Talk:Vietnamese language
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vietnamese language Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
| Template:Search box |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell User:MiszaBot/config
Misunderstandings about John Phan's paper
Recently there have been contributors adding to the article claiming that Vietnamese is theoretically a mixed language or a creole language, but this is incorrect. On page 330, John Phan explicitly mentions that in his chart showcasing Hybridized Proto-Viet-Muong, that he uses the term "hybridized" very loosely. As he quotes, "In this scheme, I use the term “hybridized” loosely and not to indicate full convergence or the formation of a true creole."
In this context, he uses "hybridized" to refer to the language shift that sinicized both the Mường language and the Vietnamese language after a population of theorised Annamese Middle Chinese speakers shifted from speaking Middle Chinese to Proto-Viet-Muong causing vocabulary from Middle Chinese to form a Old-Sino-Vietnamese substrate. (298)
Even if this was found to be true, it does not change the fact that Vietnamese is still descended from Proto-Viet-Muong and is still an Austroasiatic language.
For reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnamese_language&diff=1177773526&oldid=1177639045, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnamese_language&diff=1236262748&oldid=1234975662 Lachy70 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also in John Phan's 2010 paper, Re-Imagining “Annam”: A New Analysis of Sino–Viet– Muong Linguistic Contact, he also said, "While I use the term “hybridized” in this scheme, I do not here make the claim that Proto-Viet–Muong was a true hybrid language, i. e., a creole that developed from a pidgin. The sense is weaker here, and is meant only to denote a strong adstratum effect from Annamese Middle Chinese." Lachy70 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if we're giving too much weight to Phan's views here. Has anyone else picked up his Annamese Middle Chinese idea? Kanguole 10:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen authors such as Zev Handel (author of Sinography), Grant Evans, K. W. Taylor (author of A History of the Vietnamese), etc mention Annamese Middle Chinese. The issue is not with Annamese Middle Chinese, the issue is with people see the word "hybridized" and thinking that Vietnamese is a creole, when John Phan states that is not the case. What he is claiming rather he is claiming that there is the possible existence of Annamese Middle Chinese and it was an adstratum that affected Proto-Viet-Muong. Lachy70 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- His wording is not always clear, but I believe that what he means by "hybridized" is that Vietnamese is the result of speakers of Annamese Middle Chinese switching to Proto-Viet-Muong in the 11th century (thesis p332). Taylor, a historian rather than a linguist, accepts this (p5), but I'm not aware of acceptance by linguists. Some of them talk about AMC or some other southern variety being the source behind Sino-Vietnamese pronunciations, but that's not the same thing. Kanguole 16:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen authors such as Zev Handel (author of Sinography), Grant Evans, K. W. Taylor (author of A History of the Vietnamese), etc mention Annamese Middle Chinese. The issue is not with Annamese Middle Chinese, the issue is with people see the word "hybridized" and thinking that Vietnamese is a creole, when John Phan states that is not the case. What he is claiming rather he is claiming that there is the possible existence of Annamese Middle Chinese and it was an adstratum that affected Proto-Viet-Muong. Lachy70 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Re-insertion of Maspero's periodization
The problem with re-inserting the list of periods from an old version of the article is that the introduction to the History section now repeats itself. Also Proto-Viet-Muong (= Proto-Vietic in modern terminology) isn't actually a phase of Vietnamese, and is not listed by Maspero as such. I don't think the translated terms Proto-Vietnamese and Archaic Vietnamese are much used these days, though of course everyone agrees there was a time before the introduction of Sino-Vietnamese and a time after. Kanguole 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, nobody wants history to repeat itself :) But the subsection §Proto–Viet–Muong based on Ferlus (2009) employs the two terms Proto-Vietnamese and Archaic Vietnamese, so we probably need to add some context at least there. –Austronesier (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It appears there was a bit of extrapolation from the sources there. Kanguole 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
IETF variant tags
The IETF language tags have included:
- Type: variant
- Subtag: hanoi
- Description: The Hà Nội variant of Vietnamese
- Added: 2025-03-10
- Prefix: vi
- Type: variant
- Subtag: huett
- Description: The Huế (province Thừa Thiên) variant of Vietnamese
- Added: 2025-03-10
- Prefix: vi
- Type: variant
- Subtag: saigon
- Description: The Sài Gòn variant of Vietnamese
- Added: 2025-03-10
- Prefix: vi