ศาลาชุมนุม

[Tgeezer]

อาจารย์ เรืองเดช has written a text on Linguistics, not a dictionary. I am not sure what you are asking.

For the sake of clarity, the Royal Institute has issued a number of dictionaries in addition to its primary volume, พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๒. Included are Volumes 1 - 3 of its Dictionary of New Words and specialized dictionaries on Law, Medicine, Architecture, and the like. Some of these dictionaries are listed at http://www.royin.go.th/th/printing/inde ... 1&TopView= and pages following. I have not yet seen these specialized volumes published on the internet.

The lesson is that the scope of RID terms and definitions goes well beyond those in either the online version or on the hefty blue and red printed tome.

I am asking how you arrived at your English translations of จินตน ฟืก and มุขปา.

I think that the prof.'s point is, that the meaning of ดำ remains the same, but its task is different in each case. It looks to me as though he is explaining what has gone on in the minds of the people who use the word ดำ in this way.
In short he is explaining what many might describe as ungrammatical,(not RID grammar) in terms of the official grammar( RID Grammar). That seems to me to be explaining the inexplicable.
I have been calling translation in this way 'guessing', but that doesn't sound very intellectual and probably the reason that my view is generally ignored.
I am more than happy to be proved wrong. Native speakers are probably not wrong, but with only experience and hearsay to go on, I wouldn't stake my life on knowing what a Scotchman or Northern Englishman or even a youngster meant even if they used words with which I were familiar.
For example: I could of told you that , I guess means; I could have told you that, but I wouldn't attempt to explain it without mentioning that 'of' is the wrong word used.

[David and Bui]

Oh, I see. Sorry.

Those definitions were embedded in the quotation. Professor Ruengdet had ". . . "จินตนประโยค" [a deep structure sentence] and "มุขปาฐะประโยค" [a surface structure sentence] . . ." in his book. These were not my translations.

[Tgeezer]

When we learn Thai grammar, it might not be a good idea to treat dictionaries as the first resource.

Here are two details of the word "word" (คำ) from two different sources: a reliable dictionjary and a reliable grammar book.

1.
RID:
คำ น. เสียงพูด, เสียงที่เปล่งออกมาครั้งหนึ่ง ๆ,
เสียงพูดหรือลายลักษณ์ อักษรที่เขียนหรือพิมพ์ขึ้นเพื่อแสดงความคิด
โดยปรกติถือว่าเป็นหน่วยที่เล็กที่สุดซึ่งมีความหมายในตัว, ....

This roughly means that "word" is the smallest speech or written sign that has its own meaning.
2.
Phraya Upakit Silpasarn (พระยาอุปกิตศิลปสาร), says in the part of morphology (วจีวิภาค) or
the second part of his book The Principles of Thai Grammar (หลักภาษาไทย),
which was reprinted for the thirteen time in 2005,
คำภาษาไทยเรามักเป็นคำโดด ๆ
มีมีที่สังเกตว่าเป็นคำชนิดไร
คำชนิดหนึ่งจะนำไปใช้เป็นคำอีกชนิดหนึ่งก็ได้ แล้วแต่รูปของประโยค.
This, on the other hand, roughly means that
a word in Thai is rather a sole item without signs indicating which type of function it does.
A word (of a type) can be used as a another word of another type, depending on context.

Gosh I almost missed this post.
Yes my post on เมื่อไร, where the RID has not given a role in one of the formal groups, is about this very point.
The writer of the book from which I took the example of เมื่อไร, appears to have refined the meaning of เมื่อไร by position in the sentence, where the RID example shows that it is placed before the main part of the sentence and means, either past or future.
In order to find out what this particular writer means, then I have to refer to her book. However if most people saying เมื่อไร don't mean anymore than the question word 'when', and place no significance on its position in the sentence then what she says is esoteric. By this I mean; used in this way, only by the her initiates or her group.
Are all educated native speakers in her group in the usage of this word? I ask because you didn't comment on my post, and to find out if นววรรณ พันธุเมธา view is universal. If that is the case, then I have learned something and it follows that the RID's record with respect to the definition of this word is now wrong.

พระยาอุปกตศิลปสาร is often quoted and I think that Thai grammar is based on his views, so I doubt that I am saying anything different as regards this topic; three examples of the use of ดำ in a sentence.

[David and Bui]

I understand; but I do not have the same attitude as you do regarding "right" and "wrong" in language. You seem to have a "tops down" approach to language: an expression or usage must be sanctioned by a designated authority before it is legitimate and acceptable. My native language has no such authority. In fact, the Oxford English dictionary is a compendium of historical usages, rather than a set of words sanctioned by a authoritative body.

