1983.syntax and Semantics of Numeral

Rapid #: -22208892
CROSS REF ID: 15671548220004361
LENDER: U3G (University of Guelph) :: McLaughlin Library
BORROWER: B3G (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) :: Main Library

TYPE: Article CC:CCL
JOURNAL TITLE: Studies in language
USER JOURNAL TITLE: Studies in Language
ARTICLE TITLE: Syntax and Semantics of Numeral Classifiers in Thai
ARTICLE AUTHOR: Hundius, Harald
VOLUME: 7
ISSUE: 2
MONTH:
YEAR: 1983
PAGES: 165 - 214
ISSN: 0378-4177
OCLC #:
Processed by RapidX: 3/11/2024 10:32:41 AM
You can only receive a single copy of the attached article/document.
This copy has been made for use solely by a student, staff member, faculty member, or library patron for the purpose of
research, private study, review, criticism, news reporting, education, parody or satire, and may only be used by the recipient
for these purposes. When using copies for the purpose of news reporting, criticism or review, the source must be mentioned,
and, if given in the source, the name of the author or creator of the work.
Note that further copying, scanning, faxing, transmitting or otherwise making or distributing copies of this item except as
permitted by law, may be an infringement of copyright if done without proper license or the consent of the copyright owner.
Failure to abide by these conditions may constitute violation of Canadian Copyright Law, and/or relevant licensing
agreements, including agreements with Access Copyright.
STUDIES IN
LANGUAGE
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
SPONSORED BY THE FOUNDATION
“ FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE ”
VOLUME 7, NO. 2 (1983)
JO H N B E N JA M IN S R.V. P U B L IS H E R AM STERDAM
S T U D I E S IN L A N G U A G E
International Journal sponsored by the Foundation
“Foundations of Language”
EDITORIAL BOARD
John W. M. Verhaar, Managing Editor Werner Abraham, Review Editor
Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA Univ. of Groningen, Netherlands
Richard D. Brecht, Univ. of Maryland T. Givon, Univ. of Oregon, Eugene

Bernard Comrie, Univ. of S. Calif, Ferenc Kiefer, Hungarian Academy of
Los Angeles Sciences, Hungary
Bruce Fraser, Boston Univ. John Robert Ross, M.I. T.
Sandra A. Thompson, UCLA.
Editorial Assistant:
Elsa Whitfield
16 Queensway,
Ponteland,
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
England NE20 9RZ
CONSULTING EDITORS
A. L. Becker, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor- Donald C. haycock,R.S.Pac.S., A.N.U.

RuthM. Brend,Mich. State Univ. W. P. Lehmann, Univ. of Texas, Austin
Noam Chomsky,M.I. T. Charles N.Li, Univ.ofCalif, SantaBarbara
Robert M. W. Dixon, ATV.t/. J. Lyons, Univ. of Sussex
J.A. Edmondson, Univ. of Texas, Arlington Herman Parret, Univ. of Leuven and
W. Foley,A.N.U. Antwerp
George W. Grace, Univ. of Hawaii W. A. de Pater, Kath. Univ. Leuven
Amram Halim,Nat. Lang. Instit., Jakarta H. Seiler, Univ. of Cologne
Dell H. Hymes, Univ. ofPenna., Roger W. Shuy, Georgetown Univ.
Philadelphia Michael Silverstein, Univ. of Chicago
John M. Lawler, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor P.Ziff, Univ. of N. Carol, Chapel Hill
For subscription-rates and other business-information see page 3 inside-cover.
ISSN 0378-4177
John Benjamins B. V.
Amsteldijk 44 - P. O. Box 52519 —The Netherlands
1007 HA AMSTERDAM
Telephone: (020) 73 81 56 - Telex 15798
All rights reserv
•X
Studies in Language 7.2.165-214 (1983). All
'Mu/,
'■*<% Je ,
: . " V; :
SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF NUMERAL ; Clip, ?v\
CLASSIFIERS IN THAI ,^
HARALD HUNDIUS AND ULRIKE KOLVER

University of Cologne, F.R.G.
0. Introduction
In the paper presented here we try both to analyze the syntactic function, and
to document the semantic diversity, of Thai numeral classifiers. The study was
motivated by current comparative research of the Cologne Language Univer
sal Project; its general background is a series of enquiries (the results of
which are forthcoming presently1) into different techniques employed across
languages to relate nominal notions to linguistic categories of quantification.
In this framework, the various classificatory techniques encountered in
different groups of languages most strikingly invite language comparison. For
there are conspicuous affinities between such classificatory phenomena as,
for instance, numeral classification in East Asia and the various classificatory
principles in Amerindian languages.2
Therefore, our article is meant as a case study which illustrates one such
classificatory technique within the system of an individual language. Thai
seems most suitable for this purpose, for it is in the core group of East Asian
numeral classifier languages, (so much so that Jones (1970:11) hypothetically
suggests the Thai languages as the original source of this areal phenomenon, —
anissue which can be definitely settled only on more detailed and reliable dia
chronic evidence than is so far at our disposal).
In comparison to other numeral classifier languages of the area, Thai
employs numeral classifiers a) in the widest range of distribution in NP con
structions, and b) in terms of an extremely diversified network of separate
classes. Therefore, Thai (and its immediate cognates) offer the most differen
tiated evidence as to both the syntactic and semantic properties of this type of
category.
166 HARALD HUNDIUS & ULRIKE KOLVER
The article deals with both these aspects in the following ways: in §1, clas
sifiers are discussed in their categorial affiliations. It is shown that they forma
separate word class, as against nouns on the one hand, as against measuring
numeratives on the other. In §2, the various possible distributions are ana
lyzed as to their syntactic function. This consists in establishing immediate
reference to individual objects. In this function classifiers serve to compensate
the most specific property of Thai nouns: these purely denote concepts and,
for this reason, are incompatible with direct quantification. In §3, some gener
al semantic regularities are discussed which relate to the principle of classifica
tion by inherent features of the corresponding nouns. Finally, in §4, a list of
classifiers is presented which tries to document as fully as possible the network
of lexical classes for the present state of the language. The more general
results of this lexical survey are commented on at the end of §4.: the distribu
tion of lexical classes shows a most characteristic unevenness. It reveals a se
mantic scalarity which is regulated in terms of more of less easy visual appre
hension of objects.
The lexical materials for this study have been assembled from the avail
able dictionaries of Standard Thai. The chief source was that of Haas (1964)
which lists appropriate classifiers along with most noun entries. This has been
checked through and, additionally, other dictionaries have been consulted for
further data and more detailed glosses, (see references).
For both the syntactic and the semantic parts additional evidence beyond
the published sources has been obtained from native informants. We should
here like to express our gratitude to all those who have so kindly and coopera
tively helped in our work, in particular to Mr. and Mrs. Achintaarangkorn,
Mrs. ManidaaHuebner, Dr. R. Thiraporn (Univ. of Kiel), Mr. S. Cangkacit,
Mr. P. Na Nakhorn (Bangkok), Acharn Sudaporn and Dr. P. Sornhiranya
(Chulalangkorn Univ. of Bangkok). Equally we should like to thank Mr. R.
Dolling (Univ. of Kiel) for his substantial help in collecting lexical materials.
1. The Category of Numeratives and its subdivisions

1.1. The Quantifier Phrase
When forming quantifiying constructions, Thai, as is well known by now1*3,
cannot directly join numerals to the noun heads they are meant to modify. In
stead, the numeral has to be followed by a member of a specific class of words
nowadays usually called classifiers,4This phrase, in its turn, has to followthe
head of the noun phrase (as must all other determiners). The most common
SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS IN THAI 167
type is illustrated by the following expressions:

(1) a. romsdam khan
umbrella three (elf: long, handled obj)
“three umbrellas”
(1) b. phaafaaj saam phap
cotton three roll
“three rolls of cotton cloth”
The reason for isolating certain lexical items, like khan and phap above,
as a separate word category stems from word order: except for the case of cer
tain compounds resembling the dvigu-type5, all words immediately following
a numeral will here be called numeratives. This term, which includes clas
sifiers in a narrower sense, is going to be explained presently. Before doing so,
it is necessary to repeat why word order is of crucial significance here. For the
distinction between nouns and numeratives essentially hinges upon the order
of words:
(2) khaw mii luuk saam khon
he have child three (clf:person)
“he has three children”
(3) khaw syy manaaw saam luuk
he buy lemon three (clf:fruit)
“he bought three lemons”
An identical morpheme in (2) serves as a noun, in (3) as a numerative.6. This
categorial distinction is consistently maintained, so much so that even repea
ter constructions7 such as
(4) kd saam kd
island three (clf:island)
“three islands”
are by no means rare.
1.2. Numeratives: Measures and Classifiers
Before we go on to a detailed examination of this category which is at present
merely defined in terms of its syntactic position, we should suggest a modifica
tion of terminology. For the term classifier does not seem altogether approp
riate when applied to constructions like (1) b. which contains a measuring unit
that as such can hardly be said to ‘classify’its head noun. Therefore, in the fol
lowing pages we shall use the term numerative to denote the entire category,
as established by word order. The term classifier, however, will be restricted

to that particular subset of numeratives which constitutes a network of lexi
cally pre-established relationships with specific sets of count nouns.
This distinction would seem to require a word of justification. For many
authors (as their terminology implies8) consider constructions like (1) a. and
b. to be identical, taking neutrality as to the distinction between mass nouns
and count nouns9 to be the salient feature of numeral classifier languages.
Thai count nouns, however, are demonstrably different from mass nouns
both in terms of syntax and semantics10 — which testifies to the validity of
Greenberg’s distinction between measuring vs. counting constructions (1974:
21).11
In terms of their syntactic properties, numeratives are to be divided into
three major subcategories, viz.,
1) those that denote a) any kind of measure, or b) “types of’entities, as e.g.
(a) dinntaw sdam koon
clay three lump
“three lumps of clay”
(b) naamman sdam chanit
oil three kind
“three kinds of oil”
2) classifiers proper, including repeaters, as in (1) a. and (4)
3) measure terms occurring without a preceding head noun.
We shall first briefly deal with the third of these subcategories, which
Haas (1942:204) has called ‘independent classifiers’. Most of them are mea
sures of time or monetary units. In Thai, they are unmistakeably measures,
not nouns: many of them, e.g. wan “day”, cannot be combined with adjec
tives12, and, most significant in the present context, they invariably occur in
the position reserved for numeratives, i.e. following numerals.
The other two subcategories refer to the two variants of numerative con
structions which reflect the nominal subcategories of mass and count nouns.
Our first group consists of measure terms, collective units and lexemes
denoting kinds of entities. All of these share the common feature that they ex
press some notion of quantity or type which is extrinsic13to the lexical content
of the head noun; they provide additional information. Numeratives of this
kind are often freely chosen, depending on the objects measured (liquids e.g.
being often measured in terms of containers — a method hardly confined to
any particular language). No doubt there will be measuring units specific to li
mited areas and to certain varieties of objects (as e.g. ihanaan denoting a hol
lowcoconut traditionally used for measuring rice), which thus convey some
cultural and linguistic information. In any case, our point is that measures, by
their very nature, carry lexical information of their own which is handled in
dependently of the information conveyed by a potential head noun.
Words meaning ‘type, kind’etc. have been included here though they ob
viously do not denote quantities. For one thing, like measures, they introduce
notions extrinsic to their head nouns. Moreover, they are subject to the same
restrictions as measures (for which see below). Nor do they enter into
specific relationships with particular subsets of nouns. Thus, they have no
bearing on nominal subcategorization or on the classification of count
nouns.14
As against this, classifiers proper always and in principle reflect intrinsic
semantic features of those sets of nouns that they are systematically related to,
a principle which culminates in complete identity of head noun and classifier
as exemplified above in (4), (see 2.2.3,3.2. a., 4.4. below).
1.3. Syntactic restrictions: Mass nouns vs. Count nouns
As introduced, this distinction is a semantic one. It is, however, well borne out
insyntax, which becomes apparent as soon as adjectives are introduced into a
NP. .' ■ , ;- .
Besides obligatorily combining with numerals, classifiers proper op
tionally combine with adjectives (in a way more fully analyzed in 2 .1.2 .
below):
(5) a. nok tua jaj -
bird (clf:body) big i v ; ;'
“the big bird”
(5) b. nok tua sii-khiaw tua jaj
bird (elf) green (elf) big
..“the big green bird”
Inthese examples the classifier, tua, does not contribute any independent lex
ical meaning to the NP. Therefore it combines with any adjective in such a way
that the meaning of the adjective is mapped onto the head noun itself. .
No analogous construction, however, is possible with numeratives of the
measuring variety, precisely because these carry independent lexical informa
tion.
Here two possibilites arise: either the numerative denotes a standardized

