What Makes Chinese so Vietnamese?
An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies
(Ýthức mới về nguồngốc tiếngViệt)
Table of Contents
The five major points that have been discussed throughout this research are (1) argumentation on the Yue elements that had been existant prior to the emergence of what was later known as Chinese, (2) discussion on biased views on the V historical linguistics due to nationalism and politics, (3) focus on V etyma cognate to those of Sino-Tibetan and C languages in comparison with a wide range of basic words believed to be of Mon-Khmer origin, (4) dissyllabics of both V and C, (5) presentation of an analogical approach as drawn from the recognition of their dissyllabicity that helps discover more Sintic-Vietnamese words.
Even though some VS aspects have been addressed under different subject matters since the last century, most specialists of V examining the matter of V etymology of C origin to date have separated the Sinitic entitity from that of the aboriginal Yue, which has been under the guise of AA MK, Austro-Thai, Daic-Kaida, Vietic, and Vietmuong. Firstly, there had existed the proto-Yue and only then emerged the Sintic elements in the vast land that was later known as the Middle Kingdom. Throughout the 1000 years long under the rule of China from 111 BC, the Annamese language, as an ancient linguistic medium, had gradually absorbed the late Sinitic components and built them up on top of the Yue root and they altogether evolved into what is seen as today's V. In effect, there has been the continuity of lineage of both languages from the ancient to present time.
In so far as VS studies of V words of C origin, this etymological linguistic field has not been fully explored the way it deserves. When working on them, specialists in the field have only compared a limited number of monosyllabic words with equivalents of individual C characters, mostly on one-to-one basis. The usual approach in this area taken by many of them is to treat VS words only within the framework of the phonological system of SV as compatible to that of MC, so do with those of OC and pre-SV (Tiền-HánViệt) realm. Except for some achievements made in the field of reconstruction of OC, those specialists of V linguistics have largely neglected work on comparative analysis of other ST etymologies along with other modern C dialects while the common share in basic words of both V with other ST etymologies was totally neglected. For the most parts, practical usages of the latter vocabulary stocks have evidently been important sources for a wide range of active words in the V language. The chapter on ST etymologies present evidences of that argument.
Should there have been any meaningful work done in the area of the VS etymological field, in terms of polysyllabics, characteristically, it must have been plagued with a deeply-rooted misconception about the true nature of both C and V as of monosyllabics. There is no surprise that view of monosyllabism is par for the course these days as clearly demonstrated by the current V othorgraphy in which each separately written syllable is mistakenly thought to be a complete word-concept. The basic mechanism behind individual syllabic writings is governed by the V concept of "tiếng", or a "complete sound", which in fact invariably could be either a morpheme, syllable, or word. Such old-fashioned view is a remnant of a legacy of the historical official V writing system of C character-based scripts that was once used in the past until the early 20th century.
As a result, only monosyllabic V words of C origin have been targeted for investigation under which each syllable has been falsely treated as a complete lexical unit as a "word" in writing, no matter there evidently exist many words undeniably made up with multi-syllabic morphemes. Such incorrect perception has severely affected the progress in V etymological studies. For example, there has been virtually no new discovery of V etyma of C origin for at least five decades since Haudricourt's theory on the tonogenesis of V. Much of the V linguistic foci have been diverted into AA basic words that exist in other minority MK speeches but they, in effect, happen to fall into our categorized ST etymologies as well.
Needless to say, such faulty approach has certainly hindered further development and produced no breakthroughs in nature within the field of studies in V etymologies. That is the reason why the subject of dissyllabicity in both V and C has been discussed in length in this paper under a new perspective that will serve as a baseline for a novel etymological methodology that will greatly help identify a great number of V words of C origin within a dissyllabic framework.
