User talk:PhanAnh123

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

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.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for the Vietnamese entries! If you get some time, can you have a look at These 47 (at the moment) Vietnamese entries? They were created by a bot years ago, and probably are missing lots of information. They may even be incorrect. Thanks! --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Nope, actually I use SEAlang.PhanAnh123 (talk)

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

And then there are requested entries as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not particularly bothered, as it's only Vietnamese, but reverting my edit has automatically restored two unwanted hidden categories, Category:etyl cleanup and Category:etyl cleanup no target/language. DonnanZ (talk) 10:20, 23 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.

-- Mark”.

You've probably discovered this already, but in case you haven't: the source-specific lists for Sealang can be generated here. Wyang (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

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. 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 think the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation of 問 should be vặn instead of vấn. Zzzwik (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

vấn is the standard SV reading of 問, while vặn seems to be a Nôm reading.PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:32, 20 June 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

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

How would the title of a hymn from The Church of Almighty God, "Chúa lặng lẽ giáng lâm giữa chúng ta", be broken down into parts of speech? I ask that question because of the terms "giáng lâm" in the CAG hymn title. --Apisite (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually, what do the terms "giáng lâm" mean? --Apisite (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The whole phrase means "God quietly descends among us". The term giáng lâm (“to descend”) is the Sino-Vietnamese reading of 降臨 / 降临 (jiànglín). --PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. --Apisite (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Can you have a look at the quote at em#Vietnamese, and add a date to it, please? La más guay (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Hi, does the character not have a Sino-Vietnamese reading? Or is the SV reading nhai (which is irregular)? RcAlex36 (talk) 04:30, 24 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 > or *kj > *j > .PhanAnh123 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could you please have a look at the edits made by the above user? Thanks. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the contributions are not very good for sure. There're also an edit with odd misspelling as well.PhanAnh123 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in this diff, you added that Proto-Tai *ʰlaːjᴬ is from Old Chinese. I'm wondering if you have a source for this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:01, 10 April 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

Yeah, that's a typo. It was meant to link to Semai. Pardon my carelessness.PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:08, 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

Yes, it's a common abbreviation, I see no problem in having an entry for it.PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)?

ColePeltier93 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

@ColePeltier93: & @PhanAnh123: Apology for necroing this. A Baidu Baike article traces 指導 to《漢紀·宣帝纪一》by Late Eastern Han scholar 荀悦 (Xun Yue, b. 148 - d. 209). Relevant quote & translation from David Butler Friedman's 2023 dissertation:

捶楚之下，何求⽽不得。故囚⼈不勝痛，則飾辭以示⼈。吏治 者利其然，則指導以明之；……
Under blows of the switch, anything sought will be found. So when those in prison cannot bear the pain, then they embellish the confessions that will be made public. Officials in charge of cases profit from this fact, and thus lead prisoners on to make their statements clear.

So I'm 99.999999% sure that 指導 is not wasei-kango & the loan direction is from MC into Viet. Erminwin (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain, please, what is meant by "Mường Bi" in the entries? --Apisite (talk) 07:02, 2 October 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

See Wiktionary:About Muong, which I recently wrote.PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:12, 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 ", 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

Hi, I have a few questions regarding the Vietnamese name for the Red River.

1. Is the name Hồng Hà also used in Vietnamese alongside sông Hồng? If so, how frequent is Hồng Hà used?

2. Was sông Hồng coined in Vietnamese and not borrowed from another language?

3. When was the earliest attestation for sông Hồng that you could find?

Thanks! RcAlex36 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The indigenous name/tên Nôm of the river in Vietnamese is sông Cái (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 rivière rouge 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

We, làm thế nào bác đọc được cmt trên tiktok của người khác vậy? Hay chỉ là trùng hợp ngẫu nhiên? 171.225.123.21 04:20, 16 January 2022 (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.

À ừm, tài khoản này mình lập lâu rồi, với lại Phan Anh cũng không phải tên đầy đủ. PhanAnh123 (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

We bác ơi, cho em hỏi ngu, đây là web của bác à?

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCUk6Gw1aNJAIqHJApAOtdXg https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?isHttpsRedirect=true&blogId=antiturkishandjapan&logNo=221497289000&categoryNo=0&proxyReferer= https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/Education/NungHistory-305724680059571/ Sao có thể nghĩ rằng người Việt Nam anti Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ, Altaic... Blabla trong khi cha Erminwin kia là người Trung Quốc? https://archive.is/y6fXh Đậu trang này tạo năm 2014 lúc TQ đánh VN này Vậy là có một team trung quốc hoặc thái lan hoặc tày nùng thái, khủng bố VN bắt đầu từ năm 2014?

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

Why "SOP ?" my girlfriend and Google Translate agree that "lòng biết ơn" means gratitude. https://vncmd.com/chuyen-de/coaching-mentoring/long-biet-on/ agrees too.

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, lòng biết ơn means "gratitude", but it is also a sum of parts, in the same way that English cow farmer 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* 123.18.111.173 13:48, 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 Saek ŋiːl⁶, 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? 14.239.109.249 10:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:11, 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").

I'm more inclined to believe Trần than Maspero, because Vietnamese l- reduplication produces reduplicatives before main syllables, not after. Thoughts?Erminwin (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

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 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:

word composed of Sino-Vietnamese 漢 (“Chinese”) and Non-Sino-Vietnamese reading of Chinese 南 (“south”)? Gavinkwhite (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

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? 125.212.152.126 14:41, 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 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 . 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 hay . 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

We bác Ví như mình muốn thêm một từ, chỉ để lưu trữ cho nó không bị quên lãng.

https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/d%E1%BA%A1i#Derived_terms

Ví dụ chẳng hạn từ dại này

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.

Một từ nữa "Quai mọ" bác có biết nghĩa không ạ? 125.212.152.51 11:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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?

