Nov16
| เป็น | The word เป็น (bpen) means “to be/is” in Thai. It is a very common and important word to learn and, more importantly, to understand how it’s used. |
In its most simple usage, เป็น is used to join nouns or pronouns, such as:
He is a student.
เขาเป็นนักเรียน
kǎo bpen nák-riian
(he – is/to be – student)
If you wanted to describe someone or something with เป็น using an adjective, you also need to precede the adjective with a noun. For example:
She is pretty.
เขาเป็นคนสวย
kǎo bpen kon sǔay
(she – is/to be – person – pretty)
In essence, you cannot have เป็น and an adjective right next to each other, so the insertion of another noun – คน, in this example – is necessary.
You can omit เป็น when describing a noun/pronoun with an adjective:
| I am rich. ผมเป็นคนรวย pǒm bpen kon ruai (I – is /to be – person – rich) |
I am rich. ผมรวย pǒm ruai (I – rich) |
Either one of the above examples will work. The “rule” here is that when linking a noun (ผม) to an adjective (รวย) in a sentence, a linking verb – which would be เป็น in this case – is not necessary. The adjective takes on the role of “is/to be” as well as the adjective.
Please bear in mind that this is how I would describe the phenomena in English terms. Thai people don’t really think of it this way; they just know to not put เป็น directly adjacent to an adjective.
When making negative statements, Thai speakers will use ไม่ไช่ (mâi châi) or ไม่ได้เป็น (mâi dâi bpen) instead of ไม่เป็น (mâi bpen):
He is not a student.
เขาไม่ไช่นักเรียน / เขาไม่ได้เป็นนักเรียน
kǎo mâi châi bpen nák-riian / kǎo mâi dâi bpen nák-riian
(he – is not – student)
And, keeping to form, you omit เป็น in negative sentences joining nouns/pronouns and adjectives:
He is not rich.
เขาไม่รวย
kǎo mâi ruai
(He – not – rich)
เป็น can also mean “have” when describing a person’s condition:
He has a cold.
เขาเป็นหวัด
kǎo bpen wàt
(He – have – cold)
Use ไม่ได้เป็น (mâi dâi bpen) to form the negative expression of a person’s condition:
He does not have a cold.
เขาไม่ได้เป็นหวัด
kǎo mâi dâi bpen wàt
(He – not have – cold)
เป็น can also show ability:
He can swim.
เขาว่ายน้ำเป็น
kǎo wâai-nám bpen
(He – swim – can)
In negative sentences for showing ability, you should use ไม่เป็น (mâi bpen):
He cannot swim.
เขาว่ายน้ำไม่เป็น
kǎo wâai-nám mâi bpen
(He – swim – cannot)
There are a few other uses for เป็น which I, admittedly, don’t have a full grasp of yet. Therefore, I’ve modified this post to be “Part 1″ and will post a “Part 2” when I have a better understanding of its other uses.
I don't drink coffee, but I love Peach Diet Snapple! Any donation you offer will certainly help me to keep this blog running.
I would enjoy to discuss Thai grammar a little bit deeper, so apologies in advance if the followind sound like nit-picking (but in the context of เป็น and adjective I think we should be cautious with the terminology:
“If you wanted to describe someone or something with เป็น using an adjective, you also need to include a classifier. For example:
She is pretty.
เขาเป็นคนสวย
kǎo bpen kon sǔay
(she – is/to be – [classifier for "person"] – pretty)”
1. I fear that the term classifier does not fit really. I think that เป็น requires always a MOUN((คำ)นาม), and in the case that someone or something … for something the classifier คน would not fit so well (เขาเป็นตัวสวย = she is something beautiful ?
… is คน, a human being, the noun คน is ok.
2. Beautiful may be an adjective in English, สวย, however, is no adjective in Thai. สวย = ว. = วิเศษณ์ … for which the better translation may be “modifier”, the reason why the sentence ผมรวย does not need เป็น but already means “I’m rich” [but not "I - rich"].
เขาเป็นคนสวย, or เขาเป็นนางสวย, or เขาเป็นแม่สวยสามคน etc., but I wouldn’t call คน, in the case as used by you, a “classifier”. Nit-picking, I agree
.
Thanks for your comments, Thomas. I had been, admittedly, struggling with this post for a few days, trying to figure out exactly how to word “classifier/modifier” in order to express what I wanted to say from a beginning Thai student perspective. A few responses:
* Perhaps noun is a better word than classifier.
* The parenthetical information below each sentence is a breakdown of the individual words in the sentence for the sake of word order. (I – rich) is there simply to show the translation of each word in that example.
* Modifier vs. adjective/stative verb seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people. Can you provide me with some examples other than TLC to support this? I’m all for changing my thoughts in an effort to become better educated in Thai, but the literature seems to be divided.
Josh, first of all I’m also a very beginner. Second, I think that Thai grammar as such (e.g. classifying terms, composed terms etc.) is still a rather developing field. But why not to discuss the issue inspite these “limitations”.
Concerning “Modifier vs. adjective/stative verb seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people. Can you provide me with some examples …” I found the Iwasaki&Ingkaphirom (p. 91 ff.) quite interesting. I think this example could make the difference (?):
ผู้หญิงคนนี้สวย (p. 92) … This woman is beautiful,
or [woman] [human being] [there/this] [IS beautiful = สวย]
Thomas, thanks again. I have since modified my post to replace “classifier” with “noun.”
As for the “modifier vs. adjective/stative verb” discussion, however, I still don’t think that modifier is correct. I spoke with a friend last night who is VERY well versed in Thai, and his comments – along with my further research and also conversations with my wife – keeps me holding firm to that belief.
Wikipedia gives the definition of a “grammatical modifier” as:
“…an optional element in phrase structure or clause structure[1]; the removal of the modifier typically doesn’t affect the grammaticality of the construction.”
Dictionary.com defines a modifier as:
“a word, phrase, or sentence element that limits or qualifies the sense of another word, phrase, or element in the same construction.”
Given those two definitions, it seems clear to me that a modifier is a word that qualifies or supports another word. If we were to consider the word สวย as a modifier as you and TLC suggests, it is then implied that สวย can be taken out of the sentence without disrupting its general meaning. Obviously, we can’t do that in this case because the sentence would fail to convey the point that the speaker thinks the girl is “pretty.”
I have also modified that section of the post to show that when a noun and adjective are placed together, the adjective takes on an additional responsibility of also being a linking verb (“is” in this example) and so the inclusion of เป็น is both not necessary and keeping in line with the Thai grammatical rule of not allowing เป็น and an adjective to be side-by-side. This is, to my level of understanding thus far, the clearest and most concise explanation I can give without introducing new grammatical terms (“modifier”) that don’t conform to their true definitions.
Furthermore, I don’t think Thai grammar is a developing field. I think that perhaps trying to put Thai grammar rules into terms that English-speaking, non-native Thai people can understand is a developing field, but to say that Thai grammar in general is still developing is perhaps a bit heavy-handed.
Again, thank you so much for taking the time to discuss this with me. It pushes me to learn more and get better at understanding this wonderful language!
Josh,
first of all thanks a lot for considering my comment.
Second, seeing now that I must have been the causative agent for a misunderstanding: I would like to beg your pardon for this:
I did not want to say that modifier is the better term than adjective for ว.= วิเศษณ์ (wiset), rather, that adjective is a … western term which does not fully fit. In the Iwasaki&Ingkaphirom (http://books.google.co.th/books?id=YE29njS4qSUC&hl=en) the “issue” about which we are speaking is called (p. 66).
(5) Adjectival modifier: Head Noun + [(CLS) + Adjective]
((CLS used as abbreviation for classifier.))
“[Josh]: If we were to consider the word สวย as a modifier as you and TLC suggests, it is then implied that สวย can be taken out of the sentence without disrupting its general meaning.”
No, I didn’t mean it in this sense. Rather, น. (นาม, “noun”) + ว.(วิเศษณ์, “adjectival modifier”?) is already a complete Thai sentence not requiring ก. (กริยา, “verb”). But this is the message of your sentence “I am rich.”
I would like, for a further understanding of the วิเศษณ์ (in the context of “to be or not to be – which to be is here the question”), discuss another issue, that with the red car and the Ferrari:
http://blog.joshsager.com/post.cfm/your-first-thai-sentence
รถสีแดง
สีแดง = red (color [สี] + red [แดง])
While reading this I was wondering not so much about the position of the วิเศษณ์ (แดง), rather about the meaning of the สี in this context, i.e. why not simply รถแดง is “a red car” or “the car is red.” Or, the other side of the coin: Why แกงเขียวหวาน (green curry with egg-fruit) is แกงเขียวหวาน but not แกงสีเขียว(รสชาติ)หวาน. After a while I found an anwser to my question: Of course, the CAR is not red, the COLOUR of the car is red, it is painted red. And a red wine? A red wine is red, and not “painted red” … เหล้าไวน์แดง
How to say in Thai: “The white wine is red!”? With or whithout เป็น? No serious question
Serious question: What do you think: Does
เหล้าไวน์ขาวสีแดง
make sense?
“[Josh] Furthermore, I don’t think Thai grammar is a developing field. I think that perhaps trying to put Thai grammar rules into terms that English-speaking, non-native Thai people can understand is a developing field, but to say that Thai grammar in general is still developing is perhaps a bit heavy-handed.”
Not sure about your statement, we need to further discuss it. Some thesis why I consider Thai grammar as such as a still developing field:
1. In a discussion with Richard (http://www.thai-language.com/forums/t/linguistics/writing/t4004) I claimed, rather concluded: “Although I should repeat reading your post still several times my current understanding is that you could agree that in the “Thai native” approach/teaching the terminology is not so really clear, or unambiguous.”
2. I just have discussed this with my wife: Inspite we may wrong my perspective on Thai grammar is that it started, more or less, based on อาจารย์ กำชัย ทองหล่อ work หลักภาษาไทย published first … the Norwegian Wikipedia says: “กำชัย ทองหล่อ (1952) หลักภาษาไทย – Bamrung Sasana Press, Bangkok. (med flere senere opplag).” The Royal Institue was established in 1933, the 1st ed of RID was published in 1950. Thus, I consider Thai grammar as a still young science.
3. A compliant heard frequently: There is no etymological dictionary available for Thai. Compare this with e.g. Grimm’s Woerterbuch, or the DWB, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_W%C3%B6rterbuch, as such the starting point of comperative grammar in 1838, I have the feeling that there is still a large space for work for linguist on Thai grammar.
Would like to get your view on these observations, or perceptions.
Very good points, Thomas, thanks for clarifying. I guess what I mean by my statement regarding Thai grammar as not being a developing field is that Thai is already a complete language. The rules are the rules. The issue is really that someone hasn’t put those rules into a single resource that everyone has agreed upon, such as the Oxford Dictionary for English.
Regarding your previous post, Thomas, it is possible that “adjective” is not the perfect fit to describe the สวย scenario, but with my current level of understanding I think “modifier” is an even less-perfect fit given the previous explanation. สวย doesn’t modify anything in the sentence เขาเป็นคนสวย. A “modifier” suggests that you can take it out of a sentence and still retain the sentence’s general meaning. If I take สวย out I am left with เขาเป็นคน (“She is a person”) and that’s not what my sentence was intending to say. The sentence itself is complete and grammatically correct, but I was trying to say “She is pretty” and not “She is a person.” To go one step further, in the sentence “the big dog bit me” you can treat “big” as a modifier because taking it out doesn’t destroy the intent of the sentence, which is that a dog bit me.
I think we might be saying the same thing in different ways regarding the “I am rich” scenario, but admittedly (and I apologize) I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say in that case. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
As for your “the white wine is red,” that’s a brilliant question. You’re really making me think about that! Perhaps นี่เหล้าไวน์ขาวคือสีแดง would be more accurate, using คือ to indicate that this specific white wine has a red color?
>>>[Josh] สวย doesn’t modify anything in the sentence เขาเป็นคนสวย. A “modifier” suggests that you can take it out of a sentence and still retain the sentence’s general meaning. If I take สวย out I am left with เขาเป็นคน (“She is a person”) and that’s not what my sentence was intending to say.<<<
1. I just apologized for abusing English grammar terms for Thai grammar and, therefore, do not want to start a discussion on terminology.
If you could have a look on this http://books.google.co.th/books?id=YE29njS4qSUC&lpg=PP1&vq=p%3D221&hl=en&pg=PA221#v=onepage&q=p%3D221&f=false (p. 221).
The sentence เขาเป็นคนสวย has the structure N1 + pen + N2 (plus a วิเศษณ์ {of N2}). If you leave the wiset out, the "meaning" of the copulative sentence as a copulative sentence, in which pen is used as the copula, does not change. It still states that N1 is a khon (N2), a human being. N2 a noun (in general) but not a classifier (in specific), the one and only reason to comment on this lesson (to be or not to be). That this human being, the object, N2, has no longer the property suai, is the effect of leaving out สวย). If you leave out เป็นคน so that เขาสวย remains, the sentence is no longer a copulative sentence (missing the copula เป็น), but has the meaning of that what you actually want to say: "She is pretty, beautiful, nice." Why the latter English sentence needs a "to be or not to be" in-between the noun and the … "stativ verb" (???), this may know the Lord – but actually, this is what I love in Thai language.
2. One of my first lessons in Thai was, telling to my wife:
"ฉันเป็นโง่ครับ" I could be sure to get the reply:
"ไม่ใช่ !!! เธอโง่ค่ะ"
… saing that I'm stupid since I use a เป็น in front of a วิเศษณ์.
That's what I can tell about "to be or not to be", a วิเศษณ์ is without, a noun/nan copula sentence (N1+N2 = SPO) is with.
Concerning red white wine … perhaps we could ask kru Nan for a translation? May be that: "You have drunken too much Whiskey!" may result?
.
More seriously: I do not think that คือ may be here the solution. คือ means the subsequent noun(s)/objects define the subject of the sentence, so how to define a white wine? By its red colour?
A red (painted) car can be fast, but a kaengkhiaowan cannot red. That's what I tried to say with my thoughts about the
usage of สี for describing the Ferrari.
I think we’re in agreement on #1 Thomas.
As for #2, I think your suggestion to ask Kun Nan is great. I will include you in the question and will post her response here.
Thomas,
I never heard back from Nan, but my wife said it should be
เหล้าไวน์ขาวเป็นสีแดง
Looking into this further, สีแดง is classified as a noun, and แดง is classified as an adjective. If you are going to use เป็น in the sentence (which my wife suggests) then you must include สี “color” to make the word red a noun and fit grammatically.
Hi Josh
I stumbled across your blog today and will enjoy exploring it, as I am off to study Thai in Chiang Mai, this October for one year.
Although I am already overwhelmed by the challenge, I am really looking forward to it.
Thanks for visiting, Nina. Your trip sounds very exciting. Don’t get overwhelmed; that will just make learning harder. As long as you can relax and open up to the experience I’m sure you’ll pick up Thai very quickly. Certainly by the end of a year in Chiang Mai you should be speaking very well.
If you have any specific questions or topics you would like covered, please let me know.