พร่างพราย And สีกำมะหยี่

[DavidHouston]

I was looking at the following word in Lexitron:

พร่างพราย [ADJ] sparkling; glittering; twinkling; shinning; shimmering Syn. พร่า, พร่าง, พราย The sample sentence uses the term in description of nature:

"ท้องฟ้าสีกำมะหยี่ถูกประดับไปด้วยดวงดาวพร่างพราย งดงามเกินกว่าที่จะถูกซ่อนไว้ภายใต้หลังคาใบไม้"

Questions:

1. สีกำมะหยี่. "กำมะหยี่" is "velvet"; does "สีกำมะหยี่" connote "very dark", "dark as midnight", or something similar?

2. What is the noun associated with the predicate "ถูกซ่อนไว้"? Is it "the sky" or the "twinkling stars"?

3. What is the grammatical usage of the phrase "เกินกว่าที่จะถูก"? Does it create a conditional meaning, that is, ". . . than if they were . . . "?

A rendering might be:

"The dark velvet sky is adorned with twinkling stars; [the sky is] more beautiful than if [the stars] were hidden under a canopy of leaves."

What do you think? Thanks.

[SoftWater]

I was looking at the following word in Lexitron:

พร่างพราย [ADJ] sparkling; glittering; twinkling; shinning; shimmering Syn. พร่า, พร่าง, พราย The sample sentence uses the term in description of nature:

"ท้องฟ้าสีกำมะหยี่ถูกประดับไปด้วยดวงดาวพร่างพราย งดงามเกินกว่าที่จะถูกซ่อนไว้ภายใต้หลังคาใบไม้"

Questions:

1. สีกำมะหยี่. "กำมะหยี่" is "velvet"; does " สีกำมะหยี่" connote "very dark", "dark as midnight", or something similar?

2. What is the noun associated with the predicate "ถูกซ่อนไว้"? Is it "the sky" or the "twinkling stars"?

3. What is the grammatical usage of the phrase "เกินกว่าที่จะถูก"? Does it create a conditional meaning, that is, ". . . than if they were . . . "?

A rendering might be:

"The dark velvet sky is adorned with twinkling stars; [the sky is] more beautiful than if [the stars] were hidden under a canopy of leaves."

What do you think? Thanks.

"The velvet sky is adorned with shining stars, more beautiful than that (beauty which is) hidden under a canopy of leaves"

is about the best I can make of it.

I have discovered that some of the examples in Lexitron are not always that งดงาม themselves.

Edited October 24, 2009 by SoftWater

[tgeezer]

I was looking at the following word in Lexitron:

พร่างพราย [ADJ] sparkling; glittering; twinkling; shinning; shimmering Syn. พร่า, พร่าง, พราย The sample sentence uses the term in description of nature:

"ท้องฟ้าสีกำมะหยี่ถูกประดับไปด้วยดวงดาวพร่างพราย งดงามเกินกว่าที่จะถูกซ่อนไว้ภายใต้หลังคาใบไม้"

Questions:

1. สีกำมะหยี่. "กำมะหยี่" is "velvet"; does "สีกำมะหยี่" connote "very dark", "dark as midnight", or something similar?

2. What is the noun associated with the predicate "ถูกซ่อนไว้"? Is it "the sky" or the "twinkling stars"?

3. What is the grammatical usage of the phrase "เกินกว่าที่จะถูก"? Does it create a conditional meaning, that is, ". . . than if they were . . . "?

A rendering might be:

"The dark velvet sky is adorned with twinkling stars; [the sky is] more beautiful than if [the stars] were hidden under a canopy of leaves."

What do you think? Thanks.

I cant make it out as far as logic is concerned but it seems to say that. Or just; The sky is better looking than the forest canopy.

The subject is the sky but when you get to ที่ it says ถูกซ้อนไว้ stacked ภายใต่ in the space under. Have we switched to the observer being stacked up in there? I doubt that, its the wrong verb, so that must still be the sky. So it doesn't seem to be literal after ที่.

Unless as you said we are really talking about stars, now they could be stuffed under a canopy of leaves in which case they would not be as beautiful with the leaves as a background. It is probably not a hard concept at all. Seems to be in praise of the sky using stars as the tool. So is the subject the sky or the stars? I would say the sky.

This looks so bad because I am making it up as I go, I sort of get it, can someone please put it better than me.

[DavidHouston]

"The velvet sky is adorned with shining stars, more beautiful than that (beauty which is) hidden under a canopy of leaves"

is about the best I can make of it.

I have discovered that some of the examples in Lexitron are not always that งดงาม themselves.

Thank you, Softwater. I guess we are discussing how the second clause relates to the first. Your rendering introduces a new subject "that beauty which is . . . " and there is a clear difference between the two renderings. I hope someone will tell us what the intent of the author is or if there is ambiguity in the original Thai sentence.

Alternatively, the context from which this sentence was derived might have made the subject of the second clause clear. If, for example, the speaker/author were referring to his beloved, I think he would wish to say that she was more beautiful than the night sky, rather than vice versa.

In any event, I see that your translation is very feasible and reasonable without having been given any context. Thanks.

[DavidHouston]

The subject is the sky but when you get to ที่ it says ถูกซ้อนไว้ stacked ภายใต่ in the space under. Have we switched to the observer being stacked up in there? I doubt that, its the wrong verb, so that must still be the sky. So it doesn't seem to be literal after ที่.

Unless as you said we are really talking about stars, now they could be stuffed under a canopy of leaves in which case they would not be as beautiful with the leaves as a background. It is probably not a hard concept at all. Seems to be in praise of the sky using stars as the tool. So is the subject the sky or the stars? I would say the sky.

I believe the original used the word "ซ่อนไว้" (hidden), not "ซ้อนไว้" (piled up).

[Rikker]

I'd translate the phrase:

ท้องฟ้าสีกำมะหยี่ถูกประดับไปด้วยดวงดาวพร่างพราย งดงามเกินกว่าที่จะถูกซ่อนไว้ภายใต้หลังคาใบไม้

The velvet-hued sky was adorned with shimmering stars, too beautiful to be hidden beneath a canopy of leaves.

เกินกว่าที่จะ is another form of เกินกว่าจะ, meaning "too X to Y", where X precedes เกินกว่า, and Y follows จะ.

The meaning is more clear in other contexts. For example, if second clause had been something like this:

งดงามเกินกว่า(ที่)จะอธิบายได้

I think that particular context makes it clear that the phrase would mean "beautiful beyond description."

The key to understanding เกินกว่าที่จะ in this meaning is the word จะ, which is an irrealis marker (apologies for technical term). จะ marks things that are hypothetical, or not grounded in the real. That's why จะ marks the future tense in Thai, for instance, but future is far from the only thing that จะ marks.

A few other examples from Google:

แก่แค่ไหนจึงมากเกินกว่าที่จะขับรถ "How old is too old to drive?"

ชีวิตมันสั้นเกินกว่าที่จะเป็นคนอื่น "Life's too short not to be yourself." (that's a loose translation)

ไม่ลำบากเกินกว่าที่จะทน "Not too burdensome to bear."

[aanon]

The velvet sky was adorned with glittering stars, too beatiful to be hidden beneath (any) leafy canopy.

X เกินกว่าที่จะ Y = too X to Y

Some examples from Bing (probably in decreasing order of difficulty):

1) ทางชีวิตแห่งสมัยนี้โลดโผน โยกโคลง ขรุขระ ขึ้นๆ ลงๆ ยิ่งกว่า สมัยเก่าก่อน

เกินกว่าที่จะ ดำเนินไปได้ง่ายๆ โดยการใช้วิธีการ ที่ง่ายๆ สั้นๆ เหมือนที่แล้วมา

2) หากมองประวัติศาสตร์ 6 ตุลาคม 2519 ที่เชื่อมโยงมาจากเหตุการณ์ 14 ตุลาคม 2516 จะพบว่า ในช่วง 3 ปีที่ประเทศรุ่งเรือง "ประชาธิปไตย" นั้น มีผู้เสียชีวิตจำนวนมาก เกินกว่าที่จะ"บันทึก"เพียงแค่วันเดียว

3) เขาเหล่านั้นคิดว่าตนเองนั้นแก่เกินไป หรือเด็กเกินไป เกินกว่าที่จะ ลาออก หางานอื่น หรือเปลี่ยนวิถีชีวิตใหม่

Hope that helps,

aanon

ps. Or what Rikker said a few seconds ago :-)

pps. Black velvet is one of the least reflective surfaces commonly available and for this reason is often used by photographers who require a pure black background.

