Article In Matichon On Arson Accusations Of Mr Jeff

[Gaccha]

The Jeff Savage as arsonist is getting some attention in the Thai press, allowing for an interesting set of vocabulary.

Here are some of the words:

จัดฉาก . to "set up" a contrived crime scene or evidence against an innocent person

กุเรื่อง. to cook up; concoct; invent; make up; contrive; fabricate; trump up

แพะรับบาป. Scapegoat

กุ. Trump up, fabricate

The story is remarkably close to The Guardian newspaper story from which it extensively quotes. I don't see any attempts to subvert the narrative.

The article is here:

http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?...id=01&catid=

I have two initial questions:

ปฎิเสธไม่ What is this?

มีอารมณ์ dictionary says this means 'have an erection'… I think shorely shome mishtake

[DavidHouston]

"เจฟฟ์ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด"

Jeff Savage could not deny (that) he set fire to the World Trade (Center).

" . . . ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ว่า . . . " is a frequent phrase meaning, "(he) could not deny that . . . "

If it were not a headline, almost certainly the phrase would contain the word ว่า or maybe it is just a typo in the Internet version.

Let's try this one:

“นายเจฟฟ์ยอมรับว่า เขาอยู่ในวีดีโอดังกล่าวจริง แต่ตอนที่พูดเรื่องเหล่านั้นเป็นช่วงที่เขากำลังเครียด และมีอารมณ์ เขาถูกบีบให้เครียดจัดเพราะเกิดเหตุซุ่มยิงผู้คน”

Here, "มีอารมณ์" means "to be in an emotional state". Let's try the whole statement:

"Mr. Jeff Savage admitted that it was indeed he who was shown in the video, but when he make his (inflammatory) statement he was in a state of high emotion. He was under a lot of pressure and tension because snipers were shooting people."

What do you think?

[bhoydy]

"เจฟฟ์ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด"

Jeff Savage could not deny (that) he set fire to the World Trade (Center).

" . . . ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ว่า . . . " is a frequent phrase meaning, "(he) could not deny that . . . "

If it were not a headline, almost certainly the phrase would contain the word ว่า or maybe it is just a typo in the Internet version.

Let's try this one:

“นายเจฟฟ์ยอมรับว่า เขาอยู่ในวีดีโอดังกล่าวจริง แต่ตอนที่พูดเรื่องเหล่านั้นเป็นช่วงที่เขากำลังเครียด และมีอารมณ์ เขาถูกบีบให้เครียดจัดเพราะเกิดเหตุซุ่มยิงผู้คน”

Here, "มีอารมณ์" means "to be in an emotional state". Let's try the whole statement:

"Mr. Jeff Savage admitted that it was indeed he who was shown in the video, but when he make his (inflammatory) statement he was in a state of high emotion. He was under a lot of pressure and tension because snipers were shooting people."

What do you think?

Not to take anything away from your translation but what about .....it was indeed he who was in the video which was shown, but when he made....... the reason being ดังกล่าว is talking about the video which had already been shown on youtube. Any thoughts?

What purpose does เหล่า serve in this excerpt?

Edited May 26, 2010 by bhoydy

[DavidHouston]

"เจฟฟ์ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด"

Jeff Savage could not deny (that) he set fire to the World Trade (Center).

" . . . ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ว่า . . . " is a frequent phrase meaning, "(he) could not deny that . . . "

If it were not a headline, almost certainly the phrase would contain the word ว่า or maybe it is just a typo in the Internet version.

Not to take anything away from your translation but what about .....it was indeed he who was in the video which was shown, but when he made....... the reason being ดังกล่าว is talking about the video which had already been shown on youtube. Any thoughts?

What purpose does เหล่า serve in this excerpt?

I have been having a discussion off-line with a very knowledgeable Thai and they indicated that they thought my addition of ว่า is incorrect. I am not yet sure of the upshot but it could be something like: เจฟฟ์ซาเวจปฎิเสธ: ไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด" "Jeff Savage denied [the charge]: [he said that] he did not set fire to the World Trade (Center)."

[Peppy]

Here's my take, based on the contexts I've seen these words used in:

ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ means "deny"

As in the following examples, culled from a Google search of the term:

"แซนดร้า บูลล๊อก"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ร่วมถ่ายเทปเซ็กส์ลับกับสามี

"Sandra <deleted> denies making sex tape with husband" (Haven't heard about this, but it's from a recent article.)

เสธ.แดงรีบปฎิเสธไม่ได้ลอบยิง “สนธิ”

"Seh Daeng rushes to deny shooting Sonthi" (From when Sonthi L.'s van got shot up the way to work, and Seh Daeng was still alive.)

It looks like a double negative, like saying that "I deny that I didn't do it", but it isn't. It's more like "I deny (it); (I) didn't do it."

ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ว่า means "can't deny (that)"

As in the popular song, "ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ว่ารัก", "I can't deny that (I) love (you)."

[Gaccha]

I am watching with great interest how the Thais respond in the Comments section of the Matichon to the article. The first response seems interesting but there is a word that seems crucial but I don't know it (and nor do my dictionaries):

จร๊งๆ (it actually says จร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆ) (i take it as an alternative spelling of จริง )

Addtionally, it uses the excellent word:

มักง่าย hapless

and the probably- new- to- the- Thai- language:

สไนเปอร์ sniper

Here is the whole reader's comment:

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

[Gaccha]

When I first read this Thai reader's response, I took it as quite an impressive thoughtful take on the situation. I thought the Thai was saying that we should be cautious to just prosecute for only words spoken as after all had things been different then that could be us now (ie.e. we could be the ones on trial)since we did demand the death of people by sniper.

However, on re-reading and reflecting I fear his argument is the rather more tiresome and well-trodden argument that Mr Savage’s argument that he was only saying words can just as easily lead to the death of people as an action can lead to someone's death.

What he is saying is ambiguous for me by several factors. The odd spacing:

e.g. ~ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเรา~ Why not ~ทำไมมักง่ายจังนี่ ถ้าเรา~ ?

Also, what does this phrase mean:

เกิดตายไป. Born and die and go somewhere

So my translation is very rocky, but here goes:

Right now (am I right to think) he has an indictment only for words spoken. Why were these so hapless. If we said we hated a nasty dictator-type we would have blood on our hands. We will want a sniper to take him out. And then clearly it will happen and he will die and go somewhere else[?]. Will we be jinxed? It will change the person that is correct, and will (they) mention or not that we claimed to assassinate him? Even though we did not kill him, which is already clear, we wanted to kill him and that is awfully clear.

Please help...

[Peppy]

I am watching with great interest how the Thais respond in the Comments section of the Matichon to the article. The first response seems interesting but there is a word that seems crucial but I don't know it (and nor do my dictionaries):

จร๊งๆ (it actually says จร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆ) (i take it as an alternative spelling of จริง )

Addtionally, it uses the excellent word:

มักง่าย hapless

and the probably- new- to- the- Thai- language:

สไนเปอร์ sniper

Here is the whole reader's comment:

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

จร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆ means "really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY", like ใหญ่จร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆ "really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY big".

I think มักง่าย is better rendered as "slipshod". "Hapless" to me means "luckless, being prone to error through no fault of one's own" whereas "slipshod" means "given to poor execution due to one's own carelessness", which is, I think, the meaning of "มักง่าย".

I don't think สไนเปอร์ is a particularly recent word--it's probably been around for as long as sniper rifles have been in Thailand. There is a Thai word for "sniper", though, "แม่นปืน" (probably a translation of "sharpshooter"), but the English just sounds so much more learned and posh to the educated Thai ear.

My take on the comment:

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

"So they've got nothing but his statements to make these accusations with?* How come they're so slipshod? Look, if we say we hate murderers, traitors, and people with blood on their hands, and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die, won't we be screwed? Wouldn't we then be the ones being accused of murder, even if we didn't do it, though we really, really, really wanted to?"

*Not entirely sure of the context of this sentence (ie. who is accusing who, whose words were they), so this could be off the mark.

์

Notes about some of the vocabulary, in the above context:

"จัง" after an adjective means "so" or "very"

"นี่" can be a sort of interjection, like "look" ("Look, I'm going and I don't care what you say.") or "here" ("Here, take this.")

"เกิด" followed by a verb means "it happens that". I could have translated "แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ" as "and it happens that they die", but I don't feel it adds much to the meaning, so I left it out.

[Gaccha]

<snip>

My take on the comment:

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

"So they've got nothing but his statements to make these accusations with?* How come they're so slipshod? Look, if we say we hate murderers, traitors, and people with blood on their hands, and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die, won't we be screwed? Wouldn't we then be the ones being accused of murder, even if we didn't do it, though we really, really, really wanted to?"

*Not entirely sure of the context of this sentence (ie. who is accusing who, whose words were they), so this could be off the mark.

์

Notes about some of the vocabulary, in the above context:

"จัง" after an adjective means "so" or "very"

"นี่" can be a sort of interjection, like "look" ("Look, I'm going and I don't care what you say.") or "here" ("Here, take this.")

"เกิด" followed by a verb means "it happens that". I could have translated "แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ" as "and it happens that they die", but I don't feel it adds much to the meaning, so I left it out.

That is excellent. Very much appreciated.

[nakachalet]

"เจฟฟ์ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด"

Jeff Savage could not deny (that) he set fire to the World Trade (Center).

" . . . ปฎิเสธไม่ได้ว่า . . . " is a frequent phrase meaning, "(he) could not deny that . . . "

If it were not a headline, almost certainly the phrase would contain the word ว่า or maybe it is just a typo in the Internet version.

Let's try this one:

"นายเจฟฟ์ยอมรับว่า เขาอยู่ในวีดีโอดังกล่าวจริง แต่ตอนที่พูดเรื่องเหล่านั้นเป็นช่วงที่เขากำลังเครียด และมีอารมณ์ เขาถูกบีบให้เครียดจัดเพราะเกิดเหตุซุ่มยิงผู้คน"

Here, "มีอารมณ์" means "to be in an emotional state". Let's try the whole statement:

"Mr. Jeff Savage admitted that it was indeed he who was shown in the video, but when he make his (inflammatory) statement he was in a state of high emotion. He was under a lot of pressure and tension because snipers were shooting people."

What do you think?

--------

davidhouston.... sorry

"เจฟฟ์ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด" Jeff Savage could not deny (that) he set fire to the World Trade (Center).

the above english translation though well intended is INCORRECT....

--------

the thai language has its numerous inconsistent peculiarities--stringing words together-which if those words are separated at different words, will render its context completely different.... one reason why thai politics, writing and agreement are so confounding at times....

"เจฟฟ์ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด" Jeff Savage denied that he set fire to WTC....

"เจฟฟ์ ซาเวจ"ปฎิเสธ ^ ไม่ได้วางเพลิงเวิล์ดเทรด" according to thai tradition and custom.... the separation of words should be at the mark ^ as shown.

if my translation is incorrect.... i will be glad to relearn....

[nakachalet]

gaccha....

....Also, what does this phrase mean:

เกิดตายไป. Born and die and go somewhere

Please help...

เกิดตายไป.... this phrase should be translated to mean.... should he/she/it die (pass away, decease, perish....)

the word most politically correct would prefer to use in place of the word ตาย.... is.... มือันเป็นไป....

cheers....

[CSS]

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

"So they've got nothing but his statements to make these accusations with?* How come they're so slipshod? Look, if we say we hate murderers, traitors, and people with blood on their hands, and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die, won't we be screwed? Wouldn't we then be the ones being accused of murder, even if we didn't do it, though we really, really, really wanted to?"

What do you think of changing your translations of เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน a little bit. Instead of "and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die," how about, "and then we get a sniper to shoot them in the head." That would then emphasize the theme of words verse actions a little more clearly. It would also connect to the sentence ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน (because the sniper did).

[nakachalet]

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

"So they've got nothing but his statements to make these accusations with?* How come they're so slipshod? Look, if we say we hate murderers, traitors, and people with blood on their hands, and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die, won't we be screwed? Wouldn't we then be the ones being accused of murder, even if we didn't do it, though we really, really, really wanted to?"

