Talk:Chữ Nôm/Archive 1

Permission to copy
I received permission from John Balaban, author of the text on which this entry is based. Please see the following e-mail:


 * Yes, you can use just the definition of Chu Nom from our website, but only that, nothing else, especially our Look-Up Tool which I don't imagine interests you anyway, but which is of great importance to us as we change it and upgrade its functions.
 * Could you send back to me just the passage that you want to quote? And, yes, please give a link to our website.
 * John Balaban, President
 * Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation


 * - Original Message -
 * From: User:Ryanaxp
 * To: info@nomfoundation.org
 * Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:44 PM
 * Subject: Copyright permission for text on nomfoundation.org


 * Dear Nom Preservation Foundation:
 * I would like to request permission to copy the text explanation of Chu Nom from the nomfoundation.org website to create an entry in wikipedia.org. As you may be aware, Wikipedia is a non-commercial, free online encyclopedia which is compiled from thousands of entries submitted by internet users. Text that is published on Wikipedia must be submitted under the Gnu Public Documentation License, which allows copying, editing and redistribution in an open-source philosophy.
 * When I read the introduction to Nom on your webpage (http://www.nomfoundation.org/about/whatisnom.html), I felt it would be a very good entry for the heading "Chu Nom" on Wikipedia. Please let me know if it is acceptable for me to submit that text for an entry.  If not, I will honor your request and attempt to find another source.


 * Thanks in advance,
 * Ryan

-- Ryanaxp 23:20, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your submission, Ryanaxp! – Minh Nguy&#x1ec5;n 00:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the entry ch&#7919; nho is redirected to this article. I've always thought (and this article seems to confirm that) that these or not the same. 21:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, they are not the same. I think the redirect is there because this article at least has a tiny bit of info, rather than nothing at all. Perhaps an informative stub pointing to this article would be more helpful. &mdash; Hippietrail 01:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've created a stub ch&#7919; nho and also one hán t&#432;, which also seemed to redirect here. Now I only hope that someone will complete them. David [[image:Da Vit in Chu Nôm.jpg|23px|Da Vit]] 09:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requested move (May 17, 2005)
Chu nôm &rarr; Chu nom – This article was originally named "Chu nom" and was then moved to "Chu nôm" leaving the old article as a redirect. Chu nôm it is neither English nor Vietnamese. In Vietnamese it is Ch&#7919; Nôm, in English it is usually refered to as Chu Nom without any diacritics. I hereby request the move of the current content to Chu nom and the removal of this page. -- RetVal 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: It's indeed the only logical choise: all diacritics or none at all. David [[image:Da Vit in Chu Nôm.jpg|23px|Da Vit]] 15:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Then we should do the same with other Vietnamese words and names, such as T&#7871;t. – Minh Nguy&#7877;n (talk, contribs, blog) 15:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should be moved to Chữ nôm, being the most precise spelling. --LakeHMM 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support and since there was noboy against the move for such a long time I moved the page. --Junyi 論 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Variant characters
Unicode does have characters for "ch&#7919;" in its "&#23425;+&#23383; and "&#23383;+&#23383;" variants. I cannot find the "&#23383;+&#23425;" variant mentioned here.

&#23425;+&#23383;

 * Codepoint: U+21A38
 * Your browser: &#55366;&#56888;
 * Image URL: http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/refglyph?24-21A38
 * Full Unicode.org page: http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=21A38

&#23383;+&#23383;

 * Codepoint: U+21982
 * Your browser: &#55366;&#56706;
 * Image URL: http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/refglyph?24-21982
 * Full Unicode.org page: http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=21982

It looks like these codepoints are too new or exotic to have much support so far. &mdash; Hippietrail 02:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That character is indeed not yet part of Unicode. You can only find it in dictionaries. It can also be also found here: http://www.nomfoundation.org/nomdb/nom_details.php?codepoint=6360a&img=1 Retval 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vernacular?
Should this page really refer to Chu Nom as a "vernacular script of the Vietnamese language" when it includes a phrase such as "used almost exclusively by Chinese-educated Vietnamese elites"? It seems to me that to do so would go against the spirit of the word 'vernacular'. Quoc Ngu, on the other hand, would appear to be a vernacular script of the Vietnamese langauge (a transcription of the native language of the people). --WibblyLeMoende 30 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)
 * It is "vernacular" in the sense that it is adapted for the Vietnamese language. This is similar to Dante writing in Italian or Chaucer writing in English instead of Latin.  Previously, Classical Chinese was used to write Chinese, not Vietnamese, and thus works written in Classical Chinese need to be translated to be understood in modern Vietnamese.  Works written in Chu nom, on the other hand, do not need translation to be understood.  They just need to be converted to the phonetic writing system.  See The Tale of Kieu and works by Ho Xuan Huong.  DHN 05:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Font
Is there an free font with Chữ nôm characters? --Abdull 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of the authors of the most popular nom font is a prolific contributor to the Vietnamese Wikipedia (from Germany). Download it here. DHN 19:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi DHN, once again, thank you very much for your help. :) I added a small section about Chữ nôm fonts in the article. Right now i'm searching for information about the code points for the characters. It seems to me they are not part of the Basic Multilingual Plane (see Mapping of Unicode characters). Bye, --Abdull 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ask the author directly. He's pretty responsive.  He can respond in Vietnamese, German, English, and possibly Chinese. DHN 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

add chars and examples
Add Chinese characters for Dai Co Viet, chu gia ta, chu thuan nom, Tu Duc, etc. Add examples for "a vast number of new characters have been invented by Vietnamese writers.", Phonetic character borrowing, Character invention, etc. --User:Jidanni 2006-04-21

