Jump to content

Does one ever learn to use the quantifiers?


Guest

Recommended Posts

Classifiers specific for elephants:

 

 

àª×á "cheu-ak"

tame elephants bound with rope

 

â¢Å§ "klong"

a herd of wild elephants

 

 

ÅѡɳùÒÃ? Isn`t that spelled without the sara Ã? Not that that is very important ::

 

Åѡɳ¹ÒÃ

 

Cheers

Hua Nguu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

<< Agree with Fly, just talk a lot (people who know me will confirm I do just that ) and you will get the hang of it eventually. >>

 

 

Been speaking Thai for 31 years -- and I still make mistakes. The difference is that now I KNOW I said it wrong as soon as it is out of my mouth and too late to undo.

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<< What do you think is the most difficult aspect of learning Thai? >>

 

 

Not making a complete ass of yourself! I remember in my Peace Corps days, when I was still learning basic Thai, how the students would ask you to speak Thai with them. You would decline, saying "You will laugh at my mistakes". The students would beg and plead, promising not to laugh. And then as soon as you began speaking Thai, they would collapse in uncontrollable hysterics! Little bastards ...

 

 

::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
pksword said:

<< What do you think is the most difficult aspect of learning Thai? >>

 

Tones.

Hi pk,

I agree. The rest of it is relatively simple at a conversational level. Even the writing, which most people don't attempt, is not too bad to learn if you put in some time and effort.

Only recently, I had a slight argument with gf when she corrected me. I had said "He is behind us", she corrected me and I said "That's what I said". A few minutes later I realised that what I had said in fact was "He is under us/He is downstairs". I never admitted to her that she had been right.

Khwai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

<<<What is our equivalent of "an"? A "bunch" ?>>>

 

The translation of "ANH" would be "of them" or "of 'em"

 

Two of 'em, three of 'em. Not a very sophisticated sounding turn of a phrase, but it will get the message across. It can be used with nearly everything except for people, although only should properly be used for small items with no other specific classifier.

 

In answer to the original poster, I have learned to use the classifiers which are now second nature, and the only way to speak natural sounding Thai.

 

I have even learned a few of the infrequently used ones such as GRA-BAUK which is only used with bamboo and rockets, as far as I know.

 

Off the top of my head:

 

Monks are most often referred to as ONG, but can also be referred to as ROOP(f).

 

LOOK(f) (ball) can be used with anything round in shape, all fruits and even children, although they would more often be called KON

 

Bunches of coconuts are TA-LAI, a bunch of bananas is a WEE(h) (comb) and a spike of bananas (many bunches) is a KEUA

 

HUA® (head) can be used with lettuce, cabbage, and onions

 

TON can be used with trees, or anything long and round

 

BAI (leaf) is used with anything thin, or that can be nested together such as hats or bowls, also used with pillows, suitcases, handbags

 

PAEN (sheet) is similar, used for sheets of paper, pancakes, and CD's

 

TUA is used with all animals, and also furniture that has legs such as a chair

 

PEUN is used with blankets, towels, sheets, bolts of cloth

 

CHA-BAP (document) is used for documents

 

LEM (volume) is used for books and magazines

 

REE-AN is used for coins, wristwatches, and medallions

 

KREUANG (machine) is used for anything mechanical

 

LANG is used for houses and buildings

 

LAM is used for boats

 

KAN is used for motorized vehicles

 

KHA-BEUAN is used for parades, caravans and trains

 

LAWT is used for pipes, tubes and drinking straws

 

CHOOT is used for sets, or teams

 

Some things can be used with many different classifiers:

 

NAM(h) SAWNG® KAEO(f) Two glasses of water

 

NAM(h) SAWNG® TANG® Two buckets of water

 

NAM(h) SAWNG® YOT(h) Two drops of water

 

NAM(h) SAWNG® KOO-AT Two bottles of water

 

Some things can be their own classifier:

 

MOO-BAAN(f) SAWNG® MOO-BAAN(f) Two villages

 

HONG(f) SAWNG® HONG(f) Two rooms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

luckyfarang said:

<<<What is our equivalent of "an"? A "bunch" ?>>>

 

The translation of "ANH" would be "of them" or "of 'em"

 

Two of 'em, three of 'em. Not a very sophisticated sounding turn of a phrase, but it will get the message across. It can be used with nearly everything except for people, although only should properly be used for small items with no other specific classifier.

 

Hi LF,

 

Good to see you back :up:

 

I hear Anh used about people on a regular basis, although not to their face. :o

 

Say when you are displeased with someone, you will hear "Anh Nee Man Mai Ruu Reuang Arai Ley" (he/she doesn`t know shit) or something to that effect.

(Man being the pronoun reserved for animals ::)

 

Man is regularly used upcountry when referring to particularly children, but it is definitely Phasa Baan and not polite thai.

 

Cheers

Hua Nguu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hua Nguu said:

Say when you are displeased with someone, you will hear "Anh Nee Man Mai Ruu Reuang Arai Ley" (he/she doesn`t know shit) or something to that effect.

Help me out here, and parse the sentence. I thought both "Ahn" and "Mahn" act as classifiers, so if we were to replace them with the correct classifier "Khon" the sentence would read, "Khon Nee Khon Mai Ruu Reuang Arai Leuy."

 

It doesn't sound right. Why does it have two classifiers? I would expect the original sentence to say, "Mahn Nee Mai Ruu Reuang Arai Leuy."

 

What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hua Nguu-

 

Yes, I hear that kind of language all the time from my girlfriend, but never to anyone's face.

 

I am guilty of it myself, but only with my GF.

 

I think it is largely because MAN rolls off the tongue quite a bit easier than KAO®. And of course we never use this kind of language when referring to the royal family, the parents, or any highly respected individuals or elders.

 

Max-

 

MAN is a pronoun, not a classifier, so there is only one classifier being used.

 

<<<so if we were to replace it with the correct pronoun, KAO ® and the correct classifier "Khon" the sentence would read, "Khon Nee Kao Mai Ruu Reuang Arai Leuy." >>>

<<<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...