Talk:Vietnamese alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.
Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Free trial

hey. i'm vietnamesse.but i do not know how 2 read vietnamesse.that is the main reason.so could u give me a free trial?????

Done. Your free trial of Wikipedia is active. We'll let you know when the free trial expires. Tempshill 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for literacy rate

Because the period of education necessary to gain initial literacy is considerably less for the largely phonetic Latin-based script compared to the several years necessary to master the full range of Chinese characters, the adoption of the Vietnamese alphabet also facilitated widespread literacy among Vietnamese speakers—in fact, whereas a majority of Vietnamese in Vietnam could not read or write prior to the 20th century, the population is now almost universally literate.

This paragraph implies pretty strongly that the core reason for the current high literacy rate is the switch to the current alphabet. I assume that at some point Vietnam mandated education? Would be nice if someone knowing the history could add a couple of other reasons that the literacy rate is now high. Tempshill 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam, like other countries influenced by Confucianism, placed strong emphasis on education. DHN 19:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And not only is Vietnam a Confucian society, it being ruled by a socialist-communist regime (who always have the highest literacy rates in the developing world, except for China) has also contributed to its high literacy rate of at the very least 95% (references in CIA WorldFactbook). User:Le Anh-Huy.

I disagree with this analysis. I think the improvement in literacy rate in Vietnam is not due to the adoption of the Latin alphabet. It is not logical to use the adoption of the Latin alphabet as an explanation for the fact that literacy in Vietnam improved, because it is not a "fair experiment". The only logical reason for one to attribute the increase in literacy to the adoption of the alphabet would be if another country with a similar socio-economical condition and political system also tried to improve literacy, but failed due to its use of logographic characters. However, in this case this is clearly false. Mainland China, with a literacy that was just as low as that of Vietnam, a similar economical level, and a similar political system (one-party communist state), also managed to improve its literacy dramatically in the last few decades despite the fact that it still used a logographic script. This is in fact proof that the increase in literacy in Vietnam is not due to the adoption of the Latin alphabet, but other political, cultural and socio-economical factors. In addition, if it is really the case that high literacy is correlated with the Latin alphabet and low literacy with the logographic script, then why is it that some of the most literate, advanced and wealthy countries in the world, such as Japan and Taiwan, actually use non-alphabetical scripts? - cyl

Have you read John DeFrancis' The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy? It depends on what you define "success". If you lower the requirement to a thousand characters, then everyone can be "literate". You can also read this doctoral thesis comparing learning efficiencies between Quoc ngu and Traditional Chinese [1]. In Japan, hardly anyone know more than 2000 Hanji characters (they learn about 1900 in school and forget all but about 500) and they had to use Hiragana and Katakana to show the pronunciation of many Hanji characters. Hiragana and Katakana are syllabaries and there are only 46 of each. [2]. DHN 00:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
"Success" is determined by many things, in this case let us just focus on the practical and empirical results. The fact remains that Japan and Taiwan which use a non-alphabetical script is much more literate, advanced and wealthy than India which uses an alphabetical script. It simply isn't factually true to correlate high literacy with alphabetical scripts, and low literacy with logographic and logophonetic scripts, neither in the present world nor historically. In ancient times, literacy was simply low everywhere, regardless of which type of script is used. Ancient nations which used logographic and logophonetic scripts such as Ancient China, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sumer, Assyria and Babylon, Korea and Japan, certainly did not have lower rates of literacy than nations which used alphabetical scripts, such as Europe and India. On the contrary, nations that used logographic and logophonetic scripts, such as China, Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia, created some of the greatest and most splendid civilisations of the ancient world. Most of our modern-day cultural elements are still ultimately derived from nations and civilisations using logographic and logophonetic scripts. A statistically significant correlation simply does not exist in this case.
Philosophically speaking, remember that I have the "default" position. My position is not that the logographic or logophonetic scripts are intrinsically superior to alphabetical scripts, but that both are just as good as each other, and different scripts are probably suited for different languages. It is those who think the alphabetical scripts are intrinsically superior who need to prove that is really the case. I think there is insufficient justification for their claim. Neither from a practical/historical perspective nor from an a priori perspective can they say that the alphabetical script is superior. Why should logographic/logophonetic scripts, with both semantic and phonetic elements, be intrinsically inferior to alphabetical scripts with only phonetic elements? Many modern scholars no longer believe in the idea that alphabetical scripts are intrinsically superior, see for example:
"Furthermore, the concept of "evolved-ness" prevalent in the monogenesis theory is refuted in the modern view. No type of writing system is superior or inferior to another, as the type is often dependent on the language they represent. For example, the syllabary works perfectly fine in Japanese because it can reproduce all Japanese words, but it wouldn't work with English because the English language has a lot of consonant clusters that a syllabary will have trouble to spell out. The pretense that the alphabet is more "efficient" is also flawed. Yes, the number of letters is smaller, but when you read a sentence in English, do you really spell individual letters to form a word? The answer is no. You scan the entire word as if it is a logogram."
http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_origins.html
Also, the claim that "since most nations in the modern world uses alphabetical scripts, therefore alphabetical scripts must be intrinsically superior" is illogical and unduly linguistically deterministic. Which type of script is most dominant is due to socio-economical and geo-political factors, not the intrinsic "inferiority" or "superiority" of the scripts themselves. Alphabetical scripts are most used simply because nations using alphabets have become politically, economically and culturally dominant. Suppose the Ancient Babylonian empire survived to the present-day and dominated the world, then we would all be typing in the Babylonian logophonetic cuneiform script now.
You might say "well surely the success of nations using alphabetical scripts is proof that alphabetical scripts are intrinsically superior? After all, most dominant nations in the world today uses alphabetical scripts?" However, such a simplistic and superficial linguistically determinist deduction is clearly illogical. In fact, logically speaking it is no better than racism, because a racist might similarly say "well surely the success of non-black peoples is proof that peoples with non-black skin colours are intrinsically superior? After all, most dominant nations in the world today are non-black?" Both smack of 19th century colonial imperialism.
My position, which is the most logical, is that it is simply a matter of pure chance that most dominant nations in the world today also happen to use alphabetical scripts, just as it is a matter of pure chance that most dominant nations in the world today are non-black.
By the way, according to modern statistics, to read on average about 89% of all standard modern Chinese texts one only need to know the 1000 most commonly used logographs. - cyl
The paragraph you removed did not assert that the Latin script is superior to Chinese characters. It simply implies that the Latin-based Vietnamese alphabet is more suited for the Vietnamese language than the (rather clumsy) Chinese-character based writing system previously in use. The writing system did not follow Vietnamese syntax and did not have native Vietnamese words (the much less popular chu Nom system attempted to create new characters representing native words but only created more confusion). Documents written by Vietnamese in Classical Chinese now have to be translated like any other Chinese-language document in order to be understood. DHN 00:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reforming the Vietnamese Alphabet

I'm Vietnamese and I was wondering if there are any efforts by Vietnamese linguists to reform the writing systems. It is extremely cumbersome in the computer age with all the markings. Also, it was created by non-Vietnamese.

See the proposal here, which IMO, is horrible. DHN 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinyin comparison

Following the Chữ nôm and Vietnamese language articles, writing Chinese characters has been replaced by writing chữ quốc ngữ. Understanding a Chinese text written in Pinyin (which I compare to the Vietnamese alphabet, as it is some form of romanization/latin script replacer) can be difficult to impossible, as Chinese has many homophones. Does this hold true with the "current" Vietnamese alphabet as well? --Abdull 19:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion in Sino-Vietnamese#Usage. The problem exists, but is very minor, usually having to do with etymology. DHN 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi DHN, thank you very much for your help - the link given by you helped me a lot. Unfortunately, it is quite hidden right now (... i didn't expect to find the answer to my question in the Sino-Vietnamese article). Bye, --Abdull 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Feel free to add what you learned there to this article. DHN 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the most important difference is that written Vietnamese is an accurate transcription of spoken Vietnamese while written Chinese is not an accurate transcription of spoken Chinese. Thus a written Vietnamese text is not harder to understand than a conversation between two people (even easier to understand). If written Chinese is the same as spoken Chinese, then how the heck do they talk to each other?! DHN 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, it is like the case with English "to", "too", and "two". If we were to write English phonetically, the three words would be the same. Then some sentences that are unambiguous in writing, like "I want to fish" and "I want two fish" would be written the same. Except that in Chinese the peoblem is much more pervasive because there are more homonyms. In speech (English or Chinese) there are usually clues of timing and stress that resolve any ambiguities that are not resolved by context ("I want to-FISH" vs "I want TWO fish"); but those clues are not recorded in pinyin. Makes sense? Jorge Stolfi 22:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
So is the stress part of Mandarin as well as the tones? I thought that in Chinese, like in Vietnamese, each syllable is distinct and can not affect the other syllables. DHN 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Mandarin does not have the conspicuous lexically-signifcant stress like Indo-European. I was thinking of stress/timing clues that could be useful to the listener but too subtle to be recorded in any writing system. Even in the "to fish"/"two fish" example, methinks that such clues would not be noticeable in IPA, or are they? Jorge Stolfi 06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As for the other point, Mandarin Chinese has a thing called "tone sandhi" meaning that the tone of one syllable can cause changes in the tone of the following one. But this practically exhausts my knowledge of Chinese... Jorge Stolfi 06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There is an article about tone sandhi, thank you for this hint. What I learned in my Chinese class yet (one semester), sentence stress is not so important in Mandarin as it is in European languages. Yet it is used to emphasize a particular meaning. With the words we have already learnt, all tone changes happen with the preceding word (not the following one). For example 不 (not) is usually pronounced bù, but when it is followed by the fourth tone (falling tone), it changes to bú, as in 不要 (do not want): bú yào. Bye, --Abdull 11:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Modern Standard Mandarin has made the distinction of character (Zi 字) and word (Ci 词). Characters are always mono-syllable, whereas words are always multi-syllable. Multi-syllable words even existed in Shang Dynasty (1700 BCE to 1100 BCE). For speakers of European languages, characters correlated to stems, and words to words. For example, the word for telephone is Dian Hua (电话), which consists of two characters Dian meaning eletricity and Hua meaning conversation. The European words formation is two stems, tele and phono.
By the way, we have been speaking Chinese for over 6000 years now and have been writting in characters in 4000 years, and we never got confused so no worry, it is very unlikely that we will got confused in the next 2000 years.
Karolus 2006/10/11

[edit] Main Vowel?

Hi, I am wondering if anybody can provide more detailed information about the main vowel? I am interested in the placement of the tone mark using the new style which emphasizes linguistic principles. Is there any reference about how to determine which is the main vowel and where to put the tone mark? I heard that the government has some newer official regulation on tone marks based on the linguistic principles. But since I can't read Vietanamese, it is difficult for me to dig thos document out. The reason I want to know more detail is that I would like to see if a similar scheme can be implemented for Taiwanese written in Pe̍h-ōe-jī. I would really apprecaite if anybody can provide some information. Thanks! pektiong 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A good source is [3]. Below is my translation. DHN 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

[edit] Definitions

  1. syllable: the basic unit of sound. In Vietnamese, a syllable is always pronounced with a tone, and different syllables are separated by a space. In writing, each syllable is written as a "word". E.g: “hoa hồng bạch” consists of 3 words or 3 syllables.
  2. vowel letter: letters used to write vowels, i.e. a, ă, â, e, ê, i, o, ô, ơ, u, ư, y.
    Note: In Vietnamese o and u are also sometimes used as a semivowel for w ...
  3. consonant letter: letters used to write consonants, i.e. b, c, d, đ, (f), g, h, (j), k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, (w), x, (z).
  4. consonant combination: groups of consonants used as digraph or trigraphs, i.e. ch, gh, kh, ng, ngh, nh, ph, th, tr, gi, qu.
    Note: In the case of gi and qu, u and i are not used to represent any vowel, so they are also considered consonant combinations

