If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
Chào, thank you for all your Vietnamese etymologies and entries! You don't happen to have a copy of Ferlus' 2007 article on Proto-Viet-Muong, do you? ;) Wyang (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no worries. I've been looking for that manuscript for years now... It seems both Michel Ferlus and Mark Alves are advisors for the Vietic portion of the Sealang project. I wonder if it's worthwhile to contact them to see if they have any resources for Proto-Viet-Muong; Alves seems fairly active academically and his contact email can be found online. Wyang (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have already contacted Dr. Alves or would like to, please let me know — otherwise I may contact him via email sometime this week. Anyway, happy editing! Wyang (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested ― I've received a reply from Prof. Mark Alves regarding Proto-Vietic reconstructions:
“... I am currently working on more specific identification of phonological patterns, semantic classes, and etymological details of Vietic vocabulary. I will make such data available around the time of the SEALS conference in May of 2018.
Are you sure the "thốt"'s & "nốt"'s rhyme "-ốt" was due to Khmu's influence? According to Suwilai 2002 & Lin 1974, the two dialects possessing /tu:t/ for tree are Cuang & Yuan (Yuan's /tu:t/ was ound only in compound /tuːt səʔɔ́ːŋ/). Cuang also has /ctwɔːt/. I've yet able to locate Yuan-speakers, yet Cuang speakers live in Laos. So I think this is unlikely that any of these two groups could've loaned //tu:t/ into Vietnamese as Vietnamese were migrating southwards. Meanwhile, Khmer rhyme /aot/ might also be borrowed into Vietnamese as /ot̚˧˦/ as Vietnamese phonotactics does not allow diphthong /ao/.Erminwin (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was written in Shorto's A Mon-Khmer comparative dictionary: "Vietnamese may be a loan from Khmuic, cf. with thốt-Kammu-Yuan tuːt plant, Thin tŭt tree". I myself actually also skeptical about it.PhanAnh123 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PhanAnh123, you added "tip, extreme end" as a definition in mút. Could you add an example that shows how this word is used in a sentence? Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the Hòa Bình provincial government introduced a new orthography for Mường in 2016. [1][2] Should we begin adding entries that reflect this orthography, or does it need to be adopted more widely first? – Minh Nguyễn💬09:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked some resources again. Yes, you are right, vấn is the standard SV reading. However, it's an irregular pronunciation. According to the old Chinese rime dictionaries like 中原音韻，問's initial is 微, so it should be nặng tone in Vietnamese. Zzzwik (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can add a couple of sentences explaining how the reading is irregular; but as *phỏng vận/*phỏng vặn doesn't exist in Vietnamese, changing vấn into something else probably won't do.PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
I have added the entry for the language Iu Mien. I don't know the etymological information, though, because I'm not familiar with languages like this. I noticed you added a lot of terms in this language, so I thought I'd notify you that I created that entry. Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This means mountain and hill.I was reading a offical book about it where it compared vietnamese núi and phnum(ភ្នំ) and other words from other
related languages that mean the exact same thing coming from the same origin.Does this not mean they cognate?Have you seen that book?
Did the author mean something else?
In the Southern vietnamese dialect bắp means corn and similarly ពោត(poot) has the same meaning of corn and sounds very similar.
Did i put it in the wrong place?Is that why you delete it or no experts have proved it yet?
Oh and can you check this one for me.Vietnamese ai and khmer aac(អាច)both are said the same and it's not pronounced like vietnamese ác at all.It has the meaning able, capable of, and dare to?
vietnamese ai by itself has all the khmer meanings dare and capable of or able.
Ai?
This last one,i'm most sure about.The first one well i can surrender i may have read that part of the book wrong.
The second one,I'm a Southern vietnamese speaker here!xD.
Thank you for your time.
Happy early new year,
Khoa Dang
Hi, thank you for your goodwill contributions, but it must be said that none those words are cognates of each other. You should familiarize yourself with the concepts of false friend, sound change and the comparative method: just because two words look similar or just one or two consonants are the same doesn't that they're cognates. Although there can be irregularity, there's limit to what can be deemed as plausible: Khmer ‹-m› and Vietnamese ‹-i› never match in the first pair; similarly, Khmer ‹-t› and Vietnamese ‹-p› never match in the second pair, Khmer ‹oo› doesn't correspond to Vietnamese ‹ă›, so on and so forth. You should be careful when reading books about languages in Vietnamese, since oftentimes the authors themselves are also not familiar with those concepts above.PhanAnh123 (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking a sentence down into parts of speech[edit]
I was told by Kevinup that "Quotations from historical texts can be added to Hán tự entries but usage examples found in modern Vietnamese should be placed at quốc ngữ entries," so I included the historical uses of them, which is mostly in literary Chinese. What should I do instead?
Ktl71182 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historical texts in Vietnam are not only composed in Chinese, but also in Vietnamese in the form of chữ Nôm. I think that adding Classical Chinese to Vietnamese entries is potentially misleading, as they are Chinese with Vietnamese reading, but not actual Vietnamese as a spoken and written language. Vietnamese itself can be extremely Sinicized and it's not rare to come across a sentence with almost only Sinitic elements, but Vietnamese also has its own syntax, grammar and word usages not found in Chinese, so texts in Classical Chinese are often not intelligible to Vietnamese speakers. You can freely add examples in chữ Nôm, as I had done so a few times myself.PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the SV reading of 街 is nhai. I once asked Wyang about this weird initial development and he said that it was probably due some weird palatalization of k. I think it might be *kj > *ʄ > [ɲ] or *kj > *j > [ɲ].PhanAnh123 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Baxter-Sagart's Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction (2014). This is one of the more obvious loans and there is no irregular element so I think it's pretty secure. PhanAnh123 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just saw this. I see this on p. 164, but I don't know if they are saying that it's a loan to Proto-Tai (and Proto-Hlai). How do we know it was not loaned the other way around (as Schuessler 2007 suggests)? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }00:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word was probably original Sinitic because the forms in the three Kra-Dai branches can be derived from the Old Chinese reconstructed form, while the reverse (voiceless lateral > stop-lateral complex onset) is not very likely. I'm not sure how likely would the assumption that there was a proto-Hlai-Tai form with complex onset (which was borrowed by Sinitic) then developed into the current reflexes be. These branches also came under more early substantial Chinese influence, compared to Kra.PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. Norquest (2007) reconstructs Proto-Southern Kra-Dai (which would be Proto-Western Kam-Tai in Norquest's revised phylogeny) as *H-la:y. In light of this and your observation that it would be more likely to have a stop-lateral become a voiceless lateral rather than the other way around, it does seem like Chinese as the donor makes more sense if B-S's reconstruction is right. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
In the etymology of កណ្ដាស់ (to sneeze), you refer to the cognate gecas from "Semitic". Was that a typo for another language code? Thx! Sitaron (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, is TQ an abbreviation of Trung Quốc? I often see this word on the Internet. Would it be possible to create an entry for this? RcAlex36 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnamese Japanese Etymology & Nameless IP Users[edit]
I've noticed a handful of Sino-Vietnamese terms with supposedly Japanese etymologies. For example, chỉ đạo. It seems like the edits tend to be from nameless IP users. Do such edits seem accurate to you? If so, are they saying that the Chinese term came from Japanese or that the Vietnamese term came from Japanese (directly)?
That nameless IP has been active for a few years now; their editing style resembles one of the chief Vietnamese editors back then. I do know some elementary Japanese (enough to read Youtube comments with relative ease at least), but I'm unfortunately hardly well-versed enough in the history and transmission of the wasei-kango to have any say in pin-pointing the route of every single items: whether the item was passed from Japanese to Vietnamese through Chinese as the medium, or if it came from Japanese directly, or if it's even an actual wasei-kango at all.PhanAnh123 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the many Muong varieties spoken in Hoà Bình province (the province where the Muong population forms the majority) and is usually regarded as the prestige variety in the province. It's the main dialect in Từ điển Mường - Việt (2002). Due to the diversity within the Muong varieties and the lack of adequate documentation for the vast majority of Mường dialects, I think it's best to indicate to the readers that these entries are only true for this particular dialect.PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotō Kimpei (apud Taylor 1983:10) linked the ethnonym 雒 ~ 駱 (OC *râk > lạc) to Vietnamese noun lạch ~ rạch "ditch, canal, waterway". I included this proposal in the wikipedia article Lạc Việt. I deem Kimpei's proposal plausible, if rạch were indeed from PMK *craak ~ craik ~ criik "to tear, to divide".
Schuessler (2007) thought that 胳 (*klak > *kâk > SV các ~ cách) was MK loan into Chinese & cognate with Proto-Monic *knlak (“popliteal space; armpit”) & Khmer ក្លៀក (kliək, “armpit”), the latter of which is proposed by Shorto to be from *kʔik ~ kʔiək ~ kʔaik "armpit", whose infixed derivation *knʔaik yielded Protoc Vietic *-nɛːk and then Vietnamese nách.