In the meanwhile, in terms of genetic linguistic affiliation, Sino-Tibetan or not, the new analogical approach discussed in this paper basically revolvesaround C forms, literary and vernacular, past and present. Hopefully this etymological work will kick off some momentum in the VS field and lead the way in opening up other possible venues within the ST etymological domain based on the apparent cognateness as we have clearly seen in V and ST comparative cases in Shafer's lists.
For all the results that we are having so far with solid cases for those VS etyma, some irregular etymological issues that undermined the ST-oriented basic word stratum could have been already clarified as they have gone under scrutiny in this paper. Hopefully this research will provide novices as well as specialists alike with some new insights and productive tools so that they can launch further investigations in the right direction in exploring the VS field with the same manner and attitude regarding ST etyma and dissyllabicity of V vocabularies.
Finally, in addition to those words that are conformatively of any other roots such as those of MK, for the same reason, lexicologists of V will eventually be able to compile a modern V dictionary completed with etymologies for the first time, ever, in history.
[To be continued -- this research is still in the process of extensive editing. Refer to the version date.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES:
Aitchison, Jean. 1994. Language Change: Progress or Decay? . Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Alves, Mark J. 2001. "What's So Chinese About Vietnamese?" In Papers from the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, edited by Graham W. Thurgood. 221-242. Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies. PDF
Alves, Mark J. 2007. “Categories of Grammatical Sino-Vietnamese Vocabulary” in Mon-Khmer Studies Volume 37, 217-229. PDF
Alves, Mark J. 2009. “Loanwords in Vietnamese” in Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook, ed. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor. 617-637. De Gruyter Mouton. Hannas, William C. 1997. Asia's Orthographic Dilemma. University of Hawaii Press.
An, Chi. 2016. Vols. 1-3. Rong chơi Miền Chữ nghĩa (A Journey in the Field of Vietnamese Etymology). Ho Chi Minh: NXB Tổng hợp, TP HCM.
Anttila, Raimo (ed.). 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Baldi, Philip (de.) 1991. Patterns of Changes, Change of Patterns: Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barker, Milton E. 1966. “Viet-Muong Tone Correspondences”, in Norman Zide (ed.) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics . The Hague: Mouton.
Benedict, Paul. 1975. Austro-Thai Language and Culture (With a Glossary of Roots. HRAF Press.
Baxter, William III H. 1991. “Zhou and Han Phonology in Shijing,” in William G. Boltz and Michael. C. Shapiro (eds.) Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bình, Nguyên Lộc. 1987. Nguuồn gốc Mã lai của Dân tộc Việt nam (The Malay originsof the Vietnamese). Los Alamitos, CA: Xuân Thu. Originally published: Saigon: BáchBộc, 1971.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Bó Yáng 伯楊. 1983-1993. Modern Chinese edition of 司馬光 Sima Guang's Zīzì Tōngjiàn (Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government) 資治通鍳 (72 volumes, vol. 1 to vol. 72). Taipei: Yuănlíu Chùbăn Gōngsī 遠流出版公司 (Yuan-Liou Publishing Co).
Bó Yáng 伯楊. 1985. 醜陋的中國人 Chǒulòu de Zhōngguórén (The Ugly Chinaman). Taipei: Yuănlíu Chùbăn Gōngsī 遠流出版公司 (Yuan-Liou Publishing Co).
Boltz, William G. 1991. “Old Chinese Terresterial Rames in Saek,” in William G. Boltz and Michael. C. Shapiro (eds.) Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bodman, Nicholas C. 1980. “Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan,” in Frans Van Coetsem et al. (eds.) Contributions to Historical Linguistics. Netherlands: Leiden, E. J. Brill.
Breton, Roland J.-L. (Translated and expanded by Haroals F. Schiffman). 1991. Translation of “Géographie des langues,” Geolinguistics: Language Dynamics and Ethnolinguistic Geography. Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Brodrick, Alan Houghton. 1942. Little China: The Annamese Lands (大越南). London: Oxford University Press.
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cao, Xuân-Hạo. 2001. Tiếng Việt Văn Việt Người Việt. Ho Chi Minh City: Nhà xuất bản Trẻ publisher.
