Why dolphin and whale in Thai are fish ?

[max72]

There is something in Thai language I can't get:

why the translation of mammals dolphin and whale in Thai are "Plaa lohmaa" and "plaa waan" if they are not fish but mammals ?

Anybody knows the origin of this pitfall ?

I have asked many Thais and they have no ideas, in fact most of them got surprised when I tried to explain them that dolphins and whales are not fish.

(they all have University degrees... )

Edited February 11, 2014 by max72

[HeijoshinCool]

I actually had this discussion with two science teachers at the school where I taught English for a year. They insisted dolphins and whales were fish. How could mammals lactate underwater and feed their young? Milk, underwater? I was polite and did not dwell on the matter, changing the subject. But a few days later, they stopped speaking with me for the rest of the year.

Anyway, the answer is, Thai is not a particularly flexible language.

[bytebuster]

English: jellyfish, a polyp cnidaria, not a vertebrate.

Edited February 11, 2014 by bytebuster

[max72]

I have found this discussion , which looks interesting:

http://www.thai-language.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=13175&start=0&view=print

"Thai way of biology" :-)

There is always a Thai way of everything ;-) That's why this country is so special.

[carter1882]

What about starfish, they are not fish.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone would suggest that whales and dolphins are fish. Perhaps you Thai language skills are not up to explaining.

[carter1882]

I saw some selfish the other day too. They refused to share their food, extraordinary creatures....

[carter1882]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

[max72]

What about starfish, they are not fish.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone would suggest that whales and dolphins are fish. Perhaps you Thai language skills are not up to explaining.

I speak and read a good Thai. Some troubles write it.

I haven;'t find a single Thai who is aware that dolphins and whales are NOT fish.

And i have talked to people with University degree(s).

[max72]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

No, it doesn';t because they are fish COW-FISH.

The second word indicates they are fish.

In Thai language a dolphin is translated as "plaa lohmaa" ...it means it is considered a fish and this is " confirmed" by the Thai way of science, according to Thai professors.

This what makes me confused.

"Thai way of science ?"

In fact, they mix religion with science. This is not science.

Thais are tought in schools that dolphins and whales are fish.

[Mole]

It's not about the Thais being stupid that they call anything which resemble a fish for fish, but consider this that the Thai people were originally people from inlands, they naturally do not possess traditional culture of knowing about these things, which reflects in their language.

In Thai language it's simply called "fish" because there isn't any specific word for "whale" or "mammals which lives in the ocean".

If you would reason that we Thais are stupid for calling (and believing) dolphins and whales for "fish", then English people must also be equally or even more stupid for calling starfish and jellyfish for fish, no???

Because obviously if English people were so smart, they shouldn't have called them fish, when they obviously aren't fish at all. So, why haven't English language some specific word for "starfish" and "jellyfish"?? Or perhaps it's simply because the English people are just too stupid to realize that "starfish and "jellyfish" aren't actually fish?

Or perhaps English language (and people) do consider starfish and jellyfish to be fish, otherwise they would have used other word than fish, right?

There's also many other animals which are called something, but biologically they aren't, for example Koala bears. (I know there's many other examples, but can't think of any more at the moment.)

I can assure you that there are a whole lot of Thais who are perfectly aware that dolphins are mammals. While I can assure you that there's also some of you farangs who believe that dolphins are fish.

In Chinese, for example, the character for whale is 鯨, which has the fish radical, so perhaps the Chinese are also stupid for not realizing that a whale is a mammal?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Mole

[Richard W]

It's not about the Thais being stupid that they call anything which resemble a fish for fish, but consider this that the Thai people were originally people from inlands, they naturally do not possess traditional culture of knowing about these things, which reflects in their language.

Perhaps Thais are cladists! If you take the reasonable view that a biological group should consist of the descendants of a common ancestor, then any group which includes a goldfish and a shark must include people and whales too.

[sirineou]

What about starfish, they are not fish.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone would suggest that whales and dolphins are fish. Perhaps you Thai language skills are not up to explaining.

I speak and read a good Thai. Some troubles write it.

I haven;'t find a single Thai who is aware that dolphins and whales are NOT fish.

And i have talked to people with University degree(s).

So this is not about the language, as the same is done in English,

but a claim that Thais are not biology literate.

[sdanielmcev]

Asked the gf your question, she said if it swims in the water it is pla. If you want to say 'whale which is a mammal,' say 'whale which is a mammal.'

[manarak]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

No, it doesn';t because they are fish COW-FISH.

The second word indicates they are fish.

In Thai language a dolphin is translated as "plaa lohmaa" ...it means it is considered a fish and this is " confirmed" by the Thai way of science, according to Thai professors.

This what makes me confused.

"Thai way of science ?"

In fact, they mix religion with science. This is not science.

Thais are tought in schools that dolphins and whales are fish.

I think you are being thick about that issue.

"plaa lohmaa"should be considered one nominal group designating a specific animal. It has been pointed out above that the English language also calls "fish" animals that do not belong to the fish family.

It's not a language issue - The appelations were given out before anyone thought about classifying animals into mammals, mollusks, crustacean, vertebrae or whatever, and had a closer look at whales and dolphins.

I'm not even sure pla should be translated straight as being the equivalent of "fish" in English - maybe it just means "some vertebrated animal that swims in water".

Just take the language as it is.

The one remaining thing is that the university-educated Thais you were talking to didn't know that whales and dolphins do not belong to the family of fish in a biological sciences sense.

Big deal.

University educated doesn't mean they know everything, I've also seen university-educated people in Europe or the USA holding a bachelor who were dumb as a box of rocks.

[AyG]

It's not a language issue - The appelations were given out before anyone thought about classifying animals into mammals, mollusks, crustacean, vertebrae or whatever, and had a closer look at whales and dolphins.

I'm not even sure pla should be translated straight as being the equivalent of "fish" in English - maybe it just means "some vertebrated animal that swims in water".

Just take the language as it is.

Absolutely. Scientific classification of animals really only started with Linnaeus in the 1700s.

Plaa, however, is a little more than "vertebrated animal that swims in water":

ปลาหมึก (plaaˑ​mʉ̀k) aren't vertebrates

And what about ปลากระป๋อง (plaaˑ​kràˑ​pɔ̌ɔŋ) and ปลาจ่อม (plaaˑ​cɔ̀m)? No swimming there.

And to think that in the English speaking world there are people who think that tomatoes are fruit!

[Naam]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

No, it doesn';t because they are fish COW-FISH.

The second word indicates they are fish.

In Thai language a dolphin is translated as "plaa lohmaa" ...it means it is considered a fish and this is " confirmed" by the Thai way of science, according to Thai professors.

This what makes me confused.

"Thai way of science ?"

In fact, they mix religion with science. This is not science.

Thais are tought in schools that dolphins and whales are fish.

Thai justified conclusion: "if it looks like a fish, swims like a fish..."

[max72]

I saw some selfish the other day too. They refused to share their food, extraordinary creatures....

:-) Funny, but no relationship with this topic. SELFISH= SELF+ ISH There is no fish ;-)

[max72]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

No, it doesn';t because they are fish COW-FISH.

The second word indicates they are fish.

In Thai language a dolphin is translated as "plaa lohmaa" ...it means it is considered a fish and this is " confirmed" by the Thai way of science, according to Thai professors.

This what makes me confused.

"Thai way of science ?"

In fact, they mix religion with science. This is not science.

Thais are tought in schools that dolphins and whales are fish.

I think you are being thick about that issue.

"plaa lohmaa"should be considered one nominal group designating a specific animal. It has been pointed out above that the English language also calls "fish" animals that do not belong to the fish family.