measure, in which case no phrases like (5) can be formed at all15, that is, no ad
jective may appear after the numerative. Alternatively, the numerative de
notes a unit which is variable as to actual quantity, in which case the measure
term itself may be modified by suitable adjectives denoting quantity or size
etc., as in -
(6) a. jaa khanaan jaj
medicine portion big
“a big portion of medicine”
where the numerative khanfian is susceptible to variation in size.
In contrast to (5) however, no adjective meant to modify the head noun
itself may be placed after the numerative. Thus, there is no analogous phrase
(6) b. *jaa khanaan khom
medicine portion bitter.
Instead it would have to have to be something like
(6) c. jaa khom khanaan nyr]
medicine bitter portion one
“a portion of bitter medicine”
where the adjective immediately follows its head.
Now, in (5) the head noun ndk is a count noun, while (6) contains a mass
noun. It would be imprecise, however, to identify the subcategories simply by
correlation to either type of construction. For constructions with numeratives
of the measuring variety may be formed with nouns of either subcategory.
Compare the phrases
(7) a. naamtaan saam kiloo/ thuaj/ koon
sugar three kg / cup / lump ,
(7) b. kluaj saam kiloo/ takraa/ wii
banana three kg / basket/ hand
where a. contains a mass noun, b. a count noun, each occurring with measuring
numeratives.
Equally, phrases like (6) may be headed by count nouns:
(8) a. ndk fuurj jaj
bird swarm big
“a large swarm of birds”.
Here, too, the adjective is not mapped onto the head noun, but modifies the
numerative itself. Adjectives meant to modify the head noun must not appear
in this position:
(8) b. *ndk fuuij stt-khiaw
bird swarm green.
Instead the adjective must immediately follow its head:
(8) c. ndk jajfuurj jaj
“a large swarm of big birds”
d. ndk sti-khiawfuuij jaj
“a large swarm of green birds”.
Thus a numerative like fuurj when combined with a count noun like ndk dis
plays exactly the same structural properties as the measure in (6) co-occurring
with a mass noun.
That means, the numeratives in (6) — (8) do not differ syntactically, for
which reason they have been included in the same subcategory, as opposed to
genuine classifiers. The difference is merely a semantic one: khanaan and
fuinj are both measure terms exemplifying the dissociative and the associative
variety respectively.17In other words, in Thai there is no syntactically distinct
type of collective construction, it is merely a lexical variant of the measure
construction.
Thus, as we saw, measure constructions in themselves do not warrant a
distinction between mass and count nouns. The distinction, however, does
emerge from adjectival expansions as in (5) when contrasted with (6) b.: only
count nouns, not mass nouns, admit of phrases like ndk tuajaj “the big bird”.
To sum up: the view that Thai, or numeral classifier languages generally,
do not distinguish mass from count nouns is not supported by the evidence in
Thai. Yet, Thai nouns have properties which nouns e.g. in German do not
share. In the attempt to define these properties we shall concentrate upon the
type of construction most conspicuously contrasting with the enquirers’
mother tongue. This is count nouns and the methods employed to quantify
them. And it is these which are syntactically and semantically analyzed in the
following paragraphs.
2. Syntacticfunction of classifiers
2.1. Distribution
The most frequent use of classifiers is their obligatory occur
rence in counting constructions as above in
(1) a. rom saam khan

umbrella three (elf: long, handled obj)
“three umbrellas”.
The classifier has to follow the numeral: N + Num + Clf. We shall revert to
this obligatory use, after surveying and analyzing the various other distribu
tions, in 2 .2 .
. For there are other environments where classifiers occur optionally, or,
to put it more precisely, there are constructions which contrast solely by the
presence or absence of a classifier. In order to arrive at an adequate functional
analysis we shall avail ourselves of such minimal pairs, which provide the most
readily accessible evidence as to the functional value of classifiers.
Apart from combining with numerals, classifiers co-occur with the follow
ing kinds of nominal determiners: with demonstratives and adjectives, with
ordinal numbers, certain indefinite quantifiers, and distributive markers.
They never follow a head noun as an independent modifier, however. That is,
there are no NPs of the structure *rdm khan.
2.1.1. Classifiers and Demonstratives/Adjectives
Both demonstratives and adjectives18 may occur with classifiers, with the
order of elements reversed, though. This provides us with the following mini
mal pairs:
(9) a. rom nil b. rom khan mi
umbrella this
“this/theseumbrella(s)” “this umbrella”
(10) a. rom stt-khiaw b. rom khan sii-khiaw
umbrella green
“green umbrella” “the green umbrella(s)”.
The examples involve determiners which illustrate the two extreme points
within the continuum of determination19, (9) showing referential specifica
tion, (10) conceptual characterization. Both cases labelled b. are marked
forms when contrasted with a.. The results of such marking are not identical,
though.
In (9) we have a demonstrative, which ensures referential identification.
The difference between a. and b. solely affects number: while a. is neutral, al
lowing for both a singular and a plural interpretation, b. is always understood
to refer to a single item. This means, it is the classifier the unambiguous singu
lar interpretation can be traced to.
In (10), variant a. contains no numerical or referential indication what

ever, it simply denotes a conceptual modification of the head noun irrespec
tive of number or referential possibilities which — as an English gloss cannot
adequately capture — are a matter of most varied contextual interpretation.
Against this, b. is preferably, though not invariably, used to refer to a single
object. Furthermore, it implies either definite reference, or else a contrastive
referential value of the adjective.
Thus, the contrast between these minimal pairs yields the preliminary re
sult that use of a classifier affects a) number and b) reference. It also shows
that classifiers have a somewhat different functional value depending on the
kind of determiner they co-occur with.
And, when contrasted with counting constructions like (1) a., a conspicu
ous difference of order has to be noted for constructions involving demonstra
tives and adjectives: they have to follow the reverse order: N + Clf + Dem/.
Adj.
2.1.2. Combination of several determiners :
In order to account for the difference between our minimal pairs as
noted above, as well as for the reversal of order, it is necessary to see what hap
pens when we combine several of the determiners involved in classifier con
structions within the same NP. First consider
(11) rom khan stt-khiaw khan mi
“this green umbrella”.
The example simply conjoins the determiners of (9) b. and (10) b., i.e. the
classifier occurs twice. The phrase as a whole yields an unambiguous singular
interpretation triggered by the demonstrative with its preceding classifier,:
while the adjective with its classifier in turn has a contrastive value (to which
we shall revert below). In the same way a classifier may recur as many times as
there are adjective constituents to the NP:
(12) rom khan sii-khiaw khan jaj khan n(i
“this big green umbrella”.
A different picture, however, emerges as soon as we try to combine the
numeral phrase of (1) a., saam khan with the determiners of (9) and (10). Such:
expansion yields only one possible result for (9), no matter whether phrase (a)
or (b) is expanded, viz.:
(13) rom saam khan mi
“these three umbrellas”
where the classifier may appear once only.

For (10) several possibilities arise, viz. expansion of (10) a. into
(14) a. rom sti-khiaw sdam khan
“three green umbrellas”
of (10) b. into
(14) b. rom khan sti-khiaw sdam khan
“the three green umbrellas”.
As a third variant we obtain
(14) c. rom sdam khan sti-khiaw
“the three green umbrellas”
with the classifier appearing once only. That is, variant (14) c. is the exact
structural parallel of (13).
Let us first examine (13): the classifier may appear once only, it may not be re
peated separately with each of the determiners, as one would expect by anal
ogy to (11) or (12). Thus the contrast of rom nti vs. rom khan nti is neutralized
in (13).
Now, since numerals obligatorily require classifiers, the only way to
analyze rom sdam khan nti is
N + (Num+Clf) + Dem.
This means, the structure of (9) b., N + Clf +Dem, will have to be interpreted
in the light of our analysis of (13): it clearly shows that the classifier may be
combined with the demonstrative only, if the NP does not simultaneously con
tain a numeral. This restriction provides the essential clue for the analysis of
phrases like (9): rather than dividing the phrase rom khan nti “this umbrella”
at its face value into the constituents N + (Clf+Dem), the adequate analysis,
covering the restriction, is
N + (0 +Clf) + Dem.
That is, when a classifier occurs preceding a demonstrative, it appears as the
reflex of a numeral phrase, the numeral of which, however, has been deleted
in the overt structure. This deleted numeral, not surprisingly, is automatically
interpreted as “one” — and thus ensures the singular reading of the whole
phrase.
This analysis also accounts for the reverse order of elements: Num + Clf
vs. Clf+ Dem.20As we noted above (p. 172), classifiers are not used as nomi
nal determiners by themselves. Therefore, if the classifier does not follow an
overtly expressed numeral, it has to co-occur with some other nominal deter
miner, — a demonstrative in our present case. This must be preceded by the
classifier for the reasons a) that the position of the implied numeral “one” has
to be left empty and b) that demonstratives invariably occur as terminal ele
ments of a NP.
In this way a surface structure like (9) b., rather than constituting an en
tirely different type of classifier construction, can be traced to a basic pattern of
counting construction. This can be formed in two alternative ways: either
there is an overt numeral construction as in (1) a., or there is a covert, implicit
counting construction. In this latter case the unambiguous interpretation of
the implied numeral position triggers the singular interpretation of the phrase
as in (9) b..
2.1.3. Variation of order among determiners
In the light of our analysis so far let us now turn to the variants permissible
when adjectives and numeral phrases simultaneously figure in a NP, as illus
trated in (14). Of these, variant a. rom sti-khiaw sdam khan “three green um
brellas” presents a straightforward expansion of (10) a. rom sti-khiaw. In nor
mal NP order, the noun is first expanded by an adjective, so as to bring about a
modified nominal concept, which in turn is determined by a numeral phrase
containing the obligatory classifier.
Against that, b. rom khan sti-khiaw sdam khan “the three green umbrel
las” presents an expansion of (10) b. and thus contains two occurrences of the
classifier. Finally, c. rom sdam khan sti-khiaw “the three green umbrellas”,
changes the order of numeral phrase and adjective and thus is structured
exactly like (13). No tangible difference in meaning could be ascertained be
tween b. and c. except for emphasis: informants agreed on b. more emphati
cally referring to specific, identifiable objects.
The analysis of (13) above thus obviously applies to (14) c. as well: the
classifier may appear once only, and that is, as the obligatory co-constituent of
the numeral, so that the phrase divides into N + (Num+Clf) + Adj. Evi
dently, on this analogy between (13) and (14) c., the phrase rom khan sti-
khiaw can be analyzed in the same way as rom khan nti: here again the clas
sifier reflects an implied quantitative notion due to an implied numeral posi
tion, which usually and most likely is interpreted as “one”. For, as we noted
above, phrases like ( 10) b. preferably have a singular reading, too.
However, in contrast to (9) b., such an interpretation is not compulsory
inthis case, and this is where we have to take the differing orders of (14) b. and
c. into account.
Unlike demonstratives, which are restricted to the terminal position of a
NP, adjectives allow for much more positional variation. The relative order
Clf- Adj,however, may not vary, precisely because the classifier may combine
with an adjective only, if it is not bound to a preceding numeral, as it is in (14)
c. Yet the phrase rom khan sii-khiaw with its implied numerical connotation
may still be followed by an overt numeral phrase, which of course determines
the actual quantitative interpretation of the phrase. For this reason rom khan
sii-khiaw, which maybe related to either order variant (14) b. ore. respective
ly, has quantitative connotations different from rom khan mi.
A demonstrative necessarily marks the end of a NP, so that no further
specification, numerical or otherwise, can possibly follow and interfere with
the numerical interpretation of the classifier. Therefore this interpretation in
variably is “one”, being the most natural reading in the absence of an overt
specification.
The order variants permissible with adjectives, however, open up a wider
scope: when no numeral is actually specified, the most ready and natural in
terpretation here, too, is “one”. Yet, in principle there is the possibility of fol
lowing up the implicit counting construction Clf - Adj by an overt numeral
phrase within the same NP, and this is why the numerical interpretation is not
absolutely restricted to a singular reading.
2.1.4. Classifiers and reference
As a further difference between our minimal pairs (9) and (10) we noted refe
rential connotations: classifiers in the context of adjectives signal definite re
ference to specific objects or they stress contrastive properties as conveyed by
the co-occurring adjectives.
In order to account for this fact, we must revert to the pronounced differ
ence between demonstratives and adjectives.21 For demonstratives by them
selves always serve the very function of referential identification, thus there is'
no need to employ classifiers in any referential function in phrases like (9) b.
Adjectives, on the contrary, by themselves have no referential properties
at all, as (10) a. shows. Yet, they are frequently needed for referential pur
poses, i.e. for identifying subsets of objects in terms of contrastive properties
they may happen to have: specific green umbrellas vs. red ones etc. This is:
where classifiers are made use of for referential purposes: since adjectives are
referentially neutral, their combination with a classifier may serve to compen
sate this deficiency and thus bring about a definite interpretation of the
phrase. This secondary function is readily compatible with the one noted so
far: classifiers, as we found, always relate to the quantification of objects.
Therefore, in the absence of other referential clues, they may be utilized to re-
ferentially identify these objects.
In much the same way classifiers may acquire a fairly strong contrastive
referential value. That is, in phrases like (11) rom khan sii-khiaw nii “this
green umbrella”, reference is sufficiently specified by the demonstrative. The
classifier preceding the adjective in this case simply stresses the contrastive
value of the adjective as an essential identifying property of the object refer
red to. Similarly, repetition with several adjectives may serve such contrastive
purposes, as in
(15) a. rom khan sii-khiaw khan jaj
“the big green umbrella”.
Or the classifier may be used to emphasize the one contrastive property of an
object among its other merely descriptive ones:
{■' ) (15) b. rom sii-khiaw khan jaj
“the big green umbrella”.
In this way classifiers may be utilized in quite a number of variants of NPs.22
It must be kept in mind, however, that no referential or contrastive func
tions are inherent in classifiers by themselves: for their obligatory use in overt
counting constructions does not imply referential properties. Phrases like (1)
a. are perfectly neutral in this respect.
The essential function of classifiers, as far as could be shown from the
analysis of our minimal pairs, consists in relating phrases like (9) b. and (10) b.
to quantitatively specifiable objects, while their unmarked counterparts are
absolutely neutral as to quantity. They can be shown to form implicit counting
constructions, which, for their actual quantitative interpretation, depend on
the kind of nominal determiner they occur with.
2.1.5. Further environments
Though not in principle different from the constructions discussed so far, the
remaining distributions mentioned above should be illustrated briefly.
1) Classifiers may precede ordinal numbers, in which case they function as
they do with adjectives.
Ordinal numbers consist of the morpheme thii (basically a noun meaning
“place where”23) and a following numeral (for ordinal use of simple numerals
see 2.2.2. below). Compare the following phrases:

