Jump to content

Talk:Nanyue/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Yue and Cantonese

I don't know on what basis anyone would question that the Cantonese are a Yue people. You can type in Yue Cantonese on Google books and get thousands of results:

  • "The ethnic origins of the ancient Yue [Cantonese] people..." (Paul Hattaway, Peoples of the Buddhist World);
  • "Cantonese (Sinicized Yue)" (Indo-Pacific prehistory);
  • "In an important ethnohistorical study, David Faure (1989) has noted that the Cantonese people are descended from the southern Yue....Yue who lived in the mountains often refused to pay taxes to the Song, they became known as the Yao, now classified as a minority nationality of China, whereas the taxpaying Yue are now regarded as Cantonese Han." (Dru C. Gladney, Dislocating China);
  • "The Guangdong xiangtushi jiaokeshu (1906: 1B)...states that "while many Yue people are of the Chinese race (Zhongguo Zhong), those races such as Yao, Lang, Yi, Qi, and Dan who live in the caves are the true Yue people."" (David Faure, 1996).............QED. Kauffner (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Just note that Dru C. Gladney sometimes doesn't know what hes talking about. He has claimed solely on the basis of his own observations and interrogations, that the Hui nationality was invened by Communism, and that if it weren't for that, they wouldn't identify as part of the hui nationality.
I have found documents, in English and chinese, dating centuries back, some to the Qing dynasty before the communists ever existed, that use the term "Hui" as a nationality. Gladney generally never did any scholarly work or looked up real documents, he only does field surveys.
And also, his statement could also have another meaning- that the southern yue were assimilated and regarded as Han, just as if the Ainu people in northern Japan were assimilated and started to be regarded as "Japanese", his statement doesn't nesesarily mean that all cantonese are descended from the yue minority.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's more like Cantonese are descended from both Han and Yue. Because DNA shows most Cantonese paternal ancestry is similar to north Han, while most maternal ancestry similar to southern Natives, and some from north Han women and southern males. The only Han group that were sinicized were Pinghu. By Susan Debra Blum, Lionel M. Jensen, Robert lindsay. (The Languages of China By S. Robert Ramsey) " The Cantonese often call themselves "people of Tang", this is because of the Inter-mixture between native and Han immigrants in Guangdong reached a critical mass of acculturation during the Tang dynasty, creating an new local identity among the Guangdong people." " The Cantonese call their people " Tang people", their food " Tang food ", their clothes " Tang clothes". " Yue pronunciation and vocabulary are quite similar to the official language of the Tang dynasty". 94.175.118.39 (talk) 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nanyue in Vietnamese history