Chang, Kun. 1974. “Ancient Chinese Phonology and the Ch’ieh-Yun”, Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies. Vol. X. No. 2, pp. 61-82.
Chen, Guo-hong 陳國弘. 1988. Chengyu Cidian 成語辭典. Hunan: Yuelu Chubanshe 岳麓出版社 publisher.
Chou, Fa-Kao, et al (eds.). 漢字古今音彙 . 1973. Hanzi Gujin Yinhui. (A Pronouncing Dictionary of Chinese Characters (in Archaic & Ancient Chinese, Mand. & Cantonese), Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. (also Zhou Fagao)
Chou, Fa-Kao. 1982. “Monosyllabics of Chinese Reconsidered”, Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies. Vol. XIV. No. 1&2, pp. 105-110. (also Zhou Fagao)
Coblin, W. South. 1982. “Notes on Western Han Initials”, Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies. Vol. XIV. No. 1 & 2, pp. 111-132.
Coblin, W. South. 1983. A Handbook Of Eastern Han Sound Glosses. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Coetsem, Frans Van and Waugh, R. Linda (eds.). 1980. Contributions to Historical Linguistics. The Netherlands: Cornell University (Leiden E.J. Brill).
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species (150th Anniversary Edition, Florida: Bridge Logos Foundation
De Lacouperie, Terrien. 1966. The Languages of China Before the Chinese. Taiwan: Ch'engwen Publishing Company. (PDF. London: 1887)
Delinger, B. Paul. 1979. “The Ch’ung Niu Problem and Vietnamese”, Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies. Vol. XI. No. 1&2, pp. 217-227.
Drake, F.S. ed. 1967. Symposium on Historical Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South-East Asia and the Hong Kong Region. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Ðào, Trọng Ðủ. 1983. Traugiồi TiếngViệt. Toronto: Quêhương.
Ferlus, Michel. 2012. Linguistic Evidence of the Trans-Peninsular Trade Route from North Vietnam. Thailand: Mahidol University; USA: SIL International (USA)
Fisiak, Jacek. 1978. Recent Delelopments in Hostorical Phonology. New York: Mouton Puplishers.
FitzGerald, C.P.. 1972. The Southern Expansion Of the Chinese People. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Forrest, R. A. D. 1948. The Chinese Language. London: Faber and Faber LTD.
Hà, Đình Nguyên's. 2013. Chuyện tình Nghệ sĩ. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất bản Trẻ
Haudricourt, André. 1961. “The Limits And Connections Of Austroasiatic in the Northeast”, in Norman Zide (ed.) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Jeffers, J. Robert & Iles Lehiste. 1979. Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics. London and Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Karlgren, Bernard. 1915. Étude Sur la Phonologie Chinoise. (Revised Chinese translation by Chao Yuen Ren and Li Fang-Kuei). Taipei: Shangwù Yìnshùguăn, 2nd Edition, 1966.
Karlgren, Bernard. 1926. Philology and Ancient China. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.
Karlgren, Bernard. 1949. The Chinese Language: An Essay On Its Nature And History, New York: The Ronald Press Company
Karlgren, Bernard. 1957. Grammata Serica Recensa. (Reprinted from The Museum of Far Eastern Antiques, vol,29, pp. 1-332. Stockholm, 1964)
Kelley, Liam C. 2012. “The Biography of the Hồng Bàng Clan as a Medieval Vietnamese Invented Tradition”,Journal of Vietnamese Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2: 87-122, published by: University of California Press
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical Linguistcs And Generative Grammar. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Lan, Hongyin. 藍弘印 Lam Hồng-Ấn. 1984. 壯組民間故事選 Zhuangzu Minjian Gushi Xuan (Trangtộc Dângian Cốsự Tuyển). Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chubanshe.
Lehmann, Wilfred P. 1973. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Holt, RInehart and Winston, Inc.
