Next »

« Previous

Rainwash from the Austroasiatic sky

New battles in the Sino-Tibetan front

New approaches in the Vietnamese etymology

The end of Austroasiatic approach

History is the soul of a national language

New battles in the new internet era

Humans like to hear what they believe in

Dongtinghu, birthplace of rice


MAP OF...

Southern Han (917-971 A.D.)


Han's Giaochau Prefecture in 111 B.C.

Vietnam's 1650 Map

Dongson bronze drums in Indonesia

Vietnamese       Chinese
What Makes Chinese so Vietnamese?

An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies

(Ýthức mới về nguồngốc tiếngViệt)

DRAFT

Table of Contents

dchph

 

Chapter Two

Several issues will be addressed in this chapter. Firstly, to defuse the misconception about the Vietnamese language as being descended from common Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer (AA MK) languages, my new discoveries in both Sino-Tibetan and Sinitic etymologies for the Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabularies with my newfound proofs of over 400 basic and fundamental words that will revigorate the Sino-Tibetan theory. Secondly, for those that make up almost all of Vietnamese vocabularies I will elaborate on what was brought up in the introductory chapter by devoting a portion of this research on introducing two new approaches that have been utilized in the process to unveil those hidden Sinitic-Vietnamese cognates that the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer specialists may not be aware that they even exist, and identify common linguistic characteristics of the Vietnamese and Chinese languages both share. Besides, this whole academic matter will also expose the disguise of "nationalism" that is politically motivated to the bias of linguistic classification.

II) Rainwash from the Austroasiatic sky

The usage "rainwash" herein, besides the contextual connotation of "brainwash", points to the fact that "torrential" precipitation will purge unwanted poluted particles back to the earth, that is, old imprinted marks on human long-term memory that would hardly fade away. That has once happened to the Sino-Tibetan classification of the Vietnamese language in the early decades of the last century. Meanwhile the Sino-Tibetan theory has undergone constant rectifications that Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists have never missed a beat that selectively aimed to eliminate what was left missing in the Sino-Tibetan family. By then the theory still lacked cognates of basic words in Vietnamese to support the theory, which is no longer the case by now.

When readers start to read about the Chinese etymology of Sinitic-Vietnamese words in this research, they mostly have already formed their own answer regarding to the question of whether Vietnamese is a Sino-Tibetan or Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer language. Every story has at least two sides of it and both likely overlap each other, of which they may not even know that they exist. In our specifics, be that of Mon-Khmer or Sinitic language family, even if issues of ether side exists in theory only, the truth lies somewhere in between. What we do not know does mean they do not exist. As far as the Sino-Tibetan etyma are concerned, I am showing what I have learnt about it with the theory that modern Vietnamese had roots from the China South region and it was also where the Chinese language had grwon matue to its full term.

As a matter of fact the homehand of all Southeast Asian languages originated from the same area as that of Vietnamese. Meritt Ruhlen in his book entitled The Origin of Language (1994. p. 143) points out that

"[t]he Austric family of Southeast Asia consists of four subfamilies: Austroasiatic, Miao-Yao, Daic, and Austronesian, the last two of which apprear to be the closest to each other. The Austroasiatic sub-family consists of two branches, Munda and Mon-Khmer. The small Munda branch is restricted to northern India while the Mon-Khmer branch, more numerous in both languages and speakers, is spread across much of Southeast Asia, often interpersed with languages of other families. Vietnamese and Khmer (or Cambodian) are the two best known Mon-Khmer languages."
[...]
"The Daic languages, of which Thai and Laotian are the two best known and the only ones to achieve the status of national languages, are found in Southern China, nothern Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Austronesian languages are found on Taiwan, which is probably the original homeland of the family, but also on islands throughout the Pacific Ocean, and even on Madagascar in the Indian Ocean close to Africa. The present of Chinese domination of Taiwan is a consequence of a recent migration from the mainland that began in 1626. Over six millennia earlier a previous migration from the mainland, of people closely related to the Daic family, had led to the original Austronesian occupation of the island, which turned out to be the small step in what was one the longest — and most hazardous — migrations in human history. [...] Though there are approximately 1,000 Austronesian languages, the age of the family is thought to be comparable to that of Indo-European, and there is virtually no controversy over which languages do or do not belong to the family. The internal structure of the family is poorly understood."

Regarding to the Austronesian Expansion, Meritt Ruhlen (Ibid. 1994. p. 178) notes that

"The archaeological record of Southeast Asia indicates that the Neolithic revolution in this part of the world began in China around 8,000 years ago. Evidence of cultivation of millet in the Yellow River basin, and of rice, to the south, in the Yangzi basin, dates to about that time. By 5,000 B.P. [before present] farming had spread from this agricultural center southward to Vietnam, and Thailand and eastward to the coast of China. From this time period archeaologists uncovered villages with their accompanying pottery, stone and bone tools, boats and paddles, rice, and the bones of such domesticated animals as dogs, pigs, chicken, and cattle."

"About 6,000 years ago one or more of these agricultural groups crossed the Strait of Formosa (now the Taiwan Strait) and became the first inhibitants of Taiwan. And from Taiwan these ship building agriculturalists spread first southward to the Philippines and then eastward and westward throughout most of Oceania. The archaeological record indicates that the northern Philippines were reached by 5,000 B.P., and 500 years later these migrants had spread as far south as Java and Timor, as far west as Malaysia, and eastward to the southern coast of New Guinea. By around 3,200 B.P. the expansion had reached Madagascar, far to the west, and had spread as far east as Samoa, in the central Pacific, and the Mariana Islands and Guam, in Micronesia.[...]"

In the Epilogue Section of the same book, Merritt Ruhlen (ibid. 1994. pp. 195-196) re-emphasizes that the first two stages to start in order with the first step for the comparative method is classification, or taxonomy, which defines all language families at all levels. What is referred to in textbooks as the "Comparative Method" is really the second stage in the historical linguistics, for it takes the existence of a language family (the first stage) as a given and then proceeds to ask specific questions about that family. It is only then that the issues of reconstruction, sound correspondences, and homelands will be postulated with question such as "What historical processes were responsible for transforming the words in the proto-language into the forms we see in the modern languages, the daughters and the granddaughters of the proto-language?" Those questions can be satisfactorily approached only when the initial stage of historical linguistics — the identification of a language family — is complete.

The attempt to reverse these two levels on the part of the twentieth-century Indo-Europeanists and their followers, pretending that family-specific problems like reconstruction and sound correspondences must be used in identifying families, has led to current theoretical impasse in which everything but the obvious is considered beyond the limits of the comparative method.

That, nevertherless, is what the Austroasiatic therorists have done with the Mon-Khmer hypothesis of the Vietnamese languages.

That hypothesis of Vietnamese was first proposed by the Indo-Europeanists who used mainly comparative method to draw a number of basic words with similar meanings and regular sound change patterns within topological isoglosses to postulate their languages as being descended from common proto-languages. (I) Their methodology was based on mechanical paradigms such as methematical formulas drawn from Indo-European linguistic schools but its historical supports are seriously deficient, specifically of the people, their language, and their homeland, hence, they have failed to identify the language family first before getting into comparative analysis which is the second stage that they started with, reversing the order of the historical linguistic methology as Ruhlen pointed out as previously mentioned.

For all of the above, in this section the author will supplant the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis with history of Yue origin of Sinitic-Vietnamese (VS) under an anthropological view — in addition to the newly discovered basic cognates in Sino-Tibetan (ST) etymologies — of the whole language and its history only if Austroasiatic linguistic family is considered as that of the Yue people who originated from the habitat in the river basin of Yangtze or Yangzi (揚子江). If they could make use of them, consider them as freebies from the opposite Sino-Tibetan camp, something to complement each other from a different point of view to help find Sino-Tibetan etymologies of basic words in Vietnamese, currently many of them coming from the Mon-Khmer stocks having been taken for granted in their face value in the linguistic circle indiscriminately. Readers will see what the passage above means as they go on.

The term etymology used here is to mean the study of the origin of words or parts of their components, such as morphemes and syllables, and how they have evolved into the current forms. All the related words from different languages under investigation are called etymons or etyma. Specifically, it is related to those of Vietnamese and the Chinese counterparts, mostly about Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma of which scores of basic words could be traced back to those Sino-Tibetan etymologies. They are all results from the second stage as suggested by Ruhlen.

Before we get to the core of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology, let us first position our stand starting from a geographical pivotal point much further in the north of where Vietnam is now located. Under the historical view, early ancestors of today's Vietnamese people who came from the present region of Phungnguyen Culture in Hoabinh Province, all had migrated there all from Dongtinghu Lake in Hunan (湖南) in China South (華南 Huánán), or 'Hoanam' of an earlier prehistoric period. Historically, the largest wave of southward emigration must have been that of their ancestral forefathers as refugees moving way from the invasion of 500,000 troops of Qin Shihuang (秦始皇 - 259 B.C.-210 B.C.) and during the period at war with the An Lushan Rebellion against the Tang's Minghuang (755-763 A.D.), the population of the empire had been reduced to a mere 16,900,000 from 52,919,309 heads recorded in the census taken before 755 in the mainland. (See Bo Yang. 1983-93. Zizhi Tongjian 資治通鍳, Volume 49.) Where were all 1/3 of the Tang people gone? They, as the refugees, fled en masse into Annam, resettled in the Red River Delta and mixed with the locals who were descendants of the earlier waves of Daic people from the southwest (Nguyễn Ngọc San. 1993. Ibid.) Scholars who study history of both Vietnam and China know it best that racial composition of ancient Vietnamese populace within such historical timeframe after the loss of the last NamViet Kingdom of the Yue people to the Han Empire, all being historical facts, is vital and relevant to the study of the Sinitic-Vietnam etymology. Languages spoken by the later immigrants from the China South made up the essence of ancient Vietnamese, or, to be exact, ancient Annamese.

A) New battles in the Sino-Tibetan front

In search of the existence of the ancient Yue who lived there in ancient China, recent regional excavations by archaeologists have unveiled artifacts that match specific references to the Yue aboriginals called 百越 BăiYuè (BáchViệt) as recorded in Chinese throughout China's 5000-year-old history, of which ancient Chinese records confirmed that China South region was their native habitat of the ancient Taic people where where the Southern Yue (南越族 for 'NamViệttộc') and other tribal branches had originated from. (See Zhang Zengqi. 1990. 中國 西南 民族 考古 or Archaeology of Ethnic Minorities in China's Southwestern Regions)

Geographically aligned with 'China South' is what have been known as 'China North' 華北 Huáběi, or 'Hoabắc'. That is the heartland of the northern region of the Middle Plain, an area that stretches beyond the northern plank of the Yellow River from Shaanxi in the west reaching out all the way past the peninsula of Shandong Province (山東省) in the northeast to Bohai of East China Sea. The place was where many northern Tartaric dynasties throughout China's history were founded and ruled by foreign powers of Altaic origin such as Khitan Empire (契丹) or Liao State (遼國 916-1125) and it is there that the Early Mandarin of the Yuan Dynasty (元朝) was formed. From the latter dynasty of the 12th century, we have the Mongolian's Rhyme Book 蒙古 字韻 Menggu Zi Yun which shows how northern vernacular Mandarin to pronounce words then and Annamese Translated Wordbook 安南 譯語 Annam Dịchngữ which is a dictionary of the 12th centuried ancient Vietnamese vocabulary. A note to make here that a large quantity of northern words and peculiar idiomatic expressions, such as 'Sưtử Hàđông' 河東獅子 Hédōng Shīzǐ (tiger wife), found its way into the modern Vietnamese, and that it is not surprising to speculate that could probably be the result of the court's language as its vernacular form had been popularized throughout the Han colonial period in ancient Annam. So said, it is to explain the similarities between Vietnamese and Mandarin to counter rebukes by some scholars that Mandarin could not have influenced or have anything to do with the development of the Vietnamese language in such a late period, not to mention 25 years under the Chinese rule of imperial Ming Dynasty in the 15th century that all current Vietnamese literary works were destroyed and the whole nation had to use Chinese.

As far as the modern term "Việtnam" (越南) is concerned, it originally implicated the notion of "the Yue of the South". Meanwhile it implicitly suggested that there had also existed the "Việtbắc", or "the Yue of the North" (越北). Up until our contemporary era, those Sinicized Yue people, such as the Cantonese speakers (漢化粵族), have been living inside the borders of modern China but their ancestors might have not known exactly where their ancestral native habitat used to be in China South. That is to say, their ancestors had already scattered all over and the Yue tribesmen emigrated everywhere; they could already become the Yue of the North aforementioned. Interestingly, the same term, in a limited sense, also refers to 'the Yue of the North' (粵北) to those speakers of Mansheng 蠻聲 (#tiếngMôn=聲蠻!) of the Shaozhou Tuhua (韶州土話) subdialects beeing spoken in the border region of the north of Guangdong 廣東, Hunan 湖南, and Guangxi 廣西 provinces, which are mutually unintelligible with Hunanese, Cantonese, and Mandarin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuebei_Tuhua). Ethnologically, their forefathers were descendants of those earlier Taic aboriginals who had made up the population of the Chu State (楚國) as their Yue descents would have done to the Han Chinese population in a later period (See Bình Nguyên Lộc. 1972. Nguồngốc Mãlai của Dântộc Việtnam or "The Malay Origin of the Vietnamese"). Those ancient Northern Yue could be found living in the regions of today's China's areas where Hebei (河北), Anhui (安徽), Hubei (湖北), and Jiangsu (江蘇) provinces are now located.

Following trails of artifacts that their Yue descendants had left along their emigratory routes out of their ancient homeland of the Yangtze Basin as the early Tibetan nomads of prowess moved in approximately during the Xia Dynasty (夏朝, c. 2lst-17th century B.C.) or the Yin Dynasty 殷朝 (c. 16th-11th century B.C.), the proto-Yue tribes were forced to emigrate southward and they were past the Indo-Chinese peninsula — postulated the Austroasiatic (AA) homeland — and all the way to those faraway islands of Indonesia. The discovery of Đôngsơn-styled bronze drums reaffirms southward migration past the islands of Java and the New Guinea, which would logically to explain the presence of such cultural relics being found therein are similar to those of Dongson Culture (700 B.C.-100 A.D.) excavated in the Red River Delta in North Vietnam (See map.)

Bronze drums were produced by the Yue people from about 600 B.C. or earlier in China South and ancient Annam, or Han's Giaochi 交趾 Jiāozhǐ Prefecture, until the first century A.D. The 'Annal of the Later Han' (後漢書) recorded that the Han's General Ma Yuan (馬援) melt all the bronze drums seized from the local rebels of LuóYuè (雒越 LạcViệt) for bronzes (14 B.C. – 49 A.D.). The ones being found are those of the finest examples of metalworking by the indigenous Yue artisans.

The precise dating of those bronze artifacts for comparison provides some solid evidences to support the historical records regarding the ancient Yue people spreading to different regions. The earliest big and heavy Yue bronze drums similar to those found in Vietnam's Dongson were also found in Wangjiaba in Yunnan Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture (萬家埧 楚雄 彝族 自治州) China in 1976 that existed more than 2700 years ago. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Son_drums) Further work still needs to be done, though, to strengthen the archaeologically China South's Yue-based theory for the prehistoric period as opposed to that of Austroasiatic hypothesis of its Mon-Khmer linguistic sub-family, which makes the whole matter to look like both of them were of the same racial stock, but only in different timeframe settings.

We are here, however, not to talk about what happened 10 thousand or so years ago in China South and Southeast Asia's region, ethnologically and archaeologically. Such a timeframe is out of touch even with glottochronology which can probably postulate with some estimate of the genetic linguistic affiliation of daughter languages based on their 100 to 200 correctly-identified core basic words in active use within 5000 years or so (Roberts J. Jefers et al. Ibid. p. 133) This paper instead will focus on much of later historical periods that happened within a lesser timeframe approximately from 2000 to 3000 years B.P. surrounding the usage of fundamental words in some ancient aboriginal languages, their existence parrallel with one of the speech once spoken by the Chu (楚 Sở) population through the historical time that the Yue people were native inhabitants in China South prior to the birth of Middle Kingdom (中國 Zhongguo) as recorded in Chinese classic literature. ( See APPENDIX J: Yueren Ge (越人歌)).

Linguistically, Chinese-wise, all aboriginal languages spoken by the descendant-Taic populace of the Chu State (楚國) had blended with other Yue languages by the early Sino-Tibetan speech in the forms of proto-Chinese, Archaic Chinese (ArC-上古漢語) and other languages spoken by subjects of those ancient states to make up of the Old Chinese (OC - 上古先秦雅音) of which the diplomatic Yayu (雅語) were adapted by those states known to us, such as 吳 Wu, 越 Yue, 燕 Yan, 韓 Han, 趙 Zhao, 齊 Qi, 秦 Qin ... to have given rise to the Ancient Chinese (AC - 西漢古漢語) spoken by all later the Han-Chinese in the unified Middle Kingdom as known to the world as 'China' thereafter irrespective of all the dynastic changes). Nearly all Sinicized Yue languages spoken inside the China's border now become Chinese dialects, e.g., Cantonese, Fukienese, Shanghainese, etc.

Historically, on the becoming of the ancient Vietic language, in brief, as China's territorial expansion to the south continuously brought in the Han Chinese to Giaochỉ (交趾 Jiaozhi), or the ancient Annam was first called in Chinese annals, who strengthened more of their colonial rule by having put all indigenous Yue's customary way of tribal life all under the umbrella of the Han's institutions such as monarchal forms of government and Confucian education — a prolongation, anyway, of what all had been in place previously in the old NamViet Kingdom (南越國) that had been ruled by the Triệu Dynasty — and, for a good reason, sped up the process of Sinicization of the natives In Annam, the southwestern portion of NamViet Guo (Bo Yang, Sima Guang Zizhi Tongjian 資治通鑑, Vol. 2, 1983).

Anthropologically, primarily, populace with the racial admixture of the Han with the native Yue people living within the perimeter of today's China South all were enlised in the Han's army — as having been done since the previous Qin Dynasty — on the conquest mission invading the ancient Annam. The Han infantrymen had conquered the ancient Annamese land and stationed there. The early Han colonists resettled, then followed by civil officials and their families during occupying peace time under the benevolent rule by Viceroy Sĩ Nhiếp (士攝 Shì Shè), who spread the teachings of Chinese language and culture to the common mass and was very much revered by the newly arising Annamese aristocrats and later the so-called 'Kinh' plebeians. However, throughout the next 1009 years under the continuing harsh rule of Chinese colonialists, foot soldiers, refugees, officials, and Han immigrants, all continued to come, confiscate land, and resettle there, an on-going process still being seen till present. It was inevitably that social structure changes brought about the fusion of Ancient Chinese and languages spoken by different indigenous minority groups — Yue, Daic, Mon-Khmer, etc. — and that succeeding Sinitic linguistic layers evolved on top of the indigenous admixture substrata to have made up the early forms of the ancient Annamese language. Like their predecessors, the Han latecomers were intermarried with the locals and gave birth to the new masters of the aforesaid Kinh people in the habitat of ancient northern Vietnam at the expense of the native ones, such as the Muong and the Mon-Khmer groups who were driven or fled to the remote mountainous region and then became minorities in their own homeland.

All factors above were direct causes and effects on the becoming of the modern Vietnamese and their language in our time, the total Sinicized wholeness. To have full picture of it, imagine what would have become of a little vassal state like Vietnam, as compared to a small province of China, that had undergone its imperial colonialization 2200 years B.P.? That is exactly what will happen to today's Taiwan some 700 years later could possibly become (plus more than 300 years under the colonization by the Chinese rulers, i.e., descents of the Qing viceroys' followers stationed on the island, and the defeated Kuomingtang's armies who retreated thereupon, to make up the 1000 years-to-be Sinicization) but remember, with modern hi-tech comunication media in our era, there would be lesser changes in the Mandarin language as official use in the island nation as opposed to what had happened to ancient Annamese.

The history of the Vietnamese language appears to be straight forward from beginning as it has been first initiated by Vietnamese scholars that it evolved from the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family but the whole linguistic world seemed to enjoy initiating a new theory of some sort, one after another, and once in a short while. With regards to the origin of Vietnamese, after the initial Sino-Tibetan theory in the late 19th century that would be then followed by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypthesis. Institutionally, conspiracy or not, every specialist in a related field who happened to come up any discovery does so, such as the theoretical work by Paul Benedict (1975) who built anew the case of the Tai-Kadai linguistic branch with a newly established Austro-Thai linguistic family. Call it another "Austric" hypothesis for linguistic theories, i.e., just like that of the Gold Rush in academic fields, every linguist hurried to come up a new linguistic theory, of the century then.

That was not a simple process, though. As opposed the prehistoric approach by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory, the Vietnamese historical linguistics, to be specific, requires not only mastery of the Vietnamese language but also ancient Chinese philology — it was not as primitive as the first work by the pioneer Sinologist T.S. Bayer of the 18th century did (see Knud Lunbæk. T.S. Bayer (1694-1738), Pioneer Sinologist. 1986) — So said, it is because not every Vietnamese specialist, especially Western linguists, is able to distinguish Sinitic-Vietnamese from SIno-Vietnamese words in the Vietnamese vocabularies to identify Old Chinese remnants in modern Vietnamese, let alone Western learners of Vietnamese. That first appears to be a simple matter on the surface, but it is not, as admitted by most of Westerners who had tried to pick up the language.

In the early 19th century the Chinese historical linguistics was something new for Western scholars to venture. The learning curve on Chinese historical linguistics, however, seems to be steep enough for them to learn, but Vietnamese harder, especially its 8 tones in comparison with the 4-toned Mandarin. Ancient Chinese rhyme books such as Guangyun (廣韻) or Huiyun (會韻) that required the strenuously mental labor to make sense of syllabic extracts from radical and phonological values from ancient Chinese linguistics to decipher connotation that each Chinese character conveys and suggestive sounds in such classical Chinese books, for instance, the intrinsic radical as apposed to that the phonetic, or the intrigue "chongniu" (重紐) in divisions III, IV, etc. (音) in the study of Chinese historical phonology.

When getting their feet wet in the field Sinitic-Vietnamese counterparts, Western linguists would even encounter different standards once utilized by Chinese philologists in the ancient times that have already stirred up enough confusions for Sinologists because the methods of delivery in classic Chinese morphology were overloaded with Western "linguistic theorems" such as employment of modern methodologies which made the former look like 'unscientific' primers. However, by choosing to ignore the classic approaches, Indo-European specialists of, in our case, Austroasiatic have already missed important sound bits that had long been buried under hefty weight of classical Chinese dossiers. The core message hereof is that Western linguists will not make good research papers by picking the usual approaches like their predecessors, creating "breakthroughs" by inventing something new, as I will explain later on like in the case of exploring roots of an 'unknown African tribal A and B languages', of which the analogy is applicable to the theorization of 'Autroasiatic Mon-Khmer origin of Vietnamese'.

For the most parts, ancient Chinese classical and rhyme books have been underemployed, that is, not yet being fully appreciated and acknowledged as they ought to be. In so far as into the first half of the 20th century, only a handful of contemporary Western Sinologists such as Bernhard Kargren's Étude Sur la Phonologie Chinoise (1915) and Grammata Serica Recensa (1957), of Sweden's Stockkholm Oriental Institute, who probably the first one ever academically understood, explored, and made use of them in term of historical phonology. Though complete per modern measurements, his shift of focus to Chinese loanwords in Japanese, the author missed related Sino-Tibetan etyma that appear in the Vietnamese language. In any case, results of further studies like the overall of his academic work have benefited and contributeed great deal to the field of Chinese historical phonology meaningfully, including this Sinitic-Vietnamese survey that utilized his pioneer methodologies, specifically in reconstructing and resurrecting ancient Chinese sound values, which in the end will help in re-classifying the Vietnamese language into the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family (see Chapter Ten on the Sino-Tibetan etymologies.)

It is necessary to say it is partial to make judgment on native Vietnamese scholars doing research on the Vietnamese etymology of Chinese origin as well, especially for those approach the subject matter in scholastic aptitude, but time and time again, because of political reasons that are always raised highly with anti-China flags, their work veered off the academic impartial path to serve the political partisan line of the Commies. In order to be excused from executing the Sinitic subject matters in Vietnamese indiscriminately, they are disinclined with real issues of Chinese linguistic affiliation by sublimating into the alternate realm of nationalism, and they have found the safe haven in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer realm. The end justifies the means, as the saying goes. That is, to be safe, many of them have chosen a stand distant from Chinese affiliation by avoiding the whole political matter altogether. It appears, though, such runabout shortcuts would not make it in Vietnamese etymological studies as the reader will see they are so entangled with Chinese and Sino-Tibetan etymologies. We will deal with this messy politics in a separate chapter in detail to understand mentality held dearly by Vietnamese linguists, which is rampant and has seriously interfered with expected objectivity in academic neutrality.

Of the so-called 'the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer rainwash' as mentioned previously, hence a convenient excuse, the degrading term has been stemmed from the account that lately contemporary Vietnamese scholars — unlike those scholars in South Viertnam pre-1975 period such as Lê Ngọc Trụ, Nguyễn Đình Hoà, Nguyễn Hiến Lê, Hồ Hữu Tường, etc. — have taken side with the initiators of the hypothesis of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer origin of the Vietnamese language, and they altogether just disregarded anything Chinese one way or another. As it appears presently, plus given the fact that the West had poor knowledge of Chinese until the 19th century (see Knud Lumbæk. 1986), we have the right to suspect that Austroasiatic pioneers from the bygone era of the previous century, however strong their innovative initiative could be, all seemed to have conspired with one another in a scheme to start with Austroasiatic premise. They seemingly made what they did rather easily without the burden to exert too much effort on their part, such as to investigate the history of respective country that has its language under discussion and to learn related Chinese dialects and subdialects in the field.

