ศาลาชุมนุม

[Tgeezer]

ใช่ ว. คํารับรองแสดงว่า เป็นเช่นนั้น, เป็นอย่างนั้น, ถูก, แน่;
บางทีก็ใช้เป็นคําปฏิเสธหมายความว่า ไม่ใช่ เช่น ใช่คน
ใช่สัตว์ ใช่ว่า.
This question is about how to read the dictionary I think.
Does anyone have any examples of ใช่คน meaning 'not people' ?
google translate says that it means 'yes, people'.

[Nan]

Does anyone have any examples of ใช่คน meaning 'not people' ?

There is a Thai witty speech which have this example:

คนเห็นคนเป็นคนนั่นแหละคน
คนเห็นคนใช่คนใช่คนไม่
คนเกิดมาเป็นคนทุกคนไป
จะจนดีผู้ดีไพร่ไม่พ้นคน

[Tgeezer]

Does anyone have any examples of ใช่คน meaning 'not people' ?

There is a Thai witty speech which have this example:

คนเห็นคนเป็นคนนั่นแหละคน
คนเห็นคนใช่คนใช่คนไม่
คนเกิดมาเป็นคนทุกคนไป
จะจนดีผู้ดีไพร่ไม่พ้นคน

That is an elegant way of answering Nan. I shall see if I can make sense of it.
If my assumption is correct, that Thai is a logic-free-zone, then it shouldn't be possible.

[Tgeezer]

คนเห็นคนเป็นคนนั่นแหละคน
คนเห็นคนใช่คนใช่คนไม่
คนเกิดมาเป็นคนทุกคนไป
จะจนดีผู้ดีไพร่ไม่พ้นคน

This appears to be a homily on the relationship of people.
Is the last คน in the first line the person being addressed?
The regarder of people is a person as well, you.
The regarder of a person as not a person is not a person,
People having been born are all people
the highest and the commonest all are included.
The second line is a bother because to make sense of it the first ใช่ไม่ has to mean ไม่ใช่คน but the second ใช่คนไม่ must somehow mean; is a person not! That seems grammatically impossible, but what else can it mean?

[r2d2]

If my assumption is correct, that Thai is a logic-free-zone, then it shouldn't be possible.

"In most logics and some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives intensify each other are said to have negative concord. Portuguese, French, Persian, and Spanish are examples of negative-concord languages, while Latin and German do not have negative concord. Standard English lacks negative concord, but it was normal in Old English and Middle English, and some modern dialects do have it (e.g. African American Vernacular English and Cockney), although its usage in English is often stigmatized."

ใช่ว่า = not that
ใช่ว่าผมไม่เคยลิ้มรสจูบมาก่อน = "It is not true that I never had tasted [the sweetness of] a kiss before."

Becomes the translation better by "It is not true that I ever had tasted a kiss before." or "It is true that I tasted a kiss before."?

[Rick Bradford]

A dictionary I looked at recently also gives the meaning of หาใช่ as "not, as opposed to"

[Tgeezer]

If my assumption is correct, that Thai is a logic-free-zone, then it shouldn't be possible.

"In most logics and some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives intensify each other are said to have negative concord. Portuguese, French, Persian, and Spanish are examples of negative-concord languages, while Latin and German do not have negative concord. Standard English lacks negative concord, but it was normal in Old English and Middle English, and some modern dialects do have it (e.g. African American Vernacular English and Cockney), although its usage in English is often stigmatized."

ใช่ว่า = not that
ใช่ว่าผมไม่เคยลิ้มรสจูบมาก่อน = "It is not true that I never had tasted [the sweetness of] a kiss before."

Becomes the translation better by "It is not true that I ever had tasted a kiss before." or "It is true that I tasted a kiss before."?

That is very interesting I hadn't considered it.
The question is, to which group does Thai belong? In English a full stop sometimes helps; Yes. We have no bananas. No. We have no bananas.
Perhaps ใช่คน ใช่สัตว์ ใช่ว่า are a similar case, in this form should they stand alone?
ใช่ว่า ผมไม่เคย....
ใช่=ไม่ใช่ so:
ไม่ใช่ว่าผมไม่เคย....

[Tgeezer]

A dictionary I looked at recently also gives the meaning of หาใช่ as "not, as opposed to"

Not in the RID.
There once was this in the RID;
หา ว. ใช่ควบกับคำปฏิเสธเป็น หาไม่ หมายความว่า ไม่เป็น, ไม่ใช่, ไม่มี,เปล่า ฯลฯ แต่มักใช้คร้อมคำกริยา เช่น หามีไม่ = ไม่มี, หาใช่คนไม่ = ไม่ใช่คน
หาใช่ would seem to contradict the current RID entry in my previous post. หาไม่ makes sense if you take ไม่ as cancelling the preceding word.
In หาใช่คนไม่ consistency seems completely lost if you consider ใช่คน =ไม่ใช่คน.
Well now I am completely flummoxed, which does argue for learning Thai like a parrot, or starting much earlier in life and doing the full ten years or so of study at school in Thai.

[r2d2]

"... while Latin and German do not have negative concord. Standard English lacks negative concord, but it was normal in ... although its usage in English is often stigmatized."

That is very interesting I hadn't considered it.
The question is, to which group does Thai belong?

What I quoted is from Wiki ... and I'm not sure about the statements in detail. To understand my doubts:

In principle it is stated that Latin, (high) German, and standard English are in the same group. Ok, in principle (or in doubt) I speak (Latin with a question mark, reading only at best) all three languages (but natively German).

Would like to come back to how to translate e.g. Italian (from the other group?) into English later, but first this short story:

I was writing a scientific text which was peer reviewed. The peer reviewer, sitting in London, disappreciated a sentence (do not recall it well, but to give an example) like

"Thus, it is not fully incorrect not to claim that x is inferior to y".

Peer reviewer mentioned that it should read:

"Thus, it is fully correct claiming x is the same like y."

I replied: "I agree with the mere logics of your statement. And to an English ear my sentence may sound complicate but in German I would say it in that way for not sounding rude."

Peer reviewer replied:

"My ear grew up in Vienna, but ..."

I resigned.

(((as a conclusion: Yes, as well as in English you are counting the negations in German, two are (in doubt) positive-affirmative, three are negative, and five are at least in English too much, thus, same group, but other grammar rules for "style")))

Italian, as belonging to the other group:

Non capisco nulla.

How to translate this into English?

Non = not
capisco = I understand
nulla = nothing

= I understand not nothing.// I do not understand nothing.

Wrong! Correct translation (I'm native in German only) would be, to be on the right side:

I understand nothing.

A guess, correct English could be, as well:

I do not understand something.

Edit: To translate this into Italian:

Capisco "coso".

Whereas 'la cosa' = the thing/item, and 'il coso' = the male form of it/her/thing/item!

Correct German: Ich verstehe (I understand) nicht (not) nichts (nothing)??

Problem:

Correct, eventually not, but I understand the German sentence (Ich verstehe nicht nichts) as "I understand something" (in contrast to the supposed nothing).