Tenses

[DavidHouston]

The final sentence in a newspaper article is:

"กว่ารัฐบาลจะรู้ตัวในภายหลังว่าทำอะไรลงไป เมืองไทยก็ไม่เหมือนเดิมเสียแล้ว"

"By the time that the government becomes aware of what happened, Thailand will no longer be the same."

Or, a bit more verbosely,

"By the time that the government becomes aware of what had transpired, Thailand will no longer have been the same.""

Have I got the tenses right? Which sentence above, or what alternative, comes closest to what the Thai implies?

[Peppy]

I think your first sentence works best.

And just for the sake of argument, I'd say: "By the time the government realizes what they have done, Thailand will no longer be the same."

[anchan42]

I think your first sentence works best.

And just for the sake of argument, I'd say: "By the time the government realizes what they have done, Thailand will no longer be the same."

I second that.

[321niti123]

I minor suggestion that last part of the phrase is refering to smthn that already happen (Sia Laew)

whole sentence "by the time the government realizes what they have done, thailand is no longer the same"

[Peppy]

I minor suggestion that last part of the phrase is refering to smthn that already happen (Sia Laew)

whole sentence "by the time the government realizes what they have done, thailand is no longer the same"

Yes, เสียแล้ว/sia laeo refers to something that has already happened. In this case it means something that will have already happened at the point in time at which "the government realizes what they have done". Hence "will no longer be the same".

[Gaccha]

Is 'By the time..." constructed here by "กว่า... ในภายหลัง"?

If not, what is the role of กว่า?

Thanks in advance.

[Rikker]

I'm not sure future tense is appropriate here. How about:

By the time the government realized what it had done, Thailand was no longer the same.

I take กว่ารัฐบาลจะรู้ตัวในภายหลัง to indicate a past realization. กว่าจะ+verb can be used to recount past actions, too--the จะ here doesn't necessarily indicate futurity. Combine that with ในภายหลัง and as I am reading it realization comes after the action, but before the time of writing. And the next clause has เสียแล้ว, so the change is also in the past, because there is no จะ to make it future.

Am I missing something? Perhaps there are multiple interpretations, but this is my sense of the whole phrase.

[Peppy]

Interesting interpretation, Rikker. I hadn't considered that it might be referring events that had already occurred. It would be interesting to see the whole article to get some context, but Googling the phrase turns up nothing but this page! Have you got a link to the article, David?

[DavidHouston]

Thank you for your continuing consideration of this issue of tenses.

The article from Matichon Weekly is dated 14 พฤษภาคม พ.ศ. 2553, before the Red Shirts were dislodged from the Ratchaprasong area.

Here are the last lines in the article:

การยุติปัญหาด้วยการเจรจาสันติวิธีนั้นถึงจะเสียเวลา และน่าหงุดหงิดใจอยู่บ้างกับการต่อรองที่ดูเหมือนไม่สิ้นสุดแต่อย่างไรก็ดีกว่าการจบปัญหาด้วยความรุนแรง

สำคัญคือการใช้ความรุนแรงเข้ามามีส่วนในการแก้ปัญหา

ถึงจะปิดฉากม็อบที่แยกราชประสงค์ลงได้แต่ก็ไม่สามารถทำลาย"แนวคิด" ของคนเสื้อแดงทั่วประเทศได้

ตรงนี้เองจะกลายเป็นเชื้อชนวนปัญหาใหม่ที่ใหญ่กว่าเดิม

กว่ารัฐบาลจะรู้ตัวในภายหลังว่าทำอะไรลงไปเมืองไทยก็ไม่เหมือนเดิมเสียแล้ว

Edited June 10, 2010 by DavidHouston

[mikenyork]

With all due humility, would it be too much to suggest that trying to fit Thai thought into English tenses implies that inside the Thai thought is the same sense of linearity of time that is inherent in English. I'm not sure that Thais conceive time in the same linear way we do. For example, try putting this line from a 70's song into Thai "And I wonder if you know that I never understood. Even though you'd said you'd go, until you left, I'd never thought you would".

[Johpa]

With all due humility, would it be too much to suggest that trying to fit Thai thought into English tenses implies that inside the Thai thought is the same sense of linearity of time that is inherent in English. I'm not sure that Thais conceive time in the same linear way we do. For example, try putting this line from a 70's song into Thai "And I wonder if you know that I never understood. Even though you'd said you'd go, until you left, I'd never thought you would".

I think that "Thai time" is how the majority of the planet perceive the role of time and that "Farang time", a retentive reliance upon the clock, is the minority viewpoint. That being said, Thai has a single tense and English has but two true tenses. And both languages get pretty darn subtle in indicating other aspects of time perception, but native speakers have no problems conveying such intricacies to one another and learners of each respective language struggle over the same issues.

[DavidHouston]

I'll take another shot at a translation of the context within which the phrase is found:

การยุติปัญหาด้วยการเจรจาสันติวิธีนั้น ถึงจะเสียเวลาและน่าหงุดหงิดใจอยู่บ้างกับการต่อรองที่ดูเหมือนไม่สิ้นสุดแต่อย่างไรก็ดีกว่าการจบปัญหาด้วยความรุนแรง

Solving the [political] problems through peacefulnegotiations, even though time-consuming and frustrating, as well as the never-ending haggling involved, is certainly preferable to solving the problems via violent means.

สำคัญคือการใช้ความรุนแรงเข้ามามีส่วนในการแก้ปัญหา

What is important is that the use of violence [can be used as] part of the overall strategy of problem solving .

ถึงจะปิดฉากม็อบที่แยกราชประสงค์ลงได้ แต่ก็ไม่สามารถทำลาย"แนวคิด"ของคนเสื้อแดงทั่วประเทศได้

Even though [the use of violence] can bring an end to the demonstrations at Ratchaprasong, [however], this [use of violent means] cannot eliminate the "mental attitudes' of the Red Shirts located all over the country

ตรงนี้เองจะกลายเป็นเชื้อชนวนปัญหาใหม่ที่ใหญ่กว่าเดิม

It is precisely this issue which comes closest to initiating a new problem which is greater than the first one.

กว่ารัฐบาลจะรู้ตัวในภายหลังว่าทำอะไรลงไป เมืองไทยก็ไม่เหมือนเดิมเสียแล้ว

By the time the government realizes what they have done, Thailand will no longer be the same.

[Peppy]

With all due humility, would it be too much to suggest that trying to fit Thai thought into English tenses implies that inside the Thai thought is the same sense of linearity of time that is inherent in English.  I'm not sure that Thais conceive time in the same linear way we do.  For example, try putting this line from a 70's song into Thai "And I wonder if you know that I never understood.  Even though you'd said you'd go, until you left, I'd never thought you would".

I don't know much about the way Thais think--in fact I'm not sure I know much about how anyone thinks--but if we're talking about language, I think both Thai and English are equally capable of expressing events or ideas in a linear manner. The only difference is that English grammar demands it, even when it isn't necessary, while Thai omits unnecessary time references and includes them only when the sequence of events (whether in relation to each other, or to a specified or implied point in time) is important to the message being conveyed.

(Consider the sentence "Yesterday I saw a movie." Using the past form of 'see' is completely redundant in this sentence, since it's quite clear when it happened.)

I'll take a stab at "And I wonder if you know that I never understood.  Even though you'd said you'd go, until you left, I'd never thought you would"--"และฉันสงสัยว่าคุณรู้หรือเปล่าว่าฉันไม่เคยเข้าใจเลย แม้ว่าคุณบอกไว้ว่าคุณจะไป จนถึงคุณจากไปจริงๆ ฉันก็ไม่เคยคิดว่าคุณจะทำ" (If anyone can improve on this, please let me know.)

David, thank you for providing the background to that sentence. I'm fairly certain now that the future tense is correct, though Rikker did make a very reasonable argument for it being past. Also, I think your translation of the other sentences is rather good--I especially like the use of "mental attitudes" for "แนวคิด". I would have used something else, like "line of thought" or "viewpoint", which I think are also valid translations of the word, but "mental attitudes" fits the context better and sounds much more idiomatic.

[Richard W]

Thai omits unnecessary time references and includes them only when the sequence of events (whether in relation to each other, or to a specified or implied point in time) is important to the message being conveyed.

If that's so, Thai finds it a lot more important than does English to indicate futurity. It's almost as though Thai finds marking futurity mandatory, whereas English finds it mandatory to mark the past.

[anchan42]

I think the sentence is tenseless. I am not sure if that make sense. The second part of the sentence is the future of the first part but the whole sentence can be in the past or future depending on the context.

[mikenyork]

I find David Houston's translation both elegant and accurate (as usual). But I am struck that the only responder whom I know to be a native speaker sees the issue of tense and precise timeline as being less central to meaning than do those of us who are native English speakers.

[Gaccha]

David

I used your translations as an extremely handy learning tool--reading through the sentences and comparing my translation.

If in the future you translate 4 or 5 sentences of a news report please could you stick it on the language forum. It is very useful for someone at my level that need a quick dirty check for the whole meaning of the sentences.

Thank you in advance.