These situations are not analogous. The Mongol and Manchu Emperors of the Yuan and Ming Dynasties declared themselves to be Emperors of China, they did not annex China proper into the Mongol or Manchu Khanates and just declare themselves Khan, likewise, the ethnic German Catherine the Great, ruled Russia as Empress of Russia, not as a German duchess or princess, and did not rule as a head of state of a German Kingdom which took over Russia. The" aboriginals of the Guangdong region had no history of organized states, the first time they were incorporated into a state was in the Chinese Qin dynasty and the administration, government, titles of Nanyue were all Chinese, not Vietnamese, there was no such position as "king or Emperor of Vietnam" at that time..ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Vietnamese certainly don't view history this way. On the List of Vietnamese monarchs, the kings of Nanyue appear as the "Triệu Dynasty" and several earlier dynasties are listed as well. Even if you don't credit such traditional history, Cổ Loa Citadel shows that Vietnam had a state capable of organizing large-scale activity prior to the Qin period. Classical Chinese was official in Vietnam until the 1920s and several Vietnamese rulers were styled 帝南越 (đế Nam Việt), exactly as the Triệu kings were.Kauffner (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
But that begs the question: even assuming that using the Vietnamese name is itself NPOV (which I believe to be the case, but a case can certainly be made that it is POV), isn't using this particular argument itself calling on highly POV points? The fact that the Vietnamese kings considered Nanyue a large part of Vietnamese history does not mean that, from a NPOV standpoint, it is a major part of Vietnamese history. (For a converse situation, see, e.g., Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and theGreeceandRepublic of Macedonia disputes over the use of its history. Certainly to be NPOV there, one should not adopt the FYROM view by itself, but adopting the Greek view by itself is just as, if not more, POV. That's similar, except it would be even more egregious, to what would happen here if we simply adopt the Vietnamese view here.) --Nlu (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
To Kauffner- the early Vietnamese kingdoms you mentioned were based on territory separate from which the original nanyue state originated. look at the Viet kingdom of Van lang before nanyue existed, and then look at nanyue Nanyue originated in the eastern area, around where the Pearl River Delta was located, it gradually expanded, conquering the Vietnamese Van lang kingdom area into its territory, in western guangdong and north vietnam. The Nanyue king did not "take" the earlier vietanmese king's titles, he kept his own title and subjugated the Vietnamese, unlike the Mongol Khans, who took the title Emperor of China in addition to being Khan. I would feel differently if he took on the indigenous peoples royal titles after conquering them, but he did not.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How do you know that the Triệu rulers didn't take Vietnamese titles? They could have been vương or vua in Vietnamese at the same time that they were 王 or 帝 in Chinese. This is certainly the way later rulers did it. "The Magic Crossbow" is a very well-known legend in Vietnam, even today. According to this legend, the only son of 趙佗/Triệu Đà married the daughter of King An Dương of Âu Lạc to produce 趙眜/Triệu Hồ, who was therefore a legitimate ruler for the combined Nanhai/Âu Lạc state.Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Vuong" looks like Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, a loanword from Chinese, which meant it was introduced to Vietnamese language after chinese characters were introduced- It was exactly Nanyue who introduced Chinese characters and vocabulary to the Vietnamese after conquering them, i find it highly unlikely those earlier vietnamese dynasties had any knowledge of Chinese characters, and therefore, Chinese vocabulary. 王- vuong was clearly derived from the same sound as wang- which meant it wasn't in early vietnamese vocab. Most likely the vietnamese added these titles at a later date, hundreds of years later.
and these supposed rulers look even more unlikely to be real given their Sino-Vietnamese sounding names- These rulers reigned long before Vietnamese ever had contact with Chinese characters, before the Qin dynasty, their langauge must have been very different. Vietnamese was originally a Mon-Khmer language, Chinese is a Sinitic language- both totally unrelated and probably sounded totally different, until vietnamese adopted chinese characters and became a Sino-Xenic language-"The principle of Sino-Xenic pronunciation is that when Chinese characters were introduced into other cultures, the pronunciation of the corresponding Chinese word was also borrowed, and thus some current pronunciations are descended from earlier Chinese pronunciations"
the sino xenic article also says- "The characters were also used for native words, and thus not all pronunciations in non-Chinese languages reflect Chinese pronunciations."- such as Chữ Nôm employed by the vietnamese- However, as you noted,Classical Chinese was the official medium of writing in Vietnam, and these ancient alleged rulers names are most likely Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary
Just look at the Âu Lạc article- Mandarin name is "Ōu Luò", Vietnamese name is "Âu Lạc", they both clearly derive from Old Chinese pronounciation of the characters. Triệu looks like it came from Zhao too, like Zhong, and Trung are the same. Before the Vietnamese ever met Zhao, it is extremely unlikely that they had the word "Triệu" in their langauge, and they most likely had radically different names than chinese. It was exactly because Zhao conquered the Vietnaemse and brought them chinese characters, and vocabulary that these words entered their langauge. Given the fact that Au Lac existed most likely before vietnamese used chinese characters, i doubt Au Lac was remotely similar to a name, if this Vietnamese kingdom did exist, used to describe itself. And i also doubt that the Vietnamese used the customary two or three syllable/character name they use today- that was most probably introduced by Chinese civilization. And Vietnamese surnames, like Ngo, most likely derive from Old Chinese, like the Cantonese surname Ng and Mandarin Wu. Before Nanyue existsed, Vietnamese could have had names like Wasawalreri or Maimuiomer or anything that doesn't sound remotely like vietnamese names today.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like your trying to prove that Vietnamese people are a form of Chinese, which of course would strengthen the case for a Nanyue/Vietnam connection. 趙/Zhào/Triệu; 王/wáng/vương; and 甌雒/Ōu Luò/Âu Lạc are just different scripts for the same word. Vua is the standard title for a monarch in Vietnamese and this word was not derived from Chinese. The Sino-xenic principle would not apply to a proper nouns like Âu Lạc and An Dương because the spoken form existed first and the characters were chosen for phonetic reasons rather than for lexical meaning, like 法国 for France. Cổ Loa was a mighty fortress built by a powerful king and why not call this king An Dương? There is a lot of this sort of thing in Chinese history as well, with bronze age sites assigned to the Shāng Dynasty and pre-bronze sites to the Xià. No, the Triệu didn't sinicize Vietnam. The archeology shows the earlier cultural patterns continuing until the revolt of the Trưng Sisters in AD 40, after which the Hàn embarked on a coordinated effort to promote Chinese culture. That Vietnam was at one point quite sinicized is really neither here nor there. The same is true of Korea or Japan. The two countries have certainly gone in different directions in modern times with few Vietnamese today knowing anything about Chinese or Chinese characters. Kauffner (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner, you are going well far afield here. This article is not an article that can, or should, deal with the "genealogical" (for the lack of a better word) of Chinese and Vietnamese culture. This discussion adds nothing to the Nanyue article or, to the narrower issue of the discussion that you branched this out from above, whether the article should be named Nanyue or Nam Viet. I think this discussion is going to be completely unfruitful and irrelevant to this article. --Nlu (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The following is addresed to vietnamese nationalists, potentially with the intent of supporting the move to nam Viet. I do not mean to be insulting or condescending in any way, but i will explain the following clearly- the very name the Vietnamese use for Nanyue, "Nam Viet", is clearly Sino Vietnamese vocabulary, borrowed by the Vietnamese from the old chinese language. Look at the Cantonese version- Nam Yut- And Cantonese is a Sinitic language like Mandarin, unrelated to Vietnamese which is Mon Khmer. What I am saying is, that either way, Nan Yue or Nam Viet, the name is still technically Chinese. For another analogy, look at Roman Britain. The Romans gave their Latin name to the island, Britannia, the modern day English word Britian is clearly derived from Britannia. Imagine that Vatican City, as heirs to Ancient rome, decided to call Britian Britannia, and British nationalists object to that since its not "english", and want to keep the "english" name "Britian". That would seem almost comical, since Britain is derived from Britannia.

After all, "南越" Nanyue/Namviet, means "southern yue", or "southern Viet", since it is south of China, from the Chinese perspective, it was chinese who gave the country its name. The vietnamese inhabitants in northern vietnam at the time before Nanyue would most likely have not called themselves southern viet, since to themselves, they were in the center. Look at the Chinese name for China- Zhong Guo- center/middle kingdom, and Vietnamese still call China Trung Quoc, derived from Zhong Guo- China named itself, and named Nanyue- if the Vietnamese had been the ones to expand north word and make their civilization dominant, they would have called China "Northern" something, and claim they themselves were the center

So if you vote support out of any nationalism rather than for a good reason, you should keep in mind that either way, the name is still Chinese. And to Kauffner- my reasoning does the opposite- it says vietnamese are not a form of chinese, i very clearly stated that the original vietnamese language was most likely very different from chinese, and it was chinese civilization and chinese characters which, when imported to vietnam, made it more similar. And about the Shang dynasty, written records written directly by the Shang court, see Oracle Bones were found, written in ancient Chinese characters which very clearly show that the modern Chinese names for them are related to the ancient ones- unlike the ancient Vietnamese sites, which don't have written records.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, similar point as I am making to Kauffner: please do not complicate the issue. I must say, you have a tendency to draw in irrelevant rhetoric into discussions as well, and while your point is understood (and I largely agree, and I hope that I"m not shading my point here due to my general agreement), a lot of the rhetoric is unnecessary and borders on venturing into irrelevance. Let's keep the issue as focused as possible. --Nlu (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