From those data it seems to me that OC -âk can correspond with PMK -aik; and supposing OC-speaking officials heard an AA autonym like *(C-)raik, possibly meaning "people of the ditch / people who dig ditches [for irrigation]", those officials could use (near-)homophones 雒 ~ 駱 *râk to transcribe that that AA autonym *(C-)raik. Do you think Kimpei's proposal, which I've expounded on, plausible? Erminwin (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases like these, we have very limited evidence for what the meaning of these non-Sinitic words transcripted by Chinese characters. We know that 麊泠(“Mê Linh”) and 古螺(“Cổ Loa”) ("old spiral" looks like a folk etymology) were meant to represent words foreign to the Chinese, but we're pretty much ignorant of their semantics.
Unlike some more recently formulated place names (tên chữ Từ Liêm vs. tên Nôm Trèm), we don't have doublets (if there ever were, they're long gone). I think the most likely one is 九真(Jiǔzhēn) being from Proto-Vietic*ɟiːŋ(“foot”) with a prefix and I'm not even quite sure about it. In this instance, not only is the semantics obscure, phonetically it's also problematic. Without dismissing his accomplishments, I would rather not take the vocalism in Shorto's reconstruction at face value: the rime ‹-ach› in Vietnamese pretty much only arose from *-ɛːk in native words (and for Sino-Vietnamese, -eak and -aek (Middle Chinese notation in B-S)) and what he reconstructed as *craik might be "mended" to *crɛːk (identical to the Katuic form for "to split"). The Chinese characters above are read with *-ak (B-S) in Old Chinese, which would be borrowed by what was the ancestral form of Vietnamese as *-aːk. So the vowels in the earliest forms available were not very alike (both in the light of the current Old Chinese six vowel reconstruction and Austroasiatic vocalism), plus the uncertain semantics, and I find it hard to draw any conclusion at all.PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thanks for your informative inputs! The proposal 九真(Jiǔzhēn) < prefix *k- plus Proto-Vietic*ciːŋ(“foot”) is found in Ferlus's 2012 "Origine des noms anciens du Cambodge: Fou-nan et Tchen-la" as well as Pain's 2020 "'Giao Chỉ' ('Jiāozhǐ') as a diffusion center of Chinese diachronic changes". I've just added that in 九真(Jiǔzhēn). Erminwin (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The indigenous name/tên Nôm of the river in Vietnamese is sôngCái (which just means "big/great river", there are several rivers with this name in Vietnam), which is pretty much not used anymore. Some sources seem to suggest that 紅河 and sông Hồng appeared simultaneously (or sông Hồng slightly later) as calques of French rivièrerouge in the late 19th century. Hồng Hà is not used nowadays, although I doubt it was ever widely used in spoken Vietnamese, seems like another case similar to lệ chi.PhanAnh123 (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about and I also don't use Tiktok so I'm confused. Is any of my edits happened to be similar to anything posted on Tiktok?PhanAnh123 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ko có gì đâu, xin lỗi, gần đây trên tiktok có thằng cha tên phan anh chuyên đi quấy rối chọc phá người khác, thấy hắn cù bất cù bơ nên em liên tưởng đến bác.
I don't know what gave you the idea that I manage those sites but no, I'm simply someone who is interested in linguistics and I couldn't care less about politics, genetics or any such stuff, and I disregard anything that uses genetics to prove things such as language relationships. As for Erminwin, I don't know whom he is in real life and I simply answer the question he asked me using the knowledge I have in linguistics. PhanAnh123 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SOP is "sum of parts", what it means is that it's a phrase formed through regular progress in a language, but doesn't have idiomatic usage. Yes, lòngbiết ơn means "gratitude", but it is also a sum of parts, in the same way that English cowfarmer doesn't have an entry on Wiktionary, but good-looking does. PhanAnh123 (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably from Proto-Mon-Khmer*ŋiər ~ *ŋə(ə)r) ~ *jŋɔɔr(“green; yellow; ripe”). The sense of "shine" is in the reference for the "yellow sun", hence "bright" > "shine, radiant".
You: There seems to be an reflex of this etymology in Mường Bi, attested as ngãl "radiant" (this lect merged tone B2 & C2 so the earlier coda can be either *-ʔ or *-h, but considering the root structure, it's likely *-ʔ). However Mường Bi ngãl and Vietnamese ngời can not be cognates since they don't match in either tone nor vowel (the Vietnamese reflex would be *ngại or *ngãi).
Me: since whats we discussed about, i still thinking that you don't mention what vietnamese "green and yellow" would be from *ŋiər, ŋə(ə)r and jŋɔɔr* if not the Sinitic origin *xanh and vàng* 123.18.111.17313:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we simply don't know what would the Vietnamese words for those colors be if Vietnamese did not borrow from Chinese. Whether they would come from that root or not, we can't say for certain. In Kra languages, the cognates of nghệ(“turmeric”), which I think is a Kra-Dai loanword, came to mean "yellow", while in Saekŋiːl⁶, it keeps the meaning "turmeric". It's also possible that the modern Vietnamese word for "brown", nâu, originated from the name of Dioscorea cirrhosa. What I mean is that we can have fun speculating, but can never be sure about things that didn't happen, especially as lexical replacement and retention are both not so predictable. PhanAnh123 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undo revision 65599698 by 2001:EE0:4880:CB40:D4A0:3CC2:4242:8AD6 (talk): I have thought of this before, but the vowels are complete mismatches.
Any theory? 14.239.109.24910:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One well-known example of s- / th- doublets in Sino-Vietnamese loans is how the character 蔡 MC: *t͡sʰɑiH is read as either Thái or Sái in Sino-Vietnamese. Still, for unknown reason I cannot remember any "th-" vs. "s-" doublets which are either native Vietnamese (from PViet or PAA) & loanwords (from pre-Tang Chinese).
I ask for examples of such because of these two different analyses of the Vietnamese disyllabic word thuồng luồng:
Maspero (1912:84) (cited in Schuessler, 2007:363) thinks thuồng is the "main syllable" (*Cr- > s- > th-) and luồng is the reduplicative;
Trần (2013) pdf derives thuồng luồng from *tʰluong, via a cluster-breaking mechanism also responsible for doublets trăn ("python") and thằn lằn "(lizard").
There are cases like thủ and sỏ, which clearly belong to two different strata, if that what you asked about. In the Northeastern dialects (including the dialect of the Jing people in Guangxi), clusters of the *C-r- type often yielded ‹th-› instead of ‹s-› as in the major dialects, so there are Northeastern thông vs. sông, Northeastern thao vs. sao. Otherwise there are thẹo vs. sẹo, thèm vs. sèm that I think belong to neither of the two categories above. On thuồng luồng, I am inclined to agree with Trần Trọng Dương here, a lot of Maspero's proposals just didn't age very well. PhanAnh123 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on me, a native Vietnamese speaker who blanked out on the very well-known sẹo vs. thẹo ("scar") doublets while remembering the very much more less-known tấy vs. rái (from PViet *p-seːʔ) "otter"! Erminwin (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for improving the edits and new entries that I have made. Regarding Hán Nôm, as I now hopefully understand it, 'Hán' is a Sino-Vietnamese word and 'Nôm' is a [more recent?] Chinese loanword that has been adopted by Vietnamese speakers. An analogy would be the English word 'horticulture' derived from Latin 'hortus' and 'cultura', and the use of the Latin loanphrase 'vice versa' in English. Is this more or less correct?
If so, is it possible to enter the Etymology of a word such as Hán Nôm as:
I see little need for this since the entry for nôm/Nôm already includes the etymology, similar to how (most) compounds with native Vietnamese elements do not need to have the native etymology added but just listed as simple compounds. Compounds fully in Sino-Vietnamese can be listed as SV (even those coined by Vietnamese, such as hiện diện, trang trại), "compounds" with non-SV elements but are clearly not coined by Vietnamese such as phàn nàn, bề bề can be listed as non-SV. The entry in question is a SV + non-SV compound clearly coined by Vietnamese, so {{com}} is sufficient, see quái xế for example. PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bác ơi rãnh cho em hỏi cái ạ:
Theo dõi bác từ lâu thấy bác rất là giỏi, nhưng gần đây ai cũng thấy bác có gì đó sai sai?
Em muốn hỏi là:
-Gần đây những chỉnh sửa của bác có bị ảnh hưởng bởi điều gì KỲ LẠ không ạ?
-Từ vựng bác học được là một phần của quá trình tiếp xúc thực tế hay chỉ cần đọc sách là phát âm được(phần nhiều).
Ví dụ như có một số từ mà riêng mỗi vùng đã có cách phát âm khác nhau, không chỉ nam bắc thì lấy cái nào để xác định một trong số đó là từ chuẩn miền đó?
