Haudricourt’s theory of tonal development

Correspondences in basic vocabularies revisited

 

Kinship of Vietnamese

Lexical interpolation of languages

 

Vietnamese       Chinese
What Makes Chinese so Vietnamese?

An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies

(Ýthức mới về nguồngốc tiếngViệt)

DRAFT
Table of Contents

dchph

 

Chapter Eight

VIII) The Mon-Khmer association

A) The underlined stratum of basic vocabularies

There exists a question that can Vietnamese (V) be considered as a hybrid language made up with different sources through historical contacts with other people who contributed linguistic layers on top of fundamental substrata of indigenous Taic-Yue base? Hypothetically, an ancestral linguistic root called Taic had given rise to both the Yue and Daic linguistic families that spread cross the China South (CS) region, including the northeastern area of North Vietnam's Red River Basin where the aboriginals long inhabited – whose main agricutural activities were planting watered paddies for rice. – For a long period of time, a great number of Mon-Khmer speaking resettlers – whose main living activities were hunting and cultivating dry paddies by burning patches of forrests – from the current Northern Cambodia and Southern Laos had moved into the North Vietnam's fertile delta's region (Nguyen Ngoc San. Ibid. 1993.) The Mon-Khmer lexicons brought in by the Mon-Khmer speakers, as a result, penetrated into the native Viet-Muong language, which explains why there exist numerous basic Mon-Khmer words in the Vietnamese language. That ancient speech was supposedly spoken by the native residents of the Phùngnguyên Culture and subjects of the legendary ancient Vietnam's Hùng kings for some 3,000 years ago (H) . Their original language might not be what Vietnamese sound today. Since 111 B.C., as the Han invaders arrived, their Old Chinese (OC) completely changed the ancient Yue language spoken by the majority of indigenous people, which later caused the break-up of the ancient Viet-Muong language into Muong and Vietic language, or early Annamese, with a lot of Old Chinese elements. This survey is about the Chinese-Vietnamese entanglement, archaic as well as contemporary, that had deeply penetrated into the early Annamese which evolved in its own way differently from the Viet-Muong linguistic sub-family. The whole developmental process took off and formed the Sinitic-based Vietnamese language since the 10th century.

Those linguists who embraced the theory that Vietnamese descended from the Mon-Khmer branch of the larger Austroasiatic (AA) linguistic family pointed out that fossilized linguistic remnants in the Mon-Khmer languages formed an etymological substratum in Vietnamese lexical layers, of which those fundamentally basic words may belong to a set of 23 words that have barely changed from 15,000 years ago (Zachary Stieber "Ancient Languages Have Words in Common") (S) The author's position on the issue is both Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer languages could possibly have sprung off from an ancestral language of the Yue called Taic that not only gave rise to the Tai-Kadai (臺 Tai by Ding Bangxin. Ibid. 1977. pp. 36-45) and Sinitic languages in the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family (ST) (T) but that could also have given rise to those of Austronesian and Austroasiatic languages. (菲)

The issue of the Austroasiatic origin of Vietnamese has been a century old by now and what has been written on the subject regarding the classification of Vietnamese appearing dominantly to be a sure one of descendants of those speeches having roots in China South, including scores of significant basic words that scatter in different Mon-Khmer languages and quite a few words considered as cognates with those in the Munda languages. (A) With respect to those Austroasiatic languages, Norman (1988) noted that they “are spoken over a vast geographic range: the Munda languages in northWestern India, Khasi in Assam, Palaung-Wa and Mon in Burma, the Mon-Khmer languages in Indo-China, Vietnamese and Muong in Vietnam [...] and were once spoken much more widely in China.” (pp. 7-8)

Back to top

Before we go on, it is worth mentioning here that in the early 20th century there existed a long-gone past trend for linguists to partake in the School of Prague on analysis of phonemic system and phonological description of languages for its simplicity in methods and procedures and without the need to learn the language; their focus on such practice suggested that the methodology was scientific. A renown linguist of our contemporary time, Bloomfield, for example, was able to describe and analyze the Tagalog language solely based on the basis of the information provided by one informant (Indo-Pacific, Part II, Descriptive Linguistics, or Lingua 15, 1963, p. 515).

It is of no surprise that many of those early linguists in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp practiced in the sphere of that school without first-hand experience in related languages; they rushed into and settled with procedures working on data drawn from similarities in groups of Mon-Khmer languages based mainly on data collected from their local informants who did not have linguistic background. The generation of those specialists, especially of the 1960's whom the author calls "summer-camp linguists" who got grants from governmental intitutions such as the US National Endowment of the Arts to do a summer fieldtrip in South Vietnam, did not propriately possess a mastery level in the languages they were researching. The proofs for such defficiencies showed in end results, even being notably smeared with orthographical errors, i.e., misspellings, typos, mismatched pairs of cognate, and the likes, in cited sources which could be found throughout their publications in print.

Up until 1991, when Parkin classified Vietnamese (of Viet-Muong branch) as of Austroasiatic family, with no further argument, the author still admitted that “considerable controversy has surrounded the problem of the affiliation of Vietnamese.” (Parkin, 1991. p. 89) His agreeance with Haudricourt’s and Shorto’s view is the basis for his classification. In other words, like his, the popular Austroasiatic view on the origin of Vietnamese, based on a common belief in Mon-Khmer ~ Vietmuong cognate correspondences in basic words, even only with a few core items, has been firmly held by most of avant-gardes in the field. Their disciples, in turn, used the predecessor's baseline foundation as a springboard to build their own hypothesis.

Readers might already note that many etyma cited in this paper require a good command and "linguistic feelings" in order to partake in the game of 'guesswork' (W) with 'first-hand experience' in the target language so as to appreciate how and where such words have evolved from. In many instances, "this procedure [guesswork] is not guaranteed to lead infallibly to the correct form of an innovation. But progress in historical reconstruction has always come from making guesses – not wild and unsupported guesses but those credible by considerations of simplicity and naturalness. In any case, the historical linguist usually has very little to lose and much to gain from pressing his reconstruction to the utmost in the directions of simplicity and naturalness. (King, 1969. p. 164)"

On the one hand, in terms of proliferation and popularity, generally, when a theory had first initiated by a few renown scholars became convincing enough, then subsequently it would be later repeated by untainted newcomers, some of whom were probably not even specialized in this specific study but just conveniently adopted the accepted views and ludicrously repeated what other people in the field talked most about, namely, the newly therorized Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguistic affiliation with languages spoken in the Southeast Asia in the early 20th century.

On the other hand, unlike no-exception laws for natural science such as physics and astronomy, it is true that in every academic field, any empirical science such as anthropologically-related theories, including history or historical linguistics, could change at some point in time. Newcomers on the thresthold of the Vietnamese linguistics field, therefore, should try to chart out a new direction and not repeat the same old beaten path. The new approach to explore Sinitic- Vietnamese (VS) etymology with dissyllabicity in focus discussed in this research will open up a new realm in Vietnamese historical linguistics as the author has first set out on his lone expedition so far and there is still so much room for substance, enough for all of us to explore in our lifetime. Recall that sound changes in words in dissyllabic formation are not equal to those of two individual syllable correspondences on one-to one basis.

Virtually most newcomers in Vietnamese historical linguistics set out from the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer pre-set baseline – of a non-historical theory – which evolved from a misconception, e.g., monosyllabicity vs. dissyllabicity, partially due to misperception, misinterpretation, lack of proficiency in target languages, and, unreservedly, ready acceptance of results of those early research work, simply because they were done by some renown specialists in the field in the dawn of Vietnamese linguistics and make it a foundation for their own study, all focused on the same direction. It used to be a fashionable trend for everybody in the linguistic circle to discuss some recent topics of linguistic innovation, and in this case all about the latest theorization of tonegenesis with their main debate that was originally initiated by the two famous French linguists, Henry Maspero and Andre Haudricourt in the mid-20th century. It is of no surprise that in the later half of the same century their views were revisited by other linguists including those renown scholars, such as Barker, Parkin, Thomas, etc., whose Mon-Khmer lexical data are also cited here for reference.

The dogmatism that advises newcomers not to repeat what predecessors in the old field have talked of is something quite challenging that demands swift decisiveness with the spirit of novelty in order to change and appeal new, energetic young people. The message the author is trying to get cross here to those newcomer linguists of Vietnamese is that they should not solely follow any "pre-set premises" by forerunners which have become hackneyed and dull right from the start because they had nothing excitingly new to offer at least for the last few decades. Their pinoneering works at first were a starting point which happened to be novel views of Austroasiatic origin of Vietnamese, or that of Mon-Khmer specifically, which was why it gained so much popularity from beginning.

What was that all about it eventually benefited the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory even more? The whole postulation can be reinstated by paraphrasing Parkin’s words (1991) that Maspero based his case of non-existant tonality in Mon-Khmer languages on the presence of Thai vocabulary in Vietnamese – i.e., Thai tonal words that are posited as cognates with those in Vietnamese so they sound tonally similar – as well as on other peculiarities (p. 89) even though Maspero at the same time accepted a Mon-Khmer substratum for Vietnamese proposed by Haudricourt who was the chief debunker of the other's key issues. Haudricourt's view is generally accepted today, though. He was the one who took [quoting Thomas] “Maspero’s examples of Thai-Vietnamese cognates and [posited] most of them to be general Southeast Asian vocabulary [based on their] correspondences between Vietnamese tones and Mon-Khmer final consonants”; therefore, “Maspero’s key argument, that tones cannot be acquired by a language previously lacking them, is thus rejected.” (p. 90) (See Haudricourt’s theory of tonal development in the next section.)

The Austroasiatic stronghold is mainly based on the cognateness of those basic words existing in the Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese languages. The question of tonality of an etymon in related languages will still hold its merits to complement the fact that those Mon-Khmer equivalents under examination are toneless, but, in most cases, they fall right into the realm of tonality where the same Vietnamese etyma found their Chinese cognates. That is to say, from the author's perspective, for such and such word in Mon-Khmer languages – of Thai origin, instead, as posited by Maspero – that might possibly be a loanword from Vietnamese, simply re-packaged with a tone substitute, such as a glottal stop [ʔ] after the tone being stripped off. Interestingly, the same items in the Muong subdialects could be tonal. For the same matter, the Muong language overall still retains its tonality despite of the heavy influence that those neighboring Mon-Khmer languages had on the Muong groups -- see Mon-Khmer wordlists below – as they were in close contacts with each other in mountainous remote regions way back from the distant past. By the way, Muong is considered as of the same family as that of Vietnamese. There are not many cognates among Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer basic words, but we can identify many of those Mon-Khmer words that have dubiously designated roots. Besides the lexicons listed in this section, the names of aforementioned 12 animals in the zodiac table, i.e., chuột, trâu, cọp (hùm), mèo, rồng, rắn, ngựa, dê, khỉ (vượn), chó, heo, several words can be included with certainty, such as Old Khmer /cnam/ ~ VS 'năm' (year) '年 nián', Old Khmer /cau/ ~ VS 'cháu' (nephew) 侄ㄦ zhír, Khmer /babuh/ ~ VS 'bọt' (bubble) '泡 pào', etc., not to mention that there are so many Vietnamese fundamental words that Mon-Khmer lexicons do not have cognates, e.g., 蓮藕 lián'ǒu ~ VS 'ngósen' (lotus stem), 'đồng' 田 tián (paddy field) ~ VS 'ruộng', 'đồng' 銅 tóng (bronze ~ VS 'thau'), etc..

The fact that the basic cognates in Mon-Khmer could be Vietnamese loanwords supports the reverse logic derived from Maspero's non-heritance of tones that tones could not be acquired naturally or intuitively by speakers of non-tonal languages. We have seen a similar phenomenon of Chinese toneless etyma that appear in Japanese and Korean, for those Chinese loanwords we know for sure they were certainly borrowed from Chinese recorded history during the Tang Dynasty (618–907 A.D. )

Let us examine the nature of those Thai-Mon-Khmer-Vietnamese basic words that undermined the validity of postulations initiated by Maspero and Haudricourt, Thai originality and tone genesis, respectively. The author will elaborate on each etyon, grouping them under a Sino-Vietnamese label that immediately follows each cited item. Firstly, let us enumerate on some Vietnamese words in Maspero’s examples (Etudes sur la Phonetique Historique de la Langue Annamite, 1952), etymologically cited as having Mon-Khmer sub-stratum and Thai cognates. For each respective word, I often find them to have Chinese and Sino-Tibetan correspondences:

(1) Mon-Khmer: (For what Maspero accepted as Mon-Khmer substratum in Vietnamese as postulated byHaudricourt)

