為甚麼吳語和粵語是中國話, 而越南語不是呢?

[HashiriKata]

Hi Raphael,

If I may say, your observations are insightful and essentially correct. I'm only interested in Vietnamese and not within its field, so there are many things I don't know and I'll try to say just what I think:

I have to say that classifiers are not a feature which is specific to chinese languages.

Yes, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese and many other laguages have it. Basically, many unrelated languages share similar grammatical features because of the similar ways our human brain works.

the use of pronouns is way more complex than in chinese

You're right here but the complexity may be just superficial: since direct references equivalent to I, You, S/he are considered not polite, these are normally replaced by addressing terms like "Uncle" "Brother", "Antie", "Niece", "Granma", etc. according to the approximate age of the listener. (Once learners have learned these relation terms, they'll be fine. What puts people off from learning Vietnamese is the apparent difficulty at the beginning when one of these terms have to be used in order to say just "Hello!")

reduplicative verbs have a more general scope than in chinese

Again, you're right. Reduplication in Chinese verbs/adjective is often use only to change the tone of voice (= register / style) but not meaning-modifying as in Vietnamese.

I also don't know if there are chinese equivalents to vietnamese structures based on undetermined pairs like I also don't know if there are chinese equivalents to vietnamese structures based on undetermined pairs like gì/nấy or đâu/đấy or đâu/đấy

As far as I know, you can find equivalents in Chinese for the first part of the pair (gì/nấy) but the later part is only a repeat of the first part (if not rephrasing the whole thing). Not only that, this pattern in Vietnamese is very widely & commonly used : ngồi đâu ngủ đó (wherever he sits, he goes asleep there = he's an easy sleeper), bảo gì nghe nấy (whatever you say, he'll listen to it = he's very obedient).

Just a bit off topic: I intend to re-learn French and spend the later part of my life in Paris, as I don't like living anywhere not knowing the local language.

[rmontelatici]

To pazu :

Then how about Vietnamese influenced by French in the grammar (not just vocab)?

As a french guy who studied vietnamese, I never saw anything like this.

There are a lot of words borrowed from French in Vietnamese (mainly related to technology, but also food, everyday life ...).

But nothing about grammar.

Raphael

[pazu]

I know this is an old thread, I UP-ed it again because when I was in Hoi An, I've met a Vietnamese girl who said she was studying French, told me French grammar was very similar to Vietnamese.

Thanks for all contributions. But I'm still waiting for NNT's more insightful ideas.

[rmontelatici]

French grammar was very similar to Vietnamese

Very odd statement.

When I started to learn, I was always wondering about the specific and "exotic" features of vietnamese.

From a french point of view, Vietnamese grammar is closer to english grammar !!

According to you, is english grammar really close to vietnamese ?

I don't think so, even though there are some similarities.

Anybody can pick up a few common points and state "both grammars are very similar"...

But in the case of Vietnamese and French, I think this is not relevant.

But I'm still waiting for NNT's more insightful ideas

Hum, what is this supposed to mean ? I hope nothing personal ...

Raphael

[madizi]

NNT is one member's nickname, but it seems that he disappeared (hope that not forever!)

[Claw]

* reduplicative verbs have a more general scope than in chinese:

they are used to increase or decrease the intensity of the original adjectival verb (ngai ngái is lighter than ngai' date=' but rầm rầm is stronger than rầm).

The repetition of the word often involves consonants or tones modifications (there are rules about that), like in chúm chím, đủng đỉnh, xốc xếch or ngan ngát.

There are also duplications of duplications: xốc xa xốc xếch or đủng đa đủng đỉnh.

Please tell me if there are such things in Chinese [/quote']

Actually, such things exist in Cantonese, which definitely does fall under the Chinese language family. In Cantonese, a duplicated adjective can decrease the intensity of it. For instance: 紅紅地 means reddish, or slightly red. Also, there is a tone change with duplicated adjectives. 紅 is originally hung4 in Cantonese, but 紅紅地 is hung4 hung2 dei2 (in general, the second adjective always becomes tone 2 unless the original tone is 1). (Note: these tone numbers don't correspond with the Mandarin tone numbers.)

[rmontelatici]

Are there also reduplicatives of reduplicatives, such as the ones I gave ?

Can reduplicatives be also used to increase the meaning, like in vietnamese ?

This is for my personal education (I don't know much about chinese, and only about mandarin, not cantonese: thank you for giving these examples).

I don't think this will help conclude whether vietnamese is or is not closely related to chinese though.

Professional linguists seem to claim that it is not (austro-asiatic family vs sino-tibetan family). It would be interesting to know directly from them what are the actual convincing arguments ...

Raphael

[ala]

Are there also reduplicatives of reduplicatives, such as the ones I gave ?

Can reduplicatives be also used to increase the meaning, like in vietnamese ?

Reduplicatives are very common in Wu dialects, and often change the meaning (lexical, and sometimes grammatical as in signifying progression of the verb). In fact Shanghainese is famous for them, it's one of the trademarks of the dialect. I'm not quite sure what reduplicative of reduplicatives mean though. Also the repetition of syllables in Wu dialects always lead to a pitch change on the second syllable, sometimes even voicing on a voiceless syllable.

* the use of measure words is a little bit different (different categorization of objects and concepts)

The use of measure words are different (different categorization, not just different pronunciation or word choice) amongst Chinese dialects as well. For example, Wu dialects have much broader measure words (只 being the generic, it is much more generic than Mandarin 个, e.g., I can say 一只电视机、一只电影 in Wu dialects, 个 in Wu is used only for people and small objects), and some very different categorizations (such as rows of trees, two selective usages of "a stick of" 一根 and 一支, different usages for vehicles, also very indigenous terms like 一几: a chance, etc). There is also a trend in Shanghainese today to just use 只 for everything that is countable (e.g., ittzach Khépich 一只铅笔 is acceptable and widely used, although ittzi Khépich 一支铅笔 is more specific).

[rmontelatici]

Thanks, this is very interesting !

[nnt]

Hi everybody! Like Tina T I'm still alive though a lille busy on other battlefields.

As nothing's new under the sun, I just invite you to read shibo77's post here :

http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2497

AN green grass

NA grass green

Old Chinese is SVO AN like Modern Chinese but can be SOV if needed, ancient languages are very flexible, and you can switch VOS, OVS ... if it is your speech/writing style.

But it can never be NA. If it is NA or NA/AN then it is an Austronesian or Austroasiatic language.

Vietnamese is even further away from French grammar than from Chinese grammar. But French did influence the Vietnamese with their writing style : clearer , with shorter sentences, no repetition, no 之 expressions , etc... Vietnamese modern poetry is very near to Nôm poetry, but Vietnamese present day prose is a world apart from Nôm prose : not just a change in the script .

[pazu]

NNT, welcome back. Vocbulary import is easy to be recognized, but how can you trace the change of grammar back to the French influence? Are there any clearer indications that it's a French influence rather than a spontaneous reaction within the language itself?

[nnt]

Vietnamese grammar did not change , just the style, the way of writing . Nôm prose was rythmical prose , with more or less balanced pairs of sentences, with a lot of Chinese litterary allusions (sometimes obscure), and including many expressions with "chi" 之 .

Dương Quảng Hàm in his "Việt Nam Văn Học Sử Yếu" (Vietnamese Litterature Essentials) around 1940 wrote :

" About the future of the new national litterature.

The French intervention in our country at the end of the 19th century had a profound influence on our litterature. From the moment they got to know French civilization , our intelligentsia's have began to change their way of thinking... Old litterary forms changed, new ones appear (novels, litterary critics , plays) were imitated by writers. Thanks to the romanized alphabet, which appeared very suitable in transcribing our language, the press has developped more and more, and litterature written in Quốc Ngữ was born and produced many valuable works "

Just a remark about grammar.

Although French/English and Vietnamese grammars are very distinct, they have a similarity which seems to be inexistent in mandarin : relative pronouns, corresponding to "mà" in Vietnamese (often omitted)

For example :

The man who said that is gone : người (mà) nói câu ấy đã đi rồi

The book (which) I bought is very interesting : Quyển sách (mà) tôi mua rất hay.

[rmontelatici]

Right, and here are the french counterparts:

The man who said that is gone : người (mà) nói câu ấy đã đi rồi

Celui qui a dit cela est parti.

The book (which) I bought is very interesting : Quyển sách (mà) tôi mua rất hay.

Le livre que j'ai acheté est très intéressant.

French uses qui and que. They are mandatory (unlike vietnamese's ma and english's which).

However, I think that it is pure coincidence and that the ma structure existed in vietnamese before the French rule.

What's your opinion nnt ?

[nnt]

As I said : French did NOT influence Vietnamese grammar !

That means the "mà" construction existed before the French arrived , of course.

Grammar is one thing , style is another.

[rmontelatici]

Please don't lose your nerves !

Be patient with me ! Was I meant to ask was:

"mà" is not mandatory in vietnamese, but french relative pronouns are.

Do you think that french style (not grammar, I know it's different and I was already convinced that french did not influence vietnamese grammar anyway) could have generalised the use of "mà" ?

I really appreciate your answers, I just want to dig a little deeper.

[HashiriKata]

"mà" is not mandatory in vietnamese, but french relative pronouns are.

Do you think that french style (not grammar, I know it's different and I was already convinced that french did not influence vietnamese grammar anyway) could have generalised the use of "mà" ?

(If I understand your question properly then:) No, frequent use of "mà" is actually discouraged (specially when it can be dispensed with), as it makes the style appearing clumsy.

[nnt]

I agree with HashiriKata.

My grammatical remark was just to point out some basic differences between Vietnamese and Chinese grammars .

As for evidence of French influence in writing style of Vietnamese , this is a subject for a literature history book, for example "Việt Nam Văn Học Sử Yếu" by Dương Quảng Hàm ( citation above )and others.

[qrasy]

.in CHinese "adjectives" are before nouns' date=' in Vietnamese after. Ex. 青天 = trời xanh, in which 天 means "trời" 青 means "xanh"[/quote']

French and English also reverse to each other like this.

.in CHinese "adverbs" are often before verbs, in Vietnamese after. Ex: 你快说 = anh nói mau , in which 快 means "mau".

English seems to tolerate both.

Indonesian style: adv.+v. is preferred although v.+adv. is also possible

Adverbs structures with "adj+地" are equivalent to Vietnamese "một cách + adjective" structure, ex: 他慢慢地说 = hắn nói một cách chầm chậm, in which 慢慢 means "chầm chậm"

Tell me what "cách" is.

.in CHinese "的 structures" are used while in Vietnamese "của" structures are used (in many case "của" is omitted) , just like the difference between "'s" (的) and "of" ("của") structures in English (ex: John's book vs the book of John)

.

Example?

Although there is a construction similar to Chinese "把" structures in Vietnamese ("mang" + O + V + C), this latter's scope is much narrower than Chinese "把" structure

... etc...

Yeah, the passive structure also similar

S+passivemarker+O+V (correct me if I'm wrong)

Also basic vocabulary like numbers (1 một 2 hai 3 ba), body parts (hand = tay foot = chân), sky (trời), water(nước), earth(đất), etc... are not borrowed from Chinese.

đầu mắt lá lưỡi

Old Chinese is SVO AN like Modern Chinese but can be SOV if needed, ancient languages are very flexible, and you can switch VOS, OVS ... if it is your speech/writing style.

But it can never be NA. If it is NA or NA/AN then it is an Austronesian or Austroasiatic language.

Indonesian tolerates: SVO, OVS, VOS.

(from 6 possible orders, max of 3 can be tolerated, since SVO will not accept OVS etc. otherwise you'll confuse which do thing on which)

Although French/English and Vietnamese grammars are very distinct, they have a similarity which seems to be inexistent in mandarin : relative pronouns, corresponding to "mà" in Vietnamese (often omitted)

For example :

The man who said that is gone : người (mà) nói câu ấy đã đi rồi

The book (which) I bought is very interesting : Quyển sách (mà) tôi mua rất hay.

Indonesian 'yang'.

Viet A mà B = Indon A yang B = Eng A wh.. B = ManChn B的A

they are VO languages, nothing else would be reversed

Mandarin standalone..

Also I notice a peculiarity in tense of Chinese compared to Tibetan.

Past, Future and Perfect are all marked by adding a word (means nothing but 'already' or 'will'), which become similar to Vietnamese, Indonesian. IIRC Tibetan has tenses by inflection.

[nnt]

Quote:

Adverbs structures with "adj+地" are equivalent to Vietnamese "một cách + adjective" structure, ex: 他慢慢地说 = hắn nói một cách chầm chậm, in which 慢慢 means "chầm chậm"

Tell me what "cách" is.

Normally "cách" is a noun, meaning "manner" or "way" :

"một cách chầm chậm" : (word by word) a-way-slow-slow = slowly = 慢慢地 = slow-slow-di = slow-slow-ly...

Quote:

.in CHinese "的 structures" are used while in Vietnamese "của" structures are used (in many case "của" is omitted) , just like the difference between "'s" (的) and "of" ("của") structures in English (ex: John's book vs the book of John)

.

Example?

sách của John : le livre de John = John's book = 约翰 的 书