Còn hai từ kia nghe bảo trước đây khá thông dụng. 125.212.152.51 13:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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.

https://g.co/kgs/XZwCds

Mõ là cái mõ thì hiểu là cái mõ rồi, nhưng quai mõ là gì? Nghĩa là dây đeo của cái mõ? 125.212.152.51 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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. 125.212.152.51 14:38, 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.

... Đậu, đặt tên đơn giản v 125.212.152.51 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

As in the idiom trung quân ái quốc "loyal to the monarch and love 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 Hanfeizi ch. 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.

Creating the entry trung quân is easy, yet any advise on how to etymologise it? Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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:

1. 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?)
2. 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:

1. (historical) ancient official title (note: I was not feeling like writing a long, detailed definition)
2. (historical) hollow (i.e. honorific, ceremonial) title granted to wealthy notables
3. (historical) notable (note: with an example usage in Truyện Kiều)

I'm not an expert tho', just a native Vietnamese speaker. & one small last note, SV Lục triều refers to the Six Dynasties, not the Warring States period (> SV Chiến Quốc). Regards! Erminwin (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, was the sense you deleted at kính unattested or not distinct from another sense? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

I have some technical difficulties with the quotation template. Can you help out? --ChemPro (talk) 10:16, 14 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)).

Should they be reglossed? Or has my Vietnamese become rusty? :( Erminwin (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

Alright, thanks for clearing up this issue! --ChemPro (talk) 22:14, 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, bông hoa 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

Okay, I'll add them in the derived terms section of each entry too then. Thank you! --ChemPro (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

On your User Page you mentioned "Central-dialect Sino-Vietnamese". What do you think about these:

• 永: Vĩnh → Vịnh → Vinh
• 洞海: Động Hải → Đồng Hới
• 化: Hoá → Huế
• 廣義: Quảng Nghĩa → Quảng Ngãi
• 歸仁: Quy Nhân → Quy Nhơn

HDKhoa-h071 (talk)

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

In entry sĩ, there's this gloss:

Adjective

sĩ

(archaic) intelligent; wise; well educated

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:

• Feudal scholar, feudal intellectual, feudal intelligentsia
  • Nhất sĩ nhì nông: First come the scholars, net 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?

Thanks beforehand! Erminwin (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

Apparently that's Fumiko Take's addition. Maybe put it up on Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please do not just delete words because you think they don’t exist. You must take them to WT:RFVNE first. Theknightwho (talk) 02:59, 27 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

This isn’t optional. Take it to RFV. Don’t just wholesale remove large amounts of content. Theknightwho (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you said so, then I will happily follow. Those words don't exist anyway, so they will be remove. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Theknightwho (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

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.

“year” Mon-Khmer (Benedict, 1990; Schuessler, 2007): compare Proto-Mon-Khmer *cn₁am ~ *cn₁aam (“year”), whence Khmer ឆ្នាំ (chnam), Mon သၞာံ (hnam), Vietnamese năm.

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' , 'harvest' .
AA: PMonic *cnaam 'year', Mon hnam, Khmer cnam, PVM *c-n-əm 'year' , 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') , 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

Thanks for the extensive and detailed reply. Appreciate it and do keep up the good work. Vien.Vu1 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello PhanAnh123! How would you translate CSTT (cảnh sát trật tự) into English? Thank you! ChemPro (talk) 01:48, 18 October 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

Hello again. I'm currently using three different dictionaries for creating Vietnamese entries: Tra Từ Soha, SEAlang Library Vietnamese Lexicography and The New Vietnamese-English dictionary from André Nguyễn Văn Châu (2014). Do you think these are reliable sources? Besides from these, can you recommand me some other Vietnamese dictionaries? ChemPro (talk) 06:40, 23 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

Thank you for your answer! --ChemPro (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello PhanAnh123 ! Different orthography same IPA 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

Not the same IPA, although IPA notation could be improved. I don’t think these are homophones in any Vietnamese dialect. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:53, 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:D017 10:11, 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:D017 11:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that sounds good to me. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:26, 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 > 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

Ah right, I see how the example conflicted with the note now. Thanks for the reply! Penn Zero MSSJ (talk) 11:38, 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

Theo tôi thì trong

• 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).

Judspug (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

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 ), it couldn't represent the stop 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/ , "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. 123.24.12.110 07:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

123.24.12.110 đúng là thứ "thùng rỗng kêu to". Erminwin (talk) 16:36, 10 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:

• chỉ thị:

  Audio:

  (file)

• hiển thị:

  Audio:

  (file)

• không:

  Audio:

  (file)

  Audio (reduced form):

  (file)

ChemPro (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The speaker is clearly native, but this is not a mainstream dialect. The vowels in chỉ thị are not the simple Southern or the Northern monophthong but something else, especially on the first syllable, where it almost sounds like chẩy (only almost, it's not actually ). The first syllable in hiển thị clearly has , not , and the vowel quality is also different from what I'm used to hearing, I thought it sounds like 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

Well-known examples of Viet. s- < PViet *k-r- < Old Chinese *Kr- sound change are:

*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:

• the source of OC *k.rˤap (according to Ferlus 2012 Ferlus, 2012b, & Jacques 2016), which is attested late, earliest extant attestation being in the treatise Qianfu Lun by Wang Fu (78 - 163 CE); &
• from another Sino-Tibetan descendant of PST *s-krjap.

Still, I notice Vietnamese reflexes with "unexpected" velar initials (either plosive or fricative) instead of expected s- like:

There is also this possible early Vietnamese loanword from Old Chinese according to Alves (2018)

Which, I think, is the result of the same phonological process which also yields

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:

• an earlier sound change:
  • which yields sức & sen,
  • 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, &
• a later sound change:
  • which yields cải, gả, & gươm
  • which happened during the later part of the Western Han or even during Eastern Han period when OC medial -r- had no longer been pronounced;
  • And so:
    • Viet cải < 芥 EHC *kɛs (compare Viet gái < PViet *-keːʔ);
    • Viet gả < 家 EHC *s-ka^C (my reconstruction);
    • Viet gưom < 劍 EHC *s-kɨɑm^C (my reconstruction).