It's not a language issue - The appelations were given out before anyone thought about classifying animals into mammals, mollusks, crustacean, vertebrae or whatever, and had a closer look at whales and dolphins.

I'm not even sure pla should be translated straight as being the equivalent of "fish" in English - maybe it just means "some vertebrated animal that swims in water".

Just take the language as it is.

The one remaining thing is that the university-educated Thais you were talking to didn't know that whales and dolphins do not belong to the family of fish in a biological sciences sense.

Big deal.

University educated doesn't mean they know everything, I've also seen university-educated people in Europe or the USA holding a bachelor who were dumb as a box of rocks.

When SCIENCE teachers insist to say that dolphins and whales are fish and teach that way to their students, it 's more worrysome ;-)

This is not related to intelligence, but a lack of knowledgment.

Anyway, if we consider it "one nominal group" why in modern Thai, whale is also translated as "waan" without the "Plaa" ?

Maybe is somebody realizing is not a "plaa" ?

But so far, in 15 years, i have never heard dolphin being translated as "lohmaa", but in the case of whale i have heard both ways "plaa waan" or "waan".

I think the answer is simply that, albeit Thai writing is quite new, Thai language is indeed old enough and those creatures were named when science hadn't acknowledged their classes.

Edited February 12, 2014 by max72

[noikrit]

Whale Shark ??? .....When it isn't a Shark ???? Off topic but Koala Bear .... When it isn't a Bear .... Ok .. Sorry ... back to my coffee ...

[sirineou]

When I thought that the general section of this forum could not get any worst, along comes this thread to restore my faith .

I thought that all the different ways to say "hey look how smarter we are than the Thais " were exhausted, but I have to admite, this is really creative.

[max72]

It's not about the Thais being stupid that they call anything which resemble a fish for fish, but consider this that the Thai people were originally people from inlands, they naturally do not possess traditional culture of knowing about these things, which reflects in their language.

In Thai language it's simply called "fish" because there isn't any specific word for "whale" or "mammals which lives in the ocean".

If you would reason that we Thais are stupid for calling (and believing) dolphins and whales for "fish", then English people must also be equally or even more stupid for calling starfish and jellyfish for fish, no???

Because obviously if English people were so smart, they shouldn't have called them fish, when they obviously aren't fish at all. So, why haven't English language some specific word for "starfish" and "jellyfish"?? Or perhaps it's simply because the English people are just too stupid to realize that "starfish and "jellyfish" aren't actually fish?

Or perhaps English language (and people) do consider starfish and jellyfish to be fish, otherwise they would have used other word than fish, right?

There's also many other animals which are called something, but biologically they aren't, for example Koala bears. (I know there's many other examples, but can't think of any more at the moment.)

I can assure you that there are a whole lot of Thais who are perfectly aware that dolphins are mammals. While I can assure you that there's also some of you farangs who believe that dolphins are fish.

In Chinese, for example, the character for whale is 鯨, which has the fish radical, so perhaps the Chinese are also stupid for not realizing that a whale is a mammal?

This is not about Intelligence, but about culture. It's not the same thing. One can be intelligent without knowing certain things.

I can say I was pretty shocked to know that some SCIENCE teachers regard dolphins and whales as fish and they were so stubborn to refuse to discuss that.

[WilliamCave]

What about starfish, they are not fish.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone would suggest that whales and dolphins are fish. Perhaps you Thai language skills are not up to explaining.

I speak and read a good Thai. Some troubles write it.

I haven;'t find a single Thai who is aware that dolphins and whales are NOT fish.

And i have talked to people with University degree(s).

I will disagree with u in that my kids know they are mammals and understand

the difference and they are half Thai going to a Thai school English program.

To clarify this I have taught them the difference

[max72]

When I thought that the general section of this forum could not get any worst, along comes this thread to restore my faith .

I thought that all the different ways to say "hey look how smarter we are than the Thais " were exhausted, but I have to admite, this is really creative.