BTW, the RID is very helpful in developing an understanding of the technical terms used by Ajarn Ruengdet in describing the elements of Transformational Grammar (ไวยกรณ์ปริวรรต):

ปริวรรต, ปริวรรต- [ปะริวัด, ปะริวัดตะ-] ก. หมุนเวียน เช่น ปริวรรตเงินตรา;เปลี่ยนแปลง, เปลี่ยนไป, แปรไป. (ส. ปริวรฺต; ป. ปริวตฺต).
to turn around, turn over, for example, foreign exchange; change, transform

จินตนประโยค = a deep structure sentence = จินตน + ประโยค จินตนาการน. การสร้างภาพขึ้นในจิตใจ.
A sentence as formed in the mind

มุขปาฐะประโยค = a surface structure sentence มุขบาฐ + ประโยค มุขปาฐะ [มุกขะบาด, มุกขะ-] น. การต่อปากกันมา, การบอกเล่าต่อ ๆ กันมาโดยมิได้เขียนเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร, เช่น เรื่องนี้สืบมาโดยมุขบาฐ เรื่องนี้เป็นมุขปาฐะ.
A sentence which is actually spoken without having been written out first

Thanks for raising the issue.

[Pirin]

.....

พระยาอุปกตศิลปสาร is often quoted and I think that Thai grammar is based on his views, so I doubt that I am saying anything different as regards this topic; three examples of the use of ดำ in a sentence.

When you read the books of Thai language written by
กำชัย ทองหล่อ (Kamchai Thonglor),
นววรรณ พันธุเมธา (Nawan Panthumetha),
สมทรง บุรุษพัตน์ (Somsong Burusphat), and
เบญจวรรณ ภูมิแสน เทอเล็คกี (Benjawan Poomsan Terlecky),
you might realize that you miss one special resource. These famous writers might consider themselves a student of Phraya Upakit Silpasarn (พระยาอุปกิตศิลปสาร).
If you are serious in learning Thai language,
it might be a good idea to have
Phraya Upakit Silpasarn’s หลักภาษาไทย
(The Principles of Thai Grammar)
in your bookshelf.

[David and Bui]

Thank you, Khun Pirin. I will certainly go out and look for this historic and canonical text. Please provide us an ISBN number for the volume you have. Thanks.

[Tgeezer]

I understand; but I do not have the same attitude as you do regarding "right" and "wrong" in language. You seem to have a "tops down" approach to language: an expression or usage must be sanctioned by a designated authority before it is legitimate and acceptable. My native language has no such authority. In fact, the Oxford English dictionary is a compendium of historical usages, rather than a set of words sanctioned by a authoritative body.

BTW, the RID is very helpful in developing an understanding of the technical terms used by Ajarn Ruengdet in describing the elements of Transformational Grammar (ไวยกรณ์ปริวรรต):

ปริวรรต, ปริวรรต- [ปะริวัด, ปะริวัดตะ-] ก. หมุนเวียน เช่น ปริวรรตเงินตรา;เปลี่ยนแปลง, เปลี่ยนไป, แปรไป. (ส. ปริวรฺต; ป. ปริวตฺต).
to turn around, turn over, for example, foreign exchange; change, transform

จินตนประโยค = a deep structure sentence = จินตน + ประโยค จินตนาการน. การสร้างภาพขึ้นในจิตใจ.
A sentence as formed in the mind

มุขปาฐะประโยค = a surface structure sentence มุขบาฐ + ประโยค มุขปาฐะ [มุกขะบาด, มุกขะ-] น. การต่อปากกันมา, การบอกเล่าต่อ ๆ กันมาโดยมิได้เขียนเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร, เช่น เรื่องนี้สืบมาโดยมุขบาฐ เรื่องนี้เป็นมุขปาฐะ.
A sentence which is actually spoken without having been written out first

Thanks for raising the issue.

Initially I look in the 2525 copy of RID when in UK, I couldn't find either word there, then go to the on-line version, I still can't find จินตน. But never mind I only looked them up to try to make sense of the English. Transformational is presumably your sort of language, what does it mean? It is probably jargon but it looks as though it could lose a few syllables without losing any meaning. The closest to the Thai is; something like; language changed in character from original language', I would make that 'transformed' but I would expect an expert to do much better than me.

The top down approach is a comfort to me because I don't know enough of either English or Thai to make it up as I go along. I try to understand the things I read even if they do not conform to the rules, but I don't expect my promotion of the rules to be disparaged. I am sure that in other posts, people unable to say รอ, saying คับ when they mean ครับ for instance, I am quite tolerant, that doesn't stop me pointing out the correct forms. I will not apologize for using the word 'correct'.
Rant over.

[Tgeezer]

.....

พระยาอุปกตศิลปสาร is often quoted and I think that Thai grammar is based on his views, so I doubt that I am saying anything different as regards this topic; three examples of the use of ดำ in a sentence.

When you read the books of Thai language written by
กำชัย ทองหล่อ (Kamchai Thonglor),
นววรรณ พันธุเมธา (Nawan Panthumetha),
สมทรง บุรุษพัตน์ (Somsong Burusphat), and
เบญจวรรณ ภูมิแสน เทอเล็คกี (Benjawan Poomsan Terlecky),
you might realize that you miss one special resource. These famous writers might consider themselves a student of Phraya Upakit Silpasarn (พระยาอุปกิตศิลปสาร).
If you are serious in learning Thai language,
it might be a good idea to have
Phraya Upakit Silpasarn’s หลักภาษาไทย
(The Principles of Thai Grammar)
in your bookshelf.

If you are suggesting that because I don't have a copy I am not qualified to comment on three examples of the use of ดำ in a sentence, then I shall certainly get a copy and try to qualify. But in the meantime, since you have a copy, would you mind commenting on this topic?

[Pirin]

Thank you, Khun Pirin. I will certainly go out and look for this historic and canonical text. Please provide us an ISBN number for the volume you have. Thanks.

อุปกิตศิลปสาร, พระยา
หลักภาษาไทย : อักขรวิธี วจีวิภาค วากยสัมพันธ์ ฉันทลักษณ์
ISBN 974-08-5470-2
(พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 13 พ.ศ. 2548 ราคา 350 บาท)

...
If you are suggesting that because I don't have a copy I am not qualified to comment on three examples of the use of ดำ in a sentence, then I shall certainly get a copy and try to qualify. But in the meantime, since you have a copy, would you mind commenting on this topic?

Your complaint does cause me to leave the computer screen and pay more attention to the football match between Denmark and Holland.
Your request, by contrast, reminds me of what my Thai teachers at school told me and my friends to do. The task at school was not this tough though.

Anyway, I'll try my best soon.

[Pirin]

Ajarn Ruengdet also discusses the multiple grammatical roles of one word with one meaning. The "functional" approach to word classification emphasizes the utility of the word in the sentence, rather than its meaning or position. Ajarn Ruengdet illustrates this phenomenon (page 191 of “Thai Linguistics”):

1. ดำเป็นสีที่ฉันไม่ชอบ (Black is a color I do not like.) [“Black” functions as a noun.]
2. เสื้อตัวนีัดำหมดแล้ว (This shirt has been completely blackened.) [“Black functions as a verb.]
3. พี่สาวไม่ชอบใส่เสื้อดำ (My older sister does not like to wear black blouses.) [“Black” functions as an adjective.]

This is getting into a difficult area, where our individual understanding can still get the same answer. We get the same answer in 1 and 3 but 2 not.

ดำเป็นสีที่ฉันไม่ชอบ: Black is (a)colour which I don't like.
I have ที่ as a conjunction 'which', others say pronoun 'black'. 'Black is colour, black I don't like'.

เสื้อตัวนีัดำหมดแล้ว: Shirt, shirt this black finished completed (finished in the sense of that the process is complete)
Black should be a verb because if it were an adjective it would follow the noun directly, I think. Shirt black shirt this...

พี่สาวไม่ชอบใส่เสื้อดำ Elder(than the speaker) young woman not like to put on shirt black.

These don't need correct English order to be understood and the roles of the words seems much clearer without it.

Actually, I didn’t post in this topic to imply that any members are not qualified to make comments. I did just to add some information that some of you might have overlooked.
If I have to make the comments of the tree sentences, it’s not going to be different from what others said.

For example:
1. ดำเป็นสีที่ฉันไม่ชอบ

In this case, “ดำ” is the subject of the sentence. “ดำ” is a “คำวิเศษณ์” acting as a noun. However, if we take a close look at the relationship of the words in the sentence, it can be deuced that “ดำ” is the shortened form of “สีดำ”, one of the hyponyms of “สี”. “สีดำ” is actually a noun phrase, so “ดำ” is still a “คำวิเศษณ์”.
hyponym
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy

This doesn’t mean that I’m qualified to make comments on the three sentences. This doesn’t mean that I understand this only because of the book of Phraya Upakit Silpasarn (พระยาอุปกิตศิลปสาร) either.
Like you, I interpret it according to various sources of knowledge. However, I don’t compare it with one of the structures of English.

2. เสื้อตัวนีัดำหมดแล้ว
“ดำ” in this case is a “คำวิเศษณ์”. According to Phraya Upakit Silpasarn’s หลักภาษาไทย (The Principles of Thai Grammar), “ดำ” which is a “คำวิเศษณ์” can also function as an instransitive verb in this context whereas “หมด” and “แล้ว” are other modifiers that modify “ดำ”.