เมาจนไม่รู้ว่าตัวเองทำอะไรลงไป

[withnail]

I noticed this example on www.thai2english.com today:

เมาจนไม่รู้ว่าตัวเองทำอะไรลงไป

mao jon mâi róo wâa dtua eng tam à-rai long bpai

To be so drunk you don't know what you did.

Whilst I understand every word in the sentence I am confused as to the use of

ลงไป

long bpai

at the end.

What would be the difference in meaning if these two words were left out?

Can anyone explain further?

[BambinA]

Im not really expert in linguistics..

but IMO .. it likes something u have done already

[siamesekitty]

I'm not a certified Thai teacher, but I just try to explain things according to how words "feel" to me

The words ลงไป help emphasize the action that was done. Think of it in terms of "leaving an imprint".

The sentence feels "unfinished" with just เมาจนไม่รู้ว่าตัวเองทำอะไร. The ลงไป finalizes it, as in "What have I just done??"

Er, hope that made sense

Edited November 8, 2005 by siamesekitty

[withnail]

The sentence feels "unfinished" with just เมาจนไม่รู้ว่าตัวเองทำอะไร. The ลงไป finalizes it, as in "What have I just done??"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm I think I get it, sort of like "I went and got so drunk I didn't know what I was doing" ?

Perhaps one or two more examples would help.

[meadish_sweetball]

Grammatically speaking, ลงไป are auxiliary verbs (or verbs of direction) that belong with the main verb ทำ in the main clause of the sentence (which starts after ว่า).

Continuing on the 'feeling' linguistics track , my feeling is similar to siamesekitty's when she says 'leaving an imprint'. You have other expressions with 'ลง' such as จดลง 'to take notes', 'to write/take down'. Maybe if you try to view the 'ทำ... ลงไป' as your actions leaving a similar imprint in the world as the pen does on the paper when you write something down...?

...that's my 'feeling' anyway.

[taxexile]

maybe he was so drunk he didnt know what he was pouring down his throat anymore. !!

[withnail]

One of the teachers at my school said that emphasises that the action is in the past and that it is used primarily when the action it described was not good.

So a teacher upon entering a classroom where some unruly action has taken place could say ทำอะไรลงไป

She does however confess to being not excellent at explaining Thai grammar.

I still take that to mean "What have you gone and done" Which I think could convey this idea of your actions leaving an imprint.

[Andrew Mac]

First of all, thanks to Withnail for bringing this up for discussion. I get the feeling that it's often the little things like this that seem to make a really big difference to how fluent all of us non-Thais will ultimately become in the language.

I've also got to declare at the outset that I'm certainly no expert in either Thai or linguistics, so I'm a bit hesitant to add something that may be well beyond my understanding, or just plain wrong. Keeping that necessary caution in mind, however ...

I've also heard of this kind of construction described as a 'completive', which (it seems to me) is a secondary or auxiliary word (verb? preposition?) that accompanies the main verb to show that the action was indeed finished, and without which the main verb sometimes may not feel right -- as people like SiameseKitty have explained above.

For me, at least, it also helps to remember that this kind of thing happens in English as well.

Some verbs in English, for example, don't necessarily need to be completed:

- we 'read' ThaiVisa, or

- we 'watch' something.

Yet others don't seem right until we complete the construction. For example:

- we 'put' things *down*,

- we 'pick' things *up*, or

- we 'take' things *out*.

So 'watch' and 'read' don't need completives, but other words like 'put', 'pick' or 'take' -- at least in some cases -- just don't always feel right without one.

These examples came off the top of my head, however, and please remember that I'm not a linguist, so they may be wrong, or actually something else other than a completive, or whatever. If so, I hope that people will forgive me, but still think about the point I'm trying to make, which is that in both Thai and English some words often seem to belong together, even though it may not be immediately obvious to a non-native speaker.

A better linguist (we seem to have quite a few around) will be able to correct any mistakes I've made above, or expand on my limited understanding -- and I hope they do -- but I guess what I'm really just trying to point out that it might help to keep in mind the similarities with English.

In Thai the same thing happens, but perhaps with different words, or in different contexts, than a native English speaker might be used to. It's the same, but different ... if you get what I mean.

Finally, while it may be possible to explain the mechanics of these kinds of construction, it's not always something we can do with our own language (as I'm clearly demonstrating here!), so we might just have to learn to recognise these things and try our best to remember them until we do eventually develop a better 'feel' for the language, at which time I hope they will flow naturally, without our even thinking about it.

Which is also why I'd like to say, once more, thanks Withnail for bringing it up for discussion ... I'll certainly be trying to learn from what you've been kind enough to share! :-)

Edited November 9, 2005 by Andrew Mac

[sabaijai]

The English term for words that go together to make a verb phrase is "phrasal verbs". Many languages have them, Thai included.

