Embedded Files
From: Adam Fforde [mailto:fforde@unimelb.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2005 11:15 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Nom na
Hi
Does anybody know whether the 'na' in 'Nom na' has a character to do with it? It is nice the way it is used so demotically. And would many take issue with translating 'vua phai' as 'just right'? Reasonable - hop ly; suitable, appropriate - thich hop .
Adam
Dr Adam Fforde
Principal Fellow, Rm 205
Melbourne Institute of Asian Languages and Societies
University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010 Australia
From leductony@yahoo.com Mon May 2 19:06:27 2005
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
I would translate "vua phai" as meaning either "moderate" or "reasonable" or "temperate"
As in these somewhat colloquial expressions:
no 'i vua phai tho ^i. -Du *ng no 'i qua ' -da 'ng.
"Speak moderately . Don't cross the line."
or "uong vua phai thoi!"
Drink (alcohol) temperately!
"moderate" doesn't really capture the colloquial nature of the expression, but basically that's what it means.
anthony
From adam@aduki.com.au Mon May 2 21:52:40 2005
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 14:52:08 +1000
From: Adam <adam@aduki.com.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Cc: Back-up <back_up@aduki.com.au>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Thanks Anthony,
My musings on the came up in discussing management of relations between an NGO and a civic group ... 'not too heavy handed, not too light handed, but 'just right''. 'Reasonable' seems not quite right, moderately and temperate fine in the contexts you give ... but would not be used by the English in this context, I think. Once again, words have uses as well as meanings ... I think there are similar things to talk about in English usage in this context too. Not sure.
Adam
From sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca Tue May 3 05:51:41 2005
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 06:51:18 -0600
From: Sinh Vinh <sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Cc: 'Back-up' <back_up@aduki.com.au>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
The Chinese character for "No^m" is a combination of the radical kha^?u" (mouth/spoken) on the left, and Nam (South/southern) on the right. "Chu+~ No^m" is thus the spoken language of the people in the South (i.e. the Vietnamese). In the "demotic script" (chu+~ No^m), No^m is written in the same way with its Chinese character.
No^m has often been used in contrast to "Ha'n", China/Chinese. No^m thus implies "native to Vietnam" or in the case of "no'i no^m na", it means "plainly speaking/in common parlance".
The answer for Adam's query is that "na" could be written with the character "Na" for Chi-Na (China), but without any meaning. Na in this case is no longer a Chinese character, but should be considered as a demotic script (Chu+~ No^m). In short, Na is used in together with no^m (no^m na) for onomatopoetic purpose, just like words such
as " na^'n na' ", " e^m a?", "nha^?n nha", etc.
Best,
VS
From Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu Tue May 3 06:39:02 2005
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:29:47 -0400
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Absolutely ! A look-up in the synonym column could give us many comparable shades of meanings, but they are not always interchangeable.
I think the sense here is "happy medium," "golden mean" (but not "middle of the road", "straddling the fence"), "judiciously balanced" (but not "average", "half-measures", "halfway measures", "half-and-half measures), etc.
Translation is such an onerous task, except when one is lucky and hits on the right note, that is, "just right" (which is not "vu+`a pha?i" in this case ?) !
Nguyen Ba Chung
From tbalaban@earthlink.net Tue May 3 10:09:49 2005
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:09:34 -0400
From: John Balaban <tbalaban@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Adam, Ngo Thanh Nhan, my colleague at http://nomfoundation.org sent me the below in response to your query. You can find the character from our Look-Up Tool at the website.
Dear John,
'na' in 'no^m na' is a reduplicated syllable of 'no^m'. This rhyme 'a' + initial of the original syllable + level tone on the same high, is very productive.
So you find ne^'t na
ra^`y ra`
bo^n ba
nga^m nga
thie^'t tha
thu+o+'t tha
ma(.n ma`
dda^.m dda`
...
It's role is to enhance the meaning of the main syllable.
Best,
Nhan
From sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca Tue May 3 13:41:01 2005
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 14:38:54 -0600
From: Sinh Vinh <sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Of the terms cited by Ngo Thanh Nhan below, note that "bo^n ba" is a Sino-Vietnamese term. Bo^n in Chinese means "to run away", "ba" means "waves", put together "bo^n ba" implies "the toil of life". "Bo^n ba vi` quo^'c su+." means "exert oneself in the interests of one's country".
Other than the above, the words ending with an "a" sound in the list can be considered as chu+~ No^m, and as suggested by Nhan, have been formed onomatopoetically to enhance the rhetorical value of the first words.
Best,
VS
From Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu Tue May 3 14:59:40 2005
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:50:10 -0400
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
I think what Nhan, who is a linguist, describes is a kind of rule in the formation of these compound words. Vietnamese is supposedly monosyllabic, but it does contain compound words, sometimes, as in this case, for aesthetic reason. The Vietnamese tend to dislike sounds that are, contextually, considered "co^.c lo^'c" (too short, curt).
And yes, writers have the right to create their own coumpound forms. As in "nha` (vo+i') nhie^'c," or "nha` (vo+'i) nho`", or "nha` (vo+'i) nha~", etc. As long as the context is clear, they are free to make them up.
I don't have the reference at hand so I can't quote from some of Ho Xuan Huong's inventions.
Chung
From tonthat@homemail.com.au Tue May 3 15:43:33 2005
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:40:33 -0700
From: ton that quynh du <tonthat@homemail.com.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Dear list,
Trust the muciacian in Adam to ask a question that goes to the heart of the musicality of our language. Adam's post, originally quite a specific question "is there a character
to na in no^m na, has attracted quite a few replies. It remainds me of that long discussion on VSG years back, on usage of Vietnamese started by Kim Ninh's original query Vietnam or Viet Nam. Perhaps the VSG could have more discussion on language and usage of Vietnamese.
I think Dr Nhan is quite right in saying that 'na' in 'no^m na' is a reduplicated syllable of 'no^m'. and Dr Sinh may well be right in saying that na etymologically is from the ~SNa~T for Chi-Na (China), but without any meaning. Na in this case is no longer a Chinese character, but should be considered as a demotic script (Chu+~ No^m). In short, Na is used in together with no^m (no^m na) for onomatopoetic purpose.
Nevertheless, a fuller answer comes from a more rounded look at the role of re-duplicatives as a word derivation device in the Vietnamese language. You see, because the form of the Vietnamese word cannot be changed, one of the most important strategy of word derivation is to put two words together to form a new one, usually of a slightly different meaning.
Often the component words themselves have their own meanings. Ong bu+'o+m, nha` cu+?a, a(n uo^'ng, vv... the list is huge, but in terms of usage and constructions we can identify the following kinds:
1. Two words of unrelated meaning to form another word of very different meaning, but suggested in the semantic content of the components. Ong buo+o+'m = sexual liaison,
2. Two words of related meanings to form a more generic meaning nha` (house) cu+?a (door) = housing, houses, accomodation in general. (We say To^i sa('p mua nha` - specific, not toi sap mua nha cua.) sometimes one component word has gone out of common usage, but the combined word remains, as in the case of ddu+o+`ng sa', the word sa' is no longer in common usage but duong sa remains.
3. A key semantic root word is combine with a reduplicative to form another word, usually to indicate a different shade of meaning or to create a word at a more generic level, thus often lending itself towards a diferent grammatical type. Thus from the key word la.nh (cold), we have three words with different shades of meanings la.nh lu`ng (as in a cold person), la.nh le~o (atmospherics as in Nguyen Phuyen lovely poem Ao Thu)
and la`nh la.nh (coldish as in Canberra September evenings) And from buo^`n we have buo^`n ba~. We say No^~i buo^`n chie^'n tranh and not No^~i buo^`n ba~ chie^'n tranh.