The early 20th-centuried historical linguistics saw the grouping the Vietnamese language into the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguistic family based on comparative data from the tabulation of scores of basic words among many Mon-Khmer languages cognate to those of Vietnamese that scatter sporadically. However, only a tiny portion of their selective loanwords fall into the range of 99 percent of Vietnamese vocabularies, though. They raised the stake as they fell into the realm of what is considered as core basic words. After they were done with analysis and postulation job, our Austroasiatic fellows went on blanketing identified Sinitic-Vietnamese fundamental items paired with the rest of Sino-Tibetan lexicons as Chinese loanwords. Of course, they did not bother or intentionally avoided offering an explanation for all other linguistic peculiarities of the Vietnamese language that share with the Chinese language, which never, ever exists in Mon-Khmer languages. In their era, many of the Indo-European theorists — those who initiated the Austroasiastic theory — might have never heard of the "Yue". For example, not until lately, they had been unable to distinguish which one is from Yue, which one from Chinese, e.g, 戌 xū, 狗 gǒu, 犬 quán, etc., that is cognate to Viet. 'chó' (dog) for which they are all assigned */kro/ because it is easy to recognize it as of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer sub-family. "

Only after all these years, a few of Austroasiatic specialists have started to take notice and made use of well-prepared works on Chinese and Vietnamese by others as a baseline to have stepped up the process of theorizing their Austroasiatic hypothesis (A), including those notable papers by Tsu-lin Mei (1976), Jerry Norman (1988), Mark J. Alves (2001, 07, 09), to say the least. Howevever, surprisingly, certain of them failed miserably to distinguish Sino-Vietnamese from that of Sinitic-Vietnamese class in Vietnamese vocabularies as they appeared in their citations. Sino-Vietnamese vacabularies in Vietnamese are analogous to those Latin words in English, plain and simple, but the matter was mixed up in the process. In addition, they have never stepped out of the constraints of common norms on traditional approaches and techniques, for example, repetition of citing those basic words of Mon-Khmer cognates over the last five decades since David D. Thomas (1966), that is, no novel breakthroughs in nature about them to counter evidences that show the Sino-Tibetan or Chinese origin of those related words being cited.

Work of reinforcement on the Mon-Khmer theory built on the Austroasiatic foundation, as a result, have proliferated on the internet especially in the last two decades. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists, hence, had undoubtedly gained an upper hand in competing for the total embracement of their theorization in addition to other technical gains after long decades of having continuously cultivating the belief that Western methodology is scientific and superior, implying assurance of the same quality for their newly built the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theories. The brand-nameed Western institutions associated with their work have effectively attracted many local followers inside Vietnam who eagerly showed their admiration for those Westerners that demonstrated some knowledge of Vietnamese. Following the crowd with the trendy fads puts up some vanity air in their own locally made products, as a result, but of disputable academic values. Such partial outcomes from their research definitely would hinder the progress of our overall efforts in trying to rekindle interests and recognition on a renewal of work attempting to reclassify the Vietnamese language into the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family.

As the time goes by, continuing recognition of the dominant Austroasiatic theorization has further consolidated the legitimacy of its Mon-Khmer hypothesis on the Vietnamese origin as being uncontested for a long period by now. The whole matter in turn has posed an unfavorable environment that forced Sino-Tibetan theorists to go underdogs because their camp could not come up with something new and plausible on the whole matter until this survey on Sino-Tibetan etymologies (see Chapter Ten.) Meanwhile, the sentiment has turned ugly into political rows under the disguse of nationalism and that would implicate even more on the issue of one's own national identity because, collectively, the people of a nation will realize they are not what they have been told all along.

The Vietnamese know best that history of their country has been rewritten anew as dictated by rulers of the country to reflect changing viewpoints on Sino-Vietnamese relations; hence, theories on the origin of their people have also changed accordingly regardless of the truth. In other word, the winner writes history. On the opposite side of the scale that balances the overshadowing China and academic truthfulness in our contemporary era, the Vietnamese historical linguistics is apparently weighed with more of a political issue like that of history, i.e., writenn by the winning side. The phenomenon just reflects a pattern of what their predecessors did in the past, i.e., waging resistance wars against the imperialist China. Ironically, the core matter still remains so Sinicized in many aspects of Vietnamese culture. With regard to the philosophical aspect of the historical linguistics, for the average educated Vietnamese persons, national awareness of identity has blurred the Sinocentric Sino-Tibetan line even though it still trails far behind the Chinese. In any cases, they wholeheartedly welcome the late Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer entry, of which its groundwork has been elevated gradually over time and gained more local support.

While the matter created a convenient excuse to accept novelty of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, the Vietnamese academics figured out a way to walk around the Sino-Tibetan shadow, The issue, nevertheless, has outgrown its outfit into some sizable magnitude for any individual scholars to handle on their own. Working with an anti-Chinese attitude went counter natural development in a scholarly field, which is anti-academic to the extreme, getting our native Vietnamese scholars to nowhere. Nevertheless the so-called national sentimentalism held by the Vietnamese would not go away any time soon by just denying the old Chinese affiliation and establish the new one. Truthfulness always exists as an influential force in the backstage; therefore, the time will come for resurrection of old belief that will bring all the nationalist warriors back to their sense out of the anti-China mainstream, learning how to separate academics from politics so as to roll back the long-lost conviction. Renewal of such respective belief infers to not only the field of Vietnamese historical linguistics but also natural scientific fields as well, such as biogenetics used to identify the racial origin of a country's population by tagging the genome map of targeted people.

As a matter of fact, it is difficult to ignore politics indiscrimately to differentiate a country , its people and culture from its ruling government. It is rolling back of the past projected into the future is possible. Before Trump's presidency we had seen more and more new so-called Confucius institutes — Chinese cultural centers fully subsidized by the Chinese government on a large scale for their own hidden agenda as one could easily guess — have popped up in larger numbers and they already impacted US institutions through donations and parts of their efforts are to spread China's influence around the globe. In effect, it is the new Chinese learners who will shift the balance on their side as more of Chinese savvy, not the aging Austroasiatic, as the Chinese language increasingly attract more younger students outside of China. In the end Vietnamese theorists will incline to the Sino-Tibetan theorization then. It is then the axiom that people tend to believe in what they have already believed in still hold fast. Let us wait and see how such new trend will come regardless of its negative impact. As a result, the whole new shift in attitude is expected accordingly with respects to linguistic matters that will soon change the Sino-Tibetan landscape that we are focusing on in the survey. We can say that historical linguistics changes as it did in the past, like any other humanities.

Readers may ask how on earth academic matters have anything to do with nationalism? Firstly, the answer is the national identity has sublimated into nationalism. Talking of historical linguistics, the Yue core of the Vietnamese basic words were donned under the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer attire to avoid implicating Sino-Tibetan or any Sino-centric termimology because that is certainly related to Chinese, so to speak euphemistically of politics. For Western-educated persons of non-native Vietnamese would probably find it hard to grasp the implication of how Vietnamese politics got entangled so deeply with any Chinese-related academic subjects in the first place, and subsequently there is no exception for Vietnamese historical linguistics. No one understands that better than those locally groomed Vietnam's scholars, including her diasporas in exile in our modern time. The delicate Sino-Vietnamese relations are to be dealt with later separately to show that the truth of the matter could be either twisted to serve solely a political purpose that can be disguised behind a mask called nationalism.

Be reminded that history of Vietnam is chronicles of continual resistance wars. Wind of war against an imminent Chinese invasion is always on the threshold in Vietnam's northern border at all times. The total years in Vietnam's history being at war are greater than what they have had for peace. Of the 2,273 years of her written history — not orally from legends or folklores — recorded from Thục Dynasty (257 B.C.–179 B.C.) Vietnam had gone to wars for 1,474 years having fought against the Chinese aggressions sporadically with the last war that only ended in 1979's border war. That is in in paper, though, because Chinese forces' intermittent incursions on land and at seas have become more of a routine, which gradually culmimated in major clashes in 1984, 2013, 2015, etc., not to mention 262 years in total at intervals plunged into factional civil wars and fought with the Chams, Khmer, Siamese, French, Japanese, including South Vietnamese army against the USSR- and China-backed North Vietnamese forces and, vice versa, the North Vietnamese against the US troops involved, all more or less involving interventions by, again, China on either side. All in all Vietnam had a mere 898 years of peace time by piecemeal, to be exact.

Undoubtedly, the war-hardened perseverance has molded strong will for survival and that has made up what the Vietnamese perceived as nationalism, something that is real and concrete as exemplified by past events taking placed in the early 10s of the 21st century where young patriots staged demonstrations against China. In doing so they even accepted jail time handed down by, ironically, their own government in their own country for the crimes of raising their voice against China's aggressions. Several of them have been sent in exile as their nationalism shines. Resentful sentiment towards the sole northern neighbor has continued on and passed down to the next generation at all times. So it is of no surprise that nationalistic view becomes a degrading factor in establishing academic objectivity — again, not a product of imagination — in theorizing the core Vietnamese linguistic affiliation matter, either the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer or Sino-Tibetan camp. Earlier in the previous sections and in a separate article-length paper, the author already argued that the Vietnamese people are of mixed race, firstly, as a result of racial fusion of Chinese immigrants from the north who resettled down and married local women. Therefore, it was fair enough to see how intellectual and patriotic netizens got enraged with fierce reactions (to follow the issue, google with my penname "dchph" or see Some Thoughts on the Origin of the Vietnamese People in Vietnamese or in the APPENDICES section of this survey.) In this paper such uneasy racial profiling will be used to support the point that from 111 B.C. to 939 A.D. as the ancient Annam was a prefecture of the imperial China, like any provinces or prefecture within the Middle Kingdom, Chinese immigrants with different dialects kept coming in and, eventually, their linguistic fusion with those aboriginal speeches evolved and buried the Yue linguistic stratum out of sight deep down on the bottom layer. The whole chained events as such have given rise to the modern Vietnamese of which over 90 percent of linguistic elements are composed of Chinese linguistic components.

Thanks to political issues, the reader will see why the author has set aside a whole chapter solely to discuss influence of Sino-Vietnamese politics, which has pressed on academic arena because it matters so much in forging impartial judgment on whether or not the Sino-Tibetan theory would hold fast and flourish in its new stand. Those who know Vietnam's history published by the ruling government might appreciate a little the antithesis of the matter, so to speak. One virtually could not bring Western value standards to understand them.

To easily grasp the core issue of the matter, let us again compare similar circumstances, this time with the three nations in the region that accepted largely a great number of immigrants from China into their population, just like what Vietnam has done thoughout her history, that is,

(1) Singapore, having enjoyed its status of sovereignty since 1965, is a country of multi-ethnic citizens with a Chinese majority;
(2) Hong Kong is now going through successions of its darkest days as of 2019 with most Cantonese speakers coming from the mainland of China of which the status of the colony passed down from Britain to China is like what the historical ancient Vietnam having started with since 111 B.C.;
(3) Taiwan with its de facto independence has always been in an uneasy co-existence with the mainland China, having its sovereign status similar to that of Vietnam, seemingly to be shaken at intervals past and present.

Of all of the above, analogously, the Tainwanese are also experiencing an identity crisis in weighing choices either they should take side with Sinicized Minnan (閩南) values brought over by their forefathers from the ancient MinYue Kingdom (閩越王國), now of Fujian Province, to the Formosa island since the 16th century or they would better relate themselves more with the Austronesian natives, who are still chewing betel nuts, to stand up as genuine masters of the island joinning in the fight for the Republic of Taiwan instead of Republic of China. On the side note, the native mimorities living in those places were at first not in equal footing with the massive Chinese mainlanders who followed the Kuomingtang troops seeking refuge in 1949. For what is considered as analogous to the last case, the Vietnamese people are only concerned the question whether they were descended from the majority of immmigrants from China South or minority of indigenous people, but their nationalism has transformed into national politics, so to speak.

On the other side of the coin, for the most parts history of the Middle Kingdom was full episodes of being conquered and ruled by other foreign elements from the north of China North (華北 Huabei) such as those of Tartaric, Altaic, Mongolian, and Manchurian rulers who each in succession had gained the control of the Middle Kingdom being known to the world as China and their subjects later made up the people collectively called 'Chinese'. That is to say, 'Chinese' consisted not only the southerners but also those of the north. For those who joined the colonial army to have gone south and conquered the Annamese land, they all mixed with the local people to have evolved into the 'Kinh' people.

For those Chinese refugees who later emigrated to Vietnam such as the Ming expatriates (明鄉人 'NgườiMinhhương') after the Manchurians brought down the Ming Dynasty, their last rounds of resettlement would make up another different racial component of the larger contemporary Hoa ethnicity (華橋) in Vietnam. Many of them were of Tchiewchow origin from Chaozhou region in Guangdong Province such as Foshan City (佛山市), their population made up a larger portion of the 'Kinh' people in six southernmost provinces of Vietnam today, as an old saying about the southwestern land goes, "Dướisông cáchốt, trênbờ Tiềuchâu" that means "in the river there are catfish, on land there are only Tchiewchow people."

To make the matter to become more complex, in contrast to the Yue minority status as in China South, subjects of the Southern State — or 南國 Namquốc (nướcNam), as Vietnam called herself casually — are having obsessed with their pride of the Yue ancestral heritage as manifested in many ancestral sacrificial ceremonies performed annually. Ironically, the Vietnamese Kinh majority do not hide their haughty overbearing over minority people, who were supposedly the true masters of the land where the Vietnam's nationals are now residing on and they all might have descended from the same ancestors as well. Anthropologically, the early Yue natives of the ancient NamViet Kingdom (南越王國) had long met with similar racial discrimination under the rule of succeeding imperial Chinese dynasties since 111 B.C. and emigrated out of the China's mainland pouring into its Annam Prefecture. History witnessed their having becoming the new masters of what belongs to the eastern part of North Vietnam today (Bo Yang, Ibid., Vol. 69, p. 172. 1992).

Ethnologically, we could say that Vietnam is the only sovereignty still in existence that could be considered as a representive state of all of Yue descents and their cousins such as the Daic and Zhuang minorities who are still living in China South and their populace are so populous and strong the Chinese goverment granted autonomous status for those regions. Note that for the latter many of their ancestors fled to remote mountainous terrains across many southern provinces of China when their territories fell to the hands of the Qin's invaders. Current China's ethnic groups were descended from the common ancestral Yue people who made up the ancient Chu and Han subjects prior to 111 B.C. and thereafter. Of the Han's era, parts of the Han population were composed of the Sinicized Yue people having been descended from subjects in those annexed "ancient states". The "original Yue-Chu-Han Chinese" (C) later made up the troops that advanced to the south and conquered Giaochì (交趾), or the ancient Annam. Comparatively, in Annam, until its independence in 939 A.D., exclusive of those Han immigrants to the Annamese land throughout the 1060-year colonial period, racial components of the whole population would have remained virtually the same balance of the populace in the ancient Lingnan region (嶺南道) that consisted of today's provinces of Guangxi, Hunan, Guangdong, Fujian, etc.

As Vietnam's national identity resurrected after her separation from the imperial China, her nationalism have grown stronger out of several resistance wars against Chinese invaders of every dynasty that was suceedingly established in the land of Middle Kingdom, namely, the Song, the Yuan, the Ming, the Qing dynasties, and their successors who now rule the PRC (People's Republic of China). Everytime when each Chinese monarchy had reached the height of its power, each succeeding monarch never ceased trying to retake Vietnam, at least aiming to subdue her into a position of a vassal state. Is today's China militarily stronger than the Empire of Mongolia was in the 12th century on a comparative level? Beyond any wildest European imagination, the Annamese defeated the Mongols not once, but thrice. It is too bad that all of the emperors of China, past and present, have never learned the lessons of Vietnam's history. It is no matter how powerful each dynasty had become, though, each one was eventfully defeated by Vietnam, including the border war as recently as in 1979.

Of the same matter, for the most part of the Vietnam's history, sadly, the Vietnamese men were born just to go to fight in wars one after another and the last one just ended her 10-year war against the China-backed genocidal Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea in 1989. Thanks to constant invasion threats from her northern archenemy, Vietnam has been constantly in preparation for the next war with China as always. In a sense, no other nation on earth could ever get so high on spirit regarding nationalism that got stronger over time. Each of the Vietnamese segments, from the ruling parties to scholars to the common mass, all has their way to deal with nationalistic issues.

In the national arena, the ruling members of the current Poliburo altogether have made the whole people in Vietnam to pay dearly for their war debts owed to the communist China that had helped put them in power in return for their fighting along side with China to serve its expansionism of neo-feudalism, i.e., communism, in the Vietnam War against the US-supported South Vietnam's government (1954-1975). The rise of the Maoist feudal state again denied Vietnam a fair chance of peaceful restoration of national independence from the French colonialists (1858-1954) and free of tyrannical rules thereafter, politically, as being enjoyed by many countries in the region such as India, Malaysia, or Singapore after the domino-affected collapse of Western colonial rules in Asia right after the WW II of which some lasted until the early 1960's. There is no need to say, economically, the costs of war of having fought one after another for over the last 300 years have been emormous that have held the country at the bottom of an abyss with the meager chance for keeping abreast with the times on any progress in churning out any valuable research. The point to make here is that readers should not rely on the current respective government's academic institutions for highly-acclaimed for any scholarly work because those work in the field are simply the organs that serve the regime. (See Knud Lundbæk. 1986. p. 45)

Explicably, the local scholars tend to deny themselves of links to the past that had anything to do with the Chinese, e.g., share of 1000-year-plus history prior to 939 A.D., so they choose to go with the Western trend —note the naivety of Western scholars who have been hoorayed to the skies when being able to utter some Vietnamese words —in accepting the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis that is likely that of the Yue. It is believed that nationalism inflamed by the national forefathers is still being funneled inside the hearts of the younger generation, though. Even though for the learned Vietnamese youngsters, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory of genetic affiliation is just an academic classification, when facing sensational issues about their ancestral origin, like the American youth in the USA who might lose traces of the ancestry originally, they do practice self-denial of true identity, mostly of Chinese descent based on their genetic line of paternal family's tree approximately three or many more generations ago, by accepting as a member of the "Kinh" majority which is a general ethnic-designated category implicating only ancient Vietnamese values, namely, those of the Yue genealogy. When the next generation takes over their current spot, they will share the same feeling by those of the older ones, who did the same in their time.

The selective choice of the Vietnamese intelligentsia shows that in their collective consciousness they are well aware that their ancestors have migrated from the region north of their country's border, or to be exact, the China South homeland. In other word, historical matters of the later acquired southern stretches of land, though having the Austric roots as proposed in the respective Austroasiatic and Austronesia theories, did belong to other different peoples, forefathers of the ancient kingdoms of Champa and Khmer that had nothing to do with the ancient Annamese.

Symbolistically formularized, if we are to express all Yue entities in formulary terms to represent the proportion of racial transmutation which brings the genetic affiliation for the ancient Annamese inside a formula, we shall then assign some numeric values of weight to their racial entity with componental properties as {2Y3Z4H}, loosely formulated based on historical records such as census data of population increasing more than double from 400,000 to 980,000 people in three Han's prefectures of Jiaozhi 交趾 (Giaochỉ), Jiuzhen 九真 (Cửuchân), and Rinan 日南 (Nhậtnam), respectively, throughout the 100-year period from 111 B.C. to 11 B.C. Historical records, furthermore, show that NamViet's 15,000 to 30,000 unmarried women were forced to marry Qin foot soldiers during the short-lived Qin Dynasty (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Eng. p. 11, Chin. p. 47). How the post-Qin-Han Chinese further blended with the Yue, and the fusion of both racial entities gave rise to the present Vietnamese — after the elongening process of more than 2000 years that in turn have been results of racial fusion of the pre-existing natives in each locality where the Annamese resettled. For the principal purport of the following enumeration of the Vietnamese racial mixed components, they are not pretended to be scientific, but to incite your imagination on the becoming of the ancient Vietnamese.(S)

The composition of the Vietnamese racial admixture appeared much more similar to those racial components that had made Han-Chinese. In general, the whole process had been a result of evolutionary progress during which the early proto-Chinese {X}, of Tibetan origin from the southwest of the mainland of China, intermingled with the proto-Yue aboriginals {YY} (assumedly the Taic people, the main populace of the Chu 楚 State who once, assumedly, spoke an ancient Daic language) — on the proportional ratio of 2 to 1, that is, 2Y/X — to have become parts of the ancient Yue indigenous populace represented by {ZZZ} in those ancient states of Shu 蜀, Wu 吳, Yue 越, etc., of which their mixed subjects were later called 'the Han' symbolized as {HHHH} — that is, 3 x Z, 4 x H, repectively, where "x" means "times" — in a unified Middle Kingdom under ther rule of the Han Dynasty, sort of a "united states of Qin", for what the Qin people were later known as 'Chinese', analogously, and then when changing hands into the Han, they were called as the Han people.

Composition of the later Han-Chinese as {X2Y3Z4H}, in effect, were results of mutated racial fusion of {(X)(YY)(ZZZ)(HHHH)}, so to speak, while racial composition of the Viets — nationals of Vietnam throughout different historical periods — was made of the proto-Yue {YY} and later Yue {ZZZ} to become the proto-Vietic {YYZZZ}, ancestors of the Vietic (Annamite), or the early Annamese {2Y3Z4H}, who later evolved into the modern Vietnamese {4Y6Z8H+CMK} where {C} is for the Cham and {MK} for the Mon-Khmer, a componental double (2x) of {2Y3Z4H} plus {CMK} taking place with a series of similar events that had brought about the same composition of the Fukienese or Cantonese, of which the populace had the same racial transmutation as that of the Vietic admixture during the same period under the rule of the Han Dynasty before and after 111 B.C. So it was, suggestively, only then the symbolistic formula for Austroasiatic could be assigned as {6YCMK} as apposted to the modern Vietnamese {4Y6Z8H+CMK}. (See Time maps of China
Source: http://www.timemaps.com/history/china-1500bc

Linguistically, the process of linguistic sound changes took over and accelerated, including morphological and lexical changes, from one subdialect to another. Modern Vietnamese subdialects demonstrate how the sound changes vary lightly from north to south probably since Annam became a sovereignty. Currently, as the Viets continued on their journey further to the south, they brought with them their language to their new settlement from the time they lost contacts with Tang colloquial variants — as opposed to Cantonese — since 938 when the colonists of NanHan Empire (南漢 帝國) were defeated by Annam's General Ngô Quyền (吳權 Wu Quan as named in Chinese history) who became the first head of state of the independent Annam in the following year (Bo Yang, Zizhi Tongjian, Vol. 69, 1992. pp. 209, 210). For vernacular changes in the Vietnamese language, all migratory movements from the north to the south have left tonal marks on a continuum which shows gradual stages from those of full 4 two-register tones of Hanoi to 4 single-register tones, that is, Hanoi ~> Nghean~> Hatinh~> Quangbinh~> Quangtri~> Hue become those heavily-accented subdialects spoken in Danang ~> Quangngai~> Binhdinh~> Tuyhoa~> Ninhhoa~> Phanthiet, all gradually turning into laxly-lighter 6 tones of Saigon~> Lụctỉnh (6 southernmost provinces), namely, the free-styled southwestern accent in the Mekong Delta. No matter how one substantiates subdialectal dissimilarities, any of them is intelligible by most Vietnamese speakers. If someone has a difficulty in understanding one subdialect from the other, it is only regional vocabularies to blame. For example, lexically, the semantic difference may lie in the fact that speakers of the northern Vietnamese subdialect tend to use sophisticated Sino-Vietnamese jargons than the relaxing mode of speech used by most Vietnamese linging in the southern parts of the country even though the latter being the last subdialect that has started forming merely some 350 years ago.

The perception that their national language was on par with any Chinese dialects and once considered as a sub-family of Sino-Tibetan family language might have not been easily disturbed until the last century when Austroasiatic hypothesis sought to cover all languages in the Southeast Asia under its umbrella and Vietnamese was one among them under the new Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer classification. The Austroasiatic camp did not take into account of the historical factor that the massive immigrants from the north had overrun the indigenous people after they resettled in the ancient Annamese land for at least two millenia hitherto. Hypothetically the French — instead of the Mon-Khmer — had come to colonize Annam and would have overstayed the local hospitality by the same length of time, there would be no surprise if the colonists picked up some indigenous basic words and incorporated them into their langue Française-Annamite. In a imilar fashion, that was how the ancient Annamese had accommodated Mon-Khmer linguistic substratra which caused them show on the Austroasiatic radar screen.

In the prelude to the coming of French colonialists into the country in the mid-19th century, European missionaries had arrived and stationed inside the country as mouthpieces of propaganda of the Catholic Church since the 17th century. Representatives of the Church had full support from the colonial government to spread Western values aggressively in form of passing Gospel to the illiterate mass and literati alike. After Annam fell under the French colonial umbrella in 1862 that lasted until 1954, Annam under the rule of the French colonialists was fully prepared to enter the new phase breaking away from haunting past with the China with the adoption of the Romanized orthography for the Vietnamese writing system and complete abandonment of the use of thousand-year old Chinese-character script. It was not long after the local nouveau literati were put in contact with French academics, the whole perspective shifted in favor of the Western academics. Since the 21st century Vietnamese scholars are mostly in opposite belief with what of the 19th and earlier ones.

As a series of historical events reeling thereafter — such as 'divide to rule' policy that of the division of Annam into 3 different administrative dominions, or colonized administrative regions, i.e., the Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina, respectively, by the French colonial government for the next 92 years — did serve as the end of the monarchy of the Nguyen Dynasty from the Imperial Hue Capital City in the Central region that their monarchal system still in place was only acting puppetry that showed the Vietnamese people the backwardness of their country for following the feudalist system of China. There occurred the most fierce attacks from the West launched against the two most backward and corrupt but resiliently repulsive citadels of Confucianism by then, that is, assaults by the French force attacking the Annam's Hue Imperial Palace in 1883 and later by the Eight-Nation Alliance troops that swept the Qing's monarch feet off out of Peking's Forbidden City in 1900, respectively, both having been unmercifully ransacked one after another, of which their booty are still in display in many larger museums in the West. Only through the light of Western Civilization shining in the southern region — overshadowed by the colonial oppressiveness, yet, with innovative minds of those Frenchmen that stood for the fortifications of Western Civilization, though — were the occidental ideas that posed cultural threats to those who hold on to the traditional values. The Annamese were able to rise up on their feet and to see beyond China's horizon

Successive historical events continued to unfold thereafter helped France move Annam away from Chinese umbrella, which signaled the collapse of the old monarchy systems in both China (1911) and Annam (1954). Western Austroasiatic theorists stepped into the threshold to fill in the linguistic void that the incomplete Sino-Tibetan hypothesis was left vacant behind that was still want of substantial proof to prop it up into a plausible theory and they captivated the Western-educated Vietnamese scholars of the second half of the 20th century, which allowed them to perceive their own national language via its Western periscope in place of the old Chinese scholarship hold dearly by the previous generations that ought to have expired by then.

