Professor Nguyen Tai Can and his contributions to Nom script research (a stick of incense in memory of the Teacher)

It is unfortunate for a "later student" in the field of literature like me that I am not lucky enough to study directly with Professor Nguyen Tai Can (May 2, 1926 - February 25, 2011), but through reading the Professor's research works and absorbing the Professor's scientific thoughts through generations of his students, I am stillstudent (of student (of student))of the Professor in all senses of this text. Therefore, although I know that the Professor's health condition has not been good recently, I still feel disappointed by the news that the Professor has passed away forever on February 25, 2011 in Moscow. I wanted to light a stick of incense in memory of Professor Nguyen Tai Can, but because I did not have the opportunity to study directly with the Professor and therefore have few memories of the Professor (although I had the honor of meeting the Professor 4 times), I had to remember the Professor's spirit through the path of science, the path that made the Professor forever famous. Standing before the enormous scientific legacy of Professor Nguyen Tai Can, people often easily sympathize with the feeling of "high spending threshold"(The more you look up, the higher it seems) by Nhan Hoi to the Confucian teacher. The professor left a deep mark on many fields: grammar, phonetics, Han Nom, vocabulary, etymology, Vietnamese linguistics, poetic language, literature, culture... This junior, who is very modest about his age and even more modest about his career, would like to look up at a small corner of the professor's scientific career, which is the study of Nom script. Although Nom script has existed for over 800 years, the study of Nom script has been raised almost exclusively from the 20th century to the present. During this period, the research works on Nom script by Professor Nguyen Tai Can had a prominent position. The work of describing those works is unnecessary and, more importantly, cannot be completed in a short article, so here I would like to briefly review the outstanding contributions of Professor Nguyen Tai Can in this narrow field of research.

1. Establishing tools and methods for studying Nom script

Regarding the field of “Nom studies” (if this term can be used), Professor Nguyen Tai Can has made great contributions in establishing research tools and methods, the basic premises for studying Nom script. From a very early age, the Professor has devoted much effort to researching Sino-Vietnamese reading (1971, 1972, 1979) as a conceptual tool for studying Nom script, especially determining the time of appearance of this type of script: “It is possible that Nom script was formed at the same time as Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation, but it is also very possible that Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation was formed first, and then some time later our ancestors relied on Chinese characters read according to Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation to create Nom script” (1971). The method of determining the formation date of Nom script based on the time of appearance of the Sino-Vietnamese phonetic system that the Professor proposed in the early 1970s is a new viewpoint, different from previous concepts which were mostly based on historical and sociological (mythical) evidence that tended to push the time of appearance of Nom script earlier than the actual time. Besides his mark in the research on Sino-Vietnamese phonetics, the Professor also made many contributions in the field of research on Ancient Sino-Vietnamese phonetics (also known as Pre-Sino-Vietnamese) and Vietnameseized Sino-Vietnamese phonetics (also known as Post-Sino-Vietnamese) to form a picture of the linguistic influence (phonetics) between Chinese and Vietnamese in history (1987). This contributed to correcting many concepts on phonetics and the classification of Nom scripts recorded as Ancient Sino-Vietnamese and Vietnameseized Sino-Vietnamese phonetics by predecessors such as Vuong Luc (1948), Dao Duy Anh (1975). In addition, Professor Nguyen Tai Can conducted early research on the appearance of each individual Nom character in the Nom script system. In the scientific masterpieceSome issues about Nom scriptIn 1985, the Professor devoted the last 20 pages of the Appendix (pp. 252-272) to presenting a lookup table.Some ancient Nom characters have been found in texts of precise date (from the 12th to the 17th century)., which lists the earliest Vietnamese morphemes recorded in reliable documents in Nom script. Nowadays, with newer conditions in terms of Nom script documents, we are still waiting for a thicker, more specific dictionary (or more modestly: lookup table) with similar content. Besides, the direction in the study of Nom script as a writing system was also outlined early by Professor Nguyen Tai Can (1981): it is necessary to go from general scripts to regional scripts to visualize the picture of writing in the world and the region, then delve into the study of Nom script as a writing system to write Vietnamese. This direction has been deepened in the early years of the 21st century by the work of Nguyen Quang Hong (2008).

