How To Say "It'S A Fact" ?

[Trevor25222]

Can't find a noun for fact, only "Saahp" for to know.

Also, for "Any educated person knows", can I say "Khon tee mee garn seuk-saa kong roo" or "Khon tee mee garn seuk-saa ja roo"? Thanks.

[Rikker]

The word for 'fact' is ข้อเท็จจริง. So 'It's a fact' would be เป็นข้อเท็จจริง(ครับ).

That strikes my ear as slightly odd, because it isn't a commonly used phrase like it is in English. The word ข้อเท็จจริง seems more formal in Thai than 'fact' is in English.

Perhaps a more idiomatic way of asserting the truth of something would be (เป็น)เรื่องจริง(ครับ).

As for 'any educated person knows', your formulations are grammatical enough, but seem to come off as condescending, implying that the person you're speaking with is not educated.

[klons]

ที่จริง I think could also be translated as it's a fact, as in:

I'm actually not a professional or anything.

ที่จริง ก็ ไม่ใช่ มืออาชีพ อะไร หรอก

actually or it's a fact, same meaning I think.

[Rikker]

I think ที่จริง is like 'actually' or 'in fact', but not quite the same as 'it's a fact'.

To me, 'it's a fact' is more of a stand-alone phrase used to assert the truth of something. But ที่จริง is something that leads into another statement, which is why it fits 'in fact' or 'actually' better.

[SoftWater]

i. เป็นความจริง

or as Rikker says

ii.เป็นเรื่องจริง depending on the context.

Personally, I'd use

i. if I was talking about a singular event or a state of affairs/ fixed situation; (The sun always rises in the east)

ii. if I was referring to a whole narrative or series of events (this weeks saga between Rooney and Man Utd).

I can't claim any support for the distinction, it just seems to be the way I've acquired the language. The experts will no doubt weigh-in with counter-examples.

[tgeezer]

When I saw the heading I thought เป็นจริง and that will do I think. But what are you trying to say? Is it an answer to praise, or a criticism of someone else. ศึกษา is already a noun by the way so ใครใครได้รับศึกษา is a way of saying 'anyone with education'. ( I have left out the pronoun intentionally to start a discussion)

จริง in เป็นจริง is a วิเศษณ์ being used as a noun, which may also be wrong in theory. so you can make it a noun with ความ if you like.

Both cases don't need the word 'fact' though because, don't you mean 'I am sure it is true'? You could make the statement and just tag แน่ or แน่นอน on the end.

[tgeezer]

When I saw the heading I thought เป็นจริง and that will do I think. But what are you trying to say? Is it an answer to praise, or a criticism of someone else. ศึกษา is already a noun by the way so ใครใครได้รับศึกษา is a way of saying 'anyone with education'. ( I have left out the pronoun intentionally to start a discussion)

จริง in เป็นจริง is a วิเศษณ์ being used as a noun, which may also be wrong in theory. so you can make it a noun with ความ if you like.

Both cases don't need the word 'fact' though because, don't you mean 'I am sure it is true'? You could make the statement and just tag แน่ or แน่นอน on the end.

No Thais agree that ศึกษา is a noun but the RID gives it as a noun การเล่าเรียน ฝึกฝน และอบรม no puncuation so I take it that การ applies to all three making them all nouns. การศึกษา is always used but if it were a noun that just makes it read as 'affairs of education'.

ศึกษา is used as a verb sometimes ผมเริ่มศึกษาที่... ผมได้ศึกษาหนังสือเล่มนี้แล้ว but not always; ผมได้ศึกษมาจาก .... . (Col. Nit Tongsopit B.A.,Dip.A.L.I.R.C. ChulalongKorn University, printed in 2542) out of date?

I wonder how keen would be the criticism if I changed my answer to ใครที่ได้ศึกษาแล้ว ( this is good enough without discussing pronouns)

[Rikker]

The only reason, I suspect, that RID lists ศึกษา as a noun is that the word is a noun in Sanskrit (śikṣā), and the Royal Institute has purist tendencies, even when they are impractical. In common Thai usage this word is only ever a verb. The noun form is การศึกษา = education, learning.

[tgeezer]

The only reason, I suspect, that RID lists ศึกษา as a noun is that the word is a noun in Sanskrit (śikṣā), and the Royal Institute has purist tendencies, even when they are impractical. In common Thai usage this word is only ever a verb. The noun form is การศึกษา = education, learning.

That it is used as a verb is beyond dispute, I think it a pity that it is.

From the definition you can see that it is classed as a noun so someone must use it as such and not want to lose it.

You have a copy of the RID from 2525 I am sure. In there ศึกษา is classed as a noun and then in the definition of เรียน it says ศึกษาเพื่อให้เจมใจจ่ำ giving the impression that the battle was lost, but no! in the2542 edition that anomoly in the definition of เรียน is corrected.

I think that if it means การเล่าเรียน ฝึกฝน อบรม,, there is a problem with the subject.

In my examples(in the post where I quote a source) you could replace การศึกษา with เรียน and use The RID to understand it.

Here is my reason for this post.

ประโยคน์ของพจนานุกรม: ใช้ในการค้นหาความหมายของคำที่ต้องการศึกษาค้นคว้า

That is a bit rich isn't it? It comes from หนังสือเรียน สาระการเรียนรู้พื้นฐาน กลุมสาระการเรียนรู้ภาษาไทย

[Rikker]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post, but for the record, the definition of ศึกษา is identical in the 2493, 2525 and 2542 editions, as cited above: น. การเล่าเรียน ฝึกฝน และอบรม. As we seem to agree, claiming it's a noun contradicts conventional modern usage. Whether this is due to the Royal Institute's Sanskritist purism (not wanting to update the entry in later editions) or simply their oversight (forgetting or otherwise failing to update the entry in later editions), I don't know.

As for the rest of the post, I'm kind of lost, I believe you meant to type ประโยชน์ not ประโยคน์ at the end. But I'm not sure what is rich about the phrase. It states, perhaps simplistically, the purpose of a dictionary. Care to explain what you meant?

[tgeezer]

I dont know where to begin, I can't believe that anyone can't understand it. With reference to the two editions of the RID, I said 'in the definition of เรียน'? why are you talking about the definition of สึกษา?

Do you not see while they describe the purpose of the dictionary they appear to use the word ศึกษา as a verb?

Are you familiar with the use of the word 'rich' to describe an assertion as ludicrous or amusing?

[Rikker]

Then we'll leave it at that.

[tgeezer]

Then we'll leave it at that.

Thank you Rikker; I hope that you will excuse me my obstinacy.

I hope that if you don't want to discuss it there may be someone else who shares my method of understanding the language.

My interest in this word is that the members of the RI do not want to add a verbal meaning, it is not about correctness.

My suspicion is that once it was established that the word สึกษา meant 'Education' in English they were stuck with all the inflextions of the word Education, but we never say 'I educate' but rather 'I educate myself'. The direction of this word in to bestow not to receive in both languages.

[DavidHouston]

Arguendo (but not obstinately or belligerently), in the following usages, "ศึกษก" is a noun:

"ผมเริ่มศึกษาที่..." - I began my education at . . .

"ผมได้ศึกษาหนังสือเล่มนี้แล้ว" - I obtained by education in [or more prosaically, "I studied"] this book already.

"ผมได้ศึกษมาจาก" - "I obtained my education from . . . "

[tgeezer]

Arguendo (but not obstinately or belligerently), in the following usages, "ศึกษก" is a noun:

"ผมเริ่มศึกษาที่..." - I began my education at . . .

"ผมได้ศึกษาหนังสือเล่มนี้แล้ว" - I obtained by education in [or more prosaically, "I studied"] this book already.

"ผมได้ศึกษมาจาก" - "I obtained my education from . . . "

I think I shall stand back for a while; two English words have 'muddied the water. Mysteriously Thai syntax is so similar to English that sometimes the Thai word simply becomes a metaphor. I think that is the problem now.