Internet resource for the Thai language |
F.A.Q. Check out the list of frequently asked questions for a quick answer to your inquiry
recent donations!
Sign-up to join our mailing list. You'll receive email notification when this site is updated. Your privacy is guaranteed; this list is not sold, shared, or used for any other purpose. Click here for more information.
To unsubscribe, click here.
Moderator: acloudmovingby
David and Bui wrote: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?
pensive wrote: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 wrote:pensive wrote: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 wrote: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.
David and Bui wrote:Tgeezer wrote: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.
Return to Grammar, Syntax, and Parts-of-Speech
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests