ศาลาชุมนุม

[Naga]

Is there a difference between the use of มองเห็น vs เห็น?

[Tgeezer]

Yes, I suppose your มองไม่เห็น post answered this question.

[theoldman]

As Tgeezer said about another thread of yours on มองไม่เห็น which I've just replied it, but I'd like to add something here.
In short, มองเห็น = เห็น.

What about มอง vs เห็น?
เห็น means you are able to see it while มอง still doesn't know if you will be able to see it or not.
For example, ฉันมองหาเขา แต่ไม่เห็น (I've been looking for him but didn't find).
เห็น also means about opinion (ความเห็น; ความคิดเห็น; ทัศนะ).
เห็นควร = view as proper/appropriate; approve of
เห็นแย้ง = be opposed to/disagree; dissent
เห็นคุณค่า = appreciate/gratify; acknowledge
เห็นผิดเป็นชอบ = to mistake wrong for right
Could we say "มองผิดเป็นชอบ"? Though it's also translated into the same English, mistaking wrong for right, again, it's still weird in Thai, even Thai speakers might be able to guess its meaning. This brings us back to the difference between มอง and เห็น. We มอง but that doesn't always mean we could เห็น.

As I'm a Thai speaker, I don't know for sure if I understand completely about the difference between "look" (มอง) and "see" (เห็น) in English.
The followings are some their meanings I found on the internet (with minor editing):

Look - to look at something for a reason, with an intention.
See -to ‘see’ something that comes into our sight (even) we weren’t looking for.
‘Did you see that bird? – I wasn’t looking for it, it just appeared.

When we look, we try to see. We make a special effort. We concentrate our eyes on something.
We use see to mean simply that an image comes into our eyes. It may not be deliberate. As soon as we open our eyes, we see things.

If it's true in English that "as soon as we open our eyes, we see things", then it's not the same meaning of "เห็น" in Thai. Because sometimes, many times, no matter how long we open our eyes (มอง), it doesn't guarantee that we eventually could see things (เห็น). Hence, เขาพยายามมองหา แต่ไม่เห็น = He has been trying to look but didn't see. But does that make sense in English?

[bifftastic]

But does that make sense in English?

Yes, I believe it does.

For example, when someone is explaining something, and we want to convey that we understand what they mean, we can say "I see". Which, I think compares to เห็น in that rather than merely looking, there is confirmation that that which is being sought, has been found.

[theoldman]

Hi Bifftastic,

Very clear explanation. Thanks.

This reminds me of the language barrier. A Thai speaker feel comfortable to use "เคย" even it happened only once in the past.

ผมเคยไปลอนดอนปีที่แล้ว ("I used to go to London last year" instead of "I went to London last year).
In Thai, เคย is used for both one time doing and many times doing we did in the past.

[Tgeezer]

Hi Bifftastic,

Very clear explanation. Thanks.

This reminds me of the language barrier. A Thai speaker feel comfortable to use "เคย" even it happened only once in the past.

ผมเคยไปลอนดอนปีที่แล้ว ("I used to go to London last year" instead of "I went to London last year).
In Thai, เคย is used for both one time doing and many times doing we did in the past.

I noticed this mistake in a friend many years ago, I am used to it now but it was disconcerting at first.
I think that it is just lack of familiarity with the language making substitution necessary, and you get something like Google Translate.

How would you translate: I used to go to London. ?
I feel that with เคยไป a time phrase has to be tagged on. บ่อย ๆ perhaps.
Then brings us on to ชิน ๒ เคยมาแล้วบ่อย ๆ .
ชิน is a verb so ไป should perhaps not be used which brings us to the verb. เคย: เคยลอนดอน which is so unlike English that it has to 'die out' or is already 'dead' .

[theoldman]

Hi Tgeezer ,

Yes, good point.

You asked, "How would you translate: I used to go to London?"

Again, it would be translated into Thai as "ฉันเคยไปลอนดอน". "เคย" could mean both one time and many times (going) in Thai.
Anyway, a much more serious translation could be "ฉันเคยไปลอนดอนบ่อยๆ /มาหลายครั้ง" (Literally means "I went to London many times"). Or as you suggested, ฉันเคยไปลอนดอนจนชิน ("I made a habit of going to London" or "I regularly went to London" or "I got used to going to London").
Notice that "เคย" has to be added in Thai so that it means only in the past, not present. Without "เคย", it means I'm still going there from time to time. Hence ผมไปลอนดอนจนชิน = I am used to go to London or I'm getting used to go to London (and I still go there in the present).

[Tgeezer]

What about the verb oldman? เคย ก. ชิน คุ้น , เช่น เคยสนาม เคยเวที มือเคย ?
เคยเวที familiar with the stage. Could one not be familiar with London? เคยลอนดอน is succinct. Isn't It more than simply saying that you have often visited London, Does it say that you know London very well, so that there is no need to say that you have been there many times.

[theoldman]

Hi Tgeezer,

Hmm...เคยลอนดอน doesn't sound right. It sounds strange in Thai even it should not. It's just a Thai speaker doesn't say that. We say เคยสนาม, เคยเวที but not เคยลอนดอน for sure. But I don't really know the reason why.
If we (Thai speakers) really want to say that we know London so well, we'd rather say, with adding a word "กับ". Hence, ฉันคุ้นกับลอนลอน (I'm familiar or I've been familiar with London). Again, as for ฉันเคยกับลอนดอน sound strange, even it should not.
Maybe this is the real problem. Sometimes it seems there's no exact rule. Thai speakers know they don't say that but when are asked they don't know why.
Sorry if this doesn't answer your question.