I know there are 3 verbs in Thai that can be translated as "to be" in different circumstances:-

yuu^L อยู่

bpen^M เป็น

kheuu^M คือ

I have no problem with the first one, which is related to location but the final 2 are causing some confusion.

The conclusions I've drawn when reading my books suggest that, among other things:-

bpen^M เป็น -- implies a temporary condition, eg "I have a cold (but I'll get better one day)" or "She's my friend (but that might change)"

kheuu^M คือ -- implies a permanent condition, eg "I am human (and will always be)",

although nowhere does any book actually mention a temporary/permanent distinction, that's just my interpretation.

If you know any Spanish, it seems to me to be similar to the way in which "estar" and "ser" are used.

No doubt there are other considerations but the apparent temporary/permanent distinction is what is causing me problems.

Maybe I've got it completely wrong. If so, please give me some more accurate information.

Many thanks.

Edited September 11, 201312 yr by MartinL

Not really.

For example, I am human may as well be said as ผมเป็นคน

In fact both คือ and เป็น can be used interchangeably in most circumstances.

Edited September 11, 201312 yr by Mole

To me Bpen is used for titles, nationality, affiliation, things attached to an individual - Like I am an Englishman. Where as, Kheu is more general; and usually used with inanimate things such as : This is a pencil.

//Edit: This kind of goes against your Permanent/Transient view I guess: Bpen kon Ungrit (I am English) is pretty permanent; where as, kheu khaa-jang-khan-dam sahm roy baht can change (minimum wage is 300 baht)

Edited September 11, 201312 yr by wolf5370

อยู่ is the verb equivalent (in some usages) to estar. Get a good grammar like Higbie and Thinsan's "Thai Reference Grammar" and you will find things like this explained in great detail by professionals, with lots of examples.

คือ is typically used when what follows it expands upon what precedes it. In other words, you're adding some sort of explanation. I tend to think of it as meaning "that is to say".

I think the most used "to be" in Thai, is the one that is not written.

ผมตัวสูง

I "am" tall.

I think the most used "to be" in Thai, is the one that is not written.

ผมตัวสูง

I "am" tall.

Well, in all SEAsian languages, the verb "to be" is NEVER used with adjectives...simple rule.

อยู่ is the verb equivalent (in some usages) to estar. Get a good grammar like Higbie and Thinsan's "Thai Reference Grammar" and you will find things like this explained in great detail by professionals, with lots of examples.

Hope that you are right-just bought the book based on your recommendation

อยู่ is the verb equivalent (in some usages) to estar. Get a good grammar like Higbie and Thinsan's "Thai Reference Grammar" and you will find things like this explained in great detail by professionals, with lots of examples.

Hope that you are right-just bought the book based on your recommendation

I think you'll find it useful...I have all of the Thai reference grammars that have come out in the past 10 or so years, and I feel that one is the most practical and informative for language learners.