In the process of colonialization of the highly Sinicized Annam's society, those overly enthusiastic colonialists, wasting no time, sprinted into action to propagate their Western values with multiple cultural prongs that include imposition of supposedly superior occidental values to those of the old Chinese ones; one of their purposes had been to secure their footing there through the supporting colonial French government. Academically, Western methodology was prominently one among them and proved its quasi effectiveness in most of academic fields. Throughout the colonial period, however, French intellectuals were always in a position of authority to forge Western scholarship that envied the old Confucius values they were anxious to replace to the point the their jeaousy had gone too far. For example, a French-educated Vietnamese of the mid-20th century generation might recall that when the French colonists were there in Annam, they had even gone far enough in the field of history by boldly teaching — of course, in French — their colonized Annamese native school-aged children that their ancestors had been of the Gallic race, and ironically, many French colonialists were not even are that they themselves had never spoken their ancestral Gallic language, but latin-based French.

Then came the last century that witnessed how efficient Western mechanism had been at work through showdowns of forces between those new vanguards of the Western values represented by the US throughout the Vietnam War against the same old tyrannical system of the neo-feudalist China being dressed under a new attire of 'communist monarchy' ruled by the Party's Pulitburo headed by the genral secretary who also serves as the country's president, from 1945's President Hồ or 1949's Chairman Mao to the present 2019's presidents Trọng and Xi in each respective China and Vietnam. Historically, from 1964 China had already started funneling arms to their power-thristy Vietnamese communist comrades who helped the China's expansionism in the ferocious showdowns of Chinese communist and democratic Western forces in South Vietnam during the US-USSR detente Cold War period. After China-backed North Vietnam finally won the war in April 1975, the Viet-commies built their totalitarian regime that tolerates neither criticism nor freedom of speech, which has led to the distortion of academic truth aforesaid.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that the Western ideas make physical transformation in real world. At every corner the Westerners have gone, they bring modern progress with Occidental values there with them to. Novel scientific methodology proved their superiority through effectiveness and advancement in many aspects of civil society. Ironically, the world has seen nothing yet in terms of utilization of hi-tech in civil surveyance that has grown with China's economic powerhouse that can take control people from eardropping smart phones to obstructing boarding trains or buying cars, all done with Chinese technological copycats with the same efficiency, an stunning development only after a little more than 30 years of economic reform policy in implementation of what the Chinese have learned from the West. In actuality, if China had become a free of communist centrally-controlled policing state, it would have advanced at a much faster pace by now. But here they go with all the censorship and blockade of all information outside there networks, from Yahoo to Google emails to Youtube, and Twtitters, etc. all being kept at bay outside the new Great Fire Wall. It feeds an army division of social media troops to guard and entice people into double-speaking traps.

On the other hand, the Vietnamese intellectuals are taking notes on personal rewarding incentives, e.g., recognition from the academic world, that go with proven benefits based on can't-go-wrong Western methodologies, in this case, the Western-initiated Austroasiatic theory, specifically. Despite controversiality on association of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer with Viets, local academics are eager to take on the prestigious Western stand of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis because it is easier to reconcile it theorization with archaeological excavations — for example, focus on the southeastern region of the Indo-Chinese peninsula as homeland of the Austroasiatic roots in order to explain finds of highly advanced Dongson-styled bronze drums found in both China South and Indonesia (see Paul Sidwell's The Austroasiatic Central Riverine — than elaborate on non-factual traditional Vietnamese legends, folktales, and folklores, etc., to depict one's national prehistory that all sounds more like fairytales. Such oral forms certainly earn negative marks and pose challenges on its credibility for interpretation of prehistoric events even though that is how one generation to another passed down tales of the founders of the nation long before they were recorded in Chinese history since their contact with the 'Tàu' (秦 Qin) people prior to 204 B.C.

Nobody might ever suspect that the state name of ancient Vietnam "Vănlang" as recorded first in Chinese Annals as 文郎 Wénláng would have anything to do with "Penang" — like the name of the island State of Malaysia's 'Pulau Pinang' (Viet. 'Cùlao Cau') which means 'The Island of the Areca Nut Palm (Areca catechu)' or 檳榔嶼 Bīnláng Yù — may be related to the actual Chinese transliteration of 檳榔 Bīnláng ( SV 'Tânlang' <~ */blau/ } or "trầu" (betels) in modern Vietnamese!
Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penang
However, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp could never be able to compile basic words across all Mon-Khmer languages to find certain cognates to match what exists in Vietnamese that could relate to Vietnamese legends to help identify sound change patterns as reliable as the Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma in Chinese records. For example, 董 dǒng in the legend of "Phùđổng Thiênvương" (扶董天王 Fúdǒng Tiān​wáng — a mythical folk hero in Vietnam's history, who defeated the Ân (殷 Yin or 殷商 Yinshang) invaders from ancient China's Yin Dynasty, (Y) ) — is also called 董聖 Dǒng Shèng (Đổng Thánh) or normalized 'Thánh Gióng (Dóng)', that is, Saint 'Dóng' or 'Gióng' /Jong5/ and the phonology of both pronunciations are mapped well into the sound change pattern of { /t-/ ~ /j-/ } and { đ- ~ z-}.

Linguistically, a whole new contemporary episode theorized by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer initiates has painted a picture quite different from the perspective the Vietnamese people used to visualize, look at, and see themselves through the mirror of legends and folklores. Those scientifically-minded Indo-European linguists have not cared much more about factual historical data, let alone spiritual values to that the Viets have devoted their conviction for certain of particular issues. For instance, the Austroasiatic camp would not buy into those interpretive numbers such as total years of the 18 reigns ruled by their ancestral King Hung I, II, III... of the Viets, which is illogical, leaving a large gap of hundreds of years in the speculative span of more than 4896 years since 2879 B.C., the birthyear of their nation as they believe, which is hard to prove, simply all numbers not adding up logically, and so on. (H) Similar to the case of "Vănlang", the irony of history of Vietnam is that her people could not be sure how to say with certainty even the names of their legendarily-revered ancestral kings, specifically, that is, King Hùng or King Lạc (?) Two of the important, but intriguing, names are those of the kings called King "Hùng" 雄 (Mand. Xióng) and King "Lạc" 雒 (Mand. Luó). "Hùng" is the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation mainly based on ĐạiViệt Sửký Toànthư (大越歷史全書 'Complete History of DaiViet') by Ngô Sĩ Liên following records in Chinese Annals where "Hùng" 雄 might have been mistaken for "Lạc" 雒 based on recent research showing that "Vua Hùng" were derived from Daic language called "pòkhun" where "pò-" is "bố" { ~> "vua" } (king) (Nguyễn Ngọc San. 1993. p. 93).

The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer followers hit on the weather-beaten trails pioneered by their predecessors which first had their stand underwritten by the French academics. After the French colonists physically withdrew from Indo-China in 1954, the colonial legacy they left behind has been the most precious treasure being the Vietnam's national Romanized orthography called 'Quốcngữ' (國語) that came with the extra bonus of the grammatical mechanics from the French language that render today solid and logical { Subject + Verb + Object } models for the modern Vietnamese language, not to mention advanced intellectual tools and innovative methodologies, which pushes today's Vietnamese further from their ancestral language. It should be noted that the phenomenon was exactly like what happened in the academic field of the past right after the return of the Ming's occupation of the country in the 15th century for another 25 years added to the top of the Chinese colonization of the Vietnnamese land from 111 B.C. to 939 A.D.

As the readers will see in this survey the Sino-Tibetan-classified Vietnamese theorization has been based on linguistic particularities such as historical phonologies and etymologies along side with other prehistoric background of the hypothetical indigenous homeland — the same base that the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis has analytically employed on a constant basis with new researches having been published plentifully during the last six decades — its currency, however, has been on and off in the historical linguistic circle due to its lack of plausibly identified Sino-Tibetan ~ Vietnamese cognates. In fact the old hypothesis had been built on premises of Sinitic-based vocabularies and its fundamentally etymological breakthrough ceased to show its novelty for decades after its inception. As time goes by, fallout from the rainwash under the Austroasiatic sky would become much more of the re-enforcement to the Western theory on related Vietnamese linguistic matters. The author of this research would hope to change the century-long attitude of "business as usual" on this matter. That is, Chapter Ten with elaboration on Sino-Tibetan ~ Vietnamese cognates based on Shafer's long recognized Sino-Tibetan etymology work (1972) will vividly bring the century-old theory back onto the Sino-Tibetan ~ Vietnamese radar screen.

Everything comes with a price, though, such as the agony being endured by the Viets who have undergone through process of Austroasiatic 'mental colonization' that is comparable, spiritually, to the feeling of being coerced into making a compromise on one's own belief, or at least personal conviction, they have to trade in oriental philosophy on 'the Way of life' ('Nhânsinhquan' 人生觀 or Dao 道), all for what is kown as Occidental values. At the same time, collective subconsciousness of conflicting values will explicatively make them suspicious of any foreign work that hid an ideological agenda under different guises, e.g., based on historical experiences of Chinese and French colonization coming from different sources, say, possibly highly on the list being Russia or even the US as well. Needles to say, academically, such a perspective would be having a negative impact on social sciences or other humanity disciplines, including archaeology and historical linguistics.

Anthropologically, among those native ethnic minorities who have initially made up the main ethnic majority of Vietnam's population, the Kinh people are the majority who are, specifically, racially-mixed fusion of Sinicized people. In fact, since the days Annam had been still a China's prefecture intermarriages among migrants of different racial background coming from north and south of China have resulted in the emergence of the Kinh majority who preferred to reside around the Red River Delta, for most of the times living side by side where the ruling class resettled in, including the northeastern coastal area of today's North Vietnam with fertile paddy fields and fishing villages. In effect, the Han 'conquistadors' had been descents of the aboriginal Yue people who were originally rice planters in delta regions of cultivated paddy fields south of the Yangtze River such as Jiangxi (江西), Hubei (湖北), Hunan (湖南) provinces, and fishmen along the China's southeastern coast, i.e., ancient states of WuYue (吳越), MinYue (閩越), NanYue (南越). In the back of their mind, nonetheless, they are well aware that their ancestors were of the Yue genealogical line, with linkage to the largest indigenous population as popularly known today as the Zhuang (壯族 'Nùng') and the Daic (傣族 'Tày') minority groups, both concentrating in the regions of today's Yunnan (雲南) and Guizhou (桂州) provinces, along with those who are living in Guangxi (廣西) as well as Vietnam's northwestern region of Laichâu, Hàgiang, Tuyênquang provinces. For those Muong ethnic groups they are inhabiting the region further in the south far away from the coastal paddy fields, metropolises, or townships such as those remote mountainous regions of Hoàbình and Ninhbình.

On a grand scale, all of the above are related to the other Sinicized Yue groups who had long become parts of the Han Chinese majority such as those Cantonese, the Fukienese, or the Wu speakers in Guangdong, Fujian, and Zhejiang provinces. Linguistically, on the one hand, nobody ever questioned their Yue languages, i.e., 粵語 Yueyu, 閩越語 Min-Yueyu, 吳粵語 Wu-Yueyu, respectively, for having been totally Sinicized within the Sinosphere at least 2,500 years each; therefor, they have been classified into the Sino-Tibertan linguistic family. On the other hand, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists did that with the contemporary Vietnamese by crediting extant non-Austroasiatic-origin Vietnamese words as Chinese loans because the ancient Annamese land had been under the Chinese rule 1100 years before its separation from NanHan State in 939. Interestingly, the core words in Vietnamese were solidly recorded in Chinese scripts in ancient times ever since they had been first invented, e.g., 'ngày' 日 rì (day), 'suối' 川 chuāng (creek), 'rựa' 戉 yuè (axe), 'gạo' 稻 gào (rice), 'dê' 羊 yáng (goat), etc., all quite distinctively different from comparative analysis base by those of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer groups, (See the chapter on the Mon-Khmer association) In comparison, the Mon-Khmer component in the Vietnamese linguistic map is really small in many aspects, mostly in substratum.

In a lesser extent, meanwhile, intellectual drainage to the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp was a material loss per se. In Vietnam there are plenty of Mandarin (putonghua) learners nowadays but scholars in Chinese historical linguistics seem to belong to a bygone era. Sinitic-Vietnamese historical linguistics demands additional skill sets. Those locally groomed scholars from the second generation after 1975, who have been trained in the socialist educational system — read, 'political constraint academics' — surprisingly tend to admire anything Western, ironically. They belong to a novel class of Vietnamese scholarship that carries the 'Western air', but very sensitive to critics for their academic weakness, all probably sublimated from their inferior complex for their barely passing grades on graduate theses. They are highly politically motivated, nevertheless, to serve the socialist system for personal gains. We will talk more about the role of politics in the academic arena in complete detail in the next chapter to see how that has influenced all Vietnamese academic disciplines so much negatively in such objective aspects.

B) New approaches in the Vietnamese etymology

The Austroasistic Mon-Khmer hypothesis was built on results of analysis of available lexical data derived from scattering Mon-Khmer languages based on the assumption that some of them, out of contact with other related languages, would still retain some original forms after all the diachronic sound changes. Throughout the process of theorization the existence of Yue elements that long existed in Chinese historical records was simply ignored by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp, neither historically nor linguistically, in its own game with the newly coined terminology, namely, Austroasiatic. In creating a whole new linguistic family in their own terms, the Indo-Eauropean theorists hence would be able to avoid studying all what was said about the Yue as said from Chinese ancient clasics. In other word, they simply created new theory solely by manipulating available data from related living languages with no regards of related history, so to speak.

The Yue linguistic entities, in contrast, cover not only analytical methodology but also history, archaeology, and anthropology, and if applicable, coupled with a spiritual touch of national ideology as well. The main reason for doing so is that many Sinitic-Vietname etyma will constantly creep into our discussion that will fit in anthropological category one way or another. For instance, the Vietnamese concept of "thờ" (worship) may concurrently correspond to 侍 shì (SV thị), 祠 cí (SV từ), 祀奉 sìfèng (VS thờphụng), or even 'thờphượng' 奉事 fèngshì (SV phụngsự) as in "忠臣不事二君 Zhōngchén bù shì èr jūn. 'Tôitrung không thờ hai chúa.' (Loyal subordinates will not serve two kings.) With both "thờ" that of the former category is spiritual while the latter one is ideological. So we will discuss the only approaches that explore the Yue realmwhile excluding those Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer intrinsic values that are not in line with the spiritual worship held by the Vietnamese people, i.e., the ancestral belief.

Let us bring into account all differentiation from other views with an abstract evidence of such spiritual aspect that underlines popular belief in the undeniable existence of the long-discussed ancestral Yue aborigine in the China South region whether or not Sinitic factors are accounted for. Firstly, the Vietnamese religion of 'ancestral worship" ("tụcthờcúngôngbà' or 祖先教) is sacred in a similar Buddhist conception of the afterlife that in turn governs most of their social conducts in their earthly life, regardless of their pick of any other foreign religions. They might not take an argument that their worship is a superstitious folk cult but truly an 'ancestral religion' of 2,500 or more years of age. No one could say whether or not his or hers is a 'true' religion and the other is not. In any religions, their sole belief could surpass that of 'Trời' (天 Tiān), the existence of 'the One and Only', or 'His Supremacy the Highness' and suchlike. He, however, apparently is not revered the same way by all people on earth. 'Trời' hereupon in general is comparable to the grand perception of 'God' in the West and elsewhere, and He is the very same 'Supreme Master' that all religions directly or indirectly pay reverence to, namely, 'the Creator', so to speak.

Let us expand the matter above with a little more in detail as the second point, philosophically. Religiously, for speakers of the Vietnamese as their mother tongue, however, 'Trời' exists mostly in their speech form. They, nevertheless, might possibly place their belief of the Entity 'Trời' on equal footing with 'His Supremacy' as revered by other religions, either that being 'Buddha' or 'God' or 'Allah'. The Vietnamese incorporate into 'ancestral religion' each respective religion to have their belief materialized in every symbolic objects down-to-earth such as secular photographic images of their deceased ancestors to be placed sacredly side by side with other sacred figurines of Buddha or Jesus, all placed side by side complete with a incense burner vessel. Now, the point to make here is that, no matter what religion had been introduced to Vietnam in the late period of their history, whether it is Buddhism, Daoism, Catholic, Christianity, Islam, or home-grown Caodaism and Hoahaoism, etc., all ending up being engulfed in fragrant smoke of incense sticks, as spiritual offerings, liberally burned on each sacrificially ceremonial occasion to pay their respect to their 'ancestors', a fusion of Buddhism and Daoism. Again, the bottom line is this form of reverence shows authentically the existence of the ancient Yue as being highly respected as their ancestors, which is, besides the Viets, still commonly practiced by many ethnic groups of Yue origin who are still living in China South, for example, the Zhuang nationality or by the Fukienese or Hainanese speakers in China and, of the same ancestry, the 'Nùng' and southern Chinese minorities as visible in their shrines in temples thoughout Vietnam.

All in all, what is totally absent from the Austroasiatic theory is the spiritual values as for the early stages of sharing common collective consciousness in addition to historical facts for the later developmental stages after tribal split-ups as previously discussed above,. We could now juxtapose each theory accompanied with other prehistoric social activities that would eventually lead to the formation of the language that all people living within the same community would have shared in historical periods therafter with geopolitical respects to include both the economic system and political form of the government of a state. That is an important factor, in the one hand, that factorially determines the classification of related Sinitic languages for all those southern Wu, Cantonese, Minnan... dialects under Sino-Tibetan linguistic family while denying Yue origin of Han root by the Chinese, in the other hand. That is to say, respective politics interferes with scholarly linguisitics in such a way that it seriously distorts the truth of even natural academic delelopment. As mentioned previously, the phenomenon is commonplace in Vietnam, anti-Sinitic mindset, for example. So politics will be put in perspective and its role will be approached with an analytical mind.

Individuals with mentality in the low end of the academic ladder being opted for abatement of state-run disinformation are of another type of people who could not handle factual arguments as premises to start with. We never need them to agree on our theory which is inarguably used to be sticky issues to deal with. Personally it is not worth the time for the author to attend to their endless opinions (See APPENDIX L ); therefore, that is one among other reasons why this paper has been mainly crafted in English, at least to avoid unruly crowd, the very type of people the author has never wanted to deal with. Readers will learn more in a separate chapter that deals with such political issue in humanities.

Meanwhile, our approach is still Sinitic in essence where Chinese is the fundamental core — simply just because 'Sinitic' is the terminology and Chinese dialects have been group into the Sino-Tibetan linguisitic family — with regards to typology, i.e., not of history but cognateness of a Vietnamese word with other forms in extant Tibetan (TB, or B) languages, for instance, 'bò' (cow) [ Excluding any coincidences for cognacy in other etyma, according to Shafer, 'cow' in OB (Old Tibetan) ba, OB E. *bik. A W. Bod. Burig bā (p. 83), Groma, Śarpa bo (calf), Dangdźongskad, Lhoskad ba (p. 93), Central Bodish Lagate pa-, Spiti, Gtsang, Dbus, Ãba bʿa, Mnyamslad, Dźad pa (p. 98), other Bod. languages Rgyarong (ki)-bri, -bru (p. 120), modern Bod. dialects New Mantśati (bullock), Tśamba Lahuli (ox) bań, Rangloi bań-ƫa (bullock) (p. 130). Also in Chin. 牝 byi/ (Chin. cow, female of animal), OB ãbri-mo (tame female yak) (p. 59). According to dchph, for 牝 byi/, can can postulate that it with the VS "bê" (calf) form, perhaps. ] 'Cow', or to be exact, 'water buffallo' is a very important domestic animal in Vietnamese water paddy planting agriculture, that is, the word is hardly a loanword, which can not be interpreted otherwise by any other theories, especially the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis.

To find suchlike etyma, some tried brainstorming juxtaposition — an intuitive approach that had existed before the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory ever came into the Vietnamese linguistic arena — but did not reach a refining stage yet as we have seen through their cited examples.Many of them could not even distinguish lexicons of Sinitic Vietnamese (VS) from Sino-Vietnamese (SV) class and their work focused only on a few of superstrata of the Sinitic Vietnamese layer where the closeness of Chinese and Vietnamese etyma made their lists all to appear as Chinese loanwords. For example, besides the Sino-Vietnamese sound 'sư' for 師 shī (teacher) for someone s/he (SH) may already know that 'thầy' is another cognate, and while some even know 'thầymô' is a normalized variant of 巫師 wūshī (shaman) that is in reverse syllabic order, but others might not know that both Sinitic-Vietnamese 'sải' 師 shī (monk) and 'phùthuỷ' 巫師 wūshī (shaman), respectively, are also of the same roots as that of 'thầycô' 老師 lăoshī (teachers), similarly, so are 婿 xū 'rể' (son-in-law) vs. 姑爺 gūyě 'conrể' (son-in-law), 'sống' 生 shēng (live) vs. 'đẻ' (give birth to), etc., of which each etymon was derived from different dialects and in diferent periods, diachonically and synchonically.

Besides, to be a Han-Nom specialist, on the one hand, on the other spectrum of the historical linguistic matter, a measurable level of knowledgement is possession of some language skills. Such highly qualified scholars have become rarer these days now, as we have seen in many supposedly good papers in English by their authors who showed lack of mastery level to distinguish — as previously mentioned — simple Sino-Vietnamese words from Sinitic Vietnamese ones. No finger pointing is intended here but, sadly, that is the fact for I can point out such errors at random. On the other hand, those who can read Chinese literature are just everage language learners in the general populace, though, that there is still a long way for them to reach the academic mastery level of Kargren or Maspero. New students from the crowd who dare to step into the field of Vietnamese historical linguistics still need to make a decision in taking side right from the first moment. It is advisable for them to bear in mind that even though it is fashionable to embrace the new 'capitalist system' (as opposed to the Vietnam's state-controlled academics), i.e., Western methodology and objectivity free of governmental interference, their participation in this linguistic field could not just be simply regarded as replacements to efficiently handle the core matter of hundreds of years old subjects that has rooted in the agriculturally-based economy — similar to the case of Sino-Tibetan theory exemplified with aforementioned 'bò' and many more — with those Western theories as in the case of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis. The bottom line is those newcomers at their free choice are likely to follow the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer trend for the reason that the Austroasiatic theory offers some leverage for them to maneuver in the task of postulating Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology, e.g., scientific methodologies to collect and tabulate Mon-Khmer data systematically even though those might not be truthful in essence for fluidily in nature that has caused the phonetic shifts in those Vietnamese and Chinese etyma that are cognates. (水)

Another reason for having brought in multiple perspectives — ranging from religions to politics and the likes in the round on top of archaeology, anthropology, history, proficiency of languages, etc. — is that for those Western-educated people with a practical mind, adoption of industrialism from the West at the turn of the 20th century, which has been proven to work rather efficiently with most of contemporary institutions, would likely result in the same scientific efficiency and accuracy to be extended to the field of historical linguistics as well. Vietnam's adoption of Western ideas has been through the first generation of those who were French-educated scholars in the periods that followed the return of her national independence from the hands of the French on July 20th, 1954. With a firm and without-looking-back attitude, they set remarkable trend with the lately romanized Quốcngữ writing system which swept away Chinese quintessence of the thousand-year-old institution once and for all. In the transitional period toward modernization they acted quickly toward not only total replacement of the Chinese-based Nôm script but also the last use of French as primary language for the country's colonial educational system.

All in all, therefore, it is not surprising that advocates of Western methodologies prefer new measurable 'metric' tools to traditional 'soft' approaches, weighing precision against approximation or accurate measurement of data vs. fluid interpretation, respectively, in a field of Vietnamese etymology. And sometimes they went overboard. In the late 19th into the new millenia our local French-educated scholars had carried over good and last laughs follwing some remarks made by unspecified French grammarians that the 'Annamite' language did not have grammar of its own and it needed to use French grammar for wtiting. Probably that was the last resonance from what has been mistakenly conceived and classed as an "isolate language" — those that make sentences by putting the words together in certain word orders, as apposed to inflectional ones that make senses out of sentences by cases not by word order, i.e., portions of the word, usually the suffix change forms to indicates its role in a sentence, such as German, Russian, Latin, etc.. — by Western linguists which they specifically assert both Vietnamese and Chinese languages were. Fortunately, they are not exactly what the Western theorists want them to be because the term "isolate language" actually initiates an argumentation with a bad connotation depending on how one looks at the matter under microscope. We will return to this 'isolate' matter later in the chapter dealing with their dissyllabicity issues.

In our contemporary era there have been similar trends of adopting Western customs previously for other unrelated areas that they could not be simply judged right or wrong as opposed to respective traditional ones. In addition to instances of culturally archaeological artifacts or religious belief as briefed earlier, Western culture could be further found in many aspects of life, whether they are in medicines (for example, preference of Western pharmaceutical diagnostic to the traditional medications with the latter seen as the last resort), to living styles and customs such as choices of comercialized holidays (e.g., Christmas, additional Western New Year, Mother's, Valentine days, etc.), birthdays (e.g., more people enjoying celebration of their Western-styled birthday), death anniversary or wedding customs (e.g., choices of either using Western or Lunar calendar, no longer abstaining from donning white wedding gowns, engaging rings of diamonds instead of 24K gold, while black attire to attend funerals instead of the white color and coarse fabric in contrst), and so on so forth. At the same time, on many occasions, especially for spiritual reasons, they still use Chinese characters for ceremonial or festive inscriptions, say, Spring Festival couplets, written prayers or names of the deceased on ancestral altars or in temples, etc. In other words, they are contemporary adoptions that carry sacredness by nature comparable to one's own religion. That were what the Western Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists had done with regards to the Vietnamese etymological matters that we are now discussing. That is fashionable in a sense. For us, we pretty much choose to catwalk the middle line where our etymological hopefuls may satisfy adversaries in theorization as much as possible.

