Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boon Mee

"ought" & "must"

Recommended Posts

According to my Becker (don't have my Haas w/me right now) both "ought" and "must" are defined as: ต้อง.

Plus, one of my AUA books has "ought" defined as "naa" w/rising tone.

We all know "naa" - depending on the tone is either a rice field or face etc. but this is the first time I've seen it in this application unless it's a typo.

The main question is whether there's a distinction in Thai for "must" and "ought"?

If I use the sentence: ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

ขอบคุณมายคับ

บุญมี

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to my Becker (don't have my Haas w/me right now) both "ought" and "must" are defined as: ต้อง.

Plus, one of my AUA books has "ought" defined as "naa" w/rising tone.

We all know "naa" - depending on the tone is either a rice field or face etc. but this is the first time I've seen it in this application unless it's a typo.

The main question is whether there's a distinction in Thai for "must" and "ought"?

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

ขอบคุณมายคับ

บุญมี

No expert Boon, but here is 2b worth to consider ....

On page 424, P-Becker also defines /f/naa as "ought to" or "might like to."

But then on p425, she gives additional uses to make it sound like this word might be used alone only infrequently.

For example, she uses /f/naa /l/aan as an example for "worth reading" which I guess could also be interpreted as ought to read.

That's one thing I do when I use P-Becker's dictionary for new words. When I use the english word to find the transliterated and Thai words, then I also go to those sections of the book to see if the definitions are the same or lead to additional meanings.

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to my Becker (don't have my Haas w/me right now) both "ought" and "must" are defined as: ต้อง.

Plus, one of my AUA books has "ought" defined as "naa" w/rising tone.

We all know "naa" - depending on the tone is either a rice field or face etc. but this is the first time I've seen it in this application unless it's a typo.

The main question is whether there's a distinction in Thai for "must" and "ought"?

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

ขอบคุณมายคับ

บุญมี

No expert Boon, but here is 2b worth to consider ....

On page 424, P-Becker also defines /f/naa as "ought to" or "might like to."

But then on p425, she gives additional uses to make it sound like this word might be used alone only infrequently.

For example, she uses /f/naa /l/aan as an example for "worth reading" which I guess could also be interpreted as ought to read.

That's one thing I do when I use P-Becker's dictionary for new words. When I use the english word to find the transliterated and Thai words, then I also go to those sections of the book to see if the definitions are the same or lead to additional meanings.

HTH

Thanks Spee - let me grab my Becker and check that out. I do like how she has separated the dictionary into three parts in order to make it much easier than other references.

I'm still curious as to how to use ต้อง in a sentence. Perhaps one of the "big guns" can help us out. :o

บุญมี

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have'nt got a Becer or Haas and only a little gun :o but for what its worth I always thought :-

Dtrong was must/need

Naa if just thought was a prefix meaning something like "able"

ie naa yoo- liveable, naa kit- worth thinking about

ought not sure, i'd use should = kuan

Might not be right and you'll have to wait for one of the others who can write thai for the spellings.

Cheers RC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread. Perhaps he can shed more light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it :D

No offense meant! :o

Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it :D

No offense meant! :D

Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

No offence taken mate.

I know "kuan" is "should" I was suggesting that you could use it insted of "ought".

not saying you ought to use it, but mabye should use it,...... or

not saying you should use it , but mabye you ought to use it :o

Oh you forgot meadish...... again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks RC...I see Snowleopard "lurking" the thread.  Perhaps he can shed more light?

Thats just a nice way of saying "thanks..... but I really wanted someone who knows what they are talking about to answer" is'nt it :D

No offense meant! :D

Snowleopard, bannork, sabajai, firefoxx, RDN are the Big Guns around here and I simply saw one of 'em lurking...

BTW - "kuan" ควร is "should" in my dictionary.

No offence taken mate.

I know "kuan" is "should" I was suggesting that you could use it insted of "ought".

not saying you ought to use it, but mabye should use it,...... or

not saying you should use it , but mabye you ought to use it :o

Oh you forgot meadish...... again

You're right...sorry 'bout that, Meadish. :D

No hard feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

must = ต้อง

ought to = น่าจะ

should = ควรจะ

น่า + verb, when used as an adjectival, can give the meaning 'worth (doing, whatever the verb is)' or '-able', when translated to English. Within the Thai context it's just another way of saying 'ought' ...

One problem sorting this out is that the English terms 'should' and 'ought to' are almost indistinguishable in most contexts. Seeing a nice lake with clear water, you could say either 'We oughta go for a swim," or "We should go for a swim." In Thai you would be more likely to use น่าจะ than ควรจะ in such a context.

ควรจะ connotates that an action is 'appropriate' so is more often used when you're talking about the proper time or situation for doing something. If someone were to advise you to wai an elder, they'd probably use ควรจะ.

In Thai I see a shade of difference, but in English not so much.

ควร often crops up as part of สมควร, an adjective/adverb which means 'perfect', 'suitable' or 'appropriate' depending on the context. สม itself carries the meaning of 'appropriate' so this is one of the many terms in Thai where two words with the same meaning are sandwiched together for extra effect (not that it intensifies the meaning, it just looks more 'solid' or more literate to the Thai eye).

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

That should read ฉันน่าจะไปโรงเรียนวันนี้ , meaning 'I ought to/should go to school today'.

You can't mix ต้อง and น่าจะ in the same verb phrase. If you want to say 'I must go to school today' then you'd write:

ฉันต้องไปโรงเรียนวันนี้

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
must = ต้อง

ought to = น่าจะ

should = ควรจะ

น่า + verb, when used as an adjectival, can give the meaning 'worth (doing, whatever the verb is)' or '-able', when translated to English. Within the Thai context it's just another way of saying 'ought' ...

One problem sorting this out is that the English terms 'should' and 'ought to' are almost indistinguishable in most contexts. Seeing a nice lake with clear water, you could say either 'We oughta go for a swim," or "We should go for a swim." In Thai you would be more likely to use น่าจะ than ควรจะ in such a context.

ควรจะ connotates that an action is 'appropriate' so is more often used when you're talking about the proper time or situation for doing something. If someone were to advise you to wai an elder, they'd probably use ควรจะ.

In Thai I see a shade of difference, but in English not so much.

ควร often crops up as part of สมควร, an adjective/adverb which means 'perfect', 'suitable' or 'appropriate' depending on the context. สม itself carries the meaning of 'appropriate' so this is one of the many terms in Thai where two words with the same meaning are sandwiched together for extra effect (not that it intensifies the meaning, it just looks more 'solid' or more literate to the Thai eye).

If I use the sentence:  ฉันน่าจะไรวเรียนวันนี้ 'am I saying I ought or must go to school today?

And, how would I interject ต้อง in the sentence or is it required?

That should read ฉันน่าจะไปโรงเรียนวันนี้ , meaning 'I ought to/should go to school today'.

You can't mix ต้อง and น่าจะ in the same verb phrase. If you want to say 'I must go to school today' then you'd write:

ฉันต้องไปโรงเรียนวันนี้

Hope this helps.

Thanks very much, sabaijai!

Your help is always greatly appreciated.

'Am too heavily dependent on "Spell Check" in English and don't have that in Thai - left out the in ไป and inserted for - apologize for that. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

'ควรจะ connotates that an action is 'appropriate' so is more often used when you're talking about the proper time or situation for doing something. If someone were to advise you to wai an elder, they'd probably use ควรจะ.'(sabaijai)

So we would use ควรจะ when a sense of responsiblity or duty was involved, thanks for that sabaajai, now a slight poser concerning English; the difference between 'must' and 'have to'. I read somewhere the difference was 'have to' implied an outside force was compelling one,ie 'I have to go to school'(but I don't want to) whilst 'I must go to school' suggests an interior motivation; but I contend the inner drive may be entirely due to external rules and hence make the distinction irrelevant.

sorry to take up anyone's time on such a frivolous topic.

bannork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in  Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

ํI know what you mean. When I came to Thailand after my first year of Thai studies in Sweden, I stayed at a guest house. The fan in my room was broken, and I told the staff at the reception. One of the male staff went by me and asked to reconfirm if the fan was broken, and I meant to tell him it was, but that he did not have to fix it right away since I was on my way out for the day anyway. For this, I used the construction

"ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ " "mai tawng sawm diaownii khrap" which he clearly took to mean as an order NOT to repair it.

In hindsight, I think

"ยังไมจำเป็นต้องซ่อม" "yang mai jam pen tawng sawm" instead would have worked better... but somebody else might have an even more elegant solution for this (apart from not using ต้อง at all which is the easiest way out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
talking about 'have to', as opposed to'must', in the negative form perplexes me in  Thai, because if we say in English,''you don't have to come'', it still leaves the choice open of coming, it's rather mild;but when I hear a Thai using ไม่ตัอง the tone is often a lot sharper, more like 'don't!' Anyone else had the same experience?

bannork.

"ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ " "mai tawng sawm diaownii khrap" which he clearly took to mean as an order NOT to repair it.

In hindsight, I think

"ยังไมจำเป็นต้องซ่อม" "yang mai jam pen tawng sawm" instead would have worked better... but somebody else might have an even more elegant solution for this (apart from not using ต้อง at all which is the easiest way out).

It definitely seems to me that the textbook distinction between

ไม่ต้องซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ [F]mai [F]torng [F]sawm [R]diau[F]nii [H]khrap 'It needn't be repaired now.'

and

ต้องไม่ซ่อมเดี๋ยวนี็ ครับ [F]torng [F]mai [F]sawm [R]diau[F]nii [H]khrap 'It shouldn't be repaired now.'

is not made in normal Thai. The second meaning seems to be the usual meaning of the first contruction - I can't actually recall hearing the second construction! I first realised that the textbook distinction was not to be trusted when reading a love letter.

I suspect this shift in meaning is a 'universal' tendency - e.g. in English 'I don't want to meet him' may mean 'I want avoid meeting him'. I've even heard English "You don't have to" mean "You mustn't", though it's normal meaning remains "You needn't".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 21 July 2018 01:14
Sponsors
×