I have been learning Thai and this is what I found.

 

Almost every meaning has two words ie. one is formal and one informal.

 

It seems that the formal words are actually Sanskrit words. The informal words are original Tai words.

 

This makes it hard to learn Thai language because we are actually learning two sets of words one from each language.

 

Eg. When I go to KFC or fast food restaurants, they would use 'Taan' (Sanskrit) instead of 'Gin' (Tai) for eating.

 

A lot of these long formal words like 'Garuna'  are actually Sanskrit words. I think a lot of average Thai don't even know this.

 

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by EricTh

Eric, isn't English similarly at heart a dual-sourced language? Many words are Germanic, while Latin-origin words came with the Normans in 1066 and afterwards. For example, Germanic/Latinate:

ache/pain

anger/rage

answer/response

eat/consume

before/prior

 

and, many, many more.

In English there are similarly clear register differences, for example, the names of meats are from Norman French, whilst the names of the animals are English:

 

venison/deer

beef/cow

pork/pig

mutton/sheep

&c.

 

Incidentally, what you are describing as "Sanskrit" words are more often Pali, Pali being the Buddhist liturgical language here, so having been well understood by the elite.  In that vein, กรุณา is actually from Pali, not Sanskrit.  The etymology of รับประทาน is unknown, but there's nothing in the spelling to make me think it's anything other than a native Thai word.

I thought Thai was based on Pali, a Sanskrit derivative, an older form of Chinese language (the Tai part), and also on an earlier Khmer language.  I'm not sure the extent of any of those as inputs, or what parts of the language were from original, local sources (some word use must be).  Per my understanding (not worth all that much) the versions of the language reserved for royal references are based more on Khmer, another higher level of formality, so they wouldn't come up so much in ordinary use.

 

That first part about Pali could be completely wrong, and in a sense it doesn't matter, since Sanskrit and Pali are closely related anyway.  I studied Sanskrit for four semester in grad school so I can pass on a little about it.  In a lot of ways it's the exact opposite of Thai language, related to structure and how it is used, but of course that has nothing to do with whether word roots are taken from it or not.

 

Sanskrit is not a tonal language (so Pali wouldn't be either, or Hindi, the modern, later derivative of that language); that part must come from the Chinese language roots.  In Sanskrit nouns being used in different grammatical roles are modified to change forms, as verbs are conjugated in many languages.  Of course in Thai no words are adjusted in form related to different uses, not nouns or verbs.  It makes Sanskrit nearly impossible to learn in a complete form and to use properly for speaking, since as with memorizing multiple forms of verbs in other languages one has to memorize lots of forms of every noun too, all the words used for objects.  There would be patterns to that, forms that would repeat, but it's still an enormous task.  It makes it a very precise language since those forms aren't just indicating if a noun is functioning as a subject or object, they also contain information about how they are being used.

 

All of that becomes very difficult to track related to conventions for use.  With multiple forms of words serving the same role word order does in English and Thai in a sense it wouldn't matter what order you would arrange Sanskrit in, although conventions would still apply to that.  I wondered if the language hadn't evolved to a form that wasn't really so functional later in use, as only an academic language, as Latin might have hundreds of years after people stopped speaking it.  Or maybe Latin was being studied in the same form it had been spoken in long before; I wouldn't know.

Just now, DavidHouston said:

Eric, isn't English similarly at heart a dual-sourced language? Many words are Germanic, while Latin-origin words came with the Normans in 1066 and afterwards. For example, Germanic/Latinate:

 

You're right, you're absolutely correct.

 

It takes twice the amount of effort to master the Thai language because we have to learn the Sanskrit/Pali words too.

 

I thought Thai used formal words only in writing/official announcements but it seems that KFC and normal restaurant staff used those formal words too.

 

 

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by EricTh

Just now, Oxx said:

 

Incidentally, what you are describing as "Sanskrit" words are more often Pali, Pali being the Buddhist liturgical language here, so having been well understood by the elite.  In that vein, กรุณา is actually from Pali, not Sanskrit.  The etymology of รับประทาน is unknown, but there's nothing in the spelling to make me think it's anything other than a native Thai word.

 

To me, Pali and Sanskrit are both Indic languages so I am not bothered whether it is either Sanskrit or Pali word.