As a matter of fact, discrepancies in new Sinitic Vietnamese etyma — Nôm words of Chinese origin — presented in this paper generally can complement what has come out from a Western base, namely, the Austroasiastic Mon-Khmer camp. Ideally, etymological finds from both Sinitic Vietnamese and the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer approaches could co-exist in harmony instead of rejecting one another. For instance, dozens of core Vietnamese cognates found in Mon-Khmer do not necessarily negate their roots from a Chinese or Sino-Tibetan stock. Metaphorically, an Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer affair could end up to be like an arranged marriage in the Chinese way and camouflaged under a Western-style wedding gown — as opposed to traditional outfit aforesaid — that could still go with those customary rituals with 'Vietic' matters deep inside. In other words, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory on Vietnamese historical linguistics could be considered incomplete without Chinese elements and vice versa unavoidably for their cultural entanglements, historically and anthropologically. Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguists may have a case but they really need a history to support it. The matter is explicable because that is a direct consequence of 1,009 years under China's imperial rule and beyond periods with remotely prehistoric contacts. The issues seem to be sensual in minute details but they have not been properly dealt with in the related academic circle.

Let it be known that we welcome Western methodologies for an old matter that has been in existence hundreds of years ago. One must understand that the linguistic core had been buried there long before Western scholars came to dig them up as late as in the 20th century. Dictionaties and riming books had already existed with 爾雅 Éryùn, 說文 Shuōwén, 唐韻 Guăngyùn, 廣韻 Guăngyùn, and many uncommon words were annotated as of diaclects in the 17th-centuried Kangxi Dictionary as well. They, therefore, need to explore and learn them, not to invent any brand-new theory, in this case an Austroasistic one for that matter, for a millenium-old field of study just for the sake of one's convenience. (Re member the case of "Vietnamese has no grammar", so "Take the French one and use it instead!" so that they need not learning Vietnamese grammar per se.) In taking the latter approach, obviously they simply just made a shotcut or detour in order to avoid a steep learning curves not only in modern Chinese but also ancient Chinese. In other words, aggressive assertions that came on from position of power would be counter-productive and unappreciated. Note that up until the late 18th century, Western academics still possessed meager knowledge of the Chinese language (See Knud Lundbæk. 1986).

What if they had taken the harder approach as we do now? Our theorization, archaeologically in coordination of the Austroasistic hypothesis given our taking the middle road, is based on the supposition that some earlier contacts in ancient times has been in line with confirmation of the ancient Yue metallurgic know-hows with those Đôngsơn-styled bronze drums that are related to artifacts unearthed in Indonesia dated in a much later period than those of older ages such as those Ngọclữ ones with different engraved motifs, of which similar objects were not yet discovered in Indonesia. All bronze drums excavated across regions of North Vietnam and China South, where agricultural activities of the ancient Taic-Yue tribesmen had left their trace of cultivating water paddies. To visually view ancient Yue bronze drums the readers can contemplate those real excavated relics with their own eyes as similar items are put on display in a Zhuang Cultural Village near Liuzhou City (柳州市) in Guangxi autonomous region, in Daic ones in Sichuanbana of Yunnan Province, or in China's national museums in other cities including Nanjing, Yangzhou, Chongqing, Kunming, Nanning, and in Vietnam's museums in major cities.

As more archaeological evidences point to the fact that habitats of the ancient Yue people had existed further in the north, the academic circle would see the rationization that archaic languages once spoken by those tribal aboriginals in China South would have evolved differently into those Mon-Khmer languages whose speakers were clustered around the Indo-Chinese peninsula. Etymologically, those fundamentally basic words shared with the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer roots were only of a subset of those of the Sino-Tibetan and Chinese languages, to be exact. With many more of the latest finds of Vietnamese etyma cognate to those of Sino-Tibetan etynmologies of which the Vietnamese historical linguists might have never heard, newcomers should check out hundreds of Sinitic Vietnamese etyma on the Sino-Tibetan side that are exposed in this paper before taking sides. They need be alert of minescapes in the field for either choice.

In any cases, the underlining purpose of the passages above is a prologue to our new etymological approaches to be discussed in the later chapters. Readers should be on the lookout and not to be freaked in enticements of being prestigiously identified with great ancient cultures that ever existed on earth right in her neighboring countries with colossal vestiges still seen through ruins of temples and walled pallaces which are of a much higher developed civilizations of the Khmer, Champa, and China kingdoms in ancient times. It is so said because there has existed precedence that many local scholars have been drawn into the dreamscape trying to relate themselves especially with those people who had built two of seven great wonders of the world, i.e., the Great Walls of China and sites of the ancient ruins of Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat palaces. In fact, more than once in the past Vietnamese archeaologists even claimed artifacts of Sahuỳnh and Óc-Eo cultures that have been excavated in those lately acquired territories in the central and southern parts of Vietnam as vestiges left by their "ancestors". In other words, given the fact that they were the masterpieces of craftsmanship of the artifacts, those uncultured Vietnamese have unreservedly claimed national ownership on those ancient earthenware relics being found along the stretches of late southern annexed land that were actually acquired only after the 15th century, all to the effects that it is as if the Vietnamese artisans themselves had produced. No other supporting evidences independently reach an impartial judgment on such ancestral linkage, anthropologically, with respects to the pre-Chamic culture. So said, we can apply the same reasoning for linguistic etymological field asserted on the association with the Mon-Khmer in the Austroasiatic hypothesis.

That is what has happened in the past. As local scholars in the field are anxious to distance themselves from the "China's camp", they would put even more efforts in the Austroasiatic direction than a specialist normally would do, which, in return, could do injustice to the Sinitic or Sino-Tibetan related theorization of Vietic linguistic matter.

On the other scale of the matter, the Austroasiatic theorists might not care much about that kind of acclamation. However, in the case of Dongsonian bronze drums discovered not only in the 'Dongson' locality but also in some Indonesian islands, both Austroasiatic and the Austronesian camps embraced them as proofs of the existence of the aboriginals theorized in their roll call. Should that be the case and truthful to what they had claimed, hypotheses on the Austroasiatic and the Yue peoples would be mutually inclusive then.

For practical purposes with respects to possible impartiality, the author could not cut loose into deeper argumentation since it is sentimentally too cumbersome. Practically readers of all sorts actually could grasp some core substances once they are ready to absorb new things, starting with little sidelines, say, those illustrated maps on historical facts.

Graphically, collection of all unmodified maps and illustrations pulled off from trustworthy sites on the internet, such as Wikipedia.org as delibrately incorporated herein, most of them having been prepared by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer advocates themselves, ironically, will sufficiently reveal a lot more than what they were originally intended for. They could tell a different story for our purposeful advantages. Readers could vividly visualize the drawing map that in effect points historical routes that have made up what are being called Vietnamese entities today. They will also be able to identify which had first diverged from the cradle of the Yue origin of both ÂuLạc and LạcViệt peoples, assumedly ancient Vietic ancestors, so to speak, whose state's boundary once stretched from today's areas of Hunan Province in China South to regions south of the Vietnam's Red River (SôngHồng) Basin. They all, racially and anthropologically, had long merged with the later emergence of mixed Han elements to form the Kinh ethnic group and expanded further to the southernmost tip of Indochinese peninsula.
As old-timers matured, they would like to break away from the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis in which they have admittedly had deep conviction prior to their encounter with the Sino-Tibetan theory. If you happen to be one among them, be prepared for debates on certain of controversial issues starting from fundermental groundwork of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer origin of the Vietnamese language.

The whole matter could be reasoned out with very simple logic as follows. If Vietnam were to return to the Chamic and the Khmer peoples -- like what China was forced to actually do so with Annam -- all of her original annexed pieces of land that are currently located in the country's central and southern parts, that is, stretches of coastlined land from north of Hue and all the way to the southern tip of her current territory looking out to the Gulf of Thailand, readers could ask the question, "After some 700 years under the rule of Vietnam until now, what mixture of linguistic form would be expected that the local people living in both to-be-reborn Champa and Khmer states would speak then?"

Analytically, process of 'Vietnamization' of the Chamic and Khmer peoples having started nearly 10 centuries in their own lands must have been undeniably a very similar scenario of Sinicization of the Annam State after the equivalent of 1,009 years of under the colonial rule of the imperial China throughout different dynasties that ended with that of the NamHan Dynasty. In short, the "Annamese people" would definitely no longer speak the 'indigenous' language of the period prior to 111 B.C. that the aboriginals had spoken hundreds of years given the fact that the ongoing influx of the racially-mixed Han troops from the north on constant conquering missions to the southern land, to have been followed by Chinese refugees fleeing war and hunger in their homeland; they moved in en masse and resettled down permanently in the southern country. As a result, all of them outnumbered the natives and previous resettlers (compare the what happened in both North and South Americas only in the last 400 years.) Vietnamese nationals can now look around every corner of their country and will see how the like phenoma have recurred incessantly since the ancient times. As of now, proofs are even more evident with the presence of mainland's Chinese migrant laborers in a series of 'Chinatown' that have sprung up in may provinces of Vietnam, e.g., in Hatinh, Phuyen, Daklak, etc., throughout the contemporary era that Vietnam is still considered as a sovereign nation, not to mention most of popular tourist spots such as those beaches in Nhatrang or Danang City, all advertisement signs hung up being written in Chinese. Readers can take a note of what is being raised hereof to understand how influential the politics is to this linguistic subject matter, an inevitable topic that needs to be discussed in the next chapter.

Once readers appreciate such a raison d'être of the formation of the Vietnamese language, they will be able to steer their strain of thought to focus on other matters such as those Sino-Tibetan evidences presented in this paper and take them to the next level. For the time being they could entertain themselves by meditating on the topic, just like praticing that of Zen but with Vietic spirituality, to be enlightened with theorization on new findings. Only then could they appreciate the essence of Vietic, or Yue, core matter, primarily by means of reinstatement of Yue ethnological and geographical settings that come with solid historical records.

So it did not matter much even if the Austroasiatic camp could gather some historical records for the goodness of their theory by demonstrating that the native locals had actually spoken some form of a Mon-Khmer language before they came into contact with "the Han conquistadors" and that lasted until now and evolveed into modern Vietnamese, which is impossible by any measure (compare the circumstance with the English, Spanish, or Portugal language spoken in Latin America.) In other words the state of the Vietnamese language in the present day is absolutely no way near anything existing in the Mon-Khmer languages even if it were supposedly the native language before the Chinese as theorized by the Austroasiatic camp.

C) The end of Austroasiatic approach

History is the soul of our theory. The already well-publicized Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory on the origin of Vietnamese does not have a soul. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory has never been known starting under a historical point of view or being backed up with historical records by any means, though, yet the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer advocates have been holding out long on the high ground while those Sino-Tibetan runner-ups have been fighting an uphill battle even being propped up with written records. For the Mon-Khmerists, their only link to the past, in fact, was based on scores of basic words as some were transcribed from spoken forms and some originated from the earliest layer of lexical substrum. Interestingly those Vietnamese lexicons found cognate to those Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer ones happen to overlap those etyma in the Sino-Tibetan languages as well. With a few of basic words the Vietnamese etymology that used to have made their days in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp may be ending soon. There is a reason for much ado about my discoveries because they are results of two new approaches, as readers are going to see later, that somewhat deviate from usual methodologies.

The Austroasiatic terminology is at times synonymous to the term 'Mon-Khmer' in today's usage even though the linguistic domain of the former covers a much larger geographic area than the latter one. For the name of Austroasiatic itself as to mean from the south, its theorists postulated that once there existed some ancestral Austroasiatic people who had migrated to north and south from their original habitat in Southeast Asia crossing adjacent land brigdes to places throughout South Asia's region to India and northward to China South, which marked the beginning of the Austroasiatic emigrants having moved from the Indo-China's pennisula by route also once bridged with stretches of land which are now lying deeply below the sea level to all present islands, and they moved northward as well. But that theory is still hypothetical because it is contrary to the evidences that those who reached the Oceania's regions were voyaged by boats. Whether or not the same theorization could be further expanded to embrace that of Austronesian with Austric hypotheses to blanket all other Polynesians and Malaysians across South Pacific regions as well, which is of course another matter. (M)

It is not only that as hypothesized above, the Austroasiatic homeland eventually has been re-positioned as having radiated from the Mekong River (Paul Sidwell, The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis, in "Journal of Language Relationship" (4, 2010. pp. 117–134). From his postulation, the Austroasiatic people could NOT be of the same racial stock of the aforementioned Yue with their habitat in China South region right below the Yangtze River. Prior to his theory, the Austroasiatic homeland was previously proposed to have been located in Yunnan Province where it is geographically now known as the actual homebase of the ancient Yue who were fanning out to other areas in the south. For those indigenous people in the southern land Paul Benedict (1975) did designate a branch call "Austro-Thai" in a separate paper. (泰)

To return to the subject matter of "Vietic or not Vietic" regardless of its either Yue or Austroasiatic origin, it is noted that cultural artifacts excavated from the ground in southern region of Vietnam had been buried there long before the late Vietic speakers moved in and resettled there. The collected relics, of course, could not be claimed as that of Vietnamese ancestral heritage in any way by the latecoming 'masters' of the land. As rsome readers might have already suspected, the Kinh majority actually emerged from racially-mixed stocks firstly from the Sinitic-Vietnamese speaking descendants in the early stage of the Han colonialization; therefore, those ancient the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer aborgines in Indo-China could not be affiliated with the prehistoric Yue ancestry of the Vietnamese further in the north. It is only by the 16th century that the Annamese Kinh groups would have arrived and resettled in the Mekong River Delta region. Before that era, genetically, their ancestral Vietic speakers had been pre-transmutated, i.e., mixture of the Yue and Han, and then the racial fusion with the Mon-Khmer and the Chamic peoples took place along their westward and southward movements. In their last destination to the southern tip of the Camau cape, they encountered the southern Khmer people. That is to say, the Mon-Khmer registry to the Vietnamese family have been just the latest added-on 'features' throughout the last ten centuries; therefore, the Viets could not be of the prehistoric the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer descents in anyway as one might have speculated, especially inapplicable to the linguistic material which we are speaking of. Things could be simpler if specialists talked only in biological term of DNA from the start, which is, again, out of our historical linguistic focus to discuss here.

Etymologically, to run counter to what was claimed by the opponent camp, recent findings in Vietnamese basic stock that shares with other non-Sinitic languages in the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family have come up more than 400 fundamental words (see Chapter Four) having deep roots in a wide range of Sino-Tibetan etymologies, geographically, spreading across a vast terrain of southern Asia. Such a linguistic fact has laid a solid base to support the groundwork for the reclassification of the Vietnamese language.

On the contrary, thanks to its lack of supporting historical proofs, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypotheses in picturing prehistoric people from different backgrounds, i.e., Austroasiatic vs. Yue, gave rise to fallacies that subsequently caused linguistic misinformation. Its theory was maltreated as a premise for another succeeding hypothesis that then demanded an anti-thesis to prove otherwise. In contrast, the Sino-Tibetan theory has ancient Chinese records to support. The history of the land now called China also referred to the existence of the BaiYue tribes, among which certain of groups were identified with ancestral pre-Vietmuong people from ÂuLạc (歐雒 OuLuo) and LạcViệt (雒越 LuoYue).

In terms of linguistic written records, the most notable shortcoming of the Austroasiatic hypothesis is that it would be impossible for the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists to prove by means of ancient Khmer scripts to establish the interrelationship of those Vietnamese basic words with what were identified as the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer cognates in the same manner that we could meticulously elaborate on Sinitic roots of Sinitic Vietnamese etyma by means of the Chinese characters throughout different evolutionary periods. Unlike what we have seen in each forming stage for each Chinese character that is in turn cognate to a Sinitic-Vietnamese etymon — and other alternants in different Chinese dialects — that is, for each and every Chinese character, from the earliest days, archaic rudimentary Chinese written forms had been created initially with phonetic ideograms Sinologists could help decipher both their sounds and meanings which evolved chronologically. In many cases the original forms speak for themselves not only with basic and simple ideograph such as 日 rì for both 'sun' and 'day', complex ideophonetic forms such as the later 麥 mài to have replaced 來 lái for its original meaning of 'millet' or 'wheat' while its early speakers had borrowed 來 lái for its sound to mean 'to come' (cf. VS 'lúa', 'lại', etc., along with other derived variants as the readers will learn about them later in the next chapters.)

So said, that is history, in a broader sense. The "history" for those related Sinitic-Vietnamese and Sino-Tibetan words appear to be framed within chains of historical events. For example, Sinitic-Vietnamese words that are found cognate to Sinitic words that are in tun to those Sino-Tibetan languages; hence, history of a Sinitic etymon is about the etymology of a Sino-Tibetan item and they all are relevant to those derived Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma as well, which the Mon-Khmer ones seem to have nothing to do with. In the context of "Sino-Tibetan" linguistic family that embraces other Sinitic languages, i.e., the so-called Chinese dialects, their history is also related to those of reconstruction of Old Chinese lexicons which are tentatively proved to be of the same roots as those of Bodic, or ancient Tibetan, languages, etymologically proved by means of their structured phonology that can be treated as a form of history being reserved in the Bodic scripts recorded with alphabetical syllables.

Right from the beginning the term Austroasiatic was already a misnomer. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer initiators knew little about the ancient Vietnam or that of China's history and Sinology in terms of Chineseese historical linguistics was just primitive in the 17th centory. (See Knud Lundbæk. 1986). They simply ignored, hence denied, the existence of both Yue and an entity of its called 'LạcViệt' (雒越 LuòYuè) being dismissed by them as folktales even though their history were recorded in Chinese annals and classics regardless of what was originally called by the natives. It is speculative that it might have been either too cumbersome for those Austroasiatic pioneers to learn about the Yue peoples or simply they did not know how to relate ancient Vietnam's history with that of Mon-Khmer if there indeed existed anything at all that it could be related to what is known as the LacViet, that the LacViet was related with the AuViet and XiYue (西越) and MinYue (閩越) and the WuYue (吳越), etc., hence, the Chinese annals registered them as those of Hundred Yues (百越), the Chu State, the Kingdom of NamViet (NanYue), and so on. Where would the Austroasiatic and the Mon-Khmer fit into the picture, historically? The fact that the proto-Vietmuong speakers equated with the LacViet did exist would lead to the need of theorization about some other dialectal forms of the postulated ancestral Yue language which help set the core of the Vietic language. To solve the equation, the easiest way for Austroasiatic specialists was to simply equate arbitrarily a 'proto-Vietic' form with the 'Austroasiatic' ones by means of their cognate etyma found in Vietmuong branch that equates to the modern Mon-Khmer languages. (Robert Parkin, A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their Languages.1991)

Speaking of history, as a result, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists could not possibly posit ancient Mon-Khmer forms of an aboriginal language that could plausibly share with what the ancient LacViet people had in common with other BaiYue and the Old Chinese through their contact that dated back to 3,000 years B.P., the most crucial period that has left basic words in the modern Vietnamese language. For instance, historically, etyma of the Vietnamese 'cầy' and 'chó' both are related to 狗 gǒu (SV cẩu) and 犬 quán (Western Mandarin Sichuan dialect /co1/), all meaning 'dog', and their derived dissyllabic words, perfectly matched cognates as well, e.g., 犬坐 quánzuò vs. 'chồmhỗm' (to squat), 犬牙 quányá vs. 'răngkhểnh' (canine), or 小狗 xiăogǒu 'cầytơ' vs. 犬子 quánzi 'concún' (pup, puppy-dog), etc., of which 'chồmhỗm' was dubiously postulated as of Khmer 'chorohom' origin (see Nguyen Ngoc San. 1993) that is merely coincidental. As readers will see in the next chapters, suchlike etyma which used to be emphatically grouped within Mon-Khmer realm by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer specialists (see Mei Tsu-lin APPENDIX D - G) are also proved to be of the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family.

In the linguistic perspective, there exists recorded history to back up the Yue theory on the ancestral Yue language and its descendant speakers. Jerry Norman (1979) called it a 'foreign extinct language'. Ancient Chinese classics noted that the Yue people had been heard speaking some archaic Yue forms that existed concurrently with assumingly some Taic language spoken by the subjects of the Chu State (楚國 Chuguo) such as "The Yueren Song" (越人歌) in the Yue language recorded in the 6th century B.C. by Ejun Zizhe 鄂君子皙 Ngạcquân Tửtích. The song's lyrics has been studied by Chinese linguists for a few words of the Yue language left. <(See APPENDIX J). As mentioned previously, King Liu Bang (劉邦), must have spoken a sub-dialect of the Chu language simply because he and his followers, as said, all had been subjects of the Chu State before they triumphantly established the Han Dynasty (漢朝). The Austroasiatic theorists would never be able to provide their theory with similar historical records to enumerate details of how the Mon-Khmer picture fits into the prehistory of the 'Viet' state, i.e., LacViet, given a Yue background in the same relative timeframe.

At the same time, however, we all could have conferred about the same limitation on the postulation of the Taic-Yue language — a proto-Yue speech — as what it has been debated against the Austroasiatic hypothesis with no history to back it up. By the time the Mon moved out of the China South region and influxed the present Indo-Chinese peninsula and turn it into the southern Mon-Khmer homebase whence it became geographical pivot that reached as far as the northermost to the Vietmuong group before the next waves of Yue-mixed Han infantry followed the Han's colonialists to enter the ancient Annam. As it is suggested that 'LacViet' ancestors of the ancient Viets could have spoken some form of an ancient Yue language, that could be a proto-Vietmuong speech of the Taic ancestral language that the Austroasiatic theorists unsuspicously had referred to was also the ancestor of, like Vietnamese , but NOT, today's 'Mon-Khmer' languages. That is to say, some prehistoric Taic language was likely of the root of proto-Mon-Khmer but they — common forms of both the Mon-Khmer and the later Viet-Muong linguistic branches — already split in later historical period, of which the former no longer had anything to do with the archaic forms but with the Sinitic-fusion forms that had evolved from what was spoken by the ancient emigrants out of China South, who at first had been regarded as guest resettlers regardless of their status but their offsprings were mixed with the local populace who later constituted a majority group that was known as the Kinh people as opposed to other minorities, including those of the Mon-Khmer speakers. As a result, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorical statement would then become not much different from a material claim made by those jealous Vietnamese scholars exerting national ownership over all excavated artifacts undergound in their country's annexed territories, i.e., acclamation of the indigenous relics as if they had been passed bown their own ancestors. In this case, the whole theory is based on the aboriginal base of minorities who had been exiled in remote mountains. Analogously, it is just like branding the true American citizens as truly natives of indigenous American Indian ancestry or that of Taiwanese descents of Austronesian roots, Daic ancestry of the Han, given both countries having less than 300 years of history which is known as the U.S. or Republic of China, respectively.

Historical names play a significant role in determining what was from what and which one came first and where it belongs to. Of the naming convention in the acedemic world, just like the term "Sinitic" being applied to an ancient entity that had yet to emerge and the "Yue" being talked about was another entity that had been in existence long before northwestern resettlers moved in southern territories who mixed with the native Yue people to make up an entity that was later know as 'Sinitic'. Amusingly, the same process with those aboriginals further in the south in today's north Vietnam repeated and gave rise to those later known as 'Vietnamese'. Geopolitically, the historical name of 'Vietnam' has given rise to the word 'Vietnamese' in roll calling long after "Annamese", so to speak. Similarly, the Austroasiatic theorists have painted the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer picture that there had existed the Austroasiatic first in the pre-historic epoch, and followed next by the Mon-Khmer, and then came Viet-Muong, which then diverged into what is known today as 'Vietnamese' per their perspective, but sans history.

Confucius said, "名正言順", or, loosely, 'everything is just in the name'. The Austroasiatic camp may have never suspected that anything related to the earlier ancient state names of 'Vietnam', the people and their language, their entities being blended together, actually only came into existence some time after 939 A.D. By then it was called NhàNgô (the 'Ngo Dynasty' or 吳朝 Wuchao) and had nothing to do with the core of nom-d'état 'Annam' yet. The country was destined to have become an independent state with different name changes only centuries later. It is noted that in that period the NamHán Kingdom (南漢 NánHàn, or the Southern State of Han — that covered the coastlined stretches of today's Guangdong and northwestern strip of today's north Vietnam (see maps) — interestingly, King Liu Yan (劉嚴) of the NamHán Kingdom had named his newly established state as 'ĐạiViệt', or 大越 DàYuè ('The Great Viet'), prior to the historical name 'NanHan' (南漢) — as known in Chinese history — as permanently adopted (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Chin. p. 147). We, therefore, can see that the true nature of "Việt" and "Hán" just reflected in the composition of the overall population. 'ĐạiViệt' would later also become the name of the ancient Vietnam starting with the Lý Dynasty (1009–1225), though. Interestingly, the state name of "大越 DàYuè" was used more than twice in China's history; the other was established in 895 during the mid of chaotic declining Tang Dyasty when 董昌 Dong Chang was enthroned and established his kingdom as 大越羅平國 whence it was later known as 越州 Yuezhou, now in 紹興 Shaoxing City, located in Zhejiang Province (Bo Yang, Vol. 63, p. 155). Today's Guangdong Province of China is still being called by its ancestral state name as NamJwet Kwok (南越國 or SV 'NamViệt Quốc').

NamHan (917-971 A.D.)

Figure 2.1 — The Southern Han (917-971 A.D.)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Han

arrow up Back to top

Similarly, in "Annam" different reigns of succeeding dynasties could adopt different state name (quốchiệu 國號) in the ancient times. Linguistically, the Austrosasiatic Mon-Khmer, Vietmuong and Vietic linguistic chain along with the concept of 'Vietnamese' could be regarded as arbitrarily selective terms being used in the scholarly world today to refer to the ancient independent 'Annam' of the 10th century of which the boder stopped short at today's Hàtỉnh Province, having not crossed to the southern central territory yet. Under the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorical perspective, "Vietnamese" naturally fits into each state name from recent historical period that could be backtracked further into the past into the prehistoric period. The morale within is that the nature and characteristics of pre-Vietnamese prior to modern Vietnamese was not exactly proto-Vietnamese, which the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp inclined to assert on.

As it appears nowadays, we all could possibly end up talking different things referring to different entities — such as those of Chamic elements that supposedly appear in subdialect such as Huế, e.g., indicative pronouns "ni", "nớ", "mô", "tê", "ri", rứ", "chừ", etc., but at the same time some among them are postulated as from Chinese — and think that we are talking about the same "Vietnamese" issues. That is to say, the 'Vietnamese' people and their language of the 10th century might have nothing to do with the language spoken in the Austroasiastic Mon-Khmer enclaves located futher away in the south as being referred to in the early 20th century. The earliest forms of Nôm vocabularies found in the 15th century's work, Phậtthuyết Đạibáo Phụmẫu Ân Trọngkính (Buddhist canon on returning favors back to one's parents), back up such assumption. As a matter of fact, "Vietnamese" in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory — based on its list of basic words if they were enough to identify the origin of the Vietnamese language — might be limited to what actually existed in "Vietnam", the new state name bestowed by the first reign of King Gialong of the Nguyễn Dynasty in 1804 (V). By that time, new Vietnamese resettlers barely made contact with those Khmer locals living in the newly acquired territory just annexed from the Cambodia only as early as from the 16th century. Be reminded that the ethnic composition is now consisted of approximately 30% of three major minorities each, namely, the Vietnamese Kinh, the Chinese Tchewchow, and the Khmer, respectively, so if the Vietnamese word 'chồmhỗm' (squat) is cognate to modern Khmer 'chrohom', it is natural, which, nevertherless, can be 犬坐 quánzuò, a 2000-year-old word found in 左傳 Zuo Zhuan, so to speak.

Nominally, like what we mentioned previously in comparison with the term 'Vietnamese' or 'Sinitic', by the same gesture, the terminology 'Austroasiastic', 'Mon-Khmer', 'Vietmuong', or 'Vietic', all could only be considered as modern concepts but they were used to refer to ancient entities that were highly theoretical. Analogously, compare that to the 2010 official figures that say there are 1.7% of Khmer and 1.2% Chinese minority people in the population of Vietnam. As it turned out, the census did not take into consideration that a majority of early Chinese immigrants had long been absorbed into the mainstream of the Kinh majority populace, so were those local Khmer natives who have been identified as Vietnam's nationals in modern time in real life or official on paper starting from the early 1960's.

History is the soul of a nation and her language.

Historically speaking, Austroasiatic specialists neglect Vietnam's history because they have none to support their hypothesis. History of southern territory of the modern Vietnam used to belong to the Khmer Kingdom and what happened in the history of the Khmer Kingdom did not have anything to do with that of ancient 'Annam'. In other word, Vietnam's history is not that of Austrosiastic Mon-Khmer used to refer to the natives of those inhabitants of pre-Vietnam.

The whole picture of Vietnam's history, on the contrary, fits well into that of China, linguistically and historically. The historical develoment of the Vietnamese language could be traced in that of Old Chinese as further back in time over 2,500 years ago. That is to say, any language should not be just a matter of laboratory tests but have a history of its own.

Let us wrap up all of the above into historical perspective. When we talk about a specific group of the ancient Yue who had been living within the perimeter of the ancient NamViet Kingdom (南越王國) — i.e., Yue descents constituted the Giaochỉ's populace, that is, either the LạcViệt (雒越 LuoYue) or Âulạc (歐雒 OuLuo), along with the XiYue (西越) who were ancestors of the Cantonese and Tchewchow, and other populace of the DongYue (東越), etc., like the Fukienese from regions of today's Fujian Province, respectively — we are talking about history and normally be able to support the foregoing statement with historical facts. For some centuries long before and after 111 B.C. the Yue tribes must have shared some speeches of the same ancient Yue language that was intelligible to each other, including their Chu neighbors (楚國 circa 1030–223 B.C). As mentioned previously, Liu Bang 劉邦 and his followers had been also of Chu subjects before the founding of the Western Han Dynasty (西漢王朝) whose ancestors might have spoken some common Daic language in Taic family that also diverged into other linguistic forms spoken in different states during the Warring Period (475 B.C. - 403 B.C) before the last surviving states were finally conquered by Qin Shihuang (秦始皇). Those ancient languages were mixed with the ancient forms known as Ancient Chinese (AC) in the Eastern Han's (東漢) period which had grown on top of the Old Chinese (OC) of the Western Han (西漢) period that had been in turn descended from Archaic Chinese (ArC) of the pre-Qin-Han (先秦漢) era, of which elements of the ancient Yue language had already existed in Archaic Chinese in their earlier contacts.

After the Kingdom of NamViệt (NanYue) was conquered and annexed to the Han Empire in 111 B.C., linguistically, its former subjects might still have been understood by one nearby group within an isogloss instead of the distant ones. Depending on their approximity, the farther they lived apart from the others, the more unintelligible among their speeches then. The territory of the ancient Kingdom of NamViet in the China South region encompassed a portion of today's northeastern Vietnam as well, that is known as a prefecture of the Han Empire called Giaochâu (交州) — in parallel to other "zhou" such as Liuzhou (柳州), Guizhou (貴州), Guangzhou (廣州), Fuzhou (福州) etc. — and Annam ('The Pacified South') at later times. Considered as descended from the common vernacular form of Yue language spoken within the southern kingdom, the early ancient Vietnamese and Cantonese languages were asummingly derived from the Taic-Yue languages with increasing penetration of Sinitic elements under the rule of the Han Empire over the years. Naturally, descendants of the Annamese populace who had been once living inside the territory further in the south hence started speaking a newly mixed 'Annamese' speech with many Taic basic words shared by Old Chinese by then as compiled in the Erya (爾雅) and Kangxi dictionaries.

The development of ancient Annamese was parallel to that of it remote second-cousin languages of Cantonese (廣東話 or 粵話) and Fukienese (福建話 or 閩南話). In other words, the predecessor of the pre-Vietnamese language before 939 A.D. that had been "Annamese" spoken by the "Annamites" living within a protectionate called "Annam" continued to evolve and took a diverged path different from that of its former neighboring Yue language (粵話) well beyond the 12th century. On the contrary, the Cantonese speakers still remained as a part of China and, as a result, their speech gradually had become unavoidably Sinicized Cantonese as heard today. Officially, Cantonese is now considered a Sinitic language with many subdialalects, such as those variant dialects of Guangzhou (廣州話), Taishan (台山話), or Baihua (白話), etc.

Contemporary 'Vietnamese' sounds more modern, but the 'Vietic' language, the ancient Yue (越 = 粵) speech was not. What gave rise to the Annamese language had carried a lesser degree of Sinicization given 1,100 years under the Han's rule, of which speakers were now a great fusion of Han elements. Toward the end of the Tang Dynasty, the ancent Annamese and Cantonese speakers had communicated to each other either in Middle Chinese or some form of local Yue dialects, highly Sinicized though, that might be an ancestral forms of today's Southwestern Mandarin (西南官話) spoken in Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, or Baihua, a variant of vernacular Cantonese (白話) by the Guangxi populace. Overall, they all hardly had anything to do with the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer isogloses, not to mention the Daic ancestry of the ancient Cantonese. The author could not see how the Austroasiastic Mon-Khmer factors fit into a string of historical events that would equate to the 'Annamese' language in terms of historical linguistics (just like what we could say that Anglo-Saxon is not English and Gaullic was not French.) We should, therefore, stop debating now whether or not it should be classed as of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer but acknowledging it as a Sinitic-Yue language, to be exact.

Like conceptually problematic "Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer" term, the "Sinitic" is a prefix of Latin origin to refer to what historically belonged to the "Qin" for 秦國 Qinguo, or "the State of Qin", also known as "Chine" for "Chin". Meanwhile, the "Sinitic" is anything that the name 'China' assosiated with, a national entity equal to that of the "Middle Kingdom" regardless of its rulers and the title of their reigns. China has been called indiscriminately as such all along after the Han Dynaty. Dynasties come and go, though, for instance, the Great Tang, Great Song, and Great Ming empires, not to mention the Yuan Dynasty founded by the Mongols and the Qing Dynasty by the Manchurians, yet, the mainland of China remains the same, no matter what you call it.

'China' is also known by another name the Middle Kingdom (中国 Zhongguo). Historically it had been the central state among smaller vassal states and now it has become kind of a union of multi-nationals within its geo-political boundaries, so to speak. What constitutes 'China' as a 'union' with a larger part of its speakers of all Sinitic languages appears to be analogous to, in our time, what makes up the whole Europe Union but under a depotic single centralized rule regardless of each state having its own history distinctively, limited only by the geo-history of each state where in the distant past all of them could have been larger provinces and prefectures, including Tibet, Inner Mogolia, Uighur, Formosa, and other autonomous regions such as Daic-Kadai groups in Guangxi, Hong Kong, etc., at present, irrespective of the composition of the people who live within and the related language they speak. In China, for the most parts each Sinitic language spoken inside its boundary then called a "Chinese" dialect and each major Chinese dialect is classified as of the Sinitic language. Like what had become of Annam that used to be a Chinese prefecture, suppose that if Canton were to break out from China to become an independent state of it own, centuries later it would have evolved into another Vietnam or Taiwan in the modern time even though the 3 countries might not necessarily speaking the same language. Such scenarios happened repeatedly throughout China's history, for example, Hainanese spoken in Hanan island is the first-cousin language of Minnan language brought there by mainlanders from ancient Fujian since the Han dynasty but, like many subdialects such as Tchewchow, speakers of the first - and second cousin ones cannot understand the others.

History is specifically emphasized here due to the development of 'Vietnam' within the historical scope as a "breakaway prefecture" from the "Greater" China. As a matter of fact, if she were not an independent state, there had never been an issue whether or not her people spoke a Sinitic language parallel to the development of Cantonese or Fukienese, both of which have been categorized under the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family. As previously discussed, on the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer front, history is what has been notoriously absent in neither those of the Mon-Khmer nor the once glorious Khmer Kingdom. Which part of Khmer history would fit into the scenario of what has become of ancient 'Vietnam' while she was still within the grip of the imperial China, politically speaking?

After a long millenium under the colonial rule of China — readers will hear this verbatim again and again in order to comprehend the magnitude of the matter seriously — while the main language spoken inside Vietnam still had not turned into a Sinitic language, it actually became full-blown Vietnamese in its own sense and, starting from 939, it is noted that the Middle Vietnamese had come out of its hatching period into existence. To easily grasp the idea of how the Vietnamese had evolved for many centuries thereafter, its development appears to be somewhat analogous to the becoming of the English language in such a way that in the whole, holistically, the Greek and Roman lexical components having built up on the Anglo-Saxon foundation as an inseparable part of the English language of which the latter lexical elements were also derived from the Indo-European linguistic family (IE). That is how the Vietnamese language fits into the whole paralellel picture of the visualized Sinitic-Yue language with the extant Sino-Tibetan and Sintic elements grown on top of the Yue substrata given the fact that the ancient Annam's land was an integral part of China's history.

Any other theory on the origin of any living languages, of either the Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan linguistic family for the same matter, often needs the respective national history — scripture counted as part of it such as those of Roman, Greek, Pali, or Sanskrit in the same linguistic family, as well — to back up a theory or it would remain hypothetical as always. For all their linguistic sub-family branches, prehistoric and histrorical periods did cover their respective languages, dead or living. History is the soul of both a nation and its language, so to speak.

In contrast to the historical perspective presented herein, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory had no history and should be regarded totally hypothetical based on vestiges of scores of basic lexicons. Though they were plausibly postulated and methodologically classified into categories, links to Chinese have been missing. Our researching approaches make use of linguistic principles of the Austroasiatic hypothesis such as the process of how a new foundation of its theorization has been built. Beauty of the whole thing is the best of what Austroasiatic theorists have to offer, for example, data manipulation with only a limited amount of basic words in which history is substituted with archaeological affects and preliminary data on DNA of the Vietnamese Kinh people where applicable. Those are the mechanics that have driven the newly well-defined theorization with results having been systematically tabulated statistically from raw data that were found in the Mon, Khmer, Katuic, Bahnaric, Nicobarese, Vietmuong, Vietic, Muong, etc., languages, all in one place that made up the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, so to speak.

Similar to structuralist theories of linguistic sound changes — impersonal, mechanical, nonintuitive, and strictly formal — methodological framework of the languages in focus could be expanded to work on building hypotheses for other languages. (Roberts J. Jeffers, et al., 1979, p. 91) In fact, with the same tools and methodologies initiated by Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer forerunners one could learn how to build one irrespective of its historical reference and have it disposed to the academic world at our convenience. For example, we could theoretically build an exemplified African tribal language based on currently available data of an unfamiliar language.

It is undeniable that Western methodologies have been effectively utilized in different linguistic fields as they have brought about many astounding breakthroughs, starting with languages in the Indo-European linguistic family to that of the Sino-Tibetan, new theories in historical linguistics such as reconstruction of Old Chinese phonology from the early 20th century onward, not to mention the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis with inferences of Vietnamese roots from those early Mon-Khmer basic words originally presented by a few prominent field-players such as Maspero of the 1940s or Thomas in the 1960s. For the latter, they had come into the spotlight with their Mon-Khmer ~ Vietnamese cognates, all conveniently fitted in structuralist framework, e.g., sound change patterns and tonal genesis, right at the time when Western ideas were riding high in popularity.

Under such influential factors the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer views on the origin of Vietnamese have been echoed repeatedly by enthusiasts because to go with the crowd is the easy way. Just like their predecessors of Sinologists, Western-trained native scholars, whose collective mindset has just barely got out of nearly 100 years of colonialism under the French rule, have accepted novel rationalization as a system either forcefully imposed on them or voluntarily accepted by choice. In other words, local specialists feel pressure to join in the Austroasiatic camp so that their work would not be lost in the void as in the old days most unnoticed books left to collect dust on the shelves in libraries. It is so said because it is a matter of scholarly survival in exchange for the inclusion of their academic circle of the new literati class. For most of the cases they remain in the Austroasiatic camp throughout their academic career, yet unfortunately, with no new breakthoughs in the end. Nobody could help them get out of the moving merry-go-round but themselves.

If the readers review again geographical divides from which the Austroasiatic theorization substantiates the Mon-Khmer root as having originated in the southeastern region of the Southeast Asia's peninsula where the last legs of the Mekong Basin stretch out to the sea, they may now see a picture quite different from those being depicted in the northern area of Vietnam that connects with China South where ancient Yue speakers, i.e., LuoYue, OuYue, and the likes as recorded in Chinese history, had inhabitated and later mixed early Han resettlers who logistically started their migratory journey southward after the NamViet Kingdom was annexed into the Han's map in 111 B.C. Linguistically, similar development of ancient Vietnamese and several other Chinese dialects had been formed in the same manner of such racial mix. In fact, until 939, the ancient Annamese could probabaly be able to converse bilingually with the 10th-centuried Mandarin speakers to conduct official business. Coloquially, by then they most likely spoke a Sinitic-Yue mixed language to be called as 'ancient Annamese' that were probably intelligible with those metropolitan subjects throughout the territory of NamHan State that included both Guangdong and Guangxi regions.

It is noted that Austroasiatic theorists have crafted their linguistic masterpiece with instrumentalism and their work, admittedly, have brought in new evidences of a fair amount of basic Vietnamese words amounted to a solid 100+ that are plausibly cognate to those of the Mon-Khmer languages. One rational explanation for such phenomenon, based on my new finds of Sino-Tibetan roots that are to appear in this paper, is that they might have arisen from linguistic contacts with other Mon-Khmer languages whether in the deeply mountainous areas in either the north or south. It must have been in the remotely distant past that only their forefathers along with those Viet-Muong groups who stayed behind the frontline after the Han conquerors had invaded their home habitat. Meanwhile, resistant Mon-Khmer descents have always remained as of ethnic minorities, even in their own ancestral homeland before latecoming resettlers from the north, historically. Both the locals and latecomers submerged into the melting pot of new colonially-ruled society to have become part of the newly emerged majority to be called the "Kinh" people who later become the new masters of Annam. Such assumption could be based on interaction among the Annamese and Mon-Khmer speakers, which happened at the later time along the length of Vietnam's history as her territory gradually expanded further to the south past the 16th latitude after the 12th century and just ended by the 18th century where the tip of cape of Camau hits the Gulf of Thailand. As a result, their linguistic contacts and exchanges were inevitable, as we can see Chamic basic words apprear in the Central Hue subdialect. When the late Kinh immigrants further resettled in new acquired pieces of land from the long lost Khmer empire, their offsprings would later be intermarried with the natives and children of the latter would become the new Kinh emigrants as they moved on through the national migratory route. That was how the Mon-Khmer entered the Vietnamese vocabularies in the long last.

As many young readers do now, the author used to follow the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer mapped paths he learned early in his Vietnamese college years in the late 1970's and believed in what had been proposed by historical linguistic experts in the field. In restrospect, I the author, even though, have long disengaged myself from sacred gospels preached by the old school of Austroasiatic hypothesis, including those of my own respectable teachers — some being the top-notch Vietnamese linguists such as Prof. Nguyễn Tài Cẩn, known internationally, in our time — their authority on the subject would still overshadow their pupils' abilities before they could voice an opposite Sino-Tibetan view if they happened to know and dared to harbor one. The whole matter etched a dent in my nerve permanently until I was no longer confined in school campus.

Indeed, it took me some time to get over such mental block — the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer or the Sino-Tibetan theory — to have gotten my feet wet in the latter camp, firstly by chance since I had picked some Chinese when I was at the age of a young schoolboy, which helped me answer some of the questions above. I started my own journey alone since the early 1980s, a long and difficult one, but rewarding. Back in the 1990's while working on theorization of my Sinitic-Yue hypothesis attempting to demystify the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer monotony, my counter reaction of impromptu could not have been better than that outbursts of joy each time a new discovery was made on the Vietnamese etymology. For example, how many Vietnamese Sinologists could see the Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma of the following of words at first glance, 飯 fàn ~ 'bữa' (time of the day) { cf. Hainnanese /bui2/ }, 重 zhòng ~ 'nặng' (heavy) {cf. Hainanese /dang2/}, 寒 hán ~ 'cóng' (chilly) { cf. Hainanese /kua2/}, 檨 shé ~ 'soài' (mango) {cf. Fukienese /soã/}, etc.?

Those were the days when I, like other students of yesteryear, acquired additional linguistic knowledge mostly from old books, one at a time. Our contemporary counterparts, in contrast, nowadays are inundated with downpour of information, and misinformation alike, from the cyberspace, too much to digest selectively for any particular field of studies. Mostly newcomers, as a result, have been brainwashed with the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis as said when their search query for Vietnamese historical linguistics returns with hits flooded with the same imposed view for each search on the root of the Vietnamese language.

Figuratively speaking, around the places that old trees that have outgrown their age in the backyard, if nobody cares so much about them but has no guts to cut them down, new gardeners may find young shoots along with weeds only in shadowy spots. That is, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer bushes have overgrown those of the Sino-Tibetan theory since the earliest decades of the last century. When was the last time we saw a new round of something extraordinarily novel about Austroasiatic on the Vietnamese etymology? There has been, to be exact, a few more of new work done on the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, but not much progress made about Vietnamese etymology besides those all basic words that have been quoted time and time again. While it is not much better improved on the landscape of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology in the Sino-Tibetan camp since the last decades of the 20th centur, new Sino-Vietnamese elements have been ignored or gone unrecognizable or irreconcilable.

While analyzing reconstructive mechanics used in traditional historical phonology of ancient Chinese, by now I have gathered even more evidences with a fair amount of Sino-Tibetan ~ Sinitic-Vietnamese cognates that I would like to pass along. I believe your views will be drastically changed by following my own discovery of Sino-Tibetan etymologies that carry a wider range of basic words that are cognate to those Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma. Amusingly, it turns out many of their etyma overlap the very Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer basic words, approximately 50% of them belonging to the fundamental base that has been utilized to build the Mon-Khmer sub-family theory itself as well. In other words, contrary to what the Austroasiatic camp has been trumpeting about all along these years, my new findings point explicitly to the Sino-Tibetan direction.

I could imagine that the same enlightenment that has elated my mindscape would also entertain yours as well with all exhilaration onrevelation of new intellectual expanse. I have positioned myself in the frontline to hold back stampedes of the triumphant Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer "therorists", for the worse or better, now roaming freely 'Sino-protecionists' in the cyberspace. As a netter myself, I am trying to stay afloat on top of current events, to say the least. Being a web-guru myself I fight back by means of publishing discoveries of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymologies of Sino-Tibetan origin and their new etyma in within as soon as they come out. By now, nevertheless, I has learnt smart enough to stay afloat the current keeping my head cool and indifferent to verbals, a few with an antagonistic attitude, on this Sinitic-Vietnamese subject across the seven seas.

At the same time a new approach sprang off my mind while brainstorming Sinitic data to pinpoint core words in Vietnamese to group it into the Sinitic-Vietnamese class for its cognateness to some Sino-Tibetan etymologies. Over the time thoughout my own venture that I have started more or less 3 decades ago, I see myself as an initiate in the field of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology, eliminating the need to heed on any trails left by veterans in the opposite camp, i.e., the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer, any longer. I were even reminded verbally by a renown supportive veteran, Prof. Nguyễn Đình-Hoà (1997), in the field of the fact that it would be extremely difficult to debunk its fallacy from the foundation and premise to start with, let alone to uproot such well-established Austroasiatic cornerstone. He mentioned that the diaparity had lied in the name, the true nature of the issue was still the same, that is, how Vietnamese had evolved, no matter what the Westerners want to classified it. My linguistic teacher at Saigon University, Lê Đình Diệm, agreed with his opinion. This paper could serve as a wake-up call to those oldtimers in Vietnamese historical linguistics who are acting business-as-usual on the Austroasiastic Mon-Khmer routines that still use the same old linguistic tools.

As a matter of fact, back in the early 2000's when I started posting some preliminary results on the internet, I was met with cold shrugs. However, if novices in this field care enough to see something interesting with novelty to readily open their mind to accept my new findings such as the course of development of 飯 fàn (meal) ~ 'ban' ~> 'bữa' ~> 'buổi' ('period of the day', cf. Hainanese /bwoj1/, Fukienese /bəng2/), and at the same time try to think about the case that the morph 'ban' in 白日 báirì as in 'banngày' (daytime) is an independent item that co-exists with the other etyma where the sound and the concept have been transferred to the concept of 'daytime'. While doing so, try to conceptualize the word without being interfered with the repewsenhtation of the original Chinese charachacters. Such approach sheds lights into new insight in the Sinitic theory being brought up herein that can guide you to new horizon.

For all of the above, in the beginning I had to fight on at every chance whenever the subject matter of 'Sinitic Vietnamese' came up. Many among the follwers might have already found it boring to hear what I kept talking the same thing about the approach and 'classic' quotes for my own Sinitic-Vietnamese theory that had existed a century earlier but I believe that my theoriztion is novel and unique.

Han's Giaochau Prefecture in 111BC

Figure 2.2 — Han's Giaochau Prefecture in 111B.C.
Source: http://chinese-dialects.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post_22.html

arrow up Back to top

The readers may wonder how the Vietnamese say words with those Mon-Khmer elements? The answer is they simply "accentualize" the Mon-Khmer words by adding tones into each possible syllable, similar to what they did with those French loanwords. With regards to the previous question about the existence of those the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer cognates in Vietnamese basic words, the answer is in my findings of the very same Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma consistently found concurrently in other Sino-Tibetan etymologies which equally match Chinese forms as well, e.g., 'ngà' 牙 yá (tusk), 'máu' 衁 huāng (blood). (衁) Quantitatively, they are not just limited to those Mon-Khmer lexical items alone as they are usually listed in each and repeated in every publication by Austroasiatic authors but there are more of Sino-Tibetan ~ Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma. Qualitatively, they all contain subtle 'genetic' traits which are significantly absent from those Vietnamese basic share in the Mon-Khmer lexical stock as we happened to know of (T).

Then comes the issue that commonalities between Chinese and Vietnamese, e.g., word clusters, fixed expressions, idioms, etc, might be debated for their similarities that it is the inevitable consequence of dominantly Chinese cultural factors that had perpetually permeated into the Vietnamese language, and that all of which has been the subsequent courses of ce of historical development. We, as a matter of fact, we could break the on-going process of Chinese influence into three stages, one (1) that had the Yue elements totally immerged in languages used in ancient states across the China South for hundreds of years prior to 111 B.C.; the other (2) throughout 1000 years under Chinese colonial rule that sped up the Sinicization, and (3) after the 10th century the independent Annam at its own will and capacity voluntarily absorbed more Sinitic components for the country's own use and the process has been an on-going process until now. The language chrefore, for the change in the last stage we could say that it might probably occur more slowly than what had happened in the prior period. In other word, insomuch as factually stated, linguistically, Vietnam had continued on with her long adopted Chinese official court's language used in officially governmental documents and literary work long after her "breakaway" from China toward the end of the 19th century. The whole process of the second period was similar to the way Japanese or Korean proactively borrowed Chinese-charactered vocabularies in the Tang Dynasty (日).

"Japan had much more intently imported the Chinese script and whole-heartedly adopted it during China's Tang Dynasty."

Language is a natural product being formed over the long period of time. What actually happened to the evolution of Vietnamese since the ancient times until now has been of neutral continuity, that, is, things have taken their natural course as people are born to speak with their mother's tongue. Colloquially, the Vietnamese people still speak the same Chinese-based language even with a ton of Sinitic-Vietnamese and Sino-Vietnamese words but that are an integral part of their natural speech as far as it is known, lexically, say,

  • "ăn" (eat) ~ 唵 ān,
  • "ngủ" (sleep) ~ 臥 wò,
  • "đụ" (fuck) ~ 屌 diào,
  • "ỉa" (poop) ~ 屙 é,
  • "uống" (drink) ~ 飲 yǐn,
  • "trừng" (stare) ~ 瞪 dèng,
  • "nói" (chat) ~ 聊 liáo,
  • "nấu" (cook) ~ 熬 áo,
  • "gạo" (rice) ~ 稻 dào,
  • "gà" (chicken) ~ 雞 jī,
  • etc.

In other words, Vietnamese is a language that consists of mainly Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabularies having deeply taken root in their native linguistic stratum and that whether they are of the same origin with those Chinese remains to be seen. The Vietnamese people of all walks of life, from scholars to hawkers, apparently speak what naturally is considered as mostly Chinese elements that pass naturally to their tongues as nobody could force them to talk or not to talk if they were foreign words. For them, the language they are speaking is Vietnamese. That is a result of a long period of time that the so-called Sinitic elements have grown up on top of an ancestral Yue linguistic stratum. It is so said because besides the aforementioned fundamental words that are similar to some other southern Chinese dialect such as Hainanese, e.g., "xơi" (eat) 食 shí ~ Hai. /zha2/, "bể" (broken) 破 pò ~ Hai. /be6/, "bồng" (carry a baby) 抱 bāo ~ Hai. /bong2/, etc. Hainanese is a subdialect of the Minnan dialect, a descendant of Yue languages if Vietnamese is so considered per Yue-Sinitic theorization.

In modern Vietnamese, one could find that on average each Vietnamese sentence is composed of more than 90 percent of Sinitic-Vietnamese stock as opposed to some 10 percent of "pure Vietnamese" words, or 'Nôm' in a sense. If any 'Nôm' words are in use at all — like those Chinese cognates proved beyond any doubts as indigenous words, e.g., 'dừa' 椰 yé (coconut), 'chuối' 蕉 jiāo (banana), 'đường' 糖 táng (sugar), 'sông' 江 jiāng (river), 'gạo' 稻 dào (rice), etc. — the rest could also be cognate to Chinese etyma that are affiliated with either Chinese or Sino-Tibetan etymologies as listed in Chapter 10: Sino-Tibetan etymologies. In this case, a portion of the "pure Vietnamese" words are of either Chinese or common Yue origin — existing also in Cantonese or Fukienese, such as 睇 /t'ej3/ (see) or 檨 /soã/ (mango), respectively — except for the use of modern romanized script called Quốcngữ written as "thấy" or "soài" that upholds the nearest pronunciation where Vietnamese used to have phonologically deviated somewhat in the old written Chinese characters.

At the same time, modern Vietnamese composition appears to be similar the way Chinese had been written in the 4 large classical novels since the 12th century and succeeding periods that they cound be easily translated word by word. However, the problem is with the 16th centuried Vietnamese literary works — including Buddhist scriptures — their language sound a bit too much "Shakespearean" to the ears of the modern Vietnamese to understand. What the author can say is that, firstly, the latter were written by and for Vietnamese scholars or intelligentsia, but the former were written in vernacular Mandarin style, and that was how the people speak. Secondly, ancient Annamese compositions were built differently from modern Vietnamese grammar which had been influenced by grammatical rules of the French language with respect to the newly romanized Vietnamese orthography and grammatically structures — which renders better composition with complete sentence, topic thesis, punctuation mechanisim, etc. — thanks to those Western-educated advocates such as Petrus Trương Vĩnh Ký and Phạm Quỳnh who pioneered in their usage in the Vietnamese language at the turn of the early 20th century. (X) In other word, modern Vietnamese sentences, semantically and syntactically, are constructed with Sintitic-Vietnamese vocabularies around French grammar and it had developed independently from the Chinese. It is of a process of cultural formation that happened concurrently along with the development of the Vietnamese language, specifically, that go hand in hand.

Of course, languages change over time. Subdialectal deviation is a common phenomenon to have occurred to any other languages around the world as opposed to their ancestral languages. For example, as said, inside the vast land of the Middle Kingdom, Ancient Chinese evolved into seven different dialects which are totally unintelligble to one another and each had given birth to a larger number of sub-dialects. Similarly, the Middle Chinese loanwords in Japanese as reconstructed by Bernhard Karlgren also varied notably in comparison to what appears in Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary stock, phonologically and semantically. Closer to home, in the case of Vietnamese, after only the temporary 20 years of the division of Vietnam into the northern and southern states from 1954-1975, people in the south are having issues with word choices by the people from nothern regions. (See Appendix O)

Historically, since Annam separated from China in 939, its ancient language changed course of development, which helped minimize the affects of Sinicization to a lesser extent and evolved into an early stage of what we see as ancient Vietnamese, historically. That is what makes it to appear different from what occurred to those Chinese southern subdialects such as Cantonese, Fukienese, Hainanese, Taiwanese, etc, each of which sounds completely a Chinese dialect rather than a Yue-origin language; however, each one was finally grouped into the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family simply because the Sinitic elements have overwhelmed them all. Ironically, the Austroasiatic camp uses similar argumentation of higher degree of Sinicization to account for the Chinese factors that had heavily influenced Vietnamese by rather than hereditary.

In any case, the core of the Vietnamese language still remains the same in its holding as one complete entity as it was stretching thin, geographically, after so many centuries. Even if the northerners speak prominently with Sino-Vietnamese vocabularies — perhaps due to their close proximity with China in the north as compared to Vietnamese spoken further in the south where they had full contacts with Chamic and Khmer people and their differentiated languages for over the last 1000 years — the people from the north to the south still understand sub-dialectal variants in other regions.

As speakers of each respective language just speak their mother tongue with natural vocabularies passed down from their parents who in turn inherited them from their forefathers, which is on-going recurrence. In Chinese history, there were cases of languages to become extinct, such as the replacement of Manchurian with Mandarin, with the latter having been under heavy influence by the former. In other corners around the globe, numerous similar cases like that have led to the extinction of a language, mostly indigenous languages such as in Latin American countries in our contemporary era.

Human intervention, meanwhile, on the national level such as imposing decrees by the rulers of China could pose threats to the existence of competing linguistic endangered species, like in the case of Mandandain vs. Cantonese that was just a start for a century-long process that is still going on under the rule of contemporary northern Chinese. For example, in 1911 after the Qing Empire was overthrown by anti-monarchy revolutionaries, China became a republic with Sun Yat-sen to hold presidency; however, under pressure by northerners within the newly formed cabinet, one year later Sun handed in the presidency to Yuan Shikai whose government's cabinet members still overwhelmingly picked Mandarin as the official language and made it the national language of China. In our modern time, moreover, TV broadcasts in the Cantonese language are even regressively prohibited by law in the native speakers' homeland, Guangdong Province, which is certainly an extreme case of further Sinicization that is still going on inside the country.

In addition, to the perspective of human factors in classifying languages, let us expand our view to some of those minority languages spoken in China. For example, the Zhuang languages were once classified as of the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family (Shafer, 1941) but then later were re-classified as of Tai-Kadai linguistic family. (See Fang-Kuei Li, 1966)

The Tai–Kadai languages were formerly considered to be part of the Sino-Tibetan family, but outside China they are now classified as an independent family. They contain large numbers of words that are similar in Sino-Tibetan languages. However, these are seldom found in all branches of the family, and do not include basic vocabulary, indicating that they are old loan words. (Tai-Kadai languages - Source: Wikipedia)
Their speakers make up a single largest minority group of 17 plus million people but their languages still underwent heavy influence of Chinese for the reason that they have purported to adapt the Chinese ways; however, unlike those Sinicized Cantonese their language still remains distinctive Zhuang characteristics because most of these Zhuang groups have been living in remote regions inside China since the ancient times. The Zhuang people are an ethnic rather than linguistic group of the Tai-Kaida linguistic family. Many Zhuang groups cannot communicate with one another due to differences in their subdialects. (Z). Overall, variant speeches of the Zhuang all contain non-hereditary strains which manifest in different sets of vocabularies, namely, of Zhuang, Daic, and, especially, Chinese, linguistic groups. (Lan Hongyin. 1984. pp. 131-138)

Both the Viets and Zhuang were historically all recorded as descents of the people named Yue, probably from what had been called "Bjet" or what sounded like "Bod", to be exact (cf. 百越 baiyue, 百姓 baixing. See Terrien Lacouperie, 1887). Given that they are the two most evidently representatives of the ancestral Yue aborigines as supported by history, on the one hand, the Vietnamese are more of a linguistic rather than an ethnic group and their language is shown to be of Sinitic characteristics that hold them together. In Vietnamese all possible Chinese elements and their attributes, e.g., syllabic, tonal, semantic, etc., are affirmatively also found in the Nôm, Sinitic Vietnamese, and Sino-Vietnamese sets. Melodious intonation seems to be intrinsic nature of Vietnamese, which also reflects in transliteration of foreign placenames. For example, to smooth out unfamiliar foreign sounds in ancient Chamic names of "Vijaya" or "Kauthara", the Vietnamese speakers softened them with Sino-Vietnamese words of 'Quinhơn' 歸仁 Guiren and 'Nhatrang' 牙莊 Yazhuang, respectively.

On the other hand, the Mon-Khmer groups exist as racial rather than linguistic groups, that is, people of Mon-Khmer ancestry project themselves collectively of an ethnicity that distance themselves from that of the Vietnamese Kinh majority, including neigboring Muong minority groups, and vice versa. An individual of Muong ethnicity absolutely has no problem to identify himself or herself with the Vietnamese nationality while a Vietnamese of Khmer origin who was born and raised in Vietnam and can speak the Vietnamese language as a native may or may not consider herself or himself a Vietnamese, but if the second choice so selected, his or her pick is based on the language spoken, not a racial determination, as similarly exemplified in many cases of a Vietnamese of Chinese origin. That is to say, those bilingual speakers usually perceive themselves racially the same as that of a Khmer person in Cambodia while being a Vietnamese national in terms of citizenship.

Meanwhile, as other factors chipped in, for instance, if there had been a genetic affiliation between the Vietnamese and Khmer languages, the Vietnamese did not have the pressing need to take efforts to invent the placenames such as "Sóctrăng" in place of 'Khleang', "Càmau" for 'Khmaw' in Khmer, VS "Namvang" for 'Phnom Penh', "Caomiên" for modern Cambodian 'Khmer', and coining transcriptions for 'Sàigòn' 西岸 Xi'an (Cant. /Sajngon/ for 'Westbank'). In the meawhile, for all the Sino-Vietnamese placenames such as SV 'Tâyninh' 西寜 Xining ('The Pacified West'), 'Bắcninh' 北寜 Beining ('The Pacified North'), etc., they simply being mirrored equivalents with actual Chinese placenames that go in pairs. Anthropologically, Chinese is a culture rather than a race. Symbolistically, the writing system with the Chinese script is being credited with unity that helps hold together all Chinese nationals with diversed ethnic origins for its capacity to facilitate communication among speakers of different dialects regardless of one's mother tongue. For example, people in the vast region of China South such as those of the Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, or Yunnan, speak some versions of southwestern Mandarin which is different from southeastern dialects spoken in the provinces of Jiangsu or Minnan but they all can read and understand Chinese writings, including the Cantonese or, interestingly, ancient Annamese. Nevertheless, linguistically, Sinicization has never been the case for the peoples of Uyghur, Inner Mongolia, or Tibet, etc., despite of the fact that those formerly independent countries have long been annexed into the Middle Kingdom for hundreds of years by now that is comparable to the length of colonized periods that Annam was under the rule of the China's imperialists.

The author has been more than once tempted to consider that Vietnamese is a typical case of linguistic incarnation of ancient Yue speech for its early breakaway from the Chinese mainstream, but it is not. Unlike those of totally Sinicized languages such as Cantonese or Fukienese whose local speakers have always been living in their China South homebase where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years. For the reason that ancient Annam as a part of China historically, the case of its language was an exemplification that its development was in-line parallel to its Chinese racial makeups in the overall population. Now that since it separated from the old imperial China and became an independent state, it expanded its territory further to the south, having inevitably absorbed more Chamic and Mon-Khmer elements, racially and linguistically. Nevertheless, the core population of the nation consisted of descendants of those early populace components that had been already solidly formed throughout its colonial period with China evolved from the racial admixture with those native people along the way of their national southward expansion. It repeated exactly the assimilation process that the early Qin-Han had done to the natives in ancient northern Vietnam.

What is probability that one pop star is made out of one million? Most of the 90 young and latest popular Vietnamese singers of stardom status carry an undeniable Chinese surnames, e.g., Quách (郭 Guò), Lương (梁 Liáng), Trần (陳 Chén), Trịnh (鄭 Zhèng), Đàm (潭 Tán), Lưu, Lều (劉 Líu), etc., and readers can check them out all come with even more Chinese sounding given names.

Let's get closer to home. So what is probability that one among your 10 best Vietnamese buddies who descended from Chinese ancestry? There are great chances that not only one, but more than half of them might also come from earlier Chinese immigrants whose forefathers wereidentified in official records as of the 'Kinh nationality', yet, of Chinese ethnicity as commonly noted in official paper and in the governmental household registration system and census survey since the late 1950's with odd specifics such as "Dântộc: Kinh, Nguyênquán: Trungquốc". They all consider themselves Vietnamese. Meanhile, on the sideline, notably, the US Supreme Court in 2019 reached the verdict that the US Census Bureau must scrap the 800 billion dollar census forms just to get rid of the question regarding the 'U.S. citizenship' and an Amrican needs not to be white and native!

The point to make here is that your ancestral father needs not to be a Mon-Khmer native to be Vietnamese, so neither is the language.

Notwithstanding such racial facts the whole matter somehow slipped away from the radar screen of anthropologists and linguists of Vietnamese studies alike. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis made it look like the whole episode dictated that the local Mon-Khmer natives were "Vietnamized" rather than the other way around, but they had named such a way probably because of the Khmer Kingdon's glorious past. They all missed the historical detail that new resettlers from China South who came to colonize and, hence, Sinicize the locals — whoever with the racial admixture by the beginning of millennia A.D. — and the whole process lasted for the next 1,000 years after 111 B.C., who later became the "Vietnamese Kinh people" and they in turn "Vietnamized" the latecoming Chinese immigrants at a much later period such as those Minhhương people (明鄉人 — subjects of the fallen Ming's Dynasty) who continued to flee from the Manchurian rule in the mainland. Hundreds of fleets of the Ming boatpeople had sailed southwards and took refuge in Vietnam in the 18th century (after some water-testing incubation period in a much estranged environment having been sheltered living among the Khmer people in Cambodia). It appears that there has been not much discussion about this subject matter in the linguistic circle but its enthusiasts did place more interests in singling out and grouping the Vietnamese language into the Austroasiastic Mon-Khmer linguistic sub-family to catch up in a trendy academic fad past and present. To be specific, such linguistic classification was mainly based on scores of similar basic words found being cognate to those similar lexicons in the Mon-Khmer languages, which is all about the similarity that the Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese languages share.

To further explain the extant Mon-Khmer lexicons in Vietnamese, note that the presence of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer basic words appears to have less than the numbers of Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabularies that are very much compatible with both Sino-Vietnamese and their respective Sino-Tibetan etymologies. Ethnically speaking, the same scenario was just like what had happened when those preceeding Chinese immigrants from China South came to colonize and transform the ancient Annam. After the 12th century the early Annamese emigrated southward to new fontiers and mixed with local people along the way in their new resettlement in the now extinct Champa and Khmer kingdoms. For over a long period of time the composite makeup of the Vietnamese nationalities established close contacts across ethnical borders borrowing words from each other groups. That is how those fundamental Mon-Khmer words infiltrated into Vietnamese, i.e., in contacts — the way the Yue words had submerged in the Old Chinese — which is evidenced by disproportionate distribution of a limited number of basic words existing in some but not all Mon-Khmer languages — that is, all those words in basic set are seldom found present in all branches of the family — that are spoken in stretches along the high western mountainous ranges from the north to the south during territorial expansion period of the nation.

For the purpose of comparative resconstruction within the Sinitic linguistic scope in this research, we should specifically take into consideration of additional anthropological factors — people, history, culture, speeches, etc. — that made up the Vietnamese nationality, i.e., Vietnamese with an ethnic identity. Contemporary ethnic composition of the Vietnam's nationalities consists of 54 minorities altogether along with their distinctively native speeches, e.g., Hmong, Daic, Nung, Chamic, or Mon-Khmer subdialects, etc., without regard to whether or not their ancestors had ever been parts of original subjects of the ancient NamViet Kingdom. For example, the Li minority (黎族) groups in Hainan Island are genetically affiliated with the Chamic people in Central Vietnam — hence their linguistic Austronesian root — but not directly related to the composition of the ancient Annamese people until after the 12th century and by then the local Chamic people began to mix with the new Annamese resettlers. Therefore, it is questionable to relate Chamic lexical items 'ni', 'nớ' (that, there) to Chinese 那, 哪 nà.

Vietnam's 1650 Map
Figure 2.3 — Map of Vietnam in 1650 A.D.

Source: Wikipedia: Vietnam's 1650 map

arrow up Back to top

How do a few scanty Mon-Khmer basic words stack up to those in Vietnamese that appear across many Sino-Tibetan etymologies? It is analogous to the presence of those Chinese loanwords proactively adopted in Japanese or Korean that those Vietnamese words cognate to those Chinese have been brought to daily use by choice. At the same time, for those fundamental Vietnamese words found cognates to many languages sharing Sino-Tibetan etymologies, their presence might be somehow long existed from remote ancient times as farther as the timeframe that fits into the Vietnamese legendary tale of "Phùđổng Thiênvương" — Thánh Dóng (聖董) — that told about the fight by their ancestral people against invaders from the ancient China's Yin Dynasty (殷朝). If the legend were truthful enough, hundreds of years before that time, the Xia kings would have been immediate descents of nomadic warriors on horseback probably of proto-Tibetan origin, who might have already moved into regions south of the Yangtze River and began having contacts with the aforementioned Taic natives, i.e., ancestors of the late Chu subjects and the Yue people, comprising of most ethnicities China South in the later historical periods.

For the Vietnamese language to have fully developed as it appears in our contemporary era, it is estimated that the whole process would have completed only within the timeframe of 1,900 years or so since 111 B.C. Until 939 A.D. when Middle Vietnamese bloomed in full blow developed and went its own way departing from the Sinicized tendency that occurred to those Cantonese and Fukienese languages while their speakers were still staying in within the Sino-sphere. We could conveniently factor out the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer components by dating their emergence to either remote antiquity or as recent as the 12th century when the Annam state started to advance below the 16th parallel, just like the exclusion of the Chamic elements from the overall picture as mentioned above; their entities have a little to do with the modern Vietnamese language in its wholeness but not much with ancient elements.

We could easily accept such rationalization with the historical facts that for various reasons massive 'Han' immigrants in all walks of lives, from foot soldiers, newly oppointed or exiled officials, to displaced refugees, had continually emigrated from the China South and permanently resettled in the Annamese land to the south. Those newcomers later merged into local grassroots long after Annam ended the Chinese colonial rule as one would normally expect. Interestingly, such phenomenon still continues to happen until the present time when poor Chinese migrant laborers as new resettlers choose to stay in Vietnam permanently.

In stepping into our contemporary era it is noted that nearly 100 years of the French colonization of the highly Sinicized country also resulted in some positive linguistic development that had the modern romanized Vietnamese writing system to take off as the mass followed intelligentsia actively partaking in the reforming the old Vietnamese script around the turn of the early 20th century. Such revolutionary movement took a complete breakup from the Sinitic cycle in terms of semantic and syntactic Chinese plaforms of seventeenth century and older. In its current form, the tone and structure of the spoken and written Vietnamese have modernized the language to the point that it has become more precise and logical as the language has matured with additional Western linguistic mechanism, e.g., writings with concepts of topic and complete sentences, punctuations, etc., to be further enriched with its vast vocabulary stock of Chinese origin.

Geographically, when Annam — as such called way back in time when it was still a part the Wu State (吳國) in 220 A.D. during the Three Kingdom Period (三國時代) — gained its independence in 939 A.D., its territory, a long and narrow stripe of land located in the southwestern region of the ancient NamViet Kingdom in China South some 300 years around 111 B.C., was limited within the rice planting regions in and around the Red River Basin where today's northeastern part of Vietnam is located. As a result, the negation of the Austroasiatic therory of the Mon-Khmer genetic affiliation of Vietnamese is based on the fact that today as Vietnam's northern part of the central territory as marked by the contemporary geo-political boundary below south of the 16th parallel was actually absorbed into Annam only after the 12th century by the territorial concession from the ancient Champa Kingdom (Campadesa, 192 A.D.–1832 A.D.) and by acts of wars. It is noted that the Chams, classed as that of Austronesian origin, had built a powerful and long-lasting state and in a way it became a geographical buffer between states of the ancient Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer peoples. (林) That is to say, their contacts occurred in a later period than what was sought by the Austroasiatic hypothesis to postuate the common roots of the basic words existing in both of the Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer languages.

Given the historical fact that by then the late Annamese resettlers — they were the "forefathers" of the ancient Vietnamese who had been already of a racially mixed stock from those earlier ancestral aborigines in northeastern part of today's Vietnam with other groups of racially mixed Han immigrants of the Taic and their Yue descents from the China South such as those subjects of the Chu 楚, Wu 吳, Yue 越, Min 閩, Yue 粵, states in the Western Zhou period, etc., and since the annexation of territories of the NamViet Kingdom into the Han Empire in 111 B.C., the latter Han colonists moved in the Annamese land en masse and, again, were intermarried with the local wives {4Y6Z8H} — continued to emigrate to the Southeast Asia region that would constitute the central and southern parts of the modern Vietnam since the 12th onward to the early 16th century. For those people whose racial stock made up the "Vietnamese" as people of mixed race {4Y6Z8H+CMK} as speculatively composed previously who would later be designated as of the Austroasiatic origin {4Y+CMK}. Linguistically speaking, spatial contacts of the early Annnamese resettlers in the south with those Mon-Khmer isoglosses that border the lately acquired southwestern mountainous and southernmost regions, i.e., the Central 'Caonguyên' Highlands along the north-south Truongson Range in addition to the vast fertile region of the Mekong Delta where the Khmer concentrate the most, where today's Mon-Khmer minority speakers, or sometimes known as montagnards, called home. The whole migratory process might have resulted in contemporary Vietnamese to have absorbed some new southern Mon-Khmer vocabulary.

The Austroasiatic theorists had much ado about the Mon-Khmer inheritance in the Vietnamese language. The whole linguistic classification, in a sense, depend on how we approach the Vietnamese matter, geographically or historically, though. History would put some restraints on aggressive Austroasiatic propaganda for cognacy about Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer basic words for all possible genetically linguistic affiliation since the prehistoric era. Geographically, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer speakers had long inhabitated the vast fertile regions in both sides of the Mekong River Basin before the Annamese 'Kinh' settlers ever arrived. The Austroasiatic camp liked to pretend that the aboriginals had originally lived there at all times and it is they who were the ancestors of the modern Vietnamese. For a reason, they habitually forget the timelines of Vietnam's history that on the face of advancement of the northern immigrants.

Amusingly, nature of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer claim was, analogously, parallel to those bogus acclamations as frequently made by those Vietnamese 'nationalist scholars' who jealously exert all national entitlements on those cultural relics unearthed on-spot in the areas once flourished with the ancient Sahuỳnh to Óc-Eo civilizations in the central and southern regions ruled by the Chamic monarch of Chế kings before the ancient Annamese ever reached there. Those Vietnamese enthusiasts have boldly gone far enough to claim everything as if they had been crafted by the own hands of their "Vietnamese ancestors", ignoring the fact that those indigenous artisans who had lived there had long fled and left behind those excavated cultural artifacts.

The boomerang effects of the anthropological matter hit right in a linguistic spot, i.e., the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer, which had negotiated from acclamations by those local archaeologists eagerly taking all given credits for the aboriginal cultural artifacts. As earlier as the beginning of the 20th century, circle of the Vietnamese academics already made claims on ancestral heritage of the cultural Dongsonian bronze drums that had been widely found in vast a region spreading all over the Southeast Asia's landscape as of the forefathers of the modern Vietnamese people even though they do not know a thing about any techniques on how to make them. It is not surprising that they could not even relate them to those similar drums which are still being used by the Zhuang (壯族 Tráng, or Nùng in Vietnamese) people in the northwestern parts of North Vietnam and southern China. The question then is who were the actual creators of such highly advanced bronze drums found across Southeast Asia which apparently has nothing to do with the Khmer culture? Is it the ancient Yue who had migrated from the China South where the Zhuang are located now or the Austroasiatic people fanning out from the Southeast Asian stretches thousands of years ago? To defend their argumentation the nationalist scholars blame the Han invaders for the annihilation of their original culture 2000 years ago, so to speak, as recorded in The Book of the Later Han (後漢書 HòuHànshū) that General Ma Yuan (馬援) melt the bronze drums seized from the rebel LạcViệt (雒越) in Jiaozhi (交趾) into bronze horses (See Ma Yuan's bronze horses).

Despite of the fact that official locators encapsulate the geographical proximity where the bronze drums were distributed, which put the Vietnamese squarely with the Zhuang in the contention for the ownership of the bronze drum heritage, historically the latter people are at present time still using such bronze drums to conduct sacrificial ceremonial rituals, not to mention their meaningful folklore depicting the origin of their bronze drums as well, for which the Vietmuong unquestionably are out of the equation. If we take their nationalist claim at its face value then the Viets also are truly heirs of bronze drums but that does not make sense if they also call for an association with that the Khmer heritage that is to big to ignore, so who would then be assumed to be descendants of the Yue ancestry then? We cannot have both ways, temporally and spatially, to be clear.

The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, in the meanwhile, without regards of any historical timeframe, implicitly hold that the Vietnamese were descendants of those ancient "aborginal forefathers", around 6300 B.C., who had been native to vast stretches of land in the south that were yet to emerge as an independent state of Annam. The Austroasiatic aborigines were postulated to have spoken some archaic form of ancestral Mon-Khmer languages, and the Vietnamese model had been molded to fit in for the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer basic word framework, though. Analogously, for the reason that the Vietnamese language was not totally formed by rich Chinese loanwords on top of them, as compared to the case of the Bulgarian language, for example. Meanwhile, in a limited sense it resembles the Haitian French creole model that it is a false Chinese dialect similar to Cantonese. Other models in the world including national languages of most countries in the Latin America are not of the indigenous languages of native people but Spanish. Other relevant examples are Mandarin spoken by indigenous Taiwanese or native Singaporeans. It is the core of ancestral Yue in Vietnamese that also existed in Archaic Chinese as demonstrated by the common Yayu (雅語) (diplomatic language) for different states to communicate in Eastern Zhou era. In other words, the Yue elements preceded any other Sinitic entities.

As the Austroasiatic hypothesis has long gone into the mainstream with the Vietnamese language being grouped into the Mon-Khmer linguistic sub-family and their work was widely accepted by the linguistic world; however, their basic wordlist has never been reviewed side by side with those of other Sino-Tibetan etymologies until now in this study. Specialists in Austroasiatic and even the Sino-Tibetan studies have never been aware that there existed such matching consistency in their Sino-Tibetan etymologies that match more than 400 Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma. The author of this paper will explore a wide range of Sino-Tibetan etymologies that were not only limited to those long seen as Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer basic lexicons but also including many other fundermantal ones as well (see Chapter X on Sino-Tibetan etymologies).