Lê, Ngọc Trụ. 1967. Việt ngữ Chính tả Tự vị. Saigon: Bộ Giáo dục.
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1971. “Shanggu Yin Yanjiu,” Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies. Vol. ix. No. 1&2, pp. 1-61.
Lu, Xun 魯迅. 2008. Zawenji 杂文集. China: 万卷出板公司 Wanjuan Chuban Gongsi.
Lü, Shih-P'eng 呂士朋. 1964. 北屬時期的越南. Vietnam During the Period Of Chinese Rule (IIIrd Century BC To XTH Century A.D.) History Of Sino-Vietnamese Relations. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Luce, Gordon Hannington. 1965. "Danaw, a Dying Autroasiatic Language" in “Historical Linguistics” Indo-Pacific Linguistic Studies, edited by G.B. Milner and Eugénie J.A. Henderson, et al (eds) , Part 1, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Maspero, Henry. 1952. “Les Langues Thai” in A. Mieillet et al (eds.) Les Langues du Monde, Volume 1, Paris: Société de Linguistique.
McCormack, Willian and Steohen A. Wurm (eds.) 1978. Approaches to language: Anthropological Issues, Paris: The Hague. Mouton Publishers.
McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understading Language Change, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Milner, G.B. and Henderson, Eugénie J.A. et al (eds.) 1965. “Descritive Linguistics” Indo-Pacific Linguistic Studies, Part I, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Milner, G.B. and Henderson, Eugénie J.A. et al (eds.) 1965. “Historical Linguistics” Indo-Pacific Linguistic Studies, Part II, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Nerlich, Brigitte 1990. “Change In Language” Whitney, Breal, and Wegener, New York: Routledge.
Newmeyer, J. Frederick et al (eds.) 1988. “Linguistics Theory: Foundations” Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Volume I, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nguyễn, Ðình-Hoà. 1966. Vietnamese-English Dictionary . Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company.
Nguyễn, Tài Cẩn. 2000. Giáo Trình Ngữ âm Lịch sử Tiếng Việt. TP HCM: NXBGD.
Nguyễn, Tài Cẩn. 1979. Nguồn gốc và Quá trình Hình thành Cách đọc Âm Hán Việt. TP HCM: NXBKHXH.
Nguyễn, Thị Chân-Quỳnh. 1995. Lối xưa Xe ngựa.... Paris: Antiêm.
Nguyễn, Ngọc San. 1993. Tìm hiểu về Tiếng Việt Lịch sử. TP HCM: NXB Giáo dục.
Nguyễn, Văn-Khôn. 1967. Usual English-Vietnamese/Vietnamese-English Dictionary. Saigon: Khai Tri. (Reprinted in the USA by DANAMCO).
Nguyễn, Văn-Khôn. 1960. Hán Việt Từ điển. Saigon. (Reprinted in the USA by DANAMCO).
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: University Press.
Norman, Jerry. 1991. “Nasals in Old Southern Chinese,” in William G. Boltz and Michael C. Shapiro (eds.) Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Palmer, Leonard R. 1972. Descriptive and Comparative Linguistics: a Critical Introduction. London: Faber & Faber.
Parkin, Robert. 1991. A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their Languages. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Peng, Chu’nan 彭楚南. 1987. “Hanyu” in Hanyu Zhishi Jianghua, Volume 1. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanche.
Peng, Shifan 彭適凡. 1987. Zhongguo Nanfang Gudai Yinwentao. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanche.
Phạm, Cẩn. 1998. Từ Ðiển Việt Hán Hán Việt.Thanhhoá: Nhàxuấtbàn Thanhhoá.
Phan, Hữu Dật. 1998. Một số Vấn đề Dân tộc học Việtnam. Hanoi: Đại học Quốc gia Hà nội.
Phan, Văn-Các, et al (eds.) 1993. Từ Ðiển Trung Việt. Hanoi: Viện Khoa học Xã hội Việtnam.