[edit] Rules

  1. With syllables containing only one vowel, the tone mark must be placed on that vowel. Examples: á à, ì ạch, ọ ẹ, ủ rũ, ọp ẹp, ục ịch, hà, lán, giá, giục, quả, quỹ, quỵt... (in the case of gi and qu see definition 4)
  2. If the syllable has only one vowel with a quality mark (i.e. Ă, Â, Ê, Ô, Ơ, Ư), then the tone mark must be placed on that vowel (in the case of ƯƠ, the tone mark lies on the Ơ). Examples: ế ẩm, ồ ề, ở rể, ứ ừchiền chiện, cuội, cừu, duệ, duềnh, giội, giường, ngoằng, quyệt, ruỗng, rượu, siết, suyển, tuẫn tiết, tiến triển...
  3. With syllables that has two vowels and ends with a consonant or a consonant combination, then the tone mark is placed on the last vowel. Examples: choàng, hoạch, loét, quẹt, suýt, thoát, xoèn xoẹt...
  4. With syllables ending with oa, oe, or uy, then the tone mark is placed on the last vowel. Examples: hoạ, hoè, huỷ, loà xoà, loé, suý, thuỷ...
  5. With syllables ending with two or three vowels that are not oa, oe, or uy, then the tone mark is placed on the next-to-last vowel. Examples: bài, bảy, chĩa, chịu, của, đào hào, giúi, hoại, mía, ngoáy, ngoáo, quạu, quẹo, ngoẻo, chịu, chĩa...
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Vietnamese alphabet → quốc ngữ – The article is about more than the alphabet. It's about the writing system, like Pinyin. All the other versions of this article in other languages use the proper name of the writing system in Vietnamese. It should also retain the proper diacritics because it is discussing a writing system specific to Vietnamese. DHN 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Furthermore, the article name "Vietnamese alphabet" is not the most commonly used name (violated WP:NC(CN)). See discussion below. DHN 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You just disproved your own point. The primary focus of that guideline is that it should not conflict with other uses. "Vietnamese alphabet" doesn't have any other uses that I'm aware of. The guideline doesn't provide for foreign language uses; obviously there will be more native speakers that use a given foreign word, but this is the English wikipedia. We use Spain, not España, even if more people in the world use the latter. Kafziel 16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at the discussion below. Most English-language reference to this topic do not use "Vietnamese alphabet". Furthermore, the primary focus of that guideline is to use "the most common name that does not conflict with other uses". Neither "Vietnamese alphabet" nor "quốc ngữ" conflict with other uses, but "Vietnamese alphabet" is clearly not the most common name in English. DHN 17:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the only name in English. The other name isn't English at all. The fact that English-speaking linguists use it doesn't make it English. Kafziel 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just like Costa Rica, Beijing, Côte d'Ivoire, Bundestag aren't English. Could you define what constitutes "English"? DHN 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are used by everyone, not just specialists in their fields. The articles for Spain, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, China, and countless other places all use their English names. Using country names is really comparing apples and oranges, though. It might be better to compare this with Greek alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet, or Chinese character. Kafziel 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The Google search comparision below shows not just specialists who use it. "Vietnamese alphabet" is outnumbered by a factor of more than 10-to-1. In fact, most pages that uses "Vietnamese alphabet" are talking about the typography or are mirrors of this article (or sourced from here). DHN 18:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Quoc ngu" (no diacritics) comes up with over 20,000 hits. I don't have a problem with using an anglicized form of the words, but we should be using the English alphabet. Encyclopedia Britannica does. Kafziel 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "quốc ngữ" over "quoc ngu" because it is more technically correct, an important consideration especially for this article's subject matter. Why be incorrect when it's technically feasible to be correct? DHN 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Because I'm looking at my keyboard, and I don't see a "ố" anywhere. That means practically every visitor to that page would get there via redirect. I tried to compromise, but you're just going to argue no matter what. Fine, then. My "oppose" stands. Kafziel 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Strong oppose. The proposer has not tried to distinguish between "alphabet" and "writing system" here. Moreover, the Vietnamese term is unknown to nearly anyone who doesn't already speak Vietnamese. Evertype 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Violation of Use English guideline. Need better explanation of twhy the scope of the article is incorrect.--Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. The title should be in English. Kafziel 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support, I can't see the difference of this lemma that is unknown to nearly anyone who doesn't already speak Vietnamese to lemmata like Hán Tự, Chữ nôm, Áo dài or Lục bát (to name just a few) which are undisputed. I go with DHN that quốc ngữ is more correct and most often used (not only in Vietnamese texts) and therefore the article should be moved there. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't see this going anywhere. I know what Chu nom [sic] is. The others I never heard of. The Luc bát talks about "Quốc ngữ script" and I'm sorry, there's no such thing. It's the Latin script, and the Vietnamese alphabet is one of the many alphabets made out of the Latin script. There's no reason to prefer "Quốc ngữ". What is "quốc"? What is "ngữ"? Evertype 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Oh no no no. Pls use English not Vietnamese in an English language article. – Axman (☏) 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose. This is the English-language Wikipedia. Hebrew alphabet is under that, not Alef-bet...need I go on? --Lukobe 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    A more apt comparision is with Hangul, with an English name "Korean alphabet" that hardly anyone uses. DHN 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone who votes with "oppose" here name just one scientific book (in English) about the Vietnamese language written in the past 30, 40 years that doesn't use the technical term quốc ngữ but speaks of a Vietnamese alphabet? It would be much more convincing if you could back up your vote with a stronger argument than that the lemma is not an English one. There are lots and lots of articles in the English wikipedia that have lemmata in other languages (if you don't believe: Luk kreung, Pathet Lao or Zhōngyuán Yīnyùn are just 3 of hundreds of examples). They all have an article name in another language because in their case that is the correct lemma. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Frequency of use in "scientific" books is not a criterion for naming articles at Wikipedia. Using English, however, is. That is an official policy, not just a side note to be ignored, and it doesn't matter how many exceptions you can find. We have all given examples such as Hebrew alphabet, Greek alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet, and Arabic alphabet. Those are the precedents for naming articles on writing systems, and Vietnamese is no exception. Kafziel 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The name "Vietnamese alphabet" violates the "most commonly used name" convention. Virtually all academic mention of this topic uses "quoc ngu" or the proper term "quốc ngữ". Compare on Google: "Vietnamese alphabet" 900 hits, "quoc ngu" 21000 hits, quốc ngữ 54000 hits . DHN 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a few books (not written in Vietnamese language) that use the term quốc ngữ but not Vietnamese alphabet (to name just a few, see bibliography of the article for more):
  • Lawrence C. Thompson: A Vietnamese Grammar, Seattle: University of Washigton Press, 1965 (this is considered to be the best Vietnamese grammar in a Western language by many linguists)
  • Kenneth J. Gregerson: A Study of Middle Vietnamese Phonology, Saigon: Bulletin de la Société des Études Indochinoises, Tome XLIV, N° 2, 1969
  • Hoàng Thị Châu: Grundkurs Vietnamesisch, Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1982
  • Dana Healy: Teach yourself Vietnamese, Lincolnwood, Il: NTC, 1997
In linguist discourse I hardly ever read anything else than this term. So those of you who oppose the move because this is a Vietnamese lemma in the English wikipedia certainly would accuse Thompson or Gregerson not to write in proper English - but outside wikipedia I never heard anything like that (I didn't know before that Univ. of Washigton Press published books in faulty English). Besides: Did anyone take notice of the frequencies of occurence as DHN demonstrated? Are they of no relevance at all? --峻義 Jùnyì 論 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that you have never heard anyone call it the Vietnamese alphabet? That's absurd. Every alphabet has its own name in its native language, but in English we just call it the such-and-such alphabet. Kafziel 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really often, indeed. It's like calling chữ nôm "Vietnamese Kokuji", I did that myself to explain the term to sinologists - but I would never use it as lemma of an article in an encyclopedia because "chữ nôm" is more correct. Same as "Vietnamese alphabet" vs. "quốc ngữ". --峻義 Jùnyì 論 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I don't really prefer one title over the other. But I'd like to make some observations that probably haven't been brought up yet:

  1. This alphabet has been used to write other languages: [4] lists some books that use the modern Vietnamese orthography for minority languages in Vietnam. However, some of Kafziel's examples are also used as the primary orthography for multiple languages, including Hebrew (Yiddish) and Arabic (Urdu, Persian, Kurdish). (Cyrillic is also used in a number of languages, but its article isn't named after a specific language, as in this case.)
  2. I've tried comparing the terms using our friend Google. For the term "Vietnamese alphabet", I've constructed this query, which excludes most entries from Wikipedia or its mirrors. About 624 results. For quốc ngữ [5], I've excluded any wiki, as well as any page in Vietnamese: it's a bit difficult to write a webpage in Vietnamese without any of the words với, của, hoặc, or để. I've required the word "with" in the results to ensure virtually only English-language results, and I've allowed the accentless "quoc ngu" and "quocngu", which are also found in English-language pages using the Vietnamese term. This relatively conservative query gets me about 13,300 results.
  3. Similar searches in Google Scholar are even more in favor of quốc ngữ: Vietnamese alphabet (21) vs. Quốc ngữ (200, excluding entries containing the name Quoc Ngu Vu).
  4. I used to use "Vietnamese alphabet" back when I only knew household Vietnamese. But the term "alphabet" oversimplifies things, and it doesn't do justice to everything that's included in this article. This orthography is not only a variant of the Latin alphabet, but also a romanization (one in common use by native writers). It's a replacement for an older orthography that wasn't based on the Latin alphabet. As counterexamples for Kafziel, Wikipedia uses titles such as Pe̍h-ōe-jī and Bàng-uâ-cê (with full diacritics) for the primary orthographies – romanizations – of minority Chinese languages.
  5. Spanish alphabet redirects to Writing system of Spanish, which is divided into two main sections covering the alphabet and orthography. The alphabet section discusses the names and pronunciations of the letters (this article could use a list of letter names), and the orthography section mainly discusses diacritics. Whereas Spanish has a "writing system" article at the English Wikipedia, the more general Vietnamese article is only permitted to have an "alphabet" article, even though it covers the switch from a Chinese-based writing system to a Latin-based writing system, the use of Sino-Vietnamese, and issues surrounding the Vietnamese orthography on computers.
  6. I still cringe when seeing the title for Vietnamese Wikipedia's article on Carl Friedrich Gauss spelled with a ß, since the eszett is so distinct from the letters of the Vietnamese alphabet. I'd imagine that a non–Vietnamese speaker would have a similar reaction when seeing such complex characters as ố and ữ in the title of an article in English – English would never have more than one diacritic on a letter, so quốc ngữ might come as a surprise to readers who've never encountered any Vietnamese writing. Then again, that's why the reader would need to read this article.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Proposed split