Nanyue → Nam Viet — Britannica and other encyclopedias use "Nam Viet".[1] On Google books, "Nam Viet" gets vastly more hits than "Nanyue". Even when the searches are qualified to ensure that only relevant material is considered, "Nam Viet" still has a clear advantage: "Nam Viet" ("Trieu Da" OR "Zhao Tuo" OR "Chao T'o") gets 512 hits, while Nanyue ("Trieu Da" OR "Zhao Tuo" OR "Chao T'o") gets only 324. The name "Nanyue" will mean nothing to the vast majority of English speakers, whereas "Nam Viet" helps to explain this kingdom's link, etymological and otherwise, with Vietnam. Kauffner (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

During the previous votes, there was only a WP:Naming conventions (Chinese) to follow, which was cited by several participants. But now there is a WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese), which applies as well since this article is also part of Wikiproject Vietnam. "Nanyue" is pinyin, that is to say, a spelling based on modern northern Chinese pronunciation. The Nanyue are thought to be ancestral to the ethnic people of South China, especially the Cantonese, who still call themselves Yue. And the state included northern Vietnam as well. "Vietnamese of course has the strongest pedigree as a surviving Yue language." (Peter S. Bellwood, Indo-Pacific prehistory) Kauffner (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner is confusing his Yue terms here. The Cantonese region is referred to as Chinese: 粤; pinyin: yue; Jyutping: jyut, different from the word used for Nanyue and Vietnam (越 - same pronunciation). Don't create false pedigrees.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
粤 and 越 were interchangeable in ancient times. In Nôm, 粤 and 越 both mean Viet/Vietnamese, so this distinction must be relatively recent (perhaps post-1945?) Kauffner (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Interchangeable terms have to be homophones in order to be "interchangeable", which 越 and 粤 were not until perhaps 500 years after Nanyue. The former wasn't palatalized, while the second was.  White Whirlwind  咨  11:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Either character could be used to write "Bǎiyuè" or "Mǐnyuè",[2] so they were interchangeable whether that fits your theory or not. There's a Baxter for 越, but no Old Chinese reconstruction for 粤. Kauffner (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you relying on eastling.org? I wonder if it's correct here, e.g. it gives different Karlgren forms for the two characters, but Karlgren actually gives identical "Archaic" (i.e. Old Chinese) pronunciations for 越, 鉞 and 粤. The site also presents the characters as having different Middle Chinese pronunciations. Kanguole 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Cantonese didn't called themselves Yue throughout the history and it was only so after creation of modern abbreviations for provinces. However these abbreviations are mainly base on history of the province, not it's people. Cantonese usually refer themselves as "廣府人" "廣東人", "punti" or "廣東漢族", Yue are less used. Even if they use Yue, the modern usage of that Yue 粤 is extremely distinct from Viet 越. The Yues are not Vietnamese people [3], hopefully Kauffner can get over his bias intentions. Yue is also use in Zhejiang (ie, Yueju. --LLTimes (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment While I understand the argument for movement, movement is counterproductive as the territory and the descendants of its people are largely in China now, and there is no dispute that the ruling family was Chinese. It would be incongruous to introduce a Vietnamese name at this point as the article name. (Not only that, but the most key historical sources about it were written in China, not in Vietnam.) --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - Ridiculous proposal, Northern Vietnam was not part of Nanyue when it started. Zhao Tuo fought the king in northern Vietnam and annexed the area into his kingdom. And Other southern minorities such as Zhuangs, Miaos, Yaos, and etc have just as much claim to this kingdom as the Viets. --LLTimes (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment So if there is any ambiguity as to nationality, classify it as Chinese? I never claimed Nam Viet was a Vietnamese state. Besides, many Viets were living in western Guangdong at that time. Kauffner (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment And yet the political center of this kingdom is at Panyu. Yue Peoples are disparate, different and distinct from each other. The term Baiyue, even Yue is a mere loose term and a racial generalization made up by some Chinese. Yues in Panyu are different from those in northern Vietnam. Most modern scholar assume Many branches of Yue spoke Tai-Kadai languages rather than Vietnamese. Viets living in Western Guangdong is dubious at best. With that being said, Majority of Yue descents are in China, the working government structure and language of Nanyue are mostly Chinese (even the record of Nanyue Kingdom are in Chinese text). Zhuangs, Miaos, Lis, and various other southern minorities that have distinct cultures and languages but one common language and thats Chinese. So it's perfectly normal to have Nanyue as the title.--LLTimes (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You should follow this logic its natural conclusion. Who could have been living in the Panyu area in ancient times? A people who called themselves Yue, spoke a language related to Tai-Kadai, "native" inhabitants of Canton......I guess it's just a big mystery. As for writing in classical Chinese, so did Japan, Vietnam, and Korea. Isaac Newton wrote in Latin, but that didn't make him Italian. Kauffner (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Those people might not have called themselves yue if Chinese didn't make the term up due to their sheer ignorant Sinocentrism. Zhao Tuo, the king of Nanyue was only looked up lightly after Vietnamese in Northern Vietnam adopted the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven. "I guess it's just a big mystery"...well that was a waste of time..isn't it? Difference between that is that Nanyue is founded by a Chinese, Vietnamese ancestors would later become a part of this kingdom. It's indeed a part of Vietnamese history but changing the title to Vietnamese doesn't seem right. Various reasons have been given. Also Google Book hits does not dictate which title an article should be. Check Bombay to Mumbai.--LLTimes (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per various reasons given above, and specifically prefer merging Nam Viet into this article. It's ridiculous to claim that all Yue people should be represented by Vietnamese. Someone from the territory of the ancient Yue kingdom would be far more likely to speak Chinese than Vietnamese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk)