2. Macro research: establishing the Nom script structure model

From the perspective of philological structure, the study of Nom script structure in the 20th century can be divided into two relatively distinct stages. Before 1975, philological studies of Nom script were of a pioneering nature, mainly based on the Chinese philological model, taking the “Six Books” (six rules for constructing Chinese characters:pictograph, allegory, ideogram, simile, digraph) as the center to “assemble” the Nom script structural methods into that division framework. We can meet here famous researchers who follow this direction: Van Huu (1933), Duong Quang Ham (1943), Tran Kinh Hoa (1949), Dao Duy Anh (1975)… In particular, the famous workNom script: Origin - Structure - Developmentby Professor Dao Duy Anh (Social Sciences Publishing House, Hanoi, 1975) is the "complete collection" for this research direction. After 1975, this path continued to be developed, mostly by foreign scholars such as Li Lac Nghi (1986), Ma Khac Thua (1996) in China, Wm. C. Hannas (1997) in the US - those who mainly approached Nom script through Professor Dao Duy Anh's book, or through a few articles of a brief nature about Nom script written in English, but did not update the research situation in the country. Entering 1976, the study of Nom script structure entered a new period with the pioneering of the commander Nguyen Tai Can writing with his wife, Professor NV Stankevitch, through the articleA brief overview of the structure of Nom script. This article has escaped the traditional "Six Books" thinking to use modern scientific methods, considering Nom script as a subject of philological research in close relationship with Vietnamese historical linguistics, especially phonetics. Based on the criteria of form, sound, and meaning, Professor Nguyen Tai Can classified Nom scripts in turn in many consecutive dichotomous steps to generalize a Nom script structure model consisting of 10 types. At the time of 1976, this was the most scientific and comprehensive classification model (because most Nom script individuals could be classified into it). This scientific working method immediately had a positive influence on the later studies of Le Van Quan (1981), Nguyen Ngoc San (1987), Nguyen Khue (1987-1988), Le Anh Tuan (2003)... In the 21st century, that model was revised and reconstructed in the works of Nguyen Quang Hong (2006, 2008). The noteworthy point about the above paradigm shift is that Professor Dao Duy Anh acknowledged in 1975 the difference in classification methods between him and Professor Nguyen Tai Can. Professor Dao wrote:

“Mr. Nguyen Tai Can told me that linguists may classify Nom scripts differently from mine, but in the end the results are still completely consistent with mine, which proves that my classification is still correct. I would like to add that I do not follow the linguists' classification because I find that for ordinary readers the linguistic classification is a bit strange and difficult to understand. In my opinion, this classification is simpler and easier to understand, I think it is consistent with the way of thinking and the principles that the ancients relied on when constructing Nom scripts” (ibid., p. 63, note 1).

Of course, here each scholar has based on his own point of view to determine the approach to studying the structure of Nom characters. Moreover, it is also important to note that the above book by Professor Dao was published in 1975, after he had heard the discussion with Professor Nguyen, and he certainly had not read Professor Nguyen's elaborate research that would be published 1 year later (1976) to know that Professor Nguyen's classification is quite different from his, especially in terms of the scientific nature of the method of classifying the structure of the script. From the perspective of scientific inheritance, the mutual criticism and acceptance between these two famous Nom character researchers is very valuable and worth learning.

3. Micro research: from the problem “song written” to trilogyTale of Kieu

In addition to his success in studying Nom scripts from a macro level, Professor Nguyen Tai Can also made his mark in micro-level studies of individual Nom scripts, which have been a “difficult problem” in Nom script research in the past and present. This article will only mention two cases: the two characters “song written" in ancient Nom poetry of the 15th-16th centuries and Nom characters inTale of Kieuvery complicated, has caused much controversy. How to read and understand the two words "song written” (双) appears many times in Nguyen Trai's Nom poetry,Hong Duc National Language Poetry Collectionand Nguyen Binh Khiem is certainly the most controversial issue in the study of Nom characters from the mid-20th century to the present, attracting the participation of no less than 10 researchers. Not satisfied with the understanding of Nom characters' ideogram analysis of researchers Tran Van Giap and Pham Trong Diem (1956), Dao Duy Anh (1962), Do Van Hi (1967), Professor Nguyen Tai Can in 1974 and 1975 proposed and carried out a new, more comprehensive approach, starting from ideogram to delve into phonetic, lexical, semantic, and grammatical analysis, listing all the possibilities for reading and understanding those two characters, consulting many references from neighboring languages, checking in Vietnamese dictionaries before the 20th century, screening and carefully eliminating unrealistic possibilities, thereby concluding a very new reading method: "wide" for these two special Nom characters, then examined all the semantic aspects of those two characters (7 semantic aspects) in the contexts in which they appeared, and then with all the necessary caution of a scientist, he still suggested to leave the above solution in doubt, waiting for further research. Even though later on, many more researchers (Ngo Duc Tho, An Chi, Nguyen Thi Oanh, Nguyen The...) joined the debate with more or less different viewpoints and different from the theory "wide", but the profound, comprehensive and careful research method that Professor Nguyen Tai Can applied to reach that result will forever be an example for future researchers to learn from. In terms of Nom text, there has never been a text system as complex as the Nom text system.Tale of Kieu. In the first 10 years of the 21st century, Professor Nguyen Tai Can continuously published prestigious research works on Nom texts and vocabulary in that complex system of texts, most notably 3 books whose titles all begin with "Kieu Story Documents…” (2002, 2004, 2008). Starting from the suggestions on the study of texts and words of scholar Hoang Xuan Han, Professor Nguyen Tai Can since the end of the 20th century has deeply researched the issue of texts and language.Tale of Kieuin the direction of "origin search", searching for "Nguyen Du's original words", so that in 2002, the first monograph on the Duy Minh Thi 1872 version was introduced to readers. The specific research of a textTale of Kieuin comparison with other texts in the text systemTale of KieuNot exactly a new issue (since 1999, The Anh has published a book transcribing and researching the 1902 Kieu Oanh Mau version:The Tale of Kieu: A Comparison of Nom and Quoc Ngu, Literature Publishing House, 1999), but the above book by Professor Nguyen Tai Can has "separate into one family" because of its scientific and novel nature. The book discusses the Duy Minh Thi 1872 version from 3 aspects (corresponding to 3 parts of the book's content): text research, Nom transcription, and word interpretation; all 3 aspects are presented with many new ideas. In text research, the Professor paid special attention to the phenomenon of taboo (a direction that he later continued to delve deeper into) to find the connection between the Duy Minh Thi 1872 version and the original work of Nguyen Du. Regarding transcription, with previous in-depth studies on Nom script, the Professor published a transcription with many strange and interesting word hypotheses for the "Kieu" community. Regarding word interpretation, the Professor has promoted his strengths in historical phonetics, historical lexicography, and dialectology to conduct screening and argumentation on how to read and understand each word case in the Duy Minh Thi 1872 version; this part is the key point. the book's closure, so that it can “separate into one family”. The research approach in this book is instructive for other researchers to undertake more or less similar work on other texts included in the list of manuscripts.Tale of KieuThe earliest known Nom scripts: Lieu Van Duong 1871, Nguyen Huu Lap 1870, Lieu Van Duong 1866, Thinh My Duong 1879. Although later there were studies that differed from the Professor's on the textual perspectiveTale of Kieu(Dao Thai Ton,Research on the text of The Tale of Kieu: Lieu Van Duong version 1871, Social Sciences Publishing House, 2006), but that very difference of opinion, as its author admitted, was suggested by the research method of scholar Hoang Xuan Han and the research work on the Duy Minh Thi 1872 version of Professor Nguyen Tai Can. Once again, we see the productiveness in terms of research methods of the scientific works that the Professor left for posterity. That serious and scientific research method continued to be consistently implemented in the two books that the Professor published later (2004, 2008), forming a "trilogy” (trilogy) of works on text and wordsTale of Kieuthat people can easily recognize even when they are not labeled “made by Nguyen Tai Can”. This is an important research trend that needs to be implemented in the field of “Kieu Studies” in the 21st century, and the person who laid the foundation bricks is none other than Professor Nguyen Tai Can.