[ProfessorFart]

ลง

When ลง appears at the begining of a sentence with ก็ at the end of the sentence it is usually translated as 'whenever'

When ลง appears after a verb it indicates the action is over or decreasing.

Example;เงียบลง - To quieten down.

When ลง appears after a noun, it indicates downward motion of the noun.

Example; บินลง - To land (an aeroplane)

In this instance however I think a direct translation is correct.

Literally;

(Subject) got so drunk until (he) didn't know what he was doing and dropped down.

Edited November 10, 2005 by ProfessorFart

[siamesekitty]

Agree with all of the above.. except:

In this instance however I think a direct translation is correct.

Literally;

(Subject) got so drunk until (he) didn't know what he was doing and dropped down.

For the record (in order to not mislead impressionable beginners) that's not what it actually translates to... Though that actually could have been the case

and yep, ลงไป is often used for rather negative actions.

Another phrase that comes to mind is ออกไป : eg. อุ๊ย พูดอะไรออกไป = Oops, what have I just said?! (slip of the tongue!)

[Johpa]

and yep, ลงไป is often used for rather negative actions.

I also feel the term ลงไป is used to emphasize a slightly negative action (that is why it is connected to the verb at the beginning of the phrase) with ลง causing a semantic connotation of a negative action and ไป making it known that it occured over a period of time and not just a specific instance. The person to whom the phrase refers did not simply get drunk and pass out, but was clearly very drunk and making an arse of himself over a period of time.

[Pescator]

I noticed this example on www.thai2english.com today:

เมาจนไม่รู้ว่าตัวเองทำอะไรลงไป

mao jon mâi róo wâa dtua eng tam à-rai long bpai

To be so drunk you don't know what you did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was wondering how the meaning of the above sentence would change, if you replace the words Long Pbai with Maa? As in Pbai Nai Maa.

In my - limited - understanding the meaning seems to me to be nearly identical?

Cheers

Michael

[meadish_sweetball]

Hi Pescator. Good question.

I hope somebody with more intricate knowledge of Thai has the time to provide an answer to that.

What are you fishing for, by the way?

[Pescator]

Hi Pescator. Good question.

I hope somebody with more intricate knowledge of Thai has the time to provide an answer to that.

What are you fishing for, by the way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Meadish,

Anything that swims basically

I realize the word is misspelt otherwise I would be a too easy target for jokes!

cheers

Michael

Edited November 20, 2005 by Pescator

[Johpa]

I was wondering how the meaning of the above sentence would change, if you replace the words Long Pbai with Maa? As in Pbai Nai Maa.

In my - limited - understanding the meaning seems to me to be nearly identical?

Cheers

Michael

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then I might infer that you find the phrases pai nai? and pai nai maa? to be nearly identical in meaning when in fact they ask nearly opposite questions.

If you did use the term long maa instead of long pai (ลงไป) then it might infer the drunken action was slowly playing out in your direction. Similar to the usage of thoo pai vs. thoo maa when phoning. Here khao thoo pai refers to a third person phoning anyone else on the planet where khao thoo maa refers to a third person phoning specifically your residence.

OK, not the clearest explanation, but long maa just doesn't work.

[meadish_sweetball]

I think he means replacing the entire phrase 'long bpai' with maa, not just the 'bpai'. This would create an acceptable sentence as I see it, as in 'tham arai maa' instead of 'tham arai long bpai'.

I guess if the notion that 'long bpai' indicates something negative, then 'tham arai maa' would just be a more neutral way of expressing a similar thing.

But I have definitely ventured out on thin ice here, and I think we need a native speaker to sort things out for us.

[withnail]

I'll ask one of the teachers at my school again but I'm pretty sure that's how she explained it meadish.

To me it still seems like the difference between "What have you gone and done?" and "What did you do?". One is a general inquiry and one is a result of a negative action.

I'll let you know what she says.

[Pescator]

I was wondering how the meaning of the above sentence would change, if you replace the words Long Pbai with Maa? As in Pbai Nai Maa.

In my - limited - understanding the meaning seems to me to be nearly identical?

Cheers

Michael

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then I might infer that you find the phrases pai nai? and pai nai maa? to be nearly identical in meaning when in fact they ask nearly opposite questions.

If you did use the term long maa instead of long pai (ลงไป) then it might infer the drunken action was slowly playing out in your direction. Similar to the usage of thoo pai vs. thoo maa when phoning. Here khao thoo pai refers to a third person phoning anyone else on the planet where khao thoo maa refers to a third person phoning specifically your residence.

OK, not the clearest explanation, but long maa just doesn't work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I believe I wrote - sorry not a native english speaker - replacing long pbai with maa as meadish correctly pointed out.

I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that the phrases pai nai and pai nai maa would to me seem nearly identical, but let`s not stray off subject.

I believe I have had my question answered. Thanks guys.

Cheers

Michael