1. rừng 林 lín ‘forest’ (SV lâm) [ M 林 lín < MC lim < OC *rjəm < PC **rjəɱ | cf. OC *srjəm 森 (SV sâm) 'rậm' | Cant. /lʌm1/. For the pattern ¶ l- ~ r-, we have 龍 lóng (SV long) ~ VS 'rồng' (dragon), 蘢 lóng (SV long) ~ VS 'rậm' (dense), 壟 lóng (SV long) ~ VS 'rẫy' (farming ridge) | According to Starostin, 林 lín Burmese rum 'dense', Kachin diŋgram2 'forest', Lushei ram 'forest' | Per Shafer, Sino-Tibetan: Luśei ram (p. 67) | Central Branch: Kukis *r2am, Ngente, Haka ram (p. 230) . For V 'rừng' (forest), per Luce, G. H. (1965): Old Mon /grīp/, mod. /gruip/, Danaw /pʿrɑ2bo4/, Riang White /priʔ\ /, Riang Black /prɪʔ\ /, Palaung /bréɪ2/, Wa /brɑʔ3/, Old Khmer /vraɪ/, Sakai /brɪ/, Besisi /ʾmbri/, Semang /těpɪʾ/, Srê /brɪ/, T'eng /brɪ/, K'mu /mprɪ/, Khasi /brɪ/, (=grove), Mundari /bɪr/. ],
2. áo 衣 yī ‘shirt’ (SV y) [ M 衣 yī (y) < MC ʔyj < OC *ʔjəj | According to Starostin, clothes, garment, gown. As a verb, also read *ʔjəj-s, MC ʔyj (FQ 於既), Pek. yì 'to wear'. Sometimes the character is also used for the homonymous 依 *ʔjə | cf. 襖 ào (SV áo) (coat). (See more in the next chapter on Sino-Tibetan etymologies.) ]
3. chim 禽 qín ‘bird’ (SV cầm) [ M 禽 qín < MC gim < OC *ghjəm | Chinese dialects: Cant. kam4, Hẹ kim2, Tc ʑin12, Ôc ʑiaŋ12, Shuangfeng ʑin12 | Shuowen: 走獸 緫名。从 厹，象 形，今 聲。禽、离、兕頭 相似。巨今 切〖注〗𢄕，古文。 | Kangxi: 〔古文〕𢄕《唐韻》《集韻》巨今切《韻會》《正韻》渠今 切，𠀤 音 琴。《爾雅·釋鳥》二足 而 羽 謂 之 禽，四足 而 毛 謂 之 獸。《白虎通》禽，鳥獸 總 名，言 爲 人 禽 制 也。|| According to Starostin, the character is more frequently used (since L.Zhou) with the meaning 'wild bird(s)' ( 'smth. caught'), whereas for the meaning 'to catch, capture' one uses the character 擒 ]
4. lúa 來 lái (unhusked rice) (SV lai) [ QT 來 lái, lài, lāi (lai, lãi) < MC ljəj < OC *rjə:, *rjəs | FQ 洛哀 | Chinese dialects, Cant. lai4, loi4, loi6, Hẹ loi2 | Shuowen: 周 所 受 瑞麥 來 麰。一 來 二 縫，象 芒 朿 之 形。 天 所 來 也，故 爲 行來 之 來。《詩》曰：“詒 我 來 麰。” 凡 來 之 屬 皆 从 來。洛哀 切 | However, Starostin posited 稻 dào as 'lúa'. Viet. lúa is an archaic loanword; regular Sino-Viet. is đạo. (See B. Kagren SR: 1078 h-k) | Protoform: *ly:wH (~ ɫ-), Meaning: rice, grain, Chinese: 稻 *lhu:ʔ (~ɬh-) rice, paddy, Burmese: luh sp. of grain, Panicum paspalum, Kachin: c^jəkhrau1 paddy ready for husking. Kiranti: *lV 'millet' || Note: We posit it as gạo 稻 dào, a doublet that means both ‘paddy, rice’ (SV đạo) < MC dɑw < OC *lhu:ʔ ~ *ɫhu:ʔ (Schuessler : MC dâu < OC *gləwʔ or *mləwʔ) Based on the structure and phonetic stem of the character 稻 dào, it could have been a later development after 'lúa' 來 lái which is now used in modern M with the loan-sound /laj2/ for the meaning 'come' while its replacenment of 麥 mài is much more explicitly 'wheat' . ]
5. ngày 日 rì ‘day’ (SV nhật) [ Also, VS 'giời' (the sun) <~ 'trời' (Heaven, sky) | M 日 rì < MC rit < OC *ɲit | According to Starostin, MC ɲit < OC *nit, Min forms: Xiamen tɕit8, lit8, Chaozhou zik8, Fuzhou nik8, Jianou ni8. | ¶ {r- ~ gi-}, {y-~ nh-, j-, jh- , ng- } (cf. Cant. /jat8/ and /jit8/). || For Sino-Tibetan, per Shafer: OB nyi- (nyin), M rì 日 nyit < *nyit-á < *nyi'-ta (p.76), E. dialect Dwags nyen-te (p. 114), Old Kukish *k?-ni, Luśei, Meithlei ni (p. 280), Burmish Bur. *ńi-, M Bur. neʾ, Lolo Ahi, Lolopho ńi, Chöko ńi, Ahi ńi-, Weining ńi, Phumoi ne¯, Akha nẵ¯, Ulu nie (p. 366) | (day) Baric Bodo -ni, Metś -nai, Dimasa, Tśutisa, Atong, Wanang, Ruga, Kontś, Mośang -ni, Namsingia -ńyi, Muthun, Mulung -nyi, -ni, Tśang nyet (p. 428) || For Mon-Khmer, per Luce: 'trời, ngày' (sun, day) (Viet. /ngày/), Old Mon /tŋey/, mod. /tŋai/, Danaw /tsʿɪ1/, Riang White /sʿɤŋyiʔ\ /, /sʿəniʔ-/, Palaung /săŋɑ'i2/, /săŋéi2/, Wa /ʃɪ4ŋɑiʔ3/, Old Khmer /tŋaɪ/, Sakai /těŋŋɪ/, Malay /hari/, Nicobarese /heŋ/, Shom Peng /hok-ŋīa/, Srê /ŋái/, /təŋăi/, P'man /nyi/, T'eng /səŋi/, K'mu /simyi/, Khasi /sngi/, War /juŋai/, Mudari /siŋgi/, /siŋ/, Gadaba /sĩi/) ]

(2) Thai: (Vietnamese words of Thai origin as posited in Maspero’s list)

1. gà 雞 jī ‘chicken’ (SV: kê ) [ M 雞 < MC kiej < OC *ke: | ¶ j- ~ g- | ex. gàmái: 雞母 jīmǔ 'hen', gàtrống: 雞公 jīgōng 'cock' (Minnan, including Hai.). Also, gàmẹ: 雞母 jīmǔ 'hen', gàcồ: 雞公 jīgōng 'cock' | cf. jìn 近 SV cận: gần, jì 記 SV ký: ghi, jì 寄 SV ký: gởi, jí 急 SV cấp: gấp) ],
2. vịt 鴨 yā ‘duck’ ( SV áp) [ M 鴨 yā < MC ʔap < OC *ʔra:p | FQ 烏甲 | Cant. /ap43/ and /ŋap43/ ],
3. gạo 稻 dào ‘paddy, rice’ (SV đạo) [ M 稻 dào ‘paddy, rice’ (SV đạo) < MC dɑw < OC *lhu:ʔ ~ *ɫhu:ʔ (Schuessler : MC dâu < OC *gləwʔ or *mləwʔ || See Starostin's posit of 稻 dào (SV 'đạo') as 'lúa' cited above ]
4. cam 甘 gān 'sweet' (SV cam) [ Viet. 'ngọt' @ '𩜌 yuē (SV ngạt)' ~ M 甘 gān < MC kʌm < OC *ka:m | ¶ g- ~ ng- | Shuowen: 也。从口含一。一，道也。凡甘之屬皆从甘。古三切 | Kangxi: 〔古文〕𠙸𠙿《唐韻》古三切《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》沽三切，𠀤感平聲。《說文》美也。《徐曰》物之甘美者也。《韻會》五味 之一。《正韻》甜 也。又《正韻》果 名，俗作 柑 (cam)。《風土記》甘橘之屬，滋味 甘美。又《古今注》甘實 (tráicam) 形如石榴者，謂之 壷甘。　又草名。《博雅》陵澤，甘遂也。《又》美丹，甘草也。　 又《集韻》古暗切，音紺。土之味也。　又《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》𠀤 胡甘 切，音酣。《書·五子之歌》甘酒嗜音。|| Handian: ◎ 通 “柑” (cam) 。果名, 橘屬盧橘夏熟,黃甘橙楱。 ——司馬相如《上林賦》|| Ex. 甘心 gānxīn (camtâm), 甘苦 gānkǔ (camkhổ), 甘泉 gānquán (camtuyền), 食不甘味 shí bù gān wèi (ăn không thấy ngon), 甘草 gāncǎo (camthảo) || Note: Maspero related all the "cam" doublets as origninating from Daic languages such as Thai Blanc, Thai, Laotian, Ahom, Shan, etc. ]
5. cam 柑 gān 'orange' (SV cam) [ M 柑 gān < MC kʌm < OC *ka:m || According to Starostin, orange, Citrus nobilis (Han) ]
6. cam 疳 gān 'infantile disease' (SV cam) [ M 疳 gān ~ ht. M 甘 gān < MC kʌm < OC *ka:m | Chinese Dialect: Hakka gam1 | Kangxi: 《集韻》沽三切，音甘。病也。《正字通》小兒食甘物，多生疳病。疳有五，心肝肺𦜉腎也。治疳先辨冷熱肥瘦，初病為肥熱疳，久病為瘦冷疳，五疳諸積，腹大筋靑，面黃肌瘦，或腹痛。以葱椒煑蝦蟇食之，大效。|| Ex. 疳積 gānjī (camtích) ] ,
7. cả 價 jià 'price' (SV giá) [ cf. "giácả" 價格 jiàgé 'price' (SV giácác) | M 價 jià, jiè, jie < MC ka < OC *krajʔs ~ M 賈 jià, jiă, gǔ (giá, giả, cổ) | Shuowen: 善也。从 人 介 聲。《詩》曰：“价人惟藩。” 古拜 切 | Kangxi: 《唐韻》古拜切《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》居拜切，𠀤音戒。善也。又大也。《詩·大雅》价 人 維藩。　又 佋价。 與 介同。 （價）《唐韻》古訝 切《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》居迓 切，𠀤 音 駕。 《說文》物直 也。《家語》孔子 爲政 三月，鬻羔 豚 者 不 飾價。《後漢·張讓傳》當差 之 官者，皆 于 西園 諧價。　古 借用 賈。 賈 音 古，轉 去聲，義同。| Guangyun: 駕 古訝 見 麻二開 去聲 禡 開口二等 假 麻 ka krah／keah || Note: M jie (1) 助 (口) 用在狀語 (tiếngNùng) 與 動詞 或 形容詞 之間，相當 於 '地' (cứ): 1. 整天價哭喪著臉, 2. 炮聲震天價響, 3. 成天價忙。 (2) (助) (chớ) 用 在 獨立 成句 的 否定 副詞 後面，加強 語氣 : 1. 別 價, 2. 甭 價, 3. 要不 價，你 就 別 來。|| M 格 gē, gé, gě, gè (các, cách) < MC kʌk < OC *ka:k | Maspero could not associate "cả" with either 價 jià or its derived disyllabic form "giácả" 價格 jiàgé. For him "cả" in this case is not a Sino-Vietnamese word, so he pustulated it to the Daic languages. In short, this word "giácả" is of Chinese origin. ]

Below are many other words indicated as common to both Thai and Vietnamese that appear in in Maspero’s list, for which Haudricourt (1961, pp. 51-52), on the contrary, considered them as Old Chinese loans in both languages:

1. chèo 掉 diáo ‘to row’ (SV trạo) [ M 櫂 (棹) zhào < MC ɖɑw < OC *ɫhe:kʷs | According to Starostin, the word was originally (L.Chou) written as 櫂, which allows to reconstruct *ɬ(h)e:kʷ-s. After Han the reading changed to *d.(h)ie:\w (with dialectal retroflexity, sometimes occurring in former lateral hsieh-sheng series), which enabled its writing as 櫂 (attested only since Tsin). The character 櫂 has also a late (Han) reading *ɬ(h)e:kʷ, MC d.a.uk, Mand. zhuo/ 'a k. of bowl, vessel'. Viet. chèo is colloquial; regular Sino-Viet. is trạo ],
2. bè 筏 fà ‘raft’ (SV phiệt) [ Also, VS 'phà' | M 筏 fá < MC bwjət < OC *bhat ],
3. bánh 餅 bǐng ‘bread’ (SV bính) [ M 餅 bǐng < pjɛŋ < OC *peŋʔ || cf. 白餅 báibǐng (VS 'bánhdày') \ ¶ /baj2 ~ /jaj2/ (from 16th-centuried Nôm work Ngọc Nam Chỉâm) ],
4. tiếng 聲 shēng ‘noise, sound, word, speech’ (SV thanh) [ M 聲 shēng < MC ʂeŋ < OC *xeŋ | Chinese dialects: Cant. ʃieŋ21, Hainanese tje1, Amoy sɨŋ11 (lit.); siã11, Chaozhou siã11, Fukienese siŋ11 (lit.); siaŋ11, Th sjəŋ1, Zyyy ʃijəŋ1 | Shuowen: 音也。从耳殸聲。殸，籒文磬。書盈切 | Kangxi: 《字彙》同𡔝。《正字通》俗 聲 字。（聲）〔古文〕殸《唐韻》《集韻》《韻會》書盈 切《正韻》書征 切，𠀤 聖 平聲。《說文》音也。《書·舜典》詩言志，歌 永 言，聲 依 永，律 和 聲。《傳》聲謂 五 聲，宮商角徵羽 也。《禮·月令》仲夏 之 月，止 聲色。《註》聲 謂樂 也。　又 凡 響 曰 聲。《張載·正蒙》聲者，形氣相軋而成。兩 氣 者，谷 響 雷 聲 之 類。兩形者，桴鼓 叩 擊 之類。 形 軋氣， 羽扇 敲矢 之 類。 氣軋 形，人聲 笙簧 之 類。 皆 物 感 之 良能，人 習 而 不 察耳。《韻會》韻書 平上去入 爲 四聲。又 姓。 | Handian: 'speech' 言語, 口音. '與 人 罕 言, 語類 楚聲。' —— 明 · 魏禧 《大鐵椎 傳》. 又 如: 聲嗽 (言語). || td. 你 怎麼 時候 去 中國 告訴 我 一聲. Nǐ zěnme shíhòu qù zhōnguó gàosù wǒ yīshēng. (Chừngnào mầy đi Trungquốc báocho tao mộttiếng.), 聲張 shēngzhāng (lêntiếng), 聲名 shēngmíng​ (danhtiếng) || cf. Hai. /tje1/, Cant. ʃieŋ21, Amoy: sɨŋ11 (literary); siã11, Tchewchow: siã11, Fukienese siŋ11 (literary); Zyyy: ʃijəŋ1 ],
5. đũa 箸 zhú ‘chopstick’ (SV trợ, chừ, trừ) [ M 箸 zhú < MC ɖʊ < OC *dras | cf. Hainanese /du2/ | Note: this could be a Yue loanword in Chinese since the nothern Chinese originally did not plant and eat rice like people in the China South. Chopsticks are maintly used in rice culture. Rice planting culture originated from China South, especially from today's Hunan Province region where original wild rice species have been found having grown there, archaeologically and horticulturally. The only thing the Sinicized Yue people in the China South in a later time had done, superstitiously, to counter the homonym 倒 dào (SV đảo, VS đổ) that means 'overturn' in places where major transportation is by boat, as opposed to riding horses by the notherners. So the southerners have coined the latter word for 'chopsticks' to be homonymous with 快 kuài (VS 'mau'), that is 'fast'. ],
6. nàng 娘 niáng ‘miss, she, girl’ (SV nương) [ VS also 'nạ, nường' | M 娘 niáng < MC naŋ < OC* nraŋ | Fukienese: nuəŋ12, Zyyy: niaŋ12, Amoy nĩu12, Chaozhou niẽ12, Shanghai niã32 | see © nạ | < ~ © 妳 nǐ (SV nhĩ) > Beijing 娘兒 niár ('mom') (the relic form of V 'nạ' means "mother") ],
7. mèo 貓 māo ‘cat’ (SV miêu) [ M 貓 māo < MC maw < OC *mrhaw | cf. 卯 măo (SV mão, mẹo), ex. 卯年 măonián ~ VS 'nămmèo' or 'nămmão' (Year of that CAT), NOT 'Year of the Rabit which is '兔年 tùnián (SV Thốniên, VS 'nămThỏ' ) where in the Chinese Earthly Branches that represent 12 animals, C 卯 măo, as previously mentioned, must correspond to mèo 貓 māo ‘cat’ (SV miêu) as represented in the nomial 卯 măo. ], etc.