4 A key word may have derivatives from different contruction strategies. From Cu+'ng we have Cu+'ng ra('n and the reduplicative Cu+'ng co~i both meaniing tough, hard (as in a tough or a hard person) and from buo^`n we have buo^`n ra^`u and the reduplicaive buo^`n ba~ The list is huge, but an understanding of the reasons why we have these
lies in its usage.
The need to have related words of different shades of meaning is easy to appreciate. We do need la.nh lu`ng and la.nh le~o. But why do we need buo^`n and buo^`n ba~, no^m and no^m na. What is the difference in terms of usage, apart from cases where sage can be explained in terms of meaning, collocation and other rules of usage? Vo Phien highlighted in one of his essays, published in his collection Tieu Luan, I think, that one important aspects of the Vietnamese language is how it sounds to the ear. Nguyen Hien Le, also stressed the importance of the balance of syllables. In his Toi Tap Viet Tieng Viet he gives a good example. I think he said Lo+'p dda^`y tre?. is a balanced suttering, where lo+'p (one syllable) is counterbalanced by tre? Lo+'p ho.c dda^`y tre? em. is also balanced and sweet to the ear, but not Lo+'p ho.c dda^`y tre? or Lo+'p dda^`y tre? em.
Nom Na I think clearly is a reduplicative from Nom. Where Na comes from I cannot guess, but the usage of nom na as I understand it to be the case currently satisfies the following needs.
1. Nom is more appropriate for a specific usage. We say - Chu+~ na`y la` chu+~ No^m hay chu+~ Ha'n? and not - Chu+~ na`y la` chu+~ No^m Na hay chu+~ Ha'n?
2. No^m refers to a system of writing for a system of language. No^m Na, it's derivative, refers to more than that, usually a system of values that includes much more than just language usage.
3. Because of its more generic nature, nom na lends itself more readily towards usage that is filled in the English language by adverbs.
No'i No^m Na thi` .... plainly speaking ...
4. It's muscality is different. Try saying No^m Na la` cha ma'ch que'. No^m la` o^m ma'ch que'. qould definitely grate on the ears, at least on the ears of Nguyen Hien Le.
Trust the musician in Adma Fford to ask this question that goes straight to the role of sound in spoken Vietnamese.
Du
From sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca Tue May 3 16:41:41 2005
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:40:25 -0600
From: Sinh Vinh <sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Chung and Du's thoughtful responses are much appreciated.
I suppose all I wished to say in the first part of my last mail is that "bo^n ba", unlike other terms in Nhan's list, is not a Vietnamese creation/invention.
Best wishes,
VSinh
From adam@aduki.com.au Tue May 3 17:10:28 2005
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:09:02 +1000
From: adam <adam@aduki.com.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
The use of 'nom na' I recall was in a discussion of the need to reduce the academicisation (ugh) of terms, talking about how to turn researchers' questions into forms that would work with ordinary people. This was for a survey of farmers' organisations (another can of worms) 'Phai bot cai 'han lam'' was far less effective than 'nom na ma noi', which is really cute. The tone pattern gives it lovely attack rhetorically. The labial voiced starting consonants ease this, and it has no glottals to annoy southerners (Anh a). What I personally like about the phrase is that it works with very ordinary people, and lurking in the middle of it is the 'nom' word which is a rather high register term. Appropriation ...
Adam
From tonthat@homemail.com.au Tue May 3 17:24:57 2005
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 10:21:27 -0700
From: ton that quynh du <tonthat@homemail.com.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] FW: Nom na
Adam,
You are quite right.
No^m na ma` no'i, (in plain language, speaking in plain terms) does hint at qualities of straight talking, of being direct, of using the language of the common people.
And this is why I said in my email No^m refers to a system of writing for a system of language. No^m Na, its derivative, refers to more than that, usually a system of values that includes much more than just language usage.
Cheers,
Du
PS A general apology to the list for the typographical errors in my emails. I really should proofread them before hitting the send button.
