Talk:Vietnamese alphabet
The alphabet is notoriously deceptive. Anyone believing in English management of the sounds would be misled! On the standard Wikipedia page this is covered through very technical analysis. I can link to the technical analysis. I had intended to do that!
This is a simple English way to say "it is this"! "Why it is so" gets very technical (even for many of the native language users). It takes hours in lessons to meet approval - for nearly everyone!
Standard teaching methods are in question when in reference to simple English encyclopedia information. The most standard method of description really only satisfies highly technical linguistics instructions. I think this method gives the greatest instantaneous description - I'll attach more reference and standardization as it progresses.
The arrangement of the alphabet table was to suggest the common left to right combination of vowels as primary word change. Consonants form the minor series in Vietnamese. A further discussion of trigraphs in English versus tripthongs in Vietnamese seemed a little absurd for a simple English - Viet Alphabet Wikipedia page. But, English teachers will commonly correct an inordinate amount of consonants, digraphs, and trigraphs, while Viet teachers will correct an inordinate amount of vowels, dipthongs, and tripthongs. It's more simply shown by demonstrating every character in full dress!
Feel free to edit! 180.93.174.113 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Some of those edits were unnecessary. Not cited and not citable are two different things. Original research is not true.
For example: "Vietnamese is not sing-song voice" is very citation worthy! Is sing-song voice a good description? I didn't think so! It needs a good citation for each thing is definitely a good point.
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=7GlcaOkztQUC&lpg=PA32&ots=oK50_lYiHF&dq=sing-song%20language%20asia&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q=sing-song%20language%20asia&f=false
Here's a very citable talk about colonials and their lack of English in manner of speaking. It all turns around exactly that way when trying to decipher the Vietnamese alphabet for the first time. (Again, very notable and researched - even by lonely planet - not really wanting to plagiarize here though!). Could it have been thought out better by adding a preferred style structure to pursue instead of being so desultory? I saw 'citation needed' is very common on other pages. It was the introduction prior to the edit. I realize my choice of wording was exploratory, but I don't think that automatically defines it as original research. English exploration would be mandatory with converting to simple English. Does it require a fully worded and cited piece in the talk prior to conversion and contribution?
180.93.174.113 (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Notice for future: Vietnam's publishing has poor print editions (literally for poor people). I can read them but cant really cite them due to an excessive amount of plagiarism and anonymous writing. Citations are welcome!
180.93.174.113 (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Here's another in reference to keywords sing-song voice, tonal language, and western ears. http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=cKh2KL5LqEsC&lpg=PA109&ots=tMBOEHQxzi&dq=sing-song%20language%20asia&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q=sing-song%20language%20asia&f=false
Sing song, tonal language and children's staying in voice range singing difficulties for music - http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=53-q3E1HF18C&lpg=PA269&ots=2A3kVk4NYr&dq=sing-song%20tonal&pg=PA270#v=onepage&q=sing-song%20tonal&f=false