Requested move
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. It seems that a move to southern script might be acceptable. --Stemonitis 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chữ Nôm → Chu Nom — Per WP:NC(UE), articles should be named using the Latin alphabet. This article uses the Vietnamese alphabet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I support the move, as well. --Ryanaxp 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, but southern script would be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose. WP:UE doesn't apply here since Chữ Nôm is not English anyway.  (The English would be southern script).  And the Vietnamese alphabet is a form of the Latin alphabet with diacritics (like with French or Hungarian) that Wikipedia freely uses in article titles. —   AjaxSmack     02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The English and Vietnamese alphabets both use the same script: Latin. The title of the article will not be any more English with or without the diacritics. Diacritics hold meaning to some. Others may ignore them without any difficulty. A redirect already exists for Chu Nom, so there is no difficulty finding the page. Bendono 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Just a comment - editors interested in this move request might also be interested in the same move request at Talk:Hán Tự. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what should become of this. I suggest avoiding the use of diacritics that indicate tone; other diacritics might be acceptable. Should the result be Chư Nôm? Chu Nôm? Or, simply, Chu Nom?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest we use "Chu Nom". Diacritics are rarely used in English, and article titles ought to be in English.  The diacritics can be indicated in the article itself.  And one issue I also wonder about is, if a reader or editor does not have Vietnamese-language support on his or her computer, what does he see?  My own computers have it, so I see it normally.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have used the "what if a reader doesn't have Unicode support" argument to argue that Māori language, a legitimate English word, should not have a macron in the title but was assured that I was an idiot to argue such (Talk:Māori_language). And here, Hán Tự doesn't meet the threshold of English; that would be "Chinese character."  —   AjaxSmack     19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that was not an argument, but a genuine concern. I honestly do not know how Vietnamese tone marks show up on someone's computer if he does not have Vietnamese language support.  Anyway, I would argue that Hán Tự and Chữ Nôm both would fall under the "use English" naming convention in that these tone marks rarely appear, if they appear at all, in English-language publications.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Junam?

Standardization of capital letter
I've standardized Chữ nôm as "chữ Nôm", following the Vietnamese Wikipedia's example. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I too have preserved this in my edits on other articles, but as I do not know much about Vietnamese, I was wondering if anyone could explain why Nôm is capitalized? It means south, I think -- is there a convention in Vietnamese that directions are capitalized?


 * It would be interesting and useful to have a Capitalization in Vietnamese article or similar explaining the conventions if they differ substantially from English usage, which seems likely. 70.132.14.22 02:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Proper nouns are capitalized, just as we do in English. In the case of "chu nom", "nom" is capitalized because it represents, or at least is perceived to represent, "Vietnam". Just like we write "Arabic script", not "arabic script". Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In contemporary usage, Vietnamese capitalization does differ considerably from that of English. Because so many words in Vietnamese are compound words, it can be awkward to capitalize every word in a proper noun. For instance, Quỹ Hỗ trợ Wikimedia is one way of translating "Wikimedia Foundation". Quỹ (fund), Hỗ trợ (to financially support), and Wikimedia are the từ (words, possibly compound) that make up this proper noun. This is a relatively recent change; most older writers, especially outside of Vietnam, would still write Quỹ Hỗ Trợ Wikimedia. In this case, there isn't much ambiguity if you capitalize every chữ (the things separated by spaces).


 * On the other hand, "Vietnamese Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is often written Bách khoa toàn thư mở Wikipedia, even if the rest of the document uses title case. In this case, Bách khoa toàn thư (encyclopedia), mở (open[-source]), and Wikipedia are the từ that make up this phrase. If you were to capitalize each từ, you'd get Bách khoa toàn thư Mở Wikipedia, which just looks weird to a Vietnamese reader, because Mở is now sticking out by itself. So a lot of this is aesthetic, not systematic.


 * Another example: Quốc hội Ấn Độ – Quốc hội (national assembly) and Ấn Độ (India). Many proper nouns like Ấn Độ can't be broken down into meaningful modern Vietnamese words – Ấn Độ is a transliteration from Sino-Vietnamese – so are typically fully capitalized. This depends on the writer: I've seen plenty of Ấn-độ or Ấn độ too. I probably haven't covered every capitalization "rule", but I hope this helps regardless.


 * – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your clarification! Yes, having spaces between the syllables (sometimes morphemes) of a single word is, I guess, the most complained-about thing in the modern Vietnamese writing system.--K.C. Tang 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of characters
Does the article give the total number of Chữ Nôm characters? It would be very good to list the total number of Chữ Nôm (including the total number of invented and borrowed characters). Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information
I remember clearly reading a Vietnamese literature book by Vietnamese literary scholar Nguyen Dinh Hoa which mentioned claims that Chu nom dates back at least to the 11th century (or 10th)..not 13th century as this article claims. Is there any online proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.190.22.152 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Image for the Page
There is an edit war going on, for the image of this article, between two images:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Ch%E1%BB%AF_N%C3%B4m-%EC%AF%94%EB%86%88-%E3%83%81%E3%83%A5%E3%83%8E%E3%83%A0-%E5%96%83%E5%AD%97.png

and: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/ChuNom.png

Please vote for which one you think is better. I believe the first one is not as visually appealing, on top of the fact that the typeface chosen is NOT a good one for for displaying Chu Nom. It's very mechanical and stiff, whereas the second image shows the brush strokes of how the characters SHOULD be written in the most natural and traditional form. Please cast your vote here. Onixz100 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * " 𡨸 " is pure Chữ Nôm, but " 字 " is also Chữ Hán, here using " 𡨸喃 " will be more Chữ Nôm style.
 * The font of the first picture is "Nôm Na Tống" which especially edited for Chữ Nôm by Nguyễn Quang Hồng and Ngô Thanh Nhàn (Hanoi: © 2006 Viện Nghiên cứu Hán Nôm ,Việt Nam, and The Vietnamese Nôm Preservation Foundation, U.S.A.).
 * No need to emphasis Chu Quoc Ngu, light color might be better.
 * -- 서공·Tây Cống·セイコゥ ? ★ 委ủy班ban復phục活hoạt漢hán喃nôm越việt南nam ★ 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The second one looks better, but regardless, it is typed up on the computer with an existing font. The font used in the second image has not been created for Chữ Nôm characters, so if someone wanted to write 𡨸, they're stuck with the first image.125.239.139.60 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd stick with the first image - "字" is not Chu Nom. It seems that the main argument is over which font to use, and what is visually appealing - this is not important, as we could always upload a newer revision of an image at any time. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support "Chu Nom"
I'm one of the admin in a facebook group called "東亞文化圈/东亚文化圈 · 동아시아 문화권 · Khu vực văn hóa Đông Á · 東アジア文化圏" http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_113132062091537&ap=1

We have a lot people who know Korean/Japanese/Chinese (Cantonese + Mandarin) and Vietnamese (Chu Nom + Chu Quoc Ngu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.251.244 (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed move contrary to RM and redirect lock
The same happened to Talk:Hán tự. The result of a RM was overturned by undiscussed move and the move locked by redirect edit so that it could not be reversed. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (cur | prev) 13:52, 18 September 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:01, 6 March 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (removed Category:Redirect from alternative with diacritics using HotCat) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:01, 6 March 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (77 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (added Category:Redirect from alternative with diacritics using HotCat) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:28, 22 February 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (moved Chữ Nôm to Chu Nom: Removing Vietnamese diacritics from title as these are rare in published English.)


 * You mean the RM from 2007? It was 3-to-2 in favor "chu Nom". Kauffner (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read:
 * The other article moved counter RM, Talk:Hán tự, was closed by same admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The other article moved counter RM, Talk:Hán tự, was closed by same admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Han tu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Language tagging for chữ nôm characters
I added the language tag vi-hani (vi=Vietnamese; hani=Han characters, not distinguishing hant traditional from hans simplified characters) to all chữ nôm characters on this page using the template {​{​l​a​n​g|vi-hani|...​}​}, upon which In ictu oculi asked me for an explanation. O.K., here we go:

Generally speaking, the shape of characters may vary according to locale. For the Roman alphabet this is rarely important, though in Turkish it would be plain wrong to capitalize i as I (the pairs being i İ and ı I), and a Slovak Ľ is usually written with a háček ˇ instead of an apostrophe ’ on top of the L.

For Han characters (漢字/汉字: Chinese Hànzì; Japanese Kanji; Korean Hanja; Vietnamese Hán tự) extreme variation is not only frequent, but sometimes reaches a point where the characters cease to be recognizable to users of another language or country. This is due to the Unicode consortium’s much debated policy of Han unification. You can find examples for Han character variation here, though Vietnamese Hán tự don’t appear (probably due to lacking browser support), and no distinction is made between traditional Chinese characters as used in Taiwan vs. Hong Kong and Macao. For the latter, consult the Chinese version of that article. (Always make sure that your browser displays these tables with an appropriate font for each of the locales, otherwise you won’t be able to see the differences.)

All right, so what do I need to display chữ nôm properly in my browser? No browsers I know of have this feature built in yet, and no OS ships with a Hán tự font, so I can only tell you how I managed to persuade my Firefox to do it.

1. First of all, I downloaded the free fonts Nom Na Tong and HAN NOM A & HAN NOM B. Nom Na Tong is my preferred font, for it is much nicer to look at.

2. Then I installed the fonts by way of right-clicking the font files.

3. I downloaded and installed the CSS based Firefox addon Stylish.

4. I then clicked Write new style and wrote a ‘user style’ with the following contents:

@-moz-document regexp("*") {   html * {       :lang(vi) {           font-family: "Cambria", "Nom Na Tong", "HAN NOM A", "HAN NOM B", serif !important; }   } }

This means that for all webpages (@-moz-document regexp("*")) all HTLM elements included in <​h​t​m​l​> (html *) which are tagged Vietnamese (:lang(vi)) must forcibly (!important) be rendered with certain fonts: try "Cambria"</tt> first (for Vietnamese written in the Latin alphabet; you may of course use other font families), then the downloaded Hán tự fonts, the nicer one first, and if a character still isn’t contained in any of these fonts, use the browser’s standard <tt>serif</tt> style font.

5. Of course I can turn this ‘user style’ on and off whenever I like, without having to reload the webpage.

I’m looking forward to your comments. LiliCharlie 20:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The code <tt>vi-hani</tt> means something only if you have defined it on your browser as meaning something. It is not part of a standard code system. Here are the ten most common Nom characters in various fonts:


 * 羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 (default)
 * 羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 <tt>lang|vi</tt>
 * <tt>vi-nom</tt>
 * 羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 <tt>lang|vi-hani</tt>
 * 羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 <tt>lang|vi-Hant</tt>
 * 羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 HAN NOM A
 * 羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 Nom Na Tong


 * Here are the "language-dependent characters":
 * 与今令免入全具刃化區外情才抵次海画直真空草角道雇骨 (default)
 * 与今令免入全具刃化區外情才抵次海画直真空草角道雇骨 <tt>lang|vi</tt>
 * <tt>vi-nom</tt>
 * 与今令免入全具刃化區外情才抵次海画直真空草角道雇骨 <tt>lang|vi-hani</tt>
 * 与今令免入全具刃化區外情才抵次海画直真空草角道雇骨 <tt>lang|vi-Hant</tt>
 * 与今令免入全具刃化區外情才抵次海画直真空草角道雇骨 HAN NOM A
 * 与今令免入全具刃化區外情才抵次海画直真空草角道雇骨 Nom Na Tong
 * As you can see, <tt>vi-hani</tt> is identical to Wiki's default font. In my opinion, the language marker should be <tt>vi</tt>. The software is supposed to be able to pick the correct font based on that. It is up to the tech people get that to work right. As you can see above, <tt>vi-hani</tt> is not an improvement. Kauffner (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don’t think we’re likely to see native browser support for chữ nôm soon if ever, either. However if we keep the distinction between <tt>vi</tt> for Roman script Vietnamese and <tt>vi-hani</tt> for Han character Vietnamese the people who style this Wikipedia can easily write a style sheet for <tt>vi-hani</tt> to be displayed with a number of preferred fonts without affecting the display of text that is tagged <tt>vi</tt>. (Probably in a few years when more and more browsers can handle CSS 3 <tt>@font-face { font-family: ...; unicode-range: ...; }</tt> a solution without separate tags will be practicable though.) Maybe we should ask them to do that and include a note in each of the relevant articles that tells the readers they can get the display right by installing at least one of a list of Hán tự fonts. IMO it is paramount for readers of an encyclopedia to get reliable information, visual information included. After all, this article is about writing, which is nothing but visual. What do you think about that? LiliCharlie 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LiliCharlie, does this mean that the coding vi-hani is no disadvantage to standard browsers with standard Chinese character sets, and an advantage to those who have extra fonts installed? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, <tt>vi-hani</tt> is included in <tt>vi</tt>. By definition all properties of <tt>vi</tt> also apply to <tt>vi-hani</tt>, except those specifically defined for <tt>vi-hani</tt>, which will override the definitions for <tt>vi</tt>. Thus in my sample code above I used <tt>:lang(vi)</tt> while the actual language tags are <tt>vi-hani</tt>. I might have used <tt>:lang(vi-hani)</tt> as well, in which case my code would work fine here, but not with text marked <tt>vi</tt>. — Browsers that do not recognize a specific Han character font for <tt>vi</tt>/<tt>vi-hani</tt> will resort to their default font for this range of characters, typically one suitable for either <tt>zh-hans</tt>, <tt>zh-hk</tt>, <tt>zh-tw</tt>, <tt>ja</tt> or <tt>ko</tt> (the five CJK locales that Firefox recognizes as different from each other by default), depending on your browser settings. LiliCharlie 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is certainly ironic that even on your own browser you don't make use of the <tt>hani</tt> aspect of this code. Is there any situation where it adds value? I suppose it could be useful if you wanted to put Latin characters and Han characters in two different Han fonts. For example, you could put alphabetic Vietnamese in MingLiU and Han-Nom in Nom Na Tong, or something like that. But wouldn't that be pretty bizarre? Kauffner (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, I use this CSS code privately for all Vietnamese web pages with or without Vietnamese Han characters, and therefore I wrote <tt>:lang(vi)</tt>. I can do this because I know which font I want to use to display Roman Vietnamese. On a global Wikipedia style sheet for a large number of users you wouldn’t want to do that, for the following reason: the font for Roman Vietnamese is defined as <tt>font-family: sans-serif;</tt>, and if you defined the font for <tt>:lang(vi)</tt> as <tt>font-family: sans-serif, "Nom Na Tong", "HAN NOM A", "HAN NOM B";</tt> Hán tự it would never get displayed with one of the Vietnamese Nôm fonts, for there is always another default <tt>sans-serif</tt> font defined in any of the modern browsers. Nor could you place <tt>sans-serif</tt> at the end of the list, because all Nôm fonts also contain Roman letters which you wouldn’t want to force on the user for ‘regular’ Vietnamese. That’s why a more specific language label than <tt>vi</tt> for Vietnamese Han character text is necessary, at least as long as the CSS 3 code <tt>unicode-range</tt> is not yet widely supported by common browsers (see above). It’s not ironic, but a matter of who and what you write CSS code for. More technically, a matter of scope. LiliCharlie 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs)
 * This is the only article on all of Wiki that uses the <tt>vi-hani</tt> code, as you can see here. No, it is not enough to download the fonts. To use the code to display a font you would have to define it on your browser. This is a code that only people who have read this talk page know about. Kauffner (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think an expanded global style sheet for Wikipedia would be desirable instead of user defined styles, and more language tagging will be necessary. There is the template for “articles with non-English text, which do not yet use  .” I don’t know how many articles actually use Vietnamese Han characters, but I think it’s a manageable number. LiliCharlie 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New templates for Nôm script
1. I have created the template that does two things: it applies the  template on Nôm text marking its language <tt>vi-hani</tt> and also applies the style <tt>font-family:'Nom Na Tong','NomNaTong','HAN NOM A','HANNOM-A','HAN NOM B','HANNOM-B',sans-serif;</tt>. It should now be sufficient to have a Nôm font installed. Thank you, Kauffner, for pointing to and insisting on the necessity of the latter. — Should you know other Nôm fonts, please alter the template accordingly and/or leave a note on this page.

2. I have also created the template. At this point it has no effect at all, but hopefully soon it will look like the template. It shall tell the readers to install at least one of several font families to view Nôm text properly. I don’t have the time to write it now. Well, the early bird gets the worm, and maybe that bird is you.

3. I have replaced all instances of <tt>{​{​lang|vi-hani|...​}​}</tt> in the article Chữ nôm with <tt>{​{​vi-nom|...​}​}</tt> and put the template at the top of the page. Please check the results and leave a report and your criticism on this talk page.

4. If everything works fine the next step will be to find all articles containing Nôm text and mark it with the template. Please never forget to put the template at the top of the page when you use the  template. LiliCharlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

See merge discussion at Talk:Chữ Hán
There is a merge discussion at Talk:Chữ Hán concerning new article creation Han-Nom which duplicates topic of longstanding Hán and Nôm articles (more Chữ nôm than Chữ Hán). The merge tag placed by BabelStone was removed again counter discussion on ANI the last time it was removed. Seems as good a time as any to proceed with the merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge
The Han Nom article covers two topics, both of which are covered by existing articles: a little on Han (Chinese character and Classical Chinese) but mainly Nom (this article). It is effectively a content fork of this article. Most of the editors involved in this discussion agreed that it should be merged into this article, and that is what I propose to do. Kanguole 19:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The templates on the right are quite common in the Vietnam project. When someone clicks on the word Hán-Nôm in the either of these templates, it should of course lead to an article on Han-Nom. That's how all the other language templates work. Judging from the page view statistics, about 20 to 30 readers a day are doing this. These readers would be confused if they were sent to the chữ nôm article instead. The term "Han-Nom" is used by the Vietnamese government and in the Vietnamese media, both in English and in Vietnamese. For example, there is a "Han-Nom Research Institute" in Hanoi which made up the "Han Nom CCR", Vietnam's Unicode proposal. The characters used in proper names are the same in Han as they are in Nom, although the Han and Nom readings are usually different. In short, the phrase is convenient in this context. I wrote the Han-Nom article without referring to chữ nôm, so I find it unlikely that the content corresponds. Kauffner (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...again "Han-Nom" does not exist, as explained at length by Itsmejudith. The statements above are in part WP:OR, or just wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the use of "Hán-Nôm" in those templates is an error; the indicated names are written in Chinese characters. Kanguole 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relabeling would certainly be consistent with the "use English" principle. But then we would be calling the same characters "kanji" when they are used in Japan, "hanja" in Korea, and "Chinese" when they are used in Vietnam. I don't see the template changing any time soon. As long as the template says "Han Nom", we need a corresponding article. Kauffner (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Kauffner
 * A reminder of WP:GAME may be in order re:
 * (1) undiscussed move counter RM result
 * (2) WP:FORK created with OR title during a RM to restore undiscussed move counter RM result
 * (3) edits to templates during merge discussion Template Infobox Vietnamese edited to fork here 19 March 2013, Template Chinese edited to fork 19 March 2013
 * Your edits to the templates can easily be reverted by WP:BRD at any time.
 * Before or after the merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another response that doesn't address any point I made, but instead lists accusations that go back over a year. Why would I think this proposal is motivated by spite? Kauffner (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner,
 * Any edits you have made to templates in the last 2 months can be fixed after the merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you'll recreate the Han tu article so the old template link can be restored? Kauffner (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it means that any edits you have made to templates in the last 2 months can be fixed after the merge In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with the label Han-Nom in the template is that it conflates the two scripts (whatever one calls them), losing information. Kanguole 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Proceed with merge as agreed. The recent changes to templates and links don't change the outcome of previous discussion. That's something else to fix later. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So the idea is to contaminate some other article with my "OR" and "wrong" opinions? This is a thinly disguised deletion discussion, so it should be at WP:AFD. Kauffner (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner,
 * No the idea is to improve the encyclopedia by providing articles which are in line with reliable sources.
 * Please see Merging. The discussion has already happened and a merge has already been unanimously agreed by everyone else. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is not about deletion but merging. With the exception of a list of a small selection of the many texts in Literary Chinese written in Vietnam, the current Han Nom article is about Nom.  It contains content not present in this article, which should be merged here to form a single article covering the topic properly, instead of two articles with partial coverage and inconsistencies.  Kanguole 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * support merge the two articles are talking about the exact same topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kanguole, the "list of a small selection" you mention has been deleted as duplication of a section of Vietnamese Literature. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to take a brief moment out from this festival of vandalism to note the hypocrisy of what's going on. IIO is planning to write his own Han & Nom article, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not familiar with the wiki concepts of redirects, where multiple terms/titles can all refer to the same article text. This is not hypocracy, it is an a different way of entering the name of the article, and a redirect is entirely appropriate. Please read WP:NPA accusing editors of vandalism and hypocracy is a no-no. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could read the link I gave before commenting on it. The edit summary says, "redirect, but will self-redirect following merge". I interpret that to mean he is planning to write an article at that lemma. Kauffner (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If he does make a page later, that would be subject to the same merge logic applied here. Accusing someone of hypocrisy for a future action that you are assuming they might take is not going to get you far in a collaboration and consensus discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * IIO kicked off this discussion by accusing me of WP:GAME and a list of other accusations concerning matters that go back over a year. (See the collapsed text.) So of course it's my fault we're not collaborating. This nonsense has gone on long enough that I feel entitled to speak with the authority of a certified IIO-ologist: Not only will he write a Han & Nom article, but he will fill up with one-manship and gotcha definitions intended to prove me wrong about any number of subjects. And who will "merge" or deleted that? Kauffner (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

the community. You will get nowhere by accusing someone of breaking policy in the future. That will be dealt with when that bridge is crossed. Besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS The decision about THIS article, is being made NOW. focus on this article and its content, and how that relates to policy, not what other articles might later exist, and what other editors actions might be. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think the article and it's content are so terrible TAKE IT TO WP:AFD. Do you think anyone writes articles in the hope getting a hard time them for months afterwards? Kauffner (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, for the record to write a Han & Nom article would as silly as a Han-Nom article. When this merge is implemented a bot will iron out the double redirect automatically. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is already a merge discussion open, and it is pretty obvious consensus has formed to merge. there is no need to take it to AFD, and in fact AFDs that propose a merge are generally proceduraly speedy closed. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, you've got nothing, or at least not enough to go to AFD. Kauffner (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Kanguole, are you willing to start the merge process? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or User:Gaijin42, or User:Itsmejudith, we need to get a move on here. The merge was agreed over a month ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the merger of the new Han Nom article into Chữ nôm be implemented?
Should the merger of any usable non-duplicate content from the new Han Nom article into Chữ nôm be implemented? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support
 * Oppose

Threaded discussion
procedural objection this RFC is in effect a "do-over" of the merge discussion, which had consensus. Someone just needs to do the merge. As 99% of the content is duplicate, a redirect does most of the work, and someone can find the few pieces of unique information at their own pace.. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This a completely reasonable objection by Gaijin42, was simply making use of the RfC mechanism to pull in perhaps 1 or 2 new eyes. RfC in linguistics has a small pull and worth leaving 48 hours to at least get the benefit of additional input. However if Gaijin42, BabelStone, Itsmejudith or Kanguole want to initiate the merge then disregard this RfC, as Gaijin42 says, it adds nothing. Just know of no other mechanism. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I redirected. If the original author thinks there is anything that needs to be merged, they may do so. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thanks User:Gaijin42, I withdraw RfC as redundant. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Syntax?
It seems rather odd to have a section on syntax in an article on a script. That is really a property of the Vietnamese and Chinese languages, rather than the scripts. Maybe it would fit better in an article about Vietnamese literature or Vietnamese names? Kanguole 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

vector images (SVGs) to replace bitmap "Chu Han - chu Nho - Han tu.png"
I have created and uploaded two SVG images.

old: new1: new2:

Is new1 or new2 more suitable to replace the old PNG image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

DICTIONNAIRES graimmares Annamite
http://books.google.com/books?id=H7s_AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nUNAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=m40yAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gsXlAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=B-QNAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yYMvAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dialogues cochinchinois
http://books.google.com/books?id=eI80AQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Dialogues cochinchinois: expliqués littéralement en français, en anglais et en latin, suivis d'une étude philologique du texte et d'un exposé des monnaies, poids, mesures et divisions du temps en usage dans la Cochinchine Author	Abel Des Michels Publisher	Maisonneuve, 1871 Original from	the University of California Digitized	Jul 15, 2010 Length	212 pages

http://ecrivn.free.fr/fr/part1/alphabetiques/adr-dico3.html

Grammaire annamite, vocabulaire français-annamite et annamite-français
http://books.google.com/books?id=PKQTAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Grammaire annamite, suivie d'un vocabulaire français-annamite et annamite-français Author	Louis Gabriel G. Aubaret Published	1867 Original from	Oxford University Digitized	May 12, 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=z3ULAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Nouveau vocabulaire français-tonkinois et tonkinois-français Author	Paul Émile Emmanuel Auguste Crépin Bourdier de Beauregard Publisher	A. Challamel, 1900 Original from	the University of Michigan Digitized	Aug 31, 2006 Length	192 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=nWg4AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Manuel de conversation franco-tonkinois: sách dã̂n đàng nói truyện bà̆ng tié̂ng phalangsa và tié̂ng annam Author	Cõ Ân Publisher	Imprimerie de la Mission, 1889 Original from	the University of Michigan Digitized	Jun 25, 2007 Length	452 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=k51rAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Manuel franco-tonkinois de conversation spécialement à l'usage du médecin: précédé d'un exposé des règles de l'intonation et de la prononciation annamites Author	Paul Gouzien Publisher	A. Challamel, 1897 Original from	the University of California Digitized	Feb 11, 2008 Length	174 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=gsXlAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Grammaire de la langue annamite Author	Louis Gabriel Galdéric Aubaret Publisher	Imprimerie impériale, 1864 Original from	the University of Michigan Digitized	Oct 20, 2009 Length	112 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=HdQuAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Lexique franco-annamite Authors	H. Ravier, J. B. Dronet Publisher	Imprimerie de la mission, 1903 Original from	Harvard University Digitized	Oct 16, 2008 Length	534 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aYTAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Notions pour servir à l'étude de la langue annamite [by] J.M.J. Authors	J M. J, Langue annamite Publisher	Imprimerie de la Mission, 1878 Original from	Oxford University Digitized	May 12, 2008

