ศาลาชุมนุม

[Pirin]

.....

[Tgeezer]

ทุกผู้ทุกนาม = ทุกคน

ทุกผู้ทุกนาม is formal and/or metaphorical.

ทุกคน is formal and/or informal.

Thank you Pirin, I had hoped for that!

[Thomas]

Don't worry. When I happened to write a sentence in English incorrectly, I will never try to teach English native speakers English.

It is not clear to me whether this remarks refers to the preceeding posting of khun Tgeezer, or mines (which was quoted by khun Tgeezer). Although I was not speaking about incorrectnesses but choices of a native speaker, or variations of language a native speaker can use, I assume I'm the person who should not worry.

No! What I mean, and I guess that is also the question of khun Aulok (i.e. "About the origin of ผู้"), let me explain it within my own language:

The origin of the English term the weltanschauung is h.-Ger. ปัจจุบัน. 'The world-view' is a later coinage.

The origin of the h.-Ger. ปัจจุบัน term 'die Weltanschauung'? If I should explain this I need grammar (of h.-Ger. ปัจจุบัน) as well as some etymology.

(((In-between the lines only for making it in concrete, skip it as Thai or English speaker)))
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ety:

It starts with the verb (infinite form) 'schauen'. By etymology, the Germanic terms (ger.) *schauen* and (engl.) *to show* may have common ancestors (i.e. from West Germanic *skauwojan (cf. Old Saxon skauwon "to look at,"..). The meanings differ meanwhile. The composed term/verb "anschauen" (h.-Ger. ปัจจุบัน) is actually "to look at" in English ปัจจุบัน.

the world-die Welt see:

(((world (n.) Look up world at Dictionary.com
Old English woruld, worold "human existence, the affairs of life," also "the human race, mankind," a word peculiar to Germanic languages (cf. Old Saxon werold, Old Frisian warld, Dutch wereld, Old Norse verold, Old High German weralt, h.-German ปัจจุบัน Welt), with a literal sense of "age of man," from Proto-Germanic *wer "man" (Old English wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old).)))

weltanschauung, thus, Old Saxon weroldskauwojan?-ing, or -ung? As it is Saxon, let's assume it would have turned out weroldskauwojaning.

2. Grammar
In Ger. ปัจจุบัน you have two options for nominalization of a verb which differ slightly from the options English ปัจจุบัน has:
a) take the infinitive of the verb, put article 'das' (neuter) in front and write it with majuscle.
b) take the infinitive of the verb, add the ending -ung, put article 'die' (female) in front and write it with majuscle.

anschauen---> a) das Anschauen b) die Anschauung
(to look at) a) the looking-at ? b) ?the look at? the view?
to look a) the looking b) the look
to view a) the viewing b) the view

If we vary now 'die Weltanschauung' into 'das Weltanschauen' ... as a native Ger. ปัจจุบัน speaker you are used to make those games just for testing whether an interesting new term could result... My opinion as to 'das Weltanschauen'? Would ask: Sorry, don't understand what you want to say. Did you mean, rather, 'die Weltanschauung' or 'to travel around to see/view the world'?
------------------------------
Back to the origin of ผู้: By etymology? Would suspect that it is proto-Thai?! By grammar? My problem is that Tl.com explains it mainly as a prefix (resulting in some English suffixes like to work--> work-er) and partly also as a noun. As to the noun: What is its classifier? Makes ผู้คนหนึ่ง sense? Eventually 'a man' 'a member of mankind'???

[Thomas]

A native speaker will be familiar with ทุกผู้ทุกนาม since it is given as an example of the use of ผู้ in the RID. I don't know what it means. Every person every name.

Thai-English: NECTEC's Lexitron-2 Dictionary
ทุกผู้ทุกนาม [PRON] everybody, See also: everyone, all, every person, each one, every one, each and every one, Syn. ทุกคน

[Thomas]

ผู้ is the polite way to say คน isn't it? บุรุษผูหนึ่ง is ผู้ชายคนหนึ่ง 'a man'. สตรีคนหนึ่ง would be ผู้หญิงคนหนึ่ง 'a woman'.

Khun Tgeezer, as to บุรุษผู้หนึ่ง my thoughts are turning in a circle. Let's take the quotation above:

I used now my German grammar which discusses also word formation. The terms บุรุษ and สตรี (as well as ชาย and หญิง) are discussed in a chapter called "marker of genus [natural gender]". ผู้ as such is not among the "marker of genus" but ตัวผู้ with the female counterpart ตัวเมีย. I also would translate สตรีคนหนึ่ง as a woman, rather, a lady. But note that you are using here คน but not ผู้. And if ผู้ would be the polite way to say (genus-free) คน, why you are not using สตรีผู้หนึ่ง for increasing politeness?