  • Oppose I think this is a WP:NPOV issue... there are sources that used both names. I suggest a compromise by mentioning both names in the lead paragraph such as "Nanyue according to source A, B, C; or Nam Viet according to source X, Y, Z" T@vatar (discuss–?) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Realize that the entire first page of results from the former search - with the exception of Schafer's Vermilion Bird, which is a great book - are books specifically about Vietnam, so it probably isn't going to be statistically unbiased.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Gia Long is from the right period to be included in the search, and without him it's closer. The extent of usage in English language sources certainly justifies a bold "Nam Viet" as an alternative name in the lead sentence, but neither name is the clear COMMONNAME. Kanguole 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it's the "cite back" from the near-modern Vietnamese history period that causes an artificial inflation to the use of "Nam Viet." The argument that the Gia Long-related uses of the term "Nam Viet" should dictate a movement of the article about the earlier kingdom is entirely unconvincing. --Nlu (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The story that Gia Long named Vietnam after this kingdom is repeated in hundreds of sources, and why wouldn't they be relevant hits? Even without the Gia Long hits, there are still more relevant hits for "Nam Viet" than for Nanyue. Kauffner (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Many have raised objections to the Vietnamese name being used as the main name of this kingdom, but have no problem with using the romanization of Mandarin, a language not spoken in the area. If a Chinese name must be used, it should be the Cantonese romanization instead. DHN (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I figure 南越 --> naam4 jyut6 --> Hong Kong spelling Nam Yut. Kauffner (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Since when is Mandarin (which is now a common language throughout the entire region) not spoken in Guangdong and Guangxi? Cantonese may still be the regional language/dialect, but the assertion that Mandarin is not "spoken in the area" is clearly incorrect. Not only that, but the use of Cantonese romanization for this kingdom 1) even less common than the Mandarin romanization and 2) conflicts with WP:MOS-ZH. (Indeed, it would be self-contradictory given that, for example, Guangdong and Guangxi both have titles in Pinyin rather than Cantonese romanization, and whether Guangxi's dialect is distinct from or just a localization of Cantonese is itself disputed.) --Nlu (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither was Vietnamese or Cantonese. That's the entire point behind the "unifying romanization" policy of WP:MOS-ZH (for an analog, see WP:MOS-KO, which uses Revised Romanization). Certainly the people back then didn't pronounce the kingdom "Nanyue," but they just as surely didn't pronounce it "Nam Viet" either. In fact, nobody in the entire China back then would have been using the current Mandarin pronunciation for anything. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use pinyin now for the article titles, as that is the most neutral way of rendering the article title without getting into POV points on how things would have been pronounced back then or original research. (For that matter, back then, nobody would have pronounced any Anglo-Saxon words the way we pronounce them now in English, either.) Take the very last article that I started on a Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period warlord, for example (Tan Quanbo); would he or anyone else in his time pronounced his name "Tan Quanbo"? Extremely, extremely doubtful — and that's a thousand years later than the existence of Nanyue. That doesn't mean that the best, simplest, and most NPOV solution isn't simply to render his name "Tan Quanbo" as that is how it is pronounced now, in Mandarin. Here, I think we have to pretty much agree to use either the modern Chinese or modern Vietnamese romanization for the kingdom's name — and given that the kingdom was largely in what is now China, the most NPOV way to name the kingdom is to use pinyin, under WP:MOS-ZH. --Nlu (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
DHN's suggestion was probably given in the spirit of Liancourt Rocks, where an obscure title is used so that Wiki can avoid taking sides between Korea and Japan. This article is classified under seven Wikiprojects, several of which have their own spin on Romanization. We can examine specialist usage and hit counts and choose among these possibilities. The boundary was not there 2,000 years ago. Kauffner (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Much have been made of the fact that most of the territory of the kingdom lies in modern China, but the fact is that most people in the kingdom lived on the Vietnamese side. According to Han census taken in 2 AD, barely 100 years after the downfall of the kingdom, the 4 prefectures on the modern Chinese side contained 390,555 people, while the 3 prefectures on the modern Vietnamese side contained 1,372,290 people, or more than 3 times as many. About half of the people lived in Giao Chi Prefecture itself, that is why the prefecture gave its name to the entire circuit. DHN (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Northern Vietnam was conquered by Zhao Tuo later on. --LLTimes (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
DHN, the source you cited missed something: after Han conquered Nanyue/Nam Viet, the kingdom was divided into nine prefectures, not seven. The census didn't include two of them (Dan'er (儋耳) and Zhuyai (珠崖)), because those two prefectures consisted of Hainan Island, which had been abandoned by Han during the time of Emperor Yuan of Han (and not reabsorbed into a Chinese state until Jin Dynasty). Obviously, we therefore won't have population figures for them, but nor should they be completely ignored in this equation. Not only that, but again, the capital of the kingdom was in Panyu, which is far, far from modern borders with Vietnam. I really think trying to use the population figures to argue that the kingdom was largely a Vietnamese one involves some creative stretching. --Nlu (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Likely China doesn't claim this kingdom as part of its history, while several Vietnamese historians did. We use Chinese spellings for the Yuan and Qing dynasties. So, why can't we use Vietnamese spelling for this article. Remember, Yuan is a Mongol dynasty and Qing is a Manchu dynasties. According to this logic, we should use Mongol and Manchu spellings for Yuan and Qing too instead of Chinese spellings. 76.171.54.251 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This argument makes no sense, if you are trying to evoke Yuan and Qing as analogies. Yuan and Qing existed (largely) on what is now Chinese soil, and their histories were written in Chinese — just like Nanyue's was. Using this logic in fact calls for the article title to stay what it is. --Nlu (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • These situations are not analogous. The Mongol and Manchu Emperors of the Yuan and Ming Dynasties declared themselves to be Emperors of China, they did not annex China proper into the Mongol or Manchu Khanates and just declare themselves Khan, likewise, the ethnic German Catherine the Great, ruled Russia as Empress of Russia, not as a German duchess or princess, and did not rule as a head of state of a German Kingdom which took over Russia. The" aboriginals of the Guangdong region had no history of organized states, the first time they were incorporated into a state was in the Chinese Qin dynasty and the administration, government, titles of Nanyue were all Chinese, not Vietnamese, there was no such position as "king or Emperor of Vietnam" at that time..ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The Vietnamese certainly don't view history this way. On the List of Vietnamese monarchs, the kings of Nanyue appear as the "Triệu Dynasty" and several earlier dynasties are listed as well. Even if you don't credit such traditional history, Cổ Loa Citadel shows that Vietnam had a state capable of organizing large-scale activity prior to the Qin period. Classical Chinese was official in Vietnam until the 1920s and several Vietnamese rulers were styled 帝南越 (đế Nam Việt), exactly as the Triệu kings were. Kauffner (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
But that begs the question: even assuming that using the Vietnamese name is itself NPOV (which I believe to be the case, but a case can certainly be made that it is POV), isn't using this particular argument itself calling on highly POV points? The fact that the Vietnamese kings considered Nanyue a large part of Vietnamese history does not mean that, from a NPOV standpoint, it is a major part of Vietnamese history. (For a converse situation, see, e.g., Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and the Greece and Republic of Macedonia disputes over the use of its history. Certainly to be NPOV there, one should not adopt the FYROM view by itself, but adopting the Greek view by itself is just as, if not more, POV. That's similar, except it would be even more egregious, to what would happen here if we simply adopt the Vietnamese view here.) --Nlu (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
To Kauffner- the early Vietnamese kingdoms you mentioned were based on territory separate from which the original nanyue state originated. look at the Viet kingdom of Van lang before nanyue existed, and then look at nanyue Nanyue originated in the eastern area, around where the Pearl River Delta was located, it gradually expanded, conquering the Vietnamese Van lang kingdom area into its territory, in western guangdong and north vietnam. The Nanyue king did not "take" the earlier vietanmese king's titles, he kept his own title and subjugated the Vietnamese, unlike the Mongol Khans, who took the title Emperor of China in addition to being Khan. I would feel differently if he took on the indigenous peoples royal titles after conquering them, but he did not.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How do you know that the Triệu rulers didn't take Vietnamese titles? They could have been vương or vua in Vietnamese at the same time that they were 王 or 帝 in Chinese. This is certainly the way later rulers did it. "The Magic Crossbow" is a very well-known legend in Vietnam, even today. According to this legend, the only son of 趙佗/Triệu Đà married the daughter of King An Dương of Âu Lạc to produce 趙眜/Triệu Hồ, who was therefore a legitimate ruler for the combined Nanhai/Âu Lạc state. Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Vuong" looks like Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, a loanword from Chinese, which meant it was introduced to Vietnamese language after chinese characters were introduced- It was exactly Nanyue who introduced Chinese characters and vocabulary to the Vietnamese after conquering them, i find it highly unlikely those earlier vietnamese dynasties had any knowledge of Chinese characters, and therefore, Chinese vocabulary. 王- vuong was clearly derived from the same sound as wang- which meant it wasn't in early vietnamese vocab. Most likely the vietnamese added these titles at a later date, hundreds of years later.
and these supposed rulers look even more unlikely to be real given their Sino-Vietnamese sounding names- These rulers reigned long before Vietnamese ever had contact with Chinese characters, before the Qin dynasty, their langauge must have been very different. Vietnamese was originally a Mon-Khmer language, Chinese is a Sinitic language- both totally unrelated and probably sounded totally different, until vietnamese adopted chinese characters and became a Sino-Xenic language- "The principle of Sino-Xenic pronunciation is that when Chinese characters were introduced into other cultures, the pronunciation of the corresponding Chinese word was also borrowed, and thus some current pronunciations are descended from earlier Chinese pronunciations"
the sino xenic article also says- "The characters were also used for native words, and thus not all pronunciations in non-Chinese languages reflect Chinese pronunciations."- such as Chữ Nôm employed by the vietnamese- However, as you noted, Classical Chinese was the official medium of writing in Vietnam, and these ancient alleged rulers names are most likely Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary
Just look at the Âu Lạc article- Mandarin name is "Ōu Luò", Vietnamese name is "Âu Lạc", they both clearly derive from Old Chinese pronounciation of the characters. Triệu looks like it came from Zhao too, like Zhong, and Trung are the same. Before the Vietnamese ever met Zhao, it is extremely unlikely that they had the word "Triệu" in their langauge, and they most likely had radically different names than chinese. It was exactly because Zhao conquered the Vietnaemse and brought them chinese characters, and vocabulary that these words entered their langauge. Given the fact that Au Lac existed most likely before vietnamese used chinese characters, i doubt Au Lac was remotely similar to a name, if this Vietnamese kingdom did exist, used to describe itself. And i also doubt that the Vietnamese used the customary two or three syllable/character name they use today- that was most probably introduced by Chinese civilization. And Vietnamese surnames, like Ngo, most likely derive from Old Chinese, like the Cantonese surname Ng and Mandarin Wu. Before Nanyue existsed, Vietnamese could have had names like Wasawalreri or Maimuiomer or anything that doesn't sound remotely like vietnamese names today.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Clearly a kingdom based on Chinese soil, with a China-style system of government, populated with Yue peoples of mostly China. Vietnam can have it's "Nam Viet" name like Korea can have its "East Sea" name for the Sea of Japan; i.e. in a Vietnamese context while discussing the Vietnamese point of view. Quigley (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nanyue almost entirely consisted of territory in modern day China, it originated on territory in modern day China, its government was entirely Chinese in nature with a Chinese ruler, there was no pre existing Vietnamese kingdom of which it was based, it came entirely from the Qin dynasty.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nanyue Culture section

