Talk:nó

Vietnamese

@Fumiko Take: Sorry for the usage notes first of all; in hindsight it was a poorly thought-out way of wording it.

That said, I did notice that nó tended to be used more easily when discussing about foreigners. I remember several occasions on which nó was used to refer to foreigners when I was in Vietnam, sometimes in their presence, without the foreigner having an inferior status or a contemptible trait in particular. Not limited to nó; thằng as well.

For example, once I was in a travel company in the city centre, when a middle-aged, courteous-looking male foreigner came in to enquire about Mekong Delta tours. The receptionist wasn't entirely sure about the details of a tour, and asked another employee for the travel itinerary. The second employee then handed him a document, and said “có cái này cho nó coi”, and consistently used nó to refer to the foreign man in subsequent conversation. I was surely very surprised. When I asked the locals, they said this did exist ― some people do customarily use it when talking about foreigners without any disparagement, but it was “improper” (không đúng) and it probably originated from the French colonial times.

I did a bit of search on this. Found the following which I thought was interesting:

• Is there a Vietnamese word for white foreign devil? If not? Why? on Quora:

  Cao Nguyên Khải's answer:

  […] However, there is a pattern that applies for all foreigners regardless of nationality. Vietnamese sometimes tends to refer foreigners as “nó”-it instead of “anh ấy”-he or “cô ấy”-her. Using “nó” to for people is only used for children, or someone lower than you on social status. This is due to social norms of Vietnamese society usually doesn't apply for foreigners. However, this trend is disappearing when there are more contact between common Vietnamese people and foreigners.

  Vincent Lee's answer:

  […] In our privacy, we’d addressed people derogatorily as “thằng này”, “con kia” translated roughly into meaning a distant “it”. Lowest recognition on the social order.

• How do I address you? Let me count the ways...

  David is right that foreigners are not expected to abide by Vietnamese naming practices--and Vietnamese do not use the same terms when talking about foreigners. I would not dream of referring to my (Chinese) husband as "no" but many Vietnamese women married to Chinese or other foreigners do so as a matter of course.

  […]

  I confirm Professor Hue Tam's finding--which is also my experience in contact with clients in law practic-- that many Vietnamese women call their foreign husbands as "nó' in such sentences as "th?ng ch?ng em nó k? l?m" or "th?ng ch?ng em nó t?t l?m"--withour derogatory meaning or disrespect, as if these women have been liberated enough for marrying foreigners who treat them on an equal footing (no more "ch?ng chúa v? tôi" as in some old-fashioned families) and it is ok to refer to husbands as "nó"-- Or is it these Vietnamese women's literal translation of "him" into "nó"in the mind of these women who have forgotten the more refined way of referring to husband as "anh ?y", "ông ?y", "anh chàng ?y","nhà tôi"?

  […]

  I notice too that people in my company say 'no' to refer to foreigners but would never use it to refer to Vietnamese groups. This makes me wonder if this is to mark that foreigners are separated from Vietnamese, or if it is to mark less respect for foreigners amongst themselves.

  […]

  'Nó' I consider the equivalent of "it" when Vietnamese use vis a vis foreigners. Not really pejorative, but still a bit disrespectful.

The above is just some trivia I would like to share. Native speakers certainly know the situation much better than me. @PhanAnh123 may have insights to share too.

Thanks, Wyang (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: "Nó" is not a specific way to refer to foreigners, and there's no such "system". At best, it's a pattern of behavior: the more emotionally detached you are from someone, the more comfortable it is to refer to them as "nó". I personally use "nó" to refer to distant entities that I don't care about, foreign or not. People just have way less emotional attachment to foreigners, so it's just way more comfortable to refer to some European dude or gal as "thằng Tây" ("that Western son of a gun"), "con Tây" ("that Western bitch"), or "nó" ("it"). I'm definitely guilty of this at times too, and as Joe Ruelle (who's fluent in Vietnamese) noted in his book Ngược chiều vun vút, a lot of people've done that to him, which makes sense: they think of foreigners as, well, "foreign", distant, that they don't understand the language, that you don't have to worry about being overheard (you do!). Ruelle said he'd been subjected to the cruel treatment of being referred to as "thằng Joe" merely because the people around him just assumed he didn't speak Vietnamese. On the contrary, it takes a lot more to refer to your own kind who you actually interact and establish long-term relationships with as "thằng", "con" or "nó". I'm pretty sure people who know you well enough won't demean you like that. Personally, I'm now at the point where it's become uncomfortable to call a Western senior "thằng Tây", instead I just refer to them the same way I do to Vietnamese, as "ông Tây". It's just like how easier it is to get acquainted to a Vietnamese by jumping right into incessant queries about their age, their hometown, their zodiac animal, their wife, their children, their job, etc. as opposed to a foreigner: it's a matter of emotional attachment to your own kind who, at the very least, share your language and values. ばかFumiko￥^talk 10:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take: Thanks for the reply and the insight. That nó essentially is a marker of emotional detachment from someone or something makes good sense. I'm intrigued by one thing in the second discussion above though ― that many Vietnamese women refer to their foreign husbands as nó without any disrespect meant, more as a matter of course. Can you attest to this use or phenomenon by any chance? Emotional detachment may be at play, but from the discussions above it appears that it need not be a prerequisite, as though such appellation has become customary in the vernacular to some extent, used by speakers without much deliberation. I think we should document these nuances somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where would be appropriate, maybe in an appendix or on Wikipedia. The article states that the word is disrespectful, which is true, though not quite always true, in that it may cause the unaware Westerner to believe it is necessarily a sign of disrespect and pick a fight with the other side (!). Vietnamese pronouns, especially nuances like these, are just way too complicated for non-natives (or thằng Tây, heheh) to handle. Wyang (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak Vietnamese, so take my spitballing with a shaker of salt, but might this be a job for "typically"/"chiefly"? "...typically in a disrespectful or emotionally detached manner." - -sche (discuss) 14:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)