What do you think of changing your translations of เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน a little bit. Instead of "and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die," how about, "and then we get a sniper to shoot them in the head." That would then emphasize the theme of words verse actions a little more clearly. It would also connect to the sentence ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน (because the sniper did).

css....

yours surely renders the context more exact and meaningful....

[Peppy]

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

"So they've got nothing but his statements to make these accusations with?* How come they're so slipshod? Look, if we say we hate murderers, traitors, and people with blood on their hands, and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die, won't we be screwed? Wouldn't we then be the ones being accused of murder, even if we didn't do it, though we really, really, really wanted to?"

What do you think of changing your translations of เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน a little bit. Instead of "and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die," how about, "and then we get a sniper to shoot them in the head." That would then emphasize the theme of words verse actions a little more clearly. It would also connect to the sentence ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน (because the sniper did).

Yes, thank you, that is more accurate. However, I'm not sure it changes much within the context of the comment: My understanding is that the poster is contrasting the words of the British guy and the subsequent arson with the words of the government and the subsequent assassination of Seh Daeng. He's saying that if you hold the Brit to one standard, that is, accusing him of arson simply because he expressed interest in wanting to do it, then the government can be held to the same standard, that is, they should be accused of killing Seh Daeng, given that certain members of government had expressed interest in wanting to do something like that. The difference in culpability between hiring a sniper and doing the dirty work oneself is minimal, I would think, but that's not the point of the comment; the point is that if you say you want something to happen and then it does happen, there's a good chance someone's going to accuse you of having a hand in it, even if you actually didn't. (Or at least, if the government's ready to dish out charges based on such evidence, they ought to be ready for it to go the other way, too.)

Edited May 27, 2010 by Peppy

[GarryP]

Peppy, I think you are trying to read far too much into the reader's comment.

[bhoydy]

Interestingly, a wee search on google pulls up no instances of จร๊งๆๆๆๆ. Only จริง and จริ๊ง coming up. Must be used mostly in chat rooms.

[yoot]

I think there is some misunderstanding in this translation.

" เดี๋ยวนี้เขาใช้แค่คำพูดมาเป็นข้อกล่าวหาแล้วเหรอ ทำไมมักง่ายจัง นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า "

"So they've got nothing but his statements to make these accusations with?* How come they're so slipshod? Look, if we say we hate murderers, traitors, and people with blood on their hands, and then we go and shoot them in the head and they die, won't we be screwed? Wouldn't we then be the ones being accused of murder, even if we didn't do it, though we really, really, really wanted to?"

ทำไมมักง่ายจัง - why they are so thoughtless.

นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน - Look, if I say I hate (someone who I think he is) a murderer, traitor with blood on his hands and (say that) I will shoot that one in the head with a sniper. (Well, I translate it literally with the left out details in bracket).

แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ - Later on, it happened that one (who I said I would shoot him) died (by getting shot with sniper, but I didn't have anything involve with this crime), wouldn't I be screwed?

จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ - Wouldn't I then being accused of murder? ( from how thoughtless of making this kind of accusation of the one who had authority by using my previous statement only)

ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า " - Even if I didn't do it (I just said it but took no action), though I really, really, really wanted to kill him.

[Gaccha]

Hang on, hang on.

This is fascinating. Yoot is re-positioning the comment as being similar to the second interpretation that I guessed it in my original posting. While Peppy positions it closely to the clever argument that I describe in my first interpretation. (this is confusing but you'll get the idea if you look at the first post of this topic on the comment of the Thai reader). This really intrigues me now-- is the post itself fundamentally ambiguous?

(by the way, thanks David for your help with the original text)

[katana]

I think there is some misunderstanding in this translation.

ทำไมมักง่ายจัง - why they are so thoughtless.

นี่ถ้าเราพูดว่าเกลียดอ้ายฆาตกร ทรราช มือเปื้อนเลือด เราจะเอา สไนเปอร์ไปยิงหัวมัน - Look, if I say I hate (someone who I think he is) a murderer, traitor with blood on his hands and (say that) I will shoot that one in the head with a sniper. (Well, I translate it literally with the left out details in bracket).

แล้วมันเกิดตายไปจริงๆ เราจะซวยไหมละ - Later on, it happened that one (who I said I would shoot him) died (by getting shot with sniper, but I didn't have anything involve with this crime), wouldn't I be screwed?

จะกลายเป็นคนที่ถูก กล่าวหาว่าฆ่ามันหรือเปล่านี่ - Wouldn't I then being accused of murder? ( from how thoughtless of making this kind of accusation of the one who had authority by using my previous statement only)

ทั้งๆที่เราไม่ได้ฆ่ามัน ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วอยากฆ่ามันจร๊งๆๆๆๆๆๆจ้า " - Even if I didn't do it (I just said it but took no action), though I really, really, really wanted to kill him.

Hi Yoot,

Is there a difference in meaning or nuance between เราจะซวยไหมละ and เราจะซวยไหม? (Without the ละ).

[yoot]

This really intrigues me now-- is the post itself fundamentally ambiguous?

If you read the whole story and understand the example giving by the commenter, you would see that there is nothing ambiguous in this post. He/She invited people who read the news to imagine if it's that you who are accused of committing a crime without any proves, only from the statement you did but you had nothing involved with it, would you accept that?

Is there a difference in meaning or nuance between เราจะซวยไหมละ and เราจะซวยไหม? (Without the ละ).

Not much, only in some context.

For example;

A: ถ้าผมวางเพลิงแล้วไปบอกให้คนอื่นรับรู้ คุณว่าผมจะซวยไหม (He has no idea what the outcome would be)

B: ซวยแน่นอน

A: เหรอ งั้นถ้าผมคิดจะทำ ผมจะได้ไม่ไปบอกคนอื่น

Or,

A: ถ้าผมวางเพลิงแล้วไปบอกให้คนอื่นรับรู้ คุณคิดว่าผมจะซวยไหมล่ะ (He knows what the outcome would be, so he asks you to imagine and think about it)

B: ไม่รอดอยู่แล้ว

A: ก็นั่นนะสิ แล้วผมจะบ้าทำไปทำไม

Edited May 27, 2010 by yoot

[Peppy]

If you read the whole story and understand the example giving by the commenter, you would see that there is nothing ambiguous in this post. He/She invited people who read the news to imagine if it's that you who are accused of committing a crime without any proves, only from the statement you did but you had nothing involved with it, would you accept that?

I agree with you here. As I said before, the point of the post "is that if you say you want something to happen and then it does happen, there's a good chance someone's going to accuse you of having a hand in it, even if you actually didn't." It's just that of all the possible examples the poster could have thought of, he chose somebody getting bumped off by a sniper and dying at a later date. Now who did that happen to recently? Just a coincidence? Given the Thai penchant for commenting on issues without actually mentioning the issues themselves, I don't think it is.

[katana]

Thanks for the explanation and arson examples, yoot.

So if I've understood it correctly, it seems to be used when asking a question to which you think the answer is kind of obvious.

Another example I came across that may fit is in the title to this video of a Japanese robot riding a bicycle.

คลิป หุ่นยนต์ขี่จักรยาน เคยเห็นมั้ยล่ะ - Clip of a robot riding a bicycle. Have you ever seen that before!? [my translation].

Here the use of MAI LA presumably indicates you think it's kind of obvious the viewer won't have seen such an unusual thing before.

[321niti123]

"Me arom" is to have emotions, the internet meaning is what thais say when they dont want to directly say erection, but its translation (excluding the underlying meaning) just means to have emotions.

the words should be followed by an emotion

e.g. "Mee arom grod kaen": "grod kaen" means angry with feelings of vengence, therefore the sentence would mean "to have angry and vengeful feelings/emotions."

[katana]

So if I've understood it correctly, it seems to be used when asking a question to which you think the answer is kind of obvious.

Another example I came across that may fit is in the title to this video of a Japanese robot riding a bicycle.

คลิป หุ่นยนต์ขี่จักรยาน เคยเห็นมั้ยล่ะ - Clip of a robot riding a bicycle. Have you ever seen that before!? [my translation].

Here the use of MAI LA presumably indicates you think it's kind of obvious the viewer won't have seen such an unusual thing before.

คลิป หุ่นยนต์ขี่จักรยาน เคยเห็นมั้ยล่ะ - Clip of a robot riding a bicycle. Have you ever seen that before!? [my translation].

Can anyone confirm if my understanding of the robot example above is correct ie the มั้ยล่ะ tacked on the end, as opposed to just มั้ย without the ล่ะ, adds the nuance that the author thinks it's kind of obvious the viewer won't have seen such an unusual thing as a robot riding a bicycle before. Or am I reading too much into it?

Comments from native Thai speakers welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Edited October 7, 2010 by katana

[tgeezer]

"Me arom" is to have emotions, the internet meaning is what thais say when they dont want to directly say erection, but its translation (excluding the underlying meaning) just means to have emotions.

the words should be followed by an emotion

e.g. "Mee arom grod kaen": "grod kaen" means angry with feelings of vengence, therefore the sentence would mean "to have angry and vengeful feelings/emotions."

The literal translation of อารมณ์ is 'mood' as in State of mind or feeling (ความคิด ความรู้สึกที่เปลี่ยนแปลงอยู่ร่วย ๆ ) มีอารมณ์ 'I am in the mood' = I am inclined towards doing something. An erect 'member' is simply nature's signal of a specific mood.

[yoot]

คลิป หุ่นยนต์ขี่จักรยาน เคยเห็นมั้ยล่ะ - Clip of a robot riding a bicycle. Have you ever seen that before!? [my translation].

Can anyone confirm if my understanding of the robot example above is correct ie the มั้ยล่ะ tacked on the end, as opposed to just มั้ย without the ล่ะ, adds the nuance that the author thinks it's kind of obvious the viewer won't have seen such an unusual thing as a robot riding a bicycle before. Or am I reading too much into it?

Comments from native Thai speakers welcome.

Thanks in advance.

มั้ยล่ะ tacked on the end implies that "I have seen it, how about you? (have you ever seen that before)"

If it's just มั้ย without the ล่ะ, it would be a simple question, without impling anything about "I have seen it". It's like "there is a clip of a robot riding a bicycle (somewhere), have you ever seen that?"

Hope this helps.

[rakloke]

คลิป หุ่นยนต์ขี่จักรยาน เคยเห็นมั้ยล่ะ - Clip of a robot riding a bicycle. Have you ever seen that before!? [my translation].

Can anyone confirm if my understanding of the robot example above is correct ie the มั้ยล่ะ tacked on the end, as opposed to just มั้ย without the ล่ะ, adds the nuance that the author thinks it's kind of obvious the viewer won't have seen such an unusual thing as a robot riding a bicycle before. Or am I reading too much into it?

Comments from native Thai speakers welcome.

Thanks in advance.

มั้ยล่ะ tacked on the end implies that "I have seen it, how about you? (have you ever seen that before)"

If it's just มั้ย without the ล่ะ, it would be a simple question, without impling anything about "I have seen it". It's like "there is a clip of a robot riding a bicycle (somewhere), have you ever seen that?"

Hope this helps.

คุณคะตะนะครับ

I think khun yoot has already provided a good explanation in terms of their nuance in general meanings.

I'll add a bit more about interpersonal meaning - the relationship between the interogator and the one who takes the replying role.

IMO, when " เคยเห็นมั้ยละ่" is used, it seems both of them are more familiar to each other than those who just use"เคยเห็นมั้ย". Besides, it is appropriate for older guy to ask the younger one (yes, they are familiar ).

It should be inappropriate to use "เคยเห็นมั้ยละ" with strangers. And it's rude if it is used by younger asking the older, according to Thai's norm and culture.

I'm not 100 percent sure of my explanation. Maybe I 've never expected anyone will ask it. LOL

[katana]

Thanks Khun yoot and khun rakloke.