In addition to Maspero's cited samples above, Haudricourt also provided a couple more of Vietnamese words described as Austroasiatic loans in Thai (languages) for which, amusingly, they all are cognate to those in Chinese, too. They are:

1. bụng 腹 fú ‘abdomen’ (SV phục) [ M 腹 fù < MC pʊk < OC *puk | ¶ OC *p- ~> b-, ¶ M f- ~ b- | FQ 方六 | GSR 1034 h | Tibetan languages: (W) ze-a~bug the maw or fourth stomach of ruminating animals. Burmese: pjəuk belly, stomach. Lushei: KC *puk. Lepcha: ta-fuk, ta-bak the abdomen, the lower part of stomach. Kiranti: *ʔpo/k. Comments: Sho puk; Kham phu: belly, abdomen; Gyarung tepok. Sh. 49, 69, 409; Ben. 77 || See more of etymology in the next chapter on ST. ],
2. nghe 聽 tìng, tīng ‘hear’ (SV thính) [ M 聽 tìng, tīng < thieŋ < OC *ɫhe:ŋ | Minnan dialects: Hainanese /k'ɛ1/, Amoy thiɛŋ11 $; thiã11, Chaozhou thiã11 | ¶ t-, d- ~ ng- : ex. 停 tíng (SV đình) ~ VS 'ngừng' (pause), 短 duăn (SV đoản) ~ VS 'ngắn' (short), etc. Also, it is possibly postulated that 聞 wén ~ VS 'ngữi' (small), a much later development, can be posited for 'nghe'. | cf. 門 mén ~ VS 'ngõ' (gate) ]
3. cổ 胡 hú (SV hồ) 'neck' [ originally, 'dewlap' | M 胡 hú < MC ɠo < OC *gha: | *OC 胡 古 魚 胡 ɡaː | Chinese dialects: Cant. wu4, Hakka fu2 | FQ 戶吳 | Tang reconstruction: /ho/ | Shuowen: 《肉部》胡：牛 𩔞 垂 也。从 肉 古 聲。| Kangxi: 《康熙字典·肉部·五》胡：《唐韻》戸孤 切《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》洪孤 切，𠀤 音 瑚。《說文》牛頷 垂 也。《正字通》喉 也 (cổ)。 頷 肉 下 垂 者 曰 胡。《詩·豳風》狼 跋 其 胡。《傳》老狼有胡，進則躐其胡。《釋名》胡，互也。在 咽 下垂，能 斂 互 物也。《前漢·郊祀志》有龍垂胡䫇。《註》胡 謂 頸 下垂 肉 也。又《韻會》何也。《書·太甲》弗 慮 胡 獲，弗 爲 胡 成。又《集韻》壽 也。《詩·周頌》胡 考 之 寧。《傳》胡，壽 也。又《正字通》鋒之曲而旁出者曰胡。戈頸也。《周禮·冬官考工記·冶氏》戈胡三之，戟 胡 四 之。又《集韻》洪孤 切，音𩑶。 戈戟 內 柄 處。又 胡故 切，音護。頸也 ((càng)cổ)。《前漢·金日磾傳》日磾捽胡。晉灼讀。| Guangyun: 胡 胡 戸吳 匣 模 模 平聲 一等 開口 模 遇 上平十一模 ɣuo ɣu ɣo ɣo ɦuo ɦuo ɦɔ hu2 gho hu 何 也 又 胡 虜 說文 曰 牛頷垂 也 亦 姓 出 安定 新蔡 二 望 又 漢 複姓 二氏 齊 宣王 母弟 別封 母 郷 逺本 胡公 近 娶 母 邑 故 爲 胡母 氏 又 胡公 之後 有 公子 非 因以胡非 爲 氏 又 虜 複姓 南涼 錄秃 髮壽闐 之 母姓 胡掖 氏 戸吳切三十 || ZYYY: 胡 胡 曉 魚模合 魚模 陽平 合口呼 xu || According to Starostin, dewlap. For *gh- (at least in *gha: 'how, when') cf. Xiamen o|2, Chaozhou ou2. Most frequently used for homonymous *gha: 'how, when' (etymology see under 曷.) || ex.《詩經·狼跋》: 狼跋其胡、載疐其尾。 “Shījīng·Láng bá”: Láng bá qí hú, zài zhì qí wěi。 (Đạpphải cổ mình, lại vướng đằngđuôi.) || cf. modern C 喉 hóu 'larynx, throat' (SV hầu) | M 喉 hóu < MC ɠʊw < OC *ghro: | According to Starostin, for OC *gh- cf. Xiamen, Chaozhou au2, Protoform: *khrjə:w (~gh-,qh-,Gh-), Meaning: throat, Chinese: *gh(r)o: throat, Tibetan: kru-kru windpipe (cf. also mgur, mgul throat, neck, ko-ko throat, chin), Kachin: z^|jəkhro1 the throat, gullet. | cf. 'cổhọng' ~ 'cuốnghọng' 喉嚨 hóulóng 'throat' (SV hầulung) while modern M 脖子 bózi VS 'cáicổ' (the neck), a much later development. Interestingly, as previously cited, 'ankle' in Vietnamese is #cổchân '腳脖 jiăobó', literally 'neck of the foot'. In the meanwhile we can posit 脖頸 bójiīng for #'càngcổ' (back of the neck) ]
4. cằm 頷 hàn (SV hàm) 'chin' [ M 頷 hàn, ăn, hán < MC ɣʌm, ɣǝ̄m < OC *ghəm, *ghəmʔ | According to Starostin, chin, lower jaw (L Zhou). For *gh- cf. Xiamen, Chaozhou am4. Also read *ghǝ̄m, MC ɣʌm (FQ 胡男), whence Viet. hàm id. | Note that modern M 下巴 xiàbā (SV hạba) is for 'chin'. Naturally we will not exclude the possibility that 'cằm' is possibly derived from the whole dissyllabic string MC /xaba/ which gives rise to allomorphs /χamba/ > /kamba/ > /kamɓ/ > /kăm/ (cf. /-b-/ in Eng. 'crumble') by means of epenthesis of -mb- therein while /a/ being pushed back to vocalized /ă/ conditioned by labial /ɓ/ ?],
5. cà 茄 qié ‘eggplant’ (SV già) [ M 茄 qié < MC ga < OC *ghiaj | Cant.: khe12, Amoy: khe11 $; kio12; khe12, Chaozhou kie12, Fuzhou: kia11, Shanghai: ka32 | According to Starostin, the oldest attested meaning and reading is OC *kra:j, MC ka. (FQ 求迦), Mand. jia: 'lotus stalk' (Han); the meaning 'egg-fruit' is attested since Tsin. The MC reading ga is exceptional (-a normally does not occur after velars) and may be dialectal; thus the OC form for 'egg-fruit' could have been *ghaj. Viet. cà is colloquial; regular Sino-Viet. is già. For *gh- cf. Xiamen khe2 || Note: This could be be an Yue loanword in Chinese as ‘eggplant’ was not native in north China in ancient times as 西 and 番 prefixes in both 西紅柿 xīhóngshì ~ 番茄 fānqié V 'cà(Tây)' (tomatoes) denote all 'foreign' + 'egg-fruits' ].

With all those fundamental words elaborated in the examples above, both Maspero and Haudricourt failed to see the possible Chinese cognates that accounted for almost all his cited examples. So if we are to take dichotomy of both Maspero’s and Haudricourt’s views, for whatever relationship the etyma cited above may establish, the question about their roots – that whether which word was borrowed from which language or they originated from the same source – remains the same insofar as how they are etymologically related, like the cases of 'lúa' ~ 'gạo' 稻 dào ‘paddy’ (rice) and 'cà' 茄 qié (eggplant), if they are coupled with other words such as 'đường' 糖 táng (sugar), 'voi' 為 wēi (elephant), 'chuối' 蕉 jiāo (banana), 'dừa' 椰 yé (coconut), 'chó '狗 gǒu (dog), and 'sông' 江 jiāng (river), etc., they all having the same Yue root, so are dozens of other basic words found to be also cognate to those of Austroasistic and Austronesian languages as posited by other scholars (see Luce's list below.)

In the case of Chinese and Vietnamese, if there exist correspondences in any word in their vocabularies, given their relationship probably of more than 2,200 years old accounted here only for pre-Han periods onward, chances are that they are plausibly related to each other than to any other languages, whether it was from ancient Chinese to Vietnamese or vice versa, such as names the 12 animals for the years in relation to what they were called in the Earthly Branches.

All of the corresponding Chinese characters cited earlier are very much a later development, though, for which each Chinese charater appears with the construction of the pattern {radical+phonetic} where a radical is the signific indicator of a Chinese character, that is, they are not basic ideographic characters originally, such as 火, 日, 刀, etc., which leads to speculations for some native nominals. If the ancient Annamese did not need to wait until 12th century in order to know how to say those human basic words with tones and intimacy, based on the context, more fundamental words raise new possibilities that there might possibly be loanwords from the Yue in C, e.g.,

• 豆 dòu for 'nồi' ('pot', phonetic loan of base meaning 'bean' 荳 with the latter 豆 dòu for 'bean', though, still exists.),
• 弩 nǔ 'ná' for 'crossbow' [ ~> VS 'nỏ' | M 弩 nǔ < noɔ < OC *nhāʔ || According to Starostin, Viet. ná is an archaic loanword; a somewhat later loan from the same source is Viet. nỏ id.; standard Sino-Viet. is nỗ̃. In Chinese the word is witnessed since Late Zhou (Zhouli), but already in Shujing we meet a word 砮 *n(h)āʔ, *n(h)ā, MC nó, no, Mand. nǔ, Viet. nỗ 'flint arrowhead' - which may be historically the same word. For *nh- cf. Xiamen lɔ6, Jianou noŋ8.],
• 舟 zhōu 'tàu' for 'boat' [ Also, doublets '舠 dāo' (boat) ~ '刀 dāo' (besides the meaning of 'knife'). The southern (江南 Jiangnan) people were good in water navigation. ],
• 船 chuán 'thuyền' for 'ship' [ ~> VS 'xuồng' (small boat). Interestingly, 駕船 jiàchuán 'láithuyền' or 'steer a boat' with the signific 馬 mă or 'horse' which those early nomadic people had been very good at while in the south the watered-savy natives have a word for it which would be coined with the Chinese character 掉 diáo ‘to row’ (SV trạo, VS chèo, cf. 櫂 (棹 zhào VS chèo 'oar') ],
• 井 jǐng 'giếng' (a 'well') [ Note: it had been very difficult to dig a well in areas of northwest China where the proto-Chinese first appeared. ],
• 耕 gēng 'cày' (plow) [ cf. SV 'canh'. Note that the China South people were good at water paddy plating for rice. ],
• 種 zhòng 'trồng', zhǒng 'giống' (plant, seed, breed) [ cf. SV 'chủng' | Note: An Chi Ibid., 2016. Vol. II, even posited this word with "trứng" (egg) for which it should be 蛋 dàn (SV đản) ],
• 銅 tóng 'thau' (bronze) [ cf. SV 'đồng' (copper). The Yue were best known for the 'bronze drums' with highly advanced bronze metallurgy. ],
• 鋤 jǔ 'cuốc' (hoe) [ Highly advanced bronze metallurgy could have led to iron ore extract and iron metallurgy as well, perhaps? That shpould go hand in hand, so to speak. ],
• 鋸 jū 'cưa' (saw) [ Unlike 'cuốc' (hoe), this word could be a much later development, perhaps out of the need of chopping down rosewood trees to build palaces and furniture? Whoever has made a feature-long video clips on Youtube.com regarding the craftmanship demonstrated by Annamese architects and carpenters in rebuilding today's Beijing's Forbidden City in the 16th century of the Ming Dynasty deserved credits for creating the interesting documentory. ], etc.

The authencity of genetic affiliation of both Chinese and Vietnamese basic words hence is even more firmly affirmed based on theorization that the ancient Yue language contributed to the proto-Chinese as their nomadic ancestors conquered the east and south, of the latter it is possible that the "Chinese" borrowed many of such words from the "barbaric" southerners of the Yue. In other word, approximately 5,000 years ago, at the time that the "pre-Chinese" were considered as "normads" on horseback prior to founding the Xia Dynasty, the Yue people had already been good at both water paddy planting and river navigation and seafaring, having contributed to the southward movement by the Austronesian family, for which words must also have originated from China South.

The Yue tribesmen (百越 BaiYue or 'BáchViệt) had been cultivating most of today's China vast streches of fertile land along both flanks of Yangtze River in which later on flourished those states of the Shu 蜀, the Chu 楚, the Wu 吳, and the Yue 越. As people moved across states on their territorial expansion before Qin 秦 (SV Tần) or 'China', an adequate amount of native loanwords might have been borrowed or slipped into speeches of the subjects of all states as manifested by their adoption of the southern Yue's zodiac set of the twelve animals for the Earthly Branches recorded as '子 zǐ、丑 chǒu、寅 yǐn、卯 măo、辰 shěn、巳 sì、午 wǔ、未 wèi、申 shēn、酉 yǒu、戌 xù、亥 hài' that have been paired with the names of the 12 animals in the realm of Vietnamese basic words,. One may wonder why on earth from the early days of their existence, "the pre-Chinese" or the ancient Vietnamese, who already possessed a set of basic words for their own use – in this case names of the twelve aninmals, i.e., 'chuột', 'trâu', 'cọp', 'mèo', 'rồng', 'rắn', 'gà', 'chó', 'heo', respectively, – still borrowed them from some other source. One way to explain is they might have borrowed them to fulfill their spiritual need, either for the pre-Qin Chinese or the later ancient Vietnamese.

