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

[rgs2001uk]

^^^^^^^ for classifiers see here, even the Thais have difficulty remembering them all,

http://www.thai-lang...ref/classifiers

followed by the list of classifiers,

http://www.thai-lang...classifier-list

Heres an example of a normal converstion I have with a serving girl,

เบียร์สิงห์ขวดใหญ่สองขวด 2 large bottles of beer singha

แก้วสี่ใบ 4 glasses.

the above is the correct way to speak and the way I was taught at school, however the normal everyday speech patterns differ,

สิงห์สอง is normal for a serving girl to shout to the bar when ordering two bottles of beer.

I also use the incorrect speech pattern of,

สิงห์สองแก้วสี่ใบ 2 bottles of Singha and 4 glasses, this is at a local place where beer is served in large bottles, everyone knows and understands whats being asked for and what will be delivered.

Edited December 22, 2012 by rgs2001uk

[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 'grown up child' and '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 .

I am trying to edit my post, had to quote it, no edit facility offered, the post is just a jumble of numbers but I have managed to remove the indefinite article from the translations.

[leosmith]

ลูกคนโต

As you can see the วลี in heavy type bears an uncanny resemblence to ลูกตัวเล็ก

Nice post. I think you're right.

[tgeezer]

^^^^^^^ for classifiers see here, even the Thais have difficulty remembering them all,

http://www.thai-lang...ref/classifiers

followed by the list of classifiers,

http://www.thai-lang...classifier-list

Heres an example of a normal converstion I have with a serving girl,

เบียร์สิงห์ขวดใหญ่สองขวด 2 large bottles of beer singha

แก้วสี่ใบ 4 glasses.

the above is the correct way to speak and the way I was taught at school, however the normal everyday speech patterns differ,

สิงห์สอง is normal for a serving girl to shout to the bar when ordering two bottles of beer.

I also use the incorrect speech pattern of,

สิงห์สองแก้วสี่ใบ 2 bottles of Singha and 4 glasses, this is at a local place where beer is served in large bottles, everyone knows and understands whats being asked for and what will be delivered.

Have you taught the serving girl that สิงห์สอง means ร้องเพลง in English?

When I was a regular drinker I was able to use the code ร้องเพลง when I ordered 'two sing beers'.

I have made mistakes with กระป๋อง by using the same word as a ลักษณนาม when, as I now discover it should be ใบ หรือ ลูก, I don't think that there was any confusion created by the mistake.

Edited December 23, 2012 by tgeezer

[tgeezer]

ลูกคนโต

As you can see the วลี in heavy type bears an uncanny resemblence to ลูกตัวเล็ก

Nice post. I think you're right.

Nice of you to say so but not true, I don't think that there is a 'right'.

The reason that I try not to compare English with Thai is because it is too difficult, better I think, to know what the Thai says. Languages change all the time, to define the grammar is trying to hit a moving target, for two people to be discussing their mother tongue without dispute is rare, for our knowledge to coincide in two languages is to hit two moving targets, which must be even more rare.

[Mekong Bob]

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.

"Ai" is used in Northern Thailand and Laos to designate elder brother - in Central Thai it is "Phi".

Nothing pejorative about this term.

[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.

"Ai" is used in Northern Thailand and Laos to designate elder brother - in Central Thai it is "Phi".

Nothing pejorative about this term.

Wrong. Many words have more than one meaning especially considering the different dialects. It might have non-vulgar uses but in Central Thai it is used that way.

Thai2English: (Derogatory title used before the names of men or when referring to men.)

Thai-language.com: [a derogatory vulgar curse] dam_n; [a vulgar prefix placed in front of fierce animal names or used when insulting a male]

ex. ไอ้สัตว์ [one of the worst insults to give to another person]

Becker app: derogatory title used with first names of men and also for insult.

[Suradit69]

According to Paiboon's dictionary:

farang n. (Caucasian)

ชาวตะวันตก chaao-​dtà~​wan-​dtòk ; ฝรั่ง fà~​ràng

classifiers: คน kon

farang n. (Caucasian in Isaan dialect)

บักสีดา bàk-​sǐi-​daa

classifiers: คน kon

[Mekong Bob]

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.

"Ai" is used in Northern Thailand and Laos to designate elder brother - in Central Thai it is "Phi".

Nothing pejorative about this term.

Should have said "Nothing pejorative about this term as it's used in Northern Thailand and Laos." Better? 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.

"Ai" is used in Northern Thailand and Laos to designate elder brother - in Central Thai it is "Phi".

Nothing pejorative about this term.

Should have said "Nothing pejorative about this term as it's used in Northern Thailand and Laos." Better? Thanks.

Much better.

[Hedghog]

Kon (meaning people)

Kon Thai, kon Farang, kon Africa.etc.

Buy a new book

[tgeezer]

Kon (meaning people)

Kon Thai, kon Farang, kon Africa.etc.

Buy a new book

Have you heard this one:

คุณเป็นคนเลยไหม

ไม่ใช่

ใข่ หน้าตาดูไม่เหมือนคนเลย

[kikenyoy]

555, I'm going to have to try that (and then duck!).

[rgs2001uk]

^^^^^^^^^^ Next time some rip off taxi driver in Bkk quotes you an outrageous price may not be a good time to try it out.

Edited December 23, 2012 by rgs2001uk

[asdecas]

It was only after thirty years of marriage that I found out that referring to ฝรั่ง as ควาย, as in ไอ้ฝรั่งควายนั้นเป็นผัวกู was neither grammatically nor politically correct. Needless to say, I am now single once again.

[tombkk]

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.

The correct classifier for ฝรั่ง is คน, of course, and the book is wrong.

That said, I have heard Thais refer to people as มัน or even ตัว. That's on a politeness level that shouldn't be taught in a book. But then, saying outright that คน is wrong, does not give me faith in what else is said in that book. Throw it away.

[TheChiefJustice]

If it was a good book it would first give the correct classifier as คน. It would then also explain that other, less polite, forms are sometimes used but that one should not use them unless one is either in the company of very close friends who are not likely to take it the wrong way or if one wishes to test the temper of an unknown Thai person. I would avoid the latter at all costs.

[binjalin]

I don't think the author was suggesting 'bad' terms just he believed 'kon' was not the right one for farang as such

this is book is widely available and studied - no idea why he thinks like this (he's obviously wrong) but apart from that it's a helpful book actually