Is This Sentence Correct?

[JamieP]

ผมจะสอนภาษาอังกฤษให้คุณ

It's the use of "ให้" I'm trying to get my head round.

Thanks in advance.

[kriswillems]

The sentence is correct. It has 2 meanings.

I'll teach you English (and you're the student)

I'll teach English instead of you (you're normally the teacher but you don't need to teach).

Does the sentence:

I'll teach English for you.

carry the same 2 meanings in English?

Edited January 16, 2010 by kriswillems

[anothertorres]

sure, why not. you can even just cut to the chase thai style and just say จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษคุณ (will teach english you).

[anothertorres]

Does the sentence:

I'll teach English for you.

carry the same 2 meanings in English?

no, 1 meaning (imho). it means, "i will teach instead OF you".

Edited January 16, 2010 by anothertorres

[tgeezer]

Does the sentence:

I'll teach English for you.

carry the same 2 meanings in English?

no, 1 meaning (imho). it means, "i will teach instead OF you".

สอน means to teach : give systematic info. สอน ก. บอกวิชาความรู้ให้ so you see in the definition บอก...ให้ The meaning of ให้ hanging like that I don't know. ผมจะสอนคุณ says it all, 'I will teach you'. Maybe ผมจะสอนภาษาอังฤษให้คุณ is attempting to say 'I will teach English to you'

'I will teach instead of you' is ผมจะสอนแทนคุณ.

The certain way to find out is to ask the person speaking; I think native speakers do a lot of asking.

๑ แม่ซื้อหนังสือให้ผมอ่าน ๒ แม่ซื้อหนังสือให้ผม ๓ แม่ซื้อหนังสือให้ 1. 'buy me a book to read' is easy. 2. buy me a book + give me a book. 3. buy a book on behalf of me or someone else.What do 2 and 3 mean?

[tgeezer]

The sentence is correct. It has 2 meanings.

I'll teach you English (and you're the student)

I'll teach English instead of you (you're normally the teacher but you don't need to teach).

Does the sentence:

I'll teach English for you.

carry the same 2 meanings in English?

Not really: 'for you ' on your behalf. 'I'll teach English to you' or 'I'll teach you English'.

What is your answer to my last post? 1,2,3.

[gorber]

Does the sentence:

I'll teach English for you.

carry the same 2 meanings in English?

no, 1 meaning (imho). it means, "i will teach instead OF you".

สอน means to teach : give systematic info. สอน ก. บอกวิชาความรู้ให้ so you see in the definition บอก...ให้ The meaning of ให้ hanging like that I don't know. ผมจะสอนคุณ says it all, 'I will teach you'. Maybe ผมจะสอนภาษาอังฤษให้คุณ is attempting to say 'I will teach English to you'

'I will teach instead of you' is ผมจะสอนแทนคุณ.

The certain way to find out is to ask the person speaking; I think native speakers do a lot of asking.

๑ แม่ซื้อหนังสือให้ผมอ่าน ๒ แม่ซื้อหนังสือให้ผม ๓ แม่ซื้อหนังสือให้ 1. 'buy me a book to read' is easy. 2. buy me a book + give me a book. 3. buy a book on behalf of me or someone else.What do 2 and 3 mean?

isn't this ,my mother bought me a book to read' etc?

[anchan42]

sure, why not. you can even just cut to the chase thai style and just say จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษคุณ (will teach english you).

That sounds really odd.

[JamieP]

Thanks, all.

The intended meaning of the sentence was "I will teach you English".

[anothertorres]

sure, why not. you can even just cut to the chase thai style and just say จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษคุณ (will teach english you).

That sounds really odd.

while i agree that all thai sounds odd, can i ask what makes this statement any more odd than say ไปกินข้าว ?

[tgeezer]

Thanks, all.

The intended meaning of the sentence was "I will teach you English".

Sorry we got carried away, as you suspect you don't need the ให้ on the end.

[JamieP]

Sorry we got carried away, as you suspect you don't need the ให้ on the end.

Thanks, is it more correct or to adapt an expression "The King's Thai" to use "ให้"?

Edited January 17, 2010 by JamieP

[SoftWater]

Sorry we got carried away, as you suspect you don't need the ให้ on the end.

Thanks, is it more correct or to adapt an expression "The King's Thai" to use "ให้"?

I'd listen to anchan42 - a native Thai speaker.

My wife is also Thai, and she says your original sentence is correct - don't mess with the ให้! - it's not about formality, its just basic grammar structure.

Edited January 17, 2010 by SoftWater

[meadish_sweetball]

sure, why not. you can even just cut to the chase thai style and just say จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษคุณ (will teach english you).

That sounds really odd.

while i agree that all thai sounds odd, can i ask what makes this statement any more odd than say ไปกินข้าว ?

There should be a ให้ in there, I agree with anchan. Not only because he (or she?) is Thai, but also because what little sense I have picked up in 12 years of using the language tells me it's not correct.

You could on the other hand drop the คุณ and just have จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษให้ ... but without ให้ the sentence becomes weird, it sounds something like 'You, I will teach English' (with 'you' as a term of address like 'sir' rather than as the object) or 'I will teach your English' (where it coincides with the non-stressed possessive form as in รองเท้าคุณ).

[tombkk]

Sorry we got carried away, as you suspect you don't need the ให้ on the end.

Thanks, is it more correct or to adapt an expression "The King's Thai" to use "ให้"?

"The King's Thai" is Rachasap and a different language from the Thai the commoners speak. I know too little about Rachasap to say whether the King would use "hai", "gae" or "dae", but in the context given by the OP, I would translate "hai" as "to". I think it's pretty necessary, as the sentence sounds weird without it.

[tombkk]

The sentence is correct. It has 2 meanings.

I'll teach you English (and you're the student)

I'll teach English instead of you (you're normally the teacher but you don't need to teach).

Does the sentence:

I'll teach English for you.

carry the same 2 meanings in English?

I agree with you on the two meanings in Thai, correcting my previous message a minute ago. Yes, the meaning of the sentence is context-sensitive.

In English, the first sentence would be more like:

I'll teach English to you.

So, it's a different meaning from the second. English is more precise in this case, I think. But I am not a native English speaker.

[tombkk]

sure, why not. you can even just cut to the chase thai style and just say จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษคุณ (will teach english you).

That sounds really odd.

while i agree that all thai sounds odd, can i ask what makes this statement any more odd than say ไปกินข้าว ?

There should be a ให้ in there, I agree with anchan. Not only because he (or she?) is Thai, but also because what little sense I have picked up in 12 years of using the language tells me it's not correct.

You could on the other hand drop the คุณ and just have จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษให้ ... but without ให้ the sentence becomes weird, it sounds something like 'You, I will teach English' (with 'you' as a term of address like 'sir' rather than as the object) or 'I will teach your English' (where it coincides with the non-stressed possessive form as in รองเท้าคุณ).

Yes, without the "hai" I would understand it as "your English".

[JamieP]

"The King's Thai" is Rachasap and a different language from the Thai the commoners speak.

I though about my choice of words after posting but unfortunately it was too late to edit.

I was trying to paraphrase the "Queen's English" which is what is regarded as standard British English grammar structure but afterwards remembered there are aspects of the Thai language reserved for royalty.

[anchan42]

Native speakers can (and often?) be wrong. Most of the time the native speakers' answers to "why" questions is "I don't know. That is way it is"

I think it is a grammatically correct sentence but it sounds abrupt and forceful. The feeling Thais might get from the sentence would be something like " I am going to teach you English and you gonna have to take it.

ให้ make the sentence softter. Leaving คุณ and keeping ให้ sounds best for normal friendly converstion.

I also agree that the sentence has two meanings depending on the context.

Edited January 18, 2010 by anchan42

[SoftWater]

Native speakers can (and often?) be wrong. Most of the time the native speakers' answers to "why" questions is "I don't know. That is way it is"

That means they don't know how to explain it - not that they don't know whether it is correct or not.

[tgeezer]

"The King's Thai" is Rachasap and a different language from the Thai the commoners speak.

I though about my choice of words after posting but unfortunately it was too late to edit.

I was trying to paraphrase the "Queen's English" which is what is regarded as standard British English grammar structure but afterwards remembered there are aspects of the Thai language reserved for royalty.

I think that there is a standard Thai and it is called Central Thai. The form is not laid down, or if it is it has been abandoned in favour of various opinions, the wife's, my friend who is fluent, mine, but we get a hint of what is meant by 'Standard Thai' from the Royal Institute Dictionary.

The example for สอน is ครูสอนหนังสือนักเรียน the definition is บอกวิชาความรู้ให้ : I deduce from this that สอน is the sort of verb where you do something for someone, the object of the sentence is that someone.

ผมสอนหนังสือ doesn't say who you teach, the verb is being used intransitively; หนังสือ the subject taught is equivalent to an adverb.

[tgeezer]

Native speakers can (and often?) be wrong. Most of the time the native speakers' answers to "why" questions is "I don't know. That is way it is"

That means they don't know how to explain it - not that they don't know whether it is correct or not.

One must explain so that your reasoning can be questioned. The fact of being able to explain does not make it correct, but not being able to explain means that the discussion will be of the type; is-isn't, is-isn't ad-infinitum.

'I didn't do it M'lord' is not a 'cast-iron' defence in a court of law and is unlikely to get the defendant off the hook.

Fashions change in language; my generation says 'you, me' this generation says 'yourself, myself' I say 'numbers of people' and 'amounts of excrement' this one says 'amounts of people' but still says 'amounts of sh..t' if given the chance!

Presumably the same happens in Thai, ผมจะสอนให้ I will teach you ผมจะสอนให้เข้าใจ is probably what it means if the verb ให้ is to be believed, it should not be hanging in the air except in the dictionary where the definition allows for an assumed object.

I don't think that the word 'correct' can be applied and if you had the grammar book which I have, I think that you would agree with me.

It can't be assumed that what is not regional dialect is standard Thai or can it? I say that the RID is most likely standard although it is fourteen years old it is the one source quoted throughout the teaching of Thai in schools.

I hope to understand the language better; a bit more discussion would help but I do appreciate that most people just want to communicate, and get on with life.

Here's something I found when I was browsing the dictionary researching the meaning of เอา; you know when prizes awards etc. are given by important people, the recepient seems to wave then offer the hand to receive? well the action (verb)it is called เอางาน I wonder at what age it is taught; handy thing to know if you think that you will need it one day.

[anchan42]

One must explain so that your reasoning can be questioned. The fact of being able to explain does not make it correct, but not being able to explain means that the discussion will be of the type; is-isn't, is-isn't ad-infinitum.

'I didn't do it M'lord' is not a 'cast-iron' defence in a court of law and is unlikely to get the defendant off the hook.

Fashions change in language; my generation says 'you, me' this generation says 'yourself, myself' I say 'numbers of people' and 'amounts of excrement' this one says 'amounts of people' but still says 'amounts of sh..t' if given the chance!

Presumably the same happens in Thai, ผมจะสอนให้ I will teach you ผมจะสอนให้เข้าใจ is probably what it means if the verb ให้ is to be believed, it should not be hanging in the air except in the dictionary where the definition allows for an assumed object.

I don't think that the word 'correct' can be applied and if you had the grammar book which I have, I think that you would agree with me.

It can't be assumed that what is not regional dialect is standard Thai or can it? I say that the RID is most likely standard although it is fourteen years old it is the one source quoted throughout the teaching of Thai in schools.

I hope to understand the language better; a bit more discussion would help but I do appreciate that most people just want to communicate, and get on with life.

Here's something I found when I was browsing the dictionary researching the meaning of เอา; you know when prizes awards etc. are given by important people, the recepient seems to wave then offer the hand to receive? well the action (verb)it is called เอางาน I wonder at what age it is taught; handy thing to know if you think that you will need it one day.

As a native speaker, I wish I could be more helpful. I don't have time to think at the moment.

The first time I heard of เอางาน was when I was about to graduate. I have done it once in the graduation ceramony and have never done it agian.

I think it is to be done with royal family only but I might be wrong.

Edited January 20, 2010 by anchan42

[tombkk]

"The King's Thai" is Rachasap and a different language from the Thai the commoners speak.

I though about my choice of words after posting but unfortunately it was too late to edit.

I was trying to paraphrase the "Queen's English" which is what is regarded as standard British English grammar structure but afterwards remembered there are aspects of the Thai language reserved for royalty.

I think that there is a standard Thai and it is called Central Thai. The form is not laid down, or if it is it has been abandoned in favour of various opinions, the wife's, my friend who is fluent, mine, but we get a hint of what is meant by 'Standard Thai' from the Royal Institute Dictionary.

The example for สอน is ครูสอนหนังสือนักเรียน the definition is บอกวิชาความรู้ให้ : I deduce from this that สอน is the sort of verb where you do something for someone, the object of the sentence is that someone.

ผมสอนหนังสือ doesn't say who you teach, the verb is being used intransitively; หนังสือ the subject taught is equivalent to an adverb.

Standard Thai is Central Thai or Pasa Klang. That's more or less comparable with what "The Queen's English" or "Oxford English" (being such an ignorant, I don't even know the difference) is for the English language. The language (or dialect, if you prefer) that is considered "correct" and spoken by the news anchors on TV, before all the linguists with regional pronunciations and usages come in.

[anchan42]

I am not a linguist so my explanation might just be load of <deleted> but I would like to try anyway.

ให้ here is a preposition. Its equivalent in English is "for" or "to", which one exactly depends on context.

ผมจะสอนภาษาอังกฤษให้คุณ The structure of this sentence is

S(ผม)+V(จะสอน)+O1(ภาษาอังกฤษ)+PP(ให้)+O2(คุณ)

This sentence has two meanings.

• I will teach you English (I will teach English to you.)
  
• I will teach English for you. (so you would not have to)
  

Let's look at other sentences that have the same structure.

ผมจะสร้างบ้านให้คุณ

S(ผม)+V(จะสร้าง)+O1(บ้าน)+PP(ให้)+O2(คุณ)

Meanings

• I will build you a house. (I will build a house to you.* or "I will build a house and give it to you)
  
• I will build a house for you. (two builders talking)
  

ผมจะขับรถให้คุณ

S(ผม)+V(จะขับ)+O1(รถ)+PP(ให้)+O2(คุณ)

Meanings

• I will drive you.( home, to Bangkok, etc)
  
• I will drive for you. (Two drivers talking. I think this English sentence also have 2 meanings? )
  

O1 being direct object and O2 being indirect object.

Of course ให้ is also a verb means "to give".

Edited January 22, 2010 by anchan42

[mangkorn]

That's a very good explanation of an important word and its uses, khun anchan. Your teaching skills are better than you claim; most linguists can't explain usage so clearly.

ผีฝากถุงข้าวสารให้ฉัน

[tgeezer]

I am not a linguist so my explanation might just be load of <deleted> but I would like to try anyway.

ให้ here is a preposition. Its equivalent in English is "for" or "to", which one exactly depends on context.

ผมจะสอนภาษาอังกฤษให้คุณ The structure of this sentence is

S(ผม)+V(จะสอน)+O1(ภาษาอังกฤษ)+PP(ให้)+O2(คุณ)

This sentence has two meanings.

Of course ให้ is also a verb means "to give".

The only problem with what you have written is that people will cling to it like a lifebelt, and abandon the sentences with only one meaning, so that ผมจะสอนถาษาอังฤษคุณ for 'I will teach you English' will be considered wrong.

As for 'I will teach English for you'. What is the correct way of saying that? I feel that สอนภาษาอังฤษแทน should appear somewhere.

[anchan42]

The only problem with what you have written is that people will cling to it like a lifebelt, and abandon the sentences with only one meaning, so that ผมจะสอนถาษาอังฤษคุณ for 'I will teach you English' will be considered wrong.

As for 'I will teach English for you'. What is the correct way of saying that? I feel that สอนภาษาอังฤษแทน should appear somewhere.

Let try an experiment. I am sure most people know that in real life conversation we often left words out. What the sentence actually mean will have to be deduced from context. So those three sentences can be shorten to

จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษให้

จะสร้างบ้านให้

จะขับรถให้

Who is the subject and who is the object in each sentence will have to come from context. Now, if we try to reduce the sentence down further by taking preposition off. We would have

จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษ (I, he,she, etc) will teach English

จะสร้างบ้าน will build house

จะขับรถ will drive car

Without the pp to suggest that there are objects, those sentences' meanings have changed. If we try to put the object back we would get

จะสอนภาษาอังกฤษคุณ (I, he,she, etc) will teach you English

จะสร้างบ้านคุณ will build your house

จะขับรถคุณ will drive your car

The latter two sentences now contain structure Noun(รถ,บ้าน) +Pronounce(คุณ) which is shorten form of Noun+ของ+Pronounce. They are used to show procession and interpreted as such on those two sentences.

To do the same on the first sentence and interpret it as "will teach your English" would be illogical. That is why Thai perceived them as "Will teach you English.

Make sense?

Edited January 25, 2010 by anchan42

[anchan42]

That's a very good explanation of an important word and its uses, khun anchan. Your teaching skills are better than you claim; most linguists can't explain usage so clearly.

ผีฝากถุงข้าวสารให้ฉัน

Thanks for your complement.

I am sure Noam Chomsky would strongly disagree with you.

"ผีฝากถุงข้าวสารให้ฉัน" interesting sentence., Where did you get it from?

Edited January 25, 2010 by anchan42

[anchan42]

'I will teach English for you' in Thai would be ผมจะสอนภาษาอังกฤษแทนให้คุณ. ให้ is optional.

You have also raise an interesting question earlier. ผมจะสอนให้เข้าใจ

I think ให้ in this sentence behave very differently from the other sentences we are talking about here.

In this sentence is used to express the degree of the action. It translation should be something like "to the degree that"

ผมจะสอนให้เข้าใจ I will teach to the degree that (people, him, คุณ) will understand.

ผมจะสร้างบ้านให้แข็งแรง I will build house to the degree that it will be strong. (I will build a strong house)

ผมจะขับรถให้เร็วๆ I will drive to the degree that it will be fast. ( I will drive fast)

Edited January 25, 2010 by anchan42