For the Vietnamese, the name of each zodiac item in the returned set of Early Middle Chinese (EMC) correspond to the later Sino-Vietnamese 'tý', 'sửu', 'dần', 'mẹo', 'thìn', 'tỵ', 'ngọ', 'mùi', 'thân', 'dậu', 'tuất', 'hợi' as they crept back into Vietnamese at a later period, which might sound 'scholarly sacred' to the common mass, and perhaps, which is similar to the phenomenon in the modern time that the Vietnamese still borrowed from the Chinese the Sino-Vietnamese names of objects, animals and insects for the Western Horoscope, e.g., 'Bạchdương' (白羊 Băiyáng) for 'Aries', 'Dươngngưu' (金牛 Jīnníu) for 'Taurus', etc. And, yes, they indeed sound a bit more 'academic' because the Sino-Vietnamese names will not directly and immediately be clearly made out for many people.

On the contrary, to the ears of the early pre-Chinese, with an older alternate pronunciation for each animal, name of each item might have not sounded and meant differently from what they called for the same animals; otherwise, they did not need to exert all the efforts to substitute the 'cat' 卯 (VS 'mèo') and 'goat' 未 (VS 'dê' /je1/) to 'rabbit' 兔 tù (VS 'thỏ') and 'sheep' 羊 yáng (VS 'dê' anyway), respectively, probably due to some sentimental reasons, that is, the Chinese were superstitious about 'cat' and their northern 羊 yáng 'culture' focued around the nomadic 'sheep' shepherding, in contrast with the southerners with 'water buffalo' (丑 chǒu or VS 'trâu') and 'pig' (亥 hài or VS 'heo'). The point to make here is they, the 12 basic animals words, are all cognates in both 'languages' in ancient times.

With the Sino-Vietnamese set of the Chinese Zodiac animals that made a round trip back to ancient Vietnamese as foresaid, the co-existence of at least the 2 sets of nominals in Vietnamese can be used to explain the hypothesis that all of other basic words in Chinese might have evolved from "an already extinct foreign source" (Norman, on Chinese. 1988. p. 17), apart from those common etyma that both Tibetan and Chinese had initially shared. The mysterious "foreign source" could have been what evolved into those fundamental words in Vietnamese as well to account for what eventually gave rise to the Yue 百越, the Chu 楚國, the Zhou 周朝, etc., some 3,000 years ago their people and languages that could have come from the Taic elements. Recall that the notion "proto-Chinese", of the racially-mixed people whom later we called "Chinese", emphasized herein specifically, is, in all possibilities, to mean those who had not blended with all other indigenous people prior to their expansion to the south.

Regular lexical interchanges are another indicator of linguistic affiliation. Scores of barebones words essentially with substance are found to be cognate to not only Chinese etyma but also have goo Vietnamese matches in those Sino-Tibetan etymologies. That is, basic words do not just appear exclusively in Mon-Khmer languages. For the reason that one could hardly enumerate with the same elaboration on etymology to substantiate those etyma to what appear in the Mon-Khmer languages just like those Chinese variants that are undoubtedly cognate to the Vietnamese counterparts in all shapes and sounds, e.g., 娘 niáng (SV nương) for 'nàng' (girl) and 'nạ' (mom), 爹 diè (SV giả) for both 'tía' (daddy) and 'cha' (father), etc., the question is thence raised that is it possible that Vietnamese is a Mon-Khmer language per se?

For the basic words that Vietnamese shares with the Mon-Khmer languages, in a much lesser extent, what accounts to their similar lexicons could simply be the influence from a more powerful nation that usually flows to weaker ones as the history of the Khmer Kingdom was one of the most powerful nation in Southeast Asia with its glorious past that the historical ancient Annam could not match in terms of its military might. Alternatively, as Annam had grown bigger, both Champa and Khmer kingdoms finally succumbed to the Annamese state as the new resettlers dominated the linguistic realms of the people in the old territory. That is to emphaize the fact that the more powerful came to play the the leading role, anthropologically. Along with her newly annexed territory, the Annamese people therein and their speeches thereof had inevitably blended into the on-going development of the Vietnamese language hand in hand with the former native inhabitants, (南) , and, as a result, all mixed well together to evolve into a new entity. After the fall of the Cambodia's ancient Khmer Empire, the Annamese nation, contrarily, grew bigger, greedier, and became more agressive. In the millenium that followed her sovereignty, Annam had not only totally eradicated the whole Kingdom of Champa in the south of her border but also virtually swallowed all the eastern flanks of the ancient Cambodia's territories.

In today's Vietnam, when traveling further to the south, we shall encounter all the strange placenames such as "Phanrang", "Phanrí", "Sóctrăng", etc. as opposed to those ancient Vietnamese toponyms in her far northern parts wherein some of the Sino-Vietnamese deeply-rooted basic etyma have grown atop, for examples, "Kẻ-" (market, city) as in "Kẻchèm" that is interchangeable with today's SV "TừLiêm" 慈廉 Cílián, "Kẻchợ" ~ 市街 Shìjiē, "Kẻbảng" ~ 棒街 Băngjiē, "Kẻon" ~ 峴港 Xiàngăng, being ancient names of cities and villages, or "Chằm-" (marsh) 澤 zé (SV trạch) ~ "Chằm Dạtrạch" ~ 夜澤 Yèzé, "Chằmdơi" ~ 蝠澤 Fúzé, etc. In terms of racial composition, once those late migrants had moved into their new resettlement, their descendants would naturally be of racial mixture with other local people, just like what had previously happened further in the north throughout the national development of both China South and ancient Vietnam in the past.

As to be seen later in the next chapters that Vietnamese and Chinese share most of the basic words with Sino-Tibetan etymologies, we could still scale them down to only scores of cognates in Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer languages – only a small subset of a much larger union – with an inclusion of possible Chinese affiliation. That is, those postulated Khmer~ Vietnamese cognates might even originated fron the same root that gave rise the ancient Chinese with a great number of them in both Vietnamese and Chinese proved to be undeniably cognate, the real question is whether or not they are genetically affiliated from the same linguistic family or just simply straight forward loanwords. Without all those critically basic items, so fundamental, such as 'đầu' 頭 tóu (head), 'cổ' 胡 hú (neck), 'mắt' 目 mù (eye), 'ông' 翁 (grandfather), 'bà' 婆 pó (grandmother), 'bố' 父 fù (father), 'mẹ' 母 mǔ (mother), 'anh' 兄 xiōng (older brother), 'chị' 姊 zǐ (older sister), 'em' 妹 mēi (younger sister), 'nhà' 家 jiā (home), 'cửa' 戶 hù (door), etc., the ancient Annamese language in its early stage could not have ever existed at all if they were all considered Chinese loanwords if found plausibly cognate to those in Chinese. Even if that had been the case at all, it could have been postulated as another cases of a language of 'pidginization', or even 'creolization' that had emerged to meet the demand of communication with the influx of the then "Chinese" immigrants following the footsteps of 'the Han conquistadors'.

As likely as genetic affiliation was the true case – from the dawn of humanity what else can be closer than kinship? – in the deepest basic lexical stratum there appear scanty of words with mixed origins, including both apparent Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer and Sino-Tibetan stocks, or to be exact cognates of the same roots yet to be identified. Given language contacts spreading out in space and time either in water or sound wave patterns, in our specific cases those previously listed etyma seem to have originated from either the same Sino-Tibetan linguistic family or common Taic-descendant linguistic forms, e.g., the aforementioned Yue languages such as those of Cantonese, Fukienese, etc., which followed the break-up of the Taic into Tai–Kadai and Yue branches.

The foregoing postulation suggests that the Austroasiatic people were also diverted from some branches of Taic aboriginals in China South as well. When the next racial batches of newly mixed northern resettlers – e.g., the Yue-mixed Han Chinese – advanced futher southward to their newly acquired territory in ancient North's Vietnam, they pushed those separated Muong and other indigenous people to live closer to the speakers of the Mon-Khmer languages who had moved in from the southwest hundreds of years before (see Nguyễn Ngọc San. Ibid. 1993). As a result, their basic words could have have found their way into Vietnamese via such channel given the fact that those mountainous minorities of Muong-ethnic origin were always in contact with the Kinh people in lowland areas in bartering as well as socialization (histotically, King Lê Lơi who led the nation to drive out the China's Ming occupiers out of the country after 20 years under their harsh rule in the 16th century was ethnically of Muong origin.)

Linguistically, such proposition could not be ruled out because of the fact that many basic words exist in one Austroasitic Mon-Khmer language may be absent in all others while the same ones are found in both Vietnamese and Chinese languages all having originated from the earlier historical periods as well. The reverse scenario would be false for other Mon-Khmer isoglosses in terms of the time frame of identified Khmer-Vietnamese cognates. Our question now is driven back home to the previous point that why there still exist Mon-Khmer basic words in Vietnamese after purging and filtering out all Chinese and Vietnamese lexical commonalities in the core stock – not sure exactly how many words are Mon-Khmer leftovers, though, because there still exist highly plausible Chinese cognates all for those basic words. – It is possible that what remains unidentified thereof could have come out of a mixed bag of indigenous and proto-VietMuong lexical seedlings, as demonstrated in those remnants in Muong, from which the Viet and Muong both had shared before they split into different languages, just like the racially biological composition of their speakers, ones having been mixed with the Han the others with the Mon-Khmer speakers, specifically. It was possible that the VietMuong basic words got back to those Mon-Khmer languages because their speaker were oririally immigants to the Northern Vietnam in the Red Rivers Dalta from the southwest regions as suggested by other author. (Nguyễn Ngọc San, ibid. 1993.)

As for those words in the above listings, the similarities between Chinese and Vietnamese are parallel, concurrent, and plausible, without the need to go into more details of their shared linguistic properties such as tonality and phonology. If we keep tracing other words in the same category beyond what both Maspero and Haudricourt (1954) could have provided with so far – that is, in their Old Chinese reconstruction as well as tonegenesis based on Annamese – in all other lexical areas (see Shafer's Sino-Tibetan etymologies in next chapter), additionally, in one way or another, much more words like those quick samples – simply sprung up swiftly from the back of the author's mind without much effort – so far in Vietnamese could be found related to those of Chinese.

 

Back to top

B) Haudricourt’s theory of tonal development

Haudricourt’s hypothesis of tone development in the Vietnamese language is that it was a result of changing pitch due to the nature of initial and final consonants. His theory was truly a nouveau idea in his time and remains as the core theory for the origin of the development of tones in a grander sense. Its influence on the perception of tonegenesis of the Vietnamese language was so profound and far reaching until this day that his view has been widely accepted by academics of all times. This section, however, is to rebutt his theory that the Vietnamese tones would have barely been complete by the 12th century. We could actually choose to accept Haudricourt’s postulation only if the same formation of tones in Vietnamese was coeval with the same event in Old Chinese that took place interactively and concurrently as evidenced by their cognacy.

On related issues, Mei Tsu-lin in Tones and Prosody in Middle Chinese and the Origin of the Rising Tone (1970) postulated that the rising tone (上聲) in Middle Chinese developed through the loss of a final glottal stop -ʔ, equivalents of "hỏi" (?) and "ngã" (~) tones in Vietnamese and in modern Chinese dialects. In the 7th and 8th centuries tonal difference was utilized to simulate the length contrast in Sanskrit, which fitted into the tonal schemes of all four tones in Middle Chinese in terms of pitch and contour and length as described in a ninth-century Buddhist work. The Old Chinese in the Book of Odes rhyming words show a strong tendency to belong to the same three or four tone categories intimately evolved into the four tones of Middle Chinese.

"Argument from analogy is that best suggestive, and without testimony from more direct sources, the theory will remain as one of the many possibilities. Fortunately, three kinds of evidence can now be presented: modern dialects, Buddhist sources bearing upon Middle Chinese, and old Sino- Vietnamese loans."

"Several dialects of the southeastern coastal area preserve a glottal stop in the rising tone, and the Buddhist sources indicate that the rising tone of Middle Chinese is high, short, and level. Our thesis, then, is that the final glottal stop of Old Chinese is retained intact in the coastal dialects and developed into a high and short syllable in Middle Chinese. We know from acoustic studies that a syllable is high and short if it ends in a voiceless stop, low and long if it ends in a voiced stop, and medium in pitch and duration if it is open [-Ø]. It is also reasonable to assume that when a final stop is lost, the tonal features are retained as reflexes. Therefore, if the final glottal stop (which is voiceless) indeed existed in Old Chinese, its descendant should have precisely the features we said the rising tone did have in the Middle Chinese."