 

'Taan' is a shortened Sanskrit/Pali word, they just shortened to one syllable from the original polysyllabic word ประทาน 'Pra Taan'. You can ask those people who are well versed in Sanskrit/Pali.

 

Long polysyllabic words (more than two) are always Sanskrit/Pali words while one syllable word (eg. Taan) might not be Thai word because they were shortened.

 

Thai is a monosyllabic and tonal language whereas Sanskrit is a polysyllabic and non-tonal language.

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by EricTh

5 minutes ago, EricTh said:

Long polysyllabic words (more than two) are always Sanskrit/Pali words while one syllable word (eg. Taan) might not be Thai word because they were shortened.

 

You're spouting nonsense.  Words such as ไวโอลิน, คอมพิวเตอร์, มัสยิด are most definitely not from Sanskrit or Pali.

Just now, honu said:

 

Sanskrit is not a tonal language (so Pali wouldn't be either, or Hindi, the modern, later derivative of that language); that part must come from the Chinese language roots.

 

This is not an exact one to one borrowing.

 

1. Some Sanskrit/Pali words are shortened (taking only one syllable)

 

2.The simple form of Sanskrit verb is taken rather than all the verb conjugation forms. 

Eg. Thai says 'I go there yesterday' and not 'I went there yesterday'. So 'go' is the borrowed word and not 'went'.

 

3. Some Sanskrit/Pali pronunciation are changed because Thai can't pronounce those sounds.

Eg. English 'ball' is pronounced as 'Born' in Thai.

 

Just now, Oxx said:

 

You're spouting nonsense.  Words such as ไวโอลิน, คอมพิวเตอร์, มัสยิด are most definitely not from Sanskrit or Pali.

 

I didn't say those words are Sanskrit, did I? Those are actually English words, one is Arabic word.

These don't have any equivalent Thai informal word.

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by EricTh

29 minutes ago, EricTh said:

 

I didn't say those words are Sanskrit, did I? Those are actually English words, one is Arabic word.

These don't have any equivalent Thai informal word.

 

No, you didn't.  However you said "Long polysyllabic words (more than two) are always Sanskrit/Pali words".  I just gave a few examples that demonstrate that you're cluelessly wrong.

 

Note the use of "always" in what you wrote.  Had you said "often" I wouldn't cavil.  As it stands, your lack of intellectual rigour irks me.

Just now, Oxx said:

 

No, you didn't.  However you said "Long polysyllabic words (more than two) are always Sanskrit/Pali words".  I just gave a few examples that demonstrate that you're cluelessly wrong.

 

Note the use of "always" in what you wrote.  Had you said "often" I wouldn't cavil.  As it stands, your lack of intellectual rigour irks me.

 

If you had bothered to understand the first post, quote

 

"Almost every meaning has two words ie. one is formal and one informal"

 

I am referring to those polysyllabic words with both a formal and informal form.

 

I am well aware that there are English words such as 'computer' or 'ball' and it is obvious to some others but not to you that I didn't refer to these words.

 

After all, I am writing to an English audience who would know which words are English words and not Sanskrit words.

 

Is there any  informal native Thai word for 'computer' in Thai?

 

So please don't insult my intelligence.

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by EricTh

Please keep the discussion civilized.

It's quite unusual that discussion in the Thai language forum go personal.

Exchange your arguments without slur.

 

Further such stuff will lead to closing of the thread.

I think that KFC staff uses "รับประทาน " just to be polite with their customers , it's a formal word but I hear it sometimes by people who just want to be polite , nothing special here 

 

EricTh said : 

3. Some Sanskrit/Pali pronunciation are changed because Thai can't pronounce those sounds.

Eg. English 'ball' is pronounced as 'Born' in Thai.

 

They can't pronounce it because they are not used to it, if they want they can do it , after some training 

it's a rule, consonnants ending with " L " at the end are pronounced with " N " , English word or not 

 

above, I agree with Oxx

 

 

 

11 hours ago, honu said:

Sanskrit is not a tonal language (so Pali wouldn't be either, or Hindi, the modern, later derivative of that language); that part must come from the Chinese language roots.  In Sanskrit nouns being used in different grammatical roles are modified to change forms, as verbs are conjugated in many languages.  Of course in Thai no words are adjusted in form related to different uses, not nouns or verbs.

Actually, there are some Indic languages that are now tonal, such as Punjabi.  In Thai, the syllables of Sanskrit and Pali words may have a 2-way contrast in tone, corresponding to the class of the initial consonant.

 

It seems that the tonal system of Chinese is only about two thousand years old.  Current thinking is that the system of  3-tone contrasts (as seen in Thai writing) arose in parallel in Chinese, Tai, Hmong-Mien and Vietnamese, though it was probably spread by Chinese influence.

 

There are a few words that are different as initial elements and free-standing words - ไม้ and น้ำ are the most obvious.  Many words of Sanskrit origin have different forms depending on whether they are the last element in a compound word.  One could jocularly claim that Thai has both a construct case and a genitive case!

Almost every meaning has two words ie. one is formal and one informal.

It seems that the formal words are actually Sanskrit words. The informal words are original Tai words.

This makes it hard to learn Thai language because we are actually learning two sets of words one from each language.

 

It's true that Thai uses Sanskrit and Pali words for upper-class, abstract, refined connotations in contrast to Thai words.  This relationship recalls the relationship mentioned above between English words of Anglo-Saxon origin and the French/Latinate versions.  However, both English and Thai have many more than two levels of formality/abstraction such as formal, informal, slang, rude, poetic, literatry, semiformal and various professional jargons.  As learners of Thai, we have to learn all of these in order to become fully competent in the language.  Unfortunately, the Thai-English dictionaries available mainly do no include this information.  There is no OED or Petit Robert for Thai.

 

In my experience, Thais are much more sensitive to the appropriate level of formality in speech than Americans.  They seem more inclined to correct me for errors of level of formality than, say, grammar.  But that figures because Thais are acutely sensitive to the never-ending negotiation of relative status carried out mainly through language.  One of my teachers related to me how a rupture in a friendship became permanent when his companion used a slightly more formal pronoun referring to himself than formerly.

 

On 6/29/2017 at 1:39 PM, Oxx said:

Incidentally, what you are describing as "Sanskrit" words are more often Pali, Pali being the Buddhist liturgical language here, so having been well understood by the elite.  In that vein, กรุณา is actually from Pali, not Sanskrit.  The etymology of รับประทาน is unknown, but there's nothing in the spelling to make me think it's anything other than a native Thai word.

 

There is even a term for a Thai compound word made up of both a Sanskrit and a Pali word, such as วัฒนธรรม.  Educated Thais are attuned to the differences between Thai words of Sanskrit and Pali origin.

On 6/29/2017 at 2:52 PM, EricTh said:

 

Is there any  informal native Thai word for 'computer' in Thai?

 

So please don't insult my intelligence.

If there was an informal native Thai word for "computer", wouldn't it have to be in Thai?

21 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Unfortunately, the Thai-English dictionaries available mainly do no include this information.

 

The most notable exception is that of Mary Haas.  For example, for รับประทาน we have usage (Elegant) and the common synonym, กิน.

 

Available online at http://www.sealang.net/thai/dictionary.htm

 

 

Edited July 1, 20178 yr by Oxx
Tried to fix attachment

 
The most notable exception is that of Mary Haas.  For example, for รับประทาน we have usage (Elegant) and the common synonym, กิน.
 
Available online at http://www.sealang.net/thai/dictionary.htm
 
 

Since I was corrected once on saying ประ following the tone rules, I always make a point of saying ประ low tone. Since that entry doesn't show low tone for ประ I wonder if should have listened.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

3 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Since I was corrected once on saying ประ following the tone rules, I always make a point of saying ประ low tone. Since that entry doesn't show low tone for ประ I wonder if should have listened.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

ประ is indeed low tone while ทาน is mid tone just as we would expect.  I am not familiar with the tonal markers above, but that's what they should be saying.

Eric:

 

Word created for "computer" -  "คณิตกรณ์"

hardware - "กระด้างภัณฑ์"

software - "ละมุนภัณฑ์"

Of course there made-up words are completely obsolete, and probably were when invented. In fact the Royal Society disclaims the use of these words.

For more see http://www.royin.go.th/?p=9475
 

On 01/07/2017 at 5:42 AM, tgeezer said:

Since I was corrected once on saying ประ following the tone rules, I always make a point of saying ประ low tone. Since that entry doesn't show low tone for ประ I wonder if should have listened.

It looks as though she did listen, and got it right.  I believe she's giving the normal pronunciation, in which /a/ in an unstressed, phonetically open syllable (after automatic glottal stop deletion) normally has the mid tone.

On 2017-07-03 at 2:25 PM, Richard W said:

It looks as though she did listen, and got it right.  I believe she's giving the normal pronunciation, in which /a/ in an unstressed, phonetically open syllable (after automatic glottal stop deletion) normally has the mid tone.

After years of slowly casually keeping at my Thai studies I am still very noob!

But If I follow correct ...  your saying that if  ประ  stood alone or occurred at the end of the word it is flat tone ?  I googled  for a while could only come up with a few facebook names and a resort with ประ at the end, do you have any words handy like this ?

10 hours ago, whatever_works said:

After years of slowly casually keeping at my Thai studies I am still very noob!

But If I follow correct ...  your saying that if  ประ  stood alone or occurred at the end of the word it is flat tone ?  I googled  for a while could only come up with a few facebook names and a resort with ประ at the end, do you have any words handy like this ?

Unstressed final syllables are rare, if not non-existent, in Thai.  ประ is very common as an unstressed first syllable.

Curiously, I did a search on the etymology of "รับประทาน" and found this:

http://www.royin.go.th/?knowledges=รับประทาน-๓๐-ตุลาคม-๒๕๕๒

 

It appears to be a mix of both Thai and Sanskrit word.

รับ which is native Thai word which means "receive"

ประทาน from Sanskrit pradana ปฺรทาน from meaning of "giving"

The above link explains the origins of this word.

 

The Thai word "ปรารถนา" with appears to come from same origin, but modern meaning of ปรารถนา has become "desire" or "wish".

Not just words in "royal speech" is from Khmer. Many Thai word in daily usage also have origins from Khmer.

 

As many has pointed out, most other languages also are in similar situation as in Thailand where there are lots of words which has origins from other languages.

Similar to other languages, where words which originated from other language, modern meaning may be different than original meaning.
This is very true for Thai language where not only the pronunciation has been corrupted but the meaning as well.

On 29/06/2017 at 9:19 AM, DavidHouston said:

Eric, isn't English similarly at heart a dual-sourced language? Many words are Germanic, while Latin-origin words came with the Normans in 1066 and afterwards. For example, Germanic/Latinate:

ache/pain

anger/rage

answer/response

eat/consume

before/prior

 

and, many, many more.

English is, by academics, described as Creole. Generally speaking many now drop the term 'Germanic', Max Muller's phrase whilst head of English at Oxford University. The teaching Company have some great lectures on that in audio files and they can be found online. The Norman Conquest in England forced out language to undergo a process of creolization as it was imposed by Royalty, hence the import of many 'northern' French words into what was once 'old English'. 

Edited August 11, 20178 yr by Deserted

8 hours ago, Deserted said:

English is, by academics, described as Creole. Generally speaking many now drop the term 'Germanic', Max Muller's phrase whilst head of English at Oxford University. The teaching Company have some great lectures on that in audio files and they can be found online. The Norman Conquest in England forced out language to undergo a process of creolization as it was imposed by Royalty, hence the import of many 'northern' French words into what was once 'old English'. 

Doubtful that modern English is a creole, which is a stable, natural language that has developed from a pidgin.  This looks like a minority view.  It is unlikely that any creole formed after the Norman Invasion.  The ruling class, including the kings, just continued to speak Norman French exclusively for hundreds of years without much need to converse with the peasantry.  Similarly, during the British Raj no creole developed from pidgin English.  Instead, the Indians used Enligh and Hindi/Urdu as lingua francas.

Modern English was more than 500 years away from coming into existence at that time. I think you guys need some background in applied linguistics. You might want to go beyond wikipedia to define what a creole actually is,

 

This would seem to round the discussion off nicely. I had some vague idea that in English creole was something to do with the West Indies and didn't know that it had been adopted as jargon in 'applied linguistics'.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

On 8/11/2017 at 11:35 PM, Deserted said:

Modern English was more than 500 years away from coming into existence at that time. I think you guys need some background in applied linguistics. You might want to go beyond wikipedia to define what a creole actually is,

 

Actually Wikipedia has a decent article on creole languages and includes the various controversies endemic to the subject. It even has a link to the Middle English Creole hypothesis in the list of creole languages.