Doubly Transitive Verbs In Thai

[oevna]

I've never found a proper answer to this, so I'll ask you guys: how do you specify an indirect object with a doubly transitive verb in Thai? There must be a way to convey the concept, I just don't know the grammatical construction to do it.

For example, in this sentence:

I gave the book to her.

I - subject

book - direct object

her - indirect object

In English, we use the preposition "to" to indicate the indirect object her (and in the case of personal pronouns, the choice of words also; i.e. she/her, he/him, I/me, they/them, etc.). How would you say this in Thai?

I have a textbook that says to optionally use กับ as the preposition:

ผมให้นังสือ (กับ) เขา

But this is in a section specifically about the verb ให้ (to give) and its many uses. Is this the general way to form doubly intransitive verb constructions, or just specific to this case?

Thanks in advance!

-o

[SoftWater]

I've never found a proper answer to this, so I'll ask you guys: how do you specify an indirect object with a doubly transitive verb in Thai? There must be a way to convey the concept, I just don't know the grammatical construction to do it.

For example, in this sentence:

I gave the book to her.

I - subject

book - direct object

her - indirect object

In English, we use the preposition "to" to indicate the indirect object her (and in the case of personal pronouns, the choice of words also; i.e. she/her, he/him, I/me, they/them, etc.). How would you say this in Thai?

I have a textbook that says to optionally use กับ as the preposition:

ผมให้นังสือ (กับ) เขา

But this is in a section specifically about the verb ให้ (to give) and its many uses. Is this the general way to form doubly intransitive verb constructions, or just specific to this case?

Thanks in advance!

-o

Thanks for bringing this up because this has often caught me out when I specifically want to use ให้ as the main verb. As I understand it, one would use ให้ in the place of the preposition with other main verbs

e.g.

Please open the door for me.

ช่วยเปิดประดูให้ผมน้อย (or is it หน่อย? I always get these two mixed up!)

Often in speech the indirect object is omitted because its understood from context, but that's the structure as I understand it. My problem is what happens when ให้ is the main verb - it doesn't seem right to repeat it, so I guess one has to substitute it (as you did in the example above with กับ). I wonder if it is always กับ or are there other preposition words that should go in for different main verbs? (e.g. แก่ สู่ )

Edited October 16, 2009 by SoftWater

[SoftWater]

Please open the door for me.

ช่วยเปิดประดูให้ผมน้อย (or is it หน่อย? I always get these two mixed up!)

EEK!!! Sorry, just realised that's not an example of a doubly transitive verb!!!

It's Friday afternoon...

[WhiteShrek]

Might be Fri afternoon Softwater and not the best of examples but would agree ให้ is one way to do in many cases. No problem if its also the main verb

ผมให้นังสือให้เขา

on this occasion with the verb ให้ you could also use กับ as oevna says, tho can't recall it with many over verbs...

Edited October 16, 2009 by WhiteShrek

[yoot]

I gave the book to her - ผมให้หนังสือเธอ(very common in spoken language) or ผมให้หนังสือแก่เธอ (mostly used in written langauge).

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter - ผมให้หนังสือเธอเอาไปให้ลูกสาว

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter to give to her friend. - ผมให้หนังสือเธอไปให้ลูกสาวเอาไปให้เพื่อน. I don't know if it makes sense or not in English, but this would be said in Thai.

[RickBradford]

Can one use a different main verb and leave ให้ for the indirect bit?

Thus: ผมเอาหนังสือให้เธอ.

[Johpa]

I gave the book to her.

I would say " phom aw nangsuu hay khao"

[mangkorn]

Can one use a different main verb and leave ให้ for the indirect bit?

Thus: ผมเอาหนังสือให้เธอ.

That basic construction is contained in the school rhyme for remembering high-class consonants: ผีฝากถุงข้าวสารให้ฉัน

[Rikker]

Yoot already set it, but I'm going to reiterate it, so Yoot doesn't get ignored: in spoken Thai, the most common way is to drop the preposition entirely. ฉันให้หนังสือเขา. (English drops the preposition, too, but it also reverses the order of the direct and indirect objects: "I gave the book to him" becomes "I gave him the book.")

With verbs besides ให้, you can use ให้ after the main clause to indicate doing it on behalf of or for the benefit of someone: ฉัน [verb] [object] ให้ [indirect object].

As in,

ฉันซื้อหนังสือให้เขา "I bought the book for him" or "I bought him the book"

ฉันรีดเสื้อผ้าให้แม่ "I ironed the clothes for (my) mom"

ครูแจกขนมให้นักเรียน "The teacher distributed snacks to the students."

[Rionoir]

ช่วยเปิดประดูให้ผมน้อย (or is it หน่อย? I always get these two mixed up!)

หน่อย ครับ

[mangkorn]

ช่วยเปิดประดูให้ผมน้อย (or is it หน่อย? I always get these two mixed up!)

Certainly not exact science, but one may distinguish the two by considering น้อย as quantifiable; the softening word หน่อย as more abstract.

Of course, one could say that criteria doesn't apply to น้อยใจ (or เมียน้อย?) but then, how can we know for sure?

Easier still, you might just fix a quick-recall word to remind you. (My own neighborhood is ตลาดน้อย, so I had no excuse for not learning the distinction early on.)

[oevna]

Thanks all, this is exactly what I was looking for. In the past when faced with having to use this, I usually just stumbled along, either skipping the preposition entirely, or throwing in an extra ให้ or กับ as a preposition, but was never sure if this was correct.

I should have come here in the first place!

Thanks again.

-o

[oevna]

Please open the door for me.

ช่วยเปิดประดูให้ผมน้อย (or is it หน่อย? I always get these two mixed up!)