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: bcampdvs@u.washington.edu
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
Adam, Vinh Sinh and List:
Probably seperate from the context of the Vietnamese phrase, but I came across Nan2 (Matthews Dictionary 4621) and Na4 (M.D. 4609) which can be combined to make the phrase nan nan na na, meaning muttering or grumbling.
The chu Han for Nan2 is also read as Nam in Han-Viet. It is identical to the chu Nom for No^m.
The chu Han for Na4 (different from the na in chi na) is, in both forms (one with ngo^n radical and one with kha^?u radical) identical to the chu Nom for No/i, to speak.
So, and I apologize if this seems a little dry, how should we distinguish chu Han and chu Nom in cases where there are identical chu that have a Han Viet and Nom reading?
Could it be the case that chu such as Nam/Nom and Na/Noi have "Chinese" counterparts that resulted from a similar localized adaptive phonetic process?
I guess it would be possible to say chu Nom for everything, chu Nho or Chu Nom. That would locate what we call it squarely within the phonetic field. But that would also obscure what people in tieng Viet refer to as Chu Nom Tay, Chu Nom Dao, etc.
Best,
From sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca Tue May 3 21:51:08 2005
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 22:49:28 -0600
From: Sinh Vinh <sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
Hi Bruce (I hope I remember your first name correctly) et al.:
This is a highly complex matter. I will try my best to respond to your queries briefly. Please see below:
In Sino-Vietnamese, nan2 nan2 are pronounced either "No^m no^m" or "Nam nam". To my knowledge, this compound Sino-Vietnamese term is not adopted and used in the Vietnamese language. The Vietnamese (No^m) equivalent of that would be "la^?m ba la^?m ba^?m", "la^?m ba^?m", or "la^?m nha^?m". Na4 na4 in Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation is "no^.t no^.t". This compound Sino-Vietnamese exists, I believe, only in literary/classical Chinese -- and like nan2 nam2 -- was not adopted and used in the Vietnamese language. The Vietnamese (No^m) equivalent of this term is a^'p u'ng, a^'p u+', nga('c ngu+'.
For a single character, there are cases in which the character has the same Han Viet and Nom reading/pronunciation. There are other possibilities, as you know, which I shall not be discuss here.
For a compound term, however, the distinction/difference is clearer. For example, Nan2 nan2 and na4 na4, as discussed above, do not exist in chu Nom. In contrast, "bo^n ba", cited in Nhan's list, is a Sino-Vietnamese term but has been adopted and used in the Vietnamese. Because "bo^n ba" is a Han (read Sino-Vietnamese) term and not chu Nom, it should be treated differently from the Nom terms in Nhan's list because these Nom terms (e.g. ne^'t na, ra^`y ra` ...) have been created/modified by the Vietnamese throughout their history.
To make a long story short, for compound terms, whenever there is a non-Han word in the term, one might say that the term is no longer a Han term but a Nom term.
I suppose the situation was not only limited to the Vietnamese. In pre- modern times, for those who lived on the periphery of Chinese culture (i.e. the Vietnamese, the Japanese, and the Korean people ...), in order to define their own culture and their cultural identity (i.e. the Vietnamese-ness, the Japanese-ness, or the Korean-ness), they all first had to define/know what is Chinese/Chinese-ness.
Best,
VS
From Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu Wed May 4 05:13:51 2005
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:13:30 -0400
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
Hi Vinh Sinh:
Thank you for such an erudite and comprehensive explanation. I am not a linguist and certainly would defer to the expert in this. Perhaps Nhan, a dear friend of mine, could argue the case much better. But since he is not on the list, let me try to come up with a solution that would satisfy both.
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that "bo^n ba" is a Sino-Vietnamese term (Ha'n Vie^.t - Bo^n in Chinese means "to run away", "ba" means "waves", put together "bo^n ba" implies "the toil of life" ), unlike others like "ne^'t na", "ra^`y ra`"... in which "na" and "ra`" are are not (strictly Vietnamese vernacular).