The source Gourmets in the Land of Famine is not about Nanyue, nor is the quote about the kingdom or about Zhao Ta. It is instead about the 20th century creation of the Canton-Hankow rail line - something that is quite obvious if the source is actually read. The fact that Chen Bozhaung mentions Zhao Ta in his (per the source) rather hyperbolic celebration of the line does not make it a valid addition to this article - unless one wants to claim that the Nanyue kingdom was building railroad lines 2000 years ago. Ergative rlt (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The name "Vietnam"

Nlu added:
(However, it has also been stated that the name "Vietnam" was derived from a combination of Quảng Nam Quốc (the domain of the Nguyen Lords, from whom the Nguyen Dynasty descended) and Đại Việt (which the first emperor of the Nguyen Dynasty, Gia Long, conquered). (See, e.g., Bo Yang, Outlines of the History of the Chinese (中國人史綱), vol. 2, pp. 880-881.))
The "Việt" in Đại Việt is derived from "Nam Việt", so even if this theory is true it would still be valid to say that "Vietnam" is derived from Nam Việt. But there are two distinct meanings of "Nam" involved here. The "Nam" in "Quảng Nam Quốc" means the southern part of Vietnam, but the "nam" in Vietnam is understood to mean the entire nation, viewed as being south of China. In the poem Nam quốc sơn hà, dated 1077, Nam quốc (southern nation) is a poetic name for Vietnam. If the "nam" in Vietnam is from "Nam Quốc", which is certainly the usual explanation among Vietnamese, it would mean that both syllables of Vietnam are ultimately from "Nam Việt".
Bo Yang's account assumes that Gia Long came up with the name Vietnam by combining the names of the earlier northern and southern states. But we know this is not how the name originated. It was used earlier, for example by poet Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm in the 16th century -- and Khiêm's poetry certainly had a bigger influence on modern usage than Gia Long. Here is a reference, but unfortunately it is in Vietnamese only. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner, you yourself admitted that Nanyue was founded before chinese civilization or vocabulary and writing got into vietnamese culture. It is clear that the name "Nan Yue" itself, is a chinese invention, since why would the Vietnamse name THEMSELVES "southern" viet? Because only from the chinese perspective is Vietnam south. The vietnamese would have logically viewed themselves as the center. "Nanyue" or "Nam Viet" clearly originates the Chinese language and not whatever Vietanemse people spoke a the time. So when Zhao Tuo named his kingdom it is clearly from a chinese perspective, not vietnamese.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And by the way Kauffner, the modern state of Ghana has almost absolutely nothing to do with the ancient Ghana Empire, they stole the name and appropiated it to their own country even though the people and land were far apart from the modern state of ghana.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In ancient times there were two Yuè kingdoms, Nányuè and Mǐnyuè, and Nányuè was south of Mǐnyuè. So 南/nán/nam was not originally a reference to China. Sima Qian gives the name of the kingdom as simply "Yuè", so perhaps "nán" is a disambiguator rather than an official part of the name. Regardless of where the name came from, Vietnamese do associate their country with the direction south and have done so for a long time. Everyone is south of one thing and at the same time north of another, so this sort of thing is entirely subjective. But Vietnamese are hardly the only ones to associate their identity with a direction. Europeans consider themselves "the West", Canadians are "North Americans", and the Russians think of themselves as eastern Europeans, "the south" is a euphemism for poor countries, etc. Since there are four directions, to identify with one is not as exualted as identifying with the center, but it is still claiming a place at the top table. In this case, it puts Vietnam on the same level as China, at least linguistically. Kauffner (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(unident) Kaufner, I don't know how you are getting the assertion "Sima Qian gives the name of the kingdom as simply 'Yuè[.]'" The plain text is quite contrary. (See Records of the Grand Historian, vol. 113 [referring to "Nanyue" throughout].) Again, I find your logic throughout this discussion, trying to justify a reading that Nanyue was a primarily Vietnamese, rather than one that was mixed Chinese/Vietnamese in its legacy, to be strained and untenable. Let history be history and not nationalist propaganda. --Nlu (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have stated more than once already that I would classify Nányuè/Nam Việt/Nam Yut as a proto-Cantonese and Việt state and thus neither Chinese nor Vietnamese. I can only read the English translation, but this is from Shǐjì 97: "In the end Master Lu [Lǔ Jiā] awarded [Zhào Tuō] the title of king of Yue and persuaded him to acknowledge allegiance to the Han and enter relations with it." (Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty I by Sima Qian, Burton Watson, p. 226) This hardly the only example of the kingdom being referred to "Yuè" -- and this passage gives the sense that it is an official name. Kauffner (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That quote came from the biography of Lu Jia, not the volume that is specifically on the history of Nanyue. I would say that the volume in question that I cited (113) which was the history of Nanyue, is the more reliable reference here. (Not only this, but even in the same biography of Lu Jia, an earlier quote was this: "高祖使陸賈賜尉他印為南越王", which would be, "Gaozu commissioned Lu Jia to bestow the seal of King of Nanyue on Weita (which apparently was an alternative name for Zhao Tuo).) If you're going to use one quote, you have to use both; don't selectively choose the one that supports your position. --Nlu (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: in User:Nlu's translation the Wèi Tuō (not "Weita") means "Governor [Zhao] Tuo", a reference to his position as leader of the Commandery of Nanyue.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please translate zh.wikipedia.org/zh/越國 and baike.baidu.com/view/298380.htm - China into English. The term 越 are a board term that was used by the ancient Chinese people (ie 華族) of whom lived in what we now call the northern China to describ the people that lived in the lands to the south of 華. The term 越 wasn't refer to a single group of people but a simple generalisation of what we now call southern China. 南越 have nothing to do with 越南. The capital of 南越 wasn't located in 越南 but are in facts located in what we now call the modern day city of Guangzhou. Please read http://www.wmf.org/project/archaeological-site-palace-nanyue-kingdom or just google for Nanyue palace and you will understand is the people of 南越 Cantonese or Vietnamese? Also there is a district in Guangzhou that is call 越秀区 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.112.99 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

about Prime Minister of Nanyue (Nam Việt)