The sound change which yields cải, gả, & gươm might have also yielded (according to Baxter & Sagart, 2014):

According to Baxter & Sagart (2014: 126-7):

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 ‘emulate’
With low-register tone:
(485)  肚 *m-tˤaʔ > duX > dù ‘belly’, VN dạ ‘stomach, abdomen’

To account for the voiceless plosive initial 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

Thanks! I'll make the necessary edits at chuồng, chàng, chạp, & chuyền. Erminwin (talk) Erminwin (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I notice you removed the etymology of rồi. Do you have any new ideas about this word? 汩汩银泉 (talk) 17:16, 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

Good to know Sidwell is writing a new comparative dictionary. 汩汩银泉 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, do you happen to know the etymology of xuyến like in giấy Xuyến chỉ (giấy Tuyên ;Xuan paper)? Lachy70 (talk) 05:29, 20 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

Thank you for the clarification! I've changed it to a verb. --ChemPro (talk) 12:49, 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 am not sure about categorizing it as "adverb". Let me know your thoughts on that.- Potasmic (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

Ở mình thì khi nói thường gặp nhất là mì gói, còn viết thì chắc giữa mì gói với mì ăn liền. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

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 kẻ bắt 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 tạo ra (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? 76.115.50.233 06:19, 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 nouns giám 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

Hey there, if you have time, i'd like to know your opinion on this article: Việt Vương Câu Tiễn: Vị Vua Nói Tiếng Austroasiatic. Billcipher123 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello again!
Found this "ngữ lưu" terminology in some linguistics textbooks and online lecture notes. Do you think it's fair to translate it as "utterance"? Billcipher123 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 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 "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

On second thought, this could be a loan from Thai น้อยหน่า (nɔ́ɔi-nàa) and ultimately came from some forms of anona. Billcipher123 (talk) 00:57, 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. Thai กาน้า, 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

Do you have any etymological suggestion for "heo"? I feel like it's ultimately onomatopoeic. Billcipher123 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing concrete. There's no related term (either with the same meaning of "pig" or a different meaning) in any languages that I'm aware of, so heo is pretty much isolated within Vietnamese, with neither any genetic cognate nor potential loan source candidate. You might be right that's it's originally onomatopoeic. PhanAnh123 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Billcipher123: & @PhanAnh123: heo (“pig”) reminds me of 豪 (“porcupine (obsolete)”) OC /*ɡaːw/ > EHC /*gɑu/ > MC (Baxter) /*haw/ (init. transcribed as *h- was actually 匣, voiced in MC & also reconstructed as *ɦ or *ɣ) > SV hào. Admittedly, there are many issues: (1) lack of phonological correspondence: (a) between the MC word's voiced init. vs. Viet. word's high register & (b) two words' main vowels; as well as (2) semantic mismatch (tho' a semantic shift from "porcupine" to "pig" was plausible; as many ancient Chinese dictionaries -cited by Kangxi dictionary here- described the porcupines as being pig-like and having bristles). Erminwin (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Phan Anh,

I am changing Proto-Mon-Khmer to Proto-Austroasiatic because most linguists now accept that Mon-Khmer is no longer valid. Could you help with the entry moves? Please consult Template:R:aav-pro:Sidwell:2024 and Template:R:aav-pro:SidwellRau:2015 for lists of MKED equivalences. Please also see Category talk:Proto-Mon-Khmer lemmas for a list of Proto-Mon-Khmer (Shorto) and Proto-Austroasiatic (Sidwell) equivalences that I have made. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you happen to have a copy of Giáo trình lịch sử ngữ âm tiếng Việt (sơ thảo)? Billcipher123 (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately nope. PhanAnh123 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this thing the modern /-ŋ/ or some archaic vowel? Billcipher123 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's for the labial-velar allophone after back vowels, so VBL cu᷄ ~ modern cung, VBL óu᷄ ~ modern ống, VBL tlao᷄ ~ modern trong. PhanAnh123 (talk)

In line 2 of the poem Bảo Kính Cảnh Giới IV, Nguyễn Trãi seemingly uses khốn to mean "to besiege > to be besieged > to be blocked > blockage (nominalized)" in “khốn hay hanh” (‘blockages often unblocked’); according to Trần Trọng Dương's Nguyễn Trãi Quốc Âm Từ Điển, “khốn hay hanh” is adapted from Book of Changes's quote: " cùng tắc biến biến tắc thông" 「窮則變變則通」, which James Legge translates (not quite literally) as "When a series of changes has run all its course, another change ensues. When it obtains free course, it will continue long."

