Chu Nom Revival [Vietnamese]

User avatar
Imbecilica
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-03-13, 13:48
Real Name: Mr. Dao
Gender: male
Location: Perth
Country: AU Australia (Australia)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Imbecilica » 2009-11-03, 4:25

It all comes down to what purpose Chu Nom would serve? For me, reviving it to become the national script and replacing Quoc Ngu is a waste of time, money and would cause a heap of backlash. However, reviving Chu Nom as a source for future linguistic endeavours (such as learning more about the evolution of the Vietnamese language), artistic purposes and cultural awareness - then yes I think it is somewhat of a good idea. Now, I don't live in VN so I don't know about how much they are taught about history and culture but I do know that as a Vietnamese, appreciating and understanding your heritage is of as much importance as finishing a bowl of rice. How would a revival of Chu Nom help bring about cultural awareness? If it were introduced into the curriculum as an optional course, it might draw people into learning more about their history, culture and language. Though Chu Nom and Quoc Ngu were never truly Vietnamese creations, Quoc Ngu was chosen for its efficacy and there is no doubt it lifted the literacy rate beyond that of any other developing nation of those times. Quoc Ngu is easy to learn, read, write and type. A complete Chu Nom revival would cost billions of dollars (simply something VN does not have lying around in its coffers at this moment in time).

In conclusion, is a Chu Nom revival likely in the near future? Definitely, but not to surplant Quoc Ngu - merely as a source for linguists to learn more about the evolution of the Vietnamese language, artistic purposes and even as a means to encourage people to delve deeper into Vietnamese historical, cultural or linguistical studies. How would this "revival" take place?
1. Standardise Chu Nom and create viable learning resources for it.
2. Introduce it into the curriculum both inside and outside of VN as an option (it shouldn't be forced).

Personally I don't think we should take 700 years of history lightly. Chu Nom may not be 100% Vietnamese but at least it was created by those Vietnamese (be it elites) who merely wanted to express themselves in the mother language. Think about it, they were educated in Classical Chinese yet they chose to express themselves in their own language albeit with a script derived from Chinese. Chinese characters were all they knew at the time, they knew nothing about alphabets and whatnot. So can you really blame them for wanting to express themselves in Vietnamese? Keep that in mind.
~ Talib, mày là cái thằng khốn nạn! Đồ đề tiện! ~

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Tenebrarum » 2009-11-03, 10:29

lichtrausch wrote:So being consequent, do you think that the revival of Hebrew as an everyday language was a waste of resources?

Are you equating the loss of a language to a change in the way a language is written?

lichtrausch wrote:what do you suppose that country down at the bottom of the East Asian Cultural Sphere is then?

And who gets to decide the extent of that sphere? At least Pepper's making an effort to acknowledge the blurry line between East and Southeast Asia. Vietnam has always been a gateway between the two realms, and it doesn't have to categorize itself on any account. Isn't it arrogant for a single individual to decide which cultural sphere a whole culture should belong to?

And for the argument that the current alphabet is not suited to the language - I must ask, how? If you're going back to that complaint about diacritics once again, then I'd suggest, perhaps, a change of perspective? Those diacritics are an integral part of the alphabet, just like what those made-up characters are to Chữ Nôm. If you dismiss the ingenuity of one, you dismiss that of the other.

lichtrausch wrote:I think Taipei 101 looks fantastic.

And I think the use of diacritics makes Vietnamese look edgy. Guess we're equal.
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
Kasuya
Posts: 1008
Joined: 2008-11-14, 7:31
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Kasuya » 2009-11-03, 20:45

Draven wrote:Are you equating the loss of a language to a change in the way a language is written?

Nope, just comparing them. So what's your answer?

Vietnam has always been a gateway between the two realms, and it doesn't have to categorize itself on any account. Isn't it arrogant for a single individual to decide which cultural sphere a whole culture should belong to?

That single individual is you mate. :lol: The rest of the world seems to be in agreement that Vietnam is part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. You're right of course about it being a gateway though.

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Tenebrarum » 2009-11-04, 5:50

lichtrausch wrote:Nope, just comparing them. So what's your answer?

Answer to what? A logically unfounded question? Hah right, I might as well criticize Family Guy.

lichtrausch wrote:That single individual is you mate. :lol:

Subtlety doesn't seem to work for you. You seriously need me to name that individual?

lichtrausch wrote:The rest of the world seems to be in agreement that Vietnam is part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere.

I don't know what you mean by "the rest of the world", but most Chinese, Japanese and Koreans certainly don't see Vietnam as a part of now-glittering East Asia. To them it's simply a hot and impoverished country far far away. A Korean lady where I'm working was almost nonplussed to find out my nationality, because she thought Vietnamese ought to look and sound "more Southeast Asian". Meanwhile there are plenty of ordinary as well as academic people in the West who group Vietnam instead with Thailand and the Philippines, so your perspective, it seems, is not at all balanced (which, given your affinity to the Chinese civilization, fails to surprise me).
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
Kasuya
Posts: 1008
Joined: 2008-11-14, 7:31
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Kasuya » 2009-11-06, 5:06

Draven wrote:Answer to what? A logically unfounded question? Hah right, I might as well criticize Family Guy.

Let me make the question kosher for you: Do you think that the revival of Hebrew was a waste of resources?

I don't know what you mean by "the rest of the world", but most Chinese, Japanese and Koreans certainly don't see Vietnam as a part of now-glittering East Asia. To them it's simply a hot and impoverished country far far away. A Korean lady where I'm working was almost nonplussed to find out my nationality, because she thought Vietnamese ought to look and sound "more Southeast Asian". Meanwhile there are plenty of ordinary as well as academic people in the West who group Vietnam instead with Thailand and the Philippines, so your perspective, it seems, is not at all balanced (which, given your affinity to the Chinese civilization, fails to surprise me).

I'm not arguing that Vietnam isn't in many ways a part of SEA, but I've never heard any authority not include Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere. Perhaps you'd like to show evidence of even one authority on the subject claiming Vietnam is not a part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. You're the individual making the bold claim, not me.

The well-researched Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject firmly puts Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere. I'll highlight your country's name in the definition for you.

現在の地域区分で言うと「東アジア」と重なる部分が大きく、現存国家の中では、中国両岸、ベトナム、南北朝鮮、日本などがここに含まれる。

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E5%9C%8F

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Tenebrarum » 2009-11-06, 8:51

lichtrausch wrote:Do you think that the revival of Hebrew was a waste of resources?

Let me break it down for you:
- Is reviving the indigenous language of a diasporic people with the intention to reunify that people a waste of resources? Maybe not.
- Is reviving one non-indigenous, derivative method of writing a living language to replace another non-indigenous, derivative method of writing that same language, just because you feel like doing it, a waste of resources? Well, what do you you think?

In case you don't get sarcasm, here's the message behind it: I don't care about what you think. The answer is obvious enough. Don't even try pulling off an erroneous comparison on me.

lichtrausch wrote:I've never heard any authority not include Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere [...] Perhaps you'd like to show evidence of even one authority on the subject claiming Vietnam is not a part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere.

I haven't seen any source claiming the culture of Vietnam is not a part of the larger SE Asian culture either. Perhaps you would like to prove that "East Asian" and "Southeast Asian" negate each other. Specifically, prove that to the Singaporeans.

lichtrausch wrote:You're the individual making the bold claim, not me.

"Bold" statement? I'm merely saying that Vietnam can't fall conveniently in either spheres because there are conflicting viewpoints concerning its nature. Acknowledging multiple perspectives is a bold action to you? But hey, I shouldn't be surprised.

Your bold claim is to say that "East Asian" is the only valid category for the Vietnamese culture, upon hearing which anyone with greater tolerance for ambiguities would disregard you as an absolutist fool.

lichtrausch wrote:The well-researched Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject firmly puts Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere.

Social and cultural analyses reflect the views of authors. If someone cares enough to write a "well-researched" paper (whatever your standards are) arguing that the Vietnamese culture have typical traits of both EA and SEA, I guess such a paper wouldn't make that Vietnam-firmly-belongs-to-East-Asia-because-that's-the-way-I-like-it theme of yours look good. And the note on Vietnam in that very article you cite happens to be "What's so Chinese about Vietnamese", which admits the native SE Asian core of the Vietnamese language is still largely intact.

Citing a Wikipedia article to support one's stance is ridiculous by itself, but I'll go with your flow, so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Vietnam wrote:Long periods of domination and interaction with its northern neighbor, China, has resulted in Vietnam's historic inclusion as part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere, [...] However, the major stimulation of Vietnamese culture's development comes from indigenous factors.

That, combined with Vietnam's geographic position, is a breeding ground for counter-arguments.

Not everyone agrees with you on this matter. And culture, not being rocket science, is defined by the opinions of all of those living it and perceiving it or, in other words, undefinable and allows an enormous extent of ambiguity. The culture of Vietnam doesn't have to be absolutely East Asian or Southeast Asian. How do you know it's not a mix of both? Unlike Japan or Korea, whose East Asian status is not challenged, Vietnam is not a simple case - especially in our time when Vietnam has started to drift away from EA in terms of economy, politics and self-image. The agenda of the invented script i.e. cementing Vietnam into EA is therefore faulty at best. The author doesn't seem to understand that a culture can be whatever it wants to be, and it doesn't have to conform to his personal opinion.

The debate has been splendidly entertaining, but I'd like to end my participation here and let you proclaim victory. I see little benefit in arguing with someone who goes by the premises of "research" and "authority" to decide what a culture alien to them should be, where it should belong to and whatnot. That's arrogance and stupidity, not wisdom.
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
Kasuya
Posts: 1008
Joined: 2008-11-14, 7:31
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Kasuya » 2009-11-06, 18:13

Draven wrote:- Is reviving the indigenous language of a diasporic people with the intention to reunify that people a waste of resources? Maybe not.

I'm glad I finally got an answer out of you.

- Is reviving one non-indigenous, derivative method of writing a living language to replace another non-indigenous, derivative method of writing that same language, just because you feel like doing it, a waste of resources? Well, what do you you think?

Hundreds of Chu Nom characters are indigenous creations. How many of the Quoc Ngu characters are indigenous creations? That should make clear to you how ridiculously your question is framed.

lichtrausch wrote:I've never heard any authority not include Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere [...] Perhaps you'd like to show evidence of even one authority on the subject claiming Vietnam is not a part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere.

I haven't seen any source claiming the culture of Vietnam is not a part of the larger SE Asian culture either. Perhaps you would like to prove that "East Asian" and "Southeast Asian" negate each other. Specifically, prove that to the Singaporeans.

lichtrausch wrote:You're the individual making the bold claim, not me.

"Bold" statement? I'm merely saying that Vietnam can't fall conveniently in either spheres because there are conflicting viewpoints concerning its nature. Acknowledging multiple perspectives is a bold action to you? But hey, I shouldn't be surprised.

Your bold claim is to say that "East Asian" is the only valid category for the Vietnamese culture, upon hearing which anyone with greater tolerance for ambiguities would disregard you as an absolutist fool.

lichtrausch wrote:The well-researched Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject firmly puts Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere.

Social and cultural analyses reflect the views of authors. If someone cares enough to write a "well-researched" paper (whatever your standards are) arguing that the Vietnamese culture have typical traits of both EA and SEA, I guess such a paper wouldn't make that Vietnam-firmly-belongs-to-East-Asia-because-that's-the-way-I-like-it theme of yours look good. And the note on Vietnam in that very article you cite happens to be "What's so Chinese about Vietnamese", which admits the native SE Asian core of the Vietnamese language is still largely intact.

Citing a Wikipedia article to support one's stance is ridiculous by itself, but I'll go with your flow, so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Vietnam wrote:Long periods of domination and interaction with its northern neighbor, China, has resulted in Vietnam's historic inclusion as part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere, [...] However, the major stimulation of Vietnamese culture's development comes from indigenous factors.

That, combined with Vietnam's geographic position, is a breeding ground for counter-arguments.

Not everyone agrees with you on this matter. And culture, not being rocket science, is defined by the opinions of all of those living it and perceiving it or, in other words, undefinable and allows an enormous extent of ambiguity. The culture of Vietnam doesn't have to be absolutely East Asian or Southeast Asian. How do you know it's not a mix of both? Unlike Japan or Korea, whose East Asian status is not challenged, Vietnam is not a simple case - especially in our time when Vietnam has started to drift away from EA in terms of economy, politics and self-image. The agenda of the invented script i.e. cementing Vietnam into EA is therefore faulty at best. The author doesn't seem to understand that a culture can be whatever it wants to be, and it doesn't have to conform to his personal opinion.

Do you even read what I write or do you have a lichtrausch generator in your head producing sound bytes of what you expect me to say? No where have I denied that Vietnam and its culture are in many ways Southeast Asian. I merely point out that there's practically no ground to not include Vietnam in the East Asian Cultural Sphere AS WELL. The hallmarks of East Asian Culture: history of using Chinese characters, a culture stemming from Classical Chinese and Confucianism; Vietnam has them ALL. A bunch of plebs on a message board called "Asia finest" can't rewrite that history. You remind me of some Japanese nationalists of the past who used to contend that Japan wasn't part of Asia. Needless to say, their arguments long ago gasped their last breath.

The debate has been splendidly entertaining, but I'd like to end my participation here and let you proclaim victory. I see little benefit in arguing with someone who goes by the premises of "research" and "authority" to decide what a culture alien to them should be, where it should belong to and whatnot. That's arrogance and stupidity, not wisdom.

You're wise to bow out here and cut your losses seeing as how your argument is borderline worthless and seems to revolve almost entirely around a straw man.

User avatar
Pangu
Posts: 429
Joined: 2010-05-05, 11:23
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Pangu » 2010-05-05, 11:40

Until Vietnam is developed to the level similar to say, Taiwan, it is unlikely Chu Nom will receive any significant revival.

With that said, there are definitely organizations and individuals who are trying to preserve and/or promote Chu Nom today and most of them appear in recent decades after the economical situation has improved in Vietnam. This reflects what Kasuya said in the first post but as someone else has also mentioned, it would be long before Vietnam is developed enough for a significant portion of the population to care about Chu Nom instead of making money just to have food to eat.

User avatar
mafke
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-02-24, 22:17
Real Name: mafka etiska
Location: PL
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby mafke » 2010-07-26, 20:48

I'm coming here late but I can think of a number of reasons that Chu Nom will not supplant Quoc Ngu (or play anything more than a very, very, very secondary role).

1. Vietnamese people are happy with Quoc Ngu - I've asked a few (very literate) Vietnamese people, some who even know some Chinese, if they think Chu Nom could or should be revived. The universal answer is "Are you _CRAZY_?!???" (they're a lot more diplomatic, but that's the drift). They're in favor of people (that is, other people) maintaining it as a museum piece and studying it on general principles (the same way English speakers might want philologists to study Beowulf) but they're clear that they don't want to use it themselves.

2. Quoc Ngu is every bit as native as Nom. Yeah, it was first invented by outsiders but AFAICT Vietnamese speakers took it over and began modifying it to their ends pretty early on. The switch to Quoc Ngu might have been helped some by French colonial authorities but Vietnamese people had been spontaneously chosing it over Nom for some time.

3. Quoc Ngu is not a 'transcription' of a particular dialect (like Pinyin) but an orthography comparable to those of German or Russian, that is it's independent of any particular spoken standard. While any literate Vietnamese can decode it (in several different dialects) it has to be learned the same way that written English has to be learned (which means that those that have learned it have a vested interest in its maintenance).

3. Vietnamese are far less positive about Chinese culture (vis a vis Vietnamese culture) than Koreans or Japanese. They know there's a lot of Chinese influence on their culture but they seem in favor of keeping some boundaries in good shape.

4. There's no case on record (AFAIK) of people going from a much more efficient to a much less efficient orthography. People who wanted to revive the old Mongolian alphabet in Mongolia couldn't overcome the fact that the current Cyrillic orthography (for all its faults) is much better suited to Mongolian as spoken in Mongolia. This is not meant as a comment on the efficiency of Chinese characters per se, but Nom was a really awkward and unnecessarily difficult way of writing Vietnamese. (similarly the Mongolian alphabet works for those with no access to anything better, but Mongolians with access to a better alphabet rejected it).

Quoc Ngu isn't perfect and there are some costs in using it over characters, but overall the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10669
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: North vs South: language and culture

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-08-06, 22:11

How common is the use of Chữ Nôm in the Vietnamese diaspora? In Toronto there are almost as many phở places as Chinese restaurants, it seems, and most have signs in it. Is this for the benefit of the Chinese population, mere decoration or can some Vietnamese actually read it?

User avatar
JackFrost
Forum Administrator
Posts: 16240
Joined: 2004-11-08, 21:00
Real Name: Jack Frost
Gender: male
Location: Montréal, Québec
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: North vs South: language and culture

Postby JackFrost » 2010-08-06, 23:33

Talib wrote:How common is the use of Chữ Nôm in the Vietnamese diaspora? In Toronto there are almost as many phở places as Chinese restaurants, it seems, and most have signs in it. Is this for the benefit of the Chinese population, mere decoration or can some Vietnamese actually read it?

Chu Nom is an extinct script and only some scholars have a full knowledge of it. The today Vietnamese cannot really read Chinese characters or even Chu Nom. Those signs most likely have a spiritual value and remember, they're Buddhists and got that religion from the Chinese. They might know some characters connected to that religion, but this is just a pure guess. Maybe the students have to learn a handful of Chu Nom during Vietnamese literature courses, but don't rely on me for this info.

If you mean menu signs, yes, they're for the Chinese. In Montreal, the pho and Chinese restos use French, English, Cantonese, and Vietnamese in the menus and on the signs.

I am only speaking from personal and family experience and observation. Of everyone in my ex-in-laws, only the father and his siblings know some Cantonese and could read a handful of characters because they came from Saigon's Cholon district. They're ethnic Vietnamese though...
Neferuj paħujkij!

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: North vs South: language and culture

Postby Tenebrarum » 2010-08-07, 2:04

Talib wrote:How common is the use of Chữ Nôm in the Vietnamese diaspora?

In Vietnam it's for uber-nerds only, and decorative purposes when the grandparents (those born in the '20s) want a traditional touch for the house. If you think Hán-Nôm has a wider audience than that, you're delusional. After all the script has been extinct for a century. For the diaspora it's basically the same story but with even more twists: you have Nôm nerds in the assimilated generation (the Imbecilica above for example) but you've also got people who disparage the Sinic script as a tribute to commie China.

Talib wrote:In Toronto there are almost as many phở places as Chinese restaurants, it seems, and most have signs in it. Is this for the benefit of the Chinese population, mere decoration or can some Vietnamese actually read it?