The author can imagine how the Austroasiatic theorist will stand aghast at what they will see in our Sino-Tibetan basic wordlists. Besides, our repudiation of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis of the Vietnamese language is based on results from all other related humanity fields as well, such as archaeology, anthropology, history, and philology. The fact that the Vietnamese forefathers came from the north far from the Indo-Chinese peninsula is recorded in history, at least for the last 3000 years or so. Anthropologically, the Vietnamese mythology has it that the Vietnamese were "offsprings of dragon and deity" (Con Rồng Cháu Tiên), and even once, "descendants of Yellow Emperor" (黃帝 or Viêmđế 炎帝), a legend concurrently also hold dearly by the Chinese. They both seemingly carry the same connotation as sons and daughters of the Yue ancestry who might very much worship alligators (See Terrien Lacouperie, 1887) which appears to be absent from the collective mind of the Mon-Khmer people. Historically and culturally, up until now descents of the non-Qin people — subjects of all the ancient states outside of the Qin State's border — have been still commemorating the death of the poet Khuất Nguyên (屈原 Qu Yuan) on the Fifth Day of the Fifth Month of the Lunar calendar (端午節 Duanwujie or 'Dragon Boate Festival'), a patriot of the Chu State died as a matyr in resistance to the Qin's invasion. (See Trần Trọng Kim's Việt-nam Sử-lược, Ngô Sỹ Liên's Việt-nam Đại-Việt Sử-ký, Bo Yang's Sima Guang 資治通鑒 Zizhi Tongjian . 1983. Vol. 1.)

At the same time, regardless of whether they were true Yue descendants, archaeologically, it is noted that the modern Vietnamese are quick to relate to themselves with some glorious past showing their emotional pride associated with the great civilization of advanced metallurgy in casting sophisticate bronze drums, which includes other cultural artifacts found scattering along vast areas in the Southeast Asian region all the way to Indonesian archipelago. They have been still clever enough to stop short of claiming all other ruins of Champa's Hindu temples scattered along Vietnam's central coast as built by their ancestors after all these years, though.

Their wishful thinking unsurprisingly fits well into some academic scheme supported by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer initiators that pitched in a larger than life picture to jack up the pride of the people by associating them with all great civilizations, including the grandeur of the Khmer Kingdom being once the most powerful empire in the region prior to the 11th century. Their followers have been led to believe that as the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer left their footprints throughout the Southeast Asian region and beyond with their cultural remnants, including ruins of Angkor Wat or Angkor Thom and all, they were in all probabilities the ancestors. Under our scope of historical points of view, to the disappointment of those local half-baked 'patriotic' archaeologists, though, none of the ruins of the Khmer heritage, neither thousands of year old artifact found in Vietnam's today's Central region, as we strongly believe, had anything to do with those early ancient Annamese or even their forebears as seen in geo-historical prospective as far as anyone can imagine.

Within the period of 3 millenia each waves of resettlers in contact with the Khmer people on spot opened more doors for the development of the Vietnamese languagethat became contaminated with the new Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguistic elements. Descents of the aborigines in Vietnam today, on the one hand, should logically speak locally groomed language, which is intrinsically inherited by Mon-Khmer minorities who have been always living in Vietnam's western mountainous region. On the other hand, the Vietnamese Kinh majority tend to concentrate in areas of the arable lowland along the central coast, the Red River Delta, and Mekong River Basin with the last waves of resettlements that just barely stared only some 310 years ago. It was the local foremothers in the native land who had been married to non-native men helped build up family units under the Confucus umbrella and raised new breeds of chidren who would later follow the same process and, as genererations went by, fathered a larger portion of the Kinh populace as the country expanded from the north to the south. Overall, judging their anthropological characteristics alone as racially mixed people, the Vietnamese are a linguistic rather than ethnic group.

As we can go on exposing flaws of any timeframe that exist in the in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, history takes antecedent over postulated periods of prehistory. Importantly, the Austroasiatic camp should note that under no circumtances those indigenous Mon-Khmer speakers who had retreated into the remote mountainous regions would ever play the role of masters of the Annam state in any historical timeframe. It is only those 'historical Annamese' — the people living within China's administrative parameters of the Annam Prefecture for some 1000 years before its independence in 939 A.D. — living around Red River Delta and along the coastal corridors by then were practically in effect ancestral forefathers of the Kinh majority of Vietnam today.

For the same matter, the Austroasiatic camp assumed that the Mon-Khmer elements had long existed along side with the Vietic ones whether or not the former group originated from the same Yue root and they all were from the Taic origin anyway from the prehistoric era. The presence of today's Mon-Khmer minorities, probably of the aboriginal settlers from an Indo-Chinese neighborbood, might have long been dominant in their native base in the past (Nguyễn Ngoc Sơn, 1993). In any case, method of wet rice farming with paddy fields which the Mon-Khmer are still learning must only have spread southward from the north, just south of the Dongting Lake — Độngđìnhhồ region in Hunan Province being considered as the Yue homestead 3,000 years B.P. — to mountainous places where the Daic and Zhuang ethnic groups have concentrated the most at present time. As a matter of fact, there existed already a water paddy agriculture from the region.

Độngđìnhhồ, or Dòngtínghú 洞庭湖 lake, interestingly that being place of birth of rice agriculture where vestiges of well-preserved artifacts of wild rice species, a whooping amount of 3000-year old remnnants, have been excavated in recent years and confirmed by scientists that, of which their varieties yielding different types of rice that we are consuming today have evolved from those ancestral generic strains of wild paddy, their breeds still exist and grow naturally in the very same region till this day. As you may know, China South areas and places further and beyond are place where the wet rice cultivation has been widespead since the ancient times as depicted in the legend of Thầnnông — or Chénnóng 神農 (the Rice God), a saintly figure notably held both Chinese and Vietnamese reverence — who had initiated paddy cultivation, assumedly for more than 6,000 years B.P.
It could be from those same places in the China South region — where the descents of the ancient Yue of the Taic root who had established Chu State and later made up the populace of the NamViet Kingdom of all Southern Yue diversity — that the ancestral Vietic people left for places where North Vietnam is located today for different reasons. Immigrants from China South could not only be refugees and exiles, but also officials, foot soldiers, servants, etc., having followed the footsteps of the Han colonialists and, as emphasized previously, they all blended well with those earlier resettlers who had been already postulated in a racially-mixed formula bracket previously, which is just a classic case of anthropology. After so many generations passed by as all ancestral Yue emigrants had long completed their southern journey and resettled in the Annamese land for good, their descendants made up the population of the emerging sovereign. Earlier generations, before what had blended well into the locals, communicate in either the spoken language of their mother's or father's language or a mixture of some new emerging speech. Altogether the populace reduplicated the process one after another genteration relocated further in the southern state, and, interestingly, their descendants still called themselves "people of the southern Yue" (Việtnam) — probably due to their anti-China stance — who have become known as the Kinh majority who now speak the Vietnamese national language as we know it as its being discussed in this survey.

Where do Austroasiatic factors fit into all other segments of the ancient Yue theory that is substantiated with historical facts? Even though the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer could only provide to us only with prehistoric blank checks, they could be descents from the same Taic root as one could possibly find who fit in the paradigm, like that of the historical Annamese, that their ancestors origianed from a Southern Yue branch. In other words, they themselves could be associated with other Zhuang or Daic ethnicity that had created all bronze drums, or specifically identified with the Maonan ethnicity (冒南族) in China South that might have more to do with the ancestral Mon people and such a postulation could cover the inclusion of bronze drums into their culture; however, one still has to exclude ancient cultural artifacts of Óc-Eo and Sahuỳnh civilizations that have been found in today's Vietnam's soil because their, of course, original owners were indigenes of different race prior to the emergence of Chamic people, i.e., subjects of the Lâmấp (林邑 Línyì) state, who were probably cousins of the Li minorities in China's Hainan island presently.

Again, when the first earlier Annamese resettled into the respective central regions of the coastal coridor, it had been as late as the 12th century. In comparison with all other dominant Mon-Khmer speakers whose ancestors had been inhabitating the Indo-China's region more than 6,000 years B.P., they were not the forefathers of the later Annamese. It is a simple fact that the Vietnamese are distinctive people from all other 53 indigenous minorities living in Vietnam today. The local southern Mon-Khmer speakers, who are now minorities — the French called them 'Montagnards' — on their own ancestral land under the governance of Vietnam nowadays, with whom late arrivals of the last Vietnamese resettlers had only made contacts only in the last few centures. They resided on the Vietnam's side of Cambodia's eastern border, a stretch of territorial flank which forms Vietnam's western mountainous ranges and high plateaus and all the way to more of additional arable land in the south of the Mekong Basin after Vietnam's last annexation of Cambodia's southeastern territory lately since the 16th century.

We encounter herein two different implications in the question that whether the Vietnamese originate from a branch of either the Yue or Austroasiatic then? A plain truth for the Vietnamese to reckon the fact that, the Vietnamese today, including their cousins from the Muong group, unlike Zhuang people who, in their tribal sacrificial ceremonies, still use the bronze drums that were created by their ancestors, might not be direct descendants of the Yue, with which the Vietnamese nationalists have associsted and propagated their wishful thinking to the general Vietnamese populace a religious belief; nevertheless, they are not aware that ancestral religion, i.e., belief of one's ancestors' spirits alwasy present to protect and bless them, might have had the foreign origin that existed 5,000 years ago (see Dong Zuo-Bin. 1933, Wu Qi-Chang. 1934, and Fu Si-Nian. 1934.) Such postulation is positively true to the case that those southern locals in today's Vietnam's lately annexed southern territories had nothing to do with those later immigrants from the north who had resettled and mixed with the former natives and become parts of a transmutational process that genetically formed the later Annamese in parts, one region at a time, of Vietnam {4Y6Z8HCMK}.

Ethnically, their descendants — the modern Vietnamese, so to speak — just happen to live on top of such archeaological excavation sites where findings of the cultural artifacts include bronze drums as foresaid. The key factor is, intriguingly, it is not only that the latter relics have been discovered in the region of China South, a homebase of the Yue, but also in territories all the way to some faraway southernmost islands of Indonesia. Meanwhile, the discovery of Đôngsơn drums in New Guinea is seen as proof of trade connections. With such discoveries, the Austroasiatic camp equates the Yue theorization because both of them are inclusive of each other even though they were coming from different eras with regards to the Vietic entities, racially and linguistically, that somewhat surpass 3,000 years of history of the "Southern barbarians" in China South recorded in Chinese annals as we have discussed so far.

Dongson Bronze Drums found in Indonesia

Figure 2.4 — Dongson Bronze Drums found in Indonesia
(Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Son_drum)

arrow up Back to top

Figure 2.5 — Dongson Bronze Drums

Đông Sơn drums (also called Heger Type I drums) are bronze drums fabricated by the Đông Sơn culture in the Red River Delta of northern Vietnam. The drums were produced from about 600 BCE or earlier until the third century CE and are one of the culture's finest examples of metalworking.

The drums, cast in bronze using the lost-wax casting method are up to a meter in height and weigh up to 100 kilograms (220 lb). Đông Sơn drums were apparently both musical instruments and cult objects. They are decorated with geometric patterns, scenes of daily life and war, animals and birds, and boats. The latter alludes to the importance of trade to the culture in which they were made, and the drums themselves became objects of trade and heirlooms. More than 200 have been found, across an area from eastern Indonesia to Vietnam and parts of Southern China.

The earliest drum found in 1976 existed 2700 years ago in Wangjiaba (万家坝) in Yunnan Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture China. It is classified into the bigger and heavier Yue (粤系) drums including the Dong Son drums, and the Dian (滇系) drums, into 8 subtypes, purported to be invented by Ma Yuan and Zhuge Liang. But the Book of the Later Han said Ma melt the bronze drums seized from the rebel Lạc Việt in Jiaozhi into horse.

The discovery of Đông Sơn drums in New Guinea, is seen as proof of trade connections — spanning at least the past thousand years — between this region and the technologically advanced societies of Java and China [South].

In 1902, a collection of 165 large bronze drums was published by F. Heger, who subdivided them into a classification of four types.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Son_drum)

In terms of terminology, for each of the terms, either the Taic, Yue, Daic, Vietic, Muong, Annamese, Kinh, or Vietnamese, etc., each one fits in a particular period in history. For example, if the Austroasiatic term is to go with all others, it might fit in between the Taic and the Yue timeframes. In other words, each term will be what is implicated in the name calling excludingt all "good things" that emerged in much later periods that were usually attached to the forebears. "Feeling proud of the good things" becomes a matter of certain subjectivity that has led to the aforementioned fallacies when nationals of a country would easily fall into an enticing trap of embracing all the "good things", i.e., those cultural artifacts like fine clay utensils or advanced cultural relics such as the bronze drums that they thought they had exclusively inherited from their precursors. Such false acclamation also includes those modern Chinese who have also made the same false claims for similar cultural curios found in the China South regions, say, 'bronze drums having been invented by Ma Yuan (馬楥) of the Western Han and Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮) of the Eastern Han' (see Fig. 2.5 above), or especially those copperware way back to an earlier epoch when there existed no bronze mines — the same type of bronze having been used to forge Yue bronze drums — in the northeastern region where the Shang Dynasty started (see Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993). False claims on true owners of cultural artifacts unearthed in regions have already smeared one's abilility to truly view related prehistoric anthropological matters objectively.

So that is "what makes Chinese so Vietnamese". The argumentation above, nonetheless, would lead to subsequent question, "The Vietnamese, who are they?" The answers can be found in the historical fact that the Han Chinese populace were the fusion of the Yue people as represented by both the later NamViệt ( (南越) and the Chu subjects before their kingdoms finally succumbed into the rule of the Han Empire. In a later development long before the Annam state became a sovereignty, those earlier Muong locals — people of the Yue entity after the Viet-Muong slit-up long after the Qin-Han period — who did not cooperate with the Han colonists fled to the mountainous region and, hence, were able to retain much purer aboriginal breed than those who chose to stay behind and blended with migrants from the China South up north. For the latter groups of resettlers, their racially mixed offsprings would be known as the Kinh, hence, the Vietnamese people, anthropologically. Characteristically speaking, in similar manners parallel to those of the Vietnamese language, i.e., the Yue and Sinitic elements and nothing of the prehistoric Austroasiatic hypothesis, history of the evolutional path of the racial makeup of the contemporary Vietnamese might have developed at a later colonial period in Annam. If we go by the timeframe that the theoritical proto-Taic people would have given rise the two former entities, the Austroasiatic people had already emigrated much further way from their Indo-Chinese homebase to the southern hemisphere for at least 6,000 to 4,000 years B.P., which is out of the scope of our discussion at this point regarding the historical Vietnamese language and its speakers some time starting from 111 B.C. We will return to this matter in detail in the next chapters.

In regard to the linguistic affiliation with those Sinitic languages, which is assumingly similar to those aforementioned racial elements that make up the Vietnamese populace today, we could state that if Vietnam had not become an independent state from the NanHan (南漢) State since 939 A.D. and still remained as a dependent prefecture of China's subsequent dynasties thereafter till today, the Vietnamese language, even with its present state as of the 21st century, would have been doubless dubbed as just another Chinese dialect by the very same linguistic circle that has classified Fukienese (Amoy 廈門 Xiamen) and Cantonese as such, i.e., of Sinitic languages.

Comparatively for the development of Vietnamese, Fukienese, and Cantonese, and their subdialectal variants, e.g., Amoy, Hainanese, Chaozhou (Tchiewchow), or Toishanese, etc., all had presumingly evolved from the proto-Yue language originally. They had diverged and gone different routes each long after 111 B.C. when the vast territory of the NamViệt Kingdom in the China South region was annexed into the Han Empire. Under the name "China", it has been called as such in the continuity of its history until now no matter which dynasty ruled the land in any particular period. Annam, i.e, ancient Vietnam, was a part of China that lasted nearly 1,000 years until the mid-10th century until it became a sovereignty. To understand why Vietnamese should be placed into the Sino-sphere, readers could imagine what could have possibly become of Fujian and Guangdong provinces had they broken away from China as two other states in the same historical period that brought independence to Vietnam? That focal point being emphasized here, again, is to bring up the fact that, like its ancient Yue cousin neighbors up north while remaining as parts of modern China, the Annam state has been in a constant process of Sinicization even long after her separation with the mainland. Anthropologically, evidences of their share of common ancient roots, at the lexical level, Vietnamese basic etyma still show strikingly similarities in remnants of their common Yue linguistic substratum. For instance, it is undeniable that items such as "con" (child) 子 (仔) Amoy /kẽ/, "mợ" (mother) 母 mǔ Hainanese /maj2/, "biết" (know) (?) Hai. /bat7/, "soài" (mango) 檨 Amoy /swãj4/, "dê" (goat) 羊 Chaozhou /jẽw1/, "gàcồ" (rooster) 雞公 jīgōng Hai. /kōj1koŋ1/, "gàmái" (hen) 雞母 jīmǔ Hai. /kōj1maj2/, etc., are of the same Yue origin.

In fact, while the other two Yue isoglosses, Fukienese and Cantonese, had been Sinicized to be both classed as two of the major Chinese southern dialects, results of linguistic actualization of both Han and Tang speeches, or Old Chinese and Middle Chinese, respectively, the same Sinicization process happened to ancient Annamese after Giaochi (交趾 Jiaozhi) had become one of nine prefectures established since the Western Han era. The development of the Vietnamese language thereon went south separately with its mixed speakers {4Y6Z8H}, a blend of the aboriginal Yue and the racially mixed Han officials along with their foot soldiers having marched from the north. After independence, the late Annamese resettlers inevitably stumbled upon some other foreign elements {4Y6Z8H+CMK} on their southern expansion along their migratory route.

While new archaeological findings would serve as cold water splashes on those who have made overly jealous claims of copyright on those artifacts of the southern indigenous people, one must take into consideration of tendency of linguistic inclination on either all or nothing to determine their association with any peculiar aspects. For example, as the Sinitic languages started to expand southward around 100 B.C., the then Indian-cultured Champa Kingdom situated south of ancient Annam not only failed to encroach upon its northern borderline through its contacts not only with the Annamese in the north but also lost completely any connection with its ancestral cousins of the same racial ethnicity now known as the Li minority groups on Hainan island. And to the south, Chamic people always had been at war with the Khmer people. The Kingdom or Champa later on ended up being completely annexed to the Annamese land, a process that just ended in the 18th century. Of all local linguistic residues Vietnamese linguists credited only some Chamic words that penetrated into Hue subdialects such as 'U' (mother), 'ni' (this), 'nớ' (that), etc., which is disputable, though.

Besides, those geographically anthropological aspects of some 3,000 to 5,000 years B.P. have added up to the Sinitic-Yue affiliation with the presence of linguistic peculiarities found existing only in Chinese and Vietnamese, such as tonality and dissyllabicity at least for the later period in the last 2,200 years so, which could lend supports to arguments on affiliation of Sinitic and Vietnamese languages. Such linguistic attributes show closeness from one language to the other that contrast greatly with other development modules as in the cases of Chinese loanwords that were imported en masse into the Korean and Japanese languages. The whole process shows how impervious linguistic entities in the target toneless Altaic languages that have resisted contamination from one language another. That is, for the overtly straightforward state of Chinese loanwords borrowed into those two East Asian languages, the reader will see that their apparent properties are missing and that the tonal attributes of those Chinese loanwords had been modified accordingly in Kanji and Hanji to fit into the speech habits of Japanese and Korean speakers, respectively.

In addtion, the closeness of both Vietnamese and Chinese languages in semantics, equalness in ranges of tonal registered values, use of lexical classifiers, grammatical prepositions and conjunctions, and so on, virtually shows that they are of the same root. You name it and they have it. Before the romanized Vietnamese, along with the adoption of Chinese scripts for well over 2,200 years past, the Vietnamese also used Chinese characters to transcribe the Nôm, or native Vietnamese, words and dialectal names of indigenous produce or places, called "chữNôm". Both 'Chinese' writing systems were concurrently in place, one official one not. For example, "Nôm" 喃 and "Nam" 南 for "Nồm", "tử" and "tý" for 子 for "con" and "chuột" 鼠 , "xú" and "sửu" for 丑 for "xấu" and "trâu" (牛), or "tơ" and "ty" for 絲, etc. Besides the temporal and spatial factors, distinctive Chinese cultural influence such as Confucianism could directly contribute to the sound changes that occurred in the Vietnamese language, for instance, taboo or euphemism such as avoidance of the use of sound homonymous to the royal names or even resprectable elders, e.g., 'lời' or 'lãi' in place of "Lợi" (利) as in the name of King Lê Lợi. The factor of sound changes, therefore, should be the main focus in exploring the Yue roots in the Vietnamese language that were at some point during their life cycle having different pronunciations as said.We, as a result, would rather not to dig up the substratum for fossilized etyma that might turn out to be of local remnants that happen to belong to Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer stock, which has always been the stronghold held by the Austroasiatic defenders.

Grammar is another area to be explored even though it has been the area that changes the fastest as indicated in the 2017 linguistic research that appeared online in the article, Phys.org: The 'myth' of language history: Languages do not share a single history. Firstly, let us pause momentarily on a short note regarding to the syntactically reverse order {stem + modifier} of the Vietnamese words — that shows mostly 2 morphonemic syllables in their structurally lexical formation of those cited dissyllabic examples — are not the same as compared to those of other Chinese dialects; however, each of the syllabic components remain the same. For those ancient terms that existed in the remote past, the order are somewhat similar, say, Hoanam 華南 (China South) or Thầnnông 神農 (God Agriculture) instead of the reverse NánHuá 南華 (Southern China) or Nóngshén 農神 (Agriculture God), respectively. By any means, as we will see in the next chapters, except for the cases of syllabic-word order, the Vietnamese and Chinese linguistic similarities are still credibly the closest, even in their syllabic structure and syntax. The truth still belongs to those insiders who see what others did not see and keep fighting for their view, though, even if it is not always shining as the Sino-Tibetan camp would like to see.

In effect, the major strength of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis lies in the fact that Vietnamese share a number of basic words with those of the Mon-Khmer languages. Interestingly, in the author's own findings, yet, it is the same core words that make their appearance in other Sino-Tibetan languages as well. Those fundamental lexicons are not only within the range of basic words, as often cited by the Austroasistic theorists, but also surpass other fundamental lexicons that are considered as native and indigenous in Vietnamese core stock. Western-educated specialists of Vietnamese in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp have apparently taken notice of that and they are upped in more efforts to attract institutional graduates of linguistics to join in their school. A larger crowd being drawn into this academic field would doubtless strengthen the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis even more. Novices in Vietnamese historical linguistics are more likely just to repeat what they have picked up at school. And it has become broken a phonograph record by now. If they are able to regenerate more interests in this field of study, the more the merrier, then they can grasp the opportunity to venture into the author's latest discovery in the historical linguistic field in unveiling the cognacy among Sino-Tibetan and Vietnamese basic etyma that are definitely affiliated with one another. (See Sino-Tibetan etymologies)

To begin with, let us to nail down the basic wordlists that the Austroasiatic specialists have frequented on as strong baseline to strengthen their theory for a century or so already. At the turn of the 20th century in order to fortify their hypothesis the Austroasiatic pioneers must have launched counter-points to the widely accepted the Sino-Tibetan theory by then (Meillet, A.. 1952. pp. 526-27). They have been aversely working on lexical tabulation and categorization of Khmer etyma (to be called "etymology harvesting" below) among those of Mon-Khmer linguistic subfamily, e.g., Banahric, Katuic, etc., and equating them with Vietmuong's sibling speeches, e.g., Muong, Ruc, Thavung, etc. The Austroasiatic theorists are quite confident and complacent with their theorization based on the plausibility of Vietnamese basic words of which the forms they consider are totally in agreement with those Austroasiatic etymologies found to be present across several different Mon-Khmer glosses. After the first impression when the Austroasiatic hypothesis came out, when the dust settled down, nonetheless, it is noted that those basic etyma cited by them have been distributed scatteringly, though, spanning unequally across several Mon-Khmer languages. That is, each of them may or may not carry the similar forms and those that share could have been a result of neighboring linguistic contacts, in this case, from the Muong subdialects.

If there exists the science of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymological linguistics, it is neither that of bio-technology nor of any of natural sciences that will use the same measurement standards. The tools used in Indo-Eutopean linguistics may not accurately analyze tonal languages. So do not expect cognate etyma in different languages could be identical in appearances. For example, words would be regarded as loans if they are found to carry similar phonology as in the case of Sino-Vietnamese that are simply a mirror of MIddle-Chinese equivalents. As for those Mon-Khmer cognates examined, behold at the fact that similar lexical forms exist in different languages, a perfect caveat of coincidence, because that goes against an axiom which states simply to the effect that the closer their sounds mirror each other phonetically the remoter they are in terms of genetic affiliation to have those etyma posited as of the same root, especially of those of tonality versus tonelessness, for example, Vietnamese "chồmhỗm" (squat) vs. Khmer /chorahom/ vs. Mandarin 犬坐 quánzuò.

As we shall see more later in the next chapters, the development of the Vietnamese language has evolved in concordance with racial components making up its speakers {4Y6Z8H+CMK}. Historically, when the Qin's army marched to the south, those native inhabitants {2Y3Z2H} around Độngđìnhhồ in present China's Hunan Province had emigrated en masse to the Red River Delta areas in today's northern Vietnam and they became to be racially mixed with the aborigines, the native Mường or people of the Phùngnguyên Culture (c. 2000 - 1500 B.C.) (W), and those later resettlers {2Y3Z2H} who had been there before them {2Y3Z2H}. In a later timeline there entering the picture were the Vietmuong ancestors {4Y3Z2H} of those the Muong groups who fled to the southwestern mountainous region in the wake of advancement of the Han's invaders from 208 B.C. where their Vietmuong speeches had been put in direct contacts with those local Mon-Khmer speakers {4Y+MK}. That will explain one of the reasons why some Vietmuong dialects appear so close to those of Mon-Khmer languages.

Since the ancient times when those Muong groups from the mountainous regions see the need to trade or find it prestigious to use loanwords from either the Khmer or the Kinh people, it was then that the Mon-Khmer local words found their way into the Vietnamese mainstream, and vice versa, which could bring in the basic words for all the languages involved. Until these days such close contacts are still intact and recurring as waves of new northern migrants from mountainous regions moved to and resettled in the western central highlands. If you will ever happen to visit Muong villages in Hoabinh Province in north Vietnam and those of Mon-Khmer in Gialai and Kontum provinces on the Central Highlands, observe their speeches, you will easily grasp such rationalization, namely, interactions among different ethnic groups.

