation of other languages and the widespread use of English around the world or is it because there are more words? More could also equal more confusion. I will relate personal experience. My girlfriend, whose English is reasonably good, but by no means is she a grammar whiz or possess a dictionary like vocabulary, however, she is able to tell stories in such a way that I can envision the whole thing as if it's happening before my eyes. We are able to talk about concepts and issues that go far beyond my average conversation with a native speaker. Part of this is due in part because of our connection, but also her ability to use words effectively. It's isn't necessarily the number of words you use but more so how you use them. I have strayed slightly from the initial post but not by much and would like to continue this debate. It has been quite interesting so far. The article about the influence of language and thought on Edge was great. Thank you Rick Bradford. By the way Rick do you know of any other websites along the same lines?

"Similarly with us. For us, we are all very different, our languages are very different, and our societies are very different. But if we could extract ourselves from our point of view and sort of look down at human life the way a biologist looks at other organisms, I think we could see it a different way. Imagine an extrahuman observer looking at us. Such an extrahuman observer would be struck precisely by the uniformity of human languages, by the very slight variation from one language to another, and by the remarkable respects in which all languages are the same. And then he would notice we do not pay any attention to that because for the purpose of human life it is quite natural and appropriate just to take for granted everything that is common. We don't concern ourselves with that, all we worry about are differences." -Noam Chomsky

complete interview here:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1984----.htm

[Harcourt]

Doh! Thanks Bannork...I had an inkling I was wrong...indeed it was Carroll. What the dickens was I thinking?

You bring up a very good example of what I was trying to say with the words for the varying states of consciousness in the Thai language.

It's all about the size and variety of the vocabulary, and in different cultures some concepts are more "natural" to the vernacular's "mentality".

A language with more "words" IS indeed more descriptive and carries greater depth of concept.

I agree that there might be more potential for description, but I don't know if I necessarily agree if there is greater depth of concept. Could you give an example? If in fact this is true, do you think it is because of the incorporation of other languages and the widespread use of English around the world or is it because there are more words? More could also equal more confusion. I will relate personal experience. My girlfriend, whose English is reasonably good, but by no means is she a grammar whiz or possess a dictionary like vocabulary, however, she is able to tell stories in such a way that I can envision the whole thing as if it's happening before my eyes. We are able to talk about concepts and issues that go far beyond my average conversation with a native speaker. Part of this is due in part because of our connection, but also her ability to use words effectively. It's isn't necessarily the number of words you use but more so how you use them. I have strayed slightly from the initial post but not by much and would like to continue this debate. It has been quite interesting so far. The article about the influence of language and thought on Edge was great. Thank you Rick Bradford. By the way Rick do you know of any other websites along the same lines?

"Similarly with us. For us, we are all very different, our languages are very different, and our societies are very different. But if we could extract ourselves from our point of view and sort of look down at human life the way a biologist looks at other organisms, I think we could see it a different way. Imagine an extrahuman observer looking at us. Such an extrahuman observer would be struck precisely by the uniformity of human languages, by the very slight variation from one language to another, and by the remarkable respects in which all languages are the same. And then he would notice we do not pay any attention to that because for the purpose of human life it is quite natural and appropriate just to take for granted everything that is common. We don't concern ourselves with that, all we worry about are differences." -Noam Chomsky

complete interview here:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1984----.htm

I'm no English proffessor...and without going to the thesaurus, I'll try and give you and a simple example:

Take "The man was walking". I could use adverbs to be more descriptive. More importantly, I could replace "walking" with numerous other words that paint the scene more effectively: He could be striding, shuffling, limping, trudging, waddling, marching, tip-toeing,..... Also, I could talk about his gait or his pace to add to the picture.

Actually, a thesaurus could produce the examples you are looking for. So many words for the same thing, but all slightly different in their full meaning, thus giving greater flexibility to describe.

Then there's jargon. So many specialised words that escape to the general lexicon, "Lesse majeste" for example.

I envy you your GF's talent. I suspect you are right that you two have a connection, but I wonder if her talent to make you envision would still work over the phone or in an email...ie, without body language and gesticulations.

I don't have the talent to argue with the likes of Noam Chomsky, however I do disagree with him in the excerpt you've provided: I do not think that the differences in languages are "very slight" unless they are related languages, and I do not think that there is uniformity between languages, either.