Wiktionary talk:About Vietnamese

As there were several request for this page, I created it based on what I feel seems to be common consensus. Please expand where necessary. One issue I still see is where to draw the line between modern and Middle Vietnamese. I took "from the 19th century" from Wikipedia, but we may want to draw the line differently. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
This article currently states:

"Wiktionary uses the 'modern' spelling, always writing i instead of y in monophthongs ( instead of ) and putting the tone accent on the second vowel oa, uy, oe ( instead of ). Other spellings should be added as 'alternative spelling of'."

This is an accurate statement of the English Wiktionary's current practice, owing to efforts by Wyang and others to ensure page naming consistency. There's some discussion of it at Talk:tuỵ đạo. However, I'm concerned that it would be considered a policy around here based on this article. I understand the desire for consistency, but Wiktionary should not pick sides when it comes to either orthographic reform. The tone mark placement reform is largely ignored outside Vietnam, and the i/y reform is inconsistently applied even within Vietnam.

More practically, I'm concerned that our strict application of this policy would lead to misleading entries. For example, Tòa Bạch Ốc implies that Toà Bạch Ốc is the more mainstream spelling. But this term is primarily used by overseas communities that largely ignored the tone mark placement reform; Nhà Trắng is preferred in Vietnam where the reform has taken hold. In more extreme cases, this policy has required us to use unattested spellings of words that became obsolete prior to the reform, such as tuỵ đạo.

I created with the ability to autodetect the spelling used; I'd like to see it used instead of  on entries like tụy đạo. But to more fully address the concerns above, I think we should look to our treatment of European versus Brazilian Portuguese – making sure to always qualify items in "Alternative forms" sections and with – as a way to remain a little more neutral and less proscriptive as a project.

– Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 20:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Minh, how are you? (BTW, I think I wrote you some more messages over at vi.wikt.)


 * It's quite interesting to see there are people who actually care about Vietnamese orthography, even though they're living at the other side of the world. :-) (In Vietnam, people happily type cuả and qui, and I've seen signs saying GÔ˜ and worse.)


 * Concerning attestation, it is a general (but apparently not unanimous) understanding here at en:wikt that only terms need to be attested, not spellings. So the fact that tuỵ đạo is not attested as a spelling is actually no problem, as it is the same term as tụy đạo, which is attested. Many other languages (Middle English, for example) have similar issues, and also solve it by (arbitrarily) picking one standard, regardless of whether it is consistently attested. The template is otherwise a nice idea, so as far as I'm concerned it can be implemented.


 * Another issue you raised (in an edit for, I think) is the reform in names. I guess you're right that names weren't reformed and that the traditional spelling should therefore remain the main lemma. But when it comes to names, different spellings could actually be considered different names, so attestation becomes more of an issue. Attestation criteria at en.wikt for proper names are messy at the moment, so idiosyncratic spellings like and  could become an issue.


 * There's been some discussion in the beer parlor about picking sides when it comes to orthography, which is an issue in many other languages (including English), but it seems to be a big challenge to solve it.


 * MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * / is another example. In this case, "Mỹ" was not exempted from the spelling reform. I would think there's some value in giving priority to a very common way that Vietnamese speakers in America refer to English over a theoretical way in which Vietnamese speakers in Vietnam could refer to English if they wanted to sound like Americans. – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplication in adverbs identical to adjectives
Just like German and Dutch, Vietnamese adjectives can be used as adverbs without change, leading to a lot of duplication (see for example, ). Would it not be better if we, like the other languages, introduced the rule not to create a separate adverb section if this is the case? (For example: About_Dutch.) (Pinging .) MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No reaction yet? Pinging who seems to be active in Vietnamese as well. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As nobody objected, I just plunged ahead and wrote something more general. If anyone disagrees, please say so before I do mass cleanups. ☺ MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2023
Is no one of a high authority going to sort this problem out? There are roughly 80 articles in the "Requests for deletion in Vietnamese entries" page, with a majority of the reasons being either SOP or Ad Hoc constructions. I understand that from the perspective of an English speaker, these "words" such as "hạt dẻ" (chestnut) "kẻ giết người" (murderer) or "người khuyết tật" (disabled) to such a person may seem reasonable considering they are "words" in English, but as a Vietnamrse, they can clearly be de- and reconstructed without changes in meanings; something like "xe đạp" or "hạt dẻ" may be more dubious, since I haven't heard anyone say "dẻ" itself and "xe đạp" means something more than just "xe" + "đạp". Other entries, however, are rather laughable, e.g. "hổng dám đâu", "rắn lại" or "được kính trọng". Maybe my point of view is wrong or short-sighted, and these are indeed "words"; nonetheless, it's piling up and someone should do something about it in my opinion. 2402:800:B180:4872:61D3:7621:B1BC:C358 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe if "không dám đâu" means something larger than its combined parts, I guess it's not so laughable. 2402:800:B180:4872:61D3:7621:B1BC:C358 13:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The process is that we discuss the request and reach consensus on whether a term meets the criteria for inclusion; if not it is deleted. All users have equal authority in the discussion. The problem is that only people who are competent speakers of Vietnamese are able to present reasoned arguments, and we have only seven active editors who are native speakers of Vietnamese, perhaps two of which occasionally visit this page. --Lambiam 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is not specific to Vietnamese. Editors working on languages they don’t know well enough are a site-wide problem, but we’re working on it. “Roughly 80 articles” aren’t that much of a problem, which is why we’ve been quite blasé about it and it’s only now I’ve decided to do some mass nominations (see higher on this page). And if you think “someone should do something about it”, don’t forget you can be that someone. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This problem is not unique to Vietnamese but also to languages fitting the scriptio continua description, even if Vietnamese uses spaces between syllables (rather than no spaces at all), which still makes it difficult what a word is.
 * Editors for Mandarin Chinese or Thai (using a more active group of editors as an example, compared to others) face the same problem but seem to agree on individual cases or words.
 * I haven't seen many discussions on Vietnamese but a separate WT:CFI, specific to Vietnamese would be good to make a decision easier whether a word should or should not be included.
 * Regarding, I am afraid there is no rule described, e.g. if " + verb" type of words should be included. Try checking with native speakers, like User:PhanAnh123.
 * I agree with @MuDavid and since we don't have any Vietnamese specific CFI, it goes by a vote.
 * I am OK to delete the term and split translations into components, as in murderer like this to get kẻ giết người. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s what we’ve been doing. (But there’s a gazillion noobs who don’t.) And it’s User:PhanAnh123 who nominated . MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a native Vietnamese speaker, I agree. Penn Zero MSSJ (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One problem I see with this view point is that you're saying that Vietnamese natives would be able to deconstruct these words but English speakers would not. These words are on the English Wiktionary site, thus they're meant for English speakers. It would follow that keeping compounds makes sense so long as an English speaker could not reliably deconstruct them. I also think some of these "SOP"s are overzealous in nature.
 * For example, I created an article for tạo ra because I couldn't find it on Wiktionary, but my Vietnamese dictionary (Từ điển Lạc Việt) had it. I can find many other Vietnamese dictionaries that list this as a separate entity than its parts, yet my page was listed as an SOP. If Vietnamese dictionaries list these as separate entities, then why shouldn't Wiktionary? LeChatParle (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I told you, different dictionaries have different criteria for inclusion. Tạo ra is two words; you should look up and  separately. If there’s anything not yet clear then, then it’s the pages  and  that need editing. And there’s no need for “deconstructing”, whatever that means. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "as I told you" - this is the first time we've ever talked, so you haven't said that to me before.
 * "whatever that means" - it's actually clear what it means, which is ironic given the circumstances. It's defined as: "1. analyze (a text or a linguistic or conceptual system) by deconstruction. 2. reduce (something) to its constituent parts in order to reinterpret it or present it differently".
 * It doesn't seem like you're interested in a genuine discussion on the topic based on the way you've replied, so I won't continue this conversation. LeChatParle (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did talk to you before, but maybe you’ve been ignoring me. The point remains that nonidiomatic expressions should not be included in Wiktionary. If you don’t agree, there are other forums (such as the beer parlour) where you may make your case for a change to our criteria for inclusion, but good luck with that. We don’t have, or , no matter how difficult it may be to “deconstruct” this for speakers of languages without tenses, and there’s no reason for us to include , , , , or any such, as these can be “deconstructed” by anyone with a basic grasp of Vietnamese grammar. If you believe is different, that’s what you should be arguing. (And by the way, the “many Vietnamese dictionaries” you refer to are mostly plagiarized from one and the same dictionary, and they usually copy it errors and all. Don’t take those as your guiding compass.) MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reduplication
I propose to add the following section:

Vietnamese has many reduplication patterns with varying levels of productivity. For a full treatment, see our appendix on the subject. For purposes of inclusion in this Wiktionary: In the first three cases, cites, quotes, example sentences, etc. should be put at the main lemma (so quotes of, , and should go at ), unless they are to prove the existence of the reduplicated form.
 * Words formed through and  reduplication should not be included.
 * Full reduplication of adjectives and verbs without modification (of type → ) should not be included.
 * Diminutive reduplication of adjectives (of type → ) should be included as soft redirects to the main lemma, provided they meet the criteria for inclusion (such as three independent uses).
 * Full reduplication (with or without modification) of other parts of speech usually gives a different lemma (such as or ).
 * Other types of reduplication are considered wholly independent lemmas.

Opinions? I edited and  in accordance with my proposal. If you agree with the above, I’ll create some templates. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. Duchuyfootball (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not allow the creation of a soft redirect for nghỉ nghiếc and other formations like it, as long as they’re attested? Is it because -iếc can be formed out of just about any word? How will readers learn what “nghiếc” is doing in a sentence, since it’s written as if it’s a word or part of a compound word, rather than a suffix in the Western sense? Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it can, indeed, be formed out of just any word. Entries with English schm- are also not included, see Talk:work schmerk and Talk:rational-shmational. The only exceptions are where the reduplicant has taken on an independent life, as with schmexy and schmancy. (That’s our current policy, so my proposal is not to change that. If you want to change that part, you’re welcome to open a new discussion.) MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s fair. It’s still a bit awkward for those unaware of the morphological rule, but perhaps linking -iếc, as you did above, is the best we can do. Is it possible to represent this kind of reduplication in chữ Nôm as well? If so, how should we document the relationship between the quốc ngữ and Nôm forms? Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 15:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t know much about Nôm script, but as far as I know reduplication is rather informal so I wouldn’t expect it to be very widely attested in Nôm manuscripts. Are many reduplications of  or  type even attested in Nôm script at all? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MuDavid: Yes, this paper discusses the various forms of từ láy that are attested in one 1887 work written in chữ Nôm. This page from Nguyễn Trãi's Quốc Âm Từ Điển discusses the rules for transliterating từ láy into quốc ngữ. I haven't fully digested either resource yet, but I have a feeling that we've just scratched the surface. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 02:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the first paper you link to gives nontrivial Nôm characters for type reduplication (儒𡮈 for ), which gives an extra argument for the creation of entries for this type of reduplication. I’ll add the section I proposed, and if you find instances of  type reduplication in Nôm script, we can refine our approach.
 * BTW,, currently our appendix says of type reduplication that as it is “(generally) productive, the reduplicatives are not considered lemmas.” The arguments for inclusion of  type as soft redirects apply here as well, so should we not include those as soft redirects also? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you saying we should include "lung ta lung tung type reduplication" as soft redirects also? Duchuyfootball (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think, by your own arguments, they should be included. ☺ Soft redirects (in the style of “-a reduplication of ”) would do the job, I think. Or do you think they should be full-fledged lemmas? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Soft redirects seem reasonable to me. We also have templated soft redirects for orthographical variations, such as xòe (which I suppose can be reduplicated too). Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 05:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, and templates created. I'm awaiting your input concerning -a reduplication ( type). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears nobody objects, so I’ll edit policy as I proposed above. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October 2023–March 2024
Vietnamese, reduplication in the style of schm-. Should not be included according to our appendix. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be unfair for every other reduplication if this word is deleted. Its meaning has a nuanced experession to just "lạ". Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , how is this “unfair”? We’re just following our rules. And how is the nuance of this instance of full adjective reduplication different from other instances of full adjective reduplication? Did you read our appendix? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that there are only a number of adjectives having reduplication form. Nobody uses "loàng loãng", "dề dễ", "mầm mập" and the list goes on. Even then, the extra word used for reduplication varies from words to words, so why should they be omitted altogether? Maybe if extra pages are redundant, someone should make a table for different form of the word, like cases in Latin? Duchuyfootball (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You’d be surprised at what people use:
 * Acid Chymotrypsin có tác dụng loàng loãng dịch tiết ở đường hô hấp.
 * Dề dễ nhưng hơi dài
 * người mầm mập mà nhanh đến lạ kỳ,
 * I’ve been thinking about this, and I believe it may be better to treat this kind of reduplication as a derivation, such that and its ilk would be converted to soft redirects (as English -ing forms are, for example). What do you think? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I admit I was taken aback, only because the first two examples are typos.
 * Example 1: I believe the correct usage is "làm loãng" (to make diluted).
 * Example 2: Should be "Đề dễ" (the test was easy) if you read the whole paragraph. The sentence means "The test was easy but was a bit long."
 * Example 3: OK, there is usage of this word, but it is really outdated.
 * As for derivation part, no opposition. Nonetheless, I think if somebody created a whole page just for the purpose of redirecting the phrase back to its root word, then why not just give a definition anyway? Duchuyfootball (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P/S: I just read the criteria, and I think "mầm mập" is not widely used to such an extent that it can be attested as a new expression. Duchuyfootball (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

ngồ ngộ
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

nhè nhẹ
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Resolved through modification of policy. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)