From le.tran.trung@cornell.edu Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 19:26:15 -0500 From: TanTrung LeTran ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract: This essay presents the history of the Vietnamese written language in a thump nail format, points out some of the un-Vietnamese elements in the so-called "Quo^'c Ngu+~" ("QN"), and suggests its substitution by some Vietnamese-invented equivalence, or at least a radical systematization of the "QN". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SOME THOUGHTS ON THE TERM "MI~". Recently I had the opportunity to discuss with some acquataince on a mailing list [1] about the subject "my~ or mi~ ?", and I found it was interesting enough to do some extra research to write an essay about. As you may know, the Vietnamese dictionaries printed recently in "Vie^.t Nam" all follow an orthographical rule suggested by the present Vietnamese government [2]: the terms composed of a consonant and {i or y} as vowel should all be written with i. For example: Li' lua^.n, Su+? ki', Hoa ki`, and... Mi~ nha^n [3]. (It's fortunate for some members of the beauty sex who are named Thu'y, since "uy" is considered a diphthong, whence does not have to obey this rule.) The discussion, involving the issues of linguistics, culture, civilization, national pride, and even some politics, flooded the VNDict-L members' mailboxes for a sometimes. In general, Vietnamese orthography is quite complex, considering its young age compared to other alphabetical scripts, and the simplicity of a monosylabic language that it represents: Which of the followings is right: ky` co. or ki` co., du hy' or du hi', nga or ngha, nge ngo'ng or nghe ngho'ng, and... my~ or mi~? WHY should these words be written one way and not the other? How come we write ca, co, cu, but very rarely ka, ko, ku? Why never ce, ci, cy, but ke, ki, ky\? Where did these rules come from? Our ancestors invented an ideogram-based script to represent the Vietnamese spoken language, chu+~ No^m, before the 10th century, and still used it until late in the 19th century; before that they used Ha'n tu+. (Chinese script) exclusively [4:114]. Chu+~ No^m was created based on Ha'n tu+.. Two other countries in the Chinese cultural sphere, Japan and Korea, also invented their own writing system during this time or later (10th and 15th century, resp.). While the early official documents, like the Decree to move the capital to Tha(ng Long (nowadays' Ha` no^.i) of the Ly' dynasty (1010), the first Declaration of Independence of "Vie^.t Nam" (1076), even the first Vietnamese History Book (DDa.i Vie^.t Su+? Ky', 1272) [5] all were still written in Sino-Vietnamese (Ha'n writing, but read with Vietnamese pronounciation), chu+~ No^m has been used somewhere else already. The title of Bo^' Ca'i DDa.i Vu+o+ng (791), the first name of an independent "Vie^.t Nam" (DDa.i Co^` Vie^.t, 939) all made use of No^m [4:22]. One observes some similarity of our use of Chinese with the use of Latin in Europe at roughly the same period. The oldest material written in No^m that survived is a stele at the temple Ba?o A^n, Vi~nh Phu' city, dating 1209 [4:14]. On it are engraved the names of people who helped building the pagoda and other donors. (The older "evidence" of No^m, a bronze bell of the pagoda Va^n Ba?n, in the district DDo^` So+n, that was built during the Ly' dynasty (1010-1225), was inscribed "na(m Bi'nh Thi`n", but no one can be sure whether that was the year 1076 or not [4:12].) In the Tra^`n dynasty (1225-1400), chu+~ No^m has already achieved some stand in literature. Nguye^~n Thuye^n, Nguye^~n Si~ Co^' all wrote poems in No^m [5:Volume IV]; King Tra^`n Nha^n To^ng (1279-1293) wrote some of his royal decrees in No^m [6:23]. In the 19th century, chu+~ No^m reached its zenith with major literatural works like Kim Va^n Kie^`u and Lu.c Va^n Tie^n. The main disadvantage of No^m was that the writer needed to know Ha'n tu+. first, while "you can study Ha'n tu+. all your life and still not know one third of the written words", as Nguye^~n Tru+o+`ng To^. said [7]. He was also the one who pursuaded Emperor Tu+. DDu+'c to standardize a new writing system for Vietnamese, called "Quo^'c A^m Ha'n Tu+." (1867) that, supposedly, was simpler than No^m, but was refused [4:129]. In the last half of the 16th century, many Portuguese merchants maintained trades with "Vie^.t Nam", together with Chinese, Japanese, Malays, and other Westerners. With them were the Jesuit missionaries from various Western countries. To learn the Vietnamese language, they wrote it down phonetically using the Latin alphabet. That was the birth of the modern Vietnamese writing system; only until the 19th century did it get the name chu+~ "Quo^'c Ngu+~" (QN), or "National Language". Its orthographical rules can be explained by the multilingual origins of the Jesuit priests. The orthography for the consonants ng, ngh, g, gh, k, c, when written with the two vowel groups {a,o,u} and {i,e,y} relies on French orthography. Its use of ph instead of f has root in Greek. The pronounciation of the e and e^ is exactly as in Portuguese (the lingua franca among Westerners of the time). The tilder accent ~ follows from Spanish. Chu+~ No^m, and thus, Vietnamese, did not contribute at all to the new script. Hence, one may ask whether "QN" is a misnomer. In the year 1651, the first two works written in "QN" were printed : the "Dictionarium anamiticum-lugitanum et latinum" (Vietnamese-Portuguese-Latin dictionary) and the "Phe'p gia?ng ta'm nga`y cho ke? mua^`n chi.u phe'p ru+'a lo.i, ma bea`o dda.o tha'nh ddu+'c chu'a blo+`i", by Alexandre de Rhodes, an intelligent priest from France [8:82]. Note that the first ever English dictionary "A Table Alphabeticall", rather a "slim vocabulary list", appeared only 47 years earlier [9: x]. One sees, by the title of the second book of de Rhodes, that the "QN" was still far away from its present form. Note that, at the time, Vietnamese still used non-Chinese terms transcribed directly from the Chinese, like ye^n-si~-phi-li'-thua^`n (any guess?... inspiration), Ba'-la^.p-ddo^` (Platon), etc. [10:82]. If you are a Buddhist, surely you still hear the following words nowadays: Nam-mo^ A-di-dda` Pha^.t (Nammu Amitaba, I pray to Amita Buddha), Ba't-nha~ (prajna, wisdom), Nie^'t-ba`n (Nirvana) etc. of which maybe only some percentage of Vietnamese Buddhists really know the meaning. In any case, the writing did not reach a uniform standard until Taberd, a French priest, printed the "Nam Vie^.t Du+o+ng Hie^.p Tu+. Vi." (Vietnamese-Latin Dictionary) in 1838 that the "QN" took on almost its present appearance, except the terms written with i or y, like duie^n (duye^n), mi~ thua^.t, ki` la., ym (im), y?a (i?a) v.v. Only three terms were written as consonant+y: (last name) Ly', hu+o+ng ly', and dda.o ly' [11:20]. Later, by one reason or other, people began to write these terms using i and y asystematically, such that we have the present state of confusion now [12:126]. There is apparently no rule that dictates when to write i or y, simply because the people who write them down do so whatever seems "natural"- in other words, carelessly. At first, one statement seemed plausible:"The Ha'n-Vie^.t words are