In most cases, on the one hand, rarely the Vietnamese Kinh living in the lowlands would have urgent need to borrow lexicons from the highland's Montagnards' for words that they already had in their language, even from their close Muong siblings, given the redundancy of contextual semantics. On the other hand, the reverse scenario would likely have occurred; elso, they could be a mere coincidences out of thousands of frequentlly used words, which is also a common phenomenon in languages. For example,

"chồmhỗm" (squat) = /chorahom/,

"chòhõ" (stand) = /ch ho/,

"tầmvong" (stick) = /dm boong/,

"rùmbeng" (fuss) = /rm poong/,

"hầmbàlàng" (mix) = /ʔhm blang/, etc.
(Nguyễn Ngọc San. Ibid. p. 45)

As we regard social contacts to explain for the similarity of the examples above whether they are cognate or not, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists did not speculate the sameness of those commonly cited Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese basic words but devoted their efforts focusing on the task of proving their common roots so as to strengthen the work of grouping Vietnamese into the Austroasiatic linguistic family instead. At the same time, they appear not to bother to investigate cognacy of those Vietnamese words with other Sino-Tibetan etyma, of which they might not have been aware. They have virtually neglected altogether other linguistic aspects as well, including linguistic similarities between those of Vietnamese and Chinese. Their new classification compensates fairly most of discrepancies in the Vietnamese language with other Vietmuong speeches since their separation from a common root of the Yue language family in China South.

Popular Vietnamese wisdom wonders if that is the case of the plow put in front of the buffallo in preparation for the paddy field? ("Cáicày đặt trước contrâu".) That is, a theory is built before plugging data in. Compare the analogy of chicken and egg to see how their logics has been manipulated. The folk axiom amusingly reminds us of similar bogus exclamation made by some Western grammarians in the early 20th century that the Vietnamese language orginally had not possessed a set of grammatical rules until those of French were utilized and adapted, and since then it exists! In other words, grammar does not make up a language, so neither do words.

Like what happened in many languages in the world the basic word cognacy could be possibly the result of language contacts, e.g., numbers in Indo-European languages are the best illustrated cases that have contaminated in many word-concepts, such as September or October, they should have been used to name the 7th month or the 8th month of the year instead of the 9th or 10th month, respectively. Terminologially, in terms of devising the concept of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer, it was cleverly repositioned to encompass not only remnants of Indo-Chinese languages left in every remote corner of today's Vietnam's western mountainous flank south of its 16th parrallel, but also including those dialectal pockets inhabiting further up in China South that covers areas just below south of the Yangtze River Basin dated way back to the prehistoric epoch only if those genetic schemes had not previously appeared to fit in any way into some other linguistic sub-family, e.g., the Daic or Zhuang languages.

Methodologically, with existing Indo-European linguistic tools, seemingly to be scientific enough under the eyes of a novice, it is a very neat way for those Austroasiatic specialists to augment Mon-Khmer etymological linguistics. In general, Mon-Khmer basic words are the main Austroasiatic bloodline that made its way into the Vietnamese stock at a much later period in the next millenium that followed Vietnam's independence because it was only then that Vietnam's territories began expanding further to the south. Consequently, virtually all Viet-Muong dialects originally from the Red River Delta region of north Vietnam have been mapped nicely into those southwestern Mon-Khmer languages spoken in regions faraway deeply down in the south which had not belonged to Vietnam yet prior to the 12th century. For such reasons, the postulation of the Austroasiastic Mon-Khmer roots asserted on Vietnamese turns out to be those of a language spoken by some populace that had not formed yet, namely the later Kinh. That is to say, in both historical and linguistic perspectives, the ancient Vietmuong resettlers did not have anything to do with the Mon-Khmer locals in the earlier periods prior to the 2nd century B.C., let alone with the Khmer Kingdom, a very much later historical entity around the 10th century.

D) New battles in the internet era

Besides all advantages the Austroasiatic camp might have played their hands, the Sino-Tibetan theorists also face possible side effects in our modern age as more and more people acquire their knowledge online, which will give the Mon-Khmer theory favorable condition. That is to say, the readers wil encounter more of the counter-views from the Mon-Khmer theorists. Specifically, internet-savvied learners of Vietnamese historical linguistics nowadays would normally scout online for quick information, but, unfortunately, at the same time, mixed results will overwhelm online users with related topics that let misinformation to propagate unchecked. It is said that both the Chinese and Vietnamese goverrnments have a whole army working on the Wikipedia to control all "political correctness". For example, only wiith a few keystrokes, alors, respective users would become either shrewd or rainwashed with teeming data, some being bogus and misinformation.

For all other benefits of the brave new world in a very near future, there will not be all the academic linguistic books made available online, though. Electronic information may leave many revered theorists envy holding on to their aging books growing mildew in the dark. We cannot help wonder aloud at the same time how long books in print will stay around. In any cases, our scholars still rely on printed books for their linguistic studies and new insight views following our new Sino-Tibetan etymological findings.

For such a gloomy electronic prospective, the same process would later repeat itself and dictate the Mon-Khmer prominent presence on the internet. For example, in subsequent search querying patterns on the Vietnamese language matters and Austroasiatic dominance would become order of the day. In effects, all it needs is only a few internet hits, whether it is accurate or not. That is, without the needs to know anything else, by simply keying in keywords such as "Austroasiatic and Viet", "Khmer and Viet", and so on, misinformation covertly laid hidden will spring forward, which will probably fit into whatever has been already fed in the back of their consciousness. The search returns would then further fortify what is factually associated with the field they have learned. For example, in a Google search, it is those first returns, usually within the first few lines, of queries about the 'Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer' that would be all it needs to impact permanently on a blank spot of innumerable innocent brains of novices just getting lost wondering in the field.

In our modern time it appears that there, by larger numbers, has arisen a dragging force from postings on the internet that go against different views from meticulously distributed crafty information in both print and electronic formats that, understandably, have never been taught in school. Just relate this matter to your own school-aged kid in terms of how and where s/he picked up knowledge in a new field and then you would see how revolutionary it is as the internet will dominate and control our life, including spreading fallacies globally. Per Nielson ratings, over 75% of us believe in what is on the internet written by total strangers.

At the same time, there are not many readers patiently spending time to read book-long dissertation online nowadays. A great number of web users do not read but scan material for quick information. Adding to the negative effect of short-spanned engagement online, cognitive inception of our newcomers with their lifelong acquisitive discipline would be easily modified by predetermined suppositions, usually composed in the format that is short and concise with affirmative, and often detrimental, pieces of information. Some eager debaters might just sweep glances on the contents that are mostly from socially engineered, theorized, and abridged versions of unverifiably-mixed articles on the world wide web and even launched personal attacks.

Selective hearing is of human nature; it is so natural that humans tend to hear only what fits into their existing belief, usually formed at an early cognitive stage when they were first exposed to a new realm of knowledge, which mostly would have taken root at one's preliminary encounter in an unknown field. Love strikes at first sight, metaphorically speaking.

From statistics collected for this website, the author has drawn conclusion from his observation on slanders and misbehaviors in debates among netizensagainst himself espceially in this specific related Vietnamese linguistics posted in different forums on the internet ever since my first postings of this preliminary research for more than a decade ago. Unlike Western readers, usually when a majority of Vietnamese made comments on something about this work, chances are that they never intended to positively engage in healthy argumentation (See APPENDEDIX M However, if that were the case, the author could only converse with a very few readers or even his shadow. In other word, publicity of his theory is really in a disadvantageous position.

As mentioned earlier, this research book is preferably better to be published in print than posted online. People tend to read if we could make them pay for it. The author himself read most of the books back to back that he bought but not so with the same online postings. Should our future specialists happen to come accross these newly discovered Sinitic evidences right at their first encounter, they could be able to catch on the internet windfall and truly benefit from that medium, at least being able to learn how to avoid contaminated tidbits by the Austroasiatic whatsoever. Only at that time will their focus be hooked onto a new boyant anchor before being awash with Mon-Khmer currents and then carried away by waves of fallacies in the cyberspace.

In any case, the author would care much less to pay court to veteran specialists who have advanced ahead. For an apparent reason, however, on recognition of the existence of such real formidable obstacle be removed for the good of publicity, there is the need to spread the words before a research in this magnitude is complete with the hope that it could reach out and educate newcomers in the field of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology.

arrow Back to top


(I) See Ilia Peiros's Some thoughts on the problem of the Austro-Asiatic homeland

(音) For example,

Division Character Beijing Cantonese Sino-Vietnamese Sino-Korean
3 珉 mín man4 mân min
4 民 mín man4 dân min

(A) As previously mentioned, it is just another Western theorization. Our Western scholars keep inventing but they have ignored the historical Yue artifacts because, up until the 18th century, they were reluctant to restore old things, such as historical Chinese linguistics. So they love to create new things, building them from the start.

Exactly with the same approach, the author could make similar shortcuts to establish a theory on the origin of today's Europeans, for instance, all based on hypothesis. Say, he would solemnly state that their ancestors had come from the Middle Eastern region now called Iraq where the craddle of the world's oldest civilization once existed. And so said, he used some theory initiated by another author as premises for the 'new theory'. For example, according to Bo Yang (1983-93) ancestors of people of Europe were descendants of those who had previosly lived there, that is, creators of that the 6000 year old civilization in today's Iraq, and they had been forced to flee from attacks waged by the Tartars on horse backs who had rapidly advanced from regions of southwestern Siberia and might have permanently settled there. That is what had happened in the ancient mainland of China. That historical detail also explains why the ancestral language of Turkey is shared by ancient northeastern Chinese and both Japanese and Korean, namely, they all having originated from the same root of the Altaic linguistic family. As a matter of fact, Chinese history recorded that the Han's army were frequently defeated by those Tartaric warriors.

Analogously that is how the Austroasiatic theory has been built, methodologically. In any case, let us not go astray with details of how such hypothesis could be theorized. Rome could not be built in one day after all.

(C) The name "Han" was a derivative from the compound 'Hanzhong' (漢中) where the First Han Emperor Han Gaozu (漢高祖) used to hold the post of viceroy who had ever been a subject of the Chu State (楚國) of which the populace were made up of the pre-Yue people called "Taic", hence, the "original Yue-Chu-Han" people. Readers will see more discussions and emphasis on the Han matter in the succeeding chapters.

(S) In fact, genetically, on the DNA side, at present time there appear new scientific studies made available on the internet at our finger tips, for example, see the quoted abstract from http://www.taiwandna.com/VietnamesePage.htm in the textbox below.

HLA-DR and -DQB1 DNA polymorphisms in a Vietnamese Kinh population from Hanoi.
Vu-Trieu A, Djoulah S, Tran-Thi C, Ngyuyen-Thanh T[sic], Le Monnier De Gouville I, Hors J, Sanchez-Mazas A.
Source: Department of Immunology and Physiopathology, Medical College of Hanoi, Vietnam.
Abstract
We report here the DNA polymerase chain reaction sequence-specific oligonucleotide (PCR-SSO) typing of the HLA-DR B1, B3, B4, B5 and DQB1 loci for a sample of 103 Vietnamese Kinh from Hanoi, and compare their allele and haplotype frequencies to other East Asiatic and Oceanian populations studied during the 11th and 12th International HLA Workshops. The Kinh exhibit some very high-frequency alleles both at DRB1 (1202, which has been confirmed by DNA sequencing, and 0901) and DQB1 (0301, 03032, 0501) loci, which make them one of the most homogeneous population tested so far for HLA class II in East Asia. Three haplotypes account for almost 50% of the total haplotype frequencies in the Vietnamese. The most frequent haplotype is HLA-DRB1*1202-DRB3*0301-DQB1*0301 (28%), which is also predominant in Southern Chinese, Micronesians and Javanese. On the other hand, DRB1*1201 (frequent in the Pacific) is virtually absent in the Vietnamese. The second most frequent haplotype is DRB1*0901-DRB4*01011-DQB1*03032 (14%), which is also commonly observed in Chinese populations from different origins, but with a different accessory chain (DRB4*0301) in most ethnic groups. Genetic distances computed for a set of Asiatic and Oceanian populations tested for DRB1 and DQB1 and their significance indicate that the Vietnamese are close to the Thai, and to the Chinese from different locations. These results, which are in agreement with archaeological and linguistic evidence, contribute to a better understanding of the origin of the Vietnamese population, which has until now not been clear.
PMID:9442802[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Source: HLA-DR and -DQB1 DNA polymorphisms in a Vietnamese Kinh population from Hanoi.

(H)


A king Hung called "Chieu Vuong" had lived up to hundreds of years with 60 wives(?).
This stupid information appears all over on the www. It reflects how those officials of the ruling class of ignorance have exerted control over the common mass. Who else has the authority to dictate the truthfullness of other historical matters such as the origin of the Vietnamese language? The rulers write history in countries like Vietnam and China.

(Y) 商朝 又 称 殷、殷商(约前17世纪—约前11世纪)是 中国 第一个 有 直接 的 同 时期 的 文字 记载 的 王朝。 商朝 前期 屡屡 迁都。 而 最后 的 二百七十三 年 盘庚 定都 于 殷 (今 中国 安阳市),所以 商朝 又 叫 殷朝。 有时候 也 称为 殷商 或 者殷。 商朝 晚期, 中国 的 历史 从 半信半疑 的时代 过渡 到 信史 时代。 商 是 中国 历史 上 继 夏朝 之后 的 一个 朝代, 相对 于 夏 具有 更 豐富 的 考古 發現。 原夏 之 諸侯國 商部落 首领 商汤 率 諸侯國 於 鳴條 之 戰 滅 夏帝国 後 建立。经历 17代31王, 末代 君王 商纣王 於 牧野 之 戰 被 周武王 擊敗 而 亡。 https://web.archive.org/web/https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/商朝 )

根据 《岭南摭怪》 里 的 越南 传说,中国 殷代时,雄王 因 “缺朝觐之礼”,而 招来 殷王 率来 袭 (又称 “殷寇”; 而 《大越 史记 全书·外纪·鸿厖纪》则 说 是 “雄王 六世” 时期 的 “国内 有警”)。 正当 大军 压境时,仙游县 (或作 武宁县) 扶董乡 的 一位 三岁 童子 自动 请缨,带领 雄王军队 来到 殷军 阵前, “挥剑 前进,官军(雄王军)后从。 殷王 死 阵前”, 而 童子 亦 随即 “脱衣 骑马 升天”。 其后,雄王 尊该名 童子 为 “扶董天王”,立祠 拜祭。

[HOWEVER] 近代 越南 学者 陈仲金 [Trần Trọng-Kim] 以 实事求是 的 态度,指出 中国 殷朝 入侵 的 传说“ 实属谬误”,理由 是 :“中国 殷朝 位于黄河 流域 一带, 即 今 之 河南、 直隶、山西 和 陕西 地区。 而 长江 一带 全是 蛮夷 之 地。 从 长江 至 我北越 相隔 路 途 甚为 遥远。 即 使时 我国 有 鸿庞氏 为王, 无疑 也 不会 有什么 纪纲 可言, 无非 像 芒族 的 一位 郎 官 而已, 因此 他 与 殷朝 无任何 来往,怎能 引起 彼此 间的 战争。 而且,中国 史书 也 没有 任何 之处 记载 此事。 因此, 有 什么 理由 说 殷寇 就是 中国 殷朝 之 人呢?” 因此 陈仲金 将 之 视作 “有 一股 贼寇称为 殷寇” 而已。(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/http://baike.baidu.com/view/1854748.htm) [UNLESS LACVIET HAD BEEN PART OF THE ANCIENT CHU STATE(?) While they are about some legends of Thanh Giong, we focus only the linguistic aspect of the matter here. Howerver, there exist evidences that the ancient Vănlang state had already been in contact with the Shang Dynasty with the Shang's 10th century B.C. bronze artifacts found in Hunan Province. ] In Chinese group to bring relic back to Hunan, by Lin Qi,: "A 3,000-year-old Chinese bronze, called min fanglei, will soon return to its birthplace to be reunited with the lid from which it was separated nearly a century ago. The reunion was made possible by a private purchase by Chinese collectors on April 19 in New York. Acclaimed as the "king of all fanglei", the square bronze, which dates to the Shang Dynasty (c.16th century-11th century B.C), served as a ritual wine vessel. It was excavated in Taoyuan, Hunan province, in 1922." (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-03/21/content_17366159.htm)
(Remarks in between [ ] and the string 'https://web.archive.org/web/' are made and added by dchph.)

(SH) For the pronoun "they" instead of "she", "he" or "s/he", the author find that sometimes the current usage of the singular "they" is suitable in many circumstances adopted by the Washington Post in its stylebook in December 2015 or US local Examiner newspapers in September 22, 2016. It was also American Dialect's word of the year in 2015.

(水) For example, '果 guǒ' is fluid in the case of VS 'tráicây' 水果 shuíguǒ (fruits) and it could become VS 'kẹo' as a contracton of the normalized 'kẹođường' 糖果 tángguǒ (candies) in both of which each syllable derived from '果 guǒ' carries a different meaning, though. Sound pattern mechanism may not work rigidly in a uniform manner in this case then.

(泰) The first proposal of a genealogical relationship was that of Paul Benedict in 1942, which he expanded upon through 1990. This took the form of an expansion of Wilhelm Schmidt's Austric phylum, and posited that Tai-Kadai and Austronesian had a sister relationship within Austric, which Benedict then accepted. Benedict later abandoned Austric but maintained his Austro-Tai proposal. This remained controversial among linguists, especially after the publication of Benedict (1975) whose methods of reconstruction were idiosyncratic and considered unreliable. For example, Thurgood (1994) examined Benedict's claims and concluded that since the sound correspondences and tonal developments were irregular, there was no evidence of a genealogical relationship, and the numerous cognates must be chalked up to early language contact.

However, the fact that many of the Austro-Tai cognates are found in core vocabulary, which is generally resistant to borrowing, continued to intrigue scholars. There were later several advances over Benedict's approach: Abandoning the larger Austric proposal; focusing on lexical reconstruction and regular sound correspondences; including data from additional branches of Tai-Kadai, Hlai and Kra; using better reconstructions of Tai-Kadai; and reconsidering the nature of the relationship, with Tai-Kadai possibly being a branch (daughter) of Austronesian.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic_languages

(M) The Austroasiatic (Austro-Asiatic) languages, in recent classifications synonymous with Mon-Khmer, are a large language family of continental Southeast Asia, also scattered throughout India, Bangladesh, and the southern border of China. The name Austroasiatic comes from the Latin words for "south" and "Asia", hence "South Asia". Among these languages, only Khmer, Vietnamese, and Mon have a long-established recorded history, and only Vietnamese and Khmer have official status (in Vietnam and Cambodia, respectively). The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups. Ethnologue identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen, which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon-Khmer and Munda. However, recent classifications have abandoned Mon–Khmer as a taxon, either reducing it in scope or making it synonymous with the larger family.

Austroasiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across India, Bangladesh and Southeast Asia, separated by regions where other languages are spoken. They appear to be the autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia, with the neighboring Indic, Tai, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Tibeto-Burman languages being the result of later migrations (Sidwell & Blench, 2011). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic_languages

(衁) "máu" :(1) hoang, (2) máu 衁 huāng (SV hoang) [ Vh @ M 衁 huāng, nǜ ~ ht. M 亡 wáng (vong, vô) < MC mwaŋ < OC *maŋ | MC 宕合三平陽微 | Pt 武方 | Shuowen: 血也。从血亡聲。《春秋傳》曰:“士刲羊,亦無衁也。”呼光切〖注〗《字彙》作𥁃。又𧖬、𧖭,同。| Kangxi: 【唐韻】【集韻】【正韻】𠀤呼光切,音荒。【說文】血也。【左傳·僖十五年】士刲羊,亦無衁也。【韓愈詩】衁池波風肉陵屯。【字彙】又入皿部,書作𥁃,非。| According to Bodman, Nicholas C. 1980, 'Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan,' (in Frans Van Coetsem et al. (eds.) Contributions to Historical Linguistics) (p.120) : 'An interesting hapax legomenon for 'blood' appears in the Dzo Zhuan which has an obvious Austroasiatic origin: Proto-Mnong *mham, Proto-North Bahmaric *maham, 衁 hmam > hmang > ɣuáng.' ]

(T) 'Genetic' here could be used to apply to, but not limited to, roots and linguistic attributes, for example, 疼 téng in "đớnđau" ~ 疼痛 téngtòng, SV đôngthống (painful), 痛 tòng, SV thống (pain) / OC *doŋw/*ŋw ~ -w ~> "đau" /daw1/ (pain), while 疼 téng in 疼愛 téng'ài', SV đôngái (love) ~> "thươngyêu", or "chân" 腳 jiăo (foot) and "bànchân" ~ 腳板 jiăobăn (in reverse order, "panel of the foot"), etc., of which words of the same linguistic roots and peculiarities are absent from those of Chinese loanwords in Japanese or Korean.

(日) The cases of Japan and Korea the borrowed the Chinese-based vocabularies in the Middle Age could be analogized with the technical English language used in the computer language today, say, the programming language has been adopted by most countries in the world, including China, which will become an inseparate parts of their languages.

(X) Regarding the printing media activities with authors, their writing styles — Nôm scripts and heavily Chinese classical usage, Sino-Vietnamese etyma, etc. — and publication of works in both French and Quốcngữ in the mid-20th century. (See Tô Kiều Ngân's Mặc khách Sàigòn (Literati of Saigon). 2013. p. 16)

(Z) The Zhuang languages (autonym: Vahcuengh (pre-1982: Vaƅcueŋƅ, Sawndip: 话壮), from vah 'language' and Cuengh 'Zhuang'; simplified Chinese: 壮语; traditional Chinese: 壯語; pinyin: Zhuàngyǔ) are any of various Tai languages natively spoken by the Zhuang people. They are an ethnic rather than linguistic group. Most speakers live in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region within the People's Republic of China, where Standard Zhuang is an official language. Across the provincial border in Guizhou, Bouyei has also been standardized. Over one million speakers also live in China's Yunnan province.

The sixteen ISO 639-3 registered Zhuang languages are not mutually intelligible without previous exposure on the part of speakers, and some of them are themselves multiple languages. There is a dialect continuum between Wuming and Bouyei, as well as between Zhuang and various (other) Nung languages such as Tày, Nùng, and San Chay of northern Vietnam. However, the Zhuang languages do not form a linguistic unit; any cladistic unit that includes the various varieties of Zhuang would include all the Tai languages.

Citing the fact that both the Zhuang and Thai peoples have the same exonym for the Vietnamese, kɛɛuA1, Jerold A. Edmondson of the University of Texas, Arlington posited that the split between Zhuang and the Southwest Tai languages happened no earlier than the founding of Jiaozhi (交址) in Vietnam in 112 B.C, but no later than the 5th–6th century A.D. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_languages

(V) The name Việtnam (Vietnamese pronunciation: [viə̀tnaːm]) is a variation of "NamViệt" (Chinese: 南越; pinyin: Nányuè; literally "Southern Việt"), a name that can be traced back to the Triệu Dynasty of the 2nd century B.C. The word Việt originated as a shortened form of BáchViệt (Chinese: 百越; pinyin: Bǎiyuè), a word applied to a group of peoples then living in southern China and Vietnam. The form "Vietnam" (越南) is first recorded in the 16th-century oracular poem Sấm Trạng Trình. The name has also been found on 12 steles carved in the 16th and 17th centuries, including one at Bao Lam Pagoda in Haiphong that dates to 1558.

Between 1804 and 1813, the name was used officially by Emperor Gia Long. It was revived in the early 20th century by Phan Bội Châu's History of the Loss of Vietnam, and later by the Vietnamese Nationalist Party. The country was usually called Annam until 1945, when both the imperial government in Huế and the Viet Minh government in Hanoi adopted Việtnam. Since the use of Chinese characters was discontinued in 1918, the alphabetic spelling of Vietnam is official. (Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam)

(林) "The kingdom of Champa (Campadesa or nagara Campa in Cham and Cambodian inscriptions, written in Devanagari as चंपा; Chăm Pa in Vietnamese, 占城 Chiêm Thành in Hán Việt and Zhàn chéng in Chinese records) was a Hindu and Buddhist kingdom that controlled what is now Vietnam from approximately the 7th century through to 1832.

The Cham people are the successor of this kingdom. They speak Cham, a Malayo-Polynesian language.

Champa was preceded in the region by a kingdom called Lin-yi (林邑, Middle Chinese *Lim Ip) or Lâm Ấp (Vietnamese) that was in existence from 192 A.D.; the historical relationship between Lin-yi and Champa is not clear. Champa reached its apogee in the 9th and 10th centuries. Thereafter, it began a gradual decline under pressure from Đại Việt, the Vietnamese polity centered in the region of modern Hanoi. In 1832, the Vietnamese emperor Minh Mạng annexed the remaining Cham territories. Mỹ Sơn, a former religious center, and Hội An, one of Champa's main port cities, are now heritage listed."

[...]In the Cham–Vietnamese War (1471), Champa suffered serious defeats at the hands of the Vietnamese, in which 120,000 people were either captured or killed, and the kingdom was reduced to a small enclave near Nha Trang with many Chams fleeing to Cambodia. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champa)

(W) Phùng Nguyên culture (2,000–1,500 B.C.). Đồng Đậu culture (1,500–1,000 BC). Gò Mun culture (1,000–800 B.C.). Đông Sơn culture (1,000 B.C.– 100 A.D.). Iron Age · Sa Huỳnh culture (1,000 B.C.–200 A.D.). Óc Eo culture (1–630 AD). The Gò Mun culture (c. 1,100-800 B.C.) was a culture of Bronze Age Vietnam during the Hong Bang reigns. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gò_Mun_culture)


 

ā ē ě ī ǐ ă ō ǒ ū ǔ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ ü û ɔ ɑ ɪ ɛ ɤ ə¯ ŋ ɯ ɪ ʔ ʃ ö ä ë ü ɐ ɒ æ χ ɓ ɗ ɖ ɱ ʿ ʾ θ ñ ŕ ţ ť tś ı ć ¢ ď Ā ź dź ƫ ć ń ç ď ş ŗ ż ſ ņ ʷ ɲ ʈ ɫ ɬ ʈ ƫ ʐ ɣ Ś ¯¯ ¯ ˉ


Back to VNY2K Homepage

flag counter for pages with this banner only — reset 06262011

« Previous

» Next