http://books.google.com/books?id=2kg0AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Petit dictionnaire Français-Annamite Western books on Asia: Southeast Asia Authors	J. B. Petrus Trư-ơ-ng-Vinh-Ký, Pétrus Jean-Baptiste Vĩnh Ký Trương Publisher	Imp. de la Mission, à Tân-Dịnh, 1885 Original from	the University of Wisconsin - Madison Digitized	Jul 30, 2012 Length	1192 pages Subjects	French language

http://books.google.com/books?id=QcMVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Nam ngử thích tây tổng ước Author	J.-F.-M. Génibrel Edition	2 Publisher	Imprimerie de la Mission à Tân-Dịnh, 1906 Original from	Harvard University Digitized	Feb 21, 2008 Length	812 pages Subjects	Vietnamese language

http://books.google.com/books?id=1i5kAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Dictionnaire annamite Author	Tịnh Paulus Của Huình Edition	reprint Publisher	Khai Trí, 1895 Original from	the University of Michigan Digitized	May 14, 2008 Subjects	Vietnamese language

http://books.google.com/books?id=iMMuAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Tự vị Annam-Pha lang sa Author	J. M. J. Publisher	Imprimerie de la Mission, 1877 Original from	Harvard University Digitized	Oct 16, 2008 Length	916 pages Subjects	Foreign Language Study › Southeast Asian Languages

=== Dictionnaire annamite-français, comprenant: 10 tous les caractères de la langue annamite vulgaire, avec l'indication de leurs divers sena propres ou figurés, et justifies par de nombreux exemples; 20 les caractères chinois nécessaires à l'étude des Tú Thu, ou Quatre livres classiques chinois; 30 la flore et la faune de l'Indo-Chine By J. F. M. Génibrel ===

http://books.google.com/books?id=IcMuAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title	Dictionnaire annamite-français, comprenant: 10 tous les caractères de la langue annamite vulgaire, avec l'indication de leurs divers sena propres ou figurés, et justifies par de nombreux exemples; 20 les caractères chinois nécessaires à l'étude des Tú Thu, ou Quatre livres classiques chinois; 30 ... Author	J. F. M. Génibrel Edition	2 Publisher	la mission à Tan Diny, 1898 Original from	Harvard University Digitized	Oct 16, 2008 Length	987 pages Subjects	Vietnamese language

dictionnaires et des grammaires Annamite
Dictionnaire annamite-français

https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireAnnamiteFrancais

https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireAnnamiteFranais2

https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireAnnamiteFranais1

Dictionnaire annamite-français : (langue officielle et langue vulgaire)

https://archive.org/details/dictionnaireanna01bone

https://archive.org/details/dictionnaireanna02bone

Dictionnaire Franco-tonkinois

https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireFranco-tonkinois

https://archive.org/details/manuelfrancoton00gouzgoog

Phonétique annamite (dialecte du Haut-Annam)

https://archive.org/details/phontiqueannami00unkngoog

A dissertation on the nature and character of the Chinese system of writing : in a letter to John Vaughan, Esq (includes Vietnamese dictionary)

https://archive.org/details/dissertationnatu00duporich

Les Égyptiens préhistoriques identifiés avec les Annamites d'après les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques (1905)

https://archive.org/details/lesgyptiensprhi00freygoog

https://archive.org/details/lesgyptienspr00frey

Rajmaan (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article on simple.wikipedia
Out of interest; simple:Sino-Vietnamese characters. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "nôm"
A few users insist that the word "Nôm" in "chữ Nôm" means "chattering". That's not correct. The error lies in confusing the ideas of character and word. In Chinese, the character 喃 is usually used to represent the word nam/nan "chattering", "murmuring". However, in the case of 字喃, the character 喃 is used phonetically to represent the Vietnamese word Nôm (i.e. Vietnam), not the Chinese word "chattering" (I don't think this Chinese word has been borrowed into Vietnamese). The term "chữ Nôm" ("Vietnamese script") is indeed used in contrast to the term "chữ Nho" ("Chinese script"). A comparison of the two terms make the meaning of "Nôm" clear. Hope the explanation make sense. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The word Nôm does not represent Vietnam, and it never did. Where in the whole of Vietnamese history and culture has the world Nôm/喃 been used to symbolise Vietnam? The phrase chữ Nôm is identified as 'vernacular script' to represent the SPOKEN language of Vietnam (as opposed to chữ Nho, which was used to WRITE historical records). Maybe chữ Nôm doesn't mean 'chattering script', but when words are borrowed into another language they sometimes lose their original meaning and/or gain a new meaning. 'Vernacular' could be an extension of the word 'chattering', as they both have meaning on the basis of sound. Just to clarify something else for other users, Nôm/喃 DOES NOT MEAN SOUTH. Chữ Nôm is NOT 'southern script'; notice the '口' radical on '喃'. '南' means south, but chữ Nôm isn't '字南'. I have seen 'southern script' in this article a couple of times; that is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.23.72 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The word nôm in Vietnamese doesn't mean "chattering". In fact it's a bound morpheme which only occurs in a few compounds like chữ Nôm (according to my Vietnamese-Chinese dictionary, pls correct me if I'm wrong). The original meaning of this morpheme seems uncertain and controversial, so I think the best way to go is simply avoid the "lit." part.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, what word a character represents can only be determined by the context. That's an important principle in Chinese philology. The word "south" can well be represented by 喃 or many other characters. But that's another story. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to remove the 'lit' part due to uncertainty. However, are you sure the word "south" can well be represented by 喃? Are there any examples? 南 is/was used to represent south in all of the CJKV languages. Also, the Vietnamese language doesn't have a native word for south; it is known as Hướng Nam (向南, 'southern direction'). The context which a character is written in can bend the meaning of the phrase/sentence, but it is very hard to modify the meaning of the original character. Whatever context 喃 is written in, it seems rather unlikely it can be used to represent 'south'. Actually from looking at the Vietnamese version of the encyclopedia in the discussion for Chu Nom, 喃 seems to be used in the context in place of the word language/script (I can't tell, because I can't read Vietnamese), for example, Nôm Triều (喃朝) and Nôm Nhật (喃日) seem to represent the languages(spoken or written) of Korea and Japan, respectively. Can someone who knows a competent level of Vietnamese confirm this? 125.238.169.225 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Should be "chữ nôm Nhật" and "chữ nôm Triều", where "chữ nôm" refers to native characters coined in Japan and Korea (in contrast to those borrowed from China.)--K.C. Tang (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be that this is one of those "obsolete" Chinese words (Wiktionary carries many; Kangxi Dictionary sure helped them). I mean, the compound doesn't make sense the way it stands, but I doubt it's a transliteration if they were using the Chinese script to begin with... ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that the word nôm could be derived from Mongolian HOM(that's how it looks like capitalized in Cyrillic alphabet)/nom, meaning "book, script, language, etc..."? 喃 might be created by Vietnamese based on Mongolian language at a different time after the Chinese character appeared, therefore retaining the meaning of "book or language"? If that's the case, then both words in chữ nôm ["script script(s)", "word script(s)", language(s)"?], where the first word was a nôm character based on the Chinese character 字, which used to mean "script(s)" but is now used to mean "word(s)" in modern Vietnamese, where the modern meaning is based on the Chinese word's definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.33.166 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chữ Nôm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626064515/http://staging.nomfoundation.org/taberd/ to http://staging.nomfoundation.org/taberd/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616023959/http://www.chunom.org/charsets/ to http://www.chunom.org/charsets/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403084625/http://nlv.gov.vn/ef/en/han-nom-collection.html to http://nlv.gov.vn/ef/en/han-nom-collection.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505105548/http://www.viethoc.com/hannom/tdnom_chidan.php to http://viethoc.com/hannom/tdnom_chidan.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505105536/http://www.viethoc.com/hannom/bango_intro.php to http://viethoc.com/hannom/bango_intro.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

infobox changes
Regarding this change: Chữ Nôm was a writing system for the Vietnamese language. It represented Sino-Vietnamese loans using Chinese characters, and represented native Vietnamese words either by Chinese characters used as phonetic loans or semantic loans, or by creating new characters in the same ways that new Chinese characters were created, namely phonetic compounds or semantic compounds, based on the same components. These are the same methods as used by Kanji to represent Japanese words, Idu to represent Korean words, or Sawndip to represent Zhuang words. The script is thus derived from Chinese characters and a sibling of those scripts. On the other hand, the Khitan, Tangut and Jurchen scripts used characters reminiscent of Chinese characters, but formed under their own principles using different components. Kanguole 21:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And IMHO Hán Tự, which currently redirects to Literary Chinese in Vietnam, should be deleted because the capitalization of tự seems idiosyncratic and unjustified. We currently also have a redirect of Hán tự to History of writing in Vietnam which might as well redirect to Chinese characters for being the Vietnamese reading/romanization of 漢字. I'm not sure which is the better choice. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Kanguole Chữ Nôm didn't extinct in 19th century. It is still used today . Chinese can't read or understand Chữ Nôm. Stop using Chinese perspective to tell us.
 * LiliCharlie Chữ Nôm =/= Kanji. Kanji literary mean "Chinese characters". Kana is Japanese. Japanese use combine Kana and Kanji to make a proper sentence. But Vietnamese didn't and they keep writing entire a poem or a book in Nôm script. Laska666 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, Chữ Nôm are NOT Chinese Characters! Please respect the fact, don't make more distortion. Laska666 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To use Unicode terminology: 1. Hànzì (as used for Sinitic varieties), Kanji, Hanja, and Hán tự are subsets of the Han script (ISO 15924 code: Hani). 2. The Japanese writing system uses three scripts—Han, hiragana, and katakana—to wrtite Japanese, whereas the Chữ Nôm writing system uses only the Han script to write Vietnamese. 3. Article Chinese characters deals with the Han script rather than Hànzì alone. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Chữ Nôm is no more used today than are runes or heiroglyphs. An online dictionary is not use of the script.


 * The claim is not that Chữ Nôm and Kanji are the same, but that they are sister systems. Kanji are indeed used with kana in the Japanese script, but Kanji denote not just Sino-Japanese words, but also native Japanese words. They cannot be understood by a Chinese speaker. The parallel between Chữ Nôm and Idu script (for Korean) and Sawndip (for Zhuang) is even closer, for those are scripts in which only Chinese and Chinese-based characters were used. I have explained above why the Khitan, Tangut and Jurchen scripts are quite different.


 * The infobox field says that Chinese characters are the parent system of Chữ Nôm, which you appear to accept (by listing various forms of Chinese characters as parent systems). Kanguole 09:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Chữ Nôm is a native script of Vietnamese. It has nothing with Hán. Hán and Nôm are distinct. Stop faking our national customs, Chinese.

Laska666 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 𡨸喃 this is Vietnamese Nôm script.
 * 南字 this is Vietnamese Hán script.

Stop telling lie, Chinese. Laska666 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese, Korean, Japanese speakers cannot understand Chữ Nôm! Chữ Nôm is natively Vietnamese script. Chữ Nôm has its own dictionary, and still is used today (limited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laska666 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

To make sense:
 * Chữ Hán = Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja because they are script borrowed from Chinese characters
 * Chữ Nôm = nothing common because they are native Vietnamese script.

Stop claiming our cultures, Chinese! Laska666 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Chữ Nôm is indeed a script for Vietnamese, and is different from the Chinese script. However, to claim that it has nothing to do with Chinese characters is simply nonsense.  As the "Characters" section of the article describes, the script used many Chinese characters directly, and created more using the same compounding methods used to create new Chinese characters from existing ones.  Almost all of the 49 most common characters of the script listed are unmodified Chinese characters (rarer words are more likely to use new characters).  Clearly Chinese characters are the parent script of Chữ Nôm.  I have explained the parallels with Kanji, Idu and Sawndip.


 * The following sentence from the lead is accurate and reflects the body of the article and the sources therein:


 * It used the standard set of classical Chinese characters to represent Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary and some native Vietnamese words, while new characters were created on the Chinese model to represent other words.


 * You changed it to:


 * The Nôm characters are similar in appearance to Chinese characters, which to represent Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary and native Vietnamese words, while new characters were created on the Chinese model to represent other words.


 * which is both ungrammatical and incoherent, as well as misrepresenting the content and sources of the article.


 * As the article mentions, the only 8th century evidence is two Chinese characters in a title. The first clear evidence of use of the script dates from the 13th century.


 * Chữ Nôm is not in use today. There is an online dictionary (as for many other former scripts), but no texts have been written in the script since the early 20th century.  Kanguole 08:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Chữ Hán
I have reverted the addition of Chữ Hán throughout the article, because (a) it is not a common term in English, and (b) its use conflated two different things: Chinese characters and the Classical Chinese language written with those characters. I have also deleted the non-sensical sentence:
 * Speakers of Proto-Việt-Mường (Vietic) languages managed to preserve them, while enhancing them mostly with borrowings from Chinese, thus created the Sino-Vietnamese adaption of classic Chinese, also known as Chữ Hán.

This is cited to Kiernan (2017), with a link pointing to page 264, but there is nothing similar on that page. The nearest I could find was a passage on page 138, but that is about spoken Vietnamese, not the script. Kanguole 14:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Syntax?
It seems inappropriate to have a syntax section in an article on a script. Certainly Chinese and Vietnamese have different word orders, but that is an aspect of the languages, not the scripts. Kanguole 10:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have removed that section. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Han-Nom Revival Committee of Vietnam
The last paragraph of the Standardization section deals with the Han-Nom Revival Committee of Vietnam. Is there any independent coverage of this? If not, perhaps it belongs in External links.

Also, I have no idea what "Vietnamese-made Sino-Vietnamese words" are. Kanguole 17:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I wonder if that committee still exists and has a URL we could link to. If their Vietnamese name is ủy ban phục sinh hán nôm việt nam/ and zh:喃字遗产保护会 can be trusted their URL used to be www.cjkvbbs.org/hannom/, but I get a "404 Not Found" error for that URL. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * http://www.hannom-rcv.org/ still works. Kanguole 19:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We already have a link to that URL and another one to the fonts subpage of www.hannom-rcv.org. — In fact I fail to understand how the committee "has started its standardization work for Chữ Hán Nôm." Isn't the Nôm Preservation Foundation the IRG member that is responsible for the standardisation of Vietnamese Han characters, especially, but not restricted to, their encoding? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Plus the Han-Nom Revival Committee of Vietnam seems to be a group of no more than 11 individuals. That doesn't speak for encyclopaedic notability. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just delete the paragraph then. Kanguole 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Description of Nom
The sentence
 * It borrowed characters from the Chinese script to transcribe Vietnamese language, while new characters were created on the Chinese model to represent other words in two different ways.

is inaccurate. It uses phrases from Li (2020) too closely, but still manages to mangle what she says. She says borrowed characters were used in at least two different ways, and in addition there were a large number of created characters, i.e. what the former text said.

In any case, Li (2020) is a tertiary source on this topic, based on the surveys of Nguyễn (1984) and DeFrancis (1977). It would be better to use them directly. Kanguole 09:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Standardization
The content you added is full of self-published content, from a fringe organization (see above). I'm going to remove them. Please find some independent coverage of this. DHN (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You should list the specific Wikipedia rules that this paragraph violates, and then proceed to the next step after discussion and confirmation. This paragraph is a description of an objective fact and provides sources of references. It's in line with Wikipedia's rules. Betoseha (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Betoseha The content you added is original research, and the "source" you used is a self-published source. The "Han-Nom Revival Committee of Vietnam" is just a random group of 11 people, as discussed above (of which you are listed as the first member). Please find any independent verifiable source that talks about this standardization effort before you can add it here. DHN (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you deleted is simply a description of a fact that someone did the standardization, it does not contain any opinion or standpoint, NOT even a "Research". I can't see the rule No original research can be applied here. Besides, the List of Commonly Used Standard chữ Hán Nôm was access by more than 30000 people on only Facebook. It is something known by many people.
 * By the way, the list of character grades is related to the contents of the standardization, it is probably an original research, so I have deleted it in the previous version. Betoseha (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Han-Nom Revival Committee of Vietnam is an internet-based open community established in 2010 with around 3500 members (check here: on Facebook, on VinaWiki). The member list you mentioned is only an early html version without update for years.
 * The process of standardization is a summary of the opinions of many people, and the standardization scheme is finalized after countless discussions by people from and outsides Vietnam, and there are also many experts and university professors among them. (You can also check the discussions through the above links.) It is not a so-called original research by one person. Betoseha (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Any group of people can try to do the "standardization", that doesn't make it notable. Please find some reliable, independent source that mentions your efforts before trying to add it to the article. DHN (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . If you are indeed the person who worked to attempt to standardised HanNom, I praise your work. Your work and other people's work are extremely notable and amazing. However to really make an impact, instead of publishing this on Wikipedia (a unreliable source), let your research be more official, perhaps in conjunction with the Han-Nom Institute in Hanoi, several Vietnamese universities, and most importantly, with the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese population has to perhaps hold a national census on whether they want to revive Han-Nom or not. Or at least, have resources that allow common Vietnamese people to study an official set of Standardised HanNom. Information from peers using unreliable social media websites such as Facebook or Wiki-type websites do not count - they have much lower validity and reliability then peer-reviewed journal-articles for example. I understand the popularity of Facebook as a medium to transfer information amongst Vietnamese, but Facebook itself is not a valid nor a reliable website, since it mainly a social media website or a forum-type website that does not have official peer-review across institutions and universities. The work you cite or are a part of are under collaborative work of many esteemed scholars from universities, but official research or attempted standardisation should be peer-reviewed and published under reputable and official organisations such as in conjunction with university institutions that work with the Vietnamese government for instance. That would ensure that Standardised HanNom can actually revive and makes a comeback, even be included into Vietnamese school curriculums or for Vietnamese in this world. Hence, I agree that this form of standardisation is not official, considering that the Government of Vietnam has not made this an official educational resource part of the school curriculum for instance, or into a educational book that is published as "Standardised HanNom". If your aim is to truly revive Han-Nom, it must start in Vietnam preferably with the Vietnamese government, Vietnamese universities and institutions such as the Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies. Publishing this on English Wikipedia does not further your aims for revival of Standardised HanNom. Vietnamese Wikipedia does not list a standardisation of HanNom there at all even. For example, there are modern and official books and resources that are government approved by Vietnam for studies of Tiếng Trung (Mandarin) or Chữ Han/Chữ Nho (With Sino-Vietnamese pronunciations), but for Standard HanNom there seems to be none. You and your colleagues can be the first to push this into the mainstream. But Wikipedia is only a site that follows. It cannot serve as a site that allows one to hold original research, because Wikipedia is not a reliable resource itself. 14.200.217.115 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given what you have written here, it is surprising that you would add this to the article, including an external link in article text. I agree that this organization needs substantial coverage in reliable independent sources before it is included. Kanguole 17:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)