normally written with y, and the Vietnamese ones normally with i." However, while pure Vietnamese words are indeed rarely written with y ("ky` cu.c", for example), there are a lot of Ha'n-Vie^.t words with i, like vi~ ca^`m, bi ai, du+o+~ng khi', phi co+, etc. [13]. One may also think that "things that are luxurious or big are written with y, while petty, tiny things are with i." [14] This "rule" has also many "exceptions": the terms ly gia'n, ho^` ly, tu+` bi, hu`ng vi~ [13] all don't obey it, if one can stretch their meaning somewhat to fit the big/small scheme. Also, there are many other terms that can not be classified by the same scheme, like ho^`i ky', my~ nha^n, di da^n, co^ng ty, ki' lo^, etc. Then, there are others that can be written with *both* i or y, like quy`/qui` go^'i, ti./ty. na.n, du hy'/hi', etc. ? The reason of this confusion is that the "QN" is still not standardized. Was there ever any Vietnamese leader who officially recognized "QN" as *the* written Vietnamese? Then there is the political aspect of the problem. While a lot of Vietnamese scholars knew to use the "QN" to preserve the cultural heritage handed down to them in No^m and Ha'n, or used it as the teaching language in higher education (just imagine the incredible will and efforts to write QN dictionaries, text books for all levels of education, and translations of classic No^m and Ha'n literature works, while wars were going on, and 90% of the population was still illiterate [11:21]), a few others, especially in the South, even wrote that "(Political) events have not been able to shake our faith in the genius of France", as recent as in 1954, the year of DDie^.n Bie^n Phu? [6:233 ff.] Obviously, the French policy that aimed at brain washing Vietnamese into thinking of their own language, both written and spoken, as inferior to French or Chinese, was indeed fruitful. Until at least in 1968, part of university level education in the South still used French, and then later English, as the teaching language, despite of the protests from some prominent politicians [6:238]. The result of all these social and political factors is that the phonetic Vietnamese writing, chu+~ "QN", is a messy salad, from its birth up to the present. The salad is messy not because of any holy Vietnamese tradition, but because non-Vietnamese made it, and because Vietnamese leaders did not pay enough attention on the written language. As to the matter of national pride, how would we answer our children, when they happen to wonder whether "QN" is of Vietnamese cultural heritage? There were indeed Vietnamese who spoke out the truth: "NO", and did try to create a script more suitable for our monosylabic language, like Lu+u Quang, Vi Huye^`n DDa('c [15], or Nguye^~n Tru+o+`ng To^., and many more. Predictably, they all failed. Even the more modest attempts, cosmetic in nature, like the "i vs y" rule, to bring some order into the "QN" without changing it substantially, did not succeed. The major popular newspapers and magazines in "Vie^.t Nam" still not obey it; only in scientific journals (e.g., the "Kha?o Co^? Ho.c") and some dictionaries [3] currently printed in "Vie^.t Nam"could one find terms like "mi~ thua^.t" or "ki~ nghe^.". Of course, the reform of a writing system is never easy. In spite of their other "successes" in the Cultural Revolution, and a clear need for a phonetic writing system [16], the Chinese just stopped short of getting one. And on the English side, George Bernard Shaw, Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie all did want to improve the English spelling, but without success [17:30]. (Just imagine an America without the annual Spelling Bee contest.) In case of "Vie^.t Nam", why did the reform attempts fail? I think, by far the major reason is the *lack of mutual trust among Vietnamese* in each other's scholar merit across the "17 degree lattitude in the mind", and whence the scarcity of scholastic cooperations. Whatever a Vietnamese did was generally accepted only by half of the Vietnamese population, with reasons based not on scholar merit, but political association. How can a people composed of two incompatible halves advance culturally? Things used not to be so. Cultural unity was there: chu+~ No^m was uniformly widespread in monarchical "Vie^.t Nam", North and South, until the French forced the "QN" on its territory (first time in 1882 in the South.) Reforming spirit was there: North "Vie^.t Nam" did even try to push (with a very good chance of success) a much more radical writing reform during the American war, but was held back by the fear of an enlargement of the North-South cultural division [11:110]. There may have been similar unsuccessful attempts by Southern scholars. The result is that, while other countries, like Korea and Japan, can now be proud of their own scripts, we Vietnamese are still discussing whether writing "mi~" or "my~" is "right", or, ironically, "more traditional", and will invariably hand it down to our children as a "Vietnamese cultural heritage". Many of us tend to forget that the present "QN" was NOT the work of the Vietnamese people, but an eventual reformed version or standardization of it by Vietnamese would be. What can be done by us, the Vietnamese oversea college students? If one day "Vie^.t Nam" is able to get its well deserved Vietnamese "National Script", or at least a standardized "QN", we oversea Vietnamese should carry the major share of effort and responsibility. We are the ones who have broader political views (which may not be too obvious, perhaps due to our Vietnamese-typical "modesty"), who all know at least another way of expressing written ideas other than the "QN" (English, French, etc.), who have better communication media (scientific journals, internet, etc.) and financial bases. Most importantly, in the near future, when "Vie^.t Nam" opens her mind to the flow of knowledge from the outside, the Vietnamese vocabulary will undoubtedly increase, and, as the most probable messengers of this knowledge, we do play a very influential role to help determine the "right" written Vietnamese. Only if the most important element of the Vietnamese culture beside its language, its script, becomes Vietnamese, and not just some imported mismatched salad, our children will read the 4000 years old Vietnamese history aloud without shame. Then the name "Vie^.t Nam" [18] should find its way to the trash can, too, to be replaced by "DDa.i Vie^.t", or "DDa^'t Vie^.t", "Nu+o+'c Vie^.t", etc. on international atlases. The name "Nam Ha?i" (South China Sea) should be replaced with "Bie^?n DDo^ng Nam A'" (South East Asia Sea) as well; all ASEAN countries would surely applaud the idea. Or... am I losing the bet on the pride and reason of Vietnamese? No^.i mo^.t chu+~ "my~" ddo^?i tha`nh "mi~" ma` co`n kho^ng xong, no'i chi dde^'n chuye^.n ddo^?i te^n ddi.a ddo^` the^' gio+'i !!! Special thanks to all contributors in VNDict-L, Le^Tra^`n Ta^'nTrung. Ithaca, NY, 4/94, rev. 7/94. ------------------- Appendix: List of "i vs y" terms, according to the Vie^.t Nam Tu+. DDie^?n. Terms that can be written with both i and y are written with i. B, C, CH, D, DD, G, GH, GI, H, KH, N, P, PH, QU, R, S, TH, TR, V, X: all are written with i . K: mostly with Y, except: all Ki; Ki` (la`m cho ki` ddu+o+.c); Ki` (to rub, Ki` co.); Ki` ca.ch (determined, ca(.m cuo^.i); Ki` cu`ng (to the end, dde^'n cu`ng); Ki` ke`o (to complain); Ki' ca'ch (sound of two hard objects clashing). L: mostly with Y, except: Li (the glass); Li (a measurement unit); Li bi` (nha^.u li bi`); Li ki ma (a plant, lukuma); Li lo^ (li'u lo); Li ti (tiny); Li to^ (lithography); Li`; Li' la'u, Li' la('c; Li' nhi'; Li' ti'; Li~ di~. M: all written with i, except all My~. T: all written with i, except Ty (ONLY in the sense of an administrative organ). Y and i: the only words that begin with i are: i to+` (alphabet); i i? (dampness); all i`; i' [as in "i' chu choa o+i", but y' (idea, opinion), Y' DDa.i Lo+.i (Italy), etc.]; i' a.; i' e.; i' che^'t; i' hi.; i.; i?a; i'ch; im; i'm; in; i`n i.t; i.n; inh o?i; i`nh; i?nh; i~nh; i'nh; i.nh; i't; i.t i.t; iu i?u; i?u . [Source: VNTD, 1970, Le^ Va(n DDu+'c, Nha` Sa'ch Khai Tri', Sa`i go`n.] ------------------- Refs: [1] VNDict-L@cornell.edu. It is opened to everyone who is interested in helping building a VN-Vietnamese dictionary (in "Quo^'c ngu+~".) No political discussion there. To join, please write this message to Listserv@cornell.edu: sub VNDict-L {your first name} {last name} [2] "Ca'c Quy ddi.nh ve^` chi'nh ta? tie^'ng Vie^.t va` ve^` thua^.t ngu+~ tie^'ng Vie^.t", Quye^'t ddi.nh so^' 240/QD, Vie^.t Nam, 5-March-1985. Reference from Bi`nh AnSon, VNDict-L discussion. [3] "Tu+` DDie^?n Tie^'ng Vie^.t", Va(n Ta^n chu? bie^n, 1991, Nha` Xua^'t Ba?n Khoa Ho.c Xa~ Ho^.i, Ha` No^.i; "Tu+` DDie^?n Tie^'ng Vie^.t", Hoa`ng Phe^ chu? bie^n, 1992, Trung Ta^m Tu+` DDie^?n Ngo^n Ngu+~, Ha` No^.i . [4] "Chu+~ No^m, nguo^`n go^'c, ca^'u ta.o, die^~n bie^'n", DDa`o Duy Anh, 1973, Nha` Xua^'t Ba?n Khoa Ho.c Xa~ Ho^.i, Ha` No^.i . [5] "DDa.i Vie^.t Su+? Ky' Toa`n Thu+"; core "DDa.i Vie^.t Su+? Ky'" written by the Tra^`n dynasty, 1272; updated later by Ngo^ Si~ Lie^n; translated by Ma.c Ba?o Tha^n, printed 1945, by Ta^n Vie^.t, Ha` No^.i. [6] "Colonialism and Language policy in Vietnam", John DeFrancis, 1977, Mouton Publ., The Hague, Netherlands. [7] "Va(n Ho.c Vie^.t Nam Su+? Ye^'u", Du+o+ng Quang Ha`m, 1960, Sa`i Go`n. [8] "Li.ch Su+~ chu+~ Quo^'c Ngu+~", DDo^~ Quang Chi'nh, 1972, Tu? Sa'ch Ra Kho+i, Sa`i Go`n. [9] Webster's New World dictionary, 3rd College Edition, Ed. Victoria Neufeldt, 1991, Simon & Schuster Inc., NY, USA. [10] "Tie^'ng Vie^.t tre^n dda` pha't trie^?n", 1982, Nguye^~n Kim Tha^n et.al, Nha` Xua^'t Ba?n Khoa Ho.c Xa~ Ho^.i, Ha` No^.i . [11] "Va^'n DDe^` Ca?i Tie^'n Chu+~ Quo^'c Ngu+~", 1961, Vie^.n Va(n Ho.c, Ha` No^.i . [12] "Premier congre`s international des e'tudes d'Extre^me-Orient", Compte rendu analytique des se'ances, 1903, Ha` No^.i. [13] "Vie^.t Nam Tu+. DDie^?n", Le^ Va(n DDu+'c chu? bie^n, 1970, Nha` Sa'ch Khai Tri', Sa`i Go`n. [14] Tra^`n Tha.nh, VNDict-L discussion, 1994. [15] "Tie^'ng Vie^.t va` Chu+~ Vie^.t", Lu+u Quang, 1967, So^ng Vi., Sa`i Go`n; "Vie^.t Tu+.", Vi Huye^`n DDa('c, 1929, Ha?i Pho`ng. [16] (in Chinese) "The Vietnamese experience in adopting phonetic writing", Huang Dian-Cheng, Zhongguo Yuwen, 16, 17-22 (1953.) "The necessity and possiblity of writing reform in our country, viewed in the light of the anti-illiteracy and publishing activity in Viet Nam", Chen Yue, Zhongguo Yuwen, 25, 15-18 (1954.) These are cited in [6] [17] "Struggling to put the 'Ortho' back in Orthography", Joseph Berger, The New York Times (4/23/94.), New York, USA. [18] Essay of Nguye^~n Quo^'c Vinh (from Harvard University) at the "Annual Conference on Vietnamese Culture", 1993, Cornell University, USA.