ศาลาชุมนุม

Pirin wrote:

pensive wrote:But isn't that because ที่ cannot follow ร้อนมาก? So we would have to rewrite it as

วันนี้ประเทศไทยอากาศ ที่ควรจะเป็นหน้าหนา มันเป็นร้อนมาก

Believe it or not, it takes time to (seriously) talk about this. Too bad that I'm quite busy at the moment.

วันไหนว่าง ๆ จะมาวิเคราะห์และแจกแจงเนื้อหาที่เกี่ยวข้องให้ทราบค่ะ

บางคน ๆ ได้อ่านเพียงเรื่องแค่นี้แล้วจะพอใจ ส่วนผมจะอ่านซ้ำหนังสี่อ ไวยากรไทย โดย นววรรณ พันธุเมธา อีกครั้ง เพราะยังไม่แน่ใจว่าควรรุ้ควรเห็นหรือเปล่า
It must be as difficult for a native speaker to explain to someone who doesn't have the fundamental knowledge as are the English words which and that for an English speaker.
It may be naive of me to expect that Thai has less contradictions than does English, but still I want to continue without reference to English grammar.

I would like to thank everybody for reading my ramblings and can't guarantee that I will be able to resist the urge to go off at half-cock again. In that case please just take it at face value.

.....

[quote="Pirin"][/quote]
Thank you for posting that but as you can guess I didn't read it all. Explaining language needs language so I consider this sort of thing way out of my league.
I have started on my fourth or fifth re-read of the referenced grammar book now, but will not post questions until I can do it in such a way that generates interest and opinions which will enable me to increase my knowledge. I hope that will be at the end of each chapter.
The first chapter is;
คำหลัก defined as เป็นคำสำคัญที่ผู้พูดใช้บอกเนื้อความซึ่งสื่อสารไปยังผู้ฟัง
Which is interesting because of ที่ and ซื่ง in action.
I think that the article you linked shows how our wiring differs and mine just replaces those words with the preceding phrase or word and apply them to the verb.
Camlak is the important word/ important word the speaker uses to tell the meat of the story/ the meat of the story communicated to the listener.

I would be interested to see if my wiring is at all similar to anyone else's.

.....

I understand your point, but in addition I feel that the grammar of the two words differs. I feel that ที่ must immediately follow its antecedent, but that this is not the case for ซึ่ง. Whereas, the point that you want to make is that ที่ references information central to the discourse while ซึ่ง references information that is not so important. I think the appropriate word is "discretionary".

Pirin wrote:I should have said that some examples in gramar books, to me, are not bad examples.

Once an example of those examples (given in the grammar books) are taken here. It might not be clear to other readers, especially when the relevant context given in the grammar book is not also shown.

Please have a look at this sentence.
"คำหลักเป็นคำสำคัญที่ผู้พูดใช้บอกเนื้อความซึ่งสื่อสารไปยังผู้ฟัง"

Next, please decide which of the following keeps the meaning of the above sentence.
a. "คำหลักเป็นคำสำคัญ"
b. "คำหลักเป็นคำสำคัญที่ผู้พูดใช้บอกเนื้อความ"

Furthermore, I'd like to ask if you agree that the clause "ซึ่งสื่อสารไปยังผู้ฟัง" which modifies the (compound) word "เนื้อความ" is actually understood by the reader. Therefore, it is the decision of the speaker or the writer to decide if he or she wants to put it in the sentence.

If you see what I mean, you might see why we can't always use "ซึ่ง" instead of "ที่" when we communicate.

Thank you for the help.
Actually this is not an example of the use of ที่ ซึ่ง it is a description of คำหลัก given by the writer.
In the respect of context I have to agree since I know the context, it is one of six division of words making up this grammar. กริยา and นาม are in this division.
This definition says practically nothing that everyone doesn't know already, so the reader should know and the writer could have left it out or put it in using ที่ as a pronoun the way I see it.
คำหลักมี ๒ ประเภทคือ
๑. คำนาม
๒. คำกริยา
In the example of a short sentence นกบิน I assume that both are คำหลัก but I haven't found out for sure yet.

I think I do see what you mean, when I read it I thought how redundant the part is which follows ซึ่ง, where you have inserted ที่. After all everyone knows why we speak or write anything.
I cannot honestly answer no to the second question yet because my method doesn't make it clear.
We know that the writer has said as much and from your previous posts I know that it is your view but I have to let it grow on me.
So the answer to all your questions has to be 'yes'.

Tgeezer wrote:I think I do see what you mean, when I read it I thought how redundant the part is which follows ซึ่ง, where you have inserted ที่. After all everyone knows why we speak or write anything.
I cannot honestly answer no to the second question yet because my method doesn't make it clear.
We know that the writer has said as much and from your previous posts I know that it is your view but I have to let it grow on me.
So the answer to all your questions has to be 'yes'.

I did not ignore you Pensive my friend, I have been busy reading my school books and particularly the RID which you suggested might not tell us everything.

I think that the supreme authority must tell us everything and on reading it closely I think I see that it does.

Def.
นาม, นาม [นามมะ] น. ชื่อ, ราชาศัพท์ใช้ว่า พระนาม; คําชนิดหนึ่งในไวยากรณ์
สําหรับเรียกคน สัตว์ และสิ่งของต่าง ๆ; สิ่งที่ไม่ใช่รูป คือ จิตใจ, คู่กับ
รูป. (ป.).
1. It is a name of a thing and 2.a type of word in grammar. For calling people, animals, things, both physical and abstract.

Def.
ซึ่ง ส. คําใช้แทนนามหรือข้อความที่อยู่ข้างหน้า เช่น บ้านของเขาอยู่
ในป่าซึ่งห่างจากชุมชน.
อัน ส. คำใช้แทนนามหรือข้อความที่อยู่ข้างหน้า เช่น ความจริงอันปรากฏขึ้นมา.
Both these two สรรพนาม are used in place of (1)names of things.......
In English I think but am not sure 'the house/ thing/ pig....which is'
Use from RID;
ซึ่ง. บ้านของเขาอยู่ในป่าซึ่งห่างจากชุมชน. His house is in the forest which is far from the community. Maybe a forest?
อัน. ความจริงอันปรากฏขึ้นมา. The truth which appeared. 'A' truth?

Def.
ที่ ส. คําใช้แทนคํานามหรือข้อความที่อยู่ข้างหน้า
a word used in place of a (2)noun which appears in front.
เช่น คนที่ขยัน เด็กที่ฉลาด. People who are diligent/people who are clever.
Finally;
Def.
ผู้ ส. ที่, ซึ่ง, เช่น บุคคลผู้กระทำความดีย่อมได้รับความสุข.
Pronoun meaning ที่ and ซึ่ง Use. People who do goodness naturally receive happiness. neither 'A' or 'The', just people in general.

Still a work in progress because I am not sure that I understand it in English.
I think this is what Pirin said already but I didn't get it, and anyway, I like to see if the RID is saying this from a native speaker's point of view.
Edit:I have edited to show คำนาม in the definition of ที่. The difference between คำนาม and นาม is the vital point.
Sorry.

ความจริงอันปรากฏขึ้นมา looks like topicalisation. It is a complete sentence but it has only one verb. If you compare this to the other two you will see that both ที่ and ซึ่ง cause the addition of another verb.

So it is true that it replaces the word(s) in front of it, but only as repetition. Whereas ที่ replaces the word in front of it, but it brings a verb as well. This would be the difference between a dictionary and a grammar book. (Well, I would be very surprised if this is all the OED did.) Also, in the ซึ่ง example I gave (a long, long time ago), you pointed out that it should be replacing the time expression, not the weather expression which immediately preceded it.

วันนี้ประเทศไทยอากาศร้อนมาก ซึ่ง ควรจะเป็นหน้าหนาว

วัน เป็นคำนาม
นี้ ตามมา ทำให้มีความหมายเจาะจงที่ทำให้คำนามกลายเป็นนาม
วันนี้เป็นภาคบ่งเวลา
ประเทศไทยอากาศร้อนมาก เป็นข้อความขยายวันนี้ซึ่งเป็นประโยคไร้กริยา (มี)

ควรจะเป็นหน้าหนาว เป็นข้อความไร้ประธานซึ่งเป็นประโยคต้น
Your quote is what people might say rather than correct. For example a statement like; 'should be is hot season' I can't parse, but it is early days.

pensive wrote:ความจริงอันปรากฏขึ้นมา looks like topicalisation. It is a complete sentence but it has only one verb.

In my view what follows ที่ is what is being said about the noun before it. In the RID examples เด็ก means 'children or child' not 'a child, the child' เด็กฉลาด means 'clever child' เด็กที่ฉลาด the child who is clever, that is to say out of all the children we are referring to the clever ones เด็กฉลาดคนนี้ says this particular clever child.
I prefer not to call ฉลาด a verb, because, although it changes nothing here, the grammar of the RID does not hang together if people call คำเวิเศษณ์ คำกริยา.