(16) a. thandn thii jiisibsaam24
street place twenty-three
“23rd street”
(16) b. phuuchaaj khon thii sdam
man (clf:pers) place three
“the third man”.
The head noun in a. thandn denotes an entity typically conceived of in terms of
serial occurrence, where the ordinal number furnishes the essential means’of
identification of a particular item of the series, i.e. it is here equivalent to a
proper name. In this case, even the ordinal marker thii could be dispensed
with, while no classifier could be inserted here.
In b. however, with the head noun phuuchaaj “man”, the ordinal number
is just a random attribution among many conceivable ones. In this case, the
classifier is employed in the same way as in the constructions analyzed above.
That is, it triggers a quantitative interpretation, most likely as “one”. Like (9)
and (10), (16) b. reflects a deleted numeral, for the phrase yields the same re
sult when expanded by an overt numeral phrase. Thus one can say:
(16) c. phuuchaaj sdorj khon thii sdam
man two (clf:pers) place three
“the third two men”25
which contains the classifier as obligatory co-constituent of the cardinal num
eral as above, and which shows that, in theory at least, numerals other than
“one” may determine the quantitative interpretation of the phrase. Admit
tedly, phrases like this have their narrow lexical limitations to just the smallest
figures. Nonetheless, within the narrow limits of plausibility and ease of
conception for such phrases, the same regularities apply as in the other con
structions. This is further corroborated by
(16) d. phuuchaaj thii sdam
“the third man”
which would imply that the ordinal number serves to express a conceptual
modification of the head noun, as an adjective would. It presupposes a series,
the members of which are essentially characterized with reference to their
position in that series.
Thus ordinals used without a classifier, like adjectives, operate on the
conceptual level, while use with a classifier again yields a covert counting con
struction.
2) Like numerals, some non-numerical quantifiers have to be followed by a
classifier, while others do not.
The first type comprises lexemes such as baarj “some, a few”, Ifiaj
“many”, thuk “each”, kii “how many” etc., e.g.:
(17) rom laaj khan
“many umbrellas”.
The other type is exemplified by lexemes like baarj “some, a little”, maak
“much”, thag “all”, thawraj “how much”, etc.
The difference, as suggested by some of the English glosses, once more
reflects the distinction between counting and measuring constructions discus
sed above in 1. Indefinite quantifiers of the first type quantify individual ob
jects as such, while the other type denotes quantities not conceptualized as
consisting of discrete items. Thus, mass nouns freely combine with the second
type, as in
(18) mil naamman maak/bdag
“there is much oil/some oil”
while count nouns usually occur with the first type.
Under certain conditions though, count nouns may take the measuring
type of lexeme, too , viz. with reference to quantities too large to be readily es
timated in figures. Thus one can say
(19) a. mii nakrian maak
have student much
“there are lots of students”.
Against that, a phrase
(19) b. mii nakrian laaj khon
have student many (clf:pers)
“there are many students”
implies that those referred to are still perceived individually. A quantifier like
Wap “some, a little” will hardly occur with count nouns.
3) Furthermore, there is a distributive variant of classifier construction:
(20) khdw syy sdm liiuk Id nyg bdat
he buy orange (clfrfruit) per one baht
“he bought oranges a baht per piece”.
This example hardly needs further comment: the distributional morpheme la

“per” automatically triggers the interpretation “one item” for the classifier.
4) Finally, we must mention one exception to the rule that classifiers have to
follow numerals, viz. with the numeral nyr) “one”. This may either follow or
precede the classifier:
(21) a. rom nyr) khan
“one umbrella”
(21) b. rom khan nyr/
“an umbrella”.
While a. is a counting construction like any other, b. has an indefinite reading.
For this reason Haas (1942:204) rightly assigns nyr) to two different substitu
tion paradigms: in b. it figures in the same category as demonstratives,
specifiying indefinite reference. Therefore demonstratives and nyr) in this use
are mutually exclusive, (while, needless to say, variant a. may of course be fol
lowed by a demonstrative). 'f
Now, nyi; is a genuine exception in two respects: for one thing, the clas
sifier is not only obligatory in variant a., but also in b., for this is the only way
to distinguish between them and to avoid the ungrammatical phrase *rom
nyrj. For another thing, while demonstratives may be preceded by a numeral
phrase, as illustrated above in (13), there is naturally no analogous expansion
of (21) b., since *rdm nfrj khan nft) would, of course, be an unacceptable
tautology.
Variant b. is not an obligatory means of marking indefinite reference and
there is no systematically corresponding definite construction to contrast it
with. As will be shown presently, reference in Thai is largely a matter of con
textual interpretation. Thus, variant b. simply expresses that indefinite refer
ence applies to a single object.
2.2. Concepts and Objects
We are now led back to our initial observation, viz. obligatory use of clas
sifiers in the context of numerals. After analyzing the various other distribu
tions, we are now able to reformulate this observation. As the contrastive
minimal pairs discussed above have shown, the several positions classifiers ap
pear in may be related to one another as varying realizations of the same basic
pattern of counting construction: either the classifier occurs as an obligatory
co-constituent of an overtly expressed numeral, or it reflects an empty numeral
position which in turn is to be contextually interpreted, most often and most
naturally as “one”.
This means, instead of contrasting an “obligatory” use with an “optional”
one (as the literature usually describes it), we can now say more precisely that
classifiers occur to indicate that a NP applies to specified or specifiable
numbers of individual objects. In this way they serve to introduce the very no
tion of quantity the NP is otherwise devoid of. Thus, when a NP is meant to
refer to individual objects in terms of overt lexical means, such as numerals
and certain indefinite quantifiers, the classifier is their necessary correlate en
suring the quantitative meaning of the phrase, — a point which is going to be
more fully illustrated presently. In other contexts, involving determiners which
do not lexically relate to quantity, the choice is between phrases neutral as to
quantity (and, in the case of adjectives, neutral as to reference as well) and
phrases implying a quantitative interpretation.
Classifiers thus provide the specific technique Thai employs to refer to in
dividual objects in terms of quantity. The central question then, of course, is
why this particular technique is necessary. Why is it that quantitative mean
ings cannot be simply expressed by combining nouns with lexemes denoting
quantitative notions?
To answer this question we have to consider a) the status of nouns and b) the
status of numerals in Thai.
2.2.1. Nouns
As is the typical case in isolating languages, Thai nouns do not in themselves
contain any numerical or referential indications. They always have to occur in
their one unalterable form, irrespective of their context in a sentence. This
means, in themselves nouns are in no way modifiable so as to reflect the vary
ingsituational settings of the corresponding objects.
When a noun appears as the sole constituent of a NP in a sentence like
(22) plaa waaj jiiu naj mee ndam
fish swim remain in river
it allows for a certain range of different interpretations, roughly shown in the
following glosses:
a. fish swim in rivers (generic)
b. the fish(es) swim(s)/swam in a river/rivers
c. a fish/fishes swim(s)/swam in the river/a river ... etc.
Unless more context will narrow down the choice, such sentences, which
are perfectly customary, in principle have quite a number of possible read
ings: they may be generic or specific, definite or indefinite, singular or plural

in various combinations (limited, of course, by general plausibility of in
terpretation). The noun itself, then, is perfectly neutral as to varying actual
constellations of the corresponding objects.
This means, nouns as such do not directly refer to objects. On the con
trary, they are purely conceptual labels26which, in order to be appropriately
related to objects of the non-linguistic world, always and in principle stand in
need of interpretation which has to be inferred from both linguistic and non-
linguistic context.
By contrast, the notion of counting in principle does not relate to the level
of concepts, it is always immediately related to individual objects.
Hence the incompatibility of nouns and numerals: nouns denoting con
cepts as such are inaccessible to direct quantification: concepts in themselves
cannot be counted.
This is what gives rise to the separate category of classifiers: these, as we
mentioned above in 1.1., are in most cases adopted from the noun inventory
itself to form a category of their own, a category required for the purpose of
explicitly introducing the notion of quantity and thus relating the. conceptual
level of the noun to the level of reference to individual countable objects.
This syntactic function of establishing immediate reference to individual
objects — as against the function of nouns, viz. denoting concepts—we shall
here call individuation.21
2.2.2. Numerals
This functional designation can be supported from yet another angle. For
there are two types of expression where simple numerals do occur without a
classifier.
First, there are arithmetical statements like
(23) saam lee saam pen hok
three plus three be six
“three plus three is six”
where the numerals occur as cardinal numbers without relating to any particu
lar object.
More important in our present context is the second type of expression.
There are certain cases where numerals are directly joined to a head noun, as
in the following phrases:
(24) a. naa jiisipsaam