Vietnamese restos in Anglo countries might not be owned by Kinhs at all, but by Hoa people (Chinese Vietnamese a.k.a "Tàu Chơ Lớn"). They are the one who know how to read Chinese writing. Kinh Vietnamese don't know shit about those wriggly things, if they know "one, two, three, ten, mountain, people, mouth, field" it's probably because of Tây Du Ký.
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
abcdefg
Posts: 461
Joined: 2008-07-26, 4:44
Real Name: Linh
Gender: female
Location: Dublin
Country: IE Ireland (Éire / Ireland)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby abcdefg » 2010-11-18, 7:17

Hey Draven, I have a question, not much relating to the topic though.

In late 19th & early 20th century, when Vietnamese patriots met with Chinese scholars, they had to use written method of communication. Like Phan Bội Châu and Lương Khải Siêu bút đàm when they met in China. So is it true that at that time we they didn't learn their native pronunciation, but only the characters?

And why?

I was asked this question yesterday and I was pretty stuck. All what I could come up was that because of their situation limited them from proper exposure of the language.. Of course that was something I made up and neither do I believe in that reason.

Any idea?
Tôi kể người nghe chuyện Phố-trong-sông,
chuyện những mùa Đông đi qua thời con gái.
Bóng đổ dài, bước chân người mê mải
Gió chở mùa về,
hoang hoải cả giấc mơ..

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Tenebrarum » 2010-11-19, 21:02

Wot.

Idk squad, but my guess is they should know Mandarin enough to at least talk face-to-face with their Chinese counterparts. By that time in China, written (classical) Chinese was well restricted to official documentation and poetry, so it would be a stretch to believe they "bút đàm" in classical Chinese.

In Vietnam literary Chinese remained in use for longer because Vietnamese reading of characters was much more conservative. Vietnamese has a richer phoneme inventory (most importantly, more tones), more elaborated syllable structure and so the homophony problem wasn't as dire as in Mandarin. Have you ever seen reconstructed Middle Chinese? When you see its characters written down in IPA, you'll think you're reading modern written Vietnamese. But even then, the writings between Vietnamese scholars in late 19th century were already very close to our modern speech - comparatively of course.
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
abcdefg
Posts: 461
Joined: 2008-07-26, 4:44
Real Name: Linh
Gender: female
Location: Dublin
Country: IE Ireland (Éire / Ireland)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby abcdefg » 2010-11-20, 12:18

In Vietnam literary Chinese remained in use for longer because Vietnamese reading of characters was much more conservative. Vietnamese has a richer phoneme inventory (most importantly, more tones), more elaborated syllable structure and so the homophony problem wasn't as dire as in Mandarin. Have you ever seen reconstructed Middle Chinese? When you see its characters written down in IPA, you'll think you're reading modern written Vietnamese. But even then, the writings between Vietnamese scholars in late 19th century were already very close to our modern speech - comparatively of course.


So you mean Vietnamese scholars at that time has the old, classic pronunciation of Chinese characters?

N what writings between VNmese scholars in the late 19th century? You mean between each other or to their Chinese counterparts? So these writings are close to reconstructed Middle Chinese?

Just because I don't think I get it though.
Tôi kể người nghe chuyện Phố-trong-sông,
chuyện những mùa Đông đi qua thời con gái.
Bóng đổ dài, bước chân người mê mải
Gió chở mùa về,
hoang hoải cả giấc mơ..

User avatar
Kelgnaik
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-11-25, 3:27
Real Name: Kianglek Tan
Gender: male
Location: Saint Petersburg
Country: RU Russia (Российская Федерация)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Kelgnaik » 2010-11-25, 6:21

Chu Nom should definitely be re-introduced into Vietnamese society in a gradual process. It is a Vietnamese invention, devised to express the Vietnamese people. Close proximity to China and military ambitions and strife have led to numerous Chinese characters introduced into Vietnamese vocabulary. Of course, academic interactions and trade have helped transferred these. Over the centuries, these have become Vietnamese. The Vietnamese language, which is overwhelmingly monosyllabic, would have fitted perfectly into Chu Nom writing conventions.

Quoc Ngu, was only introduced by Jesuits to facilitate their communication with the Vietnamese. The French went as far as to abolish Chu Nom, for the sake of undermining nationalism, and demonstrating superior European intellect in taming the wild East (success in Vietnam would have justified 18th century mocking of Chinese & Korean backwardness by Europeans).

To begin with, Quoc Ngu has been developed by Jesuit linguists, who sought to string Vietnamese into a Romanised diarrhoea string of diacritics, could serve no aesthetic purpose than to fill library goers and Orientalists in Europe and N.America with oohs and ahhs of the mysterious East. Similar Romanisations have occured amongst Chinese dialects, Korean, Mongolian, and Japanese.

Over the years, the Vietnamese, poisoned and pariahed by the French colonialist, have begun to fantasize about how different and alien the Chinese characters have been. Quoc Ngu eventually became everyday life, and all hopes would be dashed when the Communist ran Vietnam with radical measures. The Latin alphabet, justified as being the miracle remedy to uplift illiteracy, was only forcibly screwed deeper into the Vietnamese psyche using fear and terror as an instrument, with frequent use of Positivist propagandas on the uglies of Chu Nom features.

Fanatics would go to argue that Chu Nom is a caste script, reserved for the elite, are only reading the tip of the iceberg. Illiteracy was a major problem in every feudal societies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. How is this only a Vietnamese ill? I'm afraid the blame lies in inadequate reforms in education and social policies, rather than script. For a while, Communist Mainland China sought to alphabetise Chinese characters (much to the fashion of Chu Nom, in Hanyu Pinyin), but was met with immense resistance.

Most educated Arabs are well versed in the Arabic abjad, English and French, just as how most Indians are fluent in Indic scripts and English. Widespread adoption of Chu Nom (with low levels of academic pride amongst the Vietnamese), have resulted in Quoc Ngu looking no different than a regressed form of Asiatic creole. What a shame! Vietnam, with it's millenia long history, should not have allowed political strifes to stifle its progress in literary achievements. If so, China, Russia, France, Germany, and England, with all their early political turmoils, would have become countries of cattle and flocks. Georgians and Armenians, despite turmoils, have sought to resist Cyrillic, which would like them to the rich, vast knowledge of the Russians. They didn't, and are now doing fine. There is this blind cling to a Quoc Ngu fantasy, so much so that it hinders serious study of Chu Nom, along with immersions in French and English. If Chu Nom is such a potent symbol of Chinese meddling in Vietnamese lives, then we should all that English, French and Spanish all looked similar, but are not.

Chu Nom should have been re-introduced in careful stages, with proper reforms and modernisation. Quoc Ngu would then be a transliteration tool to reach out to beginners and non-Viets. Ancient Vietnam does not need a mere 200-year-old set of alphabets to progress to the 21st century. To think otherwise is just plain folly.

:)))

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Tenebrarum » 2010-11-25, 12:07

Are you even Vietnamese, Kelgnaik?
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
mafke
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-02-24, 22:17
Real Name: mafka etiska
Location: PL
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby mafke » 2010-11-25, 18:27

Are you sure he's serious? About half-way through I was assuming that he was making joke arguments, parodies of the kinds of things that proponents of chu num (with minimal to no contact with the country) make.

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6631
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Tenebrarum » 2010-11-26, 1:17

Hmm that makes sense. I must have missed the smiley at the bottom.
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
Kelgnaik
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-11-25, 3:27
Real Name: Kianglek Tan
Gender: male
Location: Saint Petersburg
Country: RU Russia (Российская Федерация)

Re: Chu Nom Revival

Postby Kelgnaik » 2010-11-26, 4:23

Half way through I made some typing mistakes... Should have noticed... Yet the context remains easily comprehensible...

:)))


Return to “South East Asian Languages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest