Need Assistance

[DavidHouston]

1. Not to judge, I am comparing, is there any alternative? Your own language is the only reference point possible, when learning another. The question was specifically about that comparison.

I am not try to be pick on you but just want to understand.

what do you mean by "incomplete thoughts"?

For me เขาสวย and "she is beautiful" conveying exactly the same thought so one can not represent complete thought while other represent incomplete.

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Khun Anchan and Khun Tgeezer,

I would argue just the opposite: I would say English is currently undergoing more radical changes that perhaps even Thai is. Just as Chaucer would not recognize the English of Shakespeare, it is likely that Shakespeare or Ben Johnson would not recognize an SMS or chat room comment of an English or American teenager. Yes, Thai is changing, much to the chagrin of traditionalists. One thing I have observed is how Thai newspaper journalists have brought English phrases and conventions into their Thai writing, in translated form, not in thap sap form. Others abound in the areas of the arts and movies.

Buddhism teaches us the doctrine of อนิจจัง (impermanence) and nowhere is this doctrine more evident than in the realm of language.

What do you think?

[anchan42]

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Khun Anchan and Khun Tgeezer,

I would argue just the opposite: I would say English is currently undergoing more radical changes that perhaps even Thai is. Just as Chaucer would not recognize the English of Shakespeare, it is likely that Shakespeare or Ben Johnson would not recognize an SMS or chat room comment of an English or American teenager. Yes, Thai is changing, much to the chagrin of traditionalists. One thing I have observed is how Thai newspaper journalists have brought English phrases and conventions into their Thai writing, in translated form, not in thap sap form. Others abound in the areas of the arts and movies.

Buddhism teaches us the doctrine of อนิจจัง (impermanence) and nowhere is this doctrine more evident than in the realm of language.

What do you think?

I am sorry. I was in a hurry. I meant to say;

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that you think Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Languages are not developing but constantly changing. Old English, current English, Thai, Chinese etc are linguistically equal. The notion that one language is better then the others is absurd.

[DavidHouston]

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Khun Anchan and Khun Tgeezer,

I would argue just the opposite: I would say English is currently undergoing more radical changes that perhaps even Thai is. Just as Chaucer would not recognize the English of Shakespeare, it is likely that Shakespeare or Ben Johnson would not recognize an SMS or chat room comment of an English or American teenager. Yes, Thai is changing, much to the chagrin of traditionalists. One thing I have observed is how Thai newspaper journalists have brought English phrases and conventions into their Thai writing, in translated form, not in thap sap form. Others abound in the areas of the arts and movies.

Buddhism teaches us the doctrine of อนิจจัง (impermanence) and nowhere is this doctrine more evident than in the realm of language.

What do you think?

I am sorry. I was in a hurry. I meant to say;

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that you think Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

Languages are not developing but constantly changing. Old English, current English, Thai, Chinese etc are linguistically equal. The notion that one language is better then the others is absurd.

Ah, I see! The correct term is "evolving", rather than "developing". Evolution does not imply improvement; it only implies "adaptation to local conditions". I agree with you: languages like Thai and English may not be improving, but they are certainly changing to meet current needs. SMS language developed because of the lack of a full 101 key keyboard; all those little buttons to click multiple times on your 10-button phone. I believe that much of the creating of the SMS language was for youngsters to keep their parents from understanding what was being said. This is a good example of special communications language, like coded messages and prayer in non-native languages.

[DavidHouston]

In re this discussion, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=1&hp

Any thoughts? Thanks.

[tgeezer]

1. Not to judge, I am comparing, is there any alternative? Your own language is the only reference point possible, when learning another. The question was specifically about that comparison.

I am not try to be pick on you but just want to understand.

what do you mean by "incomplete thoughts"?

For me เขาสวย and "she is beautiful" conveying exactly the same thought so one can not represent complete thought while other represent incomplete.

I might be wrong but I got a feeling from some of your posts that Thai is a language still under development and the development path is to go towards English linguistic structure.

I am probably describing my attempts at understanding Thai; I am trying to compare English and Thai, as are we all, and am describing a sentence as a 'complete thought' by that definition เขาสวย could be said to contain a verb; สวย.

I think that the use of a personal pronoun says a lot more than an ordinary noun; บ้านใหญ่, รถเล็ก, perhaps mean a lot more than 'big house, 'small car' does in English. How would you translate these?

I feel that in order to convey as much information as a personal pronoun, the noun needs to be enumerated which Thai does with, what in English we call, a classifier.

We have to agree with David that languages are changeing all the time.

Can you comment on my last post on the meaning of แล้ว and its English translation, already; this could be lluminating.

[DavidHouston]

As for the fact that Thais eschew pronouns in their spoken language, let me quote the following from "Watching the English, The Hidden Rules of English Behavior" by Kate Fox, a social anthropologist, from page 74:

" . . . But the upper class don't say 'I' at all if they can help it: one prefers to refer to oneself as 'one'. In fact, they are not too keen on pronouns in general, omitting them, along with articles and conjunctions, whenever possible -- as though the were sending a frightfully expensive telegram."

In Thai this dropping of unnecessary words is called "การละคำในประโยค" ("omitting words in sentences"). See "ไวยากรณ์ภาษาไทย", อาจารย์ นววรรณ พันธุเมธา, หน้า 273ff.

Edited August 27, 2010 by DavidHouston

[Jariya76]

As บ้านใหญ่ and รถเล็ก can mean either big house/small car OR The house is big/The car is small, don't Thais sometimes use บ้านมันใหญ่ or รถมันเล็ก to convey the complete sentence version? That's how I always understood it.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Jariya76

[tgeezer]

A sentence is a complete thought which contains subject verb and object either in fact or implied; in English don't we drop as many words as we can too.

The article is interesting but in danger of being debunked like Whorf's, at least as far as orientation with reference to compass points is concerned. That I don't believe, I need proof that an aboriginal possesses inherent knowledge of direction, a quality once ascribed to homing pidgeons, if they did; language would be a minor topic. I think however, that the article points to something which we are missing on this forum.

I wonder if I will get an answer to what a Thai sees in บ้านใหญ่ รถเล็ก, and an English speaker for that matter; big house and small car, are no more than concepts to me like any other word, am I different from my fellow English speakers in this respect?

Are you familiar with 'Pidgin', a mixture of Chinese and English used to conduct trade in China in times past? Sometimes, Thai seems like that to me, which indicates that I don't know enough about the fundementals of Thai. It is so fundemental that it is not explained in the school language curriculum, so I ask the questions.

I ask only to help me write, and speak grammatically, I can go colloquial later, so what บ้านใหญ่ and แล้ว conveys is important to me.

[tgeezer]

As บ้านใหญ่ and รถเล็ก can mean either big house/small car OR The house is big/The car is small, don't Thais sometimes use บ้านมันใหญ่ or รถมันเล็ก to convey the complete sentence version? That's how I always understood it.

I say, thank you very much. Our posts cross. I agree but the OR only applies in context surely, for example if I say 'big house' you don't see a specific house, a series of big houses are conceived in your mind, or a feature; a staircase, a columned portal, a car drawing up on a big driveway, it doesn't say 'the house is big'

สมมุติว่า "บ้านใหญ่" หมายถึงว่า "บ้านใหญ่หลังนี้" ก็ต้องการพูด "หลังนี้" ทำไม

[yoot]

Tgeezer,

If it's common noun + attributive, then it's a noun phrase.

For examples;

คนแก่ - คน (a common noun)+ แก่ (attributive) - a noun phrase - An old man.

ผู้หญิงสวย - ผู้หญิง (a common noun) + สวย (attributive) - a noun phrase - A beuatiful woman.

เด็กอ้วน - เด็ก (a common noun) + อ้วน (attributive) - a noun phrase - A fat child.

But if the subject is specific + predicative, then it's a sentence.

For examples;

สมชายหล่อ - สมชาย (a specific person)+ หล่อ (predicative) - a sentence - Somchai is handsome.

ผู้หญิงไทยสวย - ผู้หญิงไทย ( Thai women - specific)+ สวย (predicative) - a sentence - Thai women are beautiful.

เขาสูง - เขา (he - a specific person)+ สูง (predicative) - a sentence - He is tall.

บ้านหลังนี้ใหญ่ - บ้านหลังนี้ (This specific house)+ ใหญ่ (predicative) - a sentence - This house is big.

"บ้านใหญ่หลังนี้"

'This big house' is a noun phrase. บ้านหลังนี้ใหญ่ - 'This house is big' is a sentence.

บ้านใหญ่ รถเล็ก

Both terms are noun phrases. The correct terms should be 'บ้านหลังใหญ่ รถคันเล็ก', but sometimes classifier can be omitted.

เขาแก่แล้ว

He is in state of being old already.

[tgeezer]

Thanks Yoot,

English for common noun is 'vulgar noun' and I remember learning สามามยนาม and thinking what a coincidence, now I am not sure if it isn't สามัญนาม.

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, it needs specification and that is done by means of a classifier noun. Effectively this means that the noun is introduced then specified;

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows, so that the vulgar noun is not used.

Hopefully someone can come up with some examples of usage which apparently contradict this and we can explain them grammatically.

Don't go away Yoot, I am sure it will take some time to cement this properly.

My แล้ว question was concerning the dictionary definition which says ว.สิ้น จบ เสร็จ ล่วงไป and is translated as 'already'.

[bifftastic]

As บ้านใหญ่ and รถเล็ก can mean either big house/small car OR The house is big/The car is small, don't Thais sometimes use บ้านมันใหญ่ or รถมันเล็ก to convey the complete sentence version? That's how I always understood it.

Thanks for that.

I think this discussion is very interesting. What is grammatically correct and what is generally used is a topic that I think could be about any language. In the evolution of languages, the thing that is important, to my mind anyway, is that meaning and comprehension are paramount. Rules are fine but necessary only to preserve meaning and comprehension, those that don't will slip into disuse.

[HappyInCM]

เขาแก่แล้ว

He is in state of being old already.

But, would you not translate this as just "He's old" as this is the more common way to say it in English?

whereas, เขาแก่ could be either "he's old" or "the old man" depending on context? Although, in my limited experience, it seems the former, เขาแก่แล้ว, seems to dominate; maybe just for aesthetic reasons (i.e., it somehow makes the sentence sound better) or maybe it's just more of a complete thought/sentence somehow.

[mikenyork]

tgeezer: I can't get เขาแก่ to be "the old man" . To me it is clearly "I/he/she/they (is/are) old". "Clearly" is used as an adjective reservedly here given the fluidity of Thai pronouns

I agree than แล้ว is usually added to this statement. And, like you, I don't know exactly why. Here I think we will have to rely on our native speakers to parse out the subtle difference of saying เขาแก่ and เขาแก่แล้ว. I don't think it's grammar precisely, it's more subtle than a rule.

[yoot]

เขาแก่แล้ว

He is in state of being old already.

But, would you not translate this as just "He's old" as this is the more common way to say it in English?

whereas, เขาแก่ could be either "he's old" or "the old man" depending on context? Although, in my limited experience, it seems the former, เขาแก่แล้ว, seems to dominate; maybe just for aesthetic reasons (i.e., it somehow makes the sentence sound better) or maybe it's just more of a complete thought/sentence somehow.

If I translated it as "He is old", what will make it different to "เขาแก่" ? In English, it might be the same, but in Thai, there is a nuance between them.

As I have explained in my previous post, เขาแก่ is a sentence - He is old. "the old man" - ผู้ชายแก่ or คนแก่, a noun phrase.

When แล้ว is added in the sentence, such as เขาแก่แล้ว, it implies that he is in a state of being old or too old(for doing something).

For examples;

A: ให้เขาไปแบกข้าวสารสิ

B: ไม่ได้หรอก เขาแก่แล้ว (too old to be able to carry a sack of rice)

- ฉันแก่แล้ว จะให้ไปทำตัวแบบสาว ๆ ได้ยังไง (too old to behave like a young woman)

[Peppy]

When แล้ว  is added in the sentence, such as เขาแก่แล้ว, it implies that he is in a state of being old or too old(for doing something).

To add another example, there's a commercial for washing powder running on TV now that starts out with a kid asking his grandmother to come out and play with him on his bicycle--his mother (or father, I can't remember) admonishes him--ยายเขาแก่แล้ว! / Grandma's old! (too old to be horsing around).

(For the curious, the ad ends with the kid building a sidecar for grandma to sit in--and of course he soils his shirt in the process, but the washing powder gets it out and everybody's happy.)

[tgeezer]

My แล้ว question was concerning the dictionary definition which says ว.สิ้น จบ เสร็จ ล่วงไป means 'by this time'. ก่อนตอนนี้

[Richard W]

I also believe สวย can be both verb and adjective.

I reconcile the two by thinking of the verb use as primary and taking the attributive use as the use of a participle, so the choice is between 'is beautiful' and 'being beautiful'.

[anchan42]

I also believe สวย can be both verb and adjective.

I reconcile the two by thinking of the verb use as primary and taking the attributive use as the use of a participle, so the choice is between 'is beautiful' and 'being beautiful'.

Yoot's explanation is quite good. Noun-phase can be inserted where noun is needed in a sentence and complete sentence can not.

[tgeezer]

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

[mikenyork]

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

I would say

คนแก่ไปตลาด

ผู้ชายคนแก่ไปตลาด

ผู้ชายแก่สองคนไปตลาด

Unfortunately, I cannot cite the grammar rules that make the above correct or not. I only have my (very imperfect) ear.

[anchan42]

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

I don't have time to think at the minute. Your three examples seem ungrammatical to me.

คนแก่ไปตลาด

ผู้ชายแก่ไปตลาด or ผู้ชายแก่คนหนึ่งไปตลาด

ผู้ชายแก่สองคนไปตลาด

[yoot]

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด - Why do you have to add another "คน" in this sentence? คนแก่ไปตลาด "Old people go to the market" is a sentence. Well, it's a sentence, but make sense or not is another issue.

ผู้ชายคนแก่ - in Thai grammar, it has to be "ผู้ชายแก่ - old man " or "ผู้ชายคนที่แก่ - The man who is old".

ผู้ชายแก่ + attributive, eg. ผู้ชายแก่ฉลาด - The old men are wise. It implies that every old men are wise. Then it can be a sentence.

ผู้ชายแก่ + verb. This is surely a sentence. eg.ผู้ชายแก่วิ่งช้า

ผู้ชายคนที่แก่ + attributive, eg. ผู้ชายคนที่แก่ไม่สบาย - Literally, it means "the man who is old is sick", but in English, it should be "the old man is sick". When speaking this sentence, it must be in the circumstance that you know which old man, so. it's a sentence.

ผู้ชายคนที่แก่ + verb - a sentence. eg.ผู้ชายคนที่แก่วิ่งช้า

ผู้ชายสองคนแก่ - It has to be "ผู้ชายแก่สองคน" - Two old men.

This might be a little different to "The old men". When you said "two old men", you have to specific which two old men when you add attributive after it to form a sentence.

For examples;

ผู้ชายแก่สองคนนั้นหล่อมาก - Those two old men are very handsome.

ผู้ชายแก่สองคนกำลังวิ่ง - Two old men are running. If it is an active verb, then it can be a sentence.

[tgeezer]

post='384

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด - Why do you have to add another "คน" in this sentence?

I am working on the assumption that Thai and English need to convey the same meanings. English has 'a' the indefinite article 'a' 'an' 'one' which defines the noun for the purpose of making it the subject of a sentence. However all you can say about an indefinite article in a sentence is describe it. A house is where people live. บ้านเป็นที่อาศัยของมนุษย์

Can I assume that บ้าน means 'a house' ?

If we make it plural in English it is still indefinite 'houses are where people live'; a case of English saying too much, I hope Thai doesn't need this.

If we say 'a big house' we haven't defined it, does บ้านใหญ่ mean more than 'a big house'?

Does บ้านใหญ่หลังนั่น say 'that big house' and หนึ่ง is assumed.

Now in the awkward case of คน which is being employed as both วิสามานยนาม and ลักษณนาม I don't know what to do, its uniqueness means that something is left out which if the noun were ผู้ชาย would not be left out.

คนแก่ไม่สบาย seems to say 'an old person is ill. I can't say anything more than that. คนแก่ไม่สบายไปตลาด (actually that doesn't sound too bad) maybe that is enough description to single him out.

คนคนแก่ have I just put the แก่ in the wrong place? คนแก่คนไปตลาด or more normal คนแก่ที่ไปตลาด

Soon this argument will seem as silly to me as it seems to you Yoot! but not quite yet, sorry:(

[mikenyork]

Without having any intention of taking us off-topic, and breaking my earlier resolution to refrain from attempting humor on this forum, may I point out that บ้านใหญ่ has an idiomatic meaning, namely the house of the "major wife" in contrast to บ้านเล็ก which means the house of a minor wife, geek, etc. Very interesting (to me) is the fact that the same idiom (casa grande, casa chica) is used in Mexican Spanish.