Thus, according to my sources ผู้ is no marker of genus and no classifier. I'm catched in this circle.

[Tgeezer]

ผู้ is the polite way to say คน isn't it? บุรุษผูหนึ่ง is ผู้ชายคนหนึ่ง 'a man'. สตรีคนหนึ่ง would be ผู้หญิงคนหนึ่ง 'a woman'.

Khun Tgeezer, as to บุรุษผู้หนึ่ง my thoughts a turning in a circle. Let's take the quotation above:

I used now my German grammar which discusses also word formation. The terms บุรุษ and สตรี (as well as ชาย and หญิง) are discussed in a chapter called "marker of genus [natural gender]". ผู้ as such is not among the "marker of genus" but ตัวผู้ with the female counterpart ตัวเมีย. I also would translate สตรีคนหนึ่ง as a woman, rather, a lady. But note that you are using here คน but not ผู้. And if ผู้ would be the polite way to say (genus-free) คน, why you are not using สตรีผู้หนึ่ง for increasing politeness?

Thus, according to my sources ผู้ is no marker of genus and no classifier. I'm catched in this circle.

Crickey, I am promoting using Thai as opposed to English and now you introduce German in addition!

I have only one reference book, the RID so I like to deal with facts not hypothesise, as I understand it the situation it is this.

In ตัวผู้ the position of the word makes it a คำวิเศษณ์ where it indicates males, used with animals. This is not the ผู้ which Aulok asked about which is a noun. ตัวผู้ shows male of something, ม้าผู้ is a stallion. ตัวเมีย shows female, ม้าเมีย is the mare.

As a noun เมีย means ภรรยา its pair is ผัว meaning สามี.
It would have been nice to say that ผัว was the pair of เมีย as a คำวิเศษณ์ showing the sex of animals but it isn't the case, please don't ask me why not. The advantage of not making comparisons with English (or German) is that fewer questions arise.
Very few people refer to dictionaries so there are always questions about what is said or written to which the answer is often, that few people refer to dictionaries.

[Thomas]

Crickey, I am promoting using Thai as opposed to English and now you introduce German in addition!

I have only one reference book, the RID so I like to deal with facts not hypothesise, as I understand it the situation it is this.

Khun Tgeezer, I think I have to appologize for arguing with a German grammar in this forum. It is only that I bought one and tried to test its usefulness in this context.

Independent from ผู้ I'm curious to know whether Thai is creating, sometimes, new classifiers.

...BTW, I guess บุรุษผู้หนึ่ง means "a real man" ...

In the term บุรุษพยาบาล the profession becomes male for the บุรุษ in initial position (is พยาบาลชาย possible? A male health care professional?)... rather normal for PaliSanskrit coinages. ผู้ isn't (according to my understanding), however, PaliSanskrit. If so, บุรุษ does not make the ผู้ a male ผู้. With my view on this coinage, I understand, rather, ผู้ as the classifier of บุรุษ. Your interpretation was very similar when you used the term สตรีคนหนึ่ง. According to my understanding, RI considers/recommends/gives คน as the classifier of บุรุษ as well.

Sometimes, in informal situations, I was using intentionally the wrong classifier to find out what it causes. It caused either laughing or correction of my wrong classifier at once.

My current interpretation of บุรุษผู้หนึ่ง is that it may have been coined once with fun.

Both บุรุษผู้หนึ่ง and ผู้ชายคนหนึ่ง mean a man.

In a particular situation, your choice and my choice might be the same. In some other situations, our choices can be different.

...

Of course! A macho and a man mean a man.

[Aulok]

Thank you very much for your replies to this question. It seems to me that the present word ผู้ is a fossil of the historical classifier [phu] ผู้ referring to "person". Such a usage is still very common in many Tai languages. Namely, a phrase like คนงาน สามผู้ or ผู้สอน สามผู้ is still found in many of the languages up north. It is actually equivalent to the classifier คน.

[Pepa]

ผู้ is more 'a human being'

I read ผู้ as a person, in a functional sense, referring to a human being with regards to his/her function or role.

[Aulok]

Hi. I am back to the topic of ผู้.

It turned out that the word is still used in many of the Tai languages (a branch under Tai-Kadai) as a classifier co-occurring with numerals 1, 2, 3, etc. or determiners like this and that, etc.

Now I become curious about the difference of the modern usage of the nominalizers คน, นัก and ผู้. I thought นัก should imply some depreciatory meaning when it is used to form a noun. I later found that it also forms nouns referring to good people, and ผู้ also forms nouns like "terrorists". It seems that only the word formed by บุรุษ refers to respectable people. I wonder if this intepretation is correct or not.