According to Shiji, the prime minister of Nanyue (Nam Việt) is Lü Jia (呂嘉, Vietnamese: Lữ Gia) instead of Lu Jia (陸賈).--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Blanking

Glitch. And apologies. — LlywelynII 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Zh template

Don't use it. Pinyin is not a language on par with Cantonese; Cantonese Yale is not a language; etc. It may be in common use and its scriptor may refuse to improve it through the misguided notion that it only appears on Chinese-only pages, but there is never any reason to remove improvements to its (terrible) formatting. If you don't like my format, use the {{Chinese}} infobox. — LlywelynII 07:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll use whatever I deem most prudent, thanks all the same. If you have an issue with the template, you should raise it at Template talk:zh. If you don't get the support you're looking for over there, it might be a sign.
I'm not sure what your concern is regarding the templates' fields being "languages on par with" others. The template simply allows a concise listing of different romanizations as appropriate to the context.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that Vietnamese isn't a Romanization of Chinese. It's an entirely separate language, which we indicate by using semicolons. Similarly, the name of the language is Cantonese. Yale is just a romanization of that language and not Chinese or a separate language of its own. — LlywelynII 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: These are fairly obvious facts, and I'm still not sure what your concern is. Are you concerned that lay readers will interpret them incorrectly?  White Whirlwind  咨  17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
They are obvious facts being misrepresented by the template. On this specific page, "Chinese", "Pinyin", "Cantonese Yale", and "Vietnamese" were being treated as semantically equivalent, which you seem to concede they are not. This is in violation of standard formatting across Wikipedia. Transliterations of Greek &c. do not bother with any link at all and just provide transliterations italicized next to their characters. Pinyin is completely standard on Wikipedia (and now even formally on Taiwan). I do agree the link is helpful for those curious about the tones and the letters not pronounced similarly to English; a link also obviates the need for {{IPA-cmn}} which sometimes unhelpfully appears. But in similar situations, {{lang-rus}} (sensibly) doesn't treat its romanization link as a separate language and it's an unhelpful local consensus that {{zh}} still does. That it's misguided was shown by the scriptor's rationale when I mooted the point: he felt it was unnecessary as Chinese "shows up by itself"... which (as here) is just untrue. It is, in fact, profoundly untrue since many areas within China pronounce the same characters differently. Confused readers could follow the links and clarify the issue, sure; that has no more relevance than that fact that you; CAN; understand; this; means it should be fine to follow every single word on a page with a semicolon or reformat them randomly to suit our mood. It's unhelpful, regardless.
All of that should mean that the template should be fixed. As it hasn't been and as the talk page of the template sees very little discussion and as the scriptor can't be arsed and as the MOS-ZH discussion was half on board, half "why bother", but too small to get it changed, it means that we should just correct uses of the template to something better. If you don't like my {{lang-rus}} style approach, {{Chinese}} is still vastly superior. In any case, we're here to improve the project. It's fine if neither of us wants to script a bot to correct all of the uses of this lousy template, but you shouldn't be actively returning to its use when it's been corrected.
But you mostly saw that and shunted things to the {{Chinese}} infobox; together, we've improved and greatly expanded the information provided. A side problem was the bolding that treated the Cantonese name as equally important and common in English; it isn't (not even remotely), and that misleading formatting is now gone while the information is still available for the curious. Things have been improved (good job). Further discussion here seems off-topic. (Technically, WP:MOS-ZH advocates not including the Chinese in the lead at all if it's already included [twice] in the infoboxes to the right but I'm not really interested in fighting you over it, since the main problems have been addressed.) — LlywelynII 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: Which specific standard formatting [policy] does it violate? I can't think of one myself.
You know, I thought this all sounded vaguely familiar... I went back and re-read the talk pages to find that this stems from your personal dissatisfaction expressed back in 2011 at Module_talk:Zh/Archive_1#Template_badly_constructed:_Should_use_commas.2C_not_semicolons (and, it seems, Template_talk:Bo#Wylie.2C_Semicolons).
I am in general agreement with your ideas on this, and actually have largely discontinued the use of {{zh}} in my own editing (I do something like "...as 'precious words' (wěizǐ 瑋字)..." as in the scholarly literature, adding ancient/dialect forms as appropriate), but I see no large-scale befuddlement of lay readers that would give me a compelling reason to go on some change crusade. In actuality, such moves tend to produce similar resentment as the actual Crusades did. Perhaps you should consider renewing a discussion of some updating and/or modifications to {{zh}} over at its talk page, maybe we'd get some more interest now.
P.S. Incidentally, that bit in the MoS that makes it sound like adding an infobox makes it so the lead doesn't need characters/pinyin is a very old edit (July 2004!) and I'm not at all convinced is correct. I personally think that retaining the characters is appropriate, though most other parameters I agree are much better off in an infobox.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not "personal dissatisfaction": it's just a badly-formatted template. That I'm actually right shows in how—despite being unpleasant enough that you feel you have to throw in gratuitous and inaccurate disparagements like that—you (and other editors that I've pointed out the problems to) do generally realize that they are problematic enough that it's better to look for a work around.
I'd personally support your following Wiki's standard gloss practice and format yours ({{lang|zh|{{linktext|瑋字}}}}, ''wěizǐ'') with or without the wiktionary link but it's not a major thing.
Like I said, this is the wrong forum for the rest of this discussion: none of it is about improving this page. I will ask, though, that before you push the kill switch on that accurate and helpful bit of MOS: try to note that it's completely correct.
  • If they are not immediately linked to Wiktionary, characters in the lead do not actually provide any improved functionality: any reader has the exact same characters available from two infoboxes, one of which is immediately to the right of the lead.
  • Any scholarly or hanzi-focused reader wanting more... will want more. They'll prefer to access the characters along with the rest of the info which is downpage in the infobox.
  • There's a very good argument to be made about putting the Chinese name infobox first before the other templates in Chinese pages. That's not what you're doing, though.
  • If you start to allow more into the lead, they'll just start adding back the rest of it to the lead as well. ("Yeah, but you also need..." "It's cultural chauvinism if this is here but...") Names with variant simplified characters will have people using {{zh}}. You'll even get the IPA added back. The whole point of the infobox is to make the information easily accessible without throwing unnecessary roadblocks into the running text.
There's a much better argument for removing the characters but keeping the tonal pinyin. You want that available but without any movement towards the eyesore Vietnamese pages have become. It's still better off in the infobox, although it should display by default. (The fact it doesn't already makes me think there may be political pushback from older editors, though.) — LlywelynII 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

China claim

Nam Viet was founded separately from China when China north of Nam Viet was under Han control. Much of the territory today lies under China of today, but during the time of Nam Viet's founding of the Viet tribes then were in unclaimed territory. Chinese apologist like to claim this and that but the name of the page should be Nam Viet as per encyclopedic standards. This page is not worth referencing because of that alone. To claim the Viet History template should fall under Trieu section is the claim of Chinese apologists. Please discuss here. Tiladkransin (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Both Britannica and Encarta give this subject "Nam Viet." "Nanyue" follows modern northern Chinese pronunciation. The ancient state was Cantonese/Vietnamese. "Nanyue" is also the name of mountain and a temple in Hunan which are quite well-known in China, so the google results can be misleading. Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me asked you a question, did you changed anything significant? None. So why is there a need to move around the templates? Putting Vietnam template next to Zhao Mo sounds fine to me. Also, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nanyue001.png map was based from 参照《中国历史地图集》（谭其骧主编，中国地图出版社出版，1982年). No so Original content as you claimed. It's even shown here http://www.flickr.com/photos/49111993@N00/6056244563/. Also we have been through the talks of the title. It's over. unless you want to merge this with Zhao Dynasty which many of you blocked. --LLTimes (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask you, if the Vietnam template were put above the Chinese would you move it? Exactly, it should be on the same level. Apologists on wiki are pathetic, the truth is out there for everyone to see. You apologists are just making yourselves look foolish.Tiladkransin (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, apologists like to keep this page in pinyin to make it look more like Chinese history when in fact China existed separately in the north of the Yangtze River. This is an english page and should follow the encyclopedic form. The map is not up to par with academia and flickr is not a better source than Britannica. End of story. Nam Viet was founded in 204 BC and to put the Chinese template first, then the Vietnamese template below is trying to imply that Nam Viet was founded later. Foolishness from Chinese apologists.Tiladkransin (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tiladkrasin that the article's main title should be renamed "Nam Viet", as from my experience the name "Nam Viet" is a much more common name for the kingdom than the name "Nan Yue". So, changing the article's main title to "Nam Viet" would make this article more recognizable to fellow readers. The name "Nan Yue" also implies that this was a "Chinese" kingdom when it's not, remember the Chinese (original Han, Mandarin-speaking) nation only spanned over current-day northern and central China at that time, what's now southern China had a few indigenous kingdoms, including Nam Viet. As well, even though Nam Viet did have some ethnic Han Chinese immigrants living there and the kingdom was gradually "Sinocized" in culture, the people, the main language, and overall culture was still Yue/Viet. The western and southern Yue/Viet would (along with the Lac peoples) form today's Vietnamese people. Northern and eastern Yue/Viet will become assimilated and intermarry with Han Chinese to form today's Cantonese Han Chinese. Given that Nam Viet helped to give rise to an entire nation and people, the Vietnamese, rather than just form a small region of another (China), the article's main title should be changed to Nam Viet. Just because Nam Viet was somewhat Sinocized throughout it's existance, NOT assimilated DURING its existence, it cannot be classified as a "Chinese" nation, as other countries in the Sinosphere (Vietnam, Korea) were also to a degree Sinocized themselves, yet with their independence, separate distinct culture, separate distinct language, separate distinct ethnicity, and separate distinct identity, can they still be called a "Chinese" nation? Northern Vietnam and northern Korea, and Mongolia, were a part of the Chinese empire at some time in it's history, yet can they still be called a Chinese nation? As well, just because Han Chinese from the north immigrated to Nam Viet and settled there, just as how Han Chinese have immigrated to other nations like Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore (even forming the majority in Singapore), does it justify in calling all these countries "Chinese"? The name Nan Yue should stay, like in the first line in the first paragraph for example, but the main article's name and title should be changed to Nam Viet. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner's logic is illogical, because neither the Vietnamese, Cantonese, nor Mandarin pronunciations resemble the Old Chinese pronunciation which Zhao Tuo used to describe his kingdom. Nam is in fact a Chinese loanword in Vietnamese and certainly doesn't represent the ancient Vietnamese (Yue) pronunciation. The Old Chinese pronunciation, which was used by Zhao and his government, is gone and we don't know it. Mandarin is the descendant of Old Chinese, not Vietnamese. The fact remains that the majority of Nanyue is in China today so we use Mandarin. Genetic tests also reveal that the majority of the patrilineal (father's side) ancestry of Cantonese is northern Chinese. The Cantonese are descended mostly patrilineally from northern chinese immigrants to guangdong, like lots of hispanics in the Americas descending patrilineally from Spain. It doesn't matter that most of their blood is indigenous, their distant patrilineal spanish ancestry overshadows the rest. And Spanish is used in Mexico today, not Mayan, Olmec, Zapotec or Aztec.Rajmaan (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If we classify this entity as a Chinese state, it comes under the Wikiproject China guidelines, and therefore WP:PINYIN. But otherwise, it comes under guidelines like WP:EN and WP:WIAN, which recommend following the usage of the other encyclopedias and reference works. These generally use "Nam Viet". How the word was pronounced 2,000 years ago, or who is descended from who, doesn't have anything to do with it. Kauffner (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Cantonese is a linguistic division. It didn't even exist back in the Han dynasty. It was only Old Chinese or Middle Chinese. Therefore it can't be compare to Vietnamese. --178.2.91.215 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanyue/Archive_2&oldid=1075136737"