page twenty-three
“page 23”
b. hoot) jiisipsaam
“room 23”
c. bdtrian jiisipsaam
“lesson 23”.
Obviously, the numeral does not denote a quantity here. Instead it is used in
an ordinal sense, identifying a point in a series. This, as we sawabove (2.1.6.),
isnot the normal way of forming ordinals in Thai, and phrases like those above
are restricted to certain nouns only, which typically apply to series.
These instances are noteworthy, however, as they show that numerals by
themselves are not automatically understood in the sense of cardinal num
bers. Like other categories, they depend on their context for appropriate in
terpretation. Just as a noun solely denotes a concept, so a numeral solely de
notes a numerical value, which, depending on its actual environment, is sub
ject to interpretation in a cardinal or an ordinal sense.
Thus, in the restricted number of cases where numerals may be directly
joined to nouns, they automatically convey an attributive, ordinal meaning,
since nouns are not directly quantifiable. It is only in the immediate context of
aclassifier that an unambiguous cardinal, that is, quantitative meaning comes
about.
2.3. Conclusions
Inthe previous discussion we have analyzed the function of numeral classifiers
fromits syntactic angle: they constitute the specific technique Thai employs to
express the function of individuation. This technique ties in with the most con
spicuous property of Thai nouns (as compared with nouns e.g. in German),
for these denote concepts and therefore are incompatible with direct quantifi
cation, — a property not infrequently met with in the isolating type of lan
guage. To cope with this limitation, Thai provides a second, as it were, au
xiliary nominal category, that of classifiers which — mostly adopted from the
noun inventory itself—can be immediately applied to individual, countable
objects.
Thus, classifiers primarily and essentially serve a syntactic function,
while the term itself gives priority to the semantic, classificatory capacity of
this word class. As the analysis shows, the semantic aspect, conspicuous as it
is, isnot an independent function: it represents the lexical mode of expressing
the syntactic function of individuation. That is, the categorial distinction be
tween concepts and objects manifests itself in terms of a limited set of lexical
features, so that counting objects is achieved with reference to certain salient
features only, while the full complexity of the conceptual universe embodied
in nouns remains outside the scope of countability. This network of classifi-
catory features selected from the entire grid of those theoretically conceivable
will be discussed presently.
The essential, functional point, however, is the categorical distinctionas
such, rather than a consistent systematization of nouns in terms of lexical clas
ses.. i
This point, which the syntactic investigation has made evident, is also
borne out in the lexical inventory of noun classes itself.
For, as is the case in most numeral classifier languages, the inventory of
pre-established lexical classes in practice fails to fit for a good many nominal
notions. Thai copes with this deficiency by using two distinct methods which
are semantically opposed, yet logically cognate. One might be called hyper
generalization . It consists of one particular classifier being used irrespective of
any specific semantic feature of the word so classified. The clearest instance of
this method is the classifier ?an, which may be applied to practically any noun
short of those denoting living beings.
The other tendency might be termed over-specialization, which is a most
prominent phenomenon in Thai. In its most extreme form, it has led to the
emergence of repeater constructions which, from a semantic point of vieware
peculiar, indeed, and which have gone unexplained until now.28 These are
cases where a noun recurs as its own classifier, as in
(25) thaleesaap sdam thaleesdap
“three lakes”
or as in (5), above. Evidently, a notion of class does not make sense with re
petitions of this type ( — and we shall revert to this lexical deficiency: see
4.4.; 4.5. below). Yet, far from being the odd occasional exception, as one
might perhaps surmise, such complete semantic redundancy recurs with hun
dreds of Thai nouns. This testifies to the productivity of the pattern (which, in
cidentally, is well attested in some other numeral classifier languages29).
The classifiers in (5) and (25) are devoid of semantic content, are seman
tically redundant. By this very property they reveal the categorial distinction
in its purest form. They prove that, while the semantic, classificatory capacity
of the category may well be reduced to zero, the categorial distinction be
tween concepts and objects is indispensible.
3. Classifiers and Meaning
The remaining two paragraphs will deal with the semantic aspects of the clas
sifier network. We shall first, in this paragraph, discuss the general question of
meaningfulness and variablility of classifers in relation to the notion of intrin
sic feature.
Paragraph 4 will then document in detail the diverse semantic parameters
and their mutual affiliations. Finally, we shall try to outline the more general
results emerging from this survey.
3.1. Intrinsicfeatures and qualification
Classifiers, as we said in 1.2., always express intrinsic features of their respec
tive head nouns and thus do not contribute any independent lexical meaning to
a NP (and this is a fortiori true for the lexically fully redundant pattern just
mentioned).
This point is related to the question of whether classifiers qualify the
meanings of their head nouns, — an assumption which has been repeatedly
expressed for numeral classifier languages. Thus Adams and Conklin put
down the difference between measuring and counting constructions (see 1.2 .)
asone of quantification vs. qualification: “.. .numeral classifiers qualify rather
than quantify the head noun, and as such require the presence of some par
ticular inherent feature” (1973:2). Similarly Plam says with respect to Thai
classifiers that they “precise la signification du mot mediat (i.e. the head
noun) correspondant (ainsi que le determinant precise le determine)”
(1972:197). In particular the fact that nouns do not infrequently allow for a
choice among several possible classifiers has often led to the conclusion that
suchvariation may cause changes of meaning in the head noun.30
We cannot here discuss this assumption for numeral classifier languages
generally. However, Thai, unlike e.g. Vietnamese with its different order reg
ularities, provides unambiguous evidence that classifiers here are not in
volved in altering the meanings of their associated nouns.
Before we illustrate this fact, a few general considerations may be useful.
For, evidently, the notion of qualification is hardly compatible with that
of intrinsic features: a word simply is not qualifiable in terms of features in
cluded in its own semantic structure.
A comparison with adjectives will readily show this: adjectives, indeed,
conceptually qualify head nouns which is the very reason why tautological
combinations like *“unmarried bachelor” are usually precluded. That is,
applicability of an adjective to a noun presupposes a genuine choice of values
within a given semantic parameter suitable to the semantic structure of that
noun. Violation of this general rule either leads to tautologies (which may or
may not be thought acceptable in a given case) or else to downright contradic
tions of terms as in *“married bachelor”.
By contrast, classifiers are not chosen among several values of the same
parameter. Variation of classifier is tantamount to variation of semantic stan
dard. As a principle rule, classifiers display the very kind of tautological re
lationship to their head nouns which is ruled out for adjectives in most cases.
While adjectives require certain scopes of choice, classifiers more often than
not may not vary at all, and, if they may, they vary in terms of different seman
tic criteria.
This, in our opinion, rules out qualification as an adequate description of
the semantic relationship between nouns and classifiers.
3.2. Variation of Classifiers
Apart from these general observations, in Thai there is clear evidence to illus
trate this point. For one thing, in most cases classifiers do not vary for a given
noun. For another thing, evidence comes forth from the very cases where
nouns do admit of a choice of classifier.
This can be shown, for example, from one of the stock items of classifier
variation, viz. plant denotations in their various designations as stem, fruit,
leaf etc. respectively31; compare
(26) a. mamuag saam luuk
mango three (clfrfruit)
“three mangoes” (i.e. fruits)
b. manual] saam baj
(elf: leaf)
“id.”
c. mamuagsaam phon
(clf:fruit)
“id.” •
According to the most unhestitating assertion of native speakers, these varia
tions do not coincide with a difference in meaning: a. and b. are fully equiva
lent in meaning, while c., with the Pali loanword for “fruit” as its classifier,
connotes a more elegant stylistic level. In all three cases mamuai7preserves its
meaning of “mango fruit”. This is noteworthy in viewof b. where the classifier
has the basic nominal meaning “leaf” (and, by associative extension, is
applied to a variety of concepts, see 4.2.1. and 4.5.1.). Nonetheless b. unam
biguously denotes mango fruits, not mango leaves. This means that the clas
sifier baj, in spite of its original nominal meaning “leaf”, does not map this
meaning on to the meaning of the head noun so as to convey the meaning of
“three mango leaves”.
In order to express this latter notion, there is no other way than first to
form the corresponding nominal compound bajmdmuarj “mango leaf” which
then, in its turn, is appropriately classified under baj (as a semi-repeater, see
3.3.):
(27) bajmamuag sdam baj
“three mango leaves”.32
Analogous formations are encountered for other denotations of parts of
plants, e.g.:
(28) a. tonmamuat) sdam ton
“three mango trees”
b. dookmamuaq sdam dook
“three mango blossoms”
but not *mamuai7sdam ton or *mamuai] sdam dook.
In any of these cases, application of a given classifier presupposes
adequate nominal word formation, while the classifier cannot map different
meanings on to the head noun. It does not participate in the processes of con
ceptual modification, it always presupposes these processes.
This seems plausible and quite in keeping with the syntactic function clas
sifiers have been shown to fulfil. For, if they were “used up”, as it were, in a
qualifying function on the conceptual side, they could not at the same time
serve to refer to individual objects on the other side.
In (26) above, variation of classifier is not matched by a change of mean
ing. Against that, compare the following examples where different classifiers
do coincide with a change of meaning of the phrase:
(29) a. posaamluuk
bamboo-fishtrap three (clf:fruit/round shape)
“three fishtraps” (of a special kind)
b. posaam baj
lampshade three (clf:leaf)
“three lampshades”
(30) a. kuncEE saam dook
key three (clf:flower-shaped obj)
b. kuncEE saam ?an
wrench three (clfdong obj)
“three wrenches”
(31) a. daaw saam duarj
star three (clf:round obj)
“three stars, planets”
b. daaw saam khon
star three (clf:person)
“three stars (i.e. stage or film stars)”.
These cases do not invalidate our previous evidence. For, as the interlinear
versions show, it is not the classifier that changes the meaning of the noun; the
case must rather be stated the other way round: the classifier changes in con
sequence of prior change of the meaning of the noun. This, in (29), simply con
sists in homophony of two altogether different lexemes: while po in a. is a
genuine Thai word,po in b. is a loanword from Chinese, and each is assigned
independently to its appropriate class.
(30) is a case of polysemy of the noun kuncEEwhich, no matter whether it
occurs in a classifier construction or not, has to be disambiguated by context as
to its possible readings “key” and “wrench” respectively. This may, in actual
speech, come about by the classifier providing the first conspicuous clue as to
which reading is intended in cases where the context has left room for misun
derstanding. Such a pragmatic disambiguating value, however, is entirely dif
ferent from the function of conceptual qualification.
Next, (31) is a clear case of metaphorical extension of a basic nominal
meaning where the classifier in each reading is chosen in accordance with the
intended meaning.
• Finally, let us consider an example which appears as a borderline case
with respect to change of meaning:
(32) a. ryysii saam ?or)
hermit three (clf:sacred being)
“three hermits”
b. ryysii saam ton

(clf:supernatural being)
“id.”
In both variants the nominal meaning of ryysii “hermit” (a loan word from
Sanskrit) is preserved. Yet, the change of classifier seems to capture some
subtle change of connotation which is reflected in the different semantic
standards chosen: in a. ryysii is classified under the aspect of holiness and falls
into one class with nouns denoting gods, royalty and the like. In b. the clas
sifier is associated with nouns denoting spirits and demons etc. Still, both clas
sifiers correspond to features inherent in the noun itself, for the term is intri
cately bound up with latent associations in the complex field of religious and
—by common Western opinion — superstitious beliefs which often are sus
ceptible of a certain ambivalence. Thus ryysii on the one hand is associated
with the notion of sacredness, on the other with that of all kinds of uncanny
faculties hermits are traditionally accredited with in Oriental belief. This am
bivalence is reflected or, one might say here, even made apparent in the
choice of classifier, for it may show which aspect the speaker has predomin
antly in mind. Conceivably, variation has a suggestive force in such cases, and
may be used to expose the latent connotations of a term. Nonetheless, even
variation of this kind does not in principle deviate from our other examples,
for the different standards chosen again presuppose corresponding com
plexity of the nominal notion rather than induce it.
To sum up: as the above examples sufficiently illustrate, Thai classifiers
do not convey meaning in the sense of a qualifying function. They are doubt
less meaningful, however, in the sense that, in principle the parameters
utilized are traceable to the inherent semantic structure of the associated
nouns. In other words, the classifier network in its core is not one of mechanic
concord between classes of words.33 It is one of concord of semantic features,
operating on the plane of the signifie, not of the signifiant, and the relations/
predetermined in the lexicon are formed in accordance with and in adaptation
to the processes of nominal conceptualization.
3.3. Repeaters and Semi-repeaters
Now, this basic semantic principle somewhat strikingly contrasts with the for
mal device of repeater constructions (see 2.3.) employed to cope with seman
tic deficiencies of the classificatory network. Unlike hyper-generalization of
just one classifier (?an, see 4.2.1.1. below, which in many cases is judged sub
standard usage in e.g. child language, uneducated speech etc.), the device of
mechanically mapping a noun onto the classifier position is very extensively

applied in Standard usage.
In view of its obvious peculiarity we should try to see in what way this kind
of semantically empty substitution may be related to the principle of genuine
classification by intrinsic feature.
This becomes apparent when we recollect that most classifiers originally
are nouns and, when employed as classifiers, often so closely retain their origi
nal nominal meanings that they quite naturally are applied to their source
nouns, as in
(33) khon sdam khon
“three people”.
The classifier khon applying to nouns denoting persons not surprisingly also
applies to the noun khon itself. And, just as naturally, it is used with com
pounds of khon,as in
(34) khonkhrua sdam khon
person-kitchen three (clf:pers)
“three cooks”.
Thus, there is a full or partial lexical identity of noun and classifier (also com
pare the analogous examples (27) and (28) above). But this formal identity
does not in any way deviate from classification by intrinsic feature. It simply
emerges in the very core of the network as a straightforward consequence of
semantic identity or similarity of a classifier with its source noun.
However, once the pattern as such has emerged, it may conceivably.pro-
vide a formal model mechanically resorted to without a genuine semantic
motivation. Thus, repeaters equally may acquire a certain amount of formal
productivity when applied to compounds of the original repeater lexeme,
e.g.- compare
(35) a. prathiet sdam pratheet
“three countries”
b. prathietsamun sdam pratheet
“three satellite countries”.
Now, admittedly, the formal analogy of (35) with (33) and (34) does not ac
count for the semantic oddity of mechanical repetition, (for which there is a
clear syntactic reason on the one hand, as shown above, and a semantic mo
tive in certain deficiencies of the network on the other (see 4.4. and 4.5.
below)).
Yet, it does at least show that genuine classifier constructions provide a

formal variety which readily lends itself to be mechanically copied when
nouns do not seem to fit into any of the available classes.
Even at that, in a sense the repeater device testifies to the semantic moti
vation of classification: a formal compensation for semantic gaps at the same
time prevents “desemantization” of the semantically motivated classes. In
gender systems, all nouns have to be fitted into a limited inventory of classes,
as a matter of principle, thus leading to semantic obscurity.Thai repeater con
structions show a different model. By using repeaters for nouns that cannot be
accomodated within the pre-established conceptual framework of common
classifiers, the language community obviously acknowledges the semantic
transparency of this framework. This becomes manifest in the very semantic
limitations for which the system provides a formal device of compensation.
4. Noun Classes
In the following pages the inventory of genuine classifiers in the sense defined
ini. above is documented for the present state of Standard Thai as completely
as we could ascertain from our sources, i.e. available dictionaries and
supplementary information from native speakers (see Introduction and Re
ferences).
Deviating from other lists, as e.g. that in McFarland (1941:xiv), which,
running to about eighty lexical items, contains both classifiers in our sense and
quite a number of measuring terms, we do not list measure terms here at all,
for the reasons indicated in 1.: measures usually do not enter lexicalized re
lationships with specific sets of nouns and they form an open category readily
available to innovation, as e.g. is shown by the recently adopted Western deci
mal measures.34
Against this, classifiers are lexicalized in the code itself according to in
trinsic features of the corresponding nouns, which the following lists attempt
to systematize.
We have not aimed at quantifying our data, for obvious reasons: nouns
are an open category so that any statistical figure on correlations between
nouns and classifiers would just arbitrarily reflect the input of the data used.
And, still more obviously, statistics of linguistic categories is futile in principle:
it does not give us any insights into how a language organizes its structural and
semantic oppositions.
However, in order to illustrate the internal organization of the classifier
network, just a rough impression as to productivity and relative extension of

application of the various semantic standards seems desirable, which there
fore we have indicated in general terms along with the separate illustrations of
the entries.
For the classes are of very different scope and complexity. They do not
represent a hierarchical system, as e.g. a taxonomic classification35; rather,
like most semantic structures, they form a rhizome-like network, branching
into multiple overlapping bundles.
As, incidentally, some of the previous examples have shown already,
classifiers do not express ultimate, elementary units of semantic structure in
the sense of componential analysis.36Though much simpler than the semantic
structure of nominal notions, they still denote complex features to be further
analyzed in terms of dominant and concomitant criteria pervading the net
work in its different branches.
Thus, classifiers do not form a system in any strict sense, yet they do form
a network, the main lines of which, as well as manifold interrelations, are
readily discernible.
In terms of such conspicuous main lines, the classes may be subdivided
into three major semantic areas, ramifying into more specialized groups. Our
list follows these main lines, each group being headed by its most generally
and productively applicable classifier, followed by the more specific and re
stricted ones. Comments on mutual overlappings and indications as to catego-
rial affiliation of the lexemes are given in the separate entries in order to show
the different degrees of similarity between the meaning of the source lexeme
and the classifier meaning (with, in turn, its own ramifications).
These major groups comprise classifiers:
(a) for nouns denoting animate beings (4.1.)
(b) for nouns denoting inanimate things (4.2.)
(c) for nouns denoting immaterial notions (4.3.)
In addition to these, repeaters are dealt with in 4.4. Finally, in 4.5. we shall try
to summarize the results of our survey.
4.1. Animate Beings

This semantic field, not surprisingly, centres around the feature / + human/ and
is subdivided into several classes according to distinction of social status.
There are, however, no clear cut borderlines between concepts of ordinary
humanity and notions of supernatural beings; rather, these notions merge
into one another between two extreme values: beings considered sacred, such
SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS IN THAI ' 193
as kings, priests and deities, at the one end and beings of somewhat sinister or
at least dubious supernatural faculties, such as demons and ascetics, at the
other.
By contrast, animals are represented in one class only (with one culture-
bound exception); again there are some overlappings with nouns denoting
human beings.
4.1.1. Human
(1) khon l.n. “person”, 2 . general clf for nouns denoting persons,
except sacred and royal ones. Productive clf, substitutable
for any of the more specific ones.
More specialized classes relating to social status:
(2) caw l.n.(a) “prince, ruler”, (b) “owner, master”, 2 . clfrper-
sons engaged in commercial and monetary transactions, e.g.
hdapree “peddler”, luuknii “debtor”, cawnii “creditor”. Re
stricted to very few nouns.
(3) naaj l.n. “master, employer”, 2 . address with proper names of
men, “Mr.”, 3.pers. pron. 2nd ps. (in address to sons and
younger brothers)37, 4.clf: men of some social standing, pub
lic or official position (implying politeness of the speaker),
e.g. tamruat “policeman”, tidaakaan “judge”,pheet“doctor,
physician”. Fairly productive class.
(4) naarj equivalent to naaj with reference to women.
(5) than l.pers pron. 2nd, 3rd ps. (implying respect), 2. title with
nouns indicating rank and with proper names, 3.clf:persons
of high social rank, official position, lesser nobility, e.g. ?aa-
caan “teacher, professor”, naajdk “prime official”,
rathamontrii “minister”, cawphrajaa (highest degree of con
ferred nobility). Fairly extensive class.
4.1.2. Human —Superhuman
(6) ruup l.n. “form, shape, picture, idol”, 2 . clf:priests and idols (of
deities), e.g; phraphlksu “Buddhist priest, monk”, chii
“ascetic”. Restricted to very few nouns. Also with some
nouns denoting inanimate things, cf. 4.2.1.2.
(7) ?or) l.n. “body (of royalty)”, 2 .clf:monks, royal personages,

deities, the Buddha38, e.g. caw?aawaat “abbot”,
phramahaakasat “king”, phra “the Buddha”. Fairly exten
sive class.
(8) phra?op l.pers.pron 3rd ps. (reference to royalty, deities, the
Buddha), 2. clf:royal personages, deities, the Buddha. Al
ternative for ?op, implying yet stronger respect and devo
tion.
4.1.3. Human —Supernatural
(9) ton clf: beings with supernatural faculties (implying sinister as
pects), e.g. ryysii “hermit, anchorite”, phii “ghost, spirit”,
piisaat “devil, demon, ghost”. Restricted to very few nouns.
4.1.4. Animals
(10) tua l.n. “body”, 2 .clf:any kind of animal; some few nouns de
noting persons acting in some assumed character, e.g. khoon
“actor, actress”, tuacam?iiat “comical actor”; hence with
some nouns denoting person-like things, e.g. him (a) “man
nequin”, (b) “dress-maker’s dummy”, tukataa “doll”, hun-
krabook “marionette, puppet”.
(11) ch$ak l.n. “rope”, 2 clf for the noun chaap “elephant”. Used only
in reference to tamed elephants, the clf alluding to the
method of capturing them. Substitutable by tua.
4.2. Inanimate Things

By far the most numerous classifiers are those for nouns denoting visible, in
animate things. Most of them are based on shapes combined with a variety of
concomitant features, such as size, rigidity vs. flexibility etc. The classes are
systematized here according to the prevalent shape distinctions as they mani
fest themselves in the most generalized and productive classes. These are
followed each in turn by the intersecting, more specialized ones.
Apart from shape-based classifiers there are a few smaller groups: (a)
classifiers for nouns denoting buildings and localities, (b) for nouns denoting
functions of things rather than things in themselves, nouns with meanings like
“present, gift”, “utensil” and the like which do not denote any definite physi
cal contour. These are simply classified as “discrete objects”, items of what
the nominal concept denotes. Finally, there are (c) two classifiers relating to
function, see 4.2.4.
4.2.1. Shape and Concomitantfeatures

4.2.1.1. Saliently long shape
(1) tan l.clf:long,narrow or short,narrow objs., e.g. kracaa
“ladle”, kraboop “club, staff”, khon “feather, quill”, khem
“needle, pin”, maajcimfan “toothpick”, batjhian “bridle”.
2. general residue elf for miscellaneous inanimate objs. By
far the most productive class.
3. numerative: “span (of time), duration of a round in a cock
fight”.
(Speakers differ in opinion as to meaning 1, some acknow
ledging only meaning2. Conceivably, a elf, once adopted as a
general substitute, may soon cease to convey any particular
feature that the speakers are conscious of. The dictionaries
of Haas, McFarland and the Thai-Thai dictionary of the
Royal Institute however still cite ?an with meaning 1.).
More specialized classes:
(a) LONG. STRAIGHT s h a p e :
(2) ton l.n. “trunk, stalk”, 2.clf: any kind of plant name; stems,
posts, pillars, e.g. jaw “pole, pillar”, jap “log”. In the latter
use with very few nouns only.
(3) lem39 elf: long, pointed objs. or objs with a sharp edge, e.g. miit
“knife”, khem “needle, pin”, takraj “scissors”, daap
“sword”. Fairly extensive class.
Also used with nouns denoting traditional buffalo carts,
e.g. kwian “buffalo cart”, a classification motivated by the
characteristic long beam of such vehicles.
Finally, with nouns denoting books, e.g. napsyy “book”,
tamrap “textbook, manual”, which traditionally had a shape
entirely different from that now common. They used to con
sist of long narrow strips of palm leaves held together by pins
pierced through the bundle, or of leaves continuously folded
forwards and backwards. It could not be ascertained on
which feature the classification is actually based. It is
noteworthy, however, that in spite of a complete change in
the objects themselves, the traditional classification has been

retained. For an opposite case, see next clf.
(4) khan l.n. “handle”40, 2.clf: long, handled objs., e.g. ehoon
“spoon”, soo “stringed instrument, fiddle”, bet “fishing rod”,
thaj “plough”.
Also used with nouns denoting ox-carts and vehicles of the
more recent type, e.g. rotmee “bus”, saamloo “three-wheeled
pedicab”, cakrayaan “bicycle”.
Motor cars used to be subsumed under Zap, the clf for houses,
in the beginning. The change here ties in with both a change
in outward appearance and a different appreciation of such
vehicles. The newer classification is apparently due to
“handling” cars and other modern vehicles by means of
handles and pedals; increasing familiarity has led to the view
ing of these objects in much the same way as traditional
equipment. The classification has a hint of a functional fea
ture. Still, shape appears dominant, since implements and
vehicles which do not in some way share the shape feature
are not included in this class, khan, too, constitutes a fairly
large and productive class.
(5) thstj 1. numerative: “bar, ingot”, 2.clf: ingot-shaped objs., e.g.
dinsoo “pencil”, thiankhaj “tallowcandle”,that] “anvil”. Re
stricted to very few nouns.
(6) daam l.n. “handle, holder”, 2.clf: long, handled objs., e.g.
paakkaa “pen”, phaaj “paddle”. Restricted to very few
nouns, khan (see above) being the more common clf.
(7) sii l.n. “bar, rib, tooth”, 2. clf: small long objs. parallelly ar
ranged in a larger structure, e.g. fan “tooth”, luukkrop “bar
of a railing”. Few nouns.
(8) muan clf: cigarettes (compare numerative muan “roll”). The
only example is burii “cigarette”.
(a’) LONG STRAIGHT AND HOLLOW SHAPE:
(9) lam l.n. “body, trunk”; “waterway” 2. clf: long, hollow objs.,
e.g. maajphaj “bamboo stem”, rya “boat”, (boats tradition
ally used to be long and narrow), pheejon “ferry boat”,
ryabin “air plane”. Fairly few nouns.
(10) krabbok l.n. “cylinder” 2.clf: cylindrical.objs., e.g. pyyn “rifle”,

fajchaaj “torchlight”. Very few nouns.
(11) law l.n.“reed”, 2.clf: reed instruments. The only example is
pii “flute”.
(b ) LONG, CURVED/FLEXIBLE SHAPE:
(12) saaj l.n. “line, channel, route”, 2.clf: line-like objs. of larger
size, e.g. khhorj “canal”, meendam “river”, rayooij “rope (of
sailing ships)”, thanon “street”. Fairly extensive class.
(13) sen 1.numerative “line, strand”, 2. clf: line-like (or curved)
objs. of smaller size, e.g. phom “hair”, jaj “fibre, web”, soo
“chain”, laajmyy “line on the palm of the hand”. Frequent
overlappings with saaj. Fairly extensive class.
(14) thaaq l.n. “way, path, road”, 2. clf: roads and paths, e.g.
honthaar) “road, way”. Very few nouns, mostly compounds
with thaar) as first element, the clf saaj being preferred with
nouns denoting ways and roads.
(15) khabuan 1. n. “procession, train”, 2. clf: trains. The only examples
are rotfaj “train” and rotduan “express train”.
4.2.1.2. Saliendy flat shape
(16) phen Clf: flat shapes generally, e.g. chanuan “slate”, kradaan
“board”, paaj “poster, label”, caanslag “phonograph re
cord”, bkepfoom “blank form (to be filled in)” (from Engl.),
saket “flake, chip”. Very extensive class.
(a) FLAT AND INFLEXIBLE SHAPE:
(17) baan 1. bound nominal morpheme in compounds such as baan-
pratuu “wing of a door”, 2. clf: flat, mostly rectangular objs.,
e.g. pratuu “door”, kracdkpaw “mirror”, ndataap “win
dow”. Few nouns.
(18) duarj 1. bound nominal morpheme in compounds such as
duapcan “moon”, duarj?aathlt “sun”, 2. clf: round, radiant
objs., e.g. daaraa “star”,?aathit “sun”, khoomfaj “lamp”,
takiap “lamp, lantern”, satlem “stamp” (from Engl.),
duarjtraa “seal”. The classification seems to reflect a disk-like
appearance of the objects rather than their real dimensional

extensions. Fairly extensive class.
(19) wop 1.n. “circle, ring”, 2. collective numerative “circle, band”,
3. elf: rings and ringlike ornaments, e.g. ween “finger ring”,
kamlaj “bangle, bracelet”. Restricted to very few nouns.
(6) ruup cf. above 4.1.1.: n. “form, shape, picture, idol”. Here the
fields of animateness and inanimateness intersect, ruup in its
reading “shape, picture” being applied to nouns denoting
geometrical forms and pictures, e.g. rtiups&amliam
“triangle”, siiliamkhaarjmuu “trapezoid”pMenpharj “plan,
layout”, rtiupthaaj “photograph”. Very few nouns in this
usage, mostly compounds of rtiup itself.
(b ) FLAT AND FLEXIBLE SHAPE:
(20) baj l.n. “leaf’, 2. elf: leaves and leaf-like objs., e.g. thanabat
“bank note”, chal&ak “label, lottery lot”, tua “ticket”,
beepphim “blank form”. Further, baj classifies things made
of leaves and stalks, especially containers. The class thus in
tersects with the field of round, three-dimensional objs., see
4.2.1.3.(b). Very productive class.
(21) phyyn 1.numerative “piece, strip” (of cloth or land), 2. elf: gar
ments of flat pieces of cloth, flat textile products, e.g.
phaanutj (lower garment, a cloth tied round the waist),
phaacettua “towel”, maan “curtain”,phrom “carpet”'. Fairly
extensive class.
4.2.1.3. Saliently three-dimensional shape

(22) luuk l.n. “child, offspring, fruit”, 2. elf: fruits and three-dimen
sional objs. generally, e.g. krasun “bullet, projectile, foot)
“bubble”, kMw “mountain”, khaay “top” (the toy), khlyyn
“wave”, tdw “dice”, krorj “cage”. Very productive class.
(a) MASSIVE ROUND OR BULKY SHAPE:

(23) photi: l.n. (a) “result, outcome”, (b) “fruit” (elegant, literary
term), 2.elf: fruits (elegant variant of luuk for nouns denot
ing fruits).
(24) met: l.n. “seed, grain” (short form of malet “seed, grain”), 2.
numerative “grain”, 3. clf: small globular objs., e.g. khajmuk
“pearl”,phlooj “gem, jewel”, kradum “button”,/?/ “pustule,
boil”. Very few nouns.
(25) koorv. 1.numerative “lump, piece”, 2. clf: bulky shapes, e.g.
krtiat “stone, pebble”, ntw “gall stone”, thaanfajch&aj “bat
tery, dry cell”, meek “cloud”. Very few nouns, koort in most
cases occurs as a measuring numerative.
(b ) THREE-DIMENSIONAL AND HOLLOW SHAPE:
(20) baj cf. ab. 4.2.1.2., baj also classifies containers, e.g. kraddp
“bamboo tray”, takraa “basket”, krathop “tray” (made of
banana leaves), turn “earthen jar”. Further, round, hollow
objs. e.g. kloop “drum”.
Finally, baj overlaps with luuk for fruit names, an application
which may be based on the observation that some fruits such
as coconuts contain a hollow space or grow round kernels.
From this point of connexion with the feature /hollow/ it may
have been generalized to any fruit name, (cf. below 4.5.1.).
Very productive in this use too.
(26) foop l.n. “bubble”, 2. clf: bubbles and eggs, only examples:
foopn&am “water bubble”, foop?aakaat “air bubble”, khaj
“egg” (and its compounds).
(27) paak l.n. “mouth”, 2.clf: some open hollow objs., e.g. Me
“fishing net”, sawlp “small fishing net”, plee “hammock,
cradle”. Very few nouns.
(28) ryan l.n. “house, housing”, 2.clf: clocks, the only example is
naallkaa “clock, watch”.
4.2.I.4. Irregular shape
There are three more classifiers for special irregular shapes, viz.:
(29) ddok l.n. “flower”, 2.clf: flowers and some flower-resembling
shapes, e.g. kuncee “key”, phlu “firecracker”, luukthanuu
“arrow”, het “mushroom”. Very few nouns in the latter
usage.
200 H A R A L D H U N D IU S & U L R IK E K O LV ER
(30) pyyn elf: saws, the only example is luaj “saw”.

(10) tua cf. ab. 4.1.4.: elf: animals. Also for objs. with “arms” and/
or “legs”, e.g. kaw?ti “chair”, kaagkeeg “trousers”, sfa
“shirt”, and objs. of a characteristic, but irregular contour,
e.g.aksdon “character, letter”, leek “number, figure”. Fairly
frequent in this use too.
4.2.2. Localities and buildings
(31) Mg l.n. “place”, 2.clf: localities generally, e.g. dindeen “area,

region”, talaat “market”, thiwthdt “landscape”, ndamtdk
“waterfall”, thttk&p “store”, taraag “prison”, praasaat “cas-
tie, mansion”. Very extensive class.
More specialized classes are in particular those for specific buildings:
(32) Idg l.n. “back, hind, rear”, 2.clf: houses and house-like struc-
tures, e.g. baan “house”, p/iee “house boat”, param “pavil
ion”, ryan “house, housing”, kracoom “tent”, hiipphleeg
“piano, organ”. Fairly large class.
(33) raan l.n. “store, shop”,2.clf: commercial buildings. Nouns are
mostly compounds of raan itself. E.g. raankhaajkhdog
“shop”, haagrdan “commercial establishment”, phattaa-
khaan “large restaurant”. Fairly few nouns.
(34) hog l.n. “room”,2.clf: rooms, e.g. khrua“kitchen”, otherwise
mostly compounds of hog itself, e.g. hognaam “bathroom”.
(35) thii l.n. “place, locality”, (further meanings, see Haas 1964,
s.v.), 2.elf: fewnouns denoting places, e.g..cutmdaj “destina
tion, goal”, suam “lavatory”. Otherwise mostly compounds
of thii itself, e.g. thiicootrot “parking lot”.
(36) daan elf: geographical lines, edgelines, boundaries e.g.
rimmeenaam “river bank”, khoopthalee “rim/horizon of the
sea”, neewrop “battle line, fighting front”, faa “wall, parti
tion”. Very few nouns.
4.2.3. Discrete Objects
A few classifiers do not denote any specificlexical feature, but simply classify
things as “discrete items”. These apply when none of the more special ones
seem suitable: that is, if no typical shape is envisaged, as e.g. with nouns like
khbopkhw&n “gift”, khaawkhoop “belonging, equipment” which denote a
functional destination rather than a specific article. Classifiers available in
such cases are:
(1) ?an (cf.4.2.1.1.) general residue clf.
(37) chin 1. numerative “piece”, 2. clf: thing.
(38) sip clf: thing, item.
(39) beep l.n. “model, type”, 2. clf: model, item.
(40) khdap clf: single item of a structurally connected pair.
(The last two lexemes border on numeratives of type 1: measures, grouping
units and types, cf. 1.2. above)!
4.2.4. Function
Two classifiers based on function are set apart from the other ones; these are:
(41) chabap clf: written documents, e.g. cdtmaaj “letter”, chanoot
“title deed for pieces of \and.”, phanthabat “financial bond”.
chabap (noteably a loan word from Khmer) is separated here
from other clfs relating to thought and language (4.3.), for
the reason that it specifically takes into account the medium
of script, while the other clfs are not sensitive as to the actual
medium of representation.
(42) khryap l.n. “apparatus, instrument, machine”, 2.clf: technical
contrivances, machines. With nouns denoting traditional im
plements it only occurs as a semi-repeater. It has turned pro
ductive with nouns denoting modem machinery, e.g.
thoorasap “telephone”, thoorbphaap “television set”, kon-
lacak “engine”.
4.3. Immaterial Concepts
Here there are two groups, viz. (a) mental or verbal concepts and (b) events.
4.3.1. Mental or verbal concepts:
(1) kham l.n. “word”, 2.clf: words and expressions, verbal units
generally, mostly compounds of the noun kham itself, e.g.
sap “word”, krijaa “verb”, khunnasap “adjective”, khamdaa
“abuse”.
(2) khoo l.n. “joint, node”, 2. clf: mental units (including their re
sults in spoken or written language), e.g. panhda “problem”,
khati “moral, motto”, khawq$an “clue”; many again com
pounds of khoo itself, e.g. khooklut “idea”, khootdojeeg “ar
gument, point of dispute”.
(3) prakaan 1.numerative “kind of (mental or verbal unit)” 2.clf: men
tal and verbal units. More literary alternative for khoo in
many cases.
(4) r$aq l.n. “story, subject matter”, 2.clf: literary products, topics
of speech, e.g. tamnaan “legend”, bdtkhwaam “article” (in a
newspaper), lakhoon “drama”, khaawlyy “rumour”.
(5) bdt clf: religious texts, precepts, literary products of some re
ligious flavour, lessons, e.g. kham?athitthdan “prayer, wish”,
mon “sacred word, incantation”, khloog (a kind of Thai
verse form), khampraphan “poetry, writing”,.bdtrian “les
son”.
(6) maattraa l.n. “measure, standard”, 2. clf: laws, juridical texts,
clauses, e.g. kotmaaj “law”, banjat “law, regulation”. Very
few nouns, more commonly khoo is employed.
(7) cop l.v. “to be finished”, 2.clf: the only example is kaanteet
“sermon”.
4.3.2. Events
(8) khrag 1. temporal numerative, used adverbially, “-times”, 2. clf:

events generally, e.g. gaan “festival, party, jutphak “break,
rest”, ?ookaat “opportunity, occasion”, sogkhraam “war”,
phendimvaj “earthquake”.
The three following clfs are of very limited scope:

