SEALTEACH Re: Some grammatical conundrums in Thai (fwd)

Yuphaphann Hoonchamlong yui at alpha.tu.ac.th
Fri May 26 03:08:21 UTC 2000 

Dear sealangers,
This discussion should be of interest to you.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Placzek <jplaczek at langara.bc.ca>
Reply-To: sealteach at nectec.or.th
To: Doug Cooper <doug at th.net>
Cc: sealteach at nectec.or.th
Subject: Re: SEALTEACH Re: Some grammatical conundrums in Thai

Hi, Doug
   Way last September you sent me a discussion of some problems I was
having with reduplication in Standard Thai.  The time that I looked at
your points was the beginning of our fall term at the college here, and I
was in that "OK I've got five minutes for this" kind of mode, and as I ran
through the examples I wasn't getting it.
   So the message went to the "action" file for the duration and there it
sat.  Now that I have some time to come up for air I have had a look at
your notes and they do provide what I was looking for, thanks as well to
Noss and Sudaphorn.  I am not sure that I understand the distinction
between an "adverb" and a "complementive", or why adverbs cannot modify
entire predicates, but those are, I feel, less important than the overall
sense of why reduplication is absolutely necessary in some of those cases.
   I think I was on the right track with the idea that the
main function of the reduplication (in those cases) was to distinguish it
from the single word, but I was not sure what the semantic difference was.
The example with lUak3 khon1 rew1 / rew1 rew1  did clarify that for
me.  Thanks.
   As for the "first question" I think there are a lot of things going on
there.  My main curiosity was really with what can go after day3 in a
statement.  There seems to be a class of words that can go there, and it
implies that these words may be beyond the "scope" of day3.
   That's not an official question, but if you'd care to comment it may be
interesting for other Thai language scholars.
   Anyway, it's clear that I haven't looked at Noss for rather too long,
and I'm just happy that with a little more time to absorb your
discussions, they do make sense to me after all.
   Sorry about the long delay in responding, but that's the way my
world works over here, as long as I'm full time.  After one more
year I shed the chair duties, and life may become livable between
September and April once again.
   By the way, I'd seen references to the Sudaporn article on
reduplication, but never gotten around to getting a copy.
   Thanks again.
	-------------------------------------------------JP------------

On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Doug Cooper wrote:

> At 11:16 29/9/99 -0700, Jim Placzek <jplaczek at langara.bc.ca> wrote:
> >   In a sentence like:
> >		khaw4 yang1 kin1 khaaw3 day3 iik2
> >>I am sure that the iik2 works as an adverb, thus a better translation
> >would be something like "They can still eat rice."   [snip...]
> >Does the adverb modify the entire predicate of verb and object?
> >   Thai experts and teachers please give some feedback.
>
> I'm hardly either, but I'd vote that yes, it ties to the entire predicate;
> thus no, it's not an adverb.
>
>    Noss treats the yang ... iik construction as a _complementive_, while
> [Vichin70] (Panupong, Vichin (1970) Inter-Sentence Relations in Modern
> Conversational Thai. the Siam Society) would treat it as an _adjunct_.
>
>   The following is from Noss.  He specifically excludes iiks of this ilk from
> being predicators (eg. adverbs) -- a complementive cannot substitute for
> the predicate ...eats rice..., although it makes a comment about it.  Other
> items in the same class include eeN, duay, duaykan, mUankan, and tHawnan.
>
> [begin Noss quote]
> 3.2.2.2  /àͧ/ (eeN) Class:  'reinforcement of prior information about
> quantity,
> exclusiveness, or inclusiveness of the subject matter or manner of action.'
>    The class consists of complementives which occur at the end of clauses,
> coming after the object and some types of complements.  Several members,
> in fact, are most commonly found after specific prior elements in the
> predicate
> (this information being given in the listing). There are, however, no real
> pairs
> of semantic opposites.
>      /àͧ/ (eeN) - class complementives are among the most common of all
> clause constituents. The class is open and moderately large, and it includes
> stressed homonyms of several common bound lexemes.
> [snip]
> 3.2.2.2.3  /ÍÕ¡/ (iik) 'in addition, further, still'  Often followsÜ /Âѧ/
> (yaN).
> [Example 2 is]
> ¹éͧªÒÂÂѧà»ç¹¹Ñ¡àÃÕ¹ÍÕ¡
> 'Younger brother was still a student.'
> nooN-cHaay  yaN pen nak-rian iik .
> [end Noss quote]
>
> Second question (reduplication):
> >Even my reliable Noss Grammar and Haas sources do not seem to cover
> >it, or at least I have not found an explanation so far.
> >   The question is reduplication in such instances as:   [snip]
> >	1.	aw1 naam4 rQQn4		
>
> >	2.	aw1 naam4 rQQn4 rQQn4
> [snip]
> >but the distinction between 1 and 2 does seem somehow to emphasize
> >the hotness in 2,
>
> Noss appears to address this specific point in 2.4.3.1 _simple
> reduplications_.
>    " The reduplicated lexemes from adjective bases function only as
> modifiers and adverbs, and cannot fill the predicate position (among
> others). In the modifying position, the base adjective is limiting, while
> the reduplicated lexeme is non-limiting, and a real contrast results:
>
> /¹¡ãË­è/ (nok yay)	'big birds' (an implied size classification)
> /¹¡ãË­èãË­è/ (nok yay-yay)	'biggish birds' (incidental information about
> size)"
>
>   In other words, normally an adjective also has the possibility of serving
> as a verb (and thus as a predicate), whereas the reduplicated forms cannot.
> This is clearer in other constructions (eg questions, negatives)  where in
> general
> the single rOOn can be used directly, while the double is either forbidden,
> or has to be worked into a separate clause.
>
>     1.naam nii rOOn may?
>     2. *naam nii rOOn rOOn may?
>     3. naam nii may rOOn.
>     4. *naam nii may rOOn rOOn.
>
> The point is also discussed in:
>
>   [Sudaporn84b] Luksaneeyanawin, Sudaporn (1984) Some Semantic
>   Functions of Reduplicative in Thai. P.Tuajchareon. (et al). Selected
>   Papers from the International Symposium on Language and Linguistics.
>   Chiangmai University, Thailand. pp. 125-144.
>
> which focuses on phonetics and semantics of reduplicatives.  This is a
> very clear, concise paper with pictures from instrument comparison.
>
> Third question (if it is one):
> >		lUak3 khon1 dii1 dii1
> >		choose + person + good + good
> >		"Pick a good person."
> [snip.]
> >   Another suspicion I have is that this phenomenon may be confined to a
> >certain group of verbs dealing with wanting, liking, selecting, etc...
>
>   Are you raising the question of why the referent is khon, rather than
> lUak, as in:
> 		lUak3 khon1 reo reo
> 		choose + person + quick + quick
> 		"Pick a person quickly."
>                         *Pick a quick person.
>
> whereas we need:   'lUak khon hay dii dii' to 'Pick a person well.' ?
>
>    Interesting question that goes to many terms that have default -- but
> also secondary -- readings or referents.  The canonical example is:
>
>                      pay tHat pHom
>                      go get a haircut
>                      *go cut hair
>
>   I've seen various discussions of the phenomenon and of specific points
> (most recently Diller, Anthony (1997) Does Thai Permit Detransitivity?
> Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies in Honour of Vichin Panupong.)
> -- but nothing attempting an exhaustive survey.   Anybody out there
> up for attacking this in a methodical way (a la Beth Levin)?
>
>   Be well,
>   Doug Cooper
>
> __________________________________________________
>           1425 VP Tower, 21/45 Soi Chawakun
>         Rangnam Road, Rajthevi, Bangkok, 10400
>     doug at th.net (662) 246-8946  fax (662) 246-8789
>
>   Southeast Asian Software Research Center, Bangkok
>   http://seasrc.th.net         -->  SEASRC Web site
>   http://seasrc.th.net/sealang --> SEALANG Web site
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To get off the list, send a mail to majordomo at nectec.or.th with one-line
> message "unsubscribe sealteach" in the body. Sign-off request sent to the
> list is ignored.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the list, send a mail to majordomo at nectec.or.th with one-line
message "unsubscribe sealteach" in the body. Sign-off request sent to the
list is ignored.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information about the Sealang-l mailing list