Thai Word Order

[wasabi]

Please take a look at this sentence

งั้นไปกันเถอะ

In that case let's go together.

If you literally translated this it would say. "In that case go together Let's." Why is เถอะ last? I know Thai is Subject Verb Object (though I often can't tell what is the subject and what is the object), and also that adjectives follow nouns and or the subject, but what is the grammatical rule at work here?

บริษัทนี่

This company

Why does นี่ come after บริษัท?

I'll try to get more examples later.

[Rikker]

You might as well ask why the word "dog" isn't pronounced "perro" if you were a native Spanish speaker learning English. There is no more underlying logical reason for any language's word order being the way it is than for any certain word being what it is and not another. That's just how the language is.

That said, the word เถอะ is what you call a hortative particle, and Thai is filled with sentence final particles. "Hortative" means you are exhorting the person to do something. You will notice there are also layers of particles, and the order is fixed. If you add นะ to the end, it must come outside of เถอะ:

งั้นไปกันเถอะนะ. Semantic effects aside, this is simply a feature of Thai word order that could just as well be another way.

As for นี่, Thai demonstratives come after the noun. Thais say "company this," but it's not any stranger to them than it is for you to say "red car" where Thai, Spanish, and hundreds to thousands of other languages would say "car red."

A now-deceased linguist named Joseph Greenberg wrote a seminal paper in 1963 on language word order, examining the word orders and formulating "language universals" based on statistical tendencies of certain features to correlate with other features. It is part of the linguistics subfield of "typology," or categorizing languages based on certain shared features The Greenberg paper, and a critique and update to it written in 1989 by Matthew Dryer have tons of information about the percentages of the world's languages with various features, and which features are more common in which areas of the world. For the part of the world Thai is in, it has very common word ordering, pretty much exactly what we would expect based on the majority of languages in the area.

Take a look at some facts from Dryer's paper, for which 200+ languages were sampled:

Of 23 Southeast Asian/Oceanic languages, 17 of 23 put the adjective after the noun. The tendency is actually *stronger* if the language is SVO order like Thai: Out of 16 SEAsian/Oceanic languages with SVO word order, 12 of these put the adjective after the verb.

Compare this to the Eurasia sample (since English is historically a European language): of 37 sample languages, 30 put the adjective before the noun. So for English we are not surprised that we say "red car," but for Thailand to say "red car" would actually be typoligically unexpected. In fact, for all 224 languages sampled for noun/adjective word order, 129 out of 224 order their words like Thai does. That's about 58%.

Now let's look at demonstratives (word like "this" and "that"):

Whereas in Eurasia 28 out of 30 languages sampled would say "this company" (a very strong statistical tendency), in SEAsia/Oceania 15 out of 24 languages would say "company this." Looking specifically at SEAsian languages with SVO word order, 11 of 18 would say "company this."

From a linguistic standpoint, there's no point in asking why any language is ordered a certain way, since there is no logical benefit or detraction for its native speakers compared with native speakers of another language.

As someone learning it as a second language, though, it will take some getting used to the Thai word order, but it will come to feel natural for Thai, and if you're like me you may find yourself mixing up your English if you speak Thai too often.

[jtb]

You might as well ask why the word "dog" isn't pronounced "perro" if you were a native Spanish speaker learning English. There is no more underlying logical reason for any language's word order being the way it is than for any certain word being what it is and not another. That's just how the language is.

That said, the word เถอะ is what you call a hortative particle, and Thai is filled with sentence final particles. "Hortative" means you are exhorting the person to do something. You will notice there are also layers of particles, and the order is fixed. If you add นะ to the end, it must come outside of เถอะ:

งั้นไปกันเถอะนะ. Semantic effects aside, this is simply a feature of Thai word order that could just as well be another way.

As for นี่, Thai demonstratives come after the noun. Thais say "company this," but it's not any stranger to them than it is for you to say "red car" where Thai, Spanish, and hundreds to thousands of other languages would say "car red."

A now-deceased linguist named Joseph Greenberg wrote a seminal paper in 1963 on language word order, examining the word orders and formulating "language universals" based on statistical tendencies of certain features to correlate with other features. It is part of the linguistics subfield of "typology," or categorizing languages based on certain shared features The Greenberg paper, and a critique and update to it written in 1989 by Matthew Dryer have tons of information about the percentages of the world's languages with various features, and which features are more common in which areas of the world. For the part of the world Thai is in, it has very common word ordering, pretty much exactly what we would expect based on the majority of languages in the area.

Take a look at some facts from Dryer's paper, for which 200+ languages were sampled:

Of 23 Southeast Asian/Oceanic languages, 17 of 23 put the adjective after the noun. The tendency is actually *stronger* if the language is SVO order like Thai: Out of 16 SEAsian/Oceanic languages with SVO word order, 12 of these put the adjective after the verb.

Compare this to the Eurasia sample (since English is historically a European language): of 37 sample languages, 30 put the adjective before the noun. So for English we are not surprised that we say "red car," but for Thailand to say "red car" would actually be typoligically unexpected. In fact, for all 224 languages sampled for noun/adjective word order, 129 out of 224 order their words like Thai does. That's about 58%.

Now let's look at demonstratives (word like "this" and "that"):

Whereas in Eurasia 28 out of 30 languages sampled would say "this company" (a very strong statistical tendency), in SEAsia/Oceania 15 out of 24 languages would say "company this." Looking specifically at SEAsian languages with SVO word order, 11 of 18 would say "company this."

From a linguistic standpoint, there's no point in asking why any language is ordered a certain way, since there is no logical benefit or detraction for its native speakers compared with native speakers of another language.

As someone learning it as a second language, though, it will take some getting used to the Thai word order, but it will come to feel natural for Thai, and if you're like me you may find yourself mixing up your English if you speak Thai too often.

Well if that doesn't win the 'Erudite Reply of the Week' award, I don't know what could!

[Rikker]

Sorry! Carried away, I guess.

[wasabi]

I appreciate your reply and actual enjoy learning the history, however I don't think you get my point exactly. I know some people like to debate why a language is a certain way, this is pointless, millions of people have agreed to follow the rules so why question this? I'm not questioning why in a semantic sense, I don't care about that because it is what it is. I want to know what are the rules that govern Thai word order. I don't know them for English, but don't need to since it's my native language. Since I am not native to Thai I need to know the logic why Thai say company this. Of course I can remember to always say Company this, but if I don't know the rule the next time a variant of whatever is causing this word order arises I will make the mistake again. I want to know the rules so I can apply them universally.

[taxexile]

i also found rikkers reply fascinating , and would like to know even more.

i feel that the logic behind language construction , and the exactness of the descriptive powers of a language can go a long way to understanding the thought processes and behaviour of the speakers of that language.

if only i knew more !!

[Rikker]

My basic point was that there is no logical advantage to ordering the words the way they are ordered in English versus the way they are ordered in Thai. "Company this" and "this company" carry the exact same semantic content, and there is no discernible logical reason for one language being the way it is. A Thai person no more thinks about why he says "company this" than you think about why you say "this company." It's his native language. And it's simply the structure of the language. Languages differ, but not for a reason of logical advantage of one type over another. It just is.

Why is the word "dog" not pronounced "oreo cookie milkshake"? There's no reason why it couldn't be, and if someday we find a language which calls its dogs "oreo cookie milkshakes," don't try their milkshakes.

[wasabi]

I disagree and I am not claiming one word order is right. I know and accept they are different. I do think there is value in understanding the word order so I can speak in a way that doesn't make me sound like Yoda.

For example I know adjectives come after the noun in Thai. i.e. car red. I know this rule so everytime I use an adjective in any phrase I place it after the noun. However there must be other rules, probably more complex that govern things like company this and my first example where the hortive particle goes last. I didn't even know what a hortive particle was until you posted that, now I'll look out for them and know to place them at the end.

Here is another example

ธรรมดาตอนเช้าคุณตื่นนอนกี่โมงครับ

In the morning, what time do you usually get out of bed?

The last part is what confuses me instinctually I would say

gee mohng kun dteun nawn krahp What time do you get up

but in Thai it is correct to say kun dteun nawn gee mohng krahp get up what time?

I'm NOT saying one way is right, only I don't know the rule that makes the Thai way the way it is.

[Rikker]

Thai is a language which does not displace its question words like English does. That means, in English when asking a question you place the question word at the beginning of the sentence. For Thai, you simply keep the question word in the same place in the sentence it would be if it were not a question.

For example:

English has "What is your name?" where the reply might be "My name is Bob."

Thai has คุณชื่ออะไร where the reply might be ผมชื่อบ๊อบ.

Notice that the question word in Thai does not move, but stays right where the noun would go in the reply.

Hence, in Thai you ask ธรรมดาตอนเช้าคุณตื่นนอนกี่โมงครับ, and the question word กี่โมง does not move to the front of the sentence like it does in English. In your reply, you could repeat this sentence exactly, change คุณ to ผม, and replace กี่โมง with the time you wake up: ธรรมดาตอนเช้าผมตื่นนอนหกโมงครับ

So for questions in Thai, say them as if you were making a statement, but replace the word you are looking for with the appropriate question word. If you want to say "What is the capital of Thailand?" ask it like you were making a statement, but using a question word instead of the noun: "The capital of Thailand is what?" เมืองหลวงของประเทศไทยคืออะไร

Or if you want to ask "Where is the bus stop?" Then order it in Thai like "The bus stop is where?" ป้ายรถเมล์อยู่ที่ไหน.

[wasabi]

I want to restate something but it won't let me edit, I realized I would say the whole sentence differently ,not just the end.

I would instinctually say dtawn chaow gii mong kun tammadah deun nawn?

but in Thai as listed above it is correct to say

tahm mah dah dtawn chaow koon dteun nawn gee mohng krahp

usually morning you wake up what time

***update*** Rikker I see you replied, I think that answers this as well. Thanks

[meadish_sweetball]

Excellent replies, Rikker.

Thanks a lot especially for the first one, which gave me the term 'hortative' (I had just referred to them as "sentence-final particles" earlier, a much looser definition).

Another feature of Thai that is worthy of noting is the usage of topicalization - placing the word of interest first in the sentence.

Hopefully this illustrates what I mean:

มีโค๊กไหม (Have Coke [question part.]) Do you have Coke?

(standard word order)

โค๊ก มีไหม (Coke have [question part.]) Coke, do you have that?

(topicalized word order)

Both of these are fine.

[Rikker]

Both of these are fine.

Very true. Linguists who study Chinese call this "topic-comment" syntax.

Sometimes the "topic" will be the verb (and object if present) of the sentence, and the subject comes last as the "comment." I think this is partly possible because of the fact that for Thai, in an understood context you can drop the subject of a verb, and I'm not sure if tacking it on at the end emphasizes it or not. But I thought I would mention this for the enjoyment and confusion of the membership.

Example:

Normal SVO Order

คุณกวนตีนฉันจังเลย (You disturb feet-my intensifier-intensifier) "You annoy me so much!" (Not the best translation, but I chose to keep the verb transitive like the Thai.)

Note: this is not a very polite expression. Be warned.

Topic-Comment Order

กวนตีนฉันจังเลยคุณ or กวนตีนฉันจังเลยนะคุณ (Disturb feet-my intens.-intens. particle you) "You annoy me so much!"

I haven't done any comparative analysis, but this type of ordering may have special intonation. As you can see here, there's no real ambiguity anyway, because the verb has an object, so the extra participant mentioned at the end is understood as the subject.

This can also be done with intransitive verbs:

Normal SVO Order

คุณสวยจังเลย (You beautiful intensifier-intensifier) "You are so beautiful!"

Topic-Comment Order

สวยจังเลยคุณ (Beautiful intensifer-intensifier you) "You are so beautiful!"

And again, it's not really ambiguous because an intransitive verb has no subject.

I'm trying thinking of verbs which could be either transitive or intransitive which may cause some ambiguity with this ordering, but I haven't come up with any yet. So that's all I have for now.

[Johpa]

Y'all need to know there is little correlation between trying to learn grammatical rules and learning a language. Sure there are some fairly simple rules like putting an adjective before or after a noun. But learning that simple rule is probably not what allows one to internalize the rule when speaking a new language. It doesn't really take that long for a native English speaker who is slow to learn to start placing the adjective after a noun in Thai. But it took most of us far longer to internalize placing the question word, the wh-word in English, at the end of sentence when speaking Thai even though the "rule" is equally straight forward.

If you start spending too much time looking at grammatical rules, the complexity simply spirals ever upwards into abstract meta-language and maybe even semiotics and soon enough you start reading Chomsky until you realize that, unless you wish to become a professional linguist, Chomsky and other hard core theoretical liguistics only purpose is to serve as a cure for insomnia.

Better to spend your time listening or learning to read Thai rather than trying to parse the "rules" of the language. The Thai particle system is very nuanced and will be one of the last items on the menu that you will master over the years. Over those same years you will start using the particles correctly without knowing any rules or even knowing why you use the particle other than it sounds right.

I am a big fan of Buddhist language acquisition as outlined in the eight fold path: right understanding, right thought, right language. Learn to understand the target language, learn to think it, then learn to speak it.

[meadish_sweetball]

You do not need to learn grammatical terms of course, it is enough to memorize and use the patterns themselves without naming their constituent parts, but for some people such as myself, trying to put things into structure and discussing the function of constituent parts is very helpful, and fun as well. I know some people hate it though. I think it depends on your learning style what you prefer.

I see grammar as a tool. Of course, if you concentrate on the function of the tool instead of the thing it is supposed to help you measure, it is not beneficial; nonetheless, the tool can be valuable for clarifying things that may otherwise appear chaotic.

[Rikker]

I agree with both Johpa and Meadish. You absolutely do not need to know the grammatical or linguistic terminology to learn to speak Thai. Depending on your learning style, it may help you, but I was speaking relatively fluently before I even began to study the linguistic details.

For me, though, learning these details is interesting and fun, and I feel like it helps me master the language. That's why I try to study the Thai Language Entrance Exam prep book that I have, too. It helps me understand the pedagogical methods used to teach Thais how to speak Thai.

My wife likes to say that I know more about Thai than she does, and perhaps I do know more about the language in some areas, but that doesn't mean I come anywhere near knowing the actual language better than she does. She's still light years ahead of me.

But I'm doing my best to catch up.

[Johpa]

My wife likes to say that I know more about Thai than she does, and perhaps I do know more about the language in some areas, but that doesn't mean I come anywhere near knowing the actual language better than she does. She's still light years ahead of me.

But I'm doing my best to catch up.

This is the core argument about modern linguistics, that the brain is pre-wired to learn a language and that all languages select from a set number of available pre-wired rules, and that learning the rules has little to do with learning the language. So we have native speakers who habe no choice but to speak fluently yet are unable to articulate a single grammatical rule and professional linguists who can write out the grammtical rules of languages that not only they can not speak, but rules of historical languages no longer spoken by anyone. Anyone care to learn classic Sogdian?

Yet some adults, including myself, do like to wrap there minds around some of the grammatical rules of a target language. And there is debate whether the brain is capable of learning a new language after puberty in the same naive manner of that of a child.

[bmore99]

For the guy who insists in going by rules. Thai logic is to say the most important item first and after that add specification to it.

Try to see it as a picture, what you see first, is what you say first, afterwards at each item you look more closely and get the details. A bit like object oriented programming.

It's not really a rule, but helps having the correct word order.

Example:

Factory - of all the factories which one?

This one - what about it?

it's old

[mbkudu]

I appreciate your reply and actual enjoy learning the history, however I don't think you get my point exactly. I know some people like to debate why a language is a certain way, this is pointless, millions of people have agreed to follow the rules so why question this? I'm not questioning why in a semantic sense, I don't care about that because it is what it is. I want to know what are the rules that govern Thai word order. I don't know them for English, but don't need to since it's my native language. Since I am not native to Thai I need to know the logic why Thai say company this. Of course I can remember to always say Company this, but if I don't know the rule the next time a variant of whatever is causing this word order arises I will make the mistake again. I want to know the rules so I can apply them universally.

The car is red. It is a red car. Her hair is long. She has long hair.

[bmore99]

The car is red. It is a red car. Her hair is long. She has long hair.

According to the above Car the red (is). Hair her long (is). Hair she long (is)

The word "is" does not add meaning here, rather obvious, so can be ommited

[BKKGuitar]

Please take a look at this sentence

งั้นไปกันเถอะ

In that case let's go together.

If you literally translated this it would say. "In that case go together Let's." Why is เถอะ last? I know Thai is Subject Verb Object (though I often can't tell what is the subject and what is the object), and also that adjectives follow nouns and or the subject, but what is the grammatical rule at work here?

บริษัทนี่

This company

Why does นี่ come after บริษัท?

I'll try to get more examples later.

As one of my instructors (an elderly, obese Russian woman with a moustache) at Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California, USA, would say (with an appropriately curled lip): "Is Russian way!!!"