The question was about classification of species and its relationship with the language, not about intelligence, something you seem to lack.

Hence your nick seems to fit perfectly ;-)

Edited February 12, 2014 by max72

[Fookhaht]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

No, it doesn';t because they are fish COW-FISH.

The second word indicates they are fish.

In Thai language a dolphin is translated as "plaa lohmaa" ...it means it is considered a fish and this is " confirmed" by the Thai way of science, according to Thai professors.

This what makes me confused.

"Thai way of science ?"

In fact, they mix religion with science. This is not science.

Thais are tought in schools that dolphins and whales are fish.

I think you are being thick about that issue.

"plaa lohmaa"should be considered one nominal group designating a specific animal. It has been pointed out above that the English language also calls "fish" animals that do not belong to the fish family.

It's not a language issue - The appelations were given out before anyone thought about classifying animals into mammals, mollusks, crustacean, vertebrae or whatever, and had a closer look at whales and dolphins.

I'm not even sure pla should be translated straight as being the equivalent of "fish" in English - maybe it just means "some vertebrated animal that swims in water".

Just take the language as it is.

The one remaining thing is that the university-educated Thais you were talking to didn't know that whales and dolphins do not belong to the family of fish in a biological sciences sense.

Big deal.

University educated doesn't mean they know everything, I've also seen university-educated people in Europe or the USA holding a bachelor who were dumb as a box of rocks.

This is not related to intelligence, but a lack of knowledgment.

However, the use of "knowledgment" might be related to intelligence. Edited February 12, 2014 by Fookhaht

[max72]

What about starfish, they are not fish.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone would suggest that whales and dolphins are fish. Perhaps you Thai language skills are not up to explaining.

I speak and read a good Thai. Some troubles write it.

I haven;'t find a single Thai who is aware that dolphins and whales are NOT fish.

And i have talked to people with University degree(s).

I will disagree with u in that my kids know they are mammals and understand

the difference and they are half Thai going to a Thai school English program.

To clarify this I have taught them the difference

i have never said i have asked to your kids ;-) I just made a random "survey" trying to understand the origin of these terms ....than, to my suprise, any people I have spoken to (including wife, her family,and a couple of dozens people) had no ideas those creatures weren't fish. So I wanted to dig further into the topic.

Edited February 12, 2014 by max72

[Mooner]

It's not a language issue - The appelations were given out before anyone thought about classifying animals into mammals, mollusks, crustacean, vertebrae or whatever, and had a closer look at whales and dolphins.

I'm not even sure pla should be translated straight as being the equivalent of "fish" in English - maybe it just means "some vertebrated animal that swims in water".

Just take the language as it is.

Absolutely. Scientific classification of animals really only started with Linnaeus in the 1700s.

Plaa, however, is a little more than "vertebrated animal that swims in water":

ปลาหมึก (plaaˑ​mʉ̀k) aren't vertebrates

And what about ปลากระป๋อง (plaaˑ​kràˑ​pɔ̌ɔŋ) and ปลาจ่อม (plaaˑ​cɔ̀m)? No swimming there.

And to think that in the English speaking world there are people who think that tomatoes are fruit!

Err! Tomatoes are a fruit. In the case of Nix v. Hedden, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes are vegetables, despite the botanical fact that tomatoes are fruits. Apart from in America i guess!

[max72]

Surely cowfish give milk to their young too? Does this mean they are mammals?

No, because in English the first suffix is the name, while the second is the class .

With few exceptions , like Mount, in English it's this way.

So, if we say "Turtle Island" we are talking about an island, not a turtle.

Swordfish is a fish, not a sword.

But in most other languages, the order is opposite.

In Spanish "Isla Tortuga" (literelly Island Turtle) is an island, so that "pez espada" (literelly fish sword) is a fish .

In Thai it's the same way class+name Koh Tao = (lit: island turtle)= Turtle Island

So it is Plaa + name

[max72]

It's not a language issue - The appelations were given out before anyone thought about classifying animals into mammals, mollusks, crustacean, vertebrae or whatever, and had a closer look at whales and dolphins.

I'm not even sure pla should be translated straight as being the equivalent of "fish" in English - maybe it just means "some vertebrated animal that swims in water".

Just take the language as it is.

Absolutely. Scientific classification of animals really only started with Linnaeus in the 1700s.

Plaa, however, is a little more than "vertebrated animal that swims in water":

ปลาหมึก (plaaˑ​mʉ̀k) aren't vertebrates

And what about ปลากระป๋อง (plaaˑ​kràˑ​pɔ̌ɔŋ) and ปลาจ่อม (plaaˑ​cɔ̀m)? No swimming there.

And to think that in the English speaking world there are people who think that tomatoes are fruit!

Thanks. That answers the language question.

The "Thai way of science" (something it was mentioned by a Thai in the link i have posted previously) looks more like a confusing excuse, the correct explanation lies in the old terms given before the animals classification.

At that time, those creatures were branded fish, because they look(ed) like fish and they hadn't been studied or classified yet.

Those terms have been kept that way in modern Thai, except that I sometimes hear the whale being translated simply as "waan" without the "Plaa" before.

So -as you said- the correct translation of plaa is not simply fish,or at least it's not the only one, so we have:

1-fish

2-Generically: creature of the sea and its environment (can it sound ok ?)

Edited February 12, 2014 by max72

[Mole]

So, if you reason that whales were branded as "fish" because they looked like fish, I wonder <deleted> they were smoking when they named squids for "ปลาหมึก"???

In additional, perhaps it just tells a bit about the sort of people you mingle with when virtually everybody you asked didn't know about this.

I posted your story (about ฝรั่งมาบ่นดูถูกคนไทย) on facebook and I'm pretty sure every of my friends knows they aren't fish...

We can also apply your logic to the English language with starfish and jellyfish.

So, in English, "fish" does not necessary means a fish then???

In additional, you know that in Thai language, you should not necessary directly translate the meaning of things word by word.

Many Thai words consist of 2 different words which independently may mean something entirely different than when put together.

This works for English too.

So a "fish" is a fish, but "starfish" isn't a fish nor a fish which looks like a star.

Coincidentally, "starfish" is also called ปลาดาว in Thai, and obviously if we're gonna use your logic, then Thai people in ancient times thought that a starfish was actually a fish and named it accordingly???

So, a whale is called ปลาวาฬ not because it's a "whale fish" but because the entire word means "whale".

I'm a native Thai and I would never ever say just วาฬ, but always ปลาวาฬ. I actually find it strange that you say you hear people say just วาฬ on a regular basis. Maybe when it's already understood by context what you are talking about, they may skip the word ปลา and say just วาฬ, like when I go to the market and I hear the fishmonger calls the squid for just หมึก and not ปลาหมึก.

However, they seem to be quite aware that "jellyfish" isn't a fish, แมงกะพรุน, while in English it's called "jellyfish". Does this means that in ancient times, English people thought that the jellyfish was a fish??

Because using your reasoning about the stupid Thais who named whales for "fish" thinking they were actually fish and not mammals, then the English must also likewise be even more stupid for thinking that a jellyfish was a fish??

Edited February 12, 2014 by Mole

[AyG]

We can also apply your logic to the English language with starfish and jellyfish.

So, in English, "fish" does not necessary means a fish then???

The word "fish" in English is derived from the Old English fisc meaning any animal living exclusively in water. It's therefore perfectly logical that starfish and jellyfish were so named at the time. (Cf. also cuttlefish, shellfish. Eels were then known as ǣlfisc.) It's only subsequently that the meaning of the word became narrower.

The situation may, or may not, be analogous in Thai.

Edit: added eel.

Edited February 12, 2014 by AyG