(Mei Tsu-lin's Tones and Prosody in Middle Chinese and the Origin of the Rising Tone. 1970. )

Haudricourt was the chief debunker of theory of non-inheritance of tones initiated by Maspero in 1916 with his cited Mon-Khmer non-tonal cognates. Before that, it had been assumed that tonal contrast is not derivable from any non-tonal contrast and tonality in the Chinese language is but an intrinsic characteristic of the language. Until the late 20th century, Tung T’ung-ho (董同龢 <中國語音史>. p. 183), as quoted by Mei Tsu-lin (1977) (M) , had also stated, “Ever since the beinning of the Chinese language, we not only distinguish tones, but a tonal system not much different from the four tones of Middle Chinese." This prevalent view has been challenged by Haudricourt in 1954 that, based on his study of Vietnamese tonegenesis, the Chinese tonal system in historical times developed through the loss of certain final consonants. The rising tone (上聲) of Middle Chinese that corresponds to the "hỏi" (?) and "ngã" (~) tones of Vietnamese were reflexes of an earlier -h representing an original -s as some Chinese words were borrowed into Vietnamese as early as the Han Dynasty at a time when the hỏi (?) and ngã (~) tones were presumably still represented by an –s, such as 義 *ngia/ngjie, Viet. 'nghĩa' (~); 墓 *mâg/muo, Viet. 'mã' (?) (See 墓 "mả" below). Arguing from this fact and from analogy, Haudricourt then interprets morphological derivation in Old Chinese to even involve the origin of Middle Chinese departing tone (去聲) as alternation between a final –s and its absence -Ø. For example, he posits /dâk/ 度 for the verbal form “to measure” (cf. SV 'độ') and dâks for the nominal form “a measure” (SV cf. 'đạc'); âk 惡 for the adjectival form “bad” (cf. SV 'ác') and âks (cf. SV 'ố') for the transitive verbal form “to dislike. While Mei specifically noted that he second member of these pairs is in the departing tone, in Sino-Vietnamese they all are in departing tones but in Sinitic-Vietnamese as "đo" and "dò" appear in level tone 平聲 instead. Regarding to Haudricout's hypothesis of the rising tones in Vietnamese ' (? and ~), we will discuss more later on variations of the tones other than both 義 *ngia/ngjie (SV 'nghĩa') and 墓 *mâg/muo (Haudricourt VS 'mã') that might or might not fit into the paradigm that evolved into words with the postulated tones. (墓)

Haudricourt’s idea was taken up by Forrest (R.A.D. Forrest.1960), who equates the reconstructed –s of Old Chinese with the -s suffix of Classical Tibetan, and Pulleyblank (E.G. Pulleyblank, “The consonantal system of Old Chinese, Part II,” AM 9. 1962. pp. 206-265.) provides further evidence in the form of foreign words ending in -s whose Chinese transcriptions, dated the third century A.D., *-ts > -s, whence the departing tone -s in his theory. In the same paper, Pulleyblank proposes antecedents for two other tones: -ɗ and -ɓ for later level tone (平聲), and -ʔ for later rising tone (上聲). In his view, Old Chinese has no open syllables, namely [-Ø]. Having reconstructed ɗ- and ɓ- as initial phonemes, he reasons that by symmetry they are also likely to occur in final position, i.e., -ɗ and -ɓ. Thus a level tone has open syllable in Middle Chinese or Old Chinese -ɗ and -ɓ depending on whether it shows contact with a velar of dental final consonant. Pulleyblank’s reason for connecting them to -ʔ and later rising tone is mainly based upon analogy with Vietnamese because of high degree of parallelism between the Vietnamese and Chinese tonal systems. The steady accumulation of evidence for the -s theory suggests that specific analogies may even be valid. Now, since the sắc (/) and nặng (.) tones of Vietnamese developed through the loss of an earlier -ʔ, it is quite likely that the Chinese rising tone was similarly derived.

Practically, the author's purpose of instating the reverse logic by explaining the formation of those toneless words in the Mon-Khmer languages that have cognates accentuated with tones could possibly be Vietnamese loanwords as well. Haudricourt's theory of tonegenesis was based on what appears in some Mon-Khmer words with articulation of certain finals that corresponds to certain tones in corresponding words in Vietnamese, such as final glottal stop [ʔ] to the 6th tone in Vietnamese. However, his theorization that ancient Vietnamese only became fully tonal only in the 12th century is totally absurb given the fact that the Tang Dynasty's Middle Chinese had fully developed into 8 tones by the end of the 10th century. It is believed that the Annamese scholars had used Mandarin for 1,000 years until then as any other scholars in any prefectures in the Middle Kingdom; the inundation of commonly daily use of Tang's Middle Chinese dissyllabic words in Vietnamese also prove that – that was when ancient Annam gained its full independence./p>

Whether or not Haudricourt was right in his theorization, it appears that all the compiled Annamese words were all complete with tonality as shown in the wordbook called Annan Yiyu 安南譯語 Annam Dịchngữ (Translation of Annamese) compiled by a Chinese envoy to Annam in the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century, which was later translated into modern language by Wang Li (王力. 1997). It is worth to mention that not only those Chinese loanwords in contemporary Vietnamese are accented with certain tones that are totally in agreement with those Chinese counterparts, but also the tones of those older forms of SInitic-Vietnamese words as shown in their etymological cognates appear to have carried some corresponding patterns from the early ones of Old Chinese prior to transforming to those 8 tones in Middle Chinese. For example,

1. OC *djats > VS 'thề' (the 2nd tone) > MC tsjai > SV 'thệ' (the 6th tone) > 誓 M shì (vow),
2. < OC *ŋors > VS 'nguyền' (the 2nd tone) > MC ŋwɒn > SV 'nguyện' (the 6th tone) > 願 M yuàn (wish),

as well as those voiced versus unvoiced initials such as


3. 'buồng' vs. 'phòng' 房 fáng (room), 'buồm' vs. 'phàm' 帆 fán (sail),
4. 'bữa' vs. 飯 fàn (meal), etc.

Taking into account the tonal factor – given that both Vietnamese and Chinese are tonal languages – their pronunciation matched with Sino-Vietnamese and portions of SInitic-Vietnamese etyma, which possibly originated from the same sources since the ancient times.

Examine the model { C(+tone):V(+tone):MK(-tone) } to understand how the 3 groups of languages have concurrently developed as opposed to what is hypothesized by the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists. That scenario could have taken place way far back more than 2200 years ago, firstly with ancient Annamese started with 2 or more tones similar to those in Old Chinese, long before the then ancient Annamese began to form – having mixed Sinitic items on top of indigenous strata – after its ancestral Vietic language having split from the proto-Vietmuong branch to have become two different speeches by the time when those local ancient Muong tribemen in the northeastern region of Vietnam fled to remote mountains in the face of advancement of the Han invaders in 111 B.C. That explains the fact why those early Kinh people who stayed behind spoke a highly Sinicized language. The Annamese by that time had less contacts with the Mon-Khmer speakers than the Muong who mingled with them in the southwestern highland.

All in all, similarly in terms of etymology, putting all elements together in a historical perspective, the plausibilty of those Vietnamese and Chinese etyma being considered as cognates hence expanded to embrace a wide-range of basic words, including those found in the Mon-Khmer languages for which many items were termed Austroasiatic lexicons, e.g., 'chết' 死 sǐ (die), 'máu' 衁 huáng (blood), 'ngà' 牙 yá (tusk), etc. (see http://tlmei.com/tm17web/1976a_austroasiatics.pdf). On the Sinitc side, comparatively, while words of the same phonetic element produced massive homonyms with the pronunciation in today's diminutively four-toned Mandarin as it had gone through heavy influence of northern isoglosses such as speeches spoken by the Tartars or Manchurians when they ruled a part or the whole China, the then Annamese language mirrored the same tonal development as some other Chinese dialects, such as Cantonese and Fukienese, all complete with tonality. As a matter of fact, the period of 1000 years as the Chinese colony until the 10th century from the Han throughout the Tang dynasties, linguistically, has been long enough for the same 8 tones of Middle Chinese to stick to the Vietnamese language as an inseparatable part of it as we are now able to observe. The point to make here is that the Annamese did not wait until the 12th century to complete the 8 tone formation in their language as postulated by Haudricourt. In other words, the tonal changes effected that had occurred from the Old Chinese through Early Middle Chinese to Middle Chinese ought to be adopted in ancient Annam pretty quickly as they were in any other Middle Kingdom's prefectures. Fundamentally, the 8-toned Vietnamese words of the same ancient roots could differentiate their meanings for all those characters composed with the same phonetic stem. For instance, for the sound

(1) 口 kǒu (SV khẩu, VS 'cửa') 'opening' there are possibilities of variants as follows

• 'ca' 哥 gē 'brother',
• 'ca' 歌 gē 'sing',
• 'cá' 個 gè 'each' (VS 'cái'),
• 'các' 各 gé 'every',
• 'cáo' 告 gào 'announce',
• 'cao' 高 gāo 'high',
• 'cảo' 稿 găo 'manuscript',
• 'cẩu' 狗 gǒu 'dog (VS 'cầy'),
• 'cổ' 古 gǔ 'ancient' (VS 'cũ'),
• 'cô' 姑 gū 'aunt',
• 'cố' 估 gù 'estimate',
• 'cố' 固 gù 'cause' (VS 'cớ'),
• 'cú' 句 jū 'sentence' (VS 'câu'),
• 'cục' 局 jù 'bending' (VS 'cong'),
• 'cư' 居 jū 'reside',
• 'hà' 何 hé 'how, which',
• 'hà' 河 hé 'river',
• 'hồ' 胡 hú 'neck' (VS 'cổ'),
• 'hồ' 湖 hú 'lake',
• 'khả' 可 kě 'able',
• 'kha' 珂 kē 'jade',
• 'khắc' 克 kè 'overcome',
• 'khách' 客 kè 'guest'.
• 'khấu' 摳 kòu 'stingy' (VS 'kẹo'),
• 'khấu' 扣 kòu 'knock' (VS 'gõ'),
• 'khô' 枯 kū 'dried',
• 'khổ' 苦 kǔ 'bitter,
• 'khốc' 哭 kù 'weep' (VS 'khóc'),
• 'khốc' 酷 kù 'brutal',

etc.

(2) 方 fāng (SV phương, VS 'vuông', 'vửa', 'mới'...) 'square', 'recently'... there are

• 'bàng' 旁 páng 'side',
• 'báng' 謗 'slander',
• 'biên' 邊 biān 'border',
• 'phòng' 房 fáng 'room' (VS 'buồng'),
• 'phóng' 放 fáng 'release' (VS 'buông'),
• 'phòng' 防 fáng 'safeguard',
• 'phỏng' 仿 fáng 'imitate',
• 'phỏng' 訪 fáng 'visit' (VS thăm'),
• 'phương' 芳 fāng 'fragrant' (VS 'thơm'),
• 'phường' 坊 fáng 'quarter' (VS 'hàng'),

etc.

(3) 工 gōng (SV công) 'work', ... there are

ōng'
• 'cang' 扛 káng 'carry' (VS 'khiêng', 'gánh', 'gồng', 'cõng'),
• 'cang' 缸 gāng 'vat' (VS 'ảng'),
• 'công' 功 gōng 'force',
• 'công' 攻 gōng 'assault',
• 'cống' 貢 gòng 'tribute',
• 'củng' 鞏 gǒng 'consolidate',
• 'giang' 江 jiāng (VS 'sông') 'river',
• 'hạng' 項 xiàng (VS 'càng') 'nape (of the neck)', 'item',
• 'hồng' 紅 hóng (VS 'hường') 'pink',
• 'hồng' 虹 hóng (VS 'mống') 'rainbow',
• 'hồng' 鴻 hóng 'swan', 'grand',
• 'không' 空 kōng (VS 'trống', 'rỗng') 'empty',
• 'khống' 控 kòng 'control',
• 'khủng' 恐 kǒng 'terribly',
• 'xoang' 腔 qiāng (VS 'giọng') 'hollow', 'accent',

etc.

(4) 'cộng' 共 gòng (VS cùng, cung, cũng, vòng) 'add', 'common', 'communist', 'together', 'respect', 'supply', 'surround', 'span with the hands',.. there are

• 'cảng' 港 găng 'seaport',
• 'cung' 供 gōng (VS 'cúng') 'supply', 'offerings',
• 'cung' 拱 gōng (VS 'vòng') 'cup hands before the chest',
• 'cung' 恭 gōng 'respect',
• 'hang' 巷 xiāng (VS 'hẻm') 'alley',
• 'hồng' 烘 hōng (VS 'hong', 'hâm', 'hầm', 'hơ)' 'heat by the fire',
• 'hồng' 洪 hóng 'flood',
• 'hồng' 哄 hòng (VS hống) 'clamor', 'coax'

etc.

and so on. The main point to emphasize here is that all those fundamental words above and hundreds of others must have been pronounced with tonality long before 12th century in order to differentiate their meanings; otherwise, they would be homonymous, whether or not Annamese is considered as a Sinicized language.

In addition, given Vietnamese is the only language that carries tones as compared to any Mon-Khmer one, therefore, our argumentation could be flipped over to support the reverse logic by asserting that loanwords from a tonal language like Vietnamese when changing into toneless words in the Mon-Khmer languages they would have undergone morphemic innovation to compensate for the lack of tones in those languages, in this case, the high pitch, or intonation for those Chinese loanwords in similar languages such as Japanese and Korean.

Koichi Honda in his research on development of tones in the Vietic family,Tone Correspondences and tonegenesis in the Vietic Family (Austroasiatic) puts the whole matter under the Mon-Khmer perspective (emphasized in bold by dchph):

"Vietic is known as the only sub-group in the Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer) language family for having tones. Due to the existence of the tones, Vietnamese (or Viet), one of the members of the Vietic family, has long been discussed in terms of its position to which it belongs. In 1912, Maspero grouped Vietnamese as a member of Tai (Thai) languages, mainly because of its tones. Haudricourt, on the other hand in 1954, claimed it belongs to Mon-Khmer family, due to the correspondence of basic words, and posited a hypothesis which is called "tonegenesis". It seems Haudricourt's hypothesis is widely accepted by linguists. However, his hypothesis has not been well attested due to the scarcely obtainable materials for the comparative method."

And Honda summarizes Haudricourt's hypothesis as follows:

"The Vietic language did not have tones in the first stage around the year A.D. O. The birth of tones dates back to the 6th century, when a 3-tone system was established, depending on the syllable ending types: (1) open and sonorant-ending syllables became level tone; (2) fricative-ending syllables created falling tone; and (3) stop and glottal stop-ending syllables created rising tone (phonemicising of the rhymes to tones). The third shift took place in the 12th century where 3 tones split into 6 tones depending on the initial consonants; voiced ones became lower series of tones accompanied by the devoicing of initial consonants (phonemicising of the voiced initial consonants to tones). The last stage has been continuing to now where the devoiced initial consonants became voiced without changing their tones (voicing)." (Honda, p. 3)

Whether or not, with the very same hypothesis as described above, Old Chinese could be theorized as to have developed into the 4 tone system following such phonemicizing process, it is important to note that prior to 111 B.C. – before the Han Empire's annexation of the NamViet Kingdom – all ancient Chinese loanwords complete with tones might have entered the earlier form of proto-Vietic. Before gaining independence in the early 10th century, the then Annam – as a protectorate having gone through under China's rule for nearly a millenium – had been a flourishing place for Tang rhyming poetry second only after the Middle Kingdom itself. It would have produced crippled Tang-styled poems of that time for having composed some of the Tang's masterpieces without the already extant traditional 8 tone pre-requisites. (See Drake, F.S. ed. 1967. Symposium on Historical Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South-East Asia and the Hong Kong Region). In other words, eight-toned Middle Chinese loanwords must have entered Sino-Vietnamese in its complete linguistic system split in 2 registers (rendering 8 tones as being perceived, not only 6 tones as visually recognized via the Vietnamese orthography) long before the Middle Age and "the register system is well reflected in the present day Vietnamese." (Honda, ibid, p 13)

For what Honda calls "specific irregular words in Viet" as he came along with his comparative work on data at hand, his postulation on some other factors seem to have influenced in the voicing in Vietnamese where they are devoicing.

			Arem	Ruc		Muong	Viet
#7 "chicken" 		lakæ:	təlka:1, rəlka:1	ka	gà
#35 "rice (husked)" 	ŋkɔ:	təlkɔ:3, rəlkɔ:3	kaw.	gạo

"Our expected tone for #7 and #35 are ngang and hỏi tones respectively, both of which belong to high register. However, contrary to our expectations, both of them have low register tones with voiced onsets. Since these two words are so closely related to their daily life, it is hard to believe that only two of them developed in a different course. There must be some other factors for this irregularity. Another factor in common to the above two words is the initial consonant cluster, [tk] or [rk]. For reference, Ferlus' reconstructed forms for the above words are #7 *r-ka: and #35 *r-ko:ʔ This is a supporting evidence where intial consonant (or consonant cluster) has something to do with the voicing.

However, not all the reconstructed forms of Ferlus are reliable. Please look at the following example.

		Arem	Ruc		Muong	Viet	Ferlus
#85 "near" 	-	təkiɲ1 or 2 	xəɲ`	gə`n	*t-kiɲ
#35 "sand" 	təka:c	təka:c3		kac´	kát	*t-ka:c

When I found word #85, I expected the initial consonant cluster *t-k is working in the same way as *r-k is doing. The expectation, however, was betrayed because of word #35. Word #85 is an old form of a loan word from Chinese called quasi-SinoVietnamese. Formal form of Sino-Vietnamese for this word is cận [kə.n].

(Honda, p 13)

Could the so-called irregularities and faulty items by Ferlus be credited as Vietnamese loanwords to the Mon-Khmer languages, say, 'gạo' (from water paddies), 'gà' (domesticated bird) and 'cát' (commonly found in riverbed or seaside coast) had not been necessary terms for mountainous Mon-Khmer montagnards? Maybe no such question would have never been asked if one accepts the simple anatomy of Vietnamese and Chinese cognates of those etyma as follows.

1. gà 雞 jī ‘chicken’ (SV kê ) [ See elaboration on the etymology in the previous section.) ],
2. gạo 稻 dào ‘paddy, rice’ (SV đạo) [ M 稻 dào < MC dɑw < OC *lhu:ʔ ~ ɫhu:ʔ (Schuessler : MC dâu < OC *gləwʔ or *mləwʔ) | See elaboration on the etymology in the previous section. ],
3. gần 近 jìn 'near' (SV cận, cấn, ký) [ M 近 jìn < MC gɣn, gyn < OC *gjərʔ, *gjərʔs | According to Starostin, also read *gərʔ-s, MC gy\n, Mand. jìn 'to come near to, keep close to'. In Viet. cf. also gần 'near, close; adjacent, beside' (obviously from the same source). For etymology cf. ´幾 *kəj 'near' (an old *-r/-l variation?) | § 雞 jī (SV kê) 'gà', jì 記 (SV ký) 'ghi', jì 寄 (SV ký) 'gởi', jí 急 (VS cấp) 'gấp') | ¶ j- ~ c-(k-), Note: 近 jìn ~ SV 'ký' ~ VS 'kề' (close by) ],
4. cát 沙 shā 'sand' (SV sa) [ M 沙 shā < MC ʂa: < OC *ʂaɨ | ¶ sh-, j-, q- ~ k-, ex. 尚 shāng ~ VS 'còn' (still), 插 chā ~ VS 'cài' (stick in), 擦 cā ~ VS 'cà' (rub), 笑 xiào~ VS 'cười' (smile), 吉 jí ~ VS 'cát' (luck), 旗 qí ~ VS 'cờ' (flag), 棋 qí ~ VS 'cờ' (checker). Ohterwise, it could be cognate to 'sạn' (pebble) or 砂 shā ].

Additionally, Haudricourt’s hypothesis is questionable for other reasons.

Firstly, per Honda (ibid.) as previously mentioned, Haudricourt's hypothesis has not been well attested due to the scarcely obtainable materials for the comparative method.

Secondly, from beginning the tonal table set up by Haudricourt itself for comparison is incorrect according to the scheme traditionally used Chinese historical lingustics, as being adoped by numerous philologists in their works. It is not like this:

1.	­­	3.	´	5.	ʔ	7.	´ -p, -t, -c, -ch
2.	`	4.	.	6.	~	8.	. -p, -t, -c, -ch

(Sources: Norman. 1988, p. 55)

but it should be in correct alignment like this:

1.	­­	3.	ʔ	5.	´	7.	´ -p, -t, -c, -ch
2.	`	4.	~	6.	.	8.	. -p, -t, -c, -ch

Hence, for the "(3) stop and glottal stop-ending syllables created rising tone (phonemicising of the rhymes to tones)." (Honda. Ibid.) that should have given rise to the "two high and low departing tones" (去聲) or [/] and [.], repectively, in Vietnamese instead as devised in the tonal categories in the second table, to be exact, for that were adapted in all Chinese historical linguistics or classic syllabic rhyme books.That was how the ancient tonal schemes were devised and interpreted and how the two-tiered register pitches had evolved from the three- and four-toned system of Old Chinese. Albeit the was discussing the becoming the 3 tones in Old Chinese, the distributing order of the pitch scheme In Middle Chinese above is important because that is how Chinese philologists in ancient times classified them according to tonal contours of what appears in Middle Chinese. Strangely, that is not what appeared in Haudricourt's tonality schema, which showed his lacking awareness of the already well-established tonal system in Middle Chinese while he was one of the best Sinologists in the early 20th century.

Thirdly, for his deliberation that "the last stage has been continuing to now where the devoiced initial consonants became voiced without changing their tones (voicing)" (Honda, p. 3), tonal changes are not as rigid as Haudricourt's hypothesis in associating the corresponding Vietnamese tonal registers, i.e., sắc, nặng for shàngshēng 上聲 ‘rising’ tones (huh?) and hỏi, ngã for qùshēng 去聲 ‘departing’ tones (huh?) in Old Chinese, and the reverse of them to those of Middle Chinese. As to those initial or final consonants which appear in most of the Vietnamese words all could be found across all those tones in both of the two tonal registers, low and higher pitches. (For the convenience of identification, instead of denoting 1 to 4 in 2 registers as characterized in a traditional scheme, the tones are numbered from 1,2 to 7, 8, in pairs – hence, that is how the 8 Vietnamese tones are classed (see the second table above) – in the discussion below that follows immediately.)

Like what was cited by other philologists, Haudricourt saw only one-to-one correspondences from one initial or final consonants in some Mon-Khmer words to a certain tone in Vietnamese. The reason is that, firstly, many Vietnamese words having Old Chinese origin in Haudricourt’s list are based on a limited number of attested lexical items only and, secondly, the lack of material and past surveys had been immatured and incomplete, hence, lastly, he was probably not aware that there exist many more Vietnamese words of Chinese origin that have many layers of tones, allomorphs, so to speak – all falls into his hypothetical case of "last stage" as previously mentioned in forming current Vietnamese tonal system – they could have recycled and changed many times in the long-gone past to have distanced themselves from the original forms considerably, not to mention the possible loan factor that words from Vietnamese might have been borrowed into those Mon-Khmer languages and their speakers then altered to fit into a pronunciation scheme to fit the Mon-Khmer speech habit with a toneless system – just like how the Chinese lexicons were adapted into the Japanese and Korean languages – not the other way around.

Before we go on, bear in mind Haudricourt's hypothesis on the development of six tones of modern Vietnamese, which is summarized in the table below (Honda, p. 2):

			Haudricourt's hypothesis (1954)
	AD 0		6th Century	12th Century	Today
	toneless	3 tones		6 tones		6 tones

	pa		pa		pa		ba
	ba		ba		pà		bà
	pas, pah	pà		pà		bả

	bas, bah	bà		pã		bã

	paX, paʔ	pá		pá		bá
	baX, baʔ	bá		pạ		bạ

and here is the premise for that supposition:

"It was presupposed that the number of tones indicates chronological development of the Vietic family, i.e. from Arem (0 tone), Ruc (4 tones), Muong (5 tones) and Viet (6 tones). In the light of Haudricourt's hypothesis, Arem shows the first stage (AD.O), then Ruc just after the second stage (6th century), Muong around the third stage (12th century), and Viet the last stage (today)." (Honda, p. 4)

Let us examine the commonly cited example of "mả" (rising tone) [ "mã" (sic) ] from Haudricourt to convey what is apparently a cognate with the Chinese 墓 mù (SV 'mộ') [ that is embedded with the 'nặng' or the 6th (陽去 yángqù) tone, namely, the 'low departing tone' ], and to be exact, it is what has evolved into several SInitic-Vietnmaese forms, and again, each pronounced with differently distinctive tones that are explicitly cross-tonal and cross-staged.

Back to top

• 墓 mù ‘grave’ (SV mộ) [ M 墓 mù < MC mo < OC *mha:ks | FQ 莫故 | Chinese dialects: Cantonese mou6, Hakka mu5, Amoy boŋ6, Chaozhou mo4, Fukienese muo5, muoŋ5 | Shuowen: 丘也。从 土 莫 聲。莫故切 | Kangxi: 《廣韻》《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》𠀤 莫故 切，音 暮。《說文》丘也。《鄭玄曰》冢塋 之 地，孝子 所 思 慕 之 處。《禮·檀弓》古 不 修 墓。又 易 墓 非 古也。《王制》墓地 不 請。《周禮·春官》墓 大夫 掌 凡 邦 墓 之 地域，爲 之 圖，令 國民 族葬。凡 爭 墓地，聽 其 獄 訟，帥 其 屬 而 巡 墓厲。《註》墓厲，謂 塋 限遮 列 之 處。庶人 不 封 不 樹，故 不 言 冢 而 云 墓。　又《揚子·方言》凡葬，無 墳 謂 之 墓，有 墳 謂 之 塋。故 檀弓云：墓 而 不 墳。又平曰墓、封曰冢、高曰墳。　又 北谷 曰 墓。《史記·封禪書》西方 神明 之 墓。　又《集韻》䝉晡 切，音 模。《前漢·班固敘傳》陵 不 崇 墓。《註》墓 音 模。 || According to Starostin, Standard Sino-Viet. is mộ; cf. also other probable borrowings from the same source: ma 'funeral', mồ 'tomb'. For *mh- cf. Amoy boŋ6, Chaozhou mo4, Fuzhou muo5, muoŋ5. GSR :0802 f | cf. môđất 土墓 tǔmù (mound), maquĩ 魔鬼 móguǐ (ghost) to associate it with 'machay' 墓祭 mùjì 'funeral ceremony' ], we have:
  
  (1) VS mô (thanhngang or the 1st, 陰平 yīnpíng 'high level tone') [ as in 'môđất' 土墓 tǔmù 'earth mound' ],
  (2) VS ma (thanhngang or the 1st, 陰平 yīnpíng 'high level tone') [ as in 'thama' #墓地 mùdì 'graveyard', 'machay' 墓祭 mùjì 'funeral ceremony' ],
  (3) VS mồ (huyền or the 2nd, 陽平 yángpíng ‘low level tone’),
  (4) VS mả (hỏi the 3rd tone, 陰上 yīnshàng ‘high rising tone’),
  (5) VS mã (ngã or the 4th, 陽上 yángshàng ‘low rising tone’) [ Haudricourt posited as VS "mã" < OC *mâg instead of the item #4 VS "mả" < OC *mha:ks and #7 SV "mộ" < MC mo ],
  (6) VS mố (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yángqù ‘high departing tone’) [ meaning 'bumper' (French 'buteé') ],
  (7) SV mộ (nặng or the 6th, 陽去 yángqù ‘low departing tone’),
  (8) VS mốc (sắcnhập or the 7th, 陰入 yīnrù 'high entering tone') [ cf. 'biamốc' 墓碑 mùbēi 'gravestone' ],
  (9) VS mộc (nặngnhập or the 8th, 陽入 yángrù ‘low entering tone’).
  

The word #(4) "mả" [mả], or even #(5) "mã" [ma4] (sic) that Haudricourt cited actually is a Sinitic-Vietnamese sound for the academic Sino-Vietnamese word "mộ" [mo6] which is in turn obviously a cognate of MC 墓 (M mù). That is to say, the "mồ", "mô", and others in Vietnamese oeriginated from the same root or they were Chinese loanwords at a later period that could be Early Middke Chinese as they might have either entered Vietnamese at different stages since the Old Chinese – based on a derived meaning from 'mô' (mound) to 'mồ' (tomb) – or both might have originated from the same Yue source, probably a "mã". It is so said because in the early period of Han Dynasty there was "mô" '(earth lump) but only that ancient graves were flat and level (Bo Yang. 1983. Vols. 1, 2. ) Yet, the point made here is there are two respective scenarios, firstly, a corresponding tone to either voiced or devoicing initial or ending consonants – to have given rise to the 4th tone and in this specific case, i.e., { ʔ => ~ }, e.g., OC *mâg > "mã" as postulated by Haudricourt, so to speak – is established and fit into his devised corresponding system, namely, voiced and devoicing consonants vs. tones, and, the for other cases, secondly, "the last stage has been continuing to now where the devoiced initial consonants became voiced without changing their tones (voicing)." (Honda, ibid, p. 3)"

In short, we are attempting to prove that one Chinese word could correspond to different sounds and tones in Vietnamese, irrespective of its voice or devoicing characteristics of either initials or finals.(See Mei Tsu-lin's Tones and Prosody in Middle Chinese and the Origin of the Rising Tone. 1970.)

Very much similar to the case of 'mã' above, other examples below further fortify the fact that multiple tonal changes occurred to a word of Chinese origin and they had given rise to multiple forms in Vietnamese of which Haudricourt might have not even been aware of:

• 母 mǔ (SV mẫu, mô) [ M 母 mǔ (mẫu, mô) < MC mow, mʌw < OC *mjəʔ, *mǝ̄ʔ | Shuowen: 牧也。从女，象褱子形。一曰象乳子也。莫后切 | Kangxi: 【唐韻】【廣韻】【正韻】莫厚切【集韻】【韻會】莫後切，𠀤音某。【廣雅】母，牧也。言育養子也。【釋名】冒也，含已生也。【增韻】慕也。嬰兒所慕也。又【揚子·方言】南楚𤄗洭之閒，母謂之媓。【淮南子·說山訓】西家子謂其母曰社。【說文】蜀人 謂 母 曰 姐，齊人 謂 母 曰 嬭，又 曰 㜷，吳人 曰 媒。【眞臘 (Chânlạp) 風土 記】呼 父 爲 巴駞，呼 母 爲 米。 方音 不同，皆自母而變。　又乳母亦曰母。【越語】生三人，公與之母 ("mẹ")。　又禽獸之牝皆曰母 ("mái")。【孟子】五 母雞，二 母彘。【前漢·昭帝紀】罷天下亭母馬。【張華·禽經】鷇將生，子呼母應。雛旣生，母呼子應。又【集韻】蒙晡切【正韻】莫胡 切，𠀤 音 模。 熬餌也。【禮·內則】煎醢加黍上，沃以膏，曰淳母。【鄭註】母，讀曰模。模，象也。作此象淳熬。　又叶母婢切。音敉。【詩·鄭風】豈敢愛之，畏我父母。叶上杞里。【魯頌】魯侯燕喜，令妻壽母。【蔡邕·崔夫人誄】昔在共姜，陪臣之母。勞謙紡繢，仲尼是紀。|| Starostin: MC mʌw < OC *mǝ̄ʔ. For initial *m- cf. Min forms: Xiamen bo3, Chaozhou bo3, Fuzhou, Jianou mu3. | GSR: 0947 a-e | Note, Per Thiều Chửu, another SV sound 'mô', 'men', 'mẻ'. For 母 mǔ ~ 'mái', 'cái' \ § 海 hăi (SV hải), cf. 牧 mù 'mái' (SV mục) | Ex. 酵母 jiàomǔ (menrượu), 母雞 mǔjī (gàmái), 父母大王 Fùmǔ Dàwáng (BốcáiÐạivương), 母系 mǔxì (mẫuhệ), 繼母 jìmǔ (mẹghẻ) ]
  
  SV mẫu 'mother' (ngã or the 4th, 陽上 yángshàng ‘low rising tone’) VS men 'yeast' (thanhngang the 1st tone, 陰平 yīnpíng ‘high level tone’),
  
  VS me 'mother' (the 1st tone),
  SV mô 'mold' (the 1st tone),
  SV mỳ 'venter' (the 1st tone),
  VS mẻ 'female elder' (the 3rd tone),
  VS mạ 'mother' (the 6th tone),
  VS mệ 'mother' (the 6th tone),
  VS mẹ 'mother' (the 6th tone),
  VS mợ 'aunty' (the 6th tone),
  VS mái 'female of animal' (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  VS nái 'female of animal' (the 5th tone) [ ex. 'heonái' 母彘 mǔzhí (female pig) ],
  VS cái 'female' (the 5th tone) [ ex. 'con dại cái mang', literally translated, '子呆母忙 zǐ dài mǔ máng'. cf. 海 hăi (SV 'hải' /ha̰ːj/) VS 'khơi' ],

• 海 hăi (SV hải) [ M 海 hăi < MC xʊj < OC *smjə:ʔ | *OC 海 母 之 海 hmlɯːʔ | § ¶ 母 mǔ > mái > mệ > mể > bể > biển 海 hăi, ¶ h- ~ m-, m- ~ b- | Dialects: Cant. hoi2, Hakka hoi3, Tchiewchow hai2 | Shuowen: 天池也。以納百川者。从水每聲。 呼改切 | Kangxi: 《唐韻》《正韻》呼攺切《集韻》《韻會》許亥切，𠀤音醢。 《釋名》海，晦也。主承穢濁水，黑如晦也。 《書·禹貢》江漢朝宗於海。又環九州爲四海。 《書·禹貢》四海會同。 《爾雅·釋地》九夷，八狄，七戎，六蠻，謂之四海。| Guangyun: 海 海 hu 改 曉 咍 海 上聲 一等 開口 咍 蟹 上十五海 xɑ̆i xɒi xᴀi xɒi hʌi həi həj hai3 haix xoj 說文曰天池也以納百川者亦州禹項徐州之域七國時屬楚秦爲薛郡漢爲東海郡後魏爲海州亦姓呼改切 || ZYYY: 海 海 曉 皆來開 皆來 上聲 開口呼 xai || Note: for "khơi" with ¶ /k-/ ~ /h-/, § 悔 hui (SV hối), 況 kuàng (huống). Ex. 出海 chū​hǎi (rakhơi), 海外 hăiwài (ngoàikhơi), 海域 hăiyù (vùngbiển) | § 北海道 Běihăidào (Hokkaido - Bắchảiđạo). For the interchange "bể" ~ "biển", we have the compound words that demonstrate the sound change patterns such as 大海 dàhăi 'bểcả' > 'biểncả', 苦海 kǔhăi > 'bểkhổ' ~ 'khổải', 海浪 hăilàng 'sóngbể', 海口 hăikǒu 'cửabể', 海窛 hăikòu 'cướpbể' ~ 海賊 hăizéi 'giặcbể'; cf. 繁 (緐) fán, pó (phồn, bàn), 敏 mǐn (mẫn), 每 měi (mỗi), 梅 méi (mai), 敏 mǐn (mẫn), 繁 fán (phồn). 開 kāi (SV khai) in Hai. as /k'uj1/ and Cant. pronounced as /hoj1/. ],
  
  SV hải 'sea' (the 3rd tone),
  VS khơi 'sea' (the 1st tone, 陰平 yīnpíng ‘high level tone’),
  ,
  VS bể 'sea' (the 3rd tone),
  VS biển 'sea' (the 3rd tone),

• 梅 méi (SV mai) [ M 梅 méi < MC moj < OC *mjə: | Accoding to Starostin: Japanese apricot (Prunus mume), plum. Viet. 'me' has a narrowed meaning 'tamarind' (cf. Chin. 酸梅 'tamarind', lit. 'sour plum'). An older loanword is probably Viet. mơ 'apricot'. The regular Sino-Viet. reading is mai. For *m- cf. Min forms: Xiamen m2, Chaozhou bue2, Fuzhou muoi2, Jianou mo2. ] we have:
  
  VS mai 'plum' (thanhngang or the 1st tone, 陰平 yīnpíng ‘high level tone’),[Ex. 'hoamai' 梅花 méihuā, 'ômai' 烏梅 wūméi (black preserved salty plum) ],
  VS me 'tamarind' (thanhngang or the 1st tone, 陰平 yīnpíng ‘high level tone’),
  
  VS mơ 'apricot' (the 1st tone),
  VS muội 'salted dried plum' (nặng or the 6th tone 'low departing tone') [ ex. 'xímuội' 鹹梅 xiánméi (preserved salty plum) vs. 'ômai' 烏梅 wūméi (black preserved salty plum) ]
  

• 放 fàng (SV phóng) [ M 放 fàng < MC pwoŋ < OC *paŋs | According to Starostin, to put away, put aside; neglect; banish. In Viet. cf. also a colloquial word: phỗng 'to take away, to carry away'. | ¶ f- ~ b- : ex. fáng 房 (SV phòng) VS 'buồng' (room) ], we have:
  
  SV phóng ‘release’ (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  VS buông ‘let go’ (thanhngang or the 1st, 陰平 yīnpíng ‘high level tone’),
  VS bỏ ‘discard’ (hỏi the 3rd tone, 陰上 yīnshàng ‘high rising tone’),
  VS bắn ‘shoot’ (sắc or the 5th tone'),
  VS phỗng 'take away' (ngã or the 4th tone’),
  

• 會 huì (SV hội) [ M 會 huì < MC ɣwʌi < OC *guats ], we have:
  
  SV hội ‘festival’ (nặng or the 6th tone 'low departing tone') ,
  SV hồi ‘festival’ (huyền or the 2nd tone),
  VS hụi ‘loan’ (nặng or the 6th tone, from Fukienese or Amoy),
  VS họp ‘meeting’ (nặngnhập or the 8th, 陽入 yángrù 'low entering tone'),
  VS hẹn ‘dating, appointment’ (nặng or the 6th tone),
  VS hiểu ‘understand’ (hỏi or the 3rd tone), (cognate to or an alternation of the modern Mand. 曉 xiáo ‘know, understand’, SV hiểu),

• 賊 zéi (SV tặc) [ M 賊 zéi < MC ʑæk < OC *ʑɦjə:k < PC: **ɕhjə:k ~ ʑhjə:k | Tibetan languages: Tibetan: ʑag (cướp), Kachin: ʑok2, sok2 to scout, spy out ], we have:
  
  SV tặc 'enemy' (nặngnhập or the 8th, 陽入 yángrù 'low entering tone'),
  VS giặc 'enemy' (the 8th tone),
  VS chích as in đạochích: 盗賊 dàozéi 'burglar' (sắcnhập or the 7th tone, 陰入 yīngrù 'high entering tone’),
  VS cắp as in đánhcắp: 盗賊 dàozéi 'steal' (same tone as chích)

• 粉 fén (SV phấn) [ M 粉 fěn < MC pʊn < OC *pjənʔ | Dialects: Minnan, including Hainanese hun2, Amoy hun2, Chaozhou huŋ21, Fuzhou xuŋ2 | According to Starostin: The later (and usual) meaning is 'flour'. The word is also used in compounds meaning 'noodles', thus it seems possible that Viet. bún 'vermicelli' is an independent loan from the same source. | ¶ f- ~ b- ], we have:
  
  SV phấn 'powder' (nặng or the 6th tone),
  VS bột 'flour' (nặngnhập or the 8th, 陽入 yángrù 'low entering tone'),
  VS bụi 'dust' (the 8th tone) [ Probably associated with 灰 huì (SV muội) ],
  VS phở 'noodle soup' (the 3rd tone),
  VS bún 'rice vermicelli' (the 5th tone)

• 照 zhào (SV chiếu) [ M 照 (炤) zhào < MC tʂɜw < OC * taws ], we have:
  
  VS soi 'look at the mirror' (thanhngang the 1st tone),
  VS noi 'follow' (the 1st tone),
  VS theo 'according to' (the 1st tone),
  SV chiếu 'reflect' (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  VS chói 'reflect' (the 5th tone),
  VS chụp as in 'chụphình' 'take picture' (nặngnhập or the 8th tone'),
  VS rọi 'shine' (nặng or the 6th tone) VS dọi 'shine' (nặng or the 6th tone)

• 染 răn (SV nhiễm) [ M 染 răn < MC ɲem < OC *namʔ, *nemʔ | According to Starostin: 'be soft'. Somewhat later (since late Zhou) the character was also used for a homonymous *nam (~-emʔ) 'to dye, smear; ('dye' <) infect' (with a variant *namʔ-s, MC ɲe\m). Viet. nhiễm is a standard reading; there also exists a colloquial loan nhuộm 'to dye'.];
  
  VS lây 'contagious' (thanhngang or the 1st tone),
  VS sang 'spread a virus' (the 1st tone),
  SV nhiễm 'extract a disease, habit' (the 4th tone) ,
  VS nhuốm 'extract a disease' (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  VS nhuộm 'dye' (the 5th tone),
  VS mắc 'get sick' (sắcnhập or the 7th tone)

• 深 shēn (SV thâm) [ M 深 shēn < MC ʂim < OC *ɫhjəm | Most of dialects read /sjəm1/ | ¶ sh- ~ đ- : ex. 燒 shāo (thiêu) đốt ], we have:
  
  SV thâm 'profound' (thanhngang the 1st tone),
  VS sâu 'deep' (the 1st tone),
  VS đậm 'dark' (nặng or the 6th tone, 'low departing tone'),
  VS sậm 'dark' (the 6th tone),
  VS sẫm 'dark' (the 4th tone)

• 扛 káng (SV cang) [ M 扛 káng ~ 抗 kàng (kháng) < MC khɑŋ, ɠʌŋ < OC *kha:ŋs, *gha:ŋ | According to Starostin: to set up, lift up. Also read *gha:ŋ, MC ɠʌŋ (FQ 胡郎), Go gau, Kan kau id. | cf. chống 抗 kàng (kháng) ], we have:
  
  SV cang 'carry' (thanhngang the 1st tone, 'high level tone'),
  VS khiêng 'carry on one's shoulder' (the 1st tone)
  VS gánh 'carry on one's shoulder' (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  VS gồng 'to shoulder' (huyền or the 2nd tone ’low level tone')
  VS cõng 'carry on one's back' (ngã or the 4th tone 'low rising tone')

• 蟲 chóng (SV trùng) [ M 蟲 chóng < ɖʊŋ < OC *ɫhuŋ | According to Starostin: insect, small bird. Used also for a homonymous *ɬhuŋ 'be hot (of weather). Standard Sino-Viet. is trùng.] , we have:
  
  SV trùng 'insect' (huyền or the 2nd tone, 'low level tone'),
  VS trùn 'earthworm' (the 2nd tone),
  VS giun 'earthworm' (thanhngang or the 1st tone, 'high level tone')
  VS sâu 'insect' (the 1st tone)
  VS sán 'worm' (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  VS nóng 'hot' (the 5th tone)

• 種 zhǒng (SV chủng) [ M 種 zhǒng, zhòng < MC tʂouŋ < OC *M 種 zhǒng, zhòng < MC tʂouŋ < OC ouŋʔ | According to Starostin: seeds; cereals. Also read *toŋʔ-s, MC couŋ (FQ 之用), Mand. zhòng 'to sow'. The word also means 'kind, sort, race' ( > 'seed'), which is reflected in a colloquial Viet. loanword (from another dialectal source) giống 'kind, sort; race, breed, strain'. For this word, An Chi (Ibid. 2016. Volume 2) even posited it as "trứng" (egg) that ought to be 蛋 dàn (SV đản). ], we have:
  
  SV chủng 'type' (the 3rd tone),
  VS trồng 'to plant' (huyền or the 2nd tone, 'low level tone', read 'zhòng' in Mandarin, ),
  VS dòng 'breed' (the 2nd tone),
  VS giống 'strain' (sắc or the 5th, 陰去 yīnqù ‘high departing tone’),
  

• 臭 chòu (SV xú, khứu) [ M 臭 chòu, xìu < MC ʨjəw < OC *khiws | According to Starostin, in MC there also exists a reading xjəw (Mand. xiu) (Jiyun); it is interesting to note that standard Sino-Viet. renders it as khưu. These are most probably dialectal variants of the original *khiw-s which gave the standard MC reflex chjəw (note that Viet. thiu 'stale' is a colloquial reflex of the latter; the standard Sino-Viet. form is xú.]
  
  SV xú 'bad smell' (sắc or the 5th tone) ,
  SV khứu 'smelling sense' (the 5th tone) ,
  VS thiu 'spoiled' (thanhngang the 1st tone) [ doublet 餿 sòu ],
  VS hôi 'smelly' (the 1st tone),
  VS thối (thúi) 'foul' (the 5th tone)
  , VS ngửi (hửi) 'to smell' (the 3rd tone) [ doublet of @ M 嗅 xìu < MC xǝ̀w < OC *xus ]

• 按 àn (SV án) 'case' [ M 按 àn < MC ʔɒn < OC *ʔa:ns || cf. 案 àn (SV 'án') VS 'bàn' (table, comment) ], we have:
  
  VS ịn 'press' (nặng or the 6th tone),
  SV án 'press' (sắc or the 5th tone),
  VS ấn 'press' (the 5th tone),
  VS nhấn 'press' (the 5th tone),
  VS bấm 'press' (the 5th tone),
  VS nhận 'stuff' (the 6th tone),
  VS nhồi 'to stuff' (huyền or the 2nd tone)
  

• 利 lì (SV lợi) [ M 利 lì < MC lɪ < OC *rhijs | Dialects: Amoy li32 (lit.); lai32, Hai. lai32, Cant.: lei32 ], we have:
  
  SV lị 'benefit, advantage' (nặng or the 6th tone, 'low departing tone'),
  SV lợi 'advantage' (the 6th tone),
  VS lãi 'profit' (ngã or the 4th tone, 'low rising tone'),
  VS lời 'profit, interest' (huyền or the 2nd tone, 'low level tone')
  VS lẽm 'sharp' (ngã or the 4th tone),
  VS lém 'witty' (sắc or the 5th tone),
  

and the list goes on and on. There are so many of them to list.

Note that the above list contains only monosyllabic words. If we put each of them in the formation that makes up dissyllabic words, such as those etima formed with the morphemic syllable 海 hăi as exemplified above, the roster would probably expand to even colossal magnitude.

From the purposedly long listed examples above, we can see that (1) the phenomenon of multiple sound changes from one root is commonplace and not isolate in Vietnamese along but also from Chinese, of which a character could carry many tones in one single dialect, and (2) the correspondence of tones from those of Old Chinese and Sinitic-Vietnamese are diversed and manifold, NOT limited only to certain Vietnamese words with the 3rd and 4th tones, i.e., hỏi and ngã, that were originally words ending with -ʔ as appear in some Mon-Khmer languages on one-to-one basis per Haudricourt's hypothesis.

Changes of tones in Sinitic-Vietnamese lexicons, generally speaking, have occurred diachronically and synchronically. That is, a character and word in Chinese could possibly give rise to multiple sounds ("tiếng" 聲 sheng) in Vietnamese and being accented with variations in different tonal contours like the case of 墓 mù (grave) OC *mâg > "mã" vs. *mha:ks for "mả". They vary considerably as illustrated in many examples above and throughout this paper as well. Besides, etymologically, they vary greatly in tonality to differentiate the meanings, too, sometimes very subtle as to be found in V "Phật" for 佛 Fó (Buddha) and "Bụt" that means 'Buddha' bur carries a subtle implication of SV 'thánh' and 'thần' for 聖 shèng (saint) and 神 shén (God), respectively.

For the same matter, Haudricourt's proposal that the development of the Vietnamese tones had evolved from none to being partial formed ones by the 12th century and then continued fully developed to the current 6 [8] tones seems to contradict itself from start for several reasons as to be deliberated next. At this stage, let us just say that his theory is mainly based on a limited amount of attested correspondences between Mon-Khmer, which are toneless, and Vietnamese basic words of which several fundamental words have been found being cognate to Chinese – of the latter languages, both of them are highly tonal (see examples of 口, 方, 母, 海, etc., above) – with the Vietnamese pronunciation of Chinese characters as attested by the Sino-Vietnamese words verifiable with the 'fănqiè' 反切 pronunciation keys (FQ) as provided for those characters in sources being listed in the Kangxi Zidian 康熙字典 dictionary from many sources, like in the case of 母, e.g., { [...]【說文】蜀人 謂 母 曰 姐，齊人 謂 母 曰 嬭，又 曰 㜷，吳人 曰 媒。【眞臘 (Chânlạp) 風土 記】呼 父 爲 巴駞，呼 母 爲 米。 方音 不同，皆 自 母 而 變。　又 乳母 亦 曰 母。【越語】生三人，公與之母 ("mẹ")。　又 禽獸 之 牝 皆 曰 母 ("mái")。} .

The author feels that there is no need to utilize any electronic apparatus to measure the precise tonal intensity here for tonal similarities in Vietnamese and all Chinese dialects; they all can be evaluated by mere sense of hearing. For instance, M 入 rù /ʐu4/ is pronounced as /ru:5/, in Sino-Vietnamese as 'nhập' /ɲjɒp8/, and in Cant. /jâp8/, which all perfectly indicates the tones are cognates with similar tonal values, no machines to be needed to validate their decibel preciseness. Any Vietnamese speakers can imitate any sound and tones perfectly without any discrepancy in pronunciation at all., that is, Vietnamese /rú/ vs. M 入 rù /ʐu4/ and Viet "nhập" /ɲjɒp8/ vs. Cantonese "dập" (as read by Vietnamese speakers for /jâp8/ ) they all carry the same tonal values of respective corresponding words, so to speak. In effect, one of the main reasons for rejecting Haudricourt's hypothesis of tonegenesis of the Vietnamese language is the whole modern Vietnamese tonal system fits so well into MC tonal scheme – which is also strongly indicated in its inherited 9 tones in modern Cant. (used to be called the Tang language or 唐話 T'ongwa) – of which their formation could have been complete long before the 10th century (the period that marks the separation of Annam from China), for which the whole strict rules of rhyming matrix of Tang poetry are still observed in Tang-styled poetry in Vietnamese literati (see Drake Ibid., Sung Shee. Ibid.) In modern V, they are embedded in four tones at two registers (traditionally they used to be called 8 tones, or 6 tones in modern orthography based on visual diacritical marks for excluding phonetic characteristics of traditional 2 'Entering tones' called 入聲 Rùshēng). Interestingly enough, compared to 9 tones in Cant. degrees of intensity of their tonal values are virtually the same, with the extra 9th Cant. tone sounding like Vietnamese words that end with -p, -t, -k, -ch, spoken with leveled intonation.

On the issue of whether either tonality is inheriting and acquisitive or not, we can find the answer that it is not in similar circumstances. For example, Japanese and Korean are the two languages that heavily borrowed massive Chinese tonal words in eagerly voluntary aptitude just as the Vietnamese language had done throughout its development at least since the first century. In the Japanese case, it was not until the 9th century that Japan sent her brightest students to the Great Tang Empire with the intention to study everything including the Tang's court's literary language that was brought back to home the Kanji of Chinese-origin loanwords from different eras with the Kan-on, To-on, Go-on pronunciations, but they were put into use without the tones, as we know today (Bo Yang, 1983.) The same was true with the Korean language which had adopted a lot of Chinese loanwords in similarly minus-tone stances mostly from the Ming Dynasty (An Chi. Ibid. Vol. 3, p. 284). The analogue with the Korean and Japanese cases brought up here is to prove that tonality is not an end result of a process of acquisition but inheritance, no matter how hard human intervention has been put on – just like what China has done linguistically to English loans, applicably the same with bio-tech, hi-tech, and trade espinages, etc., in the US today for over the past 30 years. – The whole process can be easily seen in similar Vietnamese words that are adapted toneless in English, e.g., Vietcong, Vietmin, Ho Chi Min, Nu-yen (Nguyen), bunmee, banhmi, aodai, pho, dong, etc.

Let us put everything back in focus. Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer languages are toneless languages while Chinese, Vietnamese and Muong are tonal languages, not to mention their related families such as those of Taic > Tai–Kadai > Dai, Thai, Laotian, Hmong, etc. As previously mentioned, current Austroasiatic theorization that many Vietnamese ~ Mon-Khmer cognates in Vietnamese originated from the Mon-Khmer languages is widely eccepted in the Southeast-Asian languages which embrace Vietnamese. As a result, therefore, the tonegenesis theory by Haudricourt was initialized on the correspondences of Mon-Khmer toneless basic words to those tonal cognates in Vietnamese, by which the French linguist postulated Vietnamese originally was a toneless language and that Vietnamese originated from the Mon-Khmer language family. While not holding the view that Vietnamese descended from either Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer or Sino-Tibetan, I propose herein the reverse hypothetical scenario based on the fact that Vietnamese loanwords in the Mon-Khmer languages became toneless – by means of their contact with the Muong dialects in the past – as they could not be pronounced precisely with the embedded tones and must have undergone the process that all the associated tones were stripped off, that is, the Mon-Khmer speakers had to alter their pronunciations in such a way that could compensate the lack of tones, which would become a paradigm over the time, such as that of the tonal pattern {~ => ʔ}. Such a rationalization is much more logical than the other way around.

All said, Maspero was right from the beginning then when he suggested that the tonality of a language could not be inherited. Middle Vietnamese (MV) must have had full tones given the fact that Chinese tonal words were long adopted and used all along, especially from those of Middle Chinese, since the period of the Tang Dynasty when many Annamese officials in Chang'an who served the Tang 's Imperial Court must have spoken Middle Chinese mandarin as anybody else. The Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation of Chinese characters simply the variant sounds of Tang phonetic system (Nguyen Tai Can. 2000. Ibid) In other words, it is unimaginable that the Annamese first learnt and adopted Middle Chinese words, i.e., now known as Sino-Vietnamese vocabularies, without the accompanied tones because they were internally embedded morphemically and parts of all possible syllables. To fit into the time frame of the tonal development as proposed by Haudricourt's theorization of tonegenesis, it would be equal to the fact that Middle Chinese loanwords borrowed bare-boned ones into Middle Vietnamese with all the tones being stripped off, just like what happened to those Chinese loanwords in Japanese and Korean. Besides, ancient Annamese words were attested with 8 tones, to be exact, e.g., 'vuông' (square) ~ 方 fāng ~> SV 'phương' ~, VS 'buồng' (room) ~ 房 fáng ~> SV 'phòng', VS 'buông' (let go) ~ 放 fàng ~> SV 'phóng', etc. Note that it is postulated that in both specific ancient periods, there did not exist yet labial-dental initial sounds such as /v-/, /f-/, so 'vuông' might be 'buông' and 'phóng' ~ 'bắn' (shoot), just like 'buồng' for 'phòng'. The point is, the sounds and meanings were already differentiated at least by possibly 4 tones in Old Chinese, as previously mentioned, and in this case we identified preliminarily, (1) level tone, (2) lower level tone, and (3) departing tone, (4) low departing tone, in addition to what has been discussed about 墓 mô, mồ, mộ and 母 me, mẹ, mái, etc.

It could not possibly be that the tonality phenomenon was a later development as late as the 12th century. It is absurb and illogical to be so because, as previously pointed out, based on the words that already existed in the ancient Annamese, highly Sinicized one, a majority of ancient Vietnamese words must have acquired tones at the same time as Old Chinese did. In his lifetime, the Han's Viceroy Sĩ Nhiếp (士攝, 187-226 A.D.) of the Eastern Han (東漢, 25-220 A.D.) opened Chinese schools and spread Han culture in ancent Annam of the then called Giaochỉ Prefecture (交趾部) to its unprecedented height as no any other Han colonists had ever done to their southern colony. Such historical fact is brought up here to emphasize the fact that Han language study had been adapted and already become quite pupular for at least 250 years since the time the Han Empire annexed NanYue Kingdom in 111 B.C. Lexically, if we suppress all the accompanied tones that go with each and every Sinitic-Vietnamese word of Old Chinese, or all other forms of Chinese origin in Vietnamese for that matter, ancient words of the same sound could have come out in the Vietnamese language unlike those Kan-on loanwords in Japanese for the reason that, as we all see, the Japanese speakers had to phoneticized all the glotal ending sounds and not to make the tones to happen, e.g., "ichi" for 一 /yi1/ (one) compared to "nhất" in Sino-Vietnamese or "jat5" in Cantonese. So said, it is likely that an antithesis – the other way around with the reverse process – would be more plausible as indicated in the exemplified Sinitic-Vietnamese words that reflect the fact that they originated from Old Chinese and throughout Middle Chinese. If toneless, their internal capacity in differentiaing meanings highly weakened because they would become mostly homonomousfor instance, "dê" (goat) for 羊 yáng (SV dương), "giông" (wind storm) 颺 yáng (SV dương), "rượng" (aroused) 痒 yáng (SV dương), etc.

As we have seen in the Japanese cases, Haudricourt's theory might not be correct on the tranformation from moprhemics to tonality that any tonal languages could have gone through the same process. For example, for those who say words like "mặc" (put on), "chồmhỗm" (squat), and "chànghãng" (stand with legs stretched) have Mon-Khmer orgin, that is, /pec/, /chrohom/, and /choho/, respectively, then the case of "tonal non-inheritance proposition" is even more valid. His postulation of the tonegenesis was initially observed on the correspondences among Mon-Khmer languages and Vietnamese and the tonal development process evolved therefrom, even though internally in Vietnamese itself the phenomenon appears to be so obvious, for instance, for those items "mặc", "mắc", "mắt", "mặt", etc., while they cannot be spelled without the diacritical marks in Vietnamese orthography, the Vietnamese speakers will pronounce those unmarked words with approximate stressed tonallty such as /măc/, /măt/, /căt/, /cat/, /cac/, and so on like the Cantonese words do, that are explicitly embedded with thanhsắcnhập [7] and thanhnặngnhập [8], etc, especially with those words that end with /-p/, /-t/, /-k/, or /-ch/. For the sam matter, Haudricourt might have missed the cases that many Vietnamese that carry the thanhsắc [5] and thanhnặng [6] with words that render somewhat similar meanings like in the case of /mô/, /mộ/, /me/, /mẹ/, /tan/, /tán/... All in all, for his argumentation that Vietnamese became a fully complete tonal language only after the 12th century, given the gradualness on the becoming of a tonal language per se, his theory of the Vietnamese tonegenesis did not accurately depict how tonality in Vietnamese developed as it has gone hand in hand with the Chinese language from Old Chinese to Middle Chinese from which the ancient Vietnamese inherited as recorded in Chinese phonological history, not to mention other tonