ศาลาชุมนุม

[David and Bui]

Friends,

I would like to ask all of you a question about our discussions of Thai grammar. Stated simply, "What grammar system do you recommend as a common framework for our discussions of Thai grammar?" I perceive that much of the difficulty we have in explaining grammatical structures to each other is a function of systems and definitions.

Terms we use to describe parts of speech and grammatical structures tend to break into categories: 1. the structure we leaned for our own language in elementary school (sometimes called "grammar school") or the slightly more sophisticated systems we learned in high school; and 2. the structures that professional linguists use in their academic studies. These latter systems border on the incomprehensible to us amateurs.

Grammar systems are challenging enough for one's native language; understanding a foreign grammar, especially one as diverse from ours as Thai, is even more difficult. In addition to the multiple grammar systems devised by non-native linguists and serious observers, the Thais have developed their own systems to which few foreign students pay any attention. Interestingly, this question parallels that of romanizing and transcribing Thai sounds. Multiple methods, each with its own strong adherents, leads to confusion and argument, rather than help in understanding sounds.

So, any thoughts about how we might most efficiently discuss grammar structures and parts of speech for Thai in answering questions posted on these forums? Alternatives include, but are not limited to Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom's "A Reference Grammar of Thai"; Richard B. Noss's "Thai Reference Grammar" often cited by Don Sena; "Thai An Essential Grammar" by David Smyth; and the several Thai reference bools.

Thanks.

[DonSena]

Friends,

I would like to ask all of you a question about our discussions of Thai grammar. Stated simply, "What grammar system do you recommend as a common framework for our discussions of Thai grammar?" I perceive that much of the difficulty we have in explaining grammatical structures to each other is a function of systems and definitions.

Terms we use to describe parts of speech and grammatical structures tend to break into categories: 1. the structure we leaned for our own language in elementary school (sometimes called "grammar school") or the slightly more sophisticated systems we learned in high school; and 2. the structures that professional linguists use in their academic studies. These latter systems border on the incomprehensible to us amateurs.

Grammar systems are challenging enough for one's native language; understanding a foreign grammar, especially one as diverse from ours as Thai, is even more difficult. In addition to the multiple grammar systems devised by non-native linguists and serious observers, the Thais have developed their own systems to which few foreign students pay any attention. Interestingly, this question parallels that of romanizing and transcribing Thai sounds. Multiple methods, each with its own strong adherents, leads to confusion and argument, rather than help in understanding sounds.

So, any thoughts about how we might most efficiently discuss grammar structures and parts of speech for Thai in answering questions posted on these forums? Alternatives include, but are not limited to Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom's "A Reference Grammar of Thai"; Richard B. Noss's "Thai Reference Grammar" often cited by Don Sena; "Thai An Essential Grammar" by David Smyth; and the several Thai reference bools.

Thanks.

Well, it's a good thought-provoking question to consider. On this same subject, I have since revised somewhat the intro to the syntax model I'm attempting to devise, as well as other parts.

I'm attaching the first two pages of the syntax model, which takes up certain introductory concepts. These, in turn, discuss the topic at hand with attention to the general nature of Thai grammar structures and what are called "parts of speech.'

The transcription that completely denotes the phonology of the language with the fewest non-Roman characters would be the one of choice, whichever one that might be. The one favored by linguistically-oriented Thai analysts of the previous century is a good candidate, I think, as it uses only four such "strange" characters [/ŋ/, /ɛ/, /ə/, /ɔ/] plus the supra-segmental tone marks. At a minimum, contrasts in tone, length and (non)aspiration of voiceless initial stops and affricates are going to be essential, whatever system is adopted.

[Tgeezer]

I haven't noticed a problem, there is the odd disagreement about dependant clauses, adjectives actually being adverbs, etc but on the whole because I am avoiding English nomenclature more now I don't have any problem, of course I don't get many comments either so maybe people don't know what I am talking about, some common words might be useful but I don't know that I would want to learn a whole lot of new stuff.
I looked up 'gestalt' and found it to be a word used in psycology, have the grammarians adopted it for their own jargon? I don't know what it means in German, and after looking in the dictionary, 'something perceived as a whole being more than the sum of its parts' can't picture it, what do you mean by it?

[keith]

Every area of study has its own jargon, useful when "experts" are talking together, as the terms are probably more exact in meaning. But use of this jargon is often not helpful at all when explaining to amateurs. Indeed it can have a very negative effect. These questions are often asked by non-experts and so should really be answered in language that they will understand, otherwise the answer becomes totally pointless.
Let me try to explain that in terms of my particular area of "expertese" Science. If someone were to ask "What is the quickest way to lose weight" A physicist could perfectly correctly answer "Stand on a chair" Standing on a chair puts one fractionally further from the centre of the Earth thereby reducing minutely the pull of gravity on them and that is the jargon meaning of the word weight. However the original question was probably using the everyday meaning of weight ie mass. So the answer would be both useless, incomprehensible and totally misleading to the questioner.
Let's try to keep it simple, cut jargon and strange symbols (even if it may seem "incorrect" to an "expert") and really help the questioner move on in their understanding

[daฟาน]

German:
die Gestalt: shape (e.g. the shape of person), form (a form of something - even like a tree, just like a silhouette)
visible appearence of a human (the most popular german-german dictionary says only human, I would add "thing though")
unknown, unidentifiable person/thing
Gestaltpsychologie = what Tgeezer said, it needs the addition of "Psychology" though and it is not widely known within the general public (I studied psychology that's the only reason why I know it). For the psychological aspect the definition given before is correct: the sum is more than just the addition of it's parts (simple example: drawings with missing parts in some lines still allow us to see the whole picture just like -----> looks like an arrow)

[David and Bui]

Well, it is clear that my use of "gestalt" at a metaphor was a real mistake. I'll try to be more of a literalist.

[David and Bui]

. . .

Well, it's a good thought-provoking question to consider. On this same subject, I have since revised somewhat the intro to the syntax model I'm attempting to devise, as well as other parts.

I'm attaching the first two pages of the syntax model, which takes up certain introductory concepts. These, in turn, discuss the topic at hand with attention to the general nature of Thai grammar structures and what are called "parts of speech.'

The transcription that completely denotes the phonology of the language with the fewest non-Roman characters would be the one of choice, whichever one that might be. The one favored by linguistically-oriented Thai analysts of the previous century is a good candidate, I think, as it uses only four such "strange" characters [/ŋ/, /ɛ/, /ə/, /ɔ/] plus the supra-segmental tone marks. At a minimum, contrasts in tone, length and (non)aspiration of voiceless initial stops and affricates are going to be essential, whatever system is adopted.

Thanks, Don. I like this statement very much:

"Yet another important difference occurs in the semantic component of a language. The phenomenon of polysemy adds to the difficulty, in that a given word of a language is not limited to a single precise meaning, but applies to range of more-or-less closely interrelated meanings. It is generally impossible to match a vocabulary item in, say, English, with another such item in Thai such as to match all of the meanings in each of the two words. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the words of one language with those of another. A good glossary will, for that reason, show a list of several Thai equivalents for any one English word, and reciprocally, a similar list of English equivalents for any one Thai word."

This is one of the major challenges of creating and organizing a Thai-English dictionary.

[DonSena]

. . .

Well, it's a good thought-provoking question to consider. On this same subject, I have since revised somewhat the intro to the syntax model I'm attempting to devise, as well as other parts.

I'm attaching the first two pages of the syntax model, which takes up certain introductory concepts. These, in turn, discuss the topic at hand with attention to the general nature of Thai grammar structures and what are called "parts of speech.'

The transcription that completely denotes the phonology of the language with the fewest non-Roman characters would be the one of choice, whichever one that might be. The one favored by linguistically-oriented Thai analysts of the previous century is a good candidate, I think, as it uses only four such "strange" characters [/ŋ/, /ɛ/, /ə/, /ɔ/] plus the supra-segmental tone marks. At a minimum, contrasts in tone, length and (non)aspiration of voiceless initial stops and affricates are going to be essential, whatever system is adopted.

Thanks, Don. I like this statement very much:

"Yet another important difference occurs in the semantic component of a language. The phenomenon of polysemy adds to the difficulty, in that a given word of a language is not limited to a single precise meaning, but applies to range of more-or-less closely interrelated meanings. It is generally impossible to match a vocabulary item in, say, English, with another such item in Thai such as to match all of the meanings in each of the two words. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the words of one language with those of another. A good glossary will, for that reason, show a list of several Thai equivalents for any one English word, and reciprocally, a similar list of English equivalents for any one Thai word."

This is one of the major challenges of creating and organizing a Thai-English dictionary.

Thanks for the comment, Dave.

Probably the best way to deal with polysemy in compiling a dictionary is to include brief examples beneath each dictionary entry of the various contexts that span the total range of meanings of that entry.

Take ท้อง for instance ...

ท้อง stomach, abdomen, womb; expanse

ท้องขึ้น, ท้องพอง flatulence, distended belly
ท้องแขน muscle, biceps of the forearm
ท้องแขวน famished, starving
ท้องคลอง bed of a canal
ท้องคุ้ง bend of a river
ท้องตลาด market place
ท้องเดิน, ท้องร่วง loose bowels, colic, diarrhea
ท้องตรา official communication bearing the seal of a Sate Minister
ท้องทะเล bed of the sea
ท้องถิ่น, ท้องที่ district, locality
ท้องทุ่ง, ท้องนา paddy lands, rice fields
ท้องน่อง calf of the leg
ท้องนํ้า bed of a river, expanse of water
ท้องพระคลัง Royal Treasury, Public Treasury
ท้องพระโรง Throne Room, Throne Hall
ท้องผูก constipation
ท้องฟ้า sky, firmament, the vault of heaven
ท้องฟ้าจำลอง planetarium. observatory
ท้องร่อง garden ditches
ท้องเรือ hold of a ship
ท้องเรื่อง gist, essence, extract
ท้องสนาม sports ground
ท้องเสีย indigestion; diarrhea
ท้องแห้ง hungry, starving
ท้องแห้ง empty stomach, starved

ตะไบท้องปลิง semi-circular file
เป็นท้องกับ to be pregnant with
โรคท้องมาน dropsy, an unnatural collection of fluid in some parts of the body
หนูท้องขาว mouse with white belly

Doubtlessly, this list could be extended further to show even more variety among the contexts in which this word can be used. While we probably can't quite list every possible example, we may be able to list enough sample contexts to show each and every meaning difference in ท้อง. In so doing, we actually show a certain common thread of meaning that pervades each of its uses. It is this common thread that gives the impression to the native speaker that ท้อง has just this one meaning, while the English equivalents are all over the place.

[Rick Bradford]

^^
The idea of examples to show meaning is surely crucial, and is made much easier by new online technologies (as this site already demonstrates). It could be argued that we should completely ditch the old notion of a 'dictionary', which tries to teach word-to-word correspondence, and concentrate more on usage.

Example:

ฝาก = 'leave'
in
ฝากข้อความไว้ว่าพรุ่งนี้ฉันจะมาใหม่ - Leave a message that I will return tomorrow.

ฝาก = 'convey'
in
ฝากขอโทษอาจารย์ด้วยที่ไม่ได้ไปเรียน - Please convey my apology to the teacher for my absence from class
ฝากขอบคุณคนทำอาหารด้วยนะคะ - Please convey my thanks to the cook

ฝาก = 'deposit'
in
บัญชีเงินฝาก - a deposit account

The word 'leave' would have a hyperlink going to a similar page with all the meanings for 'leave' as it could be expressed in Thai, and so on.

[Tgeezer]

A good glossary will, for that reason, show a list of several Thai equivalents for any one English word, and reciprocally, a similar list of English equivalents for any one Thai word."

This is one of the major challenges of creating and organizing a Thai-English dictionary.

Take ท้อง for instance ...

ท้อง stomach, abdomen, womb; expanse

It is this common thread that gives the impression to the native speaker that ท้อง has just this one meaning, while the English equivalents are all over the place.

I agree with this but first the definition should be translated. This ท้อง list of phases and compounds using ท้อง should be divided to show when the word means the surface area on the outside body, when it means the space within. When it means any large area(relatively) not on the body and the more specific being with child both noun and verb.
I don't think that the compounds can help in arriving at how a native speaker sees a word, ท้องเดิน ท้องตรา wouldn't be defined if one was expected to guess. ท้องแขน I can imagine as that part of the arm which bulges like ท้อง but no need, it is defined in the dictionary. ท้องถนน is not defined, guess what you like, somewhere on a road, the roads, the surface of the road, ลุม ๆ ดอน ๆ. Who knows whether all native speakers are in accord?
More simply; a word like ฝาก ก. มอบให้ไว้ only has one meaning, do we need a thesaurus to tell us how to fit that meaning into an English context?
The first job of a dictionary is to define the word.