Have you eaten yet?

[Mole]

I've been travelling a lot lately, so haven't been around here this much.

But for the word.

What they are saying in this video is "กินข้าวหรือยัง" but said fast, it may sound like "กินข้าวละยัง".

Ask any native Thai and anyone will tell you it's หรือ and not แล้ว. It's only a farang who thinks you're hearing "แล้ว".

There is no such thing as "แล้วยัง".

I find it quite surreal that I, as a native Thai, when I try to tell you how the correct usage, but get corrected by some farang who thinks he knows better, but the problem is that he is WRONG, and it's simple as that! This moron still stubbornly refuse to acnowledge this.

In additional, you dare to to question my proficiency in Thai, a language I've spoken my entire life... what the??

[Rob13]

Farang ba

[Mole]

The irony itself is that the video that he posted himself to prove that he is right, actually proves quite conclusively that he is wrong!

Ask any Thai what they're really saying in that video!

[Rob13]

'reu yang' is correct. yeah?

[Mole]

Actually, the only instance where "แล้ว" is said is when that Isan dude is saying "กินขาวแล้วบ่อ". But that doesn't mean "แล้วยัง" but if one would translate to equivalent standard Thai it would be "แล้วหรือไม่".

[Mole]

And no, if you will start trying to explain that perhaps the Isan people have the habit of saying "แล้วยัง" because they say "แล้วบ่อ", nope. There's no way for them to mix up "หรือยัง" and "แล้วบ่อ".

[Gsxrnz]

Maybe it's because the farang you're talking to believes that every Thai L and R are interchangeable.

[Johpa]

I often hear กินข้าวแล้วหรือยัง or กินแล้วหรือยัง But I am an old fart,and hang out with other old farts. Language is always changing and one of the more common changes is the shortening of often used words or phrases. Young Thais, including my son, use some phrasing that is new to me. So although I don't recall hearing กินข้าวละยัง, I can understand how such a phrase is formed and used by a younger generation.

[Mole]

Sure, แล้วหรือยัง is correct and used all the time. But not แล้วยัง.

หรือยัง when said fast can sound like ลึอยัง or ละยัง making some people with untrained ears think they heard แล้วยัง being said.

[bearpolar]

Sure, แล้วหรือยัง is correct and used all the time. But not แล้วยัง.

หรือยัง when said fast can sound like ลึอยัง or ละยัง making some people with untrained ears think they heard แล้วยัง being said.

the only person who disagrees with you is the american/thai trying to find students here

[phuketsub]

Good to have you back Mole.

Down in the South, most people cut off the 'แล้วหรือยัง' altogether.

It's just กินข้าวยัง

For me the funny part is how my parents-in-law can't prise apart the literal meaning 'have you eaten rice?'

from the implied one: 'have you eaten (food)?'

I am on a low carb diet and have stopped eating rice, but when I try to explain to them that I have eaten (meat and veggies) it quickly takes a turn for the comical...

[Maestro]

You are taking things too literally. It is enough for you to say that you have eaten already, without specifying what you have eaten. The question is just a form of greeting between familiar persons and does not require a detailed description of your eating habits.

[Bill Miller]

On 4/17/2016 at 9:21 PM, Mole said:

Sure, แล้วหรือยัง is correct and used all the time. But not แล้วยัง.

หรือยัง when said fast can sound like ลึอยัง or ละยัง making some people with untrained ears think they heard แล้วยัง being said.

Or old ears, not quite bad enough to convince one of the need for a hearing aid.
I ask repeatedly if I am pronouncing words correctly, sometimes to the annoyance of my GF, but we have enough communication problems. I am still bemused about "open fire" for turn on the light.
I have to teach her that in some weird USA situation that is not what one wants to say!
Sometimes I can hear the difference, but have trouble making it sound right anyway. My hat is off to my fellow farangs who have managed to become fluent.

[tgeezer]

I am with you on this one Mole but we must acknowledge that language changes and just because it as a farang talking doesn’t mean that a native speaker hasn’t screwed it up.

An example from English; “I could of told him.’ I can imagine me trying to convince a Thai that clould’ve is actually ‘could have’ and not being believed because there are quite a few native English speakers who don’t know this and some of them may be ‘teaching’ in Thailand now!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Edit: Sorry just looked at the video, I am off topic.

 

 

[tgeezer]

Having seen the vid., the alternative greetings have to be guessed. I wouldn’t mind knowing what the full version of the third or fourth one was, the little girl starting with “ ใสเสื้อ...”


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[TimTang]

I'm not sure about the Thai but in English the "yet" is redundant. Proper English would be "have you eaten." But in North American English there are many redundancies that can be attributed to Ebonics like "where're you at." Proper English would be "where are you", the  AT is redundant because you ARE obviously where your are AT. Adding redundancies makes the language less efficient. I guess in Thai the rue-pow is necessary because it reduces it from the infinitive "to eat." My Thai is weak so I'm only speculating.

 

The English language is an evolving language but lately it seems to be evolving backwards. I'm not English but I agree with them (the true English speakers from England).

[CMBob]

This question....have you eaten yet?....confused me during my first year or two in Thailand....and it took me a while to understand it was just a way to ask "how are you doing" or "what's up" or something similar.  

 

But I still have not fully learned what the correct reply to this should be.  I'd appreciate it if anyone (Mole or others) would suggest a proper (as in appropriate, not formal) reply would be (presuming the responder is "fine" or "okay").  

[Johpa]

On 10/18/2017 at 2:49 AM, TimTang said:

I'm not sure about the Thai but in English the "yet" is redundant. Proper English would be "have you eaten." But in North American English there are many redundancies that can be attributed to Ebonics like "where're you at." Proper English would be "where are you", the  AT is redundant because you ARE obviously where your are AT. Adding redundancies makes the language less efficient. I guess in Thai the rue-pow is necessary because it reduces it from the infinitive "to eat." My Thai is weak so I'm only speculating.

 

The English language is an evolving language but lately it seems to be evolving backwards. I'm not English but I agree with them (the true English speakers from England).

<deleted>.  "Where are you at?" simply indicates a more specific response is desired and certainly predates the influence, if any,  of "ebonics".  (Not to mention that redundancy is the core of information theory.)  If we were talking copula deletion among some of the younger generation then maybe we might be talking about the influence of Black English on Standard American English.  But "where are you at?" is a ridiculous example to advocate your prescriptive grammar preferences. As for languages evolving, the overwhelming historical trend is towards simplification.  I am sure there were those back in the day who moaned about the loss of case structure in English as well.

 

And if you want some imagined true English speakers then move to Boston where they retain traces of 17th century English accents, as far flung colonies often retain older phonetic traits.

[tgeezer]

Johpa, Where are you? Asks for a place doesn’t it? I can’t see how the addition of ‘at’ changes that question. I don’t criticise people for saying it but I suggest that those that do, probably always add ‘at’, it must mean something to them but it means nothing to me.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect