Talk:Đại Việt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lady Trieu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Đại Cồ Việt[edit]

I am Vietnamese and all of Vietnamese know Cồ in Vietnamese is Great. In vi.wiki, Đại Cồ Việt

""Đại" (大) theo nghĩa chữ Hán là lớn, "Cồ" là âm Việt cổ của từ Cự hay Cừ (巨) cũng là lớn. Về sau, Cồ (𡚝) viết theo chữ Nôm gồm 2 chữ Hán là Đại ở trên và Cù (瞿) ở dưới. Đinh Tiên Hoàng muốn ghép hai chữ để khẳng định nước Việt là nước lớn."

Why are you assertive Cồ is Gautama Buddha? Polish Pig (talk · contribs)? Mai Ngọc Xuân (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New vs. Old versions[edit]

The old version of the article only includes the maps for the Ly and Le dynasties, while skipping several other dynasties such as the Dinh, Tran, Ho, and other regimes that appeared during the Le such as the Mac. The new version includes maps for these dynasties as well, and it also explains some of the achievements of these other dynasties. Nguyen Gia Man (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Some other points:

  1. The lede of the old version talks more about the Ly and Le dynasties and does not even mention how the Tran dynasty held off the Mongol invasions. It only says that Dai Viet held off the Mongol invasions in the 13th century without mentioning which dynasty. The new version fixes this by including the Tran dynasty.
  2. The new version also goes into more detail about the Tay Son and Battle of Ngọc Hồi-Đống Đa, one of the greatest victories in Vietnam's history.

Nguyen Gia Man (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why was this called "vandalism"? I find it odd how little engagement the user invited to this conversation has with other Wikipedians... --Donald Trung (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Just including this on the talk page to make a record:

Please don't remove the other maps for Dai Viet. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. The newer version just mentioned the achievements of other dynasties to make it more comprehensive and balanced. It is actually the older version that was not concise, having the very long and hard to read lede, so this is revised in the newer version. Nguyen Gia Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is great, however it is in Spanish! Do we have an English version out there? 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.2.230 (talk)

Discussion about organization of articles on dynasties[edit]

There is a general question about how articles about dynasties are organized, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutralising"[edit]

Main article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037157309

Regarding this edit the edit summary is phrased as "Neutralising" but how is the Nguyễn Dynasty "not neutral"? Also I cannot find the "Kingdom of Vietnam" refer to the "Independent Nguyễn Dynasty period" (literal translation of the name used in all mainstream Vietnamese history books and other works) in any work. Even if the term "Kingdom of Vietnam" is used in some works it seems to be the exception and not the rule. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus, most sources refers the Nguyen realm as "Vietnam" and "kingdom," for example, Christopher Goscha, Keith Taylor, St. Amirell and Patrick O'brien. Liam Kelley and Bradly Campbell on the other hand, refers the polity as "Vietnamese Empire." Laska666 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kelley uses the term "Nguyễn Dynasty" and does so until 1945, a simple Google Scholar search for "Kingdom of Vietnam" comes with no results, the term "Kingdom" is in fact used at times and "Empire" at other times like how in French "Royaume" and "Empire" are used for "Annam" interchangeably, but the term "Nguyễn Dynasty" is still by far the most used term. So it would be best to stick to the more neutral term rather than inventing a new one by merging the fact that people call it both "Vietnam" and "a Kingdom" at the same time as there has never been a country called "Việt Nam Vương quốc". --Donald Trung (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Own historiography"[edit]

I never wrote by myself that the Vietnamese rulers were king, or the Dai Viet kingdom ended in 1802. I don't have any historiography as you alleged.

These books that made up the majority of citation of the article (Strange Parallels: Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland: Southeast Asia in Global Context, C.800–1830, A history of the Vietnamese, and Viet Nam) are academic published sources from the Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, all from academic historians Victor Lieberman, Keith Taylor, and Ben Kiernan, all formidable researchers of Southeast Asian history. They’re of course reliable sources, while you’re going off of what you think.

In short, the basic ethos and structure of Ly government were at best nominally Chinese. Just how bizarre post-imperial Vietnamese society must have appeared to educated Chinese is suggested in the late 10th century ambassadorial account of a barefoot Vietnamese king who entertained his followers by fishing with a bamboo pole,...
— Lieberman, Victor (2003). Strange Parallels: Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland: Southeast Asia in Global Context, C.800–1830. Cambridge University Press. p. 356.

Taylor never refers Vietnamese rulers as "emperors". Instead, that title is usually attributed to Chinese monarchs.

...Vietnamese kings followed the practice of Chinese emperors of designating the years of their rule by reign titles, phrases that expressed the aspirations of the time.
— Taylor, Keith (2013). A history of the Vietnamese. Cambridge University Press. p. 68.

Ben Kiernan indicates that Dai Viet kingdom and it was not an empire:

The Đại Việt kingdom arose and prospered in the same era that saw strong economic growth in Song dynasty China (960–1279), a period of prolonged vitality of Champa, and the zeniths of the Khmer empire of Angkor and the Burmese kingdom of Pagan...

The date that the Vietnamese empire polity of Nguyen Anh started, Bradley Camp Davis, gives 1802 as the monarchy reestablished:

... Following the defeat of the Tây Sơn Rebellion in 1802, the Nguyễn lords established an independent dynasty. From the Nguyễn capital in Huế, in central Vietnam, the former Nguyễn lord Nguyễn Phúc Ánh proclaimed the beginning of the Gia Long reign (1802–19), the first imperial reign title of Nguyễn Vietnam...

Until you provide academic and reliable materials to support your counter argument, the ip vandalism "emperor" shall not replace the academic one, but unless, you're trying to create inconsistent, bizarre things heavily imitating Chinese pages that contrasting academic (global) historiography, like "northern Ngueyn dynasty" and "House of Nguyen Phuc" using your own beliefs, Vietnamese websites, and poorly non-RS.Laska666 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first (1st) reply to the odd remark at the end "Until you provide academic and reliable materials to support your counter argument, the ip vandalism "emperor" shall not replace the academic one, but unless, you're trying to create inconsistent, bizarre things heavily imitating Chinese pages that contrasting academic (global) historiography, like "northern Ngueyn dynasty" and "House of Nguyen Phuc" using your own beliefs, Vietnamese websites, and poorly non-RS." Assuming that it's directed at me as you reverted my edits, please read" WP:AGF" before accusing others of "ip vandalism" as I genuinely think that you don't seem to understand what that term means (is "ip" an abbreviation for "intellectual property" or "internet provider" in this context? What does this even mean?). Where was the term "northern Ngueyn dynasty" even used? ""House of Nguyen Phuc" using your own beliefs", if you mean the "House of Nguyễn Phúc" article published by 99to99 then it must be "a shared delusion" everyone other than you seem to share. If you are referring to "Vietnamese websites, and poorly non-RS" two (2) terms you used at the "Kingdom of Vietnam" AfD discussion to refer to the Museum of National History in Hanoi then I would advise you to read the replies I wrote there concerning that website's validity as basically every "big name" Vietnamese historian from Vietnam gets consulted by them and your argument seems to convey the message that Vietnamese historians are somehow "less authoritative" than foreign historians writing about Vietnamese history (which is highly problematic). But let's say that I would somehow concede all these points to you and argue as if these were all right, well a sinple search through Cambridge's website shows me instances where Vietnamese history is divided into Dynasties:
And the usage of the term "Emperor".
Furthermore, Professor Liam Kelley explains how Vietnamese titles work in these two links:
So let me ask why the end-date is 1802. If dynastic changes didn't affect the existence of this Kingdom as its dates are currently written as "968–1407 - 1428–1802", why did the establishment of the Nguyễn dynasty spell the end of "Đại Việt" in 1802 when the name "Vietnam" was only used in 1804, and why not be affected by other name changes? The names of Vietnam during this period:
  • 968–1054 Đại Cồ Việt
  • 1054–1400 Đại Việt
  • 1400–1407 Đại Ngu
  • 1407–1427 Giao Chỉ (Only recognised break in the Infobox.)
  • 1428–1804 Đại Việt (clearly used after 1802).
So what logic is used behind the classification of a "Đại Việt Kingdom" using these specific dates? I genuinely don't get this article. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Donald Trung. "Dai Viet" is a historical name for Vietnam and none of the sources that I have access to use it the way this article does. There were a lot of names for Vietnam and each emperor had his favorite. What sense does it make to say that the Ho was a dynasty of Dai Viet when the Ho called their country "Dai ngu"? Just the Nguyen dynasty used Dai Viet, Vietnam, Dai Nam, and Annam at various times. The casual reader should be able to think of the country as "Vietnam" and not have to sort their way through this type of trivia.
The title "emperor" seems to be pretty standard in the English-language the RS. In Vietnamese, the ruler is usually referred to as vua (king, father-king), but also as hoàng đế (emperor). 99to99 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at some comments at "A New Vietnamese History. - JUNE 1, 2013" which I believe express "the type of mentality" that user "Laska666" expresses in relation to Vietnamese history and historiography in general. At the comment section of this page a user named "Bai Yue" on JUNE 1, 2013 AT 1:45 AM wrote a comment that stated: "The Japanese stopped paying tribute to China around 1274 and their relationship have pretty much been crappy ever since. In my opinion, they are less Sino influenced that Vietnam. Even though, I agree that Viet history is pretty much fundamentally SEA (stilt houses, bamboo dance, blacken teeth, etc.) there has been arguments that Japanese culture share a lot in common with SE Asia well. What is considered/defined SE Asian culture and E Asian culture is often blurred." I think that this comment captures the Zeitgeist really well surrounding this, there are distinctive "East Asian" and "South-East Asian" cultures and history and Việt Nam should be fully placed into the "South-East Asian" category to differentiate it from China and the Chinese as much as possible. However, in reality such differences aren't as black and white as presented and I would argue that the edits by user "Laska666" to remove as much of Chinese concepts from Vietnamese history as possible in favour of a "more South-East Asian presentation" (not words they ever used but can be deduced from their edits as most of the time they tend to blanket remove "Chinese" concepts and Chinese-type historiography from Vietnamese history articles. A good retort to this mentality can be found from Lê Minh Khải's perspective. Lê Minh Khải replied on JUNE 1, 2013 AT 1:50 AM with a comment that starts with "Yea, and it depends if you are looking at people at the court or people out in the villages (and in which villages). So I read somewhere recently someone make the point that archaeologists have found evidence that people in places like Shandong used to build houses on stilts. They stopped doing it when the population grew and they used up the trees." This actually gives the idea that a lot of things that are often considered to be "distinctively South-East Asian" to not be so "distinctive" as once thought, the idea to separate "Chinese culture" from "South-East Asian culture" (both of which are extremely diverse categories with a lot of unique regional histories that shouldn't always be grouped together). Our understanding of history and culture is always changing and Vietnam has adopted a lot of "Chinese culture" throughout the millennia, so why specifically try to present it as "South-East Asian". Lê Minh Khải later explains that "The Vietnamese didn’t live in houses on stilts because. . . the population was large and there were not enough trees. The Javanese did not live in houses on stilts because. . . the population was large and there were not enough trees." which explains why these things existed regionally, while this example may seem specific and unrelated to the hand it shows the biases of user "Laska666" for deliberately trying to exclude "dynasties" from Vietnamese history and why they called the "House of Nguyễn Phúc" article "a fantasy", it is because of their "Southeast Asianist" historiography, they admitted multiple times that the "History of Vietnam" should include Champa and Funan, so to them it may seem odd to have a "Chinese-style" history for the "Vietnamese people" and a "South-East Asian-style" history for Champa. "So do houses on stilts mark a divide between “Southeast Asia” and “East Asia”? As you said, “What is considered/defined SE Asian culture and E Asian culture is often blurred.”" And this is what the mentality around Far Eastern history really is and should be, blurred. No two places are the same and places close to each other tend to be more similar than dissimilar. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My cursory understanding is that Vietnamese rulers used the equivalent of king abroad (in relation t,o Chinese dynasties) while using emperor at home. Is this wrong? Qiushufang (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)and[reply]
I don't see any pattern like that. Gia Long, Minh Mạng, and Dục Đức were all hoàng đế (emperors). Dục Đức (1883) was both hoàng đế and vua (king). Hàm Nghi (1884-1885) dropped hoàng đế and went with just vua. It's Vua Duy Tân [1907-1916] and Vua Bảo Đại [1926-1945]. 99to99 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A postage stamp of the Empire of Vietnam (the Nguyễn dynasty under Japanese rule) using the term "Hoàng-Đế Bảo-Đại".