While I'm aware of and familiar with the semantic shift//evolution in Chinese of 困 "to besiege/beset > to be besieged/beset > to be beset by woes > to be woebegone > to be woeful, miserable, etc." (also present in English, as still seen in woebegone). Still, I feel apprehensive about glossing “khốn” as "(archaic) to be blocked, choked, obstructed" in Vietnamese entry khốn because Nguyễn Trãi was a learnt man (‘sĩ’) and thus aware of Chinese words' meanings which were already archaic or even obsolete in his time and which commoners didn't know; & I suspected that the meaning "to besiege > to be besieged > to be blocked > blockage (nominalized)" might be a learned borrowing from Chinese instead. Are there more examples of "khốn" being used thus by other authors (anonymous ones included)? If there were, more likely such a meaning is just obsolete in modern Vietnamese. Erminwin (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reading the line, it seems khốn there was obviously meant to form a parallel with khó (spelled 庫), while the hay was the verb "to know (how)", so I would translate it as "Facing difficulties, (know to/)incline to ask/research; in desperation, (know to) find a way out". Marked nominalization likely had not occur extensively during the time of Quốc âm thi tập, so the "nouns" here were unmarked (modern Vietnamese would add cảnh: cảnh khó, cảnh khốn, or thế: thế khó, thế khốn), yet I do think that there was nominalization even if it's not overtly marked, as per your observation; the 𪰛 (thì, thời) offers a clue to that. For "blockage" specifically, I can't think of anything that can help, and in modern Vietnamese, marked nominalized cảnh khốn, thế khốn are much more likely to be seen. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Erminwin, don’t forget that here in Wiktionary, modern Vietnamese and middle Vietnamese are separate languages. Unless you can find attestations from the 19th century or later (according to our current boundary), you should put khốn under a middle Vietnamese language header. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the entry for chuồn chuồn, you listed "vìn vịn" as a synonym but i can't seem to find any informations on this term whatsoever. Care to expand on it? Billcipher123 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is an entry in Từ điển phương ngữ Huế, the word is specified as being used in a localty in Phú Vang. The word for "dragonfly" in May is also tin⁰ tin³ (if a Vietnamese cognate exist, it would be *đin đín or *din dín) per (Babaev & Samarina, 2018). These don't seem to be cognates, but it somewhat points to the direction of imitative origin. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any theories on where this comes from? Billcipher123 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unlikely to be a unitary sesquisyllabe as l-r-, r-l-, l-l-, r-r- sequences are all very rare or non-existent in Vietic, so this is most likely a compound. If I have to guess, the second element possibly stood for the predecessor of sâu (“deep”), the first element is much harder to even speculate, maybe it's a lost borrowing of 壘 (whence modern luỹ, if Vietic would have even borrowed from Old Chinese such a word that early), Luỹ Sâu sounds like a pretty good name for a capital city to me. Without a surviving tên Nôm though, this guess is good as nil, that is if the underlying element(s) were even Vietic. PhanAnh123 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

So I created these two Middle Vietnamese entries Dêu (“God”) and Chúa Dêu (“the Lord God”); as my source for the attestations of those two words, I chose Girolamo Maiorica's 1623 book Thiên Chúa Thánh Giáo Khải Mông (天主聖教啟蒙) . However, I've now realized that I had not researched diligently enough before creating them:

• In the Introduction (Lời giới thiệu) on page 5 of the pdf-formatted internally circulated source-book (lưu hành nội bộ) I downloaded, it is written that Roberto Bellamino wrote the book Controverses and "Cha JERONIMO MAŸORICA có công làm ra tiếng Annam, tức là viết ra chữ Nôm (transl. (not lit.): Father Girolamo Maiorica's merits lie in that he has translated into Vietnamese, meaning in Nôm script)". so:
  • Maiorica only created the Nôm version, which he named 天主聖教啟蒙,
  • Maiorica did not write the quốc ngữ version (which the publishers deem superior in many places), wherefrom I excerpted quotations as proofs that "Dêu" & "Chúa Dêu" are attested in 1623 & thus were Middle Vietnamese words; worse, the quốc ngữ version is obviously created, based on Maiorica's Nôm version, by a redactor (still unknown to the publishers) and dated possibly much later, even well into the Early Modern Vietnamese period.

All in all, the Thiên Chúa Thánh Giáo Khải Mông's quốc ngữ version is not a good source to base my claim that Dêu & Chúa Dêu were Middle Vietnamese words.

The earliest attestations of Dêu and Chúa which I could find so far are from Pigneau de Béhaine's 1772 Dictionarium anamitico-latinum , so were Dêu & Chúa Dêu still Middle Vietanmese words if they are attested in 18th century Vietnamese? Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our current “unofficial” policy is that modern Vietnamese starts in the 19th century, making 1772 still Middle Vietnamese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In regards to the usage notes, would it be more accurate to say that it is a Chữ Hán word that's been displaced by its native counterpart (which isn't exclusive to the north, per texts published pre-1975). Cho t xin hỏi: lỗi thời có phải từ đúng để mô tả sử dụng từ này ở VN hiện đại ko? Cái từ đó nó cũ (dated) nhưng mà có đến mức độ cổ (obsolete) chưa, hoặc trong tiếng Việt có những từ miêu tả nào khác ko? 73.240.115.64 07:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

dated đại khái là "lỗi thời" (nhiều người nói bây giờ nghe thì vẫn hiểu nhưng không dùng), archaic có thể hiểu là "cổ", còn obsolete là "không dùng nữa" và nhiều khả năng cũng không được nhớ đến, bất kể cổ hay không (một từ mới xuất hiện 30 năm trước thôi nhưng chỉ dùng trong một thời gian ngắn rồi bị quên lãng vẫn tính là obsolete). Cá nhân tui không thích archaic lắm bởi thường thì obsolete nó thích hợp hơn nếu muốn cho thấy không ai xài từ đó nữa. PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cho mình xin hỏi, là tại sao bạn lại gán hiện tại (adverb) với qualifier là "formal"? Theo như cá nhân mình thấy ở trong miền Nam này thì từ "hiện tại" được dùng trong văn nói nhiều (không dùng trang trọng với chữ "ạ") và khi tra các từ điển thì thấy người ta cũng không ghi chú thêm là có "trang trọng" hay không.

Thêm nữa, bạn còn có thể giải thích thêm ý bạn giải thích trong tiếng Anh là gì không? Mình thì không giỏi về những thuật ngữ ngôn ngữ học lắm nên cũng không biết "slight register mismatch" nghĩa là gì. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Register trong ngôn ngữ học xã hội hiểu nôm na là "ngữ vực", bất kì ngôn ngữ nào (bất kể có phải ngôn ngữ viết hay không, miễn là không phải sắp đi vào dĩ vãng) cũng có ít nhất ba ngữ vực: colloquial (thông tục), formal (gần với "trịnh trọng"), literary (văn chương); nhiều ngôn ngữ có nhiều register hơn. "Slight register mismatch" là "hơi trệch ngữ vực". Như có trình bày, có thể so sánh "hiện tại" với "currently" trong tiếng Anh; "currently" rõ ràng là một từ rất thường gặp, thường dùng, ai cũng biết, nhưng giờ chú ý đến register: "currently" đường dùng nhiều hơn khi người nói muốn thể hiện rằng mình đang muốn nghiêm túc hay trang trọng, trái ngược với "now". Tiếng Anh "nghiêm túc" thường dùng "presently", "currently" thay vì "now" khi muốn chỉ cái đang diễn ra; "now" có được dùng trong tiếng Anh "nghiêm túc", nhưng chủ yếu có tính nhấn mạnh: "Now I will go to the office" (not any other time). Còn về từ điển thì tất nhiên tất cả từ điển đều "chỉ có giá trị tham khảo" (gồm cả Wiktionary; đa số từ điển tiếng Anh đâu có dán "currently" cái mác formal, dù nó rõ ràng là formal), nhưng đặc biệt là mấy cái từ điển Việt-Việt kiểu này thì càng phải dè chừng cái "giá trị tham khảo" hơn. PhanAnh123 (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nó không phải là "formal". Mặc dù mình thấy bạn cũng biết khá nhiều về ngôn ngữ học, nhưng mình thấy ý kiến của bạn cũng không đủ thuyết phục lắm

• Ngoại trừ miền Bắc và Bắc Trung Bộ (mình đi Nghệ An, Hà Tĩnh và Hà Nội rồi nên cũng biết), thì tại miền Nam, "hiện tại" được sử dụng khá nhiều trong cuộc sống hàng ngày. Mình thấy người ta cũng hay chỉ sử dụng "giờ" nhiều để nói vắn tắt, chứ cả trường hợp như vậy thì "hiện tại" không phải là formal. Đương nhiên là từ "hiện tại" cũng được dùng trong văn viết, nhưng điều đó cũng không có nghĩa là từ đó sẽ "trang trọng" khi còn có dùng trong văn nói.
• "Giá trị tham khảo" của các từ điển như vậy được áp dụng tại Wiktionary, như bạn nói, và vì vậy nên những người làm từ điển bên phương Tây cũng chính là những người đề ra những cái mác như "formal", "informal", nên ta cũng nên làm theo họ là không gán mác "formal" cho một từ được sử dụng nhiều trong văn nói. Các từ điển đúng là có khuôn phép chỉ để "tham khảo" vậy thật, nhưng nó cũng xuất phát từ cách người ta nói và viết, chứ không phải từ trong không khí mà ra.
• Ngay cả khi từ đó là Hán-Việt thì cũng không phản ánh tính trang trọng của nó (chỉ là có rất nhiều từ Hán-Việt là trịnh trọng, nhưng nó không phản ánh được từ hiện tại hay những từ như tình trạng, lương tâm, đương, giải pháp, khuyến khích, xung phong, thanh niên, công ty, tập đoàn...)
• Còn việc bạn phản đối xếp loại trong các từ điển Việt-Việt cũng là việc phản đối các công trình nghiên cứu tận tuỵ của những ông như Nguyễn Lân (có trong nguồn):
  • Cụ có đóng góp lớn cho đất nước và cũng được phong tặng danh hiệu "Nhà giáo nhân dân" và "Giải thưởng nhà nước về khoa học và công nghệ cho "Cụm công trình về giáo dục học từ điển tiếng Việt"", các danh hiệu danh giá do chính nhà nước trao tặng.
  • Cụ Nguyễn Lân còn có vốn từ rộng lớn (VD: Từ điển thành ngữ và tục ngữ Việt Nam), nên công trình nghiên cứu như vậy cũng có phần uy tín. Cụ cũng là một người nói tiếng mẹ đẻ Việt Nam suốt 93 tuổi đời, chứ không phải bập bẹ như người Tây.
  • Cũng trên trang Wikipedia người ta có nói ông còn giải quyết những chỗ nào trong từ điển mà người ta chỉ ra lỗi sai, thế mà không sửa một từ đơn giản như "hiện tại".
• Về việc so sánh với tiếng Anh thì cũng không nên, do ngôn ngữ của họ khác với tiếng Việt ta, mà lại tra cái từ "presently" hay "currently" trên các từ điển (Oxford, Cambridge, Wiktionary) cũng không thấy nói về "trang trọng" gì cả, theo như bản thân mình thấy thì người ta cũng hay sử dụng hai từ đó nhiều trong văn nói.
• Nếu bạn vẫn khăng khăng đó là "formal" nữa thì mình xin bạn dẫn nguồn thông tin uy tín (từ điển, sách báo, v.v.), chứ bằng không suy nghĩ của bạn khác với những người khác, hay nguồn uy tín được nhiều người tin dùng.

HungKhanh0106 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123 Xin phép bạn trả lời HungKhanh0106 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Về hiện tại vs. (bây) giờ, trong "Exploring statistical regularities in the syllable canon of Sino-Vietnamese loanmorph phonology" (Kirby, Alves (2022)), trích Phạm Hùng Việt et al (2018)'s Từ ngữ Hán Việt: Tiếp nhận và sáng tạo: "Các từ Hán Việt có từ thuần Việt tương dương, giữa chúng có quan hệ đồng nghĩa. Mức độ đồng nghĩa có thể là cùng sở chỉ nhưng khác biệt về sắc thái trong sử dụng, ví dụ các từ Hán Việt đàm thoại, quốc gia, phụ nữ thường dùng trong ngữ cảnh chính thức, trang trọng, còn các từ thuần Việt tương ứng nói chuyện, đất nước, đàn bà thường dùng một cách dân dã." Hiện tại (bên "các từ Hán Việt") vs. bây giờ (bên "các từ thuần Việt") rõ ràng có thể so sánh với các trường hợp trên (nói chuyện trong đoạn trích trên và bây giờ thực ra còn tương đồng ở chỗ cả hai đều có yếu tố gốc Hán (chuyện và giờ) nhưng đã qua nativisation (với tiếng Việt thì hiểu nôm na là "Việt hoá")).