[Hardie]

In re this discussion, see:

http://www.nytimes.c...-t.html?_r=1

Any thoughts? Thanks.

When Chomsky dies, I suspect that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will make a major comeback, though I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between- language and culture influence each other back and forth, though there are certain equivalent aspects to them all. Not too much should be made of gender, which is likely a vestige of a no-longer-important distinction. IMHO other structures are more important.

English has certainly been evolving away from a typical Indo-European inflected language toward a more Chinese-like analytical/isolating one. Why? I suspect because it's no longer the private domain of the educated 'elite'. I think that's good. As in evolution, smaller more adaptable units are desirable. The case with Thai is a bit different, of course, that of a small language under the influence of a big one.

[anchan42]

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

What do you mean by vulgar noun?

[tgeezer]

So just as in English a vulgar noun can't be used in a sentence, so it is in Thai unless it is particularized in some way. This means that the noun is introduced then specified with a classifier noun.

คนคนแก่ไปตลาด, ผู้ชายคนแก่..., ผู้ชายสองคนแก่..... and the adjective or verb follows.

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false? firstly the English (there are plenty of English speakers here) and secondly the Thai (only Yoot or Ajan I suppose)

There is an answer to this question 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'.

What do you mean by vulgar noun?

That is a good question, it prompted me to look up 'vulgar' and can find only 'vulgar fraction' I seem to have got my maths confused with my grammar!

The answer to your question is; 'common noun, sorry for the confusion. Thank you for answering with a very good question, I wonder if you might prevail upon you to apply your analytical mind to the rest of the post.:jap:

I am specifically asking about the structure of a sentence using คน as both สามานยนาม and ลักษณนาม with แก่ applied to the noun. I realize that no such sentence may actually exists, but can you do it?

[anchan42]

What do you mean by vulgar noun?

That is a good question, it prompted me to look up 'vulgar' and can find only 'vulgar fraction' I seem to have got my maths confused with my grammar!

The answer to your question is; 'common noun, sorry for the confusion. Thank you for answering with a very good question, I wonder if you might prevail upon you to apply your analytical mind to the rest of the post.:jap:

I am specifically asking about the structure of a sentence using คน as both สามานยนาม and ลักษณนาม with แก่ applied to the noun. I realize that no such sentence may actually exists, but can you do it?

Sure, why not? You can say;

คนคนนี้แก่ This person is old.This have the same structure as หมาตัวนี่แก่ this dog is old.

คนแก่คนนี้ไม่น่ารัก This old man is not very nice. same structure as หมาแก่ตัวนี้ไม่น่ารัก

Those are perfectly grammatical.

It seem to me that when adjective is used as the whole predicate of a sentence, the subject of the sentence has to link with a certain existence and not a class of object.eg หลังนี้ ตัวนี้ make the nouns tie up to a specific existence. บ้านใหญ่ on it own definitely mean "big house" not "house is big". If you are invited to a house and you suddenly say "บ้านใหญ่" บ้าน then get tie up with the house you are visiting by context then the utterance will take the meaning of "this house is big" It probably the same with English if you say "Wow, big house" in the same situation.

Take a second look at "house is big" I think this sentence on it own would sound weird. The listener might want to ask back "What house?". Adding "the" or "this" or หลังนี้ would make the sentence sounds better. Am I correct?

Edited August 31, 2010 by anchan42

[mikenyork]

David: thank you for posting this article. It was very, very helpful to me. I had long been struck by the fact that Thai native speakers routinely catalog the relationships between themselves and everyone they speak to and also among all the people they are talking to--a task that I find impossible to do on the fly. That is, I might be able just (on a good day) to remember that I am this person's พี่ but that person's พ่อ and another person's น้า but there's no way I'm going to, on the fly remember that person A and person B have a different relationship with each other than they do with me and therefore if I speak to person A about person B I should use the A-B relationship, not the me-A relationship. Can't do it. I usually just give up and stick to ผม คุณ, even though that does serious damage to the critical role that relationship plays in Thai conversations. It's not that I'm incapable of conceptualizing all this stuff. But I'm not able to use these concepts well on a moment by moment basis. I note that Thai speakers have a terrible time keeping time straight on the fly as well. And I think their difficulty is analogous to mine.

Anyway, great article and thanks for passing it along.