Hi. I agree with the remarks above that the current version of this article is about more than the alphabet. One way to sort this out is to move part of it to a new article named Vietnamese orthography / Quốc ngữ. In the new article, I would put:

  • Details about sound-to-spelling conversion (currently in the section "Pronunciation");
  • Tone marks (since they don't produce new letters);
  • The "Structure" section;
  • The "Description" section (which is more about the orthography in general, than about the alphabet alone;
  • Possibly the historical notes, along with the remark about Sino-Vietnamese words.

As I do not know much about the language, it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable could assist... FilipeS 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think any discussion of the alphabet without mentioning the tones and structure, or conversely, any discussion of the orthography without mentioning the letters, is incomplete. I'd rather see the entire article renamed into Vietnamese orthography. DHN 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version of this article has a table for letter-to-pronunciation conversion, and then another for sound-to-letter conversion. The former shouldn't be here. In principle, it could be moved to Vietnamese phonology, except that that article is already cluttered with I-forget-how-many different vowel lists! Same with the diphthongs. What do you suggest doing with those tables?... FilipeS 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that they are unfit for this article, I guess you can split it into a different article. Just make sure that the reader has some background information. DHN 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking at other language alphabet articles, I'm withdrawing the split proposal, although I still feel that the name "Vietnamese orthography" would be more appropriate. FilipeS 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creaky tone(s)

Can it be described which tones are "creaky" I think it's the one with the tilde (~).

They are described with "glottalized", it's the ones with tilde and dot below. David Da Vit 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real-life pronunciations

Can it please be made clear, using real-life pronunciations (rather than symbols most people don't understand) the difference, for example, between the pronunciation of "a," "ă," and "â"? Badagnani 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to the article Vowel. There's a chart in it with the phonetic symbols. By clicking on each one, you reach their respective articles, most of which have a recording of the vowel in question. FilipeS 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter c and letter k

What is the difference between letter c and letter k? -✉ Hello World! 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

K is never found at the end of a syllable. As far as I know, when used in the beginning of a word for the /k/ sound, k is used in front of e, ê, i, and y while c is used in front of all other vowels. K can be also used in the digraph kh, while c can be used in the digraph ch. I think there weren't much difference about them in the beginning either (革命, now written as "cách mạng", was written as "kách mệnh" in the title of one of Ho Chi Minh's early works). I guess nowadays whether a word with a /k/ sound begins with a k or a c is a historical matter. DHN 08:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter k and letter q

What is the difference between letter k and letter q?--Steven X (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Q is seldom (or never) used by itself. "Qu" is usually used to represent the "kw" or "w" sound. DHN (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)