EEK!!! Sorry, just realised that's not an example of a doubly transitive verb!!!

It's Friday afternoon...

Actually, you are still correct. In your sentence, ประดู (door) is the direct object and ผม (me) is the indirect object, so it is doubly transitive. In this case, the preposition is "for" in the English translation, and "ให้" in the Thai.

[SoftWater]

Please open the door for me.

ช่วยเปิดประดูให้ผมน้อย (or is it หน่อย? I always get these two mixed up!)

EEK!!! Sorry, just realised that's not an example of a doubly transitive verb!!!

It's Friday afternoon...

Actually, you are still correct. In your sentence, ประดู (door) is the direct object and ผม (me) is the indirect object, so it is doubly transitive. In this case, the preposition is "for" in the English translation, and "ให้" in the Thai.

Yes, but what I meant was 'open' does not have to be doubly transitive. The verb can be completed without the indirect object:

• Please open the door (for me).
  

'for me' is optional. A doubly transitive verb needs both a direct and an indirect object to complete its sense:

e.g.

• Taksin made Samak his proxy.
  She made me a birthday cake.
  

Edited October 17, 2009 by SoftWater

[oevna]

Yes, but what I meant was 'open' does not have to be doubly transitive. The verb can be completed without the indirect object:

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, in this particular case, the verb (to open) can be both singly and doubly transitive (in both English and Thai).

[SoftWater]

Yes, but what I meant was 'open' does not have to be doubly transitive. The verb can be completed without the indirect object:

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, in this particular case, the verb (to open) can be both singly and doubly transitive (in both English and Thai).

There is a section on ditransitives in Thai and their various prepositions in Iwasaki (around p113-119 I think). The only version I can find online has couple of (what look like) key pages missing, but you can find a link to those that are given in this thread.

[loong]

Can one use a different main verb and leave ให้ for the indirect bit?

Thus: ผมเอาหนังสือให้เธอ.

That is how I usually say it ( except I never use เธอ )

It may not be strictly correct as it translates as "I bring the book for her" ?

______________________

ผม(ได้)ให้นังสือเขา doesn't seem to flow right so I will have to try to remember to use กับ

ผม(ได้)ให้นังสือ (กับ) เขา

[ryladie99]

I gave the book to her - ผมให้หนังสือเธอ(very common in spoken language) or ผมให้หนังสือแก่เธอ (mostly used in written langauge).

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter - ผมให้หนังสือเธอเอาไปให้ลูกสาว

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter to give to her friend. - ผมให้หนังสือเธอไปให้ลูกสาวเอาไปให้เพื่อน. I don't know if it makes sense or not in English, but this would be said in Thai.

Fantastic my friend...I am so glad you all want to learn Thai...Good luck for helping everybody.

Yours

Risa

[rgs2001uk]

I gave the book to her - ผมให้หนังสือเธอ(very common in spoken language) or ผมให้หนังสือแก่เธอ (mostly used in written langauge).

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter - ผมให้หนังสือเธอเอาไปให้ลูกสาว

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter to give to her friend. - ผมให้หนังสือเธอไปให้ลูกสาวเอาไปให้เพื่อน. I don't know if it makes sense or not in English, but this would be said in Thai.

I can only comment on spoken Thai, I dont read or write that much.

For spoken Thai I was taught the following construction, subject verb noun,

ผมให้หนังสือเธอ, so in this case, ให้ would be the verb.

[loong]

I gave the book to her - ผมให้หนังสือเธอ(very common in spoken language) or ผมให้หนังสือแก่เธอ (mostly used in written langauge).

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter - ผมให้หนังสือเธอเอาไปให้ลูกสาว

I gave the book to her to give to her daughter to give to her friend. - ผมให้หนังสือเธอไปให้ลูกสาวเอาไปให้เพื่อน. I don't know if it makes sense or not in English, but this would be said in Thai.

I can only comment on spoken Thai, I dont read or write that much.

For spoken Thai I was taught the following construction, subject verb noun,

ผมให้หนังสือเธอ, so in this case, ให้ would be the verb.

I am amazed that so many are using เธอ, I have never heard it spoken by a Thai outside of songs!

[Rikker]

You're located in Khon Kaen, according to your profile. It's more of a Bangkok word, I guess. Implies endearment, or a close relationship (but not necessarily intimate).

[withnail]

To what Rikker said I would add that as Yoot is Thai it might be something he very commonly says but not a pronoun often used amongst/around foreigners. I've always felt that the reciprocal pronoun pair ฉัน and เธอ required a level of intimacy and/or similar social status i.e. Thainess that we often don't get to experience with many people.

Edited October 20, 2009 by withnail

[eric67]

From what (little ) I know, เธอ can be used both as a 2nd and a 3rd person pronoun

As a 2nd person pronoun, meaning "you", it's coupled with ฉัน , like withnail said, and something you will hear a lot in songs but not so much in real life.

As a 3rd person pronoun, it can only be used to indicate females (she/her), as opposed to the more general word เขา . I guess that's how yoot used it here.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Thai pronouns!!

[withnail]

From what (little ) I know, เธอ can be used both as a 2nd and a 3rd person pronoun

As a 2nd person pronoun, meaning "you", it's coupled with ฉัน , like withnail said, and something you will hear a lot in songs but not so much in real life.

As a 3rd person pronoun, it can only be used to indicate females (she/her), as opposed to the more general word เขา . I guess that's how yoot used it here.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Thai pronouns!!

That's correct and now you mention it I hadn't actually looked at Yoot's original translation just the comment about the use of เธอ

I'd say it was just Yoot translating the original example (in writing).