(9) hon 1. numerative “-times”, 2.clf: less common alternative of
khrap.
(10) raaj . l.n. “instance, case”, 2.clf: (unpleasant?) events, only
examples: ?ubatih<tet “accident”, ?datjaakaan “crime”.
(Also very rarely with nouns denoting persons happening to
act in certain capacities.)
(11) thiaw l.v. “to roam, go places (for leisure)”, 2.clf: (entertain
ment?) events, only examples: khkpmda “horse race”,
thiawloop “southbound trip, return trip”.
4.4. Repeaters
At the end of our survey it seems necessary briefly to revert to the highly pro
ductive device of simply repeating a noun as its own classifier which, as we said
above, occurs with hundreds of nouns so that it seems well worth asking which
kinds of nouns defy semantic generalization within the network of genuine
classifiers.
From checking up a sample of about five hundred repeater nouns roughly
the following semantic ranges seem to emerge:
(1) Non-physical or non-visible objects, abstract notions
(2) Objects ill-accessible to immediate visual perception, such as geographi
cal units
(3) Objects of irregular or variable appearance
(4) Body part terms
(5) Tabu-concepts or concepts of ill-omen
, The groups (1) — (3) are closely akin to each other with obvious possible
transitions between them. Some few examples out of the vast number are:
(1) khwdti “psyche, spirit, morale”, chiiwlt “life”, wtchaa “subject of study”,
wlthii “method”, ch^achdat “nationality, race”, ch$y “name”, pooramaanuu
“atom”, klin “odour”.
(2) keen “axis”, thaan “base, foundation”, khiit “limit”,khua “pole (of earth,
magnet)”, kheet “area, zone, boundary”, look “world”, pratheet “country”,
myap “town”, kd “island”, khaapsamut “peninsula”, byp “large swamp”
(3) khaneen “mark”, traa “brand, seal, trademark”, kradaj “stair, staircase,
ladder”, paw “target”, laaj “pattern, design”.
By contrast, group (4) contains body part terms, especially those denot
ing external, visible parts (while some nouns denoting internal organs are clas
sified by shape features). The reason is obvious enough: a human being’s own
visible, tangible body parts will naturally be conceived of as unique, vitally in
tegrated to the self and hardly associated with the idea of quantifying objects.
Against that, counting of internal organs under normal conditions will typical
ly refer to those of animals, not of men.
The last group contained only few examples in our sample, though possi
bly there are many more, as e.g. saak “corpse”, loop “coffin” (which, inciden
tally, may alternatively be classified simply as a container under baj, cf.
4.2.1.3.). These obiously denote concepts set apart as having some emotional
impact on the tabu side of life.
4.5. Conclusions
It has become apparent from the list above that the network of classifiers by no
means provides anything comparable to a folk taxonomy: for one thing there
are neither definite hierarchical layers41nor clear-cut boundaries between the
classes. For another thing, the most striking impression after surveying these
lexical classes is the evident unevenness of distribution: while some few sem
antic domains are differentiated fairly thoroughly, vast areas of nominal con
cepts are not captured in the network at all.
4.5.1. Complex features
Before reverting to this conspicuous fact, a few additional remarks on the
manifold intersections of the complex features pervading the core of the net
work seem necessary.
For, on the one hand, in some respects the criteria chosen are so similar to
each other that the possible correspondences between nouns and classifiers
leave considerable room for variation. Thus, there are abundant examples
where classifiers may be substituted for each other and the classes as a whole
almost merge into one another. E.g. those for long objects lim, khan and
ddam (long, pointed and handled objects) form overlapping classes which
moreover typically intersect with the general classifier ?an. Even less clear-cut
is the distinction between sdaj and sen (larger and smaller, long, flexible ob
jects). Similarly,phen (flat objects) overlaps with hay (flat, flexible and hollow
objects) j luuk (three-dimensional objects) with baj and met (small globular
objects).
Apart from the evidence for classifier variation cited in 3. above, these
cases amply illustrate the fact that classifier variation does not trigger concep
tual modifications of the corresponding nouns.
Conversely, the very productive classifiers often cover strikingly wide
and diversified ranges of nominal notions.
These productive classifiers altogether amount to only about twenty lexi
cal items, for convenience summarized here: ■!.
(a) Animate: (1) khon (person), (10) tua (animals)
(b) Inanimate: (1) ?an (long objs. and residue clf) (2) ton (plants), (3) lem
(long pointed objs.), (4) khan (long handled objs.), (12) saaj and (13) sen
(long flexible/curved objs.), (16)phen (flat objs.) (19) duag (round, radiant
objs.), (20) baj (flat, flexible and hollow objs.), (29) luuk (three-dimensional
objs.), (30) heeg (localities), (38) chabap (written documents), (39) khryag
(machines)
(c) Immaterial: (1) kham (words), (2) khoo (mental and verbal units), (3) ryag
(literary products, topics), (7) khrag (events)
While some of these, like khon, actually do denote simple, ultimate fea
tures, most items of this core inventory establish very complex diversified
classes.
Cases in point are e.g. baj and Iduk. What emerges here is a kind of asso
ciative technique of gradual expansion and shifting of features which accounts
for their complexity and productivity. Thus baj, from its nominal meaning
“leaf’, is adopted as a classifier for leaves, then, due to similarity of appear
ance, for flat flexible shapes generally. At the same time the basic meaning
“leaf’accounts for the inclusion of leaf-made obj ects in this class, such as trays
and baskets.
This in turn serves as a starting point for associating baj with container
nouns in general (many containers traditionally being made out of leaves any
way), irrespective of their actual material quality. And, in turn again, this ex
tension leads to associating the feature of hollowness with baj, as well as that
of flatness and flexibility. By yet another associative step the shift /container
hollowness/ may have led to linking baj with certain typically hollow fruits,
such as coconuts (which furnished common traditional containers). And this
latter association once more seems to have been carried a step further by ex
tension to fruit names generally. In this way there seems to be a chain of asso
ciative links such that the classifier first applies to some special set of nouns
from which a generalized feature is extracted, repetitions of this associative
process leading to gradual interconnexion of ultimately widely diverging con
cepts. ' ; i>:
Since we have not gone into diachronic investigations here, the proposed
chain cannot be definitely verified at present, yet it would seem that the intri
cate intertwining of features (and the obvious connexions between the corres
ponding objects in the language community) carry their own suggestive force
and plausibility.
A similar, more easily transparent chain seems to hold for luuk as well:-
starting (as it were, where baj ends up) from the nominal meaning “fruit,” it
applies, as a classifier, to nouns denoting fruit and, by visual similarity once
again, to globular and bulky shapes generally. This in turn leads to associating
the notion of three-dimensionality (or else, of undifferentiated “bulkiness”)
so that luuk is extended to any kind of three-dimensional shape, irrespective
of size or actual specific contour and comes to be applied to things as diverse as
mountains, waves, drums, dice etc.
Rather than neatly pigeonholing the diversity of concepts, classification,
as it appears from its lexical distribution, operates most productively by asso
ciative interconnexion of nominal concepts.
Now, while examples like baj and luuk provide evidence suggestive
enough, other classifiers like lem (4.2.1.1.), which are not linked synchroni-
cally to a source lexeme, do not afford similar plausible interconnexions in con
temporary Thai. Thus, naturally, quite a few of the peculiarities noted
stand a chance of explanation on diachronic evidence only, which, in the pre
sent state of Thai historical linguistics, for obvious practical reasons has not
been aimed at here. We did, however, occasionlly question native speakers of
traditional erudition and of different ages.
The fact that native speakers usually handle even those synchronically ill-
transparent classifiers unhesitatingly and consistently seems to testify to the
productivity of this associative, interconnective technique.
4.5.2. Form and Function
Two diversified groups of classifiers relate to man himself in his social and re
ligious world and to his most distinct capacities for thought and speech.
The majority of classifiers, however, serve to group the diversity of con
cepts of the inanimate world in terms of shape features, with a marked de
crease of differentiation from one-dimensionality to three-dimensionality:
flat shapes being much less differentiated than long ones and three-dimen
sional ones hardly at all.
Now, while motivation by shape is perfectly obvious for most of the pro
ductive classifiers, the question may arise, however, whether this is also true
for the different, more specialized classes within this general pattern. What of
such classes as e.g. law (for wind instruments), thaap (for roads),phyyn (for
textile pieces), ryan (for clocks)? Are they genuinely classified by shape or
rather by their inherent functional properties as instruments, roads, clocks
etc. respectively?
The answer to this question, it seems to us, ties in with our observations
on complex features so far: the dominant features are those that are based on
shape, while features such as rigidity/flexibility, hollowness, size and those
even more specialized ones pertaining to just some such closed groups as the
above are merely concomitant.
That is, while the more general shape features often may be substituted
for the more special classifiers (as e.g. saaj (long flexible/curved) for thaap
(roads)), this does not apply the other way round.42
Moreover, all of these specialized groups single out objects of some strik
ing unmistakeable shape from the more comprehensive shape classes. A con
clusive example is e.g. law for wind instruments: if function were the motive to
group them apart, one would expect either to find a classifier for musical in
struments in general of else, separate ones for diverse types of such. Yet, what
we do find is that stringed instruments are classified under khan (on account of
being handled) and drums etc. under luuk or baj (on account of being three-
dimensional and hollow at that).
In view of this we would think that the general observation43that numeral
classification is based most prominently on shape as the most distinctive cate
gory of visual perception is fully supported by the Thai evidence.
Such visual features, however, may be perceived by observers in differ
ent communities in somewhat different ways: they may appear as conspicu
ously different in just one dimension, while differentiation along several di
mensions may increasingly appear as too complex for representation. Thus,
certain shape features may be summarized as one overall impression (as luuk
for any kind of three-dimensional shape), while others may be isolated as typi
cal of just a specific, limited set of objects (such as those special classifiers just
cited).
The exceptional classifiers of 4.2.2. and 4.2.4. support this view: for (a)
classifiers relating to localities and buildings either overlap with repeaters
(that is, nouns denoting localities ill accessible to direct visual surveying). Or,
as far as classifiers for buildings are concerned, they might as well have been
subsumed under the group of three-dimensional hollow objects where there
are suggestive links between e.g. ryan (nominal meaning “house, housing”,
the clf for clocks) and lap (clf for houses and house-like structures). However,
since the evidence here is not conclusive enough, it seemed best to retain these
as a group of their own.
(b) Clearly those of 4.2.4., exceptionally, are motivated by function. They
isolate notions which represent very important and most spectacular cultural
innovations from the entire network: chabap (a loan word from Khmer, Cam
bodia having been of vital influence on the historical development of Siam)
marks off script, and khryap, in modern times, sets apart nouns denoting tech
nical instruments and machinery transcending ordinary man and animal
power. This, as in earlier times the introduction of writing most likely did, may
have struck the speakers more by what these innovations achieve than by what
they look like.44
4.5.3. Scalarity in Classification
We are now led back to the observation that, while classification is well
worked out for concepts belonging to the immediate sphere of man and for in
animate things readily discernible by shape, wide semantic fields are not
genuinely classified at all. This means that nouns are either lumped together
in broad general classes (as e.g. hep for localities) or treated as unclassifiable,
i.e. repeaters.
Among these latter the conspicuous group of body part terms (see 4.4.
above) forms part of the semantic field of notions immediately related to man
himself.
As for the vast diversity of inanimate objects, the distribution of the clas
ses clearly reflects a scale of decreasing accessibility to easy visual perception,
corresponding to a converse scale of increasing uniqueness of concepts.
This is first from salient one-dimensionality to salient three-dimensional
ity where there is a marked decrease of differentiation in terms of classes.
Next down the scale there are:
(a) irregular shapes, for which there are very few special classifiers or the res
idue classifier?an, or, finally, repeaters.
(b) visible objects without a definite contour; events: variable objects (such
as presents, equipment articles etc., which are represented simply as “items”
by ?an, chin (piece) and sin (piece); secondly, events, simply represented as
“instances” by khrap.
(c) visible objects too large or too complex and diversified to be apprehended
and identified as to typical contour, such as geographical units, which are rep
resented by either hep (localities in general) or as repeaters. Further, such
things as designs, patterns and the like, represented either by ?an or as repeat
ers. ■! ■: ,
Yet further down the scale there are:
(d) visible qualities other than shape, like colour (sfi “colour” is a repeater)
and invisible objects which are apprehensible by other senses, represented
mostly as repeaters, e.g. stag “sound, voice”.
(e) immaterial objects, abstract notions, emotional values etc., represented
as repeaters.
It hardly needs pointing out that this scale perfectly matches the syntactic
function of classifiers as analyzed above: for one thing shape, a readily discer
nible contour, is the most suitable feature for apprehending objects as indi
vidual items. For another, the scale outlined corresponds to a decrease in
countability or, conversely, to an increasing scale of immateriality or unique
notions. This ends up with nominal concepts which will hardly require the syn
tactic marking of individuation, concepts which have no corresponding, as it
were, “objective” counterparts.
NOTES
1) For this general framework see Seiler and Lehm ann (eds) 1982.
2) Cf. e.g. G reenberg 1974; Seiler and Lehm ann (eds) 1982.
3) Cf. e.g. H aas 1942; E m eneau 1956:16; Noss 1964:104ff; Jones 1970:1; G reenberg 1974:29;
Goral 1978:23; Lehman 1979:155.
4) The term is now most commonly used, while quite a num ber of other term s have been
employed in the less recent literature, cf. G reenberg 1974:29. The term numerative introduced
below in this paper takes up this more neutral terminology, in accordance with current terminology
in the Cologne Language U n iv e rsa l Project.
5) Num erals in Thai may occur as first members of certain nominal compounds such as siamlio
‘three-wheel’, “three-wheeled pedicab” w here the num eral forms part of the process of word for
mation.
6) Noss 1964:104ff. bases his definition of classifiers (numeratives in our sense) on stress fea
tures: he claims that they are distinguished by ‘weak stress’. This criterion, however, seems less reli
able than word order.
. 7) The term is adopted from Hla Pe 1965:181
8) Cf. Noss 1964:104ff., H aas 1942 and 1964. H aas assigns the symbol C (= classifier) to any lexi
cal entry that may occur in the position following a num eral, without any further subcategorization.
Other lists of Thai classifiers, as e.g. in McFarland 1941, do not m ake a distinction between m ea
sures and classifiers either, though M cFarland at least uses the more comprehensive term ‘num eri
cal designatory particle’.

9) For a discussion of this view frequently expressed in the literature cf. G reenberg 1974:21.
10) The distinction is not always explicitly stated by Thai scholars themselves, but usually
acknowledged at least implicitly. Thus, the questionnaire in Phettongkam 1974 envisaged to test
the use of ‘kham laksananaam ’ (i.e. numeratives) in the language of school students provides clues
(illustrations) for the choice of measures whenever mass nouns are concerned (so that her test is
somewhat prejudiced in this respect). She never gives any stimuli, however, for count nouns so that
her results are methodically reliable for genuine classifiers, (137ff.)
11) Similar distinctions are given by T ’sou 1973 chiefly with respect to Chinese data. His ar
gum entation is largely followed by Lehm an 1979 who, in his tu rn , treats T hai examples as well (see
note 20). T ’sou’s subcategorization, though certainly applicable to Thai as far as the distinction
measuring vs. counting is concerned, does not however seem to find its exact parallel in Thai other
wise.
Adam s and Conklin (1973:2) put down the semantic difference betw een m easures and classifiers
as one of quantification vs. qualification. Though m easures doubtless quantify, the notion of qual
ification seems somewhat misleading for classifiers: for a m ore detailed discussion see 3.1 below.
12) Unlike nouns, tem poral units like chuamoorj “hour” , wan “day” , pii “year” etc. cannot be
combined with adjectives. T hus, expressions like *wan rdon ‘day hot’ are ungramm atical, since wan
as a m easure is not modifiable in term s of climate or the like. To express the idea of “a hot day” one
would have to use a sentence like wan nti ">aakaat rdan “today the w eather is hot” .
13) The term s extrinsic vs. intrinsic were introduced by Adam s and Conklin 1973:2.
14) T ’sou 1973:6 and in reference to him Lehm an 1979:165 postulate that num eratives of this va
riety form a separate subcategory, on account of a restriction which hardly seems convincing:
lexemes denoting the meaning of “type, kind" do not combine with fractions of num bers which
many measures certainly do. Thus, while a phrase like “two and a half kilo of rice” is perfectly nor
mal, one like *“two and a half kind of rice” is not. This is no doubt true for Thai o r Chinese as well as
for English, the co-occurrence restriction reflecting general, i .e. non-linguistic plausibility. In much
the same way, certain measures will not co-occur with fractions of num bers either, viz. non-precise
m easures such as “lump, cluster, piece” etc. O ne would not naturally expect phrases such as “two
and a half lumps of sugar", “two and a half clusters of trees” , since eo ipso m easures like these con
stitute units which (a) are variable in size and (b) have no existence by themselves. Thus the unit,
when divided, will in turn once more result in a “lum p” or “cluster” and not in a fraction of one.
This, however, hardly provides a valid specific test for any particular language, it rath er reflects
general non-linguistic notions.
15) cf. note 12 above: it is the same restriction which recurs here: standard m easures cannot be
modified by adjectives, no m atter w hether they are ‘independent’ as the tem poral units or depen
dent on head nouns.
16) (6) c. brings a num eral into the exam ple, in order to dem onstrate the correct position of the
adjective, since num eratives do not occur as NP-constituents by themselves, for which see 2.1
below. The special construction of the num eral nyrj “one” is treated in 2.1.5 below.
17) On the distinction between dissociating vs. associating measure cf. Seiler and Lehmann 1982.
Introduction by H.Seiler.
18) Adjectives in Thai form a subcategory of verbs. In general, verbs may occur in attributive
use and, when so used, may be combined with classifiers. Thus there is no definite borderline be
tween adjectives and relative constructions. It would go far beyond the scope of the present paper,
however, to describe in detail the conditions of such attributive use of verbs, since this would in
volve an analysis of the valency of Thai verbs in general. It must suffice here to use the term adjec
tive with reference to attributive use of verbs in a general sense.
19) O n determ ination as a continuum between the extrem es of maximum conceptual characteri
zation and maximum referential specification cf. Seiler 1977, esp. 1Iff.
20) Lehm an 1979 argues on the basis of Thai examples that numeral classifiers serve the function
of set-partitioning. H e puts down the reverse order among determ iners to a difference between
cardinal and ordinal sets.
W ithout going into his wider fram e as to various other num eral classifier languages, it must be
noted here that he does not fully analyze the Thai examples into their ultim ate constituents. Thus,
he assigns the function o f set-partioning to classifier phrases like khan n(i as a whole (155) without
isolating the ultim ate functions of khan and nti respectively. Now, set-partioning is one of the main
functions involved in nominal determ ination generally. T herefore, this designation does not speci
fically explain the function of classifiers. If we are to arrive at a precise functional designation, the
minimal pairs such as (9) and (10) and their expansions in (13) and (14), which Thai fortunately puts
at our disposal, must be taken into account. For these enable us to isolate the functional values of
the ultim ate elem ents and to account for the different order regularities.
21) Cf. Seiler 1977: Ilf . a n d 23.
22) Jones 1970:7 claims that each adjective must be preceded by the classifier. This is not in ac
cordance with the actual facts: adjectives do not require classifiers obligatorily anyway, con
sequently, combinations of several adjectives do not either.
23) Cf. H aas 1964:s.v.
24) Cf. Noss 1964:112.
25) W e owe this observation to Lehm an 1979: 162f. How ever, his argum ent, that there are
more severe restrictions for combinations of cardinal and ordinal num bers within the same N P in
Thai than there are in English does not seem valid. F or phrases like “the fourth five m en” etc. sound
as odd in English as they doubtless are in Thai. The restriction on combining different types of
counting to num erals not higher than “two” or “three” probably is not due to language specific con
straints, but rather to limits of easy perception.
26) The same view has been expressed for another num eral classifier language o f the isolating
type, viz., Vietnam ese, by E m eneau 1951:94 and the note therein.
27) For the notion of individuation as a functional continuum realized in a range of cognate
techniques across languages cf. Seiler and Lehm ann (eds) 1982.
28) Cf. G reenberg 1974:29, and more specifically, Allen 1977:295 who declares himself some
what mystified by this particular phenom enon.
29) Cf. H la P e 1965:180ff., also Okell 1969,1:213.
30) Cf. e.g. Chao 1968:507; Nguyen D inh Hoa 1957:127
31) Cf. e.g. Em eneau 1951:96.
32) Noss 1964:64f., 105 and Blagonravova 1971 regard compounds such as bajmdmuaij as con
sisting of classifier + noun, apparently because baj usually occurs as first m em ber of compounds
rather than as an independent noun. This analysis would seem to state the case the wrong way
round: it implies that original classifier lexemes are adopted into the noun category. The general
syntactic and semantic evidence, however, clearly points to the reverse pattern: original nouns are
adopted as classifiers, not the other way round. T hat boy usually occurs as a bound morpheme is no
objection: bound nominal m orphem es which occur as heads of compounds, but never as classifiers,
are by no m eans rare in Thai. Thus there seems to be no need to postulate an exceptional type of
compound for bajmamuap and the like,
33) Chao 1968:507 points out for Chinese classifiers that “the association of specific classifiers
with nouns is primarily the association of words and only roughly in term s of m eaning.” This is to a
certain extent true for Thai as well, since the classes are fixed in the code itself so that conceivable
alternatives of standard are subject to fixed lexical rules. However, these standards are in principle
based on meanings of words rather than on the words themselves.
34) Traditional m easures certainly are an interesting field of study, yet relatively more relevant
anthropologically than linguistically.
35) Cf. Becker 1975:109
36) Cf. Loyns 1968:470ff.
37) Against the fairly rough social distinctions captured in classification independently of rela
tive position of the individual speaker, Thai paired personal pronouns supply a most elaborate sys
tem of distinctions which mirrors minute variations of the mutual relations between persons in pri
vate and public life. Cf. Cooke 1968.
38) The noun phra “the B uddha” might be expected to be treated as a unique concept remaining
outside the scope of countablity. While this is ultimately true, Thai religious and mythological no
tions, essentially influenced by Indian traditions, also reflect the typical Indian idea of different
manifestations of what is ultimately the same deity.
39) lem etymologically corresponds to hem “pointed, sharp” .
40) khan in its other meaning “dike of a rice field” probably has a different etymology. In North
ern Thai the lexemes are still differentiated by different tones.
41) Obviously there are hierarchical traits to the network acknowledged here in terms of domin
ant vs. concomitant features. Yet the tendency towards hierarchy is in principle counteracted by
the cross-classificatory tendencies pervading the entire structure.
42) Cf. Adam s and Conklin 1973:6: “no secondary [i.e. concomitant] feature can be the sole
basis for a classification” .
43) Cf. e.g. G reenberg 1974:34, Adam s and Conklin 1973:5f. Friedrich 1970:382ff.
44) This holds equally for the functional connation noted for khan with reference to modern
vehicles.
REFERENCES
Adams, K.L. a. Conklin, N.F. 1973. Towards a Theory of Natural Classifica

tion. Paper from the 9th Regional Conference of the Chicago Linguistic
Society, 1-10.
Allen, K. 1977. Classifiers. Lg 53:285-311.-

Becker, A.L.1975. A Linguistic Image of Nature: The Burmese Numerative
Classifier System. Linguistics 165: 109-121.
Blagonravova, J.L. 1971. O predsubstantivnoj pozicii klassifikatorov v sov-
remennom tajskom (siamskom) jazyke. In: Jazyki kitaja i jugo-vostocnoj
azii. Moscow. 104-118.
Burling, R. 1965. How to choose a Burmese Numeral Classifier. In: Context
and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology, ed. by H. Spiro. Geneve, Illinois.
Campbell, R.B. 1969. Noun Substitutes in Modern Thai, a study in Pronomi-
nafey. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 65, The Hague, Paris.
Chao, Y.R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Cooke, J.R. 1968. Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese and Vietnamese.
Univ. of California Publications in Linguistics, 52. Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Emeneau, M.B. 1951. Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) Grammar. Univ. of
California Publications in Linguistics 8. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
— . 1956. India as a Linguistic Area. Lg. 32:3-16.
Fischer, G. 1972. Die syntaktischen und semantischen Eigenschaften der
Numeralklassifikatoren im Thai. Archiv Orientalm 40:65-78.
Friedrich, P. 1970. Shape in Grammar. Lg 46:379-407.
Goral, D.R. 1978. Numeral Classifier Systems: A Southeast Asian Cross-Lin
guistic Analysis. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 4:1-72.
Greenberg, J.H. 1974. Numeral Classifiers and Substantival Number. Pro
ceedings of the 11th Int. Congress of Linguists, ed. by L. Heilmann,
Bologna. 17-37. "' ■ :'
Haas, M.R. 1942. The Use of Numeral Classifiers in Thai. Lg 18:201-05.
— . 1964. Thai-English Student’s Dictionary. Stanford.
Hla Pe 1965. A Re-Examination of Burmese ‘Classifiers’. Indo-Pacific Lin
guistic Studies, ed. by G.B. Milner a E.J. A. Henderson. Vol. 2. Amster
dam. 165-183.
Jones, R.B. 1970. Classifier Constructions in Southeast Asia. JAOS 90:1-12.
Kolver, U. 1979. Syntaktische Untersuchung von Numeral-Klassifikatoren
imZentralthai. Arbeiten des Kolner Universalienprojekts 34. Cologne.
— . 1982. Klassifikatorkonstruktionen in Thai, Vietnamesisch und
Chinesisch. In: Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstdn-
den, ed. by H. Seiler a. C. Lehmann. Tubingen. 160-185.
Lehman, F.K. 1979. Aspects of a Formal Theory of Noun Classifiers. Studies
in Language 3:153-180.
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge.

McFarland, G.B. 1941. Thai-English Dictionary. 2nd print., Stanford 1944.
Nguyen Dinh Hoa 1957. Classifiers in Vietnamese. Word 13:124-151.
Noss, R.B. 1964. Thai Reference Grammar. Wahington, D.C.
Okell, J. 1969. A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. Vol.1,2,.Lon
don.
Pallegoix, J.B. 1854: Dictionarium Linguae Thai sive Siamensis. Paris. Re
print Farnborough 1972.
Phettongkam, S. 1974. The Development of Thai Classifiers. Usage of
Chulalangkorn University Demonstration School Students. Unpublished
M. A. Thesis. Bangkok.
Plam, Y. 1972. Sur la Classification des Noms dans la langue Thai (Siamoise).
In: Langues et techniques, Nature et Societe, ed. by J.M.C. Thomas a. L.
Bernot. Paris. Vol.1:195-201.
Royal Institute (ed) 2493 (= A.D. 1950). Photcanaanukromchabapraatcha-
banditsathaan. Bangkok. [Thai-Thai-Dictionary].
Seiler, H. 1977. Determination: A Universal Dimension for Interlanguage-
Comparison. Arbeiten des Kolner Universalienprojekts 23. Cologne.
-— . 1982. Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstdnden. Lan
guage Universal Series 1,1:1-9.
-----. u. Lehmann, C. (eds) 1982. Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von
Gegenstanden. Language Universal Series 1,1.
Serzisko, F. 1980. SprachenmitZahlklassifikatoren: Analyse und Vergleich.
Arbeiten des Kolner Universalienprojekts 37, Cologne.
Sethaputra, S. 2520 (= 1977). New Model Thai - English Dictionary, Repr.
Bangkok.
T’sou, B.K. 1973. The structure of Nominal Classifier Systems. Proceedings
of the 1st Int. Conference on Austroasiatic Lingusitics. Honolulu. 1215-
1247.

1983.syntax and Semantics of Numeral

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1983.syntax and Semantics of Numeral

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1983.syntax and Semantics of Numeral

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rapid #: -22208892

CROSS REF ID: 15671548220004361

LENDER: U3G (University of Guelph) :: McLaughlin Library

BORROWER: B3G (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) :: Main Library

JOURNAL TITLE: Studies in language

USER JOURNAL TITLE: Studies in Language

ARTICLE TITLE: Syntax and Semantics of Numeral Classifiers in Thai

ARTICLE AUTHOR: Hundius, Harald

PAGES: 165 - 214

Processed by RapidX: 3/11/2024 10:32:41 AM

You can only receive a single copy of the attached article/document.

SPONSORED BY THE FOUNDATION

VOLUME 7, NO. 2 (1983)

Richard D. Brecht, Univ. of Maryland T. Givon, Univ. of Oregon, Eugene

A. L. Becker, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor- Donald C. haycock,R.S.Pac.S., A.N.U.

HARALD HUNDIUS AND ULRIKE KOLVER

1. The Category of Numeratives and its subdivisions

type is illustrated by the following expressions:

as established by word order. The term classifier, however, will be restricted

Here two possibilites arise: either the numerative denotes a standardized

(1) a. rom saam khan

In (10), variant a. contains no numerical or referential indication what­

where the classifier may appear once only.

see 2.2.2. below). Compare the following phrases:

This example hardly needs further comment: the distributional morpheme la

ings: they may be generic or specific, definite or indefinite, singular or plural

(24) a. naa jiisipsaam

tween concepts and objects is indispensible.

3. Classifiers and Meaning

b. ryysii saam ton

mechanically mapping a noun onto the classifier position is very extensively

Yet, it does at least show that genuine classifier constructions provide a

network, just a rough impression as to productivity and relative extension of

4.1. Animate Beings

(7) ?or) l.n. “body (of royalty)”, 2 .clf:monks, royal personages,

4.2. Inanimate Things

function, see 4.2.4.

4.2.1. Shape and Concomitantfeatures

the objects themselves, the traditional classification has been

(10) krabbok l.n. “cylinder” 2.clf: cylindrical.objs., e.g. pyyn “rifle”,

appearance of the objects rather than their real dimensional

4.2.1.3. Saliently three-dimensional shape

(a) MASSIVE ROUND OR BULKY SHAPE:

4.2.I.4. Irregular shape

(30) pyyn elf: saws, the only example is luaj “saw”.

4.2.2. Localities and buildings

(31) Mg l.n. “place”, 2.clf: localities generally, e.g. dindeen “area,

4.2.3. Discrete Objects

4.3. Immaterial Concepts

(8) khrag 1. temporal numerative, used adverbially, “-times”, 2. clf:

The three following clfs are of very limited scope:

cal designatory particle’.

Adams, K.L. a. Conklin, N.F. 1973. Towards a Theory of Natural Classifica­

Allen, K. 1977. Classifiers. Lg 53:285-311.-

Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge.

You might also like

In (10), variant a. contains no numerical or referential indication what

Adams, K.L. a. Conklin, N.F. 1973. Towards a Theory of Natural Classifica