Adjectives v. Verbs

[Richard W]

This is a follow-up to a discussion at grammar-question in another forum, as discussions of Thai terms is only allowed in this forum.

Is there an objective difference between what the RID calls ก. (= กริยา) 'verb' and what it calls ว. (= วิเศษณ์ (คุณศัพทหรือกริยาวิเศษณ์)) 'modifier'? For example, หิว 'hungry' is categorised as a verb, not as a modifier.

[DavidHouston]

Kumchai Thonglaw (กำชัย ทองหล่อ), in his seminal work, "The Fundamentals of the Thai Language" ("หลัภาษาไทย") states the following

_________________________________________________

"หมายเหตุ คำวิเศษณ์ นอกจากทำหน้าที่ประกอบนาม สรรพนาม กริยา วิเศษณ์ แล้วยังทำหน้าที่เป็น"

Comment: A modifier, in addition to being associated with a noun or pronoun, verb or another modifier, may also serve as an intransitive verb as well, for example,

"คนที่ดีจะต้องมีศีลธรรม"

A good person [person who is good], must also have morality.

"เขาจะชั่วมากหรือน้อยก็ตาม ขอเราอย่าได้ดูถูกเขา"

No matter how bad he might be, we should not be contemptuous of him.

"เขาสูงมากกว่าฉัน"

He is much taller than me.

________________________________________________

Professor Nawawan Phanthumetha (นววรรณ พันธุเมธา) in her grammar book "ไวยกรณ์ไทย" (Thai Grammar), page 46, states the following:

______________________________________________________

"คำกริยาใช้ขยัยได้ทั้งคำนามและคำกริยา

คำกริยาที่ใช้ขยัยคำนามมักเป็นคำกริยาแสดงสภาพ อาจมีคำแยกประเภทอยู่ด้วยหรือไม่ก็ได้ คำกริยาแสดงสภาพจะขยัยความหมายของคำนามในด้านต่าง . . . "

Verbs can be used to modify both nouns and verbs.

Verbs which are used to modify nouns are intransitive verbs. Sometimes they are accompanied by classifiers, and sometimes not. Intransitive verbs modify the meaning of nouns in different ways . . .

Ajarn Nawawan provides a number of examples, among which are:

Indicating size: "คุณแม่เอาแหวนใส่ไว้ในกระเป๋าใบเล็ก"

My mother put her ring in a small purse. (The word เล็ก is highlighted as being the intransitive verb.)

Indicating quality: "ครูชอบนักเรียนขยัน"

The teacher likes diligent children. (The word ขยัน is highlighted as being the intransitive verb.)

_________________________________________________________

[Richard W]

ชั่ว, สูง and เล็ก are modifiers according to the 1999 RID (© 2003). On the hand, it does list ขยัน as a verb. Are you saying there is no basis to the RID's classification?
The first impression does not list ดี, unless there are versions with pages in the range 405 to 420.

You left มัก out of the translation of Professor Nawawan's statement. Transitive verbs also modify nouns, functioning like English participles, e.g. ข้าวผัด 'fried rice', ผ้าเช็ดตัว 'bath towel'.

[Lara Alex]

To

DavidHouston

"ขยาย" not "ขยัย"

Edited October 9, 2013 by Lara Alex

[kriswillems]

In my opinion there's no objective difference.

I think the distinction between verb and adjectives in Thai is based on the clear difference there is in English between both.

My feeling is that they more or less tried to map English grammar onto Thai grammar and came to both concepts.

เขาหิว

เขาสูง

เขาขยัน

According to the RID, some are adjectives, some are verbs. I can't see any logic in that.

I have the feeling all words that require some kind of action are classified as a verb in the RID, while all words closer to a property are วิเศษณ์.

But you need a lot of imagination the see that สูง is a property while ขยัน is an action.

I think it would be more logical to say that adjectives and verbs are the same things in Thai.

However, I do think there's a difference between adjectives and adverbs in Thai (although the same word can be an adjective/verb in one sentence while it's an adjective in the other sentence).

The fact that Thai doesn't have a word for "to be", might be one of the reasons for the fact that adjective and verbs are more or less the same thing.

Edit.

I gave it a second thought, and I think it looks like, in case of doubt, the RID looks at if the words can be used in a transitive way (with an object).

You can say:

เขาหิวขนม (ขนม is the object)

เขาขยันเรียน (เรียน is the object)

but you can't say : เขาสูง + object

So, in case of doubt between a property (adjective) and an action(verb), it's a verb if it can be used in a transitive way, else it's an adjective.

Edited October 9, 2013 by kriswillems

[Richard W]

คล้าย 'to resemble' and เหมือน 'to be similar to' can both be transitive, yet are classified as modifiers in the RID.

My wild guess has been that the difference was whether they formed abstract nouns with การ or ความ, but there are some words that use both, with different shades of meaning.

One very striking contrast is that according to the RID online, ดี 'good' is a modifier, but ดีใจ 'happy, glad' is a verb.

I had forgotten where I asked this question before, and even worse that I got what seemed a useful answer. The previous discussion is at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/11306-thai-adjectives-and-verbs/, and the answer has moved to http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg/Audra%20Phillips%20-%20Verb%20Classes%20in%20Thai.pdf .

The type of frame that identifies adjectives is แต่งแบบนี้ X กว่า 'This kind of decorating is X-er'. Verbs can't be used with กว่า in that fashion.

There's a chattier discussion of Thai adjectives in Mark Post's paper 'Adjectives in Thai: Implications for a
functionalist typology of word classes' (Linguistic Typology 12 (2008), 339–381) and available on-line. The bottom line seems to be that Thai adjectives can be identified syntactically, even though they are a subclass of verb.

It may be possible to argue that words like สนิม 'rust(y)' are the real adjectives; they may be used with the copula เป็น. However, the RID's classification of these words as nouns feels better.

[kriswillems]

The type of frame that identifies adjectives is แต่งแบบนี้ X กว่า 'This kind of decorating is X-er'. Verbs can't be used with กว่า in that fashion.

If this is true ขยัน and หิว should be adjectives and not verbs.

Also, I think ดีใจ can be used in a transitive way:

เขาดีใจทำงานให้ประเทศ

But can't find any example of

เขาดี + object

Anyway, In the end I do see any clear logic, different views and opinions result in different classifications.

Or you could maybe also say ขยัน and หิว can be both verb or adjective depending on the context.

I think trying to make a distinction between verbs and adjectives in Thai is just a (not so successful) attempt to map Thai grammar onto English grammar.

Edited October 10, 2013 by kriswillems