Proulx, Annie (translator Pham Van). 2014. Close Range: Wyoming Stories (Chuyện tình núi Brokeback). Hanoi: Nhãnam.
Pulleyblank, E.G. 1984. Middle Chinese: A Study in Historical Phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Pulleyblank, E.G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation In Early Middle Chinese, Late Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Ruhlen, Merritt. On the Origin of Languages: Retrospective and Prospective (PDF
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. California: Stanford University Press.
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994. The Origin of Languages: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue. New York: John Wiley & Sonm Inc.
Schuessler, Axel. 1987. A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Shafer, Robert. 1966 - 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (4 volumes). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Sidwell, Paul . 2010. The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis, in "Journal of Language Relationship • Вопросы языкового родства • 4 (2010) • Pp. 117–134. PDF
Stockwell, P. Robert (ed.) et al. 1972.Linguistic Change and Generative Theory. Canada: Indiana University Press.
Sun, Tianxin. 孫天心. 2011. 越南漢字音的歷史層次研究 Yuenan Han Ziyin de Lishi Cengci Yanjiu. Taiwan's Pedagogy College. 2011. PDF
Sung, Shee, et al. 1967. Symmposium on the Sinological Study All Over the World (世界各國漢學研究論文雞). Taipei: Defense Research Institute 國防研究院.
Taylor, Keith Weller. 1983. The Birth of Vietnam. California: University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles - Oxford.
Thomas, David D. 1966. “Mon-Khmer Subgroupings in Vietnam,” in Norman Zide (ed.) Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Thomason, Sara Grey and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thurgood, Graham. Vietnamese and tonogenesis: revising the model and the analysis1. CSU Chico. PDF
Tô Kiều Ngân. 2013. Mặc khách Sàigòn. Hanoi: Công ty Văn hoá & Truyền thông Nhã Nam.
Wang, Li, et al. 1956. Hanzu de Gongtongyu he Biaozhunyin 漢族的共同語和標準音. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局
Wiens, Herold J. 1967. Han Chinese Expansion in South China. USA: The Shoe String Press, Inc.
Wilson, Ruth S. 1966. “A Comparison Of Muong With Some Mon-Khmer Languages,” in Norman Zide (ed.) Studies In Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
---.1988. Xiàndài Hànyǔ Cídiăn 現代漢語辭典. Beijing: Zhongugo Shehui Kexueyuan Yuyan Yanjiusuo 中國社會科學院語言研究所.
Xu, Liting 徐立亭.1981. Zhonghua Wuqian Nian 中华五千年. Jilin 吉林: Jilin Renmin Chubanshe 人民出版社.
Yip, Moira. 1990. The Tonal Pnonology of Chinese. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Yu, Naiyong 余迺永. 1985. Shanggu Yinxi Yanjiu. 上古音系研究. Hong Kong: Zhongwen Daxue Chubanche.
Zhang, Zengqi 张增琪. 1990. 中国西南民族考古 (Zhongguo Xinan Minzu Kaogu or Archaeology of Ethnic Minorities in China's Southwestern Regions). Yunnan: Yunnansheng Bowuguan Yanjiu Congshu.
Zhou, Fagao et al (eds.). 漢字古今音彙. 1973. Hanzi Gujin Yinhui. (A Pronouncing Dictionary Of Chinese Characters (in Archaic & Ancient Chinese, Mand. & Cantonese)), Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hongkong.
Zhou, Zhenhe 周振鶴 and You Rujie 游汝杰. 1988. Fangyan yu Zhongguo Wenhua. 方言與中國文化Taipei: Nantian Shuju.
Zhou, Zumo 周祖膜. Zhongyuan Yinyun中原音韻. 1991. Zhongyuan Yinyun. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanche
Zide, Norman (ed.) 1966. Studies In Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Peiros, Ilia. (2011) Some thoughts on the problem of the Austro-Asiatic homeland