Về formal và vs. zero-marking, trong Vietic Etyma versus Early Chinese Loanwords in the Domain of Grammatical Vocabulary (Alves, 2022): "Another possibility is Chinese had a somewhat more formal status and involved higher frequency usage of connective words. This is the case in modern Southeast Asian languages: parataxis is more associated with minimal lexical marking, while more formal registers tend to include lexical clause linkers." với một bảng ECL conjunctions bên dưới có liệt kê đến và. Ở đây chỉ ra khả năng ngôn ngữ tiền thân của tiếng Việt có ít (hoặc không có) liên từ, hình vị "and" ban đầu vốn là zero-marking, tiếp nhận 和 (MC hwa) > và bởi tiếng Hán có sử dụng từ nối thường xuyên hơn và là prestige language, điều này vẫn còn quan sát được đến ngày nay ở việc formal registers sử dụng liên từ thường xuyên hơn. Về với, thì có On conjunction and comitativity in Vietnamese (cho thấy có trường hợp và và với này có thể dùng thay cho nhau được, có trường hợp thì không) hay The Phenomenon of Expletive Infixation in Vietnamese Language From the Perspective of Pragmatics (với/với chả khi đóng vai trò trung tố trong informal contexts); hai tài liệu này không bàn trực tiếp về register của và vs. với trong vai trò liên từ, nhưng vẫn hữu ích.

Nghiên cứu ngôn ngữ học tiếng Việt hiện tại cho tới gần đây (đúng hơn là vẫn còn) nặng tính Sinocentrism, nhiều khía cạnh chưa nghiên cứu sâu. Ví dụ, cấu trúc, cấu tạo từ láy tiếng Việt hầu như chưa được nghiên cứu gì ngoài láy toàn bộ giảm nhẹ và -iếc, cùng lắm thì có láy -a với gốc song tiết (kiểu lung tung > lung ta lung tung), các pattern như -ang (mở > mở mang), -ăn (may > may mắn) chỉ được gộp khơi khơi là "từ láy". Tương tự, với loại từ thì có như A corpus-based study of inanimate classifiers in Vietnamese, với vài dòng nhắc đến một số trường hợp mà cái ít formal hơn một số loại từ khác (cái suối); lịch sử sử dụng từ cái rõ ràng có thể được đào sâu hơn (chẳng hạn, một số từ mượn từ tiếng Việt thông tục trong các ngôn ngữ khác, French cagna < cái nhà, kơmăi < (?) Vietnamese cái máy, Khmer កាបូប (kaaboup) < (?) cái bóp nhiều khả năng lưu giữ loại từ cái). Nghiên cứu văn bản giải âm gần như chỉ được thực hiện bởi một số nhà nghiên cứu người Nhật như Washizawa (Nghiên cứu đối chiếu các hư từ Hán văn dịch sang các hư từ văn Nôm trong tác phẩm song ngữ Hán Nôm Truyền kỳ mạn lục, etc.) hay Shimizu. PhanAnh123 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

For this one I have to respectfully disagree with Phan Anh. The word currently is not formal at all, and is also not synonymous with now.

It’s true that the word currently maybe doesn’t mix well with slang and the like, maybe right now or at the moment would fit better in such contexts, but in my opinion it is perfectly possible to use currently in informal but civilised speech. “Formal” implies a much larger social distance.

And although HungKhanh0106 apparently opines that I only “bập bẹ”, I think my Vietnamese is good enough to assert that hiện tại is also fit for informal speech. Googling “hiện tại” in combination with something not fit for formal speech shows it’s liberally used informally (also as an adverb).

Finally, although và may be less used in informal speech, that doesn’t make it “formal” either. Formal writing often drops và entirely and just uses commas. In informal speech, my experience is that và is replaced with với between nouns, but not so much between clauses.

– MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123 I am not really knowledgeable of linguistics but I do appreciate @MuDavid's constructive argument, as opposed to mine. IMO the word hiện tại does not really fit the category of "formal", I think it could be mistaken from taking Sino-Vietnamese as "formal" by the cursory perception of it.

trích Phạm Hùng Việt et al (2018)'s Từ ngữ Hán Việt: Tiếp nhận và sáng tạo: "Các từ Hán Việt có từ thuần Việt tương dương, giữa chúng có quan hệ đồng nghĩa. Mức độ đồng nghĩa có thể là cùng sở chỉ nhưng khác biệt về sắc thái trong sử dụng, ví dụ các từ Hán Việt đàm thoại, quốc gia, phụ nữ thường dùng trong ngữ cảnh chính thức, trang trọng, còn các từ thuần Việt tương ứng nói chuyện, đất nước, đàn bà thường dùng một cách dân dã."

hiện tại vs bây giờ: "Các từ Hán Việt thường dùng trong ngữ cảnh chính thức, trang trọng" do not implies (with their usage of ""thường"") that all Sino-Vietnamese words are used in official (chính thức) or in formal occasions (trang trọng) so they can imply that there are some words that do stand out from the rest, so I just see it as symbolic.

và vs với: The source Vietic Etyma versus Early Chinese Loanwords in the Domain of Grammatical Vocabulary you introduced only said that the Chinese words are more formal, not necessarily formal. But even if the case is not so, @MuDavid's argument of "civilized speech" could explain the pattern.

một bảng ECL conjunctions bên dưới có liệt kê đến và. Ở đây chỉ ra khả năng ngôn ngữ tiền thân của tiếng Việt có ít (hoặc không có) liên từ, hình vị "and" ban đầu vốn là zero-marking, tiếp nhận 和 (MC hwa) > và bởi tiếng Hán có sử dụng từ nối thường xuyên hơn và là prestige language, điều này vẫn còn quan sát được đến ngày nay ở việc formal registers sử dụng liên từ thường xuyên hơn.

Don't you consider that the prestige language does snuck up into people's mouth and just be spoken excessively? It would still be formal

Về với, thì có On conjunction and comitativity in Vietnamese (cho thấy có trường hợp và và với này có thể dùng thay cho nhau được, có trường hợp thì không) hay The Phenomenon of Expletive Infixation in Vietnamese Language From the Perspective of Pragmatics (với/với chả khi đóng vai trò trung tố trong informal contexts); hai tài liệu này không bàn trực tiếp về register của và vs. với trong vai trò liên từ, nhưng vẫn hữu ích.

I don't really understand the argument, but from what I see is that you recommend me to read those studies for more info. Personally I think it just kinda bloats the message and just don't want to read through the studies as to spend time for other meaningful things instead of debunking this argument thoroughly. Also the word "encliticization" here is ambiguous or misused? I just navigate on the Wiktionary entries all the way through the entry to find out (on enclitic and clitic) that it is something about inflection, attaching to the word preceding it.

The rest of the argument is also irrelevant to the two entries of và và hiện tại (talking about "Sinocentrism" etc.), so I don't see any much points. Also for what you pointed out though, there are not much sources and the sources included in the message are easily debunked, and that I don't really much understand other than that. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello PhanAnh123!

I wanted to add more definitions for the entry 對, which currently only mentions "to be contrary to; to be against; to oppose". For the entry 對 in Anthony Trần Văn Kiệm's "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt", there are a couple of definitions where I'm not quite sure what they actually mean. For example:

1. Chọi lại: Đao đối đao; Đối bất khởi (“đâu dám” làm mất lòng). I guess that chọi means "to face off (with)", but has lại here the meaning of "again", so that altogether it means "to face off (with) again"?
2. Chỏ vào: Thương khẩu đối trước địch nhân. I'm completely clueless with this one. Has chỏ here something to do with "elbow" or does it mean something completely different?

Now for it's Nôm form:

1. Hai câu văn đấu nhau về từ và ý: Câu đối. I would translate that as "two sentences standing in contrast to each other with regards to their words and ideas". Would that be correct?

ChemPro (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edit: Pha thêm: Trà thái nồng, đối điểm thuỷ (trà đặc cần pha nuớc). Would that be translated as "to mix or to mingle additionally" or "to make certain drinks in addition"? --ChemPro (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

lại in chọi lại is an adverb indicating that action is done towards a patient doing an (mutual) exchange with the agent, here it might be understood as "against/back", so "to face off against" (that example is in Chinese btw, although the meaning also exists in Vietnamese). chỏ is a verb meaning "to point at" (oddly, probably not directly related to trỏ, but certainly quite contaminated), câu đối already has an entry. 茶太濃對點水 / 茶太浓对点水 (“the tea is too thick, more water should be added”) is Chinese, thus has no relevance to a Vietnamese entry, even one for a form written in a Sinitic-derived script. This is why you should always be cautious when using dictionaries written by Vietnamese authors, they barely every clearly differentiate between Vietnamese and Written Chinese. PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I noticed you request verification for ác mỏ and ác mó. They are included in other dictionaries. What other verifications do they need? Duchuyfootball (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The verifiction of sense is for if that English gloss is accurate (Is it "parrot" in literal or figurative sense? Can it be glossed better? Is it "rare" or actually obsolete?), I know it's attested. If it's supposed to also be used figuaratively along with the literal meaning of "parrot" the bird, then more senses should be added. Same with ác mó, there's an attestation in VBT, but is it used for "parrot" pass that? If it's "obsolete" then dictionary entries are usually enough, if it's "rare" then there should be some attestions outside of that (unless the dictionary indicates that this is particular item, such as being used within a niche community or location, which Vietnamese dictionaries seldom put any effort into indicating). PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think I got it. Thank you. Duchuyfootball (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're chunom.net right? I don't encourage using the glosses there, unless it's an obsolete item or a hapax legomenon, it's best to find direct attestions in literature and gloss it directly from the usage there. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Anyway, I'm not affiliated with that page. I'm using this dictionary. Duchuyfootball (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please read our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI). Vietnamese is considered a widely documented language, and so three independent quotes (preferably from books, magazines, newspapers… but possibly also from the internet if people agree) are necessary, even for obsolete and rare terms.

And I think Phan Anh means you should not copy from other dictionaries: there’s the issue of copyright (copying is a crime), and the issue of quality. Entries should be based on actual use, not on pilfering other dictionaries. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, then what about obsolete and rare colloquial terms? Duchuyfootball (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello PhanAnh123,

From your message, I determine that you don't agree with me on where I'm putting the sense "wok" on sanh instead of xanh, but I wish you can point out why you think that the form sanh is not as common as xanh so I can know better what exactly are you trying to say.

For starters, I've known sanh as "pan" (not specifically "wok") firstly from my Ha Tinh relatives (and also their alternative form seng, but I do not know about the form xanh before seeing the page), so I just moved the sense "wok" to the page, assuming it's the more common sense.

