ศาลาชุมนุม

[David and Bui]

Friends,

From time to time we discuss how Thai sentence syntax can be clearly illustrated for us language students. Our twin challenges to comprehension of vocabulary and structure require different solutions. Vocabulary can be handled by lists of words, categorized and aggregated with any number of tools, from flash cards to sophisticated computer programs. Syntax and sentence structure, on the other hand, offers a bit more of a challenge.

To be useful, it seems to me, the syntax tool needs to identify the word class (part of speech) of each word or phrase in the sentence, as well as its syntactical function within the sentence. For example, the primary noun in the sentence is identified as a noun, and as the subject of the sentence. Another noun may serve as the direct object of the primary, transitive verb, while a third noun may serve as the indirect object of a preposition whose phrase modifies the primary verb.

I am wondering if anyone knows of a tool which can help us with these analysis. Certainly, academic and professional linguists have highly sophisticated tools of this sort, but they may not be useful for non-academic learners. Something like the attached is useful, but time-consuming to produce.

Any thoughts?

[DonSena]

Friends,

From time to time we discuss how Thai sentence syntax can be clearly illustrated for us language students. Our twin challenges to comprehension of vocabulary and structure require different solutions. Vocabulary can be handled by lists of words, categorized and aggregated with any number of tools, from flash cards to sophisticated computer programs. Syntax and sentence structure, on the other hand, offers a bit more of a challenge.

To be useful, it seems to me, the syntax tool needs to identify the word class (part of speech) of each word or phrase in the sentence, as well as its syntactical function within the sentence. For example, the primary noun in the sentence is identified as a noun, and as the subject of the sentence. Another noun may serve as the direct object of the primary, transitive verb, while a third noun may serve as the indirect object of a preposition whose phrase modifies the primary verb.

I am wondering if anyone knows of a tool which can help us with these analysis. Certainly, academic and professional linguists have highly sophisticated tools of this sort, but they may not be useful for non-academic learners. Something like the attached is useful, but time-consuming to produce.

Any thoughts?

It's a great topic, one I've been considering for some time -- though recently I've neglected it.

My approach is a bit more detailed, but intended to account for as many legitimate Thai sentences as possible. The objective is to produce a syntax model that generates only valid sentences but cannot be used to create any that are not.

As of my most recent modification, the model consists of both a hierarchy of constituents and tree diagram as shown (more or less) in the attached paper:

[David and Bui]

Don,

Thanks for that. Could you use your model to provide a diagram of a Thai sentence and show how the words and phrases relate to each other so as to elucidate an English translation? That would be very helpful.

Thanks.

It's not clear to me, for example, how the various parts fit together:

"อีกแป๊บหนึ่ง" พ่อบอก แต่ตายังจ้องเป๋ง มองดูภาพผู้คนที่มาชุมนุมและเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจปราบจลาจลที่ถูกส่งมาตรึงกำลังพร้อมโล่และกระบองด้วยหัวใจหวั่นระทึก

My take is,

“Just a moment longer,” my father said, but his eyes remained glued to the TV screen, his heart beating anxiously, as he watched pictures of the rally protesters and the riot police who were sent to hold their positions with shields and batons at the ready.

This is one interpretation, but I am not sure if "ด้วยหัวใจหวั่นระทึก" applies to the father or the police. Logic would say "the father"; position would say "the police".

[tod-daniels]

Interesting topic.

In a web-blog I subscribe to from Mezzofanti Guild about a guy learning Korean; the most recent entry mentions something called "phrase tree diagrams".

Googling it, shows it's fairly close to the old "diagram a sentence" things we used to do in grammar class back in school.

It might be worth seeing if someone (far more intelligent than I am ) could morph this type of "tree" to something which could be used in Thai..

[David and Bui]

I am looking for something more functional than academic. What I would like is a tool to assist me in analyzing the structure of Thai sentences, including identifying the part of speech of each word or phrase and the function a word, phrase, or clause has in a particular context. See the very rough analysis in the attached Excel file.

[pensive]

I wonder if in fact this is a very difficult problem. I know there are large bodies of text which have been annotated for analysis, but maybe they have been annotated by hand?

[David and Bui]

I wonder if in fact this is a very difficult problem. I know there are large bodies of text which have been annotated for analysis, but maybe they have been annotated by hand?

Pensive,

I am not looking for an automated parsing program; I think that is outside the bounds of expectations. I am looking for a way to illustrate parsing done by hand that others can view and critique. Any thoughts?

[Tgeezer]

I wonder if in fact this is a very difficult problem. I know there are large bodies of text which have been annotated for analysis, but maybe they have been annotated by hand?

Pensive,

I am not looking for an automated parsing program; I think that is outside the bounds of expectations. I am looking for a way to illustrate parsing done by hand that others can view and critique. Any thoughts?

It must be impossible because everything would have to be correctly written and if not, then the explanation has to be fudged.
Take "อีกแบ๊บหนึ่ง" พ่อบอก แต่ตายังจ้องเป๋ง ; has to be fudged to make 'ตา' the subject of 'จ้อง' I can't see an 'eye' doing anything; in fact I thought it was 'grandpa' directing his eyes at the picture.
Have a look at นวกรรมพันธุเมธา page 278 leaving out words, ....รักกร แต่....ไม่เอาใจกล is ok, but ....รักกร แต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร is an absolute no no . How would you cope with that?
The wrong one has both subject นวล and object กร , but the correct one omits the subject นวล .

[David and Bui]

Take "อีกแบ๊บหนึ่ง" พ่อบอก แต่ตายังจ้องเป๋ง ; has to be fudged to make 'ตา' the subject of 'จ้อง' I can't see an 'eye' doing anything; in fact I thought it was 'grandpa' directing his eyes at the picture.

If fact in English we use the same metaphor, "His eyes were fixed on the TV screen." The missing owner of the eyes is พ่อ, that is, "แต่ตา [ของพ่อ] ยังจ้องเป๋ง.

As for the section on word omissions in "ไวยากรณ์ไทย" by นววรรณ พันธุเมธา, lets look at the full sentence, and the several alternatives for omission she posits and judges:

Full sentence: "นวลรักกรแต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร" (Nuan loves Korn, but Nuan can't please Korn.)
First alternative - acceptable: "นวลรัก ... แต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร" (Nuan loves, but Nuan does not please, Korn.)
Second alternative - acceptable: ". . . รักกรแต่ . . .ไม่เอาใจกร" ([She] loves, but does not please, Korn.)
Third alternative - unacceptable: ". . . รักกรแต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร" ([She] loves Korn, but Nuan does not please, Korn.)
Fourth alternative - unacceptable: . . . รัก . . . แต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร ([She] loves, but Nuan does not please, Korn.)

I think it is clear that the last two sentences, even in English, are ambiguous or at least incomplete, whereas the others are much less ambiguous.

[Tgeezer]

Take "อีกแบ๊บหนึ่ง" พ่อบอก แต่ตายังจ้องเป๋ง ; has to be fudged to make 'ตา' the subject of 'จ้อง' I can't see an 'eye' doing anything; in fact I thought it was 'grandpa' directing his eyes at the picture.

If fact in English we use the same metaphor, "His eyes were fixed on the TV screen." The missing owner of the eyes is พ่อ, that is, "แต่ตา [ของพ่อ] ยังจ้องเป๋ง.

As for the section on word omissions in "ไวยากรณ์ไทย" by นววรรณ พันธุเมธา, lets look at the full sentence, and the several alternatives for omission she posits and judges:

Full sentence: "นวลรักกรแต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร" (Nuan loves Korn, but Nuan can't please Korn.)
First alternative - acceptable: "นวลรัก ... แต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร" (Nuan loves, but Nuan does not please, Korn.)
Second alternative - acceptable: ". . . รักกรแต่ . . .ไม่เอาใจกร" ([She] loves, but does not please, Korn.)
Third alternative - unacceptable: ". . . รักกรแต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร" ([She] loves Korn, but Nuan does not please, Korn.)
Fourth alternative - unacceptable: . . . รัก . . . แต่นวลไม่เอาใจกร ([She] loves, but Nuan does not please, Korn.)

I think it is clear that the last two sentences, even in English, are ambiguous or at least incomplete, whereas the others are much less ambiguous.

They are ambiguous to some degree but not impossible. However to return to your topic, these are examples which the writer has encountered and because she is a professor can declare, but how will we? We are more likely to try to explain, and as with English, if the writer is Steven Fry, have to explain.
I am suggesting that what you try to do is not practical because language in everyday use is not always correct.