Module talk:number list/data/vi
I'm not sure how helpful this is. Nôm characters were never standardized (except for certain recent attempts that are frankly has very little currency and has also not produce any notable amount of new literature that are read yet), so pretty much every numerals can be spelled various ways, having a single Nôm character for a numeral simply just paints a wrong picture in regards to historical usage. Furthermore, unlike Korean, where both native and Sino-Korean numerals enjoy their own usages, the usage of native numerals for numbers lower than 10 thousand has always dominated in Vietnamese, presenting Sino-Vietnamese morphemes as if they actually have similar extent of usage could potentially be misleading. To be honest, this is just misleading all around, which is the opposite of the point of this template/module (and the Sino-Vietnamese readings should be straight-up deleted since their usage in Vietnamese is pretty much negligible compared to Korean and Japanese, and would just further contribute to mislead users in regards to their usage). On a side note, vẹo was also used as a word for "hundred thousand" alongside ức. PhanAnh123 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @PhanAnh123, thank you for your feedback. I have removed the Sino-Vietnamese readings and the chữ Nôm forms as well, as the latter can be already included in the headword-line template. The usage of the chữ Nôm forms in this module were mainly based upon the English Wikipedia article on Vietnamese numerals, which indeed does create this picture were for every number there exists only one singular chữ Nôm form. But theoretically speaking, it would be interesting to see how a Vietnamese numeral system purely based on chữ Nôm could look like and how it would contrast to the Chinese numeral system. If you have any additional requests, please let me know. --ChemPro (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same with the so-called chữ Hán too, I don't see a point of including them, having Classical Chinese in a Vietnamese template certainly wouldn't do anything to clarify for people the difference between Chinese texts and Vietnamese texts. To be frank, I don't see a point in this template, the original template is good enough in providing words and forms that are actually used (currently or historically) in actual Vietnamese texts (not a Classical Chinese text that a modern person mistakes for a Vietnamese text), anything more unfortunately just muddies the waters. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @PhanAnh123! In comparison with Module:number list/data/ko or Module:number list/data/ja, I don't quite see why Vietnamese should be an exception, because the two other templates include their Chinese-derived elements as well. But I just noticed that Japanese numeral entries keeps the cardinalbox (which is currently in use) and Module:number list/data/ja seperately. If you wish, we can go back to the original cardinalbox for Vietnamese numeral entries and keep this module separately as well where the chữ Nôm and the chữ Hán will be kept in place. --ChemPro (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The most obvious thing is the difference in usages between the languages. I'm sure you know Vietnamese well enough to know that no Vietnamese speaker would use bát as a regular free morpheme for "eight", and this is also true historically if you look at actual Vietnamese texts. This is different from Korean and Japanese, where most of their respective Sino-Xenic numerals actual enjoy usages outside of fixed compounds (especially in Japanese, where usage of native numerals for cardinal counting has mostly been reduced to ひいふうみいよん (“1, 2, 3, 4”), and its usage with native classifiers is also quite restrictive), hence why listing both native and Sino-Xenic numerals is appropriate for Korean and Japanese. As it currently is, the template just looks like some Classical Chinese characters in Vietnamese entries, with little relevancy to either the historical or current counting system of Vietnamese. Yes, Vietnamese speakers did use these characters when they were writing (and reading) Chinese texts, but these Chinese texts have no relation to the usage of numerals in Vietnamese as a contemporary language, just like a how an English monk using Latin numerals in a Latin text having nothing to do with actual English numerals. PhanAnh123 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Though using the number box template has the advantage compared to the cardinalbox template that it can link to multiple spellings of the number greater or smaller then the number described in the entry at the same time, as shown in the entry một trăm, where the template links multiple spellings of the numbers 1,000 and 100,000 at the same time. --ChemPro (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The most obvious thing is the difference in usages between the languages. I'm sure you know Vietnamese well enough to know that no Vietnamese speaker would use bát as a regular free morpheme for "eight", and this is also true historically if you look at actual Vietnamese texts. This is different from Korean and Japanese, where most of their respective Sino-Xenic numerals actual enjoy usages outside of fixed compounds (especially in Japanese, where usage of native numerals for cardinal counting has mostly been reduced to ひいふうみいよん (“1, 2, 3, 4”), and its usage with native classifiers is also quite restrictive), hence why listing both native and Sino-Xenic numerals is appropriate for Korean and Japanese. As it currently is, the template just looks like some Classical Chinese characters in Vietnamese entries, with little relevancy to either the historical or current counting system of Vietnamese. Yes, Vietnamese speakers did use these characters when they were writing (and reading) Chinese texts, but these Chinese texts have no relation to the usage of numerals in Vietnamese as a contemporary language, just like a how an English monk using Latin numerals in a Latin text having nothing to do with actual English numerals. PhanAnh123 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @PhanAnh123! In comparison with Module:number list/data/ko or Module:number list/data/ja, I don't quite see why Vietnamese should be an exception, because the two other templates include their Chinese-derived elements as well. But I just noticed that Japanese numeral entries keeps the cardinalbox (which is currently in use) and Module:number list/data/ja seperately. If you wish, we can go back to the original cardinalbox for Vietnamese numeral entries and keep this module separately as well where the chữ Nôm and the chữ Hán will be kept in place. --ChemPro (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same with the so-called chữ Hán too, I don't see a point of including them, having Classical Chinese in a Vietnamese template certainly wouldn't do anything to clarify for people the difference between Chinese texts and Vietnamese texts. To be frank, I don't see a point in this template, the original template is good enough in providing words and forms that are actually used (currently or historically) in actual Vietnamese texts (not a Classical Chinese text that a modern person mistakes for a Vietnamese text), anything more unfortunately just muddies the waters. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)