Thai Language - Primitive Language?

[Asianbloke]

I have come across many websites stating that Thai language is essentially primitive in nature.

Well, I do know that the majority of words are monosyllabic words with some polysyllabic words thrown in (rather borrowed from Indian Pali & Sanskrit). (that's interesting for me because I am from India)

So, can we then conjecture, prior to the polysyllabic Sanskrit and Pali influences, it was a very simple language; the Thai language had its origins in a primitive form of language?

I know Thai language has tones. I have started learning Thai and I feel a bit low when I come across statements like these.

What are your opinions about Thai language?

[metisdead]

As this is a discussion regarding Thai language, topic has been moved to the Thai language forum.

[cooked]

What is your definition of a primitive language? I was told that Hebrew was primitive and I had never seen anything so complicated.

You may want to Google the term ...

Edited July 8, 2012 by cooked

[sirineou]

and yet so many linguistically advanced westerners find it so difficult to learn

[Asianbloke]

and yet so many linguistically advanced westerners find it so difficult to learn

Well, that could be because Asian language system is quite unrelated to the European. As an Indian (Asian), I think it is easier for me to learn Thai and it isn't that difficult as it has been made out to be.

The only stumbling block can be the mastering tones since most of the languages are my country are non-tonal but that will come with practice.

Many sites inform me that Thai has rather uncomplicated grammar or no grammar at all. (I have strong doubts about the latter claim though).

I am also trying to learn Russian and it has very complex grammar.

[bytebuster]

I guess you mean Isolating Language. Yes, it is isolating.

[Asianbloke]

I guess you mean Isolating Language. Yes, it is isolating.

So, it is safe to assume that isolating languages are primitive since Russian, English & Chinese (which obviously seems very complicated) don't fall into into the category of isolating languages.

[Deserted]

The net is awash with silly remarks such as Thai being a primitive language. Like most Asian languages its evolution pales in comparison to many European languages, mostly due to a lack of development in its written form. This doesn't make a language primitive, at best less complex. Thai has a number of complex grammatical items that those who do not study the language wouldn't be aware of. I personally find Thai to be a rich and fascinating language to study.

[bytebuster]

So, it is safe to assume that isolating languages are primitive since Russian, English & Chinese (which obviously seems very complicated) don't fall into into the category of isolating languages.

It depends on a definition what "is" is. It depends on your definition of "primitive". There's no such term in linguistics, but no one can prevent defining own terms.

Chinese is mostly isolated, each character is a logical term, there's no inflection.

Russian and most of Slavic languages are highly synthetic and highly inflective.

It's offtopic, but...

Lewis Carroll, an author of "Alice in Wonderland", was traveling Russia and recorded a word that amazed him:

"защищающихся" [zаshtshееshtshауоуshtshееkhsуа] - "thоsе who рrоtесt thеmsеlvеs". Here's semantics:

за- is a prefix meaning "behind"

щит "shield" is the word root, but the last consonant is inflected, so it is "щищ"

(by the way, first and second parts form a noun "защита" [zаshtshееta] - "defence")

-ающ- is a suffix meaning "the one who [verb] at very this moment", kind of gerund.

-ие- is a suffix meaning multiple subjects; since it's genitive tense, it's inflected to -их-

-ся is a suffix meaning "self"

[PaullyW]

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes, Thai is rather primitive as compared to some other languages and especially English."

One reason for this, as someone mentioned earlier, is that Thai in it's written form has not evolved much in thousands of years. It is essentially Pali/Sanscrit used to represent different pronunciations (Thai pronunciations) that was never changed to reflect Thai linguistic tendencies.

The other reason Thai has not evolved is because there has never been a linguistic/intellectual interest/revolution in Thailand. Sure, there have been a handful of Thai intellectuals, poets, etc but very few. Also, you must consider that it is at least possible that the same lazy, sabai sabai attitude that Thais a proud of and live by has been applied to their language and its lack of development.

