Richard W Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 How about ได้ไป verbs in series? One possibility is that it is simply analogy, as in Western European "I have lost my shoe". If you've lost your shoe, you no longer have it! The other possibility is that there is an implied noun for the objective or means, e.g. ได้ช้างไปเชียงใหม่ 'took an elephant to Chiang Mai' as an extreme example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgeezer Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 A very extreme example I agree. So, I think of ได้ as showing possession of the verb, and you see ได้ as being on a time line. I find it fascinating that : 'I have lost my shoe' means no more than 'I lost my shoe'. 'My shoe is lost' 'I can't find my shoe'Thai says so much more: ผมทำให้รองเท้าอันหนึ่งหายไปแลว I make allow shoe one of lose go done. The reason for all those words is English albeit now adopted Thai I think. รองเท้าผมอันหนึ่งหาย Shoe me one of disappear. The verb shows the present state 'not present/can't be seen/looked for and not found, ' implies an event in the past. There is no need for หายไปแล้ว. Edit: I forgot to mention the obvious English : ผมทำให้... I have lost... I am reading children's stories in the hope that I will be able to identify some of the convolutions which have taken place in common parlance and discount them. example: ลูกวัวตัวหนึ่งเดินเล่นไกลออกมาจากฝูงของมัน ในที่สุตมันถูกสิงโตจับตัวได้ I can't make much of ได้ but I am hoping that it is essential. I am saying that ได้ shows that capture is inevitable whereas ถูดสิงโตจับตัว is final; the next paragraph the calf pleads for his life, could he do that after ถูกจับตัว? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookie baitface Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 I asked Thai lady she said you just say :pom kor: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgeezer Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 How very Thai, we should have seen that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig krup Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 People in authority seem to like "Anooyat, haam?", coupled with an apologetic Hugh Grant impersonation. I'm guessing this is the cultural equivalent of "You are my master, and I have no reproductive organs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgeezer Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Good formal words both ' to allow' 'to forbid' but I wouldn't use them except when dealing with people in authority, or with me being in authority. To know whether being polite to people In authority means "you are my master etc." One would need to be able to see it used in context. A ไหว้ for instance may mean that to a foreigner but I assure you that it doesn't to a Thai person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesofa Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Good luck with correctly pronouncing these syllables To the best I know: dai (dye) has four different meanings depending on tone. mai (my) at least four different meanings depending on tone. Some funny mixups possible. For me it comes just after all permutations of kao, khao Transcription form thai2english.com: ข้าว kâao rice เก้า gâo nine เก่า gào [to be] old ; former ; previous เข่า kào knee เข้า kâo enter ; reach ; get into ข่าว kàao news ; information ก้าว gâao progress ; step forward คาว kaao [to be] fishy ; stinking ; smelly เกา gao scratch ; scrape เขา kăo he ; she ; him ; her ; they ; them Sorry for posting on an old thread. I hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in, but I thought I'd clarify one item: Regarding เก่า to be old - that would only really apply to an item - say a car or a pen. Antiques is ของเก่า - "old things" If it was a person you were referring to, then you would use แก่ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.