Hỏi ngu học chút, nhưng ví dụ từ trống chẳng hạn, thường thì em thấy miền trung âm ông thì đọc thành ôông, ví dụ trôống
Cái trôống cho từ cái trống, gà trôống. Hay từ sống => sôống lưng
"Họọc xong rồi về quê miềng mà ở
Lấy thằng dôông đẻ cháu mạ bôồng cho." kiểu kiểu thế
Nhiều từ em thấy bác gán nó như là tiêu chuẩn của bắc trung bộ nhưng em cách phát từ đó ở bắc trung bộ hay có lẽ chỉ ở địa phương em nó hơi khác khác, đáng lẽ cách ký âm nó phải khác một chút?
-Thêm cái là trên wiki, thấy thường hay mục người Việt hay tiếng Việt, thì người ta bảo người Việt hay tiếng Việt bị ảnh hưởng bởi ngôn ngữ, người Thái vào buổi đầu của lịch sử cái đéo gì đó. Thì cái này có đúng không? Nếu vậy các từ mượn tiếng thái cũng sẽ có trong các thứ tiếng của nhánh Vietic?
Hay là chỉ mới được mượn, ảnh hưởng gần đây, tại sao người miền bắc với người thái ở sát nhau lâu như vậy mà từ vựng ảnh hưởng lẫn nhau chỉ 1%? Người miền trung ở với người chăm cũng lâu như vậy những cũng tương tự mượn 1%?
-Cái gần cuối: bác là người dân tộc gì ạ, thái lan or trung quốc or cũng là người kinh? Thấy trước bác edit từ keo
Mà bọn thái lan hay chửi người Việt bằng từ này.
-Gần đây bọn trung quốc hay bọn nào đó trên wiki nó thường xuyên chỉnh sửa wiki, mà phân chia mọi thứ ra nam việt và bắc việt, hoặc là chỉnh sửa mấy chỗ về lãnh thổ quốc gia như khmer krom, central highland và phóng đại sự khác biệt giữa nam bắc các kiểu. Bọn nóa có âm mưu gì không, bọn nó không biết rằng đó là hành động khủng bố sao?
Có chuyện gì trong cộng đồng người trung quốc đang sống ở vn không? Sao gần đây họ bắt đầu bất mãn các kiểu vậy nhỉ? Bộ tự do ngôn luận là muốn nói gì nói bất chấp hậu quả sao? 125.212.152.12614:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Về câu hỏi thứ nhất của bạn thì phải tỉa sang sự phân biệt âm vị học với ngữ âm học chút. Nói một cách dễ hiểu nó là sự khác biệt giữa // and [], cái nằm trong // là ký hiệu âm vị học, cái nằm trong [] là ký hiệu ngữ âm học, nói một cách đơn giản khác thì âm vị học là ký âm "sâu", còn ngữ âm học là ký âm "nông". Trong tất cả phương ngữ tiếng Việt, từ cấu trúc âm vị học của từ ông là /ʔoŋ/, tuy nhiên, cấu trúc ngữ âm học lại là chuyện khác, ông được phát âm là [ʔəwŋ͡m] với sự môi hoá trong các phương ngữ "đại chúng" (cứ hiểu là các phương ngữ Bắc và Nam), còn ở nhiều phương ngữ vùng Bắc Trung Bộ thường lưu giữ những nét nguyên thuỷ hơn, /ʔoŋ/ không trải qua sự môi hoá này, nên phát âm trong ngữ âm học là [ʔoŋ]. Sự khác biệt ngữ âm học (không phải âm vị học) này được thể hiện trong khi viết bằng ‹ông› và ‹ôông›. Tương tự như vậy, trống có cấu trúc âm vị học là /ʈoŋ/, cấu trúc ngữ âm học thì tuỳ vào phương ngữ dao động [ʈəwŋ͡m] hay [ʈoŋ]. Việc người viết là muốn thể hiện sự khác biệt về mặt tha âm (tiếng Anh là allophony) là tuỳ thuộc, họ có thể viết nó với dạng sát với dạng viết chuẩn nếu muốn hay bằng dạng viết thể hiện nét địa phương nếu muốn. Thêm một điều nữa là chữ viết không phải ngôn ngữ, đây là hai khái niệm có liên quan, nhưng không hề đồng nhất, ngôn ngữ-chữ viết có thể tồn tại song song, nhưng ngôn ngữ không hề cần chữ viết để tồn tại. Ở Wiktionary, mình hay gán các dạng phương ngữ cái mác Bắc Trung Bộ, nhưng Bắc Trung Bộ là một khu vực địa lý-xã hội, bên trong đó bao hàm nhiều phương ngữ đa dạng khác nhau (nếu có người muốn gọi là ngôn ngữ thì mình cũng chấp nhận luôn, sự phân biệt ngôn ngữ-phương ngữ có chút tính chính trị; con người nói phương ngữ, việc gộp bao nhiêu phương ngữ dưới cái mác ngôn ngữ dựa vào cả lịch sử, xã hội, chính trị lẫn nhận thức của người nói).
Về câu hỏi thứ hai thì phải hiểu là không có ngôn ngữ nào tránh khỏi được sự ảnh hưởng lẫn nhau qua lại. Sự phát triển, vay mượn giữa các ngôn ngữ với nhau là điều gần như không tránh khỏi, tuy nhiên, khi xem xét mối quan hệ phả hệ giữa ngôn ngữ, cái quan trọng là cái từ vựng lõi. Các phương ngôn tiếng Việt và dãy phương ngữ Mường đã vay mượn một số từ vựng từ các ngôn ngữ Thái, những từ mượn này đã trở thành một phần vốn từ vựng của các ngôn ngữ này, song, dĩ nhiên, điều có chỉ tác động, chứ không làm thay đổi đến vốn từ vựng lõi của tiếng Việt hay các phương ngữ Mường. Về con số 1% thì mình hoài nghi, vì lượng từ vựng của một ngôn ngữ là thứ không tính toàn được (cần phải định nghĩa cái khái niệm "từ"/"word" trước, nó trông vậy chứ không đơn giản đâu). Nhưng quả đúng là so với luợng từ vựng nguồn gốc Hán thì từ vựng nguồn gốc các ngôn ngữ Thái rất ít. Tại sao vậy? Ta lại cần xem xét bối cảnh xã hội nữa, đa số từ vựng gốc Hán trong tiếng Việt (cái gọi là "từ Hán-Việt") được du nhập thông qua sự tiếp thu văn hoá viết, còn đối với các ngôn ngữ Thái thì chủ yếu qua con đường nói, tức giao tiếp hàng ngày, một phần vì bất cứ ngôn ngữ nào cũng được cung cấp một lượng từ vựng đủ để đáp ứng như cầu này, một phần tiếp xúc qua con đường nói thường thông qua trao đổi, buôn bán, nông nghiệp (nên từ vựng vay mượn từ đường nói thường liên quan đến những điều này), nên vay mượn qua con đường giao tiếp luôn ít hơn con đường viết. Lấy một ví dụ nhé, tiếng Anh có số lượng từ mượn từ tiếng Latinh rất nhiều (nếu bạn lật giở sơ sơ sách vở y học hay luật pháp thì sẽ thấy), nhưng tiếng Anh không mượn những từ này từ con đường nói nhiều đâu, mà từ đường viết, trong khi đó, người Anglo-Saxon đã tiếp xúc với người nói các ngôn ngữ Celt kể từ khi họ di cư đến đảo Anh, cho đến tận bây giờ, người nói tiếng Wales vẫn sống xen với người nói tiếng Anh nhưng lượng từ mượn tiếng Wales trong tiếng Anh cực kỳ ít.
Còn mấy câu còn lại thì xin trả lời ngắn gọn là mình là người Kinh, tiếng Việt là tiếng mẹ đẻ. Một trong những sở thích của mình là ngôn ngữ học nên có thấy mình sửa linh tinh mục này mục kia cũng đừng lạ (nếu bạn có hứng thú tìm hiểu nguồn gốc từ Keo, từ mà các dân tộc Thái hiện đại thường đùng để gọi người Kinh, có thể tham khảo Formation of Ethnonyms in Southeast Asia của Michel Ferlus). Mình không có hứng thú gì với di truyền học hay chính trị hiện đại nên mình không thể bình luận gì. Mình làm Wiktionary chỉ để vui, đơn giản vì mình thích tìm hiểu nguồn gốc gốc gác ngôn ngữ cùng các bộ phận cấu thành nên nó, không hơn, không kém. PhanAnh123 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
À vậy cho em cảm ơn ạ. Có vẻ đúng là một lượng lớn từ vựng một người có được là từ đọc sách hay nghe được từ phim ảnh, xưa thì mình học sách tàu và chưa có phim ảnh vậy nên việc người kinh mình mượn nhiều từ vựng vì học sách vở của trung quốc là hợp lý.
Ngoài phần đó thì ra thì mấy câu nhảm nhí còn lại là phát ngôn lúc bực tức để thử, bác đừng để ý. Gần đây stress nặng quá nhìn đâu cũng thấy người ta chửi mình. Dù k có liên quan gì. Kkk
KazukiHoshino (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm currently creating entries based on the SEAlang Library Vietnamese Dictionary and all the example sentences that I've written here are from there. Is it therefore necessary to provide a reference for the example sentences? I've tried it for example in tha hồ. Is that way correct? --ChemPro (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you should create entries based on that, since there's a lot of SOPs there. The examples are usually good though (such as at tha hồ), although they're often formal, which might not be appropriate for entries labeled informal or colloquial. Vietnamese Wikisource is not bad if you want to look for examples, and nomfoundation can be useful. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these resources, especially the Vietnamese Wikisource for providing possible example sentences. And sorry for these SOPs, I'm slowly getting the hang of it. --ChemPro (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chỗ tui hay dùng đại từ nhân xưng + "của dại" hay "đầy sơ".
Dùng như tên cúng cơm để nhắc đến ai đó đã chết mà kiêng không gọi tên thật của họ.
Ví dụ khi đi đám người nằm trong hòm là nam giới chắng hạn, thì họ gọi là chú đầy sơ, anh đầy sơ, bác đầy sơ... Hoặc anh của dại, chí của dại...
Hoặc trong một vòng trò chuyện mà người nói và người nghe không muốn nhắc tên thật dù vẫn biết và đang ám chỉ một đối tượng nào đó... Đã chết
Vậy thì khi thêm vào phần ví dụ của từ dại với nghĩa bệnh dại, dại dột này thì nó có gì sai không nhỉ?
Hay phải tạo cái mới?
Mà bác biết nguồn gốc của hai từ này không?
"Của dại" thì với nghĩa (của "sỡ hữu) ghép với dại dột nghe nó cũng hợp lý.
Nhưng "đầy sơ" thì chỉ duy nhất có liên tưởng đến vị sơ trong công giáo, nhưng mà không đúng vì bọn nó là những từ khá là thông dụng và cũng không liên quan gì đến cộng đồng công giáo.
Tui ở miền Nam, chưa nghe mấy từ kiểu quai mọ, đầy sơ như bác nói bao giờ (thấy bác xài "tui" thì nghĩ chắc bác cũng là cái người nhắn bữa trước). Tui nghĩ chữ của trong của dại chắc hông phải của với vai trò ngữ pháp sở hữu đâu, mà có nghĩa gốc trong của nả, của cải; dại thì có vẻ đúng là từ cái nghĩa dại dột. Còn đầy sơ thì nhìn qua tui cũng hông chắc về cấu trúc, nhưng có lẽ là sơ trong ông sơ, bà sơ, với nghĩa như cụ, kị. Nếu không ngại thì cho tui xin hỏi bác sống ở vùng/tỉnh nào vậy? Cho hỏi thêm là có sự phân biệt tuổi tác, giới tính trong sử dụng hai từ của dại với đầy sơ không? Như của dại thì ghép với bà, chị, còn đầy sơ thì ghép với ông, chú chẳng hạn. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sài điện thoại ko edit để rep vào đó được (cực lag, ấn delay chữ) nên rep ở đây, có gì bác tự xóa ạ.
Tui cũng không chắc là nó có phân biệt đối tượng tương tác không vì chỉ mới biết nghĩa nó gần đây, mà dường như là không.
Người ta nói thế và lấy ví dụ luôn là sử dụng cô gì chú bác anh chị em, vân vân mây mây...
Từ "của dại" thì chỉ có tỉnh tui là sử dụng.
Còn "đầy sơ" thì, theo những người khác nó phải được phổ biến khá rộng rãi ở cả nước?
(Hoặc có lẽ chỉ đối với người đời xưa, hoặc mấy ông nội chỗ tui nói nhảm)
Trong trường hợp của tui. Thì bà nội tui nhiều lúc kể truyện xưa thường hay nhắc đến mấy thằng Cùa Dại như một đối tượng để la ba tui, mà trong nhà tui có mấy ông bác đi lính chết trẻ nên tui tưởng là tên riêng hay biệt danh gì đó.
Qua xem video về giọng nam định, thấy có từ địa phương ("con ra rại" = con điên) thì nhớ ngay đến từ "của dại" có lẽ cũng có nghĩa như vậy, như một cách mắng mỏ chẳng hạn.
Nhưng hôm nay có dịp hỏi người ta thì xác minh được là không phải tên riêng hay biệt hiệu gì mà là từ dùng chỉ người chết thông thường.
Cũng biết thêm từ mới là "đầy sơ" cũng với nghĩa tương tự (từ đầy sơ này tui từng nghe trong mấy đám tang).
Xóm tui xưa tên "Quai Mọ" ở Quảng Trị (xóm mới hình thành cách đây tầm 100 năm từ dân tứ xứ, Huế có, Đà nẵng có, Bắc cũng có nữa) nhưng tên xóm thì không biết ai đặt.
Có lẽ do xóm có mấy nhà thợ rèn nên tạo ra từ lóng "Quai Mọ" mới được tạo theo từ Mọ Ngọe (bồ hóng)? Hoặc nó thực sự có nghĩa gì đó chăng?
Cảm ơn thông tin của bác. Mấy từ này lạ quá, tui tìm lần trên mạng cũng chưa ra được gì, mấy từ ngữ kiểu này nó ít được viết ra nên có lẽ không mò được gì cũng không ngạc nhiên. Bởi vậy mới nói là khảo cứu thực địa địa phương không bao giờ là thừa, người dân có khi "xấu hổ" về tiếng nói của mình nên phải ở trong cuộc sống hàng ngày mới biết người ta có từ khác lạ gì. Ở nhà tui có dùng từ "xèm" làm một từ giảm nhẹ khi nhắc đến vùng kín nữ giới, nhưng khi hỏi người khác thì chưa thấy ai dùng hay biết về gốc gác từ đó cả. Về từ Quai Mọ thì bác nghĩ có thể bắt nguồn từ quai mõ không? Nếu nơi bác ở gần hay là vùng có hợp nhất thanh ngã-nặng thì có lẽ có khả năng đó. PhanAnh123 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thử search từ quai mõ xem nó nghĩa là gì gặp luôn cái cầu Quai Mọ ở Huế, vậy dễ là mấy nhà gốc Huế đặt.
Oh hiểu rồi, cái cầu kia nó bị cong nhìn giống phần quai của chiếc mõ.
Xóm tui chỗ miếu xóm cũng có một khúc cua lớn, xưa nhiều người tai nạn nên có ngôi lăng ở đó, sau họ bốc mộ đi thì cái chỗ đó thành ra miếu xóm. 125.212.152.5114:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xóm quai mọ (quai mõ) là xóm được hình thành trên một khúc cua nhìn giống hình quai của chiếc mõ.
As in the idiom trung quân ái quốc "loyal[ty (n.)] to the monarch and love [(n.) for] the county". "Trung quân" is definitely from Middle Chinese 忠君 (ZS) *ʈɨuŋ-kɨun. The earliest attestation I can find of 忠君 is in Hanfeizich. 35 "爵祿生於功，誅罰生於罪，臣明於此，則盡死力而非忠君也。/ Rank and emolument are due to meritorious services; censure and punishment, to criminal offences. If the minister understands this, he must exert his strength even at the risk of his life but never assume loyalty to the ruler." (W. K. Liao's 1939 translation) (I won't list other examples here lest I'll needlessly lengthen this section).
In Vietnamese, "trung quân" is used quite often in formal and/or literary writings, e.g. "Ông là người hết mực trung quân, nhưng không phải là ngu trung, trung một cách máy móc, ngu muội / He was a man thoroughly loyal to his monarch, yet not foolishly loyal, loyal in a mechanical and obtuse manner" (Nguyễn Đình An (2013) "Nguyễn Duy Hiệu, người con ưu tú của Hội An (Nguyễn Duy Hiệu, Hội An's Outstanding Son)" Đà Nẵng Online).
Still I cannot find any Chinese dictionary (e.g. zdic, Ministry of Education Mandarin Chinese Dictionary 教育部國語辭典) containing the entry 忠君, only 忠君愛國.
If you're talking about creating the Vietnamese entry for trung quân, then I don't see any problem since the word is sufficiently attested and is not just a part of trung quân ái quốc. It should probably just be labeled as "Sino-Vietnamese reading of 忠君" since its usage indicates that it's not short for trung quân ái quốc and Chinese philology was popular enough for something that is a SOP in Written Chinese to become idiomatic in Vietnamese. I'm afraid I can not be of any help when it comes to the Chinese entry for 忠君, since my limited ability in reading Chinese (that chiefly came secondhand through my knowledge in Japanese) is not enough to tell if something is a SOP or not. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the meaning of viên ngoại. The New Vietnamese-English Dictionary from André Nguyễn Văn Châu gives two definitions and I'm not quite sure if they are correct:
viên ngoại (n.) Deputy Assistant Minister under the emperors; the function was held by a mandarin of the titular 5th rank (chánh ngũ phâm). (What does chánh ngũ phâm mean?)
viên ngoại (n.) Notable; totally honorific title granted to wealthy notables.
The Vietnamese Wiktionary gives the following definition: "Một chức quan giữ việc sổ sách tại các bộ, đặt ra từ thời Lục triều. Về sau, "Viên ngoại" dần dần trở thành một hư hàm.", which roughly means, that it is a government position for mandarins responsible for bookkeeping and that it was established during the Warring States period, right? I don't know what hư hàm here means. Does it have something to do with the False titles of nobility? --ChemPro (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chánh ngũ phẩm 正五品 means something like "Upper Fifth Rank". hư hàm 虛銜 means it's just an honorific/ceremonial title and is no longer an actual rank. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. That seems to be outside of my expertise, I should better leave it to an expert to create that entry. --ChemPro (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChemPro: I've created the Vietnamese entry viên ngoại with three definitions:
(historical)ancient official title (note: I was not feeling like writing a long, detailed definition)
(historical)hollow (i.e. honorific, ceremonial) title granted to wealthy notables
(historical) notable (note: with an example usage in Truyện Kiều)
I believe the most common word for "mirror" in the various Northern dialects is gương (or some variant of it), while in the South kiếng is the most common. kính there is probably a Northern-influenced usage of Southern kiếng. kính is not a rare word in the South, but I think it's more helpful to transfer the sense to the entry for the Southern form. PhanAnh123 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hồ Ngọc Đức's Vietnamese-English dictionary glosses châu chấu as "grasshopper" and cào cào as "locust". So does Tuttle Vietnamese-English Dictionary 2nd edition (p. 114 & p. 191; tho' Tuttle Dict also glosses cào cào as grasshopper)
Yet I remember the reverse:
"cào cào" denotes "grasshoppers"; while
"châu chấu" denotes "locusts", grasshoppers who are otherwise solitary yet can become gregarious and migratory;
moreover, "locust plague" more commonly (ratio ~3:2) translates to Vietnamese "dịch châu chấu" (About 31,900 results (0.35 seconds)), compared to "dịch cào cào" (About 20,800 results (0.45 seconds)).
I think this is just the case that the Vietnamese and the English terms do not perfectly match. Vietnamese châu chấu refers to grasshoppers and locusts with flat headshape, while cào cào denotes grasshoppers and locusts with elonged/pointed heads. Meanwhile, in English, both grasshopper and locust can refer to species with flat headshape. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll regloss those entries accordingly! I think Hồ Ngọc Đức & Tuttle Dictionary gloss châu chấu & cào cào based on taxonomy. Fo example, the Vietnamese wikipedia article Phân_bộ_Châu_chấu (= English Caelifera) counts "cào cào" among the Acrididae, which they defines as "châu chấu, cào cào đồng cùng các loài châu chấu di chuyển thành bầy". In other words, taxonomically speaking, all "cào cào" are "châu chấu" yet not all "châu chấu" are "cào cào". Erminwin (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've recently created this entry because the entry hàng ngày already exists. But now I'm wondering if hằng ngày is a SoP because you can deduce its meaning by its parts. But the meaning of hàng ngày can also be obtained by its parts, or? --ChemPro (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you can obtain the meaning from the components for both, but that is not the definition of SOP here on Wiktionary is it? SOPs are something (word/phrase/compound) consisting of more than one morpheme that is also unidiomatic; both hằng ngày and hàng ngày are idiomatic, so they can stay. I think these days hàng ngày is a bit more common but I'm not a prescriptivist so I don't think there is any need to change either entry. PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I intended to create these two entries but I'm not sure if I should create completely new entries or add them in the already existing entries trà and chè respectively. --ChemPro (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is likely justified for them to have their own entries if you want to add the meaning camellia, since trà and chè by themselves just mean tea. They seem to calques of 茶花(cháhuā). For the classifiers, bônghoa trà sounds normal, although for hoa to be used, it probably needs to be rephrased into something like "hoa (của) cây hoa trà", turning hoa into a noun. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ngãi, nhơn are shared with Southern dialects, and both items are extensively attested. Vinh and Đồng Hới probably are not from 永 and 洞海, both of these look like phonetic matchings/phonetic reetymologization. Huế is a good case, though, although the pairs hoà ~ huề, hoa ~ huê make me wondering if huế ever made its way into the Southern dialects. Also one thing, I would avoid the usage "→" or ">" when discussing dialectal Sino-Vietnamese forms, since their history are often quite muddy and there is no reason to think that some of the readings nowadays considered "mainstream" are actually closer to the original forms.
The only example (other from huế) of exclusive Central form is cùn in some (minor?) Central dialects, corresponding to quần(“pants, trousers”) in the mainstream dialects. PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While there's likely a possibility that my Vietnamese proficiency might have reduced without me knowing, I spent my formative years in Vietnam and never once witnessed sĩ being used as an adjective meaning "(archaic) intelligent; wise; well educated".
Hồ Ngọc Đức's Vietnamese dictionary glosses sĩ as:
Nhất sĩ nhì nông: First come the scholars, ne[x]t the peasants
Kẻ sĩ: An intellectual
Bishop (a chess piece)
While Nguyễn & Phan (2016)'s Tuttle Vietnamese-English Dictionary: Completely Revised and Updated Second Edition classifies "sĩ" as a polysemic noun, not an adjective with the archaic meaning "intelligent; wise; well educated"
Should the adjective gloss be deleted outright or petitioned to be deleted?
I don't think I have seen such a usage. I checked the usual dictionaries, as well as Tục ngữ, cổ ngữ, gia ngôn by Huình Tịnh Của and Nam ngạn chích cẩm by Phạm Quang Sán, and none of them really yielded anything substantial either. Maybe, if you analyze kẻ sĩ as a "noun + adjective" phrase instead of a "classifier + noun" phrase, you can get that meaning. PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do really need to do what to words that obviously don't exist? Among the already created Vietnamese entries we have here in Wiktionary here there are already words with dubious status floating around. Also, that etymology as moi was my own, which I edited because it's incorrect based on information from related languages. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undo revision 68456269 by Vien.Vu1 (talk): unmatching tones, has extensive Austroasiatic cognates. Possible Non-Sino-Vietnamese reading of Chinese稔(SV: nẫm).[edit]
Hi PhanAnh123,
I've seen your edits around wikitionary for Vietnamese words and can see you are an expert in the subject matter. Glad to see you doing great work.
I looked up and there is an entry for 稔 in wikitionary edited by Wyang that states the etymology as.
There looks to be a connection between 稔 and năm to denote "year". I thought it to be a non-SV reading potentially. Any further information you can help provide? Vien.Vu1 (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm glad that you ask. Schuessler (2007) is a commonly cited source on Wiktionary that I've always had some reservations towards. Schuessler proposed that 稔(rěn) was a loan from an Austroasiatic language. Here is the quote from (2007, pg. 441): "稔 (ńźjəmᴮ) LH ńimᴮ, OCM *nəmʔ 'Year' [Zuo). Later 'ripe' (of cereal etc.) [SW], 'harvest' [Hanshu]. [E] AA: PMonic *cnaam 'year', Mon hnam, Khmer cnam, PVM *c-n-əm 'year' [Ferlus], PNBahn. hanăm, PSBahn. *sənam, Pear nim, Wa-Lawa-Bulang *nɤm (BenedictMKS 18-19,1992: 9). The AA word is perh. derived from a root 'to (trans-)plant' (Ferlus, Diffloth). AA -> TB-JP lə³³-nam³³ 'rainy season' (CVST 2: 31), Lepcha nam 'year'. AA -> Saek (Tai Ig.) ɲaam⁴ (A1) 'season'. The word's earliest occurrences in Zuǒzhuàn in stock expressions like 'not lasting (more than) five years' give the impression of a relict from a substrate, rather than being part of the active language (similar to AA .... huāng₁ 衁(huāng) 'blood'). The AA sources do not mean 'harvest' or 'ripe'; therefore it seems that AA 'year' and -> rén₄ 任 *nəm (basic notion: 'burden, carry, bear') have converged during the Han period (ears of grain 'bearing'> 'ripe, harvest') [SW, Hanshu], perh. with additional interference from -> rèn₂ 荏任 'soft' > 'cooked' and -> nián 年(nián) 'year, harvest'. Rěn has perh. tone B because it was felt to be an endoactive derivation (§4.5.1) from 'soft / heavy'." Now, I would be lying if I don't have some skepticism when it comes to etymologies that evoke Austroasiatic from Schuessler (even this case, which I think is one of the less adventurous ones). But that's not really important here, as direct borrowing between 稔(rěn) and năm is simply not feasible: Vietnamese năm has tone A1/ngang, indicating two things, 1) the earlier form likely had a presyllable containing voiceless element (i.e. Proto-Vietic *c-) and 2) the coda was not checked (i.e. it ended in a vowel, a glide, or a nasal, without -ʔ), 稔 (MC nyimX) had neither of those two features, therefore a borrowing from late Old Chinese would result in something like *nậm or *nịm, and a vernacular loan from later period would give *nhịm (cf. nhịn, from 忍 (MC nyinX)). As a rule, a Vietnamese word with an A tone (ngang/A1 and huyền/A2) never corresponds to a Sinitic word with 上/B tone, unless it's an obvious recent loan from a regional Sinitic lect. Furthermore, this is one of the etymologies that is widely distributed among the Austroasiatic languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, and therefore cognates are abundantly attested both intra- and extra-Vietic, showing regular correspondences to the Vietnamese word. PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have to restrain from giving any definite answer, since this is something I hardly have any expertise in. From some surface level searching, there doesn't seem to be any direct translation of it. If I have to give a suggestion though, something like "security and order police force" probably comes close. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind reply. I found that the English website of the Ministry of Public Security of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam uses the terms "social order police" and "order police". Would therefore be "(social) order police" a fair translation? --ChemPro (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soha has the advantage of being quite tolerable towards many colloquial vocabulary, SEAlang's dictionary is also a good source of vocabulary although there is an abundance of SOPs there, while The New Vietnamese-English dictionary actually indicates where a particular form is used instead of just slapping on a generic "dialectal" label. That said, obviously no dictionary is entirely reliable and are still plenty of colloquial vocabulary, regional forms and expressions not found in these. I'm a native speaker so I personally don't really use any dictionary at hand to create entries, although I do check dictionaries for words that I am not entirely sure the meaning of, obsolete terms, and words from dialects I don't speak (quite a pity that there isn't any active user of a Northern dialect who can contribute the lesser known terms and forms). Apart from those mentioned (although I don't think I have consult SEAlang's dictionary much at all), the dictionaries I consult most often are either Từ điển phương ngữ Huế (Trần Ngọc Bảo, 2017) or historical dictionaries like Đại Nam quấc âm tự vị, Dictionnaire Franco-Tonkinois, Dictionarium Anamitico-Latinum. PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PhanAnh123 ! Different orthography same IPA [tʰəː˨˩] [tʰəː˧˩] how on earth, do you know the difference? from the context? Update: On Forvo.com both pronunciations aren't same, so I ask about IPA's for confirmation Flāvidus (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No? It simply sounds different. I don't speak any Northern dialect, but I can tell the tone when I hear it. Notice that in the Northern thở, the pitch starts at mid then fall, while in thờ the pitch starts lower then fall, so the drop is less drastic. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Phananh123. WhoAlone has converted some of the IPA transcriptions of Thổ words into a Romanization system. I'm not sure where they got that from though, since all of the papers on Thổ don't employ any at all, just IPA. Do you know anything about this? If there isn't any, is it possible to devise one for Wiktionary? 2401:D800:BF44:E3D:50EF:DFE3:A094:D01710:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either, as far as I know all material available on Thổ/Cuối lects is in IPA. Although yes, I think it's possible to devise one, the trickiest part is the vowel, such as how to write the triplet of basic vowels o vs. ɔ vs. ɒ, and also the question of the number of phonemic vowels. In the recent A Cuoi language description and extensive glossary, the authors posited length distinction for six basic vowels, yielding a whopping 17 phonemic monophthongs. PhanAnh123 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we stick to IPA for now and indicate dialects (in my opinion, they seem different enough from each other, like the varieties in the paper you mentioned compared to Cuoi Cham and Cuoi Lang Lo, to just have "Tho lemmas", though) through notes?2401:D800:BF44:E3D:50EF:DFE3:A094:D01711:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Phananh123. Could we perhaps discuss the usage of "bửn" a bit? At least there's one source that cites "bửn" as a Northern Vietnamese thing, while I haven't seen ones pinpointing it to North Central Vietnam. And, as a northerner myself, my parents and my relatives from Hưng Yên frequently use it in substitute of more proper "bẩn" (They also use "xếch" in place of "xách", so perhaps you can look into that, too). Feel free to delete this conversation once it's done if you want. Penn Zero MSSJ (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, it's absolutely could be a Northern item (the shift [ə] > [ɨ] in non-vowel final syllables is quite characteristic of certain Northern dialects). I based my edit on the example, which features several North Central features (hắn as third person pronoun seemingly without derogatory connotation, dữ as an intensifier, and especially nỏ, which to the extent of knowledge, currently restricts to just the North Central provinces). Did you write that example or did you take from somewhere? If it's taken from somewhere, I doubt that example was meant to present a Northern dialect, but if you wrote it, you can added "Northern Vietnam" label, and I would be very interested to know if the features I listed as "North Central" does indeed present in your/your relatives' dialect. And by the way, don't be ashamed to speak your dialect, there's no such thing as "proper" Vietnamese. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's taken from somewhere but you're certain it also presents in Northern Vietnamese, you can add another example to illustrate its usage in your/your relatives' dialect. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After I've created the entry vi lượng đồng căn, I'm not quite sure whether to create a new entry for the đồng căn part. I assume that it is an adjective derived from the Sino-Vietnamese word from 同根, meaning "of the same origin or root". Can you comment on this? ChemPro (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume so, I've not seen it used on itself though but that it might just be because the term is specialized and well outside of my niche. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A House - da: "da" viết theo chính tả từ điển de Rhodes sẽ là "dà" /*daA2/ (nhà). Chữ "d" trong từ điển de Rhodes và trong từ "da" ở đây biểu thị âm /d/ chứ không phải là /ð/.
Temple - shooa: "shooa" là "xùa" /*ʃuo̯A2/ (chùa).
On the phonetic description of the grapheme ⟨d⟩, it's complicated in both history and development, but at least in the Northern dialect(s) recorded by de Rhodes, there were actually two underlying phonemes: the first phoneme represented by ⟨dĕ⟩ (derived from lenited *-d/t-) was phonetically a palatalized fricative (most likely [ðj]), it couldn't represent the stop [ɗ] in any of de Rhodes' writing, since the Northern dialects he recorded clearly underwent lenition very throughoutly; the second phoneme represented by lone ⟨d⟩ (< *j-) is much more confusing, it showed sign of merging with ⟨nh⟩ (< etymologically *ɲ), hence why there was a nhà-dà pair, and I'm not sure about its actual value, although I doubts it represented /ɗ/ either. Etymologically, I think you might be correct that this ⟨da⟩ in Barrow's book might represent a form equivalent to modern nhà; phonetically however, this dialect/pidgin recorded by Barrow was clearly not from the same dialectal zone as the Northern dialects de Rhodes recorded and they did not have direct phyletic relationship (i.e. it did not descend from Northern Middle Vietnamese), and this book is the sole source we have about it, so while we can confer and make educated guesses using de Rhodes' dictionary, I would not be so confident as to directly assign any phonetic value for the ⟨da⟩ in this non-Northern dialect using the evidence we have on de Rhodes' dictionary on Northern Vietnamese. On the word "temple", I think you could also be correct on its etymology, although unfortunately the list does not have any other words whose modern forms have initial ⟨x⟩. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theo de Rhodes thì chữ "d" phát âm giống như chữ "d" trong tiếng La-tinh. "D" trong tiếng La-tinh là /d/ [d̪], "d" trong từ điển de Rhodes cũng là như vậy. Cách viết "da" (dà) cho thấy phụ âm đầu của từ là /d/.
Cũng theo de Rhodes thì chữ "x" và "ch" phát âm như "x" và "ch" trong tiếng Bồ. "X" và "ch" tiếng Bồ lần lượt là /ʃ/ và /t͡ʃ/. Theo mô tả của de Rhodes thì "gi" đọc như tiếng Ý là /d͡ʒ/. Ba cách viết "sh", "ch", "j" phản ánh trong cảm nhận của tác giả phụ âm nghe được là /ʃ/, /t͡ʃ/, /d͡ʒ/. Judspug (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - for the sake of consistency, please don't add manual Baxter-Saggart transliterations to Old Chinese links. If you think we should change to B-S in general, that's fine (and I don't really mind either way), but we should be consistent in the scheme that we use across all entries. Theknightwho (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phan Anh ơi không biết gì về từ nguyên tiếng Việt thì bớt ghi lăng nhăng vào wiki đi. Từ nào cũng ghi nguồn gốc Vietic sai be bét. Toàn nhảm nhí cả. Viết bậy rồi làm cho người đọc cứ nhắm mắt tin theo làm hại cho bao nhiêu người. 123.24.12.11007:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vò (as an obsolete monomorphemic word & in tò vò & vò vẽ) is very likely cognate with Chut/vɔːvɔː/. Do you think that vò is from Proto-Vietic *buː, whose modern reflexes are bầu & bù (in, respectively, ong bầu & ong bù "carpenter bee" (and also "wasp, hornet (non-standard)")? Standard vò vẽ's Central & Southern doublet bò vẽ seemingly suggests, to me at least, that both v- & b- there are from ancestral cluster *t-b (analogous to d- & đ- -in dam & đam- "field crab" result from ancestral *k-t- in PViet *k-taːm, < Proto-Mon-Khmer *kt₁aam "crab") (*t- in *t-b- is suggested by the form tò vò , which, I think, results from the same cluster-breaking mechanism responsible for thằn lằn from Middle Vietnamese tlan, whose other reflex is trăn). 2nd question, does vò vẽ result from e-reduplication or literally means "painted wasp" (as suggested by the prominent yellow-black color division on their abdomens)? Also, can you suggest any paper about historical sound-changes from Vietic to Vietnamese, Mường, etc.? Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the first point, nope, I don't think the vò in tò vò and such is related to the bầu in ong bầu (I have gut feeling that this morpheme is Sinitic actually, or at least non-native). The vowel shift between the two is not really "there" (/u/ > /ɔ/ would happen only in non-final position, cf. túm vs. tóm, etc.) and would be rather difficult to justify for these items, plus all dialects have /ɔ/ in vò vẽ/bò vẽ, which indicates that the vowel quality is most likely primary, not derivative. On the second point, I don't think the vẽ here is the result of reduplication, you might be right that it's vẽ(“to paint”), but as now I prefer to take the conservative stance and consider it "obscure". PhanAnh123 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PhanAnh123, a new user has created new audio files for some Vietnamese entries. After I couldn't identify the accent of the audios, I asked the user and he told me that he (probably) used the central accent. Can you, as someone familiar with the southern dialect, still verify this? Here are the audio files that have been created by this new user:
The speaker is clearly native, but this is not a mainstream dialect. The vowels in chỉ thị are not the simple Southern [ɪj] or the Northern monophthong but something else, especially on the first syllable, where it almost sounds like chẩy (only almost, it's not actually [əj~ɤj]). The first syllable in hiển thị clearly has [ŋ], not [n], and the vowel quality is also different from what I'm used to hearing, I thought it sounds like [ɛː] at first, but not quite, it still sounds like a diphthong. This speaker is probably from somewhere on the South Central Coast, might not be Quảng Nam-Quảng Ngãi, but further South. PhanAnh123 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm completely unfamiliar with central dialects, I assume that you're correct that the audios are spoken in a kind of central dialect. But I probably have to ask the speaker in which central province exactly his central dialect is spoken for further clarification. Thank you. --ChemPro (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] *K- for a velar consonant, whether /k/ or /g/.
As for Viet. sáp(“wax ("mainstream"); candle (Nghệ Tĩnh dialectal)”) & its ancestor PViet *k-raːp, they might not have been from OC *k.rˤap (B-S) (Hanzi: 蠟; SV: lạp); instead PViet *k-raːp, might even have been:
[2] Very likely not from Old Chinese but from a later stage: yet still before e.g. Eastern Han Chinese *d̥uan (Schuessler 2007 & 2009) or Early Middle Chinese.
So I do not think Viet. chuồng is the result of the same sound change which yields cải, gả, & gươm.
I conclude from all those that there were two sound-changes:
which happened during a relatively late stage of OC (possibly during the Thục dynasty, Triệu dynasty, & early part of the Western Han period) when OC medial -r- was still pronounced, &
In Vietnamese, preinitial *m plus voiceless unaspirated initials produces spirantized initials, with high-register tones in earlier loans and low-register tones in later loans. With high-register tone: (484) 競 *m-kraŋʔ-s > gjaengH > jìng ‘strive; compete’; VN ganh [ɣaiŋ A1] ‘emulate’ With low-register tone: (485) 肚 *m-tˤaʔ > duX > dù ‘belly’, VN dạ [zɑ B2] ‘stomach, abdomen’
[4] To account for the voiceless plosive initial [k-] of cáy, Baxter & Sagart (2014) propose an unprefixed form *kˤreʔ of *m-k.rˤe. I think this hypothetical *kˤreʔ (not reconstructible using existing internal Chinese evidence) might also be responsible for the hỏi tone of SV giải.
So cáy might have been from dialectal Old Chinese after all, instead of from another descendant of PST *d-k(j)aːj.
Still I acknowledge that you are more knowledgeable about sound-changes from Chinese originals to Vietnamese reflexes, so can you spare some thougts if you'd have time? 20:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Baxter & Sagart (2014) used the terms "loosely attached preinitials" and "tightly attached preinitials", with loosely attached preinitials have an notational schwa, while tightly attached ones have no notational schwa. They thought that both of these (those with preinitials) yielded reflexes that are sesquisyllables in Vietic languages; sức and sen belong here, with sesquisyllablic reflexes for words with preinitials in Old Chinese (note that Vietic *k-r- and others were not actually "consonant cluster", but a presyllable and the first consonant of the major syllable, they did become true consonant cluster post-Proto-Vietic, however; I am myself guilty of calling them "(consonant) clusters", especially if there's no need to differentiate). The second group seems to consist of chuồng, chàng, chạp, I'm not sure where were these borrowed and what phonological shape they had at time of borrow, it's possible that these were borrowed from a unreconstructed regional Old Chinese lect (if you think that this sounds like ad hoc bull, that because it is); chuyền seems like a late internal Vietnamese change that has no pertain to Old Chinese. The third group of cải, gả, gươm derived from words with what is termed "prevocalic *-r-", different from those preinitials above, which in these cases simply yielded velars in Vietnamese; again, while the concept or even rough quality of "prevocalic *-r-" was likely existant, we don't really know what the actual word shape at time of borrow and actual quality they possessed then, these words don't seem to belong to the oldest layer of Old Chinese loans in Vietnamese. PhanAnh123 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have any concrete idea for it either. I know of no significant cognate in Vietic (there're cognates in Muong lects, but they don't give any extra information about the word), or any actually plausible extra-Vietic cognate either. In early Vietnamese texts, it can be a verb, meaning "to pass", "to be over", which then developed to the current meaning(s). There's also another rồi that is mostly obsolete aside from idioms/sayings (like ăn không ngồi rồi), it's an adjective or adverb meaning "free", "unoccupied"; I'm totally not sure if these are related, although "work passed/over" > "free" is not really a weird semantic shift. PhanAnh123 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the previous edit related it to *ruj ~ *ruuj based on Shorto 2006. In Zhuang language there is soiz/roiz meaning "trace" (n.), no idea if they were related. For rồi in ăn không ngồi rồi, I think it might come from another etymology, the semantic connection between rồi and không is obvious. BTW, what do you think about Shorto 2006? Do we need a new comparative dictionary? 汩汩银泉 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we very much do. Shorto (2006) is a solid collection of cognate sets, but the reconstructions themselves should not be taken at face value, including its "variants" and "vowel alternations", and there're still many items that are simply just ghosts. For the time that it was actually written (the 1980s), it's good, and even now, it's still a valuable resource. With the advances in reconstructions of the Austroasiatic branches though, a new reconstruction is sorely needed. I'm certain one is in the work though, by Sidwell and co., this time with just much more data and with (greater) inclusion of resources for Munda and Pearic. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The xuyến sure looks like a recent loan from a Sinitic lect. The etymology of xuyến chỉ as a whole is just 宣紙／宣纸(xuānzhǐ), I'm sure you already knew that though, but I don't know what specific lect it was borrowed from. PhanAnh123 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lachy70: @PhanAnh123: Likely from Cantonese syun1 zi2 (Jyutping) /ʃyːn⁵⁵ t͡siː³⁵/; compare Vietnamese transliteration Hướng Coỏng (somewhat commonly attested, as in here) of Cantonese hoeng1 gong2 (Jyutping) /hœːŋ⁵⁵ kɔːŋ³⁵/ (香港).Erminwin (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PhanAnh123! I'm not quite sure whether this term is a noun or a verb. If it's a noun then it would be preceded by the classifier sự right? ChemPro (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I often consider this type of the compounds to be verbs. Usually, sự is called a nominalizer, not a classfier (although what a classifier is also depends the framework, I can see one where it's considered a classifier), since it can turn verbs and adjectives into nouns, not "classifying" words that are already nominals. PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It seems like you are a frequent Vietnamese contributor to the Wiktionary. I would like your review on an entry I made since this is my first time contributing here: mấy hồi. Thank you! - Potasmic (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Looking at the entry, I don't see anything wrong with your formating or the definitions; it looks good. I only have a little nitpick that is related to neither the main content nor format (which is likely what you want to ask me): is the hồi in the example for the second sense really a part of the compound of mấy hồi and not hồi(“chapter”)? Looking at the original text, it seems to be "chapter" (cuốn truyện có phân hồi). You are a native speaker right? The example in the first sense in your entry sounds exactly like what a native speaker would say. PhanAnh123 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. In fact, in the paragraph below writes "Hoặc vì cuốn truyện ở mấy hồi sau chủ yếu tuyên truyền". This clearly translates to "the latter chapters" which I now think is the meaning in the quote I used as well. Oh well. What about using this as an example for the 2nd sense: "hoa nở được mấy hồi thì bão tới"? If you think this still means "in a short amount of time", then maybe that second sense does not exist at all. And yes, I am a native speaker.
I think categorizing it as an "adverb" is fine. About whether the second sense exists, while the difference seems quite miniscule, I do think it's significant enough for a second sense. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chào PhanAnh123, sau khi đọc trang thảo luận ở đây của bạn thì mình thấy bạn cũng có hiểu biết khá thâm sâu về ngôn ngữ học lịch sử đấy chứ. Tại sao bạn không cân nhắc sang viwiki đóng góp một số bài viết nhỉ? Billcipher123 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ở miền bắc VN, khi nó chuyện người ta thường dùng "mì tôm" nhưng khi viết lại dùng "mì ăn liền" nhiều hơn. Ở miền nam người ta có dùng cách gọi "mì tôm" như ở miền bắc hay không và tên gọi "mì ăn liền" có mang tính chất văn viết như ở miền bắc hay không? Judspug (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question about Idiomaticity of Vietnamese compounds[edit]
Hi there, I had some questions for you, as you seem really knowledgable on Vietnamese. I recently made a page for tạo ra as it seemed to be idiomatic to me, and I saw that nhận ra has a page, which uses the same structure as the verb phrase I added. My page got SOP'd, but the second one that already existed is fine. I'm trying my best to only add valid words, so I'm wondering if you have a good source or information for me to help me out.
Also, should both be SOP'd or are they both idiomatic?
Finally, are you familiar with Từ Điển Tiếng Việt Thông Dụng from Trung Tâm Từ Diển Học? I have this Vietnamese-only dictionary, so would a word being in this dictionary be indicative of idiomaticity, since it's Vietnamese-only? LeChatParle (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the SOP problem, I'm not sure I can offer any good advice, since I'm a native speaker and most of the time can tell right away whether a grammatical compound is SOP or idiomatic. I would not try to create an entry for kẻbắt cóc(“kidnapper”), for example, although English kidnapper is a valid entry. For nhận ra vs. tạo ra, which are formed through identical surface process, I think the biggest difference is that nhận in isolation chiefly means "to receive", while nhận ra means "to realize", which on the surface a meaning that can't really be derived just be adding ra(literally “to go out”) (although etymologically, obviously we know that nhận derived from 認 (MC nyinH, “to recognize”)). Meanwhile, tạo means "to create" in isolation, and also bears that same meaning in tạora (there's also the entry tạo nên, this entry probably should also go to deletion for being SOP).
Dictionaries can often contain stuff like Sino-Vietnamese morphemes/compounds with no actual usage in Vietnamese (which is why I discourage editors who are not native speakers from using HVdic, which as its name implies, is not a Vietnamese dictionary, but a dictionary of Sinitic morphemes read with Sino-Vietnamese, there's an abundance of compounds not used in Vietnamese on there), regular SOPs, or reduplicatives generated from productive reduplication patterns. I don't really rely on dictionaries that much for words in common use, but rather from literature and texts to get the actual usage, which means chiefly googling the words to look for attestations in books and forums. It's words that are obsolete, uncommon, or from dialects I don't speak which I usually consult the dictionaries on (these dictionaries are usually dialectal or quite old, so they also have a good deal of SOPs, I just navigate past these SOPs and focus on the morphemes). I can't really comment on the "Từ Điển Tiếng Việt Thông Dụng" that you have because I don't have access to it in either physical book nor PDF form. PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chào anh ạ, mình xin phép thắc mắc về hai từ này. Although separate origins they're similar in pronunciation and essence (người sếp sắp xếp công chuyện, ví dụ), in which case would it be appropriate to link the two? For example, sếp as regional/colloquial pronunciation form of xếp. Finally, are giám đốc & quản lí (danh từ) synonyms of sếp? 76.115.50.23306:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The xếp in the example is part of a compound verb sắp xếp; for the noun sếp, it is indeed in the same semantic field as the nounsgiám đốc and quản lí, although they are not exactly synonyms. As a native speaker, I don't feel any relationship because the verb xếp(“to arrange”) and the noun sếp(“superior”), and like you said, they also have separated origins. I can kind of see what you are getting at with your example, but honestly I just see them as totally different words. PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm not sure if you got the ping at Talk:Cô Tô since I initially misspelled your username. Would you mind taking a look at the page if you have time? I'm basically interested in knowing when Cô Tô was first attested in Vietnamese and its connection with the island's historical Chinese name. Thanks! RcAlex36 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goujian, king of Yue, was an Austroasiatic speaker?[edit]
Much of this rests on 'evidences' that are a bit too thin for me, the comparanda are often just a bunch of look-alikes" (even "look-alikes" are stretching it in some cases here) that are not even cognates of each other. This is not really mass comparison, but the writer does not seem that familiar with the comparative method nor Austroasiatic linguistics (although legit works were cited there, e.g. Sagart and Sidwell), so what I see is just a bunch of unrelated words across various Austroasiatic languages. I'm not going to dismiss the premise outright (that such historical figure was a speaker of an Austroasiatic language), but this is not really how one should go on proving it. PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i see that the main source this author relied on is "The Submerged History of Yuè" by Eric Henry (2007) in Sino-Platonic Papers – which, from what i heard, known for some of the wildest and fringiest theories in historical linguistics, for example: "Mayan is a Sino-Tibetan language" ??? =)) Billcipher123 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you encountered the term "Ngữ chi" anywhere else other than viwiki? I suspect this might be a made-up term. Note: I have consulted Cao Xuân Hạo & Hoàng Dũng (2004)'s linguistics dictionary but found no such entry. Billcipher123 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in several papers by Tạ Thành Tấn; these are rather recent though. Otherwise, it appears in Vấn đề hình vị trong tiếng Bahnar và các ngôn ngữ dân tộc thiểu số vùng Nam Bộ (2008) by Tô Đình Nghĩa, and Lịch sử tộc người vùng biên giới phía Bắc Việt Nam (2000) by Nguyễn Chí Buyên et al.PhanAnh123 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is well-attested with that meaning then I don't see why not. From searching around, it seems to indeed have that meaning. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cautiously etymologized nông "pelican" (obsolete) as "[p]robably a loan from a neighboring language, compare Khmer ទុង (tung)". I think that you, a knowledgeable person, would agree with that direct borrowing from modern Khmer ទុង (tung) or modern Thai กระทุง (grà-tung) or modern Lao ກະທຸງ (ka thung) cannot yield Viet nông. Considering the historical migration of Tai-speaking peoples, the Thai & Laotian words are very likely borrowed from Old Khmer *duṅ /dʊŋ/; according to SEAlang's Dictionary of Old Khmer, duṅ /dʊŋ/ is attested only a hapax legomenon, "a slave's name"; yet SEAlang still connects to modern Khmer ទុង tung, so likely that Old Khmer *duṅ /dʊŋ/ indeed meant "pelican" and was ancestral to the modern Khmer (inherited), Thai (likely loaned), Lao (likely loaned). However, I do not think that even Viet borrowing from OKhmer could yield Viet nông; I expect the Viet reflex(es) to be **đồng. So I think that Viet nông is inherited from PAA *ɗUŋ (*U for a high back vowel), which could theortically also yield OKhmer duṅ /dʊŋ/ (for the consonal correspondence between Viet n- vs. Khmer d- & Viet ng vs Khmer ŋ; sea Sidwell & Rau 2015, The Handbook of the Austroasiatic Language, vol. 1, p 240; a good example of PAA *-U- > Viet -ô- is *ɗuuk > Viet nốc & ទូក (tuuk)). Evem so, admittedly one can rightly object that only two items (Viet & OKhmer) in two branches (Vietic & Khmeric) are not enough to reconstruct a PAA ancestor. Whenever you'd time, can you kindly spare some thoughts on my proposal that Viet nông directly descends from the same PAA ancestor which also yielded Okhmer duṅ /dʊŋ/? Erminwin (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An ancestral form like you proposed can indeed yield both the Vietnamese and the Khmer forms, and in that case, both are simply inherited native words, but scarcity of attestations kind of put a damper on my judgement on whether nông is inherited or not. Reliable cognates in only Khmer and the big Tai languages (like you said, in form of likely loans); this can be contributed to the fact that "pelican" is obviously very far from essential vocabulary items. I don't think there's any reliable loan from Old Khmer to the ancestral forms of Vietnamese (maybe va(3sg.) (?), but this item does not give any useful information regarding this case); and the loans from Vietic to Old Khmer for the 12 zodiacs also do not really offer any helpful phonetic insight. If there're reliable cognates in other Vietic languages (they would show up in form of something like dUːŋ1) then we could more confidently assert Vietnamese nông as native. PhanAnh123 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has occurred to me that this word might be a borrowing from French or even Portuguese. Na is definitely not indigenous of Asia and they look superficially similar to pineapple (anana), although i'm not sure of this word's attestation in old Vietnamese texts. What do you think? Billcipher123 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good suggestion. There's an attestation from a late 17th century text for a fruit spelled 梛; this can be reasonably transliterized as na, but it could also refer to a Canarium species instead (usually called trám, but can be called cà na, derived from some other language, cf. Thaiกาน้า, which in turn from 橄欖 (MC kamX lamX); trám and cà na are doublet). Otherwise, attestations where it explicitly refers to the sugar apple are late. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
