วายวอด

[DavidHouston]

From Lexitron comes the following sample sentence:

บ้านเรือนเหล่านั้นวายวอดไปเพราะสงครามซึ่งไม่มีใครสามารถเรียกร้องค่าชดเชยได้

Questions regarding the meaning of this sentence:

1. Is the implication that the owners of these homes are not able to claim compensation because they were caused by a war (for example that insurance damages may not be claimed because of a clause prohibiting payment due to wars or civil insurrection)? Alternatively,

2. Is the fact that no one can claim damages due to ownership of the homes being in dispute or that the owners are unknown?

3. One cannot know the relationship between the first and second parts of the sentence without additional contextual help?

The alternatives might be:

a. These homes have been destroyed due to the war; therefore, no one can claim funds for damages.

b. These homes have been ravaged by war; but, there is no one who can step forth to claim damages.

Thanks.

[bannork]

The first answer David- the houses are ruined due to no compensation for war damage- implied is that with compensation they could be rebuilt but the cost is too prohibitive without.

[aanon]

I'd go with 1.

The cause of the houses' destruction was war, and nobody is able to claim any compensation as a result. Given that ค่าชดเชย was used, I'd tend to think that the writer is speaking less about insurance contracts and more about reparations, saying that the nature of war is that it's often impossible to get compensation afterwards for damage caused. More context might confirm or disprove this theory.

The ซึ่ง here is, to my mind, just a general linking ซึ่ง rather than a "which/that" ซึ่ง, the kind of ซึ่ง that can be used to create page-length "sentences" in Thai journalism. In translation, I often find it best to just start a new English sentence at such a ซึ่ง.

[katana]

...In translation, I often find it best to just start a new English sentence at such a ซึ่ง.

Yeah, I'd been reading some Thai news stories recently, and came to that conclusion too. It almost seems to function just like an English 'full stop' here.

[tgeezer]

...In translation, I often find it best to just start a new English sentence at such a ซึ่ง.

Yeah, I'd been reading some Thai news stories recently, and came to that conclusion too. It almost seems to function just like an English 'full stop' here.

My old book by So Sethaputra has some stuff which grammaticists might get, in writing it is used as a preposition to introduce a noun following a transitive verb normally it would not be required.

We all agree that it is not a pronoun so why not try to make it a คำบุพบท in this role meaning from RID คำสำหรับนำหน้านามที่เป็นผู้ถูกกระทำ เช่น รักษาไว้ซึ่งความยุตธรรม it is easy to see in the example but if you make the whole phrase 'circumstances of houses ruined because of war' ชึ่ง (ผู้ถูกกระทำนั้น) ไม่มีใครสามารถเรียกร้องคำ etc. it is just a simple statement explaining the situation. Worth a thought, but if not it has to be ungrammatical and apparently widespread in its misuse.

Edited November 20, 2009 by tgeezer

[DavidHouston]

...In translation, I often find it best to just start a new English sentence at such a ซึ่ง.

Yeah, I'd been reading some Thai news stories recently, and came to that conclusion too. It almost seems to function just like an English 'full stop' here.

My old book by So Sethaputra has some stuff which grammaticists might get, in writing it is used as a preposition to introduce a noun following a transitive verb normally it would not be required.

We all agree that it is not a pronoun so why not try to make it a คำบุพบท in this role meaning from RID คำสำหรับนำหน้านามที่เป็นผู้ถูกกระทำ เช่น รักษาไว้ซึ่งความยุตธรรม it is easy to see in the example but if you make the whole phrase 'circumstances of houses ruined because of war' ชึ่ง (ผู้ถูกกระทำนั้น) ไม่มีใครสามารถเรียกร้องคำ etc. it is just a simple statement explaining the situation. Worth a thought, but if not it has to be ungrammatical and apparently widespread in its misuse.

Strange position, คุณกีซือ. If the use by Thais in this context is widespread, then, perhaps the dictionaries do not have a definition which is sufficiently broad.

[tgeezer]

Strange position, คุณกีซือ. If the use by Thais in this context is widespread, then, perhaps the dictionaries do not have a definition which is sufficiently broad.

I will allow that perhaps the RID may not have a broad enough view of the failings of the system but it occurs to me that the dictionary, if that is what Lexitron is, where you found the quote might be the best place to look for the meaning of ซึ่ง.

There is room for art in language of course, but the main task of a language is communication and for that I am convinced that the best policy is to know the rules and to follow them.

[aanon]

My old book by So Sethaputra has some stuff which grammaticists might get, in writing it is used as a preposition to introduce a noun following a transitive verb normally it would not be required.

We all agree that it is not a pronoun so why not try to make it a คำบุพบท in this role meaning from RID คำสำหรับนำหน้านามที่เป็นผู้ถูกกระทำ เช่น รักษาไว้ซึ่งความยุตธรรม it is easy to see in the example but if you make the whole phrase 'circumstances of houses ruined because of war' ชึ่ง (ผู้ถูกกระทำนั้น) ไม่มีใครสามารถเรียกร้องคำ etc. it is just a simple statement explaining the situation. Worth a thought, but if not it has to be ungrammatical and apparently widespread in its misuse.

This is another use of ซึ่ง which functions like an English 'of' eg. การรักษาไว้ซึ่งความยุตธรรม "the preservation of justice" or การได้มาซึ่งความรู้ "the attainment of knowledge". As the So Sethaputra definition states, it goes ahead of the object. What is not explicitly explained is that the verb comes before the ซึ่ง, as in my examples -- but not this sentence of David's.

[tgeezer]

-- but not this sentence of David's.

You are right it doesn't work and why try to make anything of it at all?

it is made all too complicated for me; it comes down to 'noun-verb' combined with a few bells and whistles as far as I can see.

If ซึ่ง were simply a สรรพนาม it stands for สงคราม. We make two statements so that it then reads ฯ เพรเะสงคราม (สงคราม/ซึ่ง)ไม่มีใครสามารถเรียกร้องค่าชดเชยได้ is there anything wrong with that? ทุกๆคนมีความสุขเพราะความรัก (ความรัก/ที่) ไม่มีใครอยากรบกัน

Obviously, since noone had any opinion on my อัน ที่ ซึ่ง answer I am in a minority of one, I wonder if anyone can explain where I am going wrong.

[tgeezer]

Here is a good question: in; บ้านเรือนเหล่านั้นวายวอดไป what is the function of ไป ? Is it redundant or does it put everything in the present tense? Should it be อยู่ ?

Edited November 22, 2009 by tgeezer

[DavidHouston]

Here is a good question: in; บ้านเรือนเหล่านั้นวายวอดไป what is the function of ไป ? Is it redundant or does it put everything in the present tense? Should it be อยู่ ?

Seems to me that "วายวอดไปเพราะสงคราม" means that the homes have been destroyed in the war. The implication is that the destruction activity occurred in the past, not the present. I effect, ไป is "ไปแล้้ว"

[tgeezer]

I thought it a good illustration of the ambiguity of the words which are commonly written, and this in a dictionary of all places!

You think แล้ว is missing I think it should read อยู่ If the วายวอด were not the verb used it would be less clear-cut even if the English dictionary changes it to a modifier it makes no difference; หมดสิ้นไม่เหลือเหลอ has no degree, it is definitely แล้ว and อยู่ because it is both past and present, what is left is still there however, so it is definitely not ไป.

Perhaps we shouldn't know this! I think that it is quite funny.

[tgeezer]

and อยู่

I was lying in my roof garden and it occured to me that even อยู่ pushes it a bit, these houses may have disappeared completely without trace.

The point is that the explanations which we seek as learners we don't look for when we read English, normally all becomes clear as we progress, here we are usually taking quotes out of context.

I hope you understand that I am just trying to increase my knowledge, not to ruin anyones day.

I have found in my new book that the writer lays down when to use ซึ่ง ที่ อัน ว่า, yes she groups them altogether as คำเชื่อม, not conventionally คำสรรพนาม คำวิเศษณ์ etc. a bit of a struggle at first.

The same words can appear later in another guise especially ที่ of course so I wont attempt to give her view in the limited application which I am reading at the moment being only have way through the book.