Transliteration Conventions

The 20th century was marked by the tension between two approaches to transliterating ancient Nôm texts into modern Romanized Vietnamese (quốc ngữ). On one hand, older linguistic elements, especially ancient phonology, were set aside in favor of creating a popular, accessible transliteration for the general reader. On the other hand, some scholars were deeply concerned with preserving the archaic features of old Nôm works to support preservation and research.

The first approach allowed readers to engage with ancient literature more easily and quickly, but it also created consequences that not everyone today fully recognizes. The second approach, more purely scholarly, was carefully pursued by many pioneering researchers, though overall, the first method was more broadly accepted.

This Quốc âm Thi tập (QATT) transliteration edition is an experiment in consistency and a systematic method for transliterating ancient texts. It leans toward the second approach, aiming to support specialized research in textual studies, script studies, linguistics, literature, and etymology. This method may make QATT less accessible and more selective in its readership, and it might even face some criticism. However, we regard QATT as a linguistic archaeological site—housing around twelve thousand “artifacts” of 15th-century Vietnamese and twelve thousand specimens of Vietnam’s traditional script: Nôm—the only writing system created and used by the Vietnamese themselves over a thousand years of history.

Like any excavation, some later materials may have intruded—similar to disturbances in archaeological strata—and some areas remain uncertain, mixed with works by Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm. Yet to us, all artifacts are data, and all data carries historical significance. Our task is to disentangle these complex, difficult issues.

Key Transliteration Principles

• Transliterate according to the ancient pronunciation represented by the Nôm character.
   E.g., 責祿 is rendered trách lóc (not trách móc), and in the dictionary section, it is reconstructed as trách mlóc to preserve the archaic phonetic quality. Similarly, 免 is miễn (not lẫn or liễn), reconstructed as mliễn.
  
   
• Transliterate using the 15th-century Sino-Vietnamese reading.
   E.g., 時 is rendered thì (not thời, the latter being a taboo reading from the Nguyễn dynasty, 19th century).
  
   
• For borrowings from classics, follow the traditional reading used in those texts.
   E.g., 丁丁 is tranh tranh (from Book of Songs), not đinh đinh or đanh đanh.
  
   
• Where two Nôm forms exist, choose the one with the older pronunciation attested by Rhodes.
   E.g., 羨 previously rendered as tiện, tịn, tiễn is now standardized as tịn, based on research linking it to 盡 (tận).
  
   
• On reduplication:
   Retain full reduplication as in the ancient form: vặc vặc (not vằng vặc), xộc xộc (cf. xồng xộc), nớp nớp (cf. nơm nớp), aligning with Nôm script and other ancient reduplications.
  
   
• Sino-origin words borrowed before the Tang dynasty are systematically rendered using Pre-Sino-Vietnamese readings (THV).
   E.g.: 池 > đìa (cf. Paul Schneider); 住 > đỗ; 助 > đỡ; 鑄 > đúc; 燭 > đuốc; 追 > đuổi; 婿 > rể; 卒 > rốt; etc.
  
   
• Some words follow Rhodes and other early dictionaries when the Nôm form aligns:
   E.g.: dộng (for đóng), chử (for giữ), đam (for đem), khuở (for thuở), khảy (for gảy), etc.
  
   
• Pronunciations may also reflect conservative dialectal forms:
   E.g.: chường (for giường), chàu (for giàu), chận (for giận).
  
   
• Some pronunciations derive from the historical phonology of Vietnamese and Chinese:
   E.g.: tràm (from lam 藍), ràn (from lan 欄), rặng (from lĩnh 嶺).
  
   
• Certain misspellings harmful to etymology are corrected:
   E.g., 鐺 is sanh (steamer), not xanh.
  
   
• Distinguish often-confused forms:
   E.g., dại (Nôm 待) vs giại (Nôm 豸).
  
   
• Some archaic terms newly identified in this edition:
   E.g.: nừng (only), mỉa (like), leo heo (desolate), phơi phơi (exposed), rốt, etc.
  
   
• Literal translations reflecting the bilingual Sino-Vietnamese context:
   E.g.: của cởi buồn (from địch phiền tử), mười chước (十策), bia miệng (口碑).
  
   
• Attention to consistency in Nôm form and pronunciation:
   E.g.: 算 consistently rendered toan.
  
   
• Consistency in reduplicative forms and base words:
   E.g.: 塔塔 could be tấp tấp (not thấp thấp).
  
   
• Consistency in meaning based on Nôm structure and phonological comparison:
   E.g.: Reevaluate forms like lợp vs rợp.
  
   
• Accept dialectal variants when they fit metrical or tonal requirements:
   E.g.: lánh, tlánh (now tránh).
  
   
• This edition consolidates prior transliteration scholarship:
   Drawing on Trần Văn Giáp–Phạm Trọng Điềm, Đào Duy Anh, Paul Schneider, Vũ Văn Kính, Mai Quốc Liên, Nguyễn Tá Nhí, Phạm Luận, and others.
  
   
• Final note:
   This work expresses deep gratitude to all previous scholars in this field.
  
   

(Note: About 30 poems in QATT are also found in Bạch Vân Am Thi Tập by Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm. While earlier scholars tried to distinguish authorship through stylistic analysis, no conclusive resolution has been reached. Thus, this edition treats these as indeterminate.)