Thai Language - Primitive Language?

[MrHammer]

Can anyone recommend a book on Thai language or if not any other books related to the topic of this thread as its interesting stuff?

Start here with the father of linguistic relativity.

Disclaimer: Linguistic academic writing is known to cure insomnia for many.

Sounds good, I have trouble sleeping.

[CaptHaddock]

Can anyone recommend a book on Thai language or if not any other books related to the topic of this thread as its interesting stuff?

This is why I think the Thai language is too simplistic/primitive: I was watching a film the other day in English with Thai subs and the English guy said "Hey, would like you like some of this?" and in the Thai subtitles it said "Ow mai".

How can the meaning, emotion and implication of "Hey, would you like some of this" be conveyed with just the word "want?". I don't understand.

As you can see I don't have an educated opinion on the matter so please recommend me a book!

Try to imagine having this conversation without the pejorative terms, such as "primitive" and "simplistic." You might replace them with "unfamiliar," for instance. Yes, it's interesting to notice the wide differences in expression between English and Thai. If you notice that Thai lacks the necessity of time sequencing nearly all actions, you might also remark how poor English is in distinguishing relative social relationship, without even the vouvoyer/tutoyer distinction, much less the rich possibilities of Thai.

[cooked]

Can anyone recommend a book on Thai language or if not any other books related to the topic of this thread as its interesting stuff?

This is why I think the Thai language is too simplistic/primitive: I was watching a film the other day in English with Thai subs and the English guy said "Hey, would like you like some of this?" and in the Thai subtitles it said "Ow mai".

How can the meaning, emotion and implication of "Hey, would you like some of this" be conveyed with just the word "want?". I don't understand.

As you can see I don't have an educated opinion on the matter so please recommend me a book!

I have the same problem when I watch an American gangster film being duubed over in French. You just can't extract the nuances involved however hard you try. So it's not just a Thai problem.

[Peppy]

If you aren't fluent in a particular language, how on earth are you able to pass judgement on whether a translation into that language conveys the nuances of the original or not? Show me a translation that doesn't quite capture everything, and I'll show you a bad translation.

For the record, I think "ao mai" is a perfectly acceptable rendering of "Hey, would you like some of this?"

Edit: Changed Thai script to Roman letters. It seems Thai script isn't working for my posts...

Edited July 21, 2012 by Peppy

[23962323]

Can anyone recommend a book on Thai language or if not any other books related to the topic of this thread as its interesting stuff?

This is why I think the Thai language is too simplistic/primitive: I was watching a film the other day in English with Thai subs and the English guy said "Hey, would like you like some of this?" and in the Thai subtitles it said "Ow mai".

How can the meaning, emotion and implication of "Hey, would you like some of this" be conveyed with just the word "want?". I don't understand.

As you can see I don't have an educated opinion on the matter so please recommend me a book!

Go along with this....one word (in Thai) can mean anything up to 6 or more meanings,only the grunting and groaning delivering the word defines what the particular word is meant to mean.

Learning basic Thai is easy,few hours and can hold simple conversation,trouble is the Thai thinks you have a thorough understanding of Thai and starts off like a machine gun. The Thai language is a dying language,nobody else outside the boundaries of Thailand understands it,too difficult,and if English is not taught post haste Thailand will become isolated from the rest of the world.

Even Burma is surprising,middle to old age people can speak English well,youngsters not one bit,catch up there too

[Parvis]

23962323

How can you claim to be able to speak Thai within a few hours - and - how can you pass judgement on ANY language when even your English is quite UNINTELLIGIBLE?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Parvis

[23962323]

23962323

How can you claim to be able to speak Thai within a few hours - and - how can you pass judgement on ANY language when even your English is quite UNINTELLIGIBLE?

I did quote BASIC Thai,and I do agree with above poster regarding simplicity/primitive aspects,also the OPs statement too,perhaps yourself an orator of the spoken (Thai) word in its simplicity and your understanding is somewhat in tandem,and if my cryptically or understanding for you is upsetting, so be it

Rather than being in judgement , I am aware of increasing efforts of the Thai govt.to improve English standards( and hurriedly) with a view to 2015 ,and all that.

[Parvis]

There is nothing "upsetting" in your statement. I am just suggesting your English is substandard - as in - possibly under-educated non-native - or - just under-educated. Therefore your logic "does not hold water".

To use a term of a previous poster - your statement shows signs of "anosognosia".

Edited July 23, 2012 by Parvis

[23962323]

I try to get a message across short and simple ,to the point. To preambular, as you, using half a page to achieve what you want to put across is meaningless,it will not read,is boring and ignored

[cooked]

If you aren't fluent in a particular language, how on earth are you able to pass judgement on whether a translation into that language conveys the nuances of the original or not? Show me a translation that doesn't quite capture everything, and I'll show you a bad translation.

For the record, I think "ao mai" is a perfectly acceptable rendering of "Hey, would you like some of this?"

Edit: Changed Thai script to Roman letters. It seems Thai script isn't working for my posts...

Assuming that you are referring to my post, yes I am fluent in several languages, one of them being French. Why do these initially interesting and edifying postings inevitably have to turn into slanging matches? (Don't answer, I know). Mr. Parvis your posts are intelligible AND intelligent but hardly susceptible of being taken seriously. Try to avoid telling people that they are stupid or uneducated and maybe we could have a civilised discourse...?

[Parvis]

"cooked"

1) To my recollection - I have never commented on any of your posts nor called anyone stupid on this thread.

2) There is a difference between "uneducated" and "under-educated" - which might escape some "lesser educated" individuals

3) Please re-read Peppy's comments (who is very logical in his arguements). His reference is to your apparent lack of ability in the Thai language - not whether you are fluent in several languages (as you claim).

When opinions differ - logic should prevail (not opinions reinforced by egos). However, when the arguements presented are not logical (only opinionated) no reasonable discussion can elucidate the subject matter.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Parvis

[cooked]

"cooked"

1) To my recollection - I have never commented on any of your posts nor called anyone stupid on this thread.

2) There is a difference between "uneducated" and "under-educated" - which might escape some "lesser educated" individuals

3) Please re-read Peppy's comments (who is very logical in his arguements). His reference is to your apparent lack of ability in the Thai language - not whether you are fluent in several languages (as you claim).

When opinions differ - logic should prevail (not opinions reinforced by egos). However, when the arguements presented are not logical (only opinionated) no reasonable discussion can elucidate the subject matter.

Wrong, read again. People feel insulted when they are told that they are un- under-, lesser or over- educated. They assume that they are being called stupid. Mr. Peppy's arguments are well put but seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make as do you.

Yes I claim to be fluent in three languages + a dialect, to be exact, did help doing business in Switzerland for 40 years and my kids thank me for it. I was forced over this period to simplify my English, which doesn't do any harm, but has stayed with me. Please don't assume that people that don't express themselves in a refined manner are thick. Opinionated? Yes there is a lot of that present in this 'rational discussion'.

[Peppy]

If you aren't fluent in a particular language, how on earth are you able to pass judgement on whether a translation into that language conveys the nuances of the original or not? Show me a translation that doesn't quite capture everything, and I'll show you a bad translation.

For the record, I think "ao mai" is a perfectly acceptable rendering of "Hey, would you like some of this?"

Edit: Changed Thai script to Roman letters. It seems Thai script isn't working for my posts...

Assuming that you are referring to my post, yes I am fluent in several languages, one of them being French. Why do these initially interesting and edifying postings inevitably have to turn into slanging matches? (Don't answer, I know). Mr. Parvis your posts are intelligible AND intelligent but hardly susceptible of being taken seriously. Try to avoid telling people that they are stupid or uneducated and maybe we could have a civilised discourse...?

It may be that the "loss of nuance" you found in the French version of the American gangster movie you saw was more related self-referential language forms than to meaning.

Translating meaning between languages of any reasonably developed society--"non-primitive languages", if you will, which have ready-made vocabulary for everything we encounter in the modern world--is fairly straightforward: you know what the person saying the original intended to say, and you say that in the language you're translating into. (Of course this gets difficult when the intended message of the original seems unclear.)

However, people often use rhetorical styles that reference, or are dependent on, the original language itself in some way, like alliteration, rhyme, puns, twists on well-known phrases, repetition, double entendres, grouping, spoonerisms, and various other kinds of wordplay. We find these flourishes entertaining, and they seem to heighten or intensify the meaning for most people, despite that fact that they actually don't add anything to what is being said. An English-language article on whether to give up watching television might be titled, "TV or not TV?", and we find the Shakespeare reference amusing, though it doesn't actually change the core meaning of "Should one watch TV or not?", which could be the title of the article in its translation to another language. "The Big Bang" is much snazzier than "The Large Explosion", as is "The Cat in the Hat" over "The Headgear-Bedecked Feline", or "Go ahead, make my day" versus "If you move, I will shoot you in the face and that would make me happy".

Since people of all cultures appreciate rhetorical wordplay, and language without it can seem stilted and boring, good translators don't just render the meaning, but try to find ways to make what's being said equally snappy and memorable in the language they're translating into. When translation is done well--the English version of the Asterix series comes to mind as a stellar example--readers/listeners are often quite unaware they're experiencing a translation. When it's done poorly, people may feel they're missing something, as with your gangster movie, even if they're still getting all of the original meaning.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Peppy

[23962323]

"cooked"

1) To my recollection - I have never commented on any of your posts nor called anyone stupid on this thread.

2) There is a difference between "uneducated" and "under-educated" - which might escape some "lesser educated" individuals

3) Please re-read Peppy's comments (who is very logical in his arguements). His reference is to your apparent lack of ability in the Thai language - not whether you are fluent in several languages (as you claim).

When opinions differ - logic should prevail (not opinions reinforced by egos). However, when the arguements presented are not logical (only opinionated) no reasonable discussion can elucidate the subject matter.

Wrong, read again. People feel insulted when they are told that they are un- under-, lesser or over- educated. They assume that they are being called stupid. Mr. Peppy's arguments are well put but seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make as do you.

Yes I claim to be fluent in three languages + a dialect, to be exact, did help doing business in Switzerland for 40 years and my kids thank me for it. I was forced over this period to simplify my English, which doesn't do any harm, but has stayed with me. Please don't assume that people that don't express themselves in a refined manner are thick. Opinionated? Yes there is a lot of that present in this 'rational discussion'.

To be perfectly honest any insult intended from a dick'ead (whoops sorry)( wrong spelling) can only summarise as "what a dick'ead" (whoops again) A superior being with a wallet stuffed with telephone numbers,and a bit ,and I mean a bit of the green stuff,nothing like one stuffed with the brown and red stuff ,a passport with a ed visa stamp,nothing quite like a passport that's there for the use of ie Carribean (oops) wrong spelling,wherever thou wants to go at a moments notice

I know this <deleted>,camel coat(bought at Oxfam) fluent in Russian ,Chinese(Mandarin)Christ knows what,used to monitor this <deleted>(jobsworth,well was my job)),Christ he did not eat for days this Superior Being,still never mind eh!,a language ,yes that is simplified, I 'd say from someone likened who has just climbed outa (whoops) a tree.

I need not be told anything from a worthless,pig ignorant,(yes money talks <deleted>)loser so up his own arse that the even his own <deleted> smells like roses PS how you spell arguement?

[Peppy]

Time to lay off the coke, my friend.

[23962323]

Time to lay off the coke, my friend.

Yes but you see,I have all this money pouring in,gold plated,index linked stuff,cannot spend it fast enough,phook me (sic), do the girls mean that? do I have to follow a dickheads self illusion ,up his own arse stance,I love the guy, but just a complete tosser amidst the myriad of self appointed/self anointed tossers....,now Ill pore over x hamster.com,thanks for looking.

[Richard W]

The Thai language is a dying language,nobody else outside the boundaries of Thailand understands it,too difficult,and if English is not taught post haste Thailand will become isolated from the rest of the world.

Thanks to television, a lot of Laotians understand it.

Don't Burmese labourers in Thailand pick Thai up?

[Asianbloke]

For those wishing to further explore the influence of South Asia on Southeast Asia may I recommend George Coedes' classic tome on the subject; The Indianized States of Southeast Asia.

Thanks, I have been able to lay may hands on the free google preview of this book; I did read a few pages and found it to be quite interesting.

I am also mentioning a link here which also talks about the Hindu influence on SE Asia (along with pics):

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Suvarnabhumi.htm

[FritsSikkink]

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

This shows you that there is a lot of nonsense on many sites

[FritsSikkink]

Talking form is no problem,

but they really need to reform the written language, cutting out un-necessary junk altogether,

like other languages did 200 years ago

you mean like Gloucester or

http://www.oed.com/public/keytopronunciation

[poanoi]

lol,you're right, english is messed up too

[Somtamnication]

I would not call it primitive, but a tad "simplistic".

Not in the pronunciation. Far from it, it is a difficult language to master.

But from the point of view of how they describe something. EG: ice. Nam Kaeng. Hard water. I find that to be a brilliant name for ice.

I asked a waiter at Denny´s once (USA restaurant) for some hard water. He could not decipher what I was asking for.

[CaptHaddock]

I would not call it primitive, but a tad "simplistic".

Not in the pronunciation. Far from it, it is a difficult language to master.

But from the point of view of how they describe something. EG: ice. Nam Kaeng. Hard water. I find that to be a brilliant name for ice.

It may seem so until you reflect on some similar constructions in English. For ตู้เย็น ("cold closet") we use "refrigerator" which, once the latinate frenchification is stripped off merely means "makes cold."

[bytebuster]

But from the point of view of how they describe something. EG: ice. Nam Kaeng. Hard water. I find that to be a brilliant name for ice.

This is not "simplicity". There's a linguistic term, "idiomaticity" which is well-defined in academic books, like this:

"Use of segmentally complex expressions whose semantic structure is not deducible jointly from their syntactic structure and the semantic structure of their components" -- Weinreich (1972:89)

It is possible to find in synthetic languages like English: "come on" does not mean "come" + "on". For other languages, see my comment #9 in this thread.

However yes, isolating languages (Thai, Chinese, etc) would have much higher ratio of idiomaticity.

Therefore:

1. There are terms for mostly everything in all modern languages, they are equal in the meaning of existing terminology.

2. If you look from perspective of creating a term for something that didn't yet have a name, Thai would be far ahead because there will be a fewer chance a special term needed at all.

Let me explain.

You have a word, "ice" versus "น้ำแข็ง". Both words depict a physical state of a matter.

Say you need a new term for another physical state of a matter. Maybe a fictional "plasma water".

English linguists will stuck fighting for their ideas how it would call.

Thais would call it "น้ำไฟฟ้า". Done.

Edited August 10, 2012 by bytebuster

[CaptHaddock]

But from the point of view of how they describe something. EG: ice. Nam Kaeng. Hard water. I find that to be a brilliant name for ice.

This is not "simplicity". There's a linguistic term, "idiomaticity" which is well-defined in academic books, like this:

"Use of segmentally complex expressions whose semantic structure is not deducible jointly from their syntactic structure and the semantic structure of their components" -- Weinreich (1972:89)

It is possible to find in synthetic languages like English: "come on" does not mean "come" + "on". For other languages, see my comment #9 in this thread.

However yes, isolating languages (Thai, Chinese, etc) would have much higher ratio of idiomaticity.

Therefore:

1. There are terms for mostly everything in all modern languages, they are equal in the meaning of existing terminology.

2. If you look from perspective of creating a term for something that didn't yet have a name, Thai would be far ahead because there will be a fewer chance a special term needed at all.

Let me explain.

You have a word, "ice" versus "น้ำแข็ง". Both words depict a physical state of a matter.

Say you need a new term for another physical state of a matter. Maybe a fictional "plasma water".

English linguists will stuck fighting for their ideas how it would call.

Thais would call it "น้ำไฟฟ้า". Done.

I am confused. The example of น้ำแข็ง would not seem to be a case of idiomaticity since its semantic structure is indeed more or less available from its components. i.e. what else could "hard water" be but "ice?" Similarly with น้ำไฟฟ้า.

[Johpa]

This is not "simplicity". There's a linguistic term, "idiomaticity" which is well-defined in academic books, like this:

"Use of segmentally complex expressions whose semantic structure is not deducible jointly from their syntactic structure and the semantic structure of their components" -- Weinreich (1972:89)

Whilst a graduate student in lingustics (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away) the very technical hermaneutical terms we used for such writing was "idiomatic idiotic nonsense". The non technical term we used would not pass muster with the moderators.

[bytebuster]

You have a word, "ice" versus "น้ำแข็ง". Both words depict a physical state of a matter.

I am confused. The example of น้ำแข็ง would not seem to be a case of idiomaticity since its semantic structure is indeed more or less available from its components. i.e. what else could "hard water" be but "ice?" Similarly with น้ำไฟฟ้า.

Formally, not.

It can be, for example, hard water (with a high amount of mineral content) or even heavy water, deuterium oxide.

Whilst a graduate student in lingustics (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away) the very technical hermaneutical terms we used for such writing was "idiomatic idiotic nonsense". The non technical term we used would not pass muster with the moderators.

Would a graduate student in linguistics better perceive a simpler word, phraseology?

[Peppy]

I am confused. The example of น้ำแข็ง would not seem to be a case of idiomaticity since its semantic structure is indeed more or less available from its components. i.e. what else could "hard water" be but "ice?" Similarly with น้ำไฟฟ้า.

Everything in language is idiomatic; words only mean what we agree for them to mean, and hard, fixed meaning is an illusion.

Thais don't take the phrase "hard water" to mean "water that is hard" any more than English speakers take "cupboard" to mean "a board for cups". To Thais, "hard water" is "ice", just as "cupboard" in English means "a cabinet for storing dishes or food".

These meanings only arise because they're agreed upon by the community of speakers. They could refer to anything at all, so long as everybody agrees on what it is.

(Incidentally, since you ask what else "hard water" could mean: In English, it refers to water with a high mineral content, as distinguished from "soft water", or water with reduced mineral content. See http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hard_water for more info.)

EDIT: Whoops, I see Bytebuster beat me to it on the hard water.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Peppy

[Jayman]

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 ...

Ancient and primitive are different. Hebrew is an ancient language. One of the oldest languages still alive (spoken regularly). Sanskrit and Pali are as well ancient but both are dead.

Edit:

There seems to be some arguments as to whether Sanskrit is dead or not.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Jayman

[cooked]

I retire defeated. I have seen a few discussions about liguistics and they inevitably end up with seemingly intelligent people using words like 'ignorant' and so forth with reference to other people.

Not meaning bny any means my friend Jayman of course.