Same/different, classifiers (beginner)

[tgeezer]

Alas this is my experience all too often, I think that it comes from not comparing Thai to English in the same way as everybody else. I learn my rules from Thai books and reference the RID often because I don't possess the certainty that you have in seeing words like นี่ as the noun 'here' which is quite wrong from a Thai standpoint. Incidentally 'here' in English is not a pronoun either it is a noun with the meaning 'this place' ที่นี่ is the Thai translation 'place this' I believe.

นี่ as a pronoun I believe is 'this' in นี่อะไร นี่ represents 'the thing or the person or a thing or person which is close by.

Anyway the reason for my post of the sixth was to see if the Thai examples I gave were correct and since you say "certainly not out of agreement" I take it that you disagreed with my syntax. Conscious of my impoverished state regarding Thai I provided the English which I took to be the translation of my 'prose'! I hope that you will put the English into Thai so that I may see my mistakes. Naturally if you still consider these sentences to "be not worth bothering about" we must all wonder what you do find worth bothering about.

[CaptHaddock]

Alas this is my experience all too often, I think that it comes from not comparing Thai to English in the same way as everybody else. I learn my rules from Thai books and reference the RID often because I don't possess the certainty that you have in seeing words like นี่ as the noun 'here' which is quite wrong from a Thai standpoint. Incidentally 'here' in English is not a pronoun either it is a noun with the meaning 'this place' ที่นี่ is the Thai translation 'place this' I believe.

นี่ as a pronoun I believe is 'this' in นี่อะไร นี่ represents 'the thing or the person or a thing or person which is close by.

Anyway the reason for my post of the sixth was to see if the Thai examples I gave were correct and since you say "certainly not out of agreement" I take it that you disagreed with my syntax. Conscious of my impoverished state regarding Thai I provided the English which I took to be the translation of my 'prose'! I hope that you will put the English into Thai so that I may see my mistakes. Naturally if you still consider these sentences to "be not worth bothering about" we must all wonder what you do find worth bothering about.

You are being obtuse. I already explained the syntax and meaning of the prepositional phrase ที่นี่. The translation and syntax you propose are just wrong.

The English word "here" is an adverb (of place), not a noun. In Thai นี่ is a pronoun, not a noun.

It would evidently take more than my explanation to get you to see your mistakes.

Very best of luck to you in all your future endeavors.

[tgeezer]

Do know what obtuse means?

I have given English sentences and asked you to show us how to translate them into Thai, what is dull witted about that?

You said ที่นี่ was preposition- pronoun, I said it was two words meaning 'here' the noun , what is dull witted about that?

You said that 'here' is an adverb, that is not addressing the point, that is dull witted.

'here ' is a word with approximately one meaning its role depends on where it appears in a sentence, which is the case with all words except proper names I should think.

นี่ can used to say 'this' as a สรรพนาม and a วิเศษณ์ I say that because I read it in the RID which is the authority on correct grammar. Understandably few bother with it but if one doesn't bother with it why argue about grammar?

Does this "It would take more than my explanation to get you to see your mistakes" mean that you can't verify what you say?

[tgeezer]

I fear we have lost Capt, Haddock but for anybody else and in the spirit of learning something which I should have learnt in my first two years of learning Thai, คนเราย่อมคิดว่าสิ่งที่ตนคิดนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่ถูกที่สุด

คนเรา People we, we people, all people, the translation could be: "we" meaning people in general, so why doesn't this say เราย่อมคิด...?

I don't think there is an answer other than why not?

We people/us/we are just turns of phrase they don't change the meaning for me, does anyone see a difference?

On the subject of progress in grammar;

บ้านนี่ is acceptable but บ้านนี้ is not, บ้านหลังนี่ บ้านหลังนี้ are both acceptable, this may have changed; and again, why not?

Naturally we don't want to sound uneducated or lacking in empathy so we learn the forms, this is grammar. Now that English is so widespread nothing stands in the way of สองบ้านใหญ่ขาว other than"คนไทยไม่พูด or grammar.

On the subject of multiple adjectives does anyone know of the correct order?