Edited October 24, 2009 by aanon

[DavidHouston]

Thank you both for those excellent translations and explanations. I have a question for Rikker:

แก่แค่ไหนจึงมากเกินกว่าที่จะขับรถ "How old is too old to drive?"

ไม่ลำบากเกินกว่าที่จะทน "Not too burdensome to bear."

Should the word "ได้" be appended to the end of these two sentences? Would the meaning change?

[Rikker]

I would've expected ได้, but I pulled them straight from Google, sans ได้. I don't think it changes the meaning, and assuming these were used by native speakers, the ได้ is somewhat optional.

Edit: aanon, great minds think alike.

[SoftWater]

Thanks aanon and rikker. Both the pattern

X เกินกว่าที่จะ Y = too X to Y

and the rule

The key to understanding เกินกว่าที่จะ in this meaning is the word จะ, which is an irrealis marker (apologies for technical term). จะ marks things that are hypothetical, or not grounded in the real. That's why จะ marks the future tense in Thai, for instance, but future is far from the only thing that จะ marks.

are extremely useful pieces of information.

I have a couple of questions:

i. Can we only use this pattern for abstract comparisons? i.e., would can we use it for

He was too drunk to drive.

เขาเมาเกินกว่าที่จะขับรถ

is this well-formed? Does it need ได้ on the end?

ii. Will it work for reported speech, e.g.

Fred said he was too sexy for his shirt

เฟร็ดบอกว่าเขาเป็นเซ็คซี่เกินกว่าที่จะใส่เสื้อของตัวเอง

Edited October 24, 2009 by SoftWater

[SoftWater]

Sorry, I see you answered the question about ได้ already.

[mangkorn]

The key to understanding เกินกว่าที่จะ in this meaning is the word จะ, which is an irrealis marker (apologies for technical term). จะ marks things that are hypothetical, or not grounded in the real. That's why จะ marks the future tense in Thai, for instance, but future is far from the only thing that จะ marks.

Excellent point. จะ is also used for the subjunctive conditional. As a Spanish speaker (which is very strict about the subjunctive mood), I'd always found it a bit difficult to understand the differentiation between "will" and "would" in Thai. To me, the difference is vast; but a very good Thai teacher once told me that she didn't see the distinction. It seems that the subjunctive mood may only be indicated by a dependent clause, but hopefully Rikker can explain that much better than I have ever been able to.

Sorry for the esoteric grammar terms:

"I will go." (Future)

"I would like to go." (Conditional)

"I would go, if I were you." (Subjunctive conditional.)

Edited October 24, 2009 by mangkorn

[SoftWater]

"I will go." (Future)

"I would like to go." (Conditional)

"I would go, if I were you." (Subjunctive conditional.)

Since we're getting esoteric (not a bad thing, IMHO), in English we have two hypothetical conditionals

the hypothetical 2nd conditional, for things that aren't true but could be:

If I studied harder, my Thai would improve.

(dep clause = simple past; ind' clause= 'would' + base verb)

and the counterfactual 3rd, for talking about how the future might have been if the past had been different:

If I had grown up in Thailand, I would have been a native speaker.

(dep clause = past perfect; ind' clause = 'would have' + past participle verb)

In English these are easily distinguished by the tenses of the component clauses (indicated in brackets above).

Would it be correct to assume that all of these are indicated only by จะ in Thai, and otherwise are not distinguished save for (optionally) by context?

Thanks.

Edited October 25, 2009 by SoftWater

[aanon]

Since we're getting esoteric (not a bad thing, IMHO), in English we have two hypothetical conditionals

the hypothetical 2nd conditional, for things that aren't true but could be:

If I studied harder, my Thai would improve.

(dep clause = simple past; ind' clause= 'would' + base verb)

and the counterfactual 3rd, for talking about how the future might have been if the past had been different:

If I had grown up in Thailand, I would have been a native speaker.

(dep clause = past perfect; ind' clause = 'would have' + past participle verb)

In English these are easily distinguished by the tenses of the component clauses (indicated in brackets above).

Would it be correct to assume that all of these are indicated only by จะ in Thai, and otherwise are not distinguished save for (optionally) by context?