I would argue, therefore, that whenever "bo^n ba" is used with "ba" meaning "waves", then it's a Sino-Chinese term, as in the example you cited:
"bo^n ba vi` quo^'c su+." (exert oneself in the interest of the country)
or:
"bo^n ba ra ha?i ngoa.i" ( wander abroad )
"bo^n ba vi` so^ng nu'i" (wander everywhere for the sake of the country)
However, in the following cases:
"cha(?ng co' ra^`y vo+'i ra` gi` ca?, ne^'t vo+'i na gi` ca?, bo^n vo+'i ba
gi` ca?"
"ra^`y vo+'i ra` gi` [ca'i thu+' ddo'], ne^'t vo+'i na gi` [ ], bo^n vo+'i
ba gi` [ ]
when "ba" is used strictly for onomatopoetic purpose, conforming to the linguistic convention that Nhan cites, then it's the linguistic convention that's in play, and not "ba" meaning "waves." For in this case, there is no need for "ba" to mean anything. The fact that it means "waves" is merely co-incidental and fortuituous. That is, even if there is no Sino-Vientamese word "ba" meaning "waves", an onomatopoetic "ba" would be created, following the linguistic convention.
The decisive factor, as in so many other aspects of the Vietnamese language, is context.
-Chung
From sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca Wed May 4 05:36:03 2005
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 06:35:32 -0600
From: Sinh Vinh <sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
Hi Chung,
I realize that Nhan is a specialist in computerized linguistics and one of the architects behind the Nom project. I also know him personally. In another online discussion group, occasionally I have discussed with him and others numerous subjects, including linguistic one.
This time, I have tried to help Adam with part of his query. I have also tried to respond to some of Bruce's related questions. Within my limited ability and my limited time, I have tried my best. I believe I have said what I should.
Best wish,
VS
From bcampdvs@u.washington.edu Wed May 4 07:24:54 2005
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: bcampdvs@u.washington.edu
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
John, Vinh Sinh, list:
apologies for leaving my name off of my post.
I know that this discussion is about the spoken language we call today Vietnamese, but with part of my question I hoped to posit that Nom may not be necessarily a Tieng Viet ideographic/phonetic representation of a spoken language. Tay and Dao, as far as I know, have similar systems. I have even been shown text described by people as "Chu Han Nom Dan Toc Dao." Most of the recombinant graphs resemble Han Nom, or I guess I should say Han Nom Dan Toc Viet. A bit of a digression from the subject of Nom Na Ma Noi, but something that I have wanted to ask the minds on the VSG about for a while now.
Thanks to Nhan for the reminder that "it's the language that we are talking about."
Bradley "Bruce" Davis
University of Washington
From tana.li@anu.edu.au Wed May 4 17:03:11 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:12:35 +1000
From: Tana Li <tana.li@anu.edu.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
List,
Bradley might not see this but I thought his question turned the discussion into a much more interesting direction. It is high time that we put the Nom and the emergence of Nom into a larger context, of the scripts of Dao, Zhuang, Tay and, dare I say it, Cantonese, and the Minnan (Southern Fujian dialect). The latter two are both spoken languages but there are Bible editions of Cantonese and Minnan.
Tana
From adam@aduki.com.au Wed May 4 17:13:43 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:11:09 +1000
From: adam <adam@aduki.com.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
Whilst these things are being put into a wider context, can anybody throw light on why some Muong say that their language 'has no letters, so we have to use Vietnamese writing'? (Khong co chu) They seem very interesting people.
Adam
From tana.li@anu.edu.au Wed May 4 18:06:46 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:16:12 +1000
From: Tana Li <tana.li@anu.edu.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
The Muong had their "chu", see Keith Taylor's article "On being Muong".
Tana
From fforde@unimelb.edu.au Wed May 4 20:06:15 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:05:34 +1000 (EST)
From: Adam Fforde <fforde@unimelb.edu.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
Thanks. Clearly the past is the past. The ones I was talking with clearly had not read Keith Taylor.
From bcampdvs@u.washington.edu Wed May 4 22:13:10 2005
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: bcampdvs@u.washington.edu
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
List,
Thanks to Tana for bringing that up. The Nung/Tay/Giay (Vietnam) and Zhuang (PRC) aspect of this question is most interesting to me. I met a Giay person who told me that his father still read an old script that he (the son) claimed looked like Lao. Whereas there is evidence that the Tay used, in a word, Nom. The Zhuang had a script called "sawslip" according to some local Guangxi (Quang Tay) histories.
Sawslip was described to me by a Guangxi historian-anthropologist as "Old Tai." Currently, written Zhuang has a romanized alphabet. My myriad attempts to locate a primer for learning to read it were unfruitful.
For me, this is interesting because of the ethnolinguistic similarities of the spoken languages of the Nung, Tay, Giay, and Zhuang communities. At first glance it seems that the spoken languages (well, the ones spoken centuries ago) adopted both Tai scripts and chu Han. Proximity to the ruling elite and other political factors no doubt had a role in this.
Because languages are always changing and because people who study history rely on languages to read, talk, and listen about the past, I think this is a very fruitful discussion. In talking about non-Quoc Ngu ways of representing the spoken sounds of languages that people in Vietnam use, I also find myself having to be mindful of more recent events and the impacts they have had on local-level literary life. To that end, the fact that a Muong person in 2005 testifies to the lack of Chu may say a great deal about the history of the Muong. Especially since there are textual records of other ways of writing Nom with reference to that other half of the Viet-Muong linguistic sub-group.
Bradley Davis
From tbalaban@earthlink.net Thu May 5 07:45:15 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:44:57 -0400
From: John Balaban <tbalaban@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Nom na: a question about similarities
This discussion has been a pleasant surprise. For the past five years I have been working with The Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation. (We use "Nom Na" as a "doing business as" name). We would be grateful if any of those interested in Nom issues would take a look at our website http://nomfoundation.org . Perhaps you might have suggestions or want to help in some capacity?
There are indeed Nom texts in Tay, Cham, Choang, Dao, and Khmer. One of our longterm projects is to make these accessible via digitization.
As regards Muong, a useful book is (although Adam may already know this work): Jeanne Cuisinier, Les Muong (Paris:Institut du Ethnologie, Univ. of Paris, 1946).
John Balaban
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:09:01 -0600
From: Sinh Vinh <sinh.vinh@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: 'Vietnam Studies Group' <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Vsg] The Muong
Apart from Jeanne Cuisinier's classic works on the Muong, I would like to recommend Tra^`n Tu+`'s (Nguye^~n Tu+` Chi) insightful works on the Muong, most notably his Ngu+o+`i Mu+o+`ng o+? Hoa` Bi`nh (Hanoi : Hoi Khoa hoc Lich su VN, 1996). The introduction by Da`o The^' Hu`ng, and Pha.m The^' Du+o+ng's article "Ngu+o+`i Mu+o+`ng va` tie^'ng Mu+o+`ng" in the appendix in this book are also highly helpful.
Best,
VS
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 01:28:25 +0200
From: Oscar Salemink <OJHM.Salemink@fsw.vu.nl>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Vsg] The Muong
Parts/Attachments:
Two essays by Nguyen Tu Chi that were adopted in the posthumously published Ngu+o+`i Mu+o+`ng o+? Hoa` Bi`nh, were published in French as well under the title 'La cosmologie Muong, suivie d'une etude sur le systeme agraire traditionnel des Muong', with preface by Georges Condominas (l'Harmattan 1997).
In the ethnographic film Mu'a ro^'i Ta^`y by the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology (with support from Richard Connors, shown at the 'Journeys' exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History), some of the old puppet play scenarios had to be translated from some version of Nom into modern Tay (mixed with Vietnamese). Needless to say, there are few old people around with those linguistic skills. What I found interesting in the film is the link that local Tay people seemed to make between the puppets, the script, and religious potency. As a sideline to the 'multiple Nom' discussion, there is an interesting connection between literacy and religion. In a recent paper on Protestant conversion among upland ethnic groups in Southeast Asia (not just Vietnam, and not among Muong!) I refer to the work by Nicholas Tapp, Christian Culas, William Smalley et al. and Yoko Hayami on this issue - I copy a few lines for those interested, if only for the references:
"Tapp zooms in on the messianic tendencies among the Hmong, which seem to mesh wonderfully well with Protestantism – so much so that many Hmong prefer the more forbidding Protestant tradition to the more easygoing Catholic tradition (Tapp 1989: 99). This messianism is partly fed by myths about the loss of writing, and prophesies about a Hmong king who will come down to redeem the Hmong script and literacy and restore the lost Hmong kingdom which they had to leave behind in China. According to Tapp, the centrality of the loss of writing in their myths and in their ethnic self-identification connotes a negative self-definition of Hmong ethnic identity (Tapp 1989a: 129; see also Tapp 2004 and Culas 2004). Tapp refers to a central theme in much of the mythology of highlanders in the mainland Southeast Asian uplands. In 'Mother of Writing: The origin and development of a Hmong messianic script' William Smalley, Chia Koua Vang and Gnia Yee Yang (1990) even devote an entire biography to Shong Lue Yang – an illiterate Hmong peasant who devised a complete Hmong script and rationalized/simplified it. Claiming that this was a gift from God, he was quickly seen as the mythical king who would come to redeem the Hmong literacy and kingdom, giving rise to a messianic movement. Yoko Hayami (1996) speaks of the ‘loss of writing’ in the context of Christian conversion among the Karen in northern Thailand. Hayami speaks of legends about the loss of script, about the image of the Karen as orphans being in a patron-client relationship with surrounding peoples but betraying a willingness to receive wisdom from others. Defining themselves with “a mix of admiration and distrust, pride and inferiority vis-à-vis valley-dwellers” the Karen are waiting for the golden book which their “younger white brother” would return to them – a book that could well be the Bible (Hayami 1996: 339-41)."
Oscar Salemink
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 21:01:27 -0400
From: Frank Proschan <ProschanF@folklife.si.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: OJHM.Salemink@fsw.vu.nl, vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: RE: [Vsg] The Muong - lost scripts
In her magisterial Etude sur les rites agraires des Cambodgiens (Paris: Mouton, 1962-69, pp. 818-19), Eveline Poree-Maspero cites a number of such myths of lost writing systems from the Ma (Cassaigne 1948), So (Fraisse 1950), Rhade (Jouin 1950), Akha (Roux 1924), Chin (Whitehead 1907), and Karen (Skeat and Blagden 1906).
The Tay puppeteers in Tham Roc relied for their performance on romanized (quoc ngu) transcriptions of their ancient texts that had been prepared in the 1960s when literacy in ideograms was more widely distributed among Tay than it was three decades later. There were, however, many words that nobody in Tham Roc could translate or explain by the time the puppetry was revived. The ideographic playbooks were treated with reverence--as were the puppets themselves. Whether the romanized transcriptions of the 1960s had the same potency begs further investigation.
BTW, Shong Lue Yang was Kmhmu by birth, adopted into a Hmong family. He also devised a script for Kmhmu similar to that he devised for Hmong--at the same time that the Pathet Lao were attempting to propagate Lao-based scripts for both, neither of which gained the currency of romanization schemes propagated by Christian missionaries over the years.
Frank Proschan
Project Director
postal mail:
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage
Smithsonian Institution
PO Box 37012
Victor Building Suite 4100, MRC 0953
Washington, DC 20013-7012
office location and express services:
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage
750 9th Street N.W., Suite 4100
Washington DC 20560-0953
tel: 202-275-1607
fax: 202-275-1119
Page updated
Report abuse