Talk:thép

Why not related to 鐵 (MC thet) ?

Any special reason? Jidanni (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The same reason why đất is not related to similar looking Austroasiatic words mentioned in the entry: the codas can not be matched, except this time it's with Chinese, not Austroasiatic languages. Corespondance of codas between Vietnamese and Chinese is very straightforward: /p/ with /p/, /t/ with /t/, /k/ with /k/. Vietnamese here has /p/, Chinese lects have /t/, /ʔ/, or zero coda, none of which can be matched. PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well even today, 學 sounds like hop instead of hok...

Anyway "Identifying Early Sino-Vietnamese Vocabulary via Linguistic,

Historical, Archaeological, and Ethnological Data" by

Mark J. Alves

has more to say about it! Jidanni (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The phonological form of học is /hɔk/, its phonetic form in the mainstream dialects is [hawk͡p̚]. [k͡p] is the allophone of /k/ at coda position after back vowels (the environment). The word thép has a front vowel, and /p/, not /k/, as its coda. I am well-acquainted with Alves' works (he has done a lot of good for Austroasiatic linguistics after all), and he has had suggestions that are just faulty or too uncertain to properly assess, some he used to endorse in the past but not anymore, like vịt being borrowed from Tai, some he doesn't really mention anymore as far as I know, such as chồng being a loan from 丈 (MC drjangX) (it's not, btw), and some that are certainly wrong, like cái (general classifer) being from 個 (MC kaH). I'm afraid his suggestion about thép (which he noted in the paper itself, that he's uncertain about due to the very coda /p/) falls almost squarely into the certainly wrong category. PhanAnh123 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)