But when doing some searches on xương quai sanh, I found out that some people prefers the form xương quai xanh more than the aforemented, and normal searches on both terms reveals to me that websites such as nhathuoclongchau.com.vn and www.vinmec.com (I've known as writing medical and biological topics) only do appear when searching "xương quai xanh". But even so, I rather assume that the coiners of the term probably confuses between s and x, basing on this page's info, saying that "xương quai sanh" is not seen in some modern dictionaries + dictionaries before 1945 (they seem to call the bone "xương đòn" or "xương đòn gánh"), plus my knowledge that Ha Tinh people on the Internet and those I've met only take on the s- forms of sanh and seng. Thus I believe that the main senses should stay on sanh. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, I'm personally fine with either of the two form being the main entry. Nothing major, I just don't really like to the prescriptivist stance of dictating what is "correct" (if we try to always be "đúng chính tả", giứa would be the main entry instead of dứa, but no one uses that in real life), instead of what's more popular. Neither xanh nor sanh for "wok" are really that common anyway since usually people just say chảo, but from my little observation, I think I saw xanh a bit more often, and, like you pointed out, xương quai xanh is the dominant form. PhanAnh123 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the messaging, I'm just confused with how you put the rfv tag on the entry, like placing an invitation for people to discuss about it. If you are OK with either of the form being the main entry then I don't think I should discuss this any further. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello there,

After digging into the 2002 Muong Bi dictionary for past couple of days, it has come to my attention that there are correspondance between Sino-Vietnamese ‹tr-› and "Sino-Muong (Bi)" /kl-/, for example: trách vs. klách (< Chinese 責 / 责), trường vs. klường (< Chinese 場 / 场), trung vs. klung (< Chinese 中), trọng vs. klõng (< Chinese 重), trưởng vs. klướng (< Chinese 長 / 长), etc. What makes this intriguing (to me at least) is that these two sounds seem not to have derived from the same source diachronically, and that the regular sound change from PV *k-l- to Vietnamese /tr-/ and Muong Bi /kl-/ cannot be applied here (although it looks exactly like one), since: as discussed in other places, the Sino-Viet forms always derived from Middle Chinese and there's no way that the proto-Muong speakers could have intepreted the MC onsets of these terms (/ɖ-/, /ʈ-/ (Zhengzhang), etc.) as cluster *kl- since they are obviously different phonetically. Muong Bi /kl-/, therefore, must have come from OC *tr- or *-tr- (then *C-r- > *C-l-) as reconstructed by B&S (2014) for these Chinese lemmas instead.

That's my thought process anyway. What do you think about this situation? Billcipher123 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reverse engineered Vietnamese loans, they're very common. Still quite interesting, but not that exciting. Aikio discussed it in the contexts of Uralic linguistics here. Also, what resource are you using? I'm pretty sure there's no ‹kl-› in Mường Bi, the dictionary only has ‹tl-›. PhanAnh123 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This clunky database , imported from Nguyễn Văn Khang (2002). Sometimes it displays f- instead of kh- for some reasons. Billcipher123 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have double-checked it and turns out they are all ‹tl-› in the Google Books version. I guess the online database is unreliable from the get go anyway. Billcipher123 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

May i ask is there anything of note going on in these cases: Muong nỏ (“heart”) (PV **-ʔ vs. other branches' *-s/*-h), Vietnamese vả (“Ficus”) and cổ (“neck”) (PV *-h vs. PAA *-ʔ). Also, do you know the reason why Sidwell (2024) reconstructs glottalization ◌ˀ instead of full blown glottal stop coda -ʔ ? Billcipher123 (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

>May i ask is there anything of note going on in these cases

Not really, there're cases like you listed so we know there's certain alternation, but I don't have any explanation for them. Still though, at Proto-Austroasiatic level, currently it's thought that vowel-final words had an automatic glottal stop phonetically (so for example, *kaʔ (“fish”) was the phonetic form of the phonological /*ka/, with -ʔ automatically added to the final vowel *a), so from that angle, PV *-h vs. PAA *-ʔ was really PV adding an *-h to phonological vowel-final words in PAA. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

>Also, do you know the reason why Sidwell (2024) reconstructs glottalization ◌ˀ instead of full blown glottal stop coda -ʔ ?

As far as I know, it's merely orthographic presentation, there's no real difference in practical value. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If a word is a non-Sino-Vietnamese reading of a Chinese word, does that mean that the word ultimately originated from Chinese? For example, nhiều is from Proto-Vietic but is also a NSV reading: Does this mean that word was borrowed from China since Proto-Vietic? Thank you. Duchuyfootball (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there're words borrowed since late Old Chinese in modern Vietnamese, at the time, Proto-Vietic was still a dialect continuum. In the case of nhiều though, it's probably not there yet in Proto-Vietic proper. It's attested in Viet-Muong, Cuoi and Pong, the more innovative Vietic subgroups, so it's still of reasonable depth, but not in latest stage of Proto-Vietic continuum. PhanAnh123 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, have you been able to access eVols repository as of late? It seems to be downed for no reason, pretty annoying. Billcipher123 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see you also have been trying to get some papers from University of Hawaii. Yeah, it's weird. Usually I would be able to bypass stuff by changing DNS, but with this one I have to use Tor. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

What happened? Firewall? Billcipher123 (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nah, banned websites in Vietnam can all be bypassed by changing DNS, they also have no reason to ban something so niche. This one probably has something to do with routing, I'm not tech-savvy enough to know for sure. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, have you been able to get your hands on the latest John Phan's book Lost Tongues of the Red River yet? You don't really seem to be a fan of his theory, well the Middle Chinese Annamese part at least. Billcipher123 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

About that book, I haven't been able to obtain it. About John Phan, nah, he's fine, certainly gets most of the sound changes and diachronicity right, which can't really be said for many Vietnamese philologists and linguists (if they even attempt to do historical linguistics at all). That said, I'm indeed quite skeptical about certain things in his works, and I don't really like seeing that much human history (sometimes, a little speculative) in my linguistic papers (not being a purist, I know human history can be helpful in informing historical linguistics, and yeah, at least there's not that much genetics in his papers). Recently, I was able to gaze through Acquisition in a Trilingual Environment and Philological Education: A Re-Examination of Regular, Unique and Unusual Sino-Vietnamese Initial Features (2025), which is quite heavily informed by John Phan's stuff, gotta say it's... pretty rough in places, while offering very little, if any, new information in regards to Vietnamese. Not to dismiss either Lanneau or John Phan's effort of course, not like I have written any book myself, but I would prefer to keep their commendable efforts as "referential" material. PhanAnh123 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply