จับมือใครดมไม่ได้

[DavidHouston]

Friends,

Lexitron translates " จับมือใครดมไม่ได้" as "cannot look for the one who makes trouble". I guess equivalents in English might be " [is] unable to determine who the perpetrator is" or "cannot sniff out the culprit". Are these acceptable meanings?

The sample sentence in Lexitron is:

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

Please help me understand the meaning of this sentence.

From this week's Matichon in an article regarding the bag of fecal matter thrown into the PM's home, comes the following:

"ตราบใดที่ยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ ตราบนั้น ใครที่ทำแล้วได้ประโยชน์ ย่อมตกเป็นผู้ต้องสงสัยได้ทั้งนั้น"

Would it be correct to say,

"As long as [the police] have been unable to determine who the perpetrator is, the most likely suspects are those who stand to benefit [from the incident]."?

Thanks.

[aanon]

Interesting question. I've previously understood จับมือใครดมไม่ได้ as "cannot find the culprit", but the Lexitron definition adds a different nuance to it. The Thai definition that appears in most dictionaries is หาตัวผู้กระทำผิดไม่ได้, for which either "cannot look for the one who makes trouble" (the Lexitron definition) OR "cannot find the one who makes trouble" might be given as a translation. It's ambiguous, at least the way หา...ไม่ได้ is used in common speech (eg. เรายังหางานทำไม่ได้เลย).

However, I have a couple of other Thai sources that stray from the standard definition and appear to back up the Lexitron rendering:

1) Wit Thienburanathum's Thai-English dictionary:

จับมือใครดม: ตรวจหรือพิสูจน์หาผู้กระทำได้อย่างใด (n. How to find the guilty person)

2) คลังคำ:

จับมือใครดม: (สำ) พิสูจน์ได้อย่างไรว่าใครทำผิด เช่น ของหายไปแต่ไม่รู้ว่าจะจับมือใครดม

Unfortunately I will have to leave any further comments for a later time as I am being kicked off the computer (no, not an internet cafe, my own house)!

I'd love to learn about the origins of this phrase -- which particular wrongdoings lent themselves to inquiry by sniffing? Could it be cattle rustling again, as in คาหนังคาเขา?

[DavidHouston]

We have somewhat of a parallel metaphor in English, "Let me sniff around and see what I can find out."

Interesting question. I've previously understood จับมือใครดมไม่ได้ as "cannot find the culprit", but the Lexitron definition adds a different nuance to it. The Thai definition that appears in most dictionaries is หาตัวผู้กระทำผิดไม่ได้, for which either "cannot look for the one who makes trouble" (the Lexitron definition) OR "cannot find the one who makes trouble" might be given as a translation. It's ambiguous, at least the way หา...ไม่ได้ is used in common speech (eg. เรายังหางานทำไม่ได้เลย).

However, I have a couple of other Thai sources that stray from the standard definition and appear to back up the Lexitron rendering:

1) Wit Thienburanathum's Thai-English dictionary:

จับมือใครดม: ตรวจหรือพิสูจน์หาผู้กระทำได้อย่างใด (n. How to find the guilty person)

2) คลังคำ:

จับมือใครดม: (สำ) พิสูจน์ได้อย่างไรว่าใครทำผิด เช่น ของหายไปแต่ไม่รู้ว่าจะจับมือใครดม

Unfortunately I will have to leave any further comments for a later time as I am being kicked off the computer (no, not an internet cafe, my own house)!

I'd love to learn about the origins of this phrase -- which particular wrongdoings lent themselves to inquiry by sniffing? Could it be cattle rustling again, as in คาหนังคาเขา?

[aanon]

Looking around for info about the origin of this phrase, I have come across two different explanations.

The first (from a Thai-language forum discussion) is that many food items were traditionally stored in jars, often pickled, and that anyone who dipped a hand in to steal something would end up with a hand smelling like the contents of the jar.

The second is more convoluted, and comes from a conversation I had. The speaker vaguely recalled a fable that went as follows: Trying to find a thief in a group of men, an investigator brought along a horse that he claimed to have special powers. Each man was to touch the horse's tail and, he explained, the horse would immediately be able to identify the thief by neighing. One by one, the men walked up to touch the horse's tail -- but the horse didn't neigh at all. At this point, the investigator revealed that he had applied some scented substance to the horse's tail, and the scent should have transferred to the hands of anyone who touched it. By smelling each man's hands, the investigator was able to determine that one of them had deliberately avoided touching the horse's tail. This was taken as proof of his guilty mind, and hence the case was solved.

I offer these only as interesting possibilities, and to perhaps provoke others to offer something more authoritative.

[aanon]

Getting back to the issue of the meaning of จับมือใครดมไม่ได้...

To sum up my earlier post, both Thienburanathum's dictionary and คลังคำ indicate that จับมือใครดม means "how to prove who is (identify) the guilty party." The example given, ของหายไปแต่ไม่รู้ว่าจะจับมือใครดม, means "Stuff has gone missing but don't know how to identify the guilty party."

So, what happens when we add ไม่ได้ on the end to form จับมือใครดมไม่ได้? It seems to me that the result can only mean "There is no way to identify the guilty party". This doesn't contradict the Lexitron definition; rather, it makes its meaning clearer, I hope.

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

Savage powers have wiped away people's lives, and there's so far no way to identify the perpetrators.

"ตราบใดที่ยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ ตราบนั้น ใครที่ทำแล้วได้ประโยชน์ ย่อมตกเป็นผู้ต้องสงสัยได้ทั้งนั้น"

Your translation (David): "As long as [the police] have been unable to determine who the perpetrator is, the most likely suspects are those who stand to benefit [from the incident]."?

Based on the direction I've taken above, I'd suggest a very slight change to "For as long as there's no way to [directly] identify the perpetrator, anyone who would benefit from [the act] can be seen as a suspect."

_____

Ok, one last comment (and it's one that might confuse and undermine everything I've said but, hey, the world is sometimes complex): despite what the dictionary might say, and what I have derived from it, it is still possible that Thai speakers might sometimes use the saying when they simply mean "the culprit hasn't been identified". Here is one such instance, I would say: http://www.oknation.net/blog/naiman/2007/09/30/entry-2

[DavidHouston]

Khun Aanon,

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

Savage powers have wiped away people's lives, and there's so far no way to identify the perpetrators.

Two questions:

1. Does the use of the word "คุกคาม" (to threaten) indicate that the events would occur in the future, i.e., "savage powers threaten to . . . "?

2. Are you saying that the phrase "เอาชีวิต . . . ไปทิ้ง" constitutes the verb "to wipe away"?

Thank you for your analysis and research.

Getting back to the issue of the meaning of จับมือใครดมไม่ได้...

To sum up my earlier post, both Thienburanathum's dictionary and คลังคำ indicate that จับมือใครดม means "how to prove who is (identify) the guilty party." The example given, ของหายไปแต่ไม่รู้ว่าจะจับมือใครดม, means "Stuff has gone missing but don't know how to identify the guilty party."

So, what happens when we add ไม่ได้ on the end to form จับมือใครดมไม่ได้? It seems to me that the result can only mean "There is no way to identify the guilty party". This doesn't contradict the Lexitron definition; rather, it makes its meaning clearer, I hope.

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

Savage powers have wiped away people's lives, and there's so far no way to identify the perpetrators.

"ตราบใดที่ยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ ตราบนั้น ใครที่ทำแล้วได้ประโยชน์ ย่อมตกเป็นผู้ต้องสงสัยได้ทั้งนั้น"

Your translation (David): "As long as [the police] have been unable to determine who the perpetrator is, the most likely suspects are those who stand to benefit [from the incident]."?

Based on the direction I've taken above, I'd suggest a very slight change to "For as long as there's no way to [directly] identify the perpetrator, anyone who would benefit from [the act] can be seen as a suspect."

_____

Ok, one last comment (and it's one that might confuse and undermine everything I've said but, hey, the world is sometimes complex): despite what the dictionary might say, and what I have derived from it, it is still possible that Thai speakers might sometimes use the saying when they simply mean "the culprit hasn't been identified". Here is one such instance, I would say: http://www.oknation.net/blog/naiman/2007/09/30/entry-2

[aanon]

Khun Aanon,

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

Savage powers have wiped away people's lives, and there's so far no way to identify the perpetrators.

Two questions:

1. Does the use of the word "คุกคาม" (to threaten) indicate that the events would occur in the future, i.e., "savage powers threaten to . . . "?

2. Are you saying that the phrase "เอาชีวิต . . . ไปทิ้ง" constitutes the verb "to wipe away"?

Thank you for your analysis and research.

1. ยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ seems pretty clearly to place the acts in the past, although I suppose they could also be ongoing. Therefore, if pushed to include คุกคาม I would go for "Menacing savage powers..." or something similar. I'm happy to be corrected on this; I'm rarely 100% sure when translating a sentence out of context like this.

2. เอาชีวิต . . . ไปทิ้ง: yes, the sense is that people's lives are being taken and discarded, as if of no worth. I deliberately chose words to retain some ambiguity as to whether we're talking about killing or not, but I suspect that we are.

[aanon]

The more I look at the combination of คุกคาม and ยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้, the less sure I am. I've asked Yoot to give us some guidance on this if he has the time.

[yoot]

Khun Aanon,

. ยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ seems pretty clearly to place the acts in the past, although I suppose they could also be ongoing.

Your understanding is correct. The acts have happened in that past and might be ongoing, that's why it's still a threat. (if they have been unable (or have no clue) to determine who are behind this crime.)

[DavidHouston]

Thank you both for those enlightening comments.

[อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ .]

To sum up, would you then render the sentence with "คุกคาม" as part of the verb:

" Savage powers have wiped away people's lives and threaten [even more violence], but so far there has been no way to identify the perpetrators." ?

Or, as you said before, is "คุกคาม" a modifier within the noun phrase accompanying "อำนาจ" as is "ป่าเถื่อน"? The subject would then be "Intimidating and violent powers have . . . ".

Is the latter how you see it? Thanks again for your patience and persistence.

[yoot]

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

To make the meaning of this clearer, I think I should give you guys an example when this sentence would be written.

"เกิดเหตุสุ่มยิงชาวบ้าน ในเขตพื้นที่xxx มีผู้เสียชีวิต 2 ราย และบาดเจ็บ 2 คน เหตุการณ์นี้นับเป็บครั้งที่สามแล้ว โดยที่ตำรวจยังไม่สามารถหาสาเหตุของการลอบฆาตกรรมนี้ได้ ชาวบ้านต่างขวัญผวา กลัวเกิดเหตุการณ์แบบนี้ขึ้นมาอีก อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ นับเป็นการคุกคามที่น่าหวาดผวายิ่งนัก"

[DavidHouston]

Thank you, Khun Yoot, for setting the stage for us. May I attempt a translation? Corrections and comments are welcome:

เกิดเหตุสุ่มยิงชาวบ้าน ในเขตพื้นที่xxx

Let's assume one particular incident involving villagers in a particular area.

มีผู้เสียชีวิต 2 ราย และบาดเจ็บ 2 คน

Two of them were killed and another two were seriously wounded.

เหตุการณ์นี้นับเป็บครั้งที่สามแล้ว

This incident was the third in a row [of its kind].

โดยที่ตำรวจยังไม่สามารถหาสาเหตุของการลอบฆาตกรรมนี้ได้

The police have been unable to determine who caused these murders.

ชาวบ้านต่างขวัญผวา กลัวเกิดเหตุการณ์แบบนี้ขึ้นมาอีก

All the villagers were frightened out of their wits; they were afraid that these murders would continue again and again.

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

Savage and vile powers operating beyond the law continue to threaten murder and mayhem; and, [the police] as yet have not identified who [the perpetrators] are.

นับเป็นการคุกคามที่น่าหวาดผวายิ่งนัก

[The villagers] consider this a horrible menace to be taken very seriously.

Again, your comments and corrections are appreciated. Thank you Aanon and Yoot for sticking with this topic and increasing our understanding of Thai written expression.

[aanon]

อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้

To make the meaning of this clearer, I think I should give you guys an example when this sentence would be written.

"เกิดเหตุสุ่มยิงชาวบ้าน ในเขตพื้นที่xxx มีผู้เสียชีวิต 2 ราย และบาดเจ็บ 2 คน เหตุการณ์นี้นับเป็บครั้งที่สามแล้ว โดยที่ตำรวจยังไม่สามารถหาสาเหตุของการลอบฆาตกรรมนี้ได้ ชาวบ้านต่างขวัญผวา กลัวเกิดเหตุการณ์แบบนี้ขึ้นมาอีก อำนาจป่าเถื่อนคุกคามเอาชีวิตผู้คนไปทิ้งโดยยังจับมือใครดมไม่ได้ นับเป็นการคุกคามที่น่าหวาดผวายิ่งนัก"

Thanks, Yoot, for providing a possible context for this sentence.

David, it looks like your translations with "continue to threaten" or "threaten more" work well; they capture the essence of the situation even if not following the original sentence structure so closely. A couple of comments about your translation of Yoot's example:

* The first line is like the opening line of a news report, eg. "There have been shootings..."

* นับเป็นการคุกคามที่น่าหวาดผวายิ่งนัก: This I take to be the writer's own concluding opinion, rather than an extension of earlier talk about the locals' feelings.

Thanks once more, David, for the interesting questions you consistently raise here. I think จับมือใครดม should now be permanently cemented into my brain.