Sovereign rulers (both Emperors and Kings) in general are referred to in Vietnamese as Vua (君), in Nôm this would be " 𢁨, 𢂜, 𢃊, 𤤰, 𪻟, 𪼀, 󰅫, and / or 󰅻". The thing about the "Emperor at home, king abroad" (外王內帝, Ngoại Vương Nội Đế) concept is that it is based on court language and Classical Chinese speech, in both Vernacular Vietnamese and Vernacular Korean the head of state is called a Vua (君) and this is used informally to refer to their monarch as it is the Chinese term that roughly translates to "sovereign" or "sovereign monarch", meanwhile the Vietnamese monarchs called themselves "Hoàng-Đế" (皇帝, "Emperor") and Korean monarchs called themselves "Vương" (王, "King" if it's a sovereign nation, "Prince" if it is subordinate to a sovereign nation). Personally I wouldn't translate "Vua" as "King" as the term is universally used for sovereign monarchs ("Vua Trung Quốc" and "Vua Trung Hoa" are terms for the Chinese Emperors for example), a better translation would be "Sovereign" but mainstream translations tend to be "Emperor" and "King" so we have to use those. Regarding the titles discussed by 99to99 above, well in court language Duy Tân and Bảo Đại were were referred to as "Hoàng-Đế" but on Vernacular Vietnamese this was always "Vua", the same goes for "Vua Gia Long", this is simply a difference between Vernacular Vietnamese / Vernacular Korean and Classical Chinese. English sources differ on this as well with "King" and "Emperor", if we look at the article "Brief history of the Nguyen dynasty - Update: 21/12/2009 03:17:43 - The Nguyen dynasty (1802-1945) began with the reign of king Gia Long, who was the dynasty’s founder, and ended with the reign of king Bao Dai who was the last monarch time of Vietnam." we see the usage of the phrase "King" but if we actually click on an individual monarch we get "11. Emperor Duy Tan (1907-1916) - Update: 14/11/2013 09:28:41" and "10. Emperor Thanh Thai (1889-1907) - Update: 12/11/2009 03:47:54", these pages are all published by the Huế World Heritage website, the website of the official museum of Huế's imperial citadel and they are woefully inconsistent.
The official French translation for the title of the monarch of Vietnam seemed to have been "Roi de l'Annam" for Đồng Khánh and "Empereur de l'Annam" for Khải Định, for Bảo Đại I have seen both appear on official documents issued by the French. Most modern Vietnamese sources refer to Bảo Đại after 1945 as "Cứu Hoàng" ("Former Emperor", "Formerly yellow") while before 1945 they use "Vua". There really isn't any consistency with this, but the titles used by Vietnamese monarchs internally and their temple names do reflect that they all considered themselves to be Emperor. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the 1943 succession law. It uses Bảo-Đại Hoàng-Đế. I haven't seen that format anywhere else. There is also Duy Tân (phế đế). He was the "rightful king," as The Telegraph would put it, but in exile at that time. The language authorities discourage the use of Sino-Vietnamese words like hoàng đế, so that's a factor that would influence modern usage. What's the opposite of Sino-Vietnamese? Ethnically pure Vietnamese? 99to99 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnamese (like Korean, Japanese, and the Okinawan languages) is 60~70% Chinese, even terms like "Vua" are Chinese and how "Vua" gets translated is up to the interpreter. I have seen "Vua" get translated as "King" and as "Emperor" depending on the context. The push to drive out Classical Chinese in the Nguyễn Dynasty starting from the Khải Định period on a governmental scale (but only on "a social level" during the Duy Tân reign period) was a reform movement headed by the mandarins of the Nguyễn Dynasty themselves being influenced by the developments occurring in both French Cochinchina and more importantly the Qing Dynasty and later the Republic of China. The adoption of "Vernacular Vietnamese" occurred during the same period as the Chinese adopted "Vernacular Mandarin" as the national language (although Đại-Nam was slightly later), French Cochinchina pushed for Latin script since its inception and many French ideas found their way into the minds of the Nguyễn Dynasty's mandarins through chữ Quốc ngữ (a term Pétrus Ky invented to promote its usage over Traditional Chinese characters, a successful psychological campaign as it asserted the "Vietnameseness" of Latin script over Traditional Chinese characters). What would have likely influenced how the term was translated was how the French addressed the "Emperor of Annam", as during the 1920's until 1940's the term "Emperor" was used by the French but before Khải Định it was almost exclusively "King", in a lot of English-language media the opposite happened where "Emperor" was common before but "King" was common later (talking about when the Nguyễn Dynasty still existed). This newspaper calls Thành Thái "The Emperor of Annam", but you also have the King of Annam - Who murders his wives just for the pleasure of seeing them expire - Chronicling America (6 November 1907). I am sure that there is a debate to be had here and I am not against "King" and "Emperor" being used interchangeably due to the blurry distinction between these titles in Vietnamese historiography, I am just against user "Laska666's" crusade against the title "Emperor", it is actually funny, they could just as well be a Chinese untranationalist that wants to remove the title "Emperor" in order to make China seem more important, but in Vietnam (like Taiwan) there is this sort of "ultranationalist horseshoe" where the opposites meet in wanting to re-write history in order to distinguish the Vietnamese / Taiwanese at a maximum from "the Chinese" (which can be localised versions of Chinese culture, whatever "Chinese culture" meant before the 20th century). I would say that any definitive pick for either "King" or "Emperor" would be highly controversial, but during most of "the Đại Việt period" the monarchs of Viet Nam undoubtedly called themselves as "Emperors". --Donald Trung (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vua is not Sino-Vietnamese. See this dictionary. The Sino-Vietnamese word for king is vương (Chinese 王, Mandarin wáng). The character for vua (𢁨𤤰) is specific to Vietnamese and combines vương and bố (布), which suggests an etymology of "father king." 99to99 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that Vua is a "National sound" (國音, Quốc Âm) or "National language" (國語, Quốc ngữ) word, but like with Japanese Chinese characters can have "National" and "Chinese" reading and Vua has many forms, for example "君" (Quân, Vua) is a purely Chinese reading of what was likely a national word. I don't think that "𢁨" is a combination of Vương (王) and Bố (布), I think that it's a combination of Vua (君) and Bố (布), look at all the other characters derived from "君" which are "侰, 群, 裙, 郡, 捃, 珺, 桾, 宭, 窘, 𠧬, 𠹩, 𫘿, 𡝗, 䞫, 頵(𫖳), 覠(𰴙), 𦌺, 𠲰, 𭊝, 𢽏, 𫺔, 𬂁, 𣇉, 𬱌, 𩂿, 𨧡, 涒, 焄, 𤉙, 桾, 莙, 䇹, 𦀲, 𪣣, 峮, 㟒, 裠, 𧛬, 𬡝, 帬, 𢂽, 𢃆, 𬒽, 輑, 𰺈, 𢧃, 羣, 麏, 鮶(鲪), and 鵘", it's noticeable that this character has "君" on top and "布" at the bottom, this would indicate that as a word it probably either sounded like "Vua" and meant something like "Father", or it sounded like "Bố" and meant something like "Sovereign / Monarch". I am inclined to think that Bố (布) likely meant something along the line of "authority figure" as in the Confucian system fathers were the head of the family and the "Vua" was likely also "the head of the national family". Another hypothesis I have is that Bố (布) was phonetic as it might have sounded similar to "Vua" because in Chinese it sounded like *pˤa-s (Pass) or like puoH (Pwuoh), it was also the Nôm form of Vú (“breast”). Meanwhile "君" might have originally only meant Quân before it also started to sound like Vua in order to use "purely Chinese writing". The Lao word ຜ້າ (phā) is also derived from Bố (布), notice how this word sounds somewhat close to Vua. I am not saying that it doesn't mean "King", I am just saying that it's not derived from the Chinese word for King, Vương (王).
Also notice that the "National" or "Southern" word for father, Bố (𢂞) is also a compound of Bố (布) and Phụ (父, Chinese for "Father") as the modern Northern Vietnamese word for father is likely a Tai loan word so the Nôm contains "instructions" for how a Chinese person would understand it, is a Phụ sounds like Bố. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: "君" was pronounced as kɨun (Kyun) in Chinese, kun (Kuun) in Japanese, and gun (Guun) in Korean, this causes me to think that Quân was the original Vietnamese pronunciation of "君" and that Bố (布) was later added as it used to sound like Vua would today (notice that language changes over time, so what might have been phonetic centuries ago isn't phonetic today) and it confirms my theory that Vua wasn't the original reading of "君" meaning that you are absolutely correct that it's not a Chinese word.
"Vua" indeed usually gets translated as "King", but Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also referred to as "Empress Elizabeth II" because there is very little distinction between an "Emperor" and "King", also notice that Nam Phương is always called a "Hoàng Hậu" (皇后) and not a "Vương Hậu" (王后).
"Vua là một danh từ trung lập trong tiếng Việt để gọi các nguyên thủ quốc gia trong chế độ quân chủ, tương tương tiếng Anh là monarch, sovereign, ruler, king, emperor và chữ Hán là quân chủ (君主)." from Wikipedia's Vua. Likely "King" and "Emperor" were Chinese concepts introduced to the Vietnamese and the Vietnamese simply used the term "Sovereign" or "Monarch" before these concepts were introduced. This is why I wouldn't go as far as saying that "Vua" only means "King" as it most likely was a general term to mean any sovereign monarch that ruled a territory and only the Classical Chinese-using court used "King" and "Emperor". --Donald Trung (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We were both wrong and both right, you used the character "𢁨", but the character you were looking for is "𤤰". Quoting the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia: "Tại Việt Nam, thời kỳ dùng chữ Hán như nhà Lý và nhà Trần, vẫn ghi chép văn tự theo ngôn ngữ Hán mà không có danh từ bản địa hóa ám chỉ người thống trị. Thời nhà Nguyễn, khi các sách chữ Nôm ngày càng nhiều, xuất hiện một từ ghép từ chữ ["Vương"; 王] và ["Bố"; 布], chính là chữ [Vua; 𤤰]. Những sách như Thạch Sanh tân truyện (1917) và Sự tích ông Trạng Quỳnh (1940) đều ghi nhận sự xuất hiện của danh từ này.", which is one of the possible readings, but I find that "𢁨" is more commonly used than "𤤰" in most sources I can find, this doesn't mean that this is also true for Nguyễn Dynasty period Nôm texts. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that 𤤰 is the more-or-less standard character for vua, so I should have used that. A Sino-Vietnamese character is the sort of character that gets listed in a Han-Viet dictionary. By this standard, vua is definitely not Sino-Vietnamese. If we treat bố as a phonetic, that would suggest that someone thought that vua sounded like bố. IMO, we're looking at a double radical of "king-father." Nguyen Trai (1380-1442) used both 𢃊 and 𤤰 for vua. I guess they didn't have copy editors back then. 99to99 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to use my wife's Windows 10 laptop to comment because most mobile telephones can't read Chữ Nôm at all, anyhow regarding the title of Vua I don't think that it's odd for Trai to have used both 𢃊 and 𤤰, "National sounds" / "Southern language" wasn't standardised as the intelligentsia exclusively used Classical Chinese to communicate with each other, similar to how Latin was standard in Europe, Classical Arabic in the Islamic world, Sanskrit and Padi in South Asia, Etc. vernacular languages aren't really treated as they are today, for example the great English playwright William Shakespeare never wrote his own name twice the same and invented over 420 (four-hundred-and-twenty) words simply because English wasn't standarised (and is actually still one of the few non-standardised major languages in Europe). "Edmund Weiner, deputy chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, explains it this way: The vocabulary of English expanded greatly during the early modern period. Writers were well aware of this and argued about it. Some were in favour of loanwords to express new concepts, especially from Latin. Others advocated the use of existing English words, or new compounds of them, for this purpose. Others advocated the revival of obsolete words and the adoption of regional dialect." This wouldn't be too different for Vietnamese, if so much of the language is already Chinese and the only way people who could think of writing were thinking of writing would be to do so in Chinese, like how in English (and Vietnamese today) this would be Latin, but in a way of non-standardised writing people would write things would be a lot more phonetic than those who do have standardised writing, likewise an illiterate person "wouldn't think in letters and numbers" so most people who used written Vietnamese to communicate were literate only also in Chinese so they would have borrowed the concepts from Chinese, I don't think that "𤤰" is composed out of double-radicals, the word bố as in father was written as "𢂞" during this period and it specifically contains the radical for "father" (父, Phụ). The Chinese word for "Monarch" or "Sovereign" is Quân chủ (君主), now why would Quân (君) also turn into Vua (君)? I would guess that it would only be logical to appropriate a "native Southern" word (Vua), people did do this with Chinese words all the time, Japanese is a good example of this would be "The practice of performing seppuku at the death of one's master, known as oibara (追腹 or 追い腹, the kun'yomi or Japanese reading) or tsuifuku (追腹, the on'yomi or Chinese reading), follows a similar ritual." meaning that Vua (君) is just the Southern reading of the Chinese word Quân (君) like how Tsuifuku and Oibara are both "追腹". "𢃊" is composed out of bố (布) and Đồng (同), which (if your theory of double radicals is correct) could mean "Collective father" or "Father of the group". But bố (布) the Chinese word could mean "cloth; textiles" (borrowed into Thai as ผ้า (pâa, “cloth”) and into Lao as ผ้า (pâa, “cloth”,),), "to announce; to proclaim", "to spread", and "to deploy; to set out". But Vua is not a Chinese word, it is a "Southern" word and the Nôm readings bố, vú, bó, bồ, vó, múa, búa, vố, and bô. A lot of these can sound somewhat similar to Vua or how it might have historically have been pronounced.
Another point what I would like to make is that people are very sensitive about how they are addressed and I don't think that someone who calls himself "an Emperor" would want to be called "a King", in Dutch the old words for "woman" (wijf) and "girl" (wicht) are now considered to be misogynistic insults and only "vrouw" (a historical title of nobility) and "meisje" (maiden, a historical indicator that a female hasn't ever had sex) are to be used, but in some local languages like Low-Saxon "wief" and "wicht/wichie" are still used in their historical context which I have seen cause a lot of arguments between those that speak the standard language and those that speak a regional language (in English "wife" and in German "weib" are acceptable words, but in Dutch it is now considered to be "lower class" and "degrading", I highly doubt that Lý Thái Tổ would want to be called a Vương, a title his father bore and was below that of the monarch). Likewise countries a country like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is called Vương quốc Anh (王國英, "The Kingdom of the English") but the Vietnamese Empire was called Đế quốc Việt Nam (帝國越南), in early contact with the French they spoke of the "King of Annam" but from the early 20th century they started using "Emperor of Annam" more and the government of the Nguyễn Dynasty always emphasised the fact that they were "Imperial" in French whenever they could.

In his account about the meeting with Vietnamese officials in Hue on January 17, 1832, Edmund Roberts, American embassy in Vietnam, wrote : "...The country, they said, is not now called Annam, as formerly, but Wietnam (Vietnam), and it is ruled, not by a king, but by an emperor,..."
— Miller, Robert (1990). United States and Vietnam 1787–1941. Washington DC: National Defense University Press. Page 25.

Because of this I don't think that Vua (at least before 1945) meant "King" but was a more general term for monarch, otherwise I would have expected the Nguyễn to have launched a campaign against it or at the very least avoid using it for themselves. Now the reason why Latin script became popular while Chữ Nôm didn't are manyfold, in French Cochinchina the French pushed its usage and large portion of what is today Vietnam existed for decades "thinking only in Latin script" and mostly thinking French ideas and if the French called the monarch of the Great South a "King" they likely did so too, but in the French Protectorates of Annam and Tonkin new ideas were flowing in from both China and French Cochinchina, Traditional Chinese characters were used for Chinese and Japanese ideas while almost all French ideas and discussions about French ideas occurred in Saigon so it only became natural that Latin script so heavily pushed by the French and French collaborators in Saigon would push out Chữ Nôm that had very little backing and while some attempts at standardising Chữ Nôm were tried in Annam and Tonkin Latin script prevailed. So there is no standard word for Vua in Chữ Nôm, but I would be quite curious to see which ones the Annamese and Tonkinese authorities would have preferred. My guess is that the Emperors of Đại-Nam likely didn't see it as meaning "King" hence weren't against it. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to consider here is that Vương (王) is never read as Vua, yet Quân (君) is also read as Vua (君), indicating that people saw "King" as something very distinct from the more general concept of "Vua". This is also why I'm cautious against the whole "removal of false titles" because we see the Vietnamese monarchs using Chinese titles that certainly means Emperor and native Southern people using the "Southern word" which could maybe be translated as King. It is like "Where does a Sultan fit?" We know the titles of "King" and "Emir", but a Sultan is different from both, the first Sultans were essentially "Turkic Shoguns in an Arab Caliphate" while the Ottoman Sultans also were "The Ceasars of Rome" and "The Caliphs of Islam", b ut Sultan is the more common title for them. Saudi Arabia and Morocco were both Sultanates but "upgraded" to Kingdoms. I think that the Vietnamese monarchs were likely sensitive with their titles and wouldn't have liked to have been called anything lower than "Emperor" at home, which is also why I doubt that Vua meant something other than "Sovereign" or "Monarch" before 1945 (at least outside of French Cochinchina). --Donald Trung (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that the infobox always says "Kingdom of XXX" for Quốc (國), likewise many translate Trung Quốc (中國) as the "Middle Kingdom", but I would say that such a translation is a common mistranslation, "Central State" or "Central Country" being better. We don't remove any references to the Emperor of China to be "King Yongle", "King Qianlong", "King Guangxu", Etc. Japan is an Empire and Quốc (國) is usually translated as "State (of)" in Japan's context as is Dân Quốc (民國) is sometimes said to be "People's Kingdom" but there is a reason why "Vương quốc" is a term in modern Chinese. I don't think that we should be referring to Dynastic Vietnam as "Kingdom of XXX" like user "Laska666'" additions to the infobox have done. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Vietnam

@Qiushufang:, in order to not be repetitive I linked the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Vietnam" discussion above, regarding this article a lot can be deduced from what is written there so I would advise you to read it. Concerning this article please compare:

This is what I would like to call "The Laska666 Historiography of Vietnam" which can be divided (from 968) as:

  • Kingdom of Đại Việt (968–1407; 1428–1804).
  • Fourth Chinese domination period (1407-1428).
  • Kingdom of Vietnam (1802-1885), ignore that most end dates of the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) are 1883, 1884, or 1886.
  • French Indochina (Starting in 1885 despite being created in 1887).
  • They haven't re-written the articles about "Post-1945 Vietnam" yet.

Also check out all the articles about Vietnamese dynasties and their weird POV push that's quite "WP:SNEAKY". Alterering the Lý Dynasty into being about the imperial family because it "make sense", remove a number of reliable books and sources they disagree with to redefine this period using the edit summary "Phrasing", "Fix definition." of the Later Lê Dynasty as just a few examples. This user is deliberately creating a gap between Wikipedia and the academic discussion of Vietnamese history in order to push their own POV. The biggest issue I have with this is that these new definitions don't seem to be grounded in any actual definitions, why was the "Đại Việt" of Gia Long in 1803 a different state from the "Đại Việt" of the Later Lê Dynasty but is the latter the same as the Lý Dynasty's "Đại Việt"? Don't even get me started on the "Royal Vietnamese army" clusterfuck that somehow puts all militaries of all Vietnamese dynasties and the Nguyễn Lords AND the Tây Sơn rebels into a single military, but somehow Gia Long's military in 1802 is different from his same military a few decades earlier. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be absolutely clear here, I am not against this article being about a very vaguely defined country called "Đại Việt" or even "Nước Đại Việt" (渃大越), I am against these arbitrary dates that seem to be based on a deliberate misinterpretation of reliable sources in order to fit one's vision for Vietnamese historiography, why not end Đại Việt in 1804? I fail to see why every dynasty in Vietnamese history ruled over the same country except for the Nguyễn. This makes no sense.

As the original article used to say:

"Đại Việt (大越, IPA: ɗâjˀ vìət, literally Great Viet) is the name of Vietnam for the periods from 1054 to 1400 and from 1428 to 1804. Beginning with the rule of Lý Thánh Tông (r. 1054–1072), the third emperor of the Lý Dynasty, until the rule of Gia Long (r. 1802–1820), the first emperor of the Nguyễn Dynasty, it was the second-longest used name for the country after "Văn Lang"."
— https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_Vi%E1%BB%87t&oldid=972959204

No weird insertion of Đại Cồ Việt or Đại Ngu, just Đại Việt. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rectification of names[edit]

I saw that Editorfree1011 just rectified the names, but as can be seen above this is just cleaning up after Laska666' own definitions of what "Pre-Nguyễn Independent Vietnam" should be (using a phrase to try to justify the time periods they specifically chose), note that in several other articles Laska666 undid edits by Editorfree1011 claiming that they were "vandalism" because they "interfered with their historiography" (to put it). From what I can tell the user "Editorfree1011" just sees an odd situation and tries to justify this with logic, but there isn't a concise logic behind a lot of it (a lot of the content that already exists, note that I am not criticising user "Editorfree1011" here, just the current odd state of this article). Why is Đại Ngu (大虞) both included in the dates and excluded as a name? And why would we include this and not the Nguyễn? These things all make little sense in the way that the article is currently presented. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim attributed to Nguyễn Tài Cẩn[edit]

Laska666 (talk) wrote:

The theory about Vietnamese migration from mountainous Central Vietnam to the Red River Delta was first proposed by Vietnamese linguist Nguyễn Tài Cẩn in 1997 when he was researching on language of Vietic Chứt people in Central Vietnam, an ethnic minority group that speak a Vietic language related to the Vietnamese language.

citing Nguyen, Tai Can (1997). Giáo trình lịch sử ngữ âm tiếng Việt Sơ thảo. Nxb. Giáo dục. p. 322-323

However, Donald Trung pointed out here that Laska666 (talk) is known for misinterpreting sources.

I don't have a copy of Nguyễn Tài Cẩn's 1997 book so can anybody verify it? Erminwin (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Princes were bilinguals, and they could speak both Chinese and Vietnamese"[edit]

@Laska666:, I saw in this edit that you removed the above phrase from the article, why? You didn't provide a reason in the edit summary.

Also, the correct grammatical form would be "Princes were bilingual; they could speak both Chinese and Vietnamese". --Donald Trung (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Đại_Việt&oldid=1195060783"