User talk:mxn

User talk:MxnUser talk:Mxn/2013User talk:Mxn/2010User talk:Mxn/2007User talk:Mxn/2006User talk:Mxn/2004

Vietnamese: Để thảo luận với tôi trong tiếng Việt về Wiktionary, xin vui lòng ghé vào trang thảo luận của tôi ở Wiktionary tiếng Việt.

Yellow backgroundEdit

Do you know why, when I visit the Vietnamese Wikipedia and Wiktionary sometimes, that the background color for the website occasionally turns yellow? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:TeleComNasSprVen.

Moving Vietnamese nounsEdit

Hi, I've replied in Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Non-idiomatic_Vietnamese_words. You can create those entries yourself. It doesn't seem like a bot job but a manual work. I've put a suggestion there about how and my request to leave redirects behind. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello, there's an error in the page of Module:vi-pron, ui is pronounced [uj]. 02:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Wyang.

But there still is some errors, kh is actually pronounced [kʰ] in Southern Vietnamese, and v is absolutely not pronounced [vʲ] in Southern Vietnamese, please correct them, thank you in advance. 22:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi! Could you take a look at this and clean it up / format it? Thanks. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle VietnameseEdit

Hi! I see you've been adding some Middle Vietnamese entries. I'm not a speaker of Vietnamese, but from all the information I can gather, only the Vietnamese–Portuguese–Latin dictionary, and maybe a few other works were written in the Latin script, while the vast majority of texts were still written with chu nom. Do you think we should keep the Latin script entries as full entries, or only as romanizations of the chu nom entries for Middle Vietnamese? DerekWinters (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@DerekWinters I'm on the fence, leaning towards no. Vietnamese-language writings in the 17th century (which would be considered Middle Vietnamese) were primarily authored by either de Rhodes using his orthography or Girolamo Maiorica using chữ Nôm. (Some Jesuits, including Philipphê Bỉnh, continued to use de Rhodes' orthography into the 19th century with the modern language.) De Rhodes' alphabet was more than a dictionary respelling system, but still a niche alphabet.
I can appreciate that having a second set of lemmas can be a maintenance burden. On the other hand, it's going to be difficult to associate most of the words in de Rhodes' dictionary with Nôm characters. Chữ Nôm was never standardized, so there can be dozens of characters for one alphabetic word. A correspondence between chữ Nôm and de Rhodes' Middle Vietnamese words would be hard to come by. A Nôm–quốc ngữ dictionary bassed on Maiorica's 17th-century works was finally published in 1992, but I don't know if it uses the old orthography. Sometimes we can triangulate. For instance, "bánh" has continued to be "bánh" in modern Vietnamese, and "bánh" is written 餅/𩛄/𤖶 per the Taberd dictionary (late 18th century) or the WinVNKey database (20th century). We can place information about "bánh" in the "Vietnamese" sections of , 𩛄, and 𤖶, but different Nôm phonosemantic characters may have been used in the 17th century, when the phonology was very different.
With the separate lemmas, I'm sidestepping all the guesswork that would be required to call the Latin-script words romanizations of particular chữ Nôm characters. But I don't feel very strongly about it.
 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand. This triangulation is what I had been doing for the few lemmas I did create in Middle Vietnamese. I guess it's easiest (and best) to keep the Latin entries as full entries. Thanks! DerekWinters (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mxn".