Classifier For 'farang' Not 'kon'... But...

[binjalin]

i have read (in Thai Made Easy - Andreas Schottenloher) that the correct classifier for 'farang' is not 'kon'? My Thai teacher is aghast and disagrees

the passage

"the classifier in Thai that goes with 'farang' refers to things and not to humans" and "Thais might get upset when a foreigner addresses them using a classifier that is normally used for thins and animals" Page 39

is he referring to 'Aan'?

any views/comments?

[kikenyoy]

Weird that the author tells you that kon is wrong but doesn't tell you what is right (in his opinion).

"Things and animals" makes me think he is referring to dtua, but the classifier for the fruit is look. I've only heard Thais use the classifier kon when referring to Farang.

[saakura]

Maybe he is confusing farang the white foreigner with farang the fruit. Like a Thai says 'farang 3 look' and this guy thinks they are referring to people?

[binjalin]

Maybe he is confusing farang the white foreigner with farang the fruit. Like a Thai says 'farang 3 look' and this guy thinks they are referring to people?

I think he knows the difference between 'guava' and a human - the paragraph is about 'farang humans' and he is saying (in a very very popular book on Thai) that the classifier is not 'kon' but 'things' (tua, aan or yang?)

[binjalin]

Weird that the author tells you that kon is wrong but doesn't tell you what is right (in his opinion).

"Things and animals" makes me think he is referring to dtua, but the classifier for the fruit is look. I've only heard Thais use the classifier kon when referring to Farang.

there are many classifier for fruit? (puang, wii, pom etc.) - this is specific that 'farang' is not 'kon'

[pangolin]

farang in Thai word has 2 means

1. guava fruit.

2. You.

ps. I like farang.

------------------------------------------

[binjalin]

farang in Thai word has 2 means

1. guava fruit.

2. You.

ps. I like farang.

------------------------------------------

haha yes got that but the author was referring ONLY to farang in the human context! forget fruits

is there an alternative to 'Kon' for the classifier for 'farang' ???

the author of this VERY well known book says YES farang classifier is NOT 'Kon'

[kikenyoy]

Weird that the author tells you that kon is wrong but doesn't tell you what is right (in his opinion).

"Things and animals" makes me think he is referring to dtua, but the classifier for the fruit is look. I've only heard Thais use the classifier kon when referring to Farang.

there are many classifier for fruit? (puang, wii, pom etc.) - this is specific that 'farang' is not 'kon'

That book might be "VERY well known" as you put it, but I don't remember ever seeing it recommended here by anyone. I'm familiar with most of the books available, and while I've seen it at the bookstore I don't know anything about it. I'd stick to the books by Becker, Smyth, etc.

There are many classifiers for fruit. The ones you listed aren't very common. For round shaped fruits it's "look", if you're buying it already cut then you can use "chin" for pieces, and can use "kilo" if buying it by weight.

Again, I've never heard anything other than "kon" as the classifier for farang (person). I just looked in the Becker dictionary app which lists the classifiers for nouns and it is kon.

Edited December 19, 2012 by kikenyoy

[binjalin]

Weird that the author tells you that kon is wrong but doesn't tell you what is right (in his opinion).

"Things and animals" makes me think he is referring to dtua, but the classifier for the fruit is look. I've only heard Thais use the classifier kon when referring to Farang.

there are many classifier for fruit? (puang, wii, pom etc.) - this is specific that 'farang' is not 'kon'

That book might be "VERY well known" as you put it, but I don't remember ever seeing it recommended here by anyone. I'm familiar with most of the books available, and while I've probably seen it at the bookstore I don't know anything about it. I'd stick to the books by Becker, Smyth, etc.

There are many classifiers for fruit. The ones you listed aren't very common. For round shaped fruits it's "look", if you're buying it already cut then you can use "chin" for pieces, and can use "kilo" if buying it by weight.

Again, I've never heard anything other than "kon" as the classifier for farang (person). I just looked in the Becker dictionary app which lists the classifiers for nouns and it is kon.

I'm sorry for contradicting you but that's wrong:

'Puang' is common for 'bunch' (of grapes - cannot use anything else)

'Wii' is common for 'bunch' (of bananas - cannot use anything else)

'Luu' (not 'Look') is common for 'round things' (not just fruit)

'Chin' (as you point out) is for 'piece' and not specifically aimed at 'fruit' but 'portions'

book details:

'Thai Made Easy' Dolphin Publishing which is on just about every bookshelf i have come across - i only raise it for clarification of the 'farang' classifier - I believe it may well be 'Kon' but I raise it for information as this well known book says otherwise

[kikenyoy]

Weird that the author tells you that kon is wrong but doesn't tell you what is right (in his opinion).

"Things and animals" makes me think he is referring to dtua, but the classifier for the fruit is look. I've only heard Thais use the classifier kon when referring to Farang.

there are many classifier for fruit? (puang, wii, pom etc.) - this is specific that 'farang' is not 'kon'

That book might be "VERY well known" as you put it, but I don't remember ever seeing it recommended here by anyone. I'm familiar with most of the books available, and while I've probably seen it at the bookstore I don't know anything about it. I'd stick to the books by Becker, Smyth, etc.

There are many classifiers for fruit. The ones you listed aren't very common. For round shaped fruits it's "look", if you're buying it already cut then you can use "chin" for pieces, and can use "kilo" if buying it by weight.

Again, I've never heard anything other than "kon" as the classifier for farang (person). I just looked in the Becker dictionary app which lists the classifiers for nouns and it is kon.

I'm sorry for contradicting you but that's wrong:

'Puang' is common for 'bunch' (of grapes - cannot use anything else)

'Wii' is common for 'bunch' (of bananas - cannot use anything else)

'Luu' (not 'Look') is common for 'round things' (not just fruit)

'Chin' (as you point out) is for 'piece' and not specifically aimed at 'fruit' but 'portions'

book details:

'Thai Made Easy' Dolphin Publishing which is on just about every bookshelf i have come across - i only raise it for clarification of the 'farang' classifier - I believe it may well be 'Kon' but I raise it for information as this well known book says otherwise

I was going to edit to say that I guess "common" depends on what type of fruit you buy. If you buy bunches of grapes and bananas then those are the correct classifiers. Look is used for apples, pears, mangoes, watermelons, pineapples, mangosteens, durians, coconuts, etc. so it is the most common. It is spelled ลูก so it would be transliterated as look/loog/luug, etc. Luu is not correct. I am well aware of the fact that it is used to refer to other round objects and that chin refers to pieces in general and not just fruits. Since we are talking about fruit I didn't think that was relevant. Thank you for pointing out my "mistake" though.

Just because the book is widely available doesn't say anything about it quality. If he says that the classifier is anything other than kon and doesn't say what it should be then I am very skeptical as to the quality of the book but you seem to like it and that's all that matters.

*edit* I forgot to ask this earlier: Even if the classifier for Farang is "things" why would a Thai be upset? It says that "Thais might get upset when a foreigner addresses them using a classifier that is normally used for thins and animals"... why would a Farang address a Thai with the classifier for Farangs? Isn't the classifier for Thais still kon?

Edited December 19, 2012 by kikenyoy

[binjalin]

playing Devil's Advocate I'm guessing what the author was saying was Thais would be very upset if we referred to them as a 'thing' (not a classifier for farang) - anyway i raised it as a query and it looks (forgive pun nothing to do with round things) like this author has got it wrong. The book has been widely praised (here on TVF too):

[TheChiefJustice]

The classifier for farang (foreigner) is คน. The author is wrong.

[poanoi]

I suspect he was referring to the classifier ai (for falang male)

[binjalin]

I suspect he was referring to the classifier ai (for falang male)

oh never heard of this 'ai' interesting thanks

[kikenyoy]

I suspect he was referring to the classifier ai (for falang male)

I assume you mean ไอ้? I've only seen it used as an adjective/pejorative, never as a classifier. So a sentence like: ผมมีเพื่อนสามไอ้ would be correct in your opinion? I always see it used before a person's name or another adjective like ไอ้อ้วน.

[poanoi]

You are right, an incorrect wit, but it would be possible to use falang sam toa,

as in 3 falang animals, and use toa as classifier

ผมมีเพื่อนสามคน หรือ สามตัว

[kikenyoy]

You are right, an incorrect wit, but it would be possible to use falang sam toa,

as in 3 falang animals, and use toa as classifier

ผมมีเพื่อนสามคน หรือ สามตัว

Of course, but I don't think it's very common. I've only heard it said once or twice in the 7 years I've lived here. I've heard "มัน" used to refer to Farangs in the 3rd person several times which the books say is rude but I think it's fairly common in informal speech, especially from people from Isaan. It isn't respectful at all but not nearly as bad as using ตัว. I've heard Thais use "มัน" to describe each other but never ตัว.

Edited December 20, 2012 by kikenyoy

[rgs2001uk]

^^^^^^^,

sometimes I overhear the mrs talking on the phone to her friends or family, when referring to the smallest child she will use,

ตัวเล็ก

or ลูกสองตัว when asking about two children.

[tgeezer]

The classifier for farang (foreigner) is คน. The author is wrong.

You are right of course. People seem to be missing the point, a classifier is to promote understanding, if you refer to a person (คน) as something else ตัว for instance, it would confuse.

มีนักท่องเทียวมาถึงดอนเมืองสาม(?) They are people, you must count them as คน. It isn't a question of politeness at all, it is about communication, if you refer to people ตัว it would be stupidity.

Edited December 20, 2012 by tgeezer

[kikenyoy]

^^^^^^^,

sometimes I overhear the mrs talking on the phone to her friends or family, when referring to the smallest child she will use,

ตัวเล็ก

or ลูกสองตัว when asking about two children.

ตัวเล็ก isn't the same, I don't think. Here ตัว refers to the child's physical body. It's not used as a classifier.

ลูกสองตัว is using it as a classifier and I'd be surprised to hear it said that way. I definitely don't think it's standard but a lot of Thais speak very informally when speaking with their family. I wonder if she would use that phrase in other settings?

[manarak]

meung, man, ahn, kae, khau... khon

All can be used in different circumstances, extreme caution is necessary for using the first, and much caution when using the second.

Edited December 20, 2012 by manarak

[rgs2001uk]

I wonder if she would use that phrase in other settings? ^^^^^^^

Family and close friends, or when speaking to acquaintances and even strangers when she is referring to someone who has pissed her off.

You are correct about standard Thai that is taught in the formal classroom and the language used in the streets.

Be under no illusions, the educated and well off are just as likely to use this language every bit as much the lower classes.

Sometimes before going to sleep the mrs and I listen to the radio, talk shows, people phoning in etc, you definitely wont be taught this language at your local wat or school, the ai hias are flying around, thrown in some man and meung for good measure.

[kikenyoy]

Be under no illusions, the educated and well off are just as likely to use this language every bit as much the lower classes.

This is absolutely true. Is she from Isaan by chance? My wife and her sister are from Udon Thani and have 5 university degrees between them but get them together and they will make a bargirl blush.

[tgeezer]

^^^^^^^,

sometimes I overhear the mrs talking on the phone to her friends or family, when referring to the smallest child she will use,

ตัวเล็ก

or ลูกสองตัว when asking about two children.

ตัวเล็ก isn't the same, I don't think. Here ตัว refers to the child's physical body. It's not used as a classifier.

ลูกสองตัว is using it as a classifier and I'd be surprised to hear it said that way. I definitely don't think it's standard but a lot of Thais speak very informally when speaking with their family. I wonder if she would use that phrase in other settings?

Wouldn't you agree that a native speaker can use anything that describes the situation? They may well count the kids as ตัว to show that it is not their humanity which is the issue but something else. In English I can say the back of the pickup can take five bodies, (often to show that we don't mean dead, it is shortened to 'bods'.) It shows that I consider them as objects occupying the space.

If we try anything unfamiliar like that in Thai it would not be acceptable in the same way that it would be if said by a native speaker.

Edited December 21, 2012 by tgeezer

[rgs2001uk]

Be under no illusions, the educated and well off are just as likely to use this language every bit as much the lower classes.

This is absolutely true. Is she from Isaan by chance? My wife and her sister are from Udon Thani and have 5 university degrees between them but get them together and they will make a bargirl blush.

Wife is from Bkk, where we live, thus I hear how they talk on a regular basis.

Just the other day I gave a neighbour a lift, there was some idiot on a motorcyle driving like an idiot, the neighbour went off on one and launched into a tirade of verbal abuse, even the mrs was stunned, this neighbour is a poo dee and is always quietly and politely spoken.

I remember the first time I ever met the wifes grandmother, she asked to see my hands, called me an effin poof because I had womans hands and would be incapable of hard work therefore unable to provide for the mrs.

At the time I was unaware of what was being said (only told much later) and sat there smiling like the village idiot.

The mrs didnt like me giving her grandmother a lift in the car, due to the language used, the mrs doesnt want me to be aware of such language, and also to being embarrassed that her grandmother would use such language.

[rgs2001uk]

^^^^^^^,

sometimes I overhear the mrs talking on the phone to her friends or family, when referring to the smallest child she will use,

ตัวเล็ก

or ลูกสองตัว when asking about two children.

ตัวเล็ก isn't the same, I don't think. Here ตัว refers to the child's physical body. It's not used as a classifier.

ลูกสองตัว is using it as a classifier and I'd be surprised to hear it said that way. I definitely don't think it's standard but a lot of Thais speak very informally when speaking with their family. I wonder if she would use that phrase in other settings?

Wouldn't you agree that a native speaker can use anything that describes the situation? They may well count the kids as ตัว to show that it is not their humanity which is the issue but something else. In English I can say the back of the pickup can take five bodies, (often to show that we don't mean dead, it is shortened to 'bods'.) It shows that I consider them as objects occupying the space.

If we try anything unfamiliar like that in Thai it would not be acceptable in the same way that it would be if said by a native speaker.

Wouldn't you agree that a native speaker can use anything that describes the situation?

Agree 100%, we are living in a country where, ไปไม่ can mean past present or future, the casual observer would have no idea what tense was being talked about, however the people having the conversation know and understand.

[leosmith]

I have read (in Thai Made Easy - Andreas Schottenloher) that the correct classifier for 'farang' is not 'kon'? My Thai teacher is aghast and disagrees

Your Thai teacher is right, of course.

Wouldn't you agree that a native speaker can use anything that describes the situation?

What are you looking for here - confirmation that native speakers can use their language? Sure. But ตัว isn't a classifier in your example. ตัวเล็ก means little body or just little with regards to people and animals. I hear it in phrases like "because I'm small (because little body)", "which kid? answer - the little one (which kid? answer - little body)". Sorry, no Thai on this computer.

[tgeezer]

I have read (in Thai Made Easy - Andreas Schottenloher) that the correct classifier for 'farang' is not 'kon'? My Thai teacher is aghast and disagrees

Your Thai teacher is right, of course.

Wouldn't you agree that a native speaker can use anything that describes the situation?

What are you looking for here - confirmation that native speakers can use their language? Sure. But ตัว isn't a classifier in your example. ตัวเล็ก means little body or just little with regards to people and animals. I hear it in phrases like "because I'm small (because little body)", "which kid? answer - the little one (which kid? answer - little body)". Sorry, no Thai on this computer.

I am looking to improve by discussion. You have more or less destroyed my point by taking the question in isolation, and not quoting the next part except by reiteration; that ตัว does not refer to the subject as a person but as a person/thing with dimensions.

In ลูกตัวเล็ก what else can ตัว be? However you classify ตัว the meaning is clear, and that is my point, we have to accept it.

Edited December 22, 2012 by tgeezer

[leosmith]

I am looking to improve by discussion. You have more or less destroyed my point by taking the question in isolation, and not quoting the next part except by reiteration; that ตัว does not refer to the subject as a person but as a person/thing with dimensions.

In ลูกตัวเล็ก what else can ตัว be? However you classify ตัว the meaning is clear, and that is my point, we have to accept it.

If you're truly trying to improve, then stop crying foul and start learning. I believe you don't understand what a classifier is. It's not just something that you get to define yourself - it's an existing linguistic term. Wikipedia - A classifier, in linguistics, sometimes called a measure word, is a word or morpheme used in some languages to classify the referent of a countable noun according to its meaning. In languages that have classifiers, they are often used when the noun is being counted or specified (i.e., when it appears with a numeral or a demonstrative).

We rarely use them in english. But an example would be the word "head" in "three head of cattle".

ลูกตัวเล็ก = a small child. ตัว is clearly not a classifier in this example. By itself it means "body" and with ตัวเล็ก means small-bodied literally, or small in normal speech in this phrase

ลูกสามคน = three children. คน is a classifier here.

ฝรั่งสามตัว = a strange/rude way to say three foreigners. Don't use ตัว with people.

[tgeezer]

I am looking to improve by discussion. You have more or less destroyed my point by taking the question in isolation, and not quoting the next part except by reiteration; that ตัว does not refer to the subject as a person but as a person/thing with dimensions. In ลูกตัวเล็ก what else can ตัว be? However you classify ตัว the meaning is clear, and that is my point, we have to accept it.

If you're truly trying to improve, then stop crying foul and start learning. I believe you don't understand what a classifier is. It's not just something that you get to define yourself - it's an existing linguistic term. Wikipedia - A classifier, in linguistics, sometimes called a measure word, is a word or morpheme used in some languages to classify the referent of a countable noun according to its meaning. In languages that have classifiers, they are often used when the noun is being counted or specified (i.e., when it appears with a numeral or a demonstrative). We rarely use them in english. But an example would be the word "head" in "three head of cattle".ลูกตัวเล็ก = a small child. ตัว is clearly not a classifier in this example. By itself it means "body" and with ตัวเล็ก means small-bodied literally, or small in normal speech in this phrase ลูกสามคน = three children. คน is a classifier here.ฝรั่งสามตัว = a strange/rude way to say three foreigners. Don't use ตัว with people.

You're quite correct there; I don't understand what a classifier is, and Wikepedia refers to languages when I only want Thai so I won't be taking up that source. You can act as interpreter for me, and thanks for offering to teach me.Is a classifier anything like a: ลักษณนาม (ไว) น. คํานามที่แสดงลักษณะของสิ่งต่าง ๆ เช่น คน ๓ คน แมว ๒ ตัว ขลุ่ย ๓ เลา ลูกคนโต หมวกใบใหญ่. As you can see the วลี in heavy type bears an uncanny resemblence to ลูกตัวเล็ก but uses a ลักษณนาม in the position or a สามานยนาม in ลูกตัวเล็ก. Would you agree that the translations would be 'a grown up child' and 'a small child' How do you explain this? I am not saying that there is a classifier in either but the Royal Institute says that คน is a ลักษณนาม . My keyboard is playing up, I have spent hours on this post, four have been dumped by hitting the wrong keys. Edited December 22, 2012 by tgeezer