Thanks.

Some examples of how you could express the above ideas:

ถ้าเกิดฉันขยันเรียนมากกว่านี้ ภาษาไทยของฉันคงดีขึ้นแน่นอน

note: ดีขึ้น and คง make it clear that we're talking about a future outcome

ถ้าฉันได้โตมาที่เมืองไทย ฉันก็จะเป็นเจ้าของภาษา

note: ได้ and มา (either one is sufficient, really) mark past tense, while จะ makes it clear (in conjunction with the past tense) that the eventuality has not actually occured.

sometimes it's just context -- but other times there is an internal logic that can be worked out. i will have to leave a closer grammatical analysis to someone better qualified.

aanon

Edited October 25, 2009 by aanon

[DavidHouston]

Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom discuss counter-factual conditions on page 129 of "A Reference Grammar of Thai", pretty much along the lines Aanon explained. The relevant paragraph says:

"/จะ/ appears in the conditional clauses as shown above, but it cannot appear there if the condition is 'counterfactual' (e.g. 'If I were a bird'). This is because /จะ/ is a marker of challengeability, and a counterfactual proposition is beyond the challengeability consideration. That is, a speaker can safely assume that such information is taken as non-factual by the hearer. In contrast /จะ/ can appear in the consequence main clause in this type of counterfactual condition; the speaker uses /จะ/ to present a consequence as challengeable."

Their sample sentence:

"ถ้าเป็นฉันนะ ฉันจะบินไปหาเขาทันที" (If it were me, I would fly to meet him immediately.)

[SoftWater]

Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom discuss counter-factual conditions on page 129 of "A Reference Grammar of Thai", pretty much along the lines Aanon explained. The relevant paragraph says:

"/จะ/ appears in the conditional clauses as shown above, but it cannot appear there if the condition is 'counterfactual' (e.g. 'If I were a bird'). This is because /จะ/ is a marker of challengeability, and a counterfactual proposition is beyond the challengeability consideration. That is, a speaker can safely assume that such information is taken as non-factual by the hearer. In contrast /จะ/ can appear in the consequence main clause in this type of counterfactual condition; the speaker uses /จะ/ to present a consequence as challengeable."

Their sample sentence:

"ถ้าเป็นฉันนะ ฉันจะบินไปหาเขาทันที" (If it were me, I would fly to meet him immediately.)

Thanks David, do you mind if I paraphrase it slightly less technically? Am I right in saying it like this:

จะ cannot appear in the first clause (the condition clause) if it states something that is counterfactual, but it can appear in the second clause (the result or consequence clause) because that is a fact that could be disputed or challenged.

So, I cannot say

ถ้าผมจะเป็นนก ก็จะบินไปประเทศอื่น

[if I will be a bird I would fly to another country]

(จะ is incorrect in the first clause, but not the second)

I have to say

ถ้าผมเป็นนก ก็จะบินไปประเทศอื่น

[if I were a bird I would fly to another country]

As mangkorn said, the subjunctive is not translated and only indicated by being a dependent clause.

I'm not quite sure what work the notion of 'challengeability' does in counterfactuals, since if the condition is counterfactual the result is necessarily unverifiable.

The trouble is I'm not sure I&I's sample sentence is actually a counterfactual. It looks to me like a hypothetical e.g., one could be in a relevantly similar position as the person being referred to in 'If it were me...' , and then if you didn't do as you said you would have spoken falsely. Hence, presumably it is challengeable in that sense. But a counterfactual is what is also called 'the past unreal', and one can never verify or challenge the consequent clause.

e.g., If that had been me on the football pitch, I wouldn't have missed the penalty.

How would we translate this into Thai? (change the example if you don't like football - anything with past perfect in the antecedent and 'would have' + past participle in the consequent).

Thanks

Edited October 25, 2009 by SoftWater

[mangkorn]

Thanks to all for expanding on an important matter of sentence structure. Very helpful.

But this "counterfactual" nonsense has convinced me to save my money and not buy that book. It is amusing how so many people in the field of linguistics (professional and amateur) have an irresistible need to invent their own terms to replace perfectly fine ones that existed long before they came along, sort of like dogs and fire hydrants. "Counterfactual" sounds like some new wave pop-psychology, rather than the stolid but solid "subjunctive," which has been serving in good capacity in Latin-root languages for centuries. The more you change the nomenclature, the more you ensure that few people will understand what you're talking about. The dubious benefit of the exercise escapes me; it's not like getting a distant star or galaxy named after you for some revolutionary contribution to science and knowledge...