Is บ้านใหญ่สีขาว a big white house? Would บ้านสีขาวใหญ่ be a white big house? I think that the unchangeable character 'big' comes first in English, is that a rule?

Edited January 17, 2016 by tgeezer

[Tahnil]

[Is บ้านใหญ่สีขาว a big white house? Would บ้านสีขาวใหญ่ be a white big house? I think that the unchangeable character 'big' comes first in English, is that a rule?]

บ้านใหญ่สีขาว A big white house, but also, the big house is white in color.

บ้านสีขาวใหญ่ The white house is big.

In English it's no problem to reverse the order to emphasize: Is it a big white house or a small white house, is it a white big house or a yellow big house?

[บ้านนี่ is acceptable but บ้านนี้ is not, บ้านหลังนี่ บ้านหลังนี้ are both acceptable, this may have changed; and again, why not?]

บ้านนี่ดี A house is good.

บ้านนี้ดี This house is good.

[คนเราย่อมคิดว่าสิ่งที่ตนคิดนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่ถูกที่สุด]

We humans are bound to think the best of our own ideas.

[tgeezer]

Thanks Tahnil, in the spirit of enquiry as always. So you do see a difference between เรา and คนเรา in this saying. This is where a foreign language becomes interesting for me. You have decided on 'we humans' to translate คนเรา but 'we' is good enough for me. Why not เรา or คน here?

บ้านใหญ่ etc. I think that I am clear on.

นี่ นี้ the RID has a difficult job but did decide in 1999 that when people used the pronoun นี as a วิเศษณ์ the noun has to be seen or visualised. For example, usually used to refer to the thing or person which is อยู่ใกล้ >close at hand. So when I read นี่ใคร นี่อะใร I picture a ใคร or อะใร which is in sight . As a วิเศษณ์ you can only expand on something known so it expands by indicating that the noun or the verb* อยู่ใกล้หรือชี้เฉพาะ

So depending on the interpretation of ชี้เฉพาะ pointing exclusively at, is my go, again there is very little difference from a pronoun. หนังสือนี่แต่งดี ขนมนี่อร่อย can't use a ลักษญนาม because all that is visible* is the thing being pointed out.

Can you unlock the use of นี่ with a verb อยู่นี่ มานี่ ?

Most people just say that นี่ is the pronoun and go no further. But if you read ชี้เฉพาะ literally it means that you must picture the person pointing out the place. You can't say มานี่ on the phone. except the person on the other end hears นี่ as the pronoun 'here'.

บ้านหลังนี่ was not acceptable in 1999 and by definition is not meaningful, so the definition needs changing so that นี้ and นี่ are interchangeable, up but not down, but why not บ้านนี้ ? People say คนนี้ and forget that คน is a ลักษณนาม วันนี้ is excused on the grounds that nouns of time are in a class of their own.

Incidentally and for what it is worth, I understand completely your disagreement with mole; I also, can not imagine someone using a word like ว่า for any other purpose than to say ว่า! This shows how difficult it is for the RI to establish a standard and record it, it is to be hoped that they don't use Facebook!

[Tahnil]

[You have decided on 'we humans' to translate คนเรา but 'we' is good enough for me. Why not เรา or คน here?]

I am being literal.

คนเรา is an emphasis, just like saying "we humans" when one can just say "we เรา" or "คน people."

[So when I read นี่ใคร นี่อะใร I picture a ใคร or อะใร which is in sight . As a วิเศษณ์ you can only expand on something known so it expands by indicating that the noun or the verb* อยู่ใกล้หรือชี้เฉพาะ]

In the example above, "บ้านนี่ดี A house is good," notice "a" not "the," describes a concept that a non specific house is a good thing.

[Can you unlock the use of นี่ with a verb อยู่นี่ มานี่ ?]

อยู่นี่ stay here, มานี่ come here.

นี่ is the "here," an adverb.

นี่ as an interjection: นี่กินซะ here, eat!

[บ้านหลังนี่ was not acceptable in 1999 and by definition is not meaningful, so the definition needs changing so that นี้ and นี่ are interchangeable, up but not down, but why not บ้านนี้ ? People say คนนี้ and forget that คน is a ลักษณนาม วันนี้ is excused on the grounds that nouns of time are in a class of their own.]

บ้านหลังนี่ is not acceptable, บ้านนี่ is how you say it.

บ้านนี้ คนนี้ วันนี้ อันนี้ หลังนี้ ความโกรธนี้ ความดีนี้

บ้านนี่ คนนี่ วันนี่ ความโกรธนี่ ความดีนี่

See a pattern in the above?

[Incidentally and for what it is worth, I understand completely your disagreement with mole; I also, can not imagine someone using a word like ว่า for any other purpose than to say ว่า! This shows how difficult it is for the RI to establish a standard and record it, it is to be hoped that they don't use Facebook!]

You're referring to the thread, "Any Thai Language Experts Out There?"

The problem is the poster "mole" is claiming non-standard use of Thai, which, to be fair, may or may not be the case today, I would have to plead ignorance in reality.

That is the problem with incorrect usage, it breeds confusion, as in the video clip I just posted on the thread, "The Beauty Of The Thai Language - A True Story."

In a 2556 survey, 60.53% of Bangkok teenagers use incorrect Thai resulting in 46.70% not knowing the correct grammar and spelling.

(Note that in the above sentence, although 2556 is in the past, but "Bangkok teenagers use...," in the present tense - I bet many English speakers don't know that this is PROPER English. For the same reason in the above I wrote "mole is claiming" even though she posted her argument yesterday. So the use of language is much more than simple rules, it is sense. And you would do well to appreciate this in your study of Thai.)

We can see that when "mole" tries to argue her case with her broken English and Thai, it simply falls apart.

The video reportage concluded that experts, linguists, and Thai teachers are very concerned with the poor reading comprehension and the inability to write effectively in the present day.

(Note the use of the same past - present tenses.)

By the way, I made a tense mistake in my original post, "The Beauty Of The Thai Language - A True Story," as I composed it on the fly. Can you spot it?

[tgeezer]

It would be impossible for me to spot any wrongness in language use, I am seventy years old and I have learnt that there is no such thing as correct and incorrect, only current usage. I am not about to change the way I speak to sound like somebody else except to be understood.

For example: When I read the letter, I was thrilled. Compared with when I read the letter, I was like, wow! The letter arrived and I was like 'wow'. I could have told him that> I could of told him that. Such is the change which I will not adopt.

I listen to the BBC frequently which used to be the benchmark for correct English and frequently hear what I consider 'howlers' .

Another factor in correct usage is the weight of qualification of the one who decides, it is a pissing match at the lower levels of academia where there is a huge variation of knowledge but ceases to be so important the more knowledgable people become.

With the proliferation of history novels few historians use the past tense; "Burley entered the room and told the King... " > "Burly comes into the room and tells the King..." . It grates on me but I can take it!

Your use of English is similarly strange to me but I respect that it is your point of view. You are a little pedantic PROPER English, it's no more proper than other forms which convey the same thought, sometimes more accurately.

In 2556 a survey was carried out of teenagers in Bangkok in which it was discovered that 60.53% of those surveyed used incorrect grammar and spelling.

I will stick with my English but thanks for showing me yours.

We humans! คนเรา an individual human being - we.

Is the interesting thing to me as Thai parlance, not English. Are there Thais who wouldn't dream of saying it except sarcastically? We humans compared with ISIS for instance.

These are the subject of a sentence which says that everyone of us has the same failing or quality, depending on ones point of view, perhaps adding human shows a human frailty or quality, but then doesn't we say as much?

I will leave that because I have just realised that by keeping the pissing match going I may be revealing something about myself!

My purpose is to reconcile the RID because as you have stated most people don't understand wholly what they say, this is not peculiar to Thai, but surely it depends being able to refer to a standard. อา้งพจนานุกรมฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน

Thank you for confirming to me that บ้านหลังนี่ is still not acceptable.

อยูนี่ มานี่ as I said most people call นี่ as the adverb 'here', no problem because it is being applied as an adverb, it can't be the object of verbs like อยู่ มา . I think that this is why the RID chose them as examples.

If นี่ means 'here' what does ที่นี่ mean?

I will leave that thought with you and look at the video, I didn't realise that you had posted one.

Edited January 22, 2016 by tgeezer

[Tahnil]

[If นี่ means 'here' what does ที่นี่ mean?]

ที่นี่

ที่ = place, land

นี่ = here

Place, what place? Place here. Land here. นี่ here functions as an adjective because a place is a noun.

[อา้งพจนานุกรมฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน]

อ้าง

[We humans! คนเรา an individual human being - we. ... These are the subject of a sentence which says that everyone of us has the same failing or quality, depending on ones point of view, perhaps adding human shows a human frailty or quality, but then doesn't we say as much? ]

No it's not the same. Consider:

We don't like fish and chips.

We humans don't like fish and chips.

คนเรา vs. เรา would be similar in distinction.

We humans is an invocation of the universal humans.

To say that all humans don't like fish and chips is invariably false.

[it's no more proper than other forms which convey the same thought, sometimes more accurately.

In 2556 a survey was carried out of teenagers in Bangkok in which it was discovered that 60.53% of those surveyed used incorrect grammar and spelling. I will stick with my English but thanks for showing me yours.]

This is similar to your belief that we and we humans are all the same, and that the latter is in fact superfluous. A language may allow for fine nuances but few know to use it to such degree. This is a problem in English as well as in Thai. That is why some find Thai simple and crude but for lack of exposure.

[I could have told him that> I could of told him that.]

"I could of told him that" is grammatically incorrect under all circumstances. It's obviously a transcription of the speech where the could have is verbalized as could'of in an accent.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Tahnil

[tgeezer]

I think that I am understanding a little. I think that คนเราย่อมคิดว่าความคิดของตนมันภูกทีสุด or similar is an aphorism it refers to human nature. Eating fish and chips is a different kettle of fish. But leave that, we can agree to disagree on the quality of one another's prose.

I agree that you my as well call นี่ here, but to me มานี่ says no more than มา come , similarly อยู่นี่ no more than อยู่ both said as an order.

What interested me was your attribution of the definite an indefinite article a and the. Yo managed to make บ้านนี่ mean 'a house' and บ้าน

Edited January 22, 2016 by tgeezer

[tgeezer]

I think that I am understanding a little. I think that คนเราย่อมคิดว่าสิ่งที่ตนคิดนั้นเป็นถูกที่สุด or similar is an aphorism it refers to human nature. Eating fish and chips is a different kettle of fish. But leave that, we can agree to disagree on the quality of one another's prose.

I agree that you my as well call นี่ here, but to me มานี่ says no more than มา come , similarly อยู่นี่ no more than อยู่ both said as an order.

What interested me was your attribution of the definite and indefinite article a and the. You managed to make บ้านนี่ mean 'a house' and บ้านนี้ the house. Can you look at the RID because if you are going to stick doggedly to your guns I will get nowhere. I am trying to understand the RID. There is no way that บ้านนี่ดี can mean a good house using the definition of นี่ from the RID.

Apologies or posting by mistake several times, my fingers on the keyboard of an iPhone are like shovels.

[tgeezer]

And when I finally tried to post an edit for the third or fourth time there was a message preventing it.

[Tahnil]

[I agree that you my as well call นี่ here, but to me มานี่ says no more than มา come , similarly อยู่นี่ no more than อยู่ both said as an order.]

As in English, come here or come to daddy and stay here or stay where you are, flesh out the language.

It's strange that on another thread you are insisting on beginners learning long redundant statements and here you want to reduce it to one word bark.

[What interested me was your attribution of the definite and indefinite article a and the. You managed to make บ้านนี่ mean 'a house' and บ้านนี้ the house.]

บ้านนี้ดี: this นี้ house บ้าน is good ดี.

บ้านนี่ดี: a house บ้านนี่ is good ดี.

This refers to the concept of a house.

บ้านนี่ดี: this here นี่ house บ้าน is good ดี.

In this case the particular house is being emphasized.

Earlier I gave you the first instance to show that it does not have to refer to the specific house but the idea of a house.

[tgeezer]

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

บ้านนี่ดี has two meanings, the concept of a house is good. And this house is good.

And หนังสือนี่แต่งดี the concept of arranging a book well/decorating a book well or this book is done well. How does one decide?

[Tahnil]

[And หนังสือนี่แต่งดี the concept of arranging a book well/decorating a book well or this book is done well. How does one decide?]

หนังสือนี่แต่งดี

แต่ง and ดี would make it the way the book is written.

หนังสือนี่ทำดี can mean either it's well made physically or its content well done.

หนังสือนี่ใช้แต่งบ้าน a/the book(s) is/are used to decorate a/the house(s).

In the earlier case there is only the book and therefore แต่ง is an adjective that describes the book.

In this later case แต่ง is a transitive verb with a/the house(s) as the direct object.

Once again note that it can refer to the concept of non specific book(s), i.e., book(s) in general.

BUT ALSO it can mean this/these particular book(s), this genre of books.

Anyway, since you profess to know better Thai than I and even manage to be condescending on another thread, you are well capable of looking into some of this on your own.

I coach Thai and English and usually get paid for my time.

[tgeezer]

I think that we should call a truce, I think that I took your professing that you can't be offended as a challenge!

Everybody might see the role of words differently, my prime object is to be able to parse a sentence using the RID as my standard. I fully realise that this can only be valid if everybody uses the dictionary, and of course we know that they don't. However I believe that there is a kernel of truth in the RID and grammar hangs on that so I proceed in that belief. There are going to be many occasions where the language does not conform to the RID, I like to identify those.

My view, and I am no trying to win any arguments, is in หนังสือนี่แต่งดี .

The act of writing a book shows that 'book' is the object of 'write'.

The word used for 'write' can be แต่ง a verb. เรียบเรียงให้เป็นเรื่องราว .

eg. หนังสือนี่แต่งดี ผู้ถูกเป็นประธาน the object of the verb has been made the subject of the sentence and the adverb has been applied directly to the verb.

Exactly as in English. This/these book/s is/are written well. หนังสือนี่ถูกแต่งอย่างดี in this context 'Written' > แต่ง . As per the RID.

You said that.

As can be seen English has to agree in every word and thus is not ambiguous, but Thai can't do that so we have to assume a lot, and a snippet like this is too small to make other than assumptions.

Is translating นี่ as 'this' we assume 'a' book, 'these' we assume more than one.

However, หนังสือเล็มนี้ a ลักษณนาม shows quantity so here I don't think that translating as 'this' is an assumption.

I am sure that you will agree with all this, but if not let's discuss it. After all if you were being paid and refused to discuss on the student's terms you might lose a student.

.

[Tahnil]

[I think that we should call a truce, I think that I took your professing that you can't be offended as a challenge! ]

I'm not offended here.

As stated elsewhere I'm not offended by differences of opinion regarding a subject.

I'm offended on another thread where you get increasingly personal which culminates in asking if I am a half breed, implying that my Thai language facility should be so suspected.

It's pointless to take this any further as it's the same tgeezer in this thread and the other thread, where I can already conclude:

Go ahead, say what you want, since you are of the opinion: "Who gives a damn what Thais would say?"

Nobody should "give a damn what a tgeezer would say."

Thankless, pompous and condescending, offensive, it would be nice if he actually practices what he writes:

[ We are not Thai, most people, present company excepted I presume, want foreigners to speak nicely. I think for very good reason; you cannot offend anybody or be misunderstood if you know what you are saying.]

But alas, he doesn't know what he's saying, in English much less Thai!

Edited January 23, 2016 by Tahnil

[tgeezer]

I am sorry that you choose to ignore my post, where I identify แต่ง as a verb, call it pompous of me if you like, it is merely the official way of parsing the sentence.

I forebear from accusing you of not being capable of understanding grammar, I merely post my view, if you don't agree then reasoned arguments addressing specific points are preferable to insults.

For example "he doesn't know what he is saying,"(!)" in English " (,)"much less in Thai."

I think that I deserve some explanation of how you came to that conclusion.

[tgeezer]

Incidentally I asked if you were ลูกครึ่ง not 'half breed' which is an outdated term. My reason was that I heard of one ลูกครึ่ง who's father was Swedish, when he joined an adult club, he had to learn a lot about Thai manners and customs before everyone was comfortable. Your comment that ครับ was not required reminded me of him.