Thai in its written form is wholly messy full of irregular spellings and exceptions to rules. Yes, English is similar, but Thai takes this to a much higher degree of irregularity. There are books written about Thai and esp where the Thai writing system is concerned how Thais spend a longer amount of time learning to become fluent in Thai than their counterparts do in languages like Vietnamese (after Vietnamese started using a phonetic alphabet -- after the French came in). In Thai, one essentially just has to memorize all kinds of language structures that really have no explanation or were mistakes improperly imported from Pali or Sanscrit that were never changed.

So, yes, Thai is a rather primitive language that has largely remained undeveloped for thousands of years, and reflects a people who have never had a revolution of thought/science/literature anything intellectual, really. You can study this from looking at word borrowing. Thai higher order concepts in all fields are, as a percentage, very highly borrowed from Sanscrit, Pali, Chinese and English. When you see these very long Thai words or phrases that describe something more complex, the word/phrase is almost always borrowed.

So, interesting language, but primitive nonetheless. And, for speakers of less primitive languages, it can be quite difficult indeed. Actually, the same is true visa versa.

Edited July 9, 2012 by PaullyW

[AyG]

It could be considered "primitive" because its simple grammar. For example, no verb tenses, no plural form of nouns, no distinction between adjectives and adverbs. It could also be considered so because of its relatively restricted vocabularly; Thai lacks the wide range of close synonyms of European languages, so isn't given to expressing the very fine shades of meaning available in, say, English. Many synonyms, such as หมา and สุนัข or พ่อ and บิดา are differentiated by their level of formality, rather than by a subtle distinction of meaning.

[cdnmatt]

You can definitely tell Thai is an old language, yes.

[TommoPhysicist]

and yet so many linguistically advanced westerners find it so difficult to learn

More to do with bad teachers than anything else IMHO.

[MrHammer]

I've always found it interesting how language and culture seemingly come together. To me it seems to be one of those chicken and egg scenarios.

With the risk of offending everyone, everywhere, can we not agree that some languages are more pleasing to the ears than others and that some are more suitable in certain situations than others?

What language would you rather be flirting in: French/Italian or German/Dutch? A danish actor recently stated in an english magazine that it's impossible to flirt in danish. I tend to agree that danish is indeed not a very seductive language and isn't really fit for a beautiful girl to speak. Same with dutch.

Similarly, German seems to be a rather efficient language very suitable for shouting commands and making yourself clear. It's also great for writing a sentence that's two pages long, a perfect match with german philosophy. English supposedly has the most words of any language and so seems perfect for convoluted, polite speech.

Arabic always seemed a very masculine, aggressive language, which honestly seems to fit their culture.

Now for Thai language, it's lack of words but emphasis on tonality and musical pronounciation seems to fit well with a culture that places a lot of importance on the superficial.

I think I have offended enough nationalities in one post already, so I'll just cut it off here.

[Morakot]

May the OP meant Primordial language? Thai being the proto-language, the Urspache of all. Linguists might disagree though.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Morakot

[cooked]

Maybe part of the question has to do with the fact that the word 'primitive' has negative connotations.

Just as I think that nations get the political system, morals and religion that they deserve, I suppose that the same thing goes for languages. Chicken or egg situation indeed. When I found myself immersed in a sea of Swiss dialect speaking farmers, I learned quickly but realised that as I started thinking in Swiss German I could no longer get certain concepts sorted out in my 'brain'. So a 'primitive' language will constrain intellectual development or innovation, due to a lack of willingness to apply foreign vocabulary to extend certain concepts. The English adopt foreign words willy-nilly, sometimes slightly changing their meanings while they are at it. (eg Blitz, strafe, Zeitgeist...). The French actually pass laws to prevent the introduction of anglicisms which looks like a sign of a language under attack and losing the battle to me.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Mr Hammer!.

[Peppy]

Thai in its written form is wholly messy full of irregular spellings and exceptions to rules. Yes, English is similar, but Thai takes this to a much higher degree of irregularity.