[DavidHouston]

Thanks to all for expanding on an important matter of sentence structure. Very helpful.

But this "counterfactual" nonsense has convinced me to save my money and not buy that book. It is amusing how so many people in the field of linguistics (professional and amateur) have an irresistible need to invent their own terms to replace perfectly fine ones that existed long before they came along, sort of like dogs and fire hydrants. "Counterfactual" sounds like some new wave pop-psychology, rather than the stolid but solid "subjunctive," which has been serving in good capacity in Latin-root languages for centuries. The more you change the nomenclature, the more you ensure that few people will understand what you're talking about. The dubious benefit of the exercise escapes me; it's not like getting a distant star or galaxy named after you for some revolutionary contribution to science and knowledge...

Khun Mangkorn,

I am reaching way back here to my days of studying Latin in high school. (I, like Ronald Regan in his prime, am so old that Julius Caesar had just crossed the Rubicon when I studied Latin.) "Subjunctive" is the mood a verb form takes in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances, I seem to remember, is a "contrary-to-fact" condition. I&I's use of the term "counterfactual" is a legitimate usage, I believe, and is quite common.

See, for example, http://www.answers.com/topic/counterfactual-conditional and http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-SUBJUNCTIVE.html

Unlike some, who accept the demise of the subjunctive in English, I mourn it. How much would English lose as an expressive medium if we can no longer say, "Would that it might" or "Would that it were."

Edited October 26, 2009 by DavidHouston

[SoftWater]

The term 'counterfactual' came to prominence in the 1970s in the philosophy of language, but Mangkorn is right that grammarians and linguists are more familiar with the the conditional form of subjunctive mood. The two terms are not strictly identical - subjunctive is a grammatical form; counterfactual is a semantic category aimed at specifying something that might have, but did not in fact, occur. (Sorry, in plain English: subjunctive is defined by the way the sentence is structured; counterfactual is defined by what the sentence means).

For the purposes of our discussion, it is much clearer to avoid both terms and think of the modern classification of conditionals as zero, first, second, and third. These are clearer because the grammatical structure is regularly different. The question is how, if at all, does Thai deal with these different structures?

Examples:

Zero Conditional:

Grammar: both the dependent clause and the main clause are stated in simple present tense.

e.g., If the litmus paper turns red, (then) the liquid is an acid.

Meaning: This is the simplest kind of conditional used for stating general truths or scientific laws or theories.

1st Conditional:

Grammar: the dependent clause is present simple, the main clause is future tense.

e.g., If the sun shines, we will go to the beach.

(present simple) (future)

If you exercise, you will increase your strength.

(present simple) (future)

Meaning: The first conditional is for making predictions – it expresses what you think is likely to happen in the future if the condition in the first clause happens.

2nd Conditional:

Grammar: The dependent cause is simple past, the main clause is ‘would’ + (untensed verb)

e.g.,

If men were more talkative, they would learn more about women.

(simple past) (would + untensed verb)

If I received a higher salary, I would buy a new Mercedes.

(simple past) (would + untensed verb)

If I had swine flu, I would stay at home instead of going to work.

(simple past) (would + untensed verb)

If you raised girls in a society where being female and aggressive

was acceptable (simple past), you would find women in that society

behave like men in our society! (would + untensed verb)

Meaning: The second conditional is for hypothetical or ‘unreal’ situations – expressing your opinion about would happen if a situation changed.

3^rd Conditional

Grammar: the dependent clause is past perfect, the main clause is ‘would have’ + past participle verb

e.g.,

If young girls had been encouraged to fight in our society, they would have behaved just as aggressively as men.

(past perfect) + (‘would have’ + past participle)

If we had gone on holiday last month, we would have come back

feeling relaxed.

(past perfect) + (‘would have’ + past participle)

The third conditional is for counterfactual (= against the facts) situations – sometimes called the ‘past unreal’ – that say what you think might have happened if the situation in the past had been different.

Softwater

Edited October 26, 2009 by SoftWater