List of major research works on Nom script by Professor Nguyen Tai Can

1. Nguyen Tai Can (1971),Historical phonetic data on the issue of the period of appearance of Nom script, printed in: Language Magazine, No. 1; reprinted in:Some issues about Nom script, University and Vocational High School Publishing House, Hanoi, 1985, pp. 86-118.
2. Nguyen Tai Can (1972),Add some historical phonetic data related to the issue of the period of appearance of Nom script, printed in:Scientific announcement of the University of General Sciences (Literature - Language), vol. V, Hanoi, 1972; reprinted in:Some issues about Nom script, University and Vocational High School Publishing House, Hanoi, 1985, pp. 119-137.
3. Nguyen Tai Can (1974),Try to find a way to read the two words "song viet" in Nom, printed in Literature Magazine, No. 2/1974; reprinted in:Some issues about Nom script, University and Vocational High School Publishing House, Hanoi, 1985, pp. 181-209.
4. Nguyen Tai Can (1975),More about "single writing? double knowing? double bonding?", printed in: Literature Magazine, No. 6/1975; reprinted in:Some issues about Nom script, University and Vocational High School Publishing House, Hanoi, 1985, pp. 210-227.
5. Nguyen Tai Can, NV Stankevitch (1976),A brief review of the structure of Nom script,Printed in: Language Magazine, No. 2: pp. 15-25; No. 3: pp. 14-24. [This article was reprinted many times in several books on Nom script by Professor Nguyen Tai Can].
6. Nguyen Tai Can (1979),Origin and formation process of Sino-Vietnamese reading, Social Sciences Publishing House, Hanoi; reprint: Hanoi National University Publishing House, 2002.
7. Nguyen Tai Can, NV Stankevitch (1981),Nom script, a cultural achievement of the Ly - Tran period, printed in: Institute of History,Studying Vietnamese society during the Ly - Tran period, Social Sciences Publishing House, Hanoi, pp. 476-516.
8. Nguyen Tai Can (1985),Some issues about Nom script, University and Vocational High School Publishing House, Hanoi, 1985. [This book includes 10 research articles, mainly published sporadically from 1971 to 1981. This is also the most important scientific work of Professor Nguyen Tai Can in the field of Nom script research].
9. Nguyen Tai Can (1987),Chinese character culture and Vietnamese language: the role of Chinese elements in modern Vietnamese, first printed in Japanese in the bookChinese characters are decisive., Tokyo, 1987; reprinted in Vietnamese in:Some evidence of language, writing and culture, Hanoi National University Publishing House, 2001, pp. 424-439.
10. Nguyen Tai Can (2001),Some evidence of language, writing and culture, Hanoi National University Publishing House.
11. Nguyen Tai Can (2002),Kieu Story Documents: Duy Minh Thi 1872 Edition, Hanoi National University Publishing House.
12. Nguyen Tai Can (2004),Kieu Story Documents:From Duy Minh Thi to Kieu Oanh Mau, Center for National Studies & Literature Publishing House.
13. Nguyen Tai Can (2008),Kieu Story Documents:Try to understand the draft of the Tale of Kieu, Education Publishing House.

NOTE

• AboveAre notThis is not a complete list of Professor Nguyen Tai Can's Nom research works, but only a review of the key works mentioned in the article.
• Due to the limited length of the article, please refrain from mentioning specific information about the research works of other researchers that this article has mentioned.