With all due respect, you obviously don't know your Thai very well (if at all).

The Thai writing system is very, very regular--there are barely a few dozen words in the whole language that aren't pronounced as they're written. Yes, spelling Sanskrit and Pali-derived words is difficult due to the number of different consonants that can be used to write the same sound, as well as silent consonants (which are indicated to the reader), but it's nowhere near as hard as what English spelling must be from a learner's perspective.

So, yes, Thai is a rather primitive language that has largely remained undeveloped for thousands of years, and reflects a people who have never had a revolution of thought/science/literature anything intellectual, really. You can study this from looking at word borrowing. Thai higher order concepts in all fields are, as a percentage, very highly borrowed from Sanscrit, Pali, Chinese and English. When you see these very long Thai words or phrases that describe something more complex, the word/phrase is almost always borrowed.

Yes, just about all the Thai vocabulary that deals with science, technology, religion, statecraft, commerce etc. is taken (not "borrowed"; it's theirs now, and they're not giving it back) from Sanskrit, Pali, and to a smaller extent English. (Chinese not so much, unless you're talking food.) And there's a whole bunch of words for everyday things and actions, as well the Royal Vocabulary, that comes from Khmer.

But wait! Don't all the English words in the fields of science, technology, religion, statecraft, commerce etc. come from Latin and Greek? And don't a rather large number of our words for everyday things and actions (not to mention food) come from French?

If you're going to deny the Thai their Sanskrit, Pali, English, Khmer and Chinese, it's only fair that you can't have Latin, Greek, or French. Speak English, for god's sake! No television, elephants, ideas, buffalo, pork, beef, or even tables and chairs for you! And where do you stop?

Who's to say what real English words are, or real Thai words? The words that Thai has taken from other languages are as native to Thai speakers as words like table and chair are to English speakers. What is a "primitive language"? I'd say it's one which doesn't have existing words for things in the areas of science, technology, religion, statecraft, commerce etc--words for these things need to be created or taken from another language on-the-spot, so to speak. Of course, this isn't the case for Thai, or for English--both languages have had words for these things for hundreds of years, and even if they were originally stolen from somewhere else, they're certainly a part of the language now.

[Asianbloke]

I've always found it interesting how language and culture seemingly come together. To me it seems to be one of those chicken and egg scenarios.

With the risk of offending everyone, everywhere, can we not agree that some languages are more pleasing to the ears than others and that some are more suitable in certain situations than others?

What language would you rather be flirting in: French/Italian or German/Dutch? A danish actor recently stated in an english magazine that it's impossible to flirt in danish. I tend to agree that danish is indeed not a very seductive language and isn't really fit for a beautiful girl to speak. Same with dutch.

Similarly, German seems to be a rather efficient language very suitable for shouting commands and making yourself clear. It's also great for writing a sentence that's two pages long, a perfect match with german philosophy. English supposedly has the most words of any language and so seems perfect for convoluted, polite speech.

Arabic always seemed a very masculine, aggressive language, which honestly seems to fit their culture.

Now for Thai language, it's lack of words but emphasis on tonality and musical pronounciation seems to fit well with a culture that places a lot of importance on the superficial.

I think I have offended enough nationalities in one post already, so I'll just cut it off here.

Well, I am surprised; what makes you feel that Thai culture lays emphasis on the superificial.

I am not a Thai national but still my opinion about Thai culture is vastly different from yours.

I find the deeply spiritual thai culture to be quite impressive with its strong emphasis on beautiful human values.

I do admit that I might be a bit partial to Thai culture ever since I have discovered many cultural similarities between Thai and mine and the Indian influence on Thai culture (& that has been a recent discovery something that a majority of Indians are not aware of).

So, your comment about Thai culture just struck me and I wish if you could elaborate

[Johpa]

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes, Thai is rather primitive as compared to some other languages and especially English."

