ศาลาชุมนุม

[David and Bui]

Khun Pirin,

5. แม้ว่ามีคนที่เป็นห่วงกับคุณภาพของภาษาอังกฤษลดลงและอยู่ในวิกฤตตลอด is ungrammatical and unclear.

It might be 'แม้ว่าจะมีคนที่มีความกังวลเกี่ยวกับคุณภาพของภาษาอังกฤษ และเห็นว่าคุณภาพของภาษาอังกฤษนั้นลดลงและอยู่ในภาวะวิกฤตตลอด'

I went back and checked with the original, and indeed Professor Shintaro used the words as stated. I certainly wish one of his Thai colleagues would have corrected his Thai expression before he printed his essay on his blog. The reference is http://blogazine.in.th/blogs/shintaro/post/4946?page=1

Than you for the clarification.

[Pirin]

.....

[Tgeezer]

For Tod:

เสียงจากแดนปาตานี

“วิกฤตของภาษา”, โดย อาจารย์ ฮารา ชินทาโร, 30 กรกฎาคม, 2014

1. ตั้งแต่มีหนังสือพิมพ์ ชาวอังกฤษแสดงความเห็นกันว่า ภาษาอังกฤษอยู่ในภาวะ “วิกฤต” โดยอ้างว่า ผู้ใช้ภาษาอังกฤษมีการออกเสียงไม่ถูกต้อง หรือมีการสะกดผิดมากมาย

2. แนวคิดแบบนี้มีอยู่ในเกือบทุกภาษา

3. ผู้ใช้ของภาษาใดภาษาหนึ่ง โดยเฉพาะบรรดาเจ้าของภาษาที่หวังดีกับภาษาของตน เป็นห่วงกับ “คุณภาพการใช้ภาษา” ในสังคม

4. ซึ่งตามสายตาของพวกเขา มีแต่การเสื่อมในเรื่องการออกเสียง การสะกดหรือการใช้คำที่พากเขามองว่า “ไม่ถูกต้อง”

Thanks I agree with Tod , I like to read without a translation but also I can't usually get any more than a gist of the meaning anyway.
I admire Pirin for trying, but surely the whole tenure of the piece is that comprehension trumps scholarship so perhaps we should try to understand it as it stands or run the risk of being labelled a dinosaur!
English speakers are perhaps qualified to do this since English has the greater influence on Thai.
I looked at 3&4
3. ผู้ใช้ของภาษาใดภาษาหนึ่ง โดยเฉพาะบรรดาเจ้าของภาษาที่หวังดีกับภาษาของตน เป็นห่วงกับ “คุณภาพการใช้ภาษา” ในสังคม

4. ซึ่งตามสายตาของพวกเขา มีแต่การเสื่อมในเรื่องการออกเสียง การสะกดหรือการใช้คำที่พวกเขามองว่า “ไม่ถูกต้อง”

The group which ที่ refers to must be: "a language's speakers, especially native speakers, ที่ (who) หวังดี" (the dinosaurs ?) as opposed to the rest of a "language's speakers especially native speakers who don't หวังดี" (the real people according to Tod) . เป็น are concerned about "language quality" in society, which in their eyes has nothing but deterioration in diction etc. which they consider to be "incorrect".
It is very difficult without your translation before me but is this the gist of what you have?

[David and Bui]

Thank you for your response, Tgeezer. From now on, I will post the original, without translation, of any interesting article I find.

[Pirin]

.....

[Tgeezer]

...


I admire Pirin for trying, but surely the whole tenure of the piece is that comprehension trumps scholarship so perhaps we should try to understand it as it stands or run the risk of being labelled a dinosaur!

...

พูดไปทำไมมี

I say it because language changes and if you can correct a simple thing like ' I could of killed him' by 'I could have killed him' then you must have understood, so communication was successful. I was discussing this as your reply came in today, with a schoolboy in the sixth form and he assures me that this is the reasoning used in schools today and that 'of' is now taught! It appears that the same reasoning could develop in Thailand, in fact doesn't the article hint of it? I certainly would be considered a dinosaur because I refuse to abandon everything hard learnt at school and I assume that you feel the same way.

[David and Bui]

Tgeezer,

Thank you for clarifying the "dinosaur" comment. I was having difficulty understanding the use of the term in this context. I think it is helpful to consider language change and "correctness" as a continuum, rather than as a binary mechanism. Here, for example, is one scale used to determine where along a path of acceptance a word, phrase, spelling, or grammar element is:
__________________________________

Stage 1 (“rejected”): A new form emerges as an innovation (or a dialectal form persists) among a small minority of the language community, perhaps displacing a traditional usage (e.g.: “corroborate” misused for “collaborate”).

Stage 2 (“widely shunned”): The form spreads to a significant fraction of the language community but remains unacceptable in standard usage (e.g.: “incredulous” misused for “incredible”).

Stage 3 (“widespread but . . .”): The form becomes commonplace even among many well-educated people but is still avoided in careful usage (e.g.: “acumen” accented on the first syllable).

Stage 4 (“ubiquitous but . . .”): The form becomes virtually universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts (die-hard snoots) (e.g.: “podium” misused for “lectern”).

Stage 5 (“fully accepted”): The form is universally accepted (not counting pseudo-snoot eccentrics) (e.g.: “wisteria” in American English).
__________________________________

(source: http://www.lawprose.org/blog/?p=1242)

[Pirin]

.....

[Tgeezer]

...

I say it because language changes and if you can correct a simple thing like ' I could of killed him' by 'I could have killed him' then you must have understood, so communication was successful. I was discussing this as your reply came in today, with a schoolboy in the sixth form and he assures me that this is the reasoning used in schools today and that 'of' is now taught! It appears that the same reasoning could develop in Thailand, in fact doesn't the article hint of it? I certainly would be considered a dinosaur because I refuse to abandon everything hard learnt at school and I assume that you feel the same way.

Feel free to think that I asked you a question.

Thanks Pirin, now I may learn something. What I saw: verb- verb- question word-verb or modifier. Speak without stopping why have.
มี (have) is a problem so I just ignored it?
I welcome other members participation in understanding what you wrote, failing that, are you able to put it into English?

[Tgeezer]

Tgeezer,

Thank you for clarifying the "dinosaur" comment. I was having difficulty understanding the use of the term in this context. I think it is helpful to consider language change and "correctness" as a continuum, rather than as a binary mechanism. Here, for example, is one scale used to determine where along a path of acceptance a word, phrase, spelling, or grammar element is:
__________________________________

Stage 1 (“rejected”): A new form emerges as an innovation (or a dialectal form persists) among a small minority of the language community, perhaps displacing a traditional usage (e.g.: “corroborate” misused for “collaborate”).

Stage 2 (“widely shunned”): The form spreads to a significant fraction of the language community but remains unacceptable in standard usage (e.g.: “incredulous” misused for “incredible”).

Stage 3 (“widespread but . . .”): The form becomes commonplace even among many well-educated people but is still avoided in careful usage (e.g.: “acumen” accented on the first syllable).

Stage 4 (“ubiquitous but . . .”): The form becomes virtually universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts (die-hard snoots) (e.g.: “podium” misused for “lectern”).

Stage 5 (“fully accepted”): The form is universally accepted (not counting pseudo-snoot eccentrics) (e.g.: “wisteria” in American English).
__________________________________

(source: http://www.lawprose.org/blog/?p=1242)

Thanks I have seen that before, it is quite good, not biased in any way: "pseudo-snoot eccentrics" !
Provided the 'pseudo-snoot eccentrics' can still be understood there is no problem but when the progressives are unable to understand them, then communication has failed.
The best language can be is simple and succinct, when people are illiterate they can't read so they hear "could've"(could have) and interpret it as "could of" later when they learn to read they are expected to notice and correct themselves. I was horrified to hear that teachers can teach "could of", I can only explain 'of' in this context as ignorance, your reference above is another way of justifying it as far as I am concerned.