One reason for this, as someone mentioned earlier, is that Thai in it's written form has not evolved much in thousands of years. It is essentially Pali/Sanscrit used to represent different pronunciations (Thai pronunciations) that was never changed to reflect Thai linguistic tendencies.

The other reason Thai has not evolved is because there has never been a linguistic/intellectual interest/revolution in Thailand. Sure, there have been a handful of Thai intellectuals, poets, etc but very few. Also, you must consider that it is at least possible that the same lazy, sabai sabai attitude that Thais a proud of and live by has been applied to their language and its lack of development.

Thai in its written form is wholly messy full of irregular spellings and exceptions to rules. Yes, English is similar, but Thai takes this to a much higher degree of irregularity. There are books written about Thai and esp where the Thai writing system is concerned how Thais spend a longer amount of time learning to become fluent in Thai than their counterparts do in languages like Vietnamese (after Vietnamese started using a phonetic alphabet -- after the French came in). In Thai, one essentially just has to memorize all kinds of language structures that really have no explanation or were mistakes improperly imported from Pali or Sanscrit that were never changed.

So, yes, Thai is a rather primitive language that has largely remained undeveloped for thousands of years, and reflects a people who have never had a revolution of thought/science/literature anything intellectual, really. You can study this from looking at word borrowing. Thai higher order concepts in all fields are, as a percentage, very highly borrowed from Sanscrit, Pali, Chinese and English. When you see these very long Thai words or phrases that describe something more complex, the word/phrase is almost always borrowed.

So, interesting language, but primitive nonetheless. And, for speakers of less primitive languages, it can be quite difficult indeed. Actually, the same is true visa versa.

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes, English is rather primitive as compared to some other languages..

One reason for this, as someone mentioned earlier, is that English in it's written form has not evolved much in years. It is essentially the Latin alphabet (Romance Language) used to represent different pronunciations that were never changed to reflect Anglo-Saxon linguistic tendencies (phonetics).

<I will not stoop so low as to mock the ignorance and implied racism of this next sentence>

English in its written form is wholly messy full of irregular spellings and exceptions to rules. Yes, Thai is similar, but English takes this to a much higher degree of irregularity, really a quantum leap in irregularity as compared to most alphabets and syllabaries.

So, yes, English is a rather primitive and a true bastard of a language that has largely remained undeveloped for thousands of years, and reflects a people who have never had a revolution of thought/science/literature anything intellectual, really. You can study this from looking at word borrowing. English higher order concepts in all fields are, as a percentage, very highly borrowed from Latin and its descendent languages such as French. When you see these very long English words or phrases that describe something more complex, the word/phrase is almost always borrowed.

[PaullyW]

OK, guys. You can disagree without demonstrating the (apperent) need for defending Thai language!

I speak, read and write Thai, and I have learned at the top university programs in Thailand, so I know a thing or two, and what I have written is largely acknowleged in the programs I have participated in. We all have different opinions about this topic. Mine stands, and I respect yours as well.

Oh, to add to the point, something which is acknowledged by MNC firms working in Thailand (both Thai AND foreign) is that important agreements that deal with commerce, legal issues, etc are invariably done in English. When I asked my General Counsel why, he explained to me that Thai is acknowleged to lack the precision of terms or concepts needed to avoid misinterpretation. The language fully lacks conceptual structures.

And, yes, English is ALSO messy. I acknowledged that. I can be very critical of English, too, but this is a thread about Thai language. However, for all that English lacks, I would say it makes up for in its practicality (being the world's global language, for better or worse) and in its infinite flexibility to absorb words and concepts from other languages and also from regional dialects of itself.

** As to the gentleman regarding the irregularities of Thai, point taken, and I did not do a good job of explaining what I meant. I will post tomorrow in hopes of clarifying my point.

There are two 'camps' of linguists usually. One camp believes that no language is any more primitive than another and that all human languages past and present were perfect instruments of their speakers to express what they want/wanted to say... The other camp believes that given more complex language structures to express increasingly complex meaning, speakers would tend to 'evolve' the ways in which they express meaning.

So, it's a bit akin to the 'chicken before the egg' ordeal.

Can any of you linguists out there deny that Thailand has 'more-or-less' never had a documented revolution of modern thought? Science, technology, politics, philosophy, religion (that was not largely taken from India)? Can you then deny that language may have some roll to play in why this has been the case?

In other words, if I man only knows how to talk about rice and farming, would he WANT to talk about philosophy? If he does not have the mental/language framework for thinking about philosophy, how could he, right? He would be 'satisfied' discussing farming and rice.

[Parvis]

Well - purely from the standpoint of logic - Peppy presents a well-written and logical argument - while PaulyyW's argument appears rambling without logical consistency - nor coherence (does not hold water) and with sometimes quite incomprehensible statements (at least to me). Example 1 (and there are more) - and I copy and paste:

"OK, guys. You can disagree without demonstrating the (apperent) need for defending Thai language!"

My own opinion - although I do not claim to be a linguist (but I do speak several languages - including Thai):

All languages continue to evolve - as do nations and ideologies - some more than others.

To call any language "primitive" is (in my opinion) - shall we say PRIMITIVE.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Parvis

[Asianbloke]

So, it is safe to assume that isolating languages are primitive since Russian, English & Chinese (which obviously seems very complicated) don't fall into into the category of isolating languages.

It depends on a definition what "is" is. It depends on your definition of "primitive". There's no such term in linguistics, but no one can prevent defining own terms.

Chinese is mostly isolated, each character is a logical term, there's no inflection.

Russian and most of Slavic languages are highly synthetic and highly inflective.

It's offtopic, but...

Lewis Carroll, an author of "Alice in Wonderland", was traveling Russia and recorded a word that amazed him:

"защищающихся" [zаshtshееshtshауоуshtshееkhsуа] - "thоsе who рrоtесt thеmsеlvеs". Here's semantics:

за- is a prefix meaning "behind"

щит "shield" is the word root, but the last consonant is inflected, so it is "щищ"

(by the way, first and second parts form a noun "защита" [zаshtshееta] - "defence")

-ающ- is a suffix meaning "the one who [verb] at very this moment", kind of gerund.

-ие- is a suffix meaning multiple subjects; since it's genitive tense, it's inflected to -их-

-ся is a suffix meaning "self"

Thanks for offering that example; that's quite interesting.

[Johpa]

I speak, read and write Thai, and I have learned at the top university programs in Thailand, so I know a thing or two, and what I have written is largely acknowleged in the programs I have participated in. We all have different opinions about this topic. Mine stands, and I respect yours as well.......

Can any of you linguists out there deny that Thailand has 'more-or-less' never had a documented revolution of modern thought? Science, technology, politics, philosophy, religion (that was not largely taken from India)? Can you then deny that language may have some roll to play in why this has been the case?

In other words, if I man only knows how to talk about rice and farming, would he WANT to talk about philosophy? If he does not have the mental/language framework for thinking about philosophy, how could he, right? He would be 'satisfied' discussing farming and rice.

For one thing, for someone willing to "fly their own kite" on this very public forum regarding their educational acomplishments, your grammar is abysmal. And just what is a "revolution in modern thought? I would think that the abolition of slavery in Thailand at about the same time as the abolition of slavery elsewhere on the planet, not to mention other modernizations Rama V, might qualify for a revolution in thought.

And as one who has been living with rice farmers and assorted other Thai hillbillies off and on over the past 30, I have found several who are quite fond of talking about philosophy. My guess is that the percentage of rice farmers who can get philosophical in conversation is about as low as amongst native English speakers, regardless of educational levels.

But Paully, you are just one in a long line of Klingon followers of Whorf. Qapla'

!

[klons]

Stuck up English speaking people think it's primitive probably because a literal translation into English may sound like -

Me Tarzan, you Jane, Boy! no play with chimp.

[Mooner]

Out of interest! I just typed "How many words in the English language?" and the same for Thai in Google.

The answer i got was around a million for English and around 3000 for Thai!

That can't be right, can it?

[bytebuster]

Out of interest! I just typed "How many words in the English language?" and the same for Thai in Google.

The answer i got was around a million for English and around 3000 for Thai!

That can't be right, can it?

With all due respect, this statement demonstrates linguistic education of the speaker, not the linguistic complexity of the language.

1,000 words in Chinese is well enough to read newspapers. A university graduate operates about 5,000 words.

As I said in comments above, there is no sense of direct comparison of isolating languages (Thai, Chinese) to synthetic languages (English and many Romance).

Why number of words is a clunky criterion? Simple: one cannot count word inflections into a number of words.

How many inflections of "green" can you remember? Okay, "greenish", "greenier", and a couple more.

Let's count. Most Slavic languages have 6 or 7 inflections, multiplied by three genders (masculine/feminine/neuter), multiplied by two numbers (singular/plural). Here you have 36 basic adjectives for "green". Multiply by various prefixes like "not-enough-green", "pre-green", you will easily get 150 words. Add there nouns and verbs (yes, Russian has verb like "the grass is greening"), and you easily get two hundred words meaning "green". Does it mean English is two hundred times more "primitive" than Ukrainian, Slovakian, Polish, Belarussian, and Russian?

[Morakot]

[...]

As I said in comments above, there is no sense of direct comparison of isolating languages (Thai, Chinese) to synthetic languages (English and many Romance).

[...]

True!

But a better way to say this would be: languages that are too far apart on the spectrum between isolating and synthetic language types. If you compare Finish and English, one could say English is a rather isolating type.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Morakot

[Richard W]

Out of interest! I just typed "How many words in the English language?" and the same for Thai in Google.

The answer i got was around a million for English and around 3000 for Thai!

That can't be right, can it?

No, it can't. For comparison, the Maefahluang Dictionary of Northern Thai has about 12,500 head words - and some of them ran to several pages. Doug Cooper assembled a list of 18,057 words for use in Thai line-breaking. The dictionary Libreoffice uses for spell-checking has 38,869 words, though a lot of them seem more like phrases than words to me. The dictionary used for spell-checking English has 56,506 words.

[Naam]

I've always found it interesting how language and culture seemingly come together. To me it seems to be one of those chicken and egg scenarios.

With the risk of offending everyone, everywhere, can we not agree that some languages are more pleasing to the ears than others and that some are more suitable in certain situations than others?

What language would you rather be flirting in: French/Italian or German/Dutch? A danish actor recently stated in an english magazine that it's impossible to flirt in danish. I tend to agree that danish is indeed not a very seductive language and isn't really fit for a beautiful girl to speak. Same with dutch.

Similarly, German seems to be a rather efficient language very suitable for shouting commands and making yourself clear. It's also great for writing a sentence that's two pages long, a perfect match with german philosophy. English supposedly has the most words of any language and so seems perfect for convoluted, polite speech.

Arabic always seemed a very masculine, aggressive language, which honestly seems to fit their culture.

Now for Thai language, it's lack of words but emphasis on tonality and musical pronounciation seems to fit well with a culture that places a lot of importance on the superficial.

I think I have offended enough nationalities in one post already, so I'll just cut it off here.

relax! your ignorance does not offend; it is entertaining.

[ayayay]

Can any of you linguists out there deny that Thailand has 'more-or-less' never had a documented revolution of modern thought? Science, technology, politics, philosophy, religion (that was not largely taken from India)? Can you then deny that language may have some roll to play in why this has been the case?

Hey Polly, what has the Canadians done? Is it correct to say that Canadian is at least a little bit influenced by the English language? Or more correctly, you dont even have your own language.

And what great philosophers have you had?

What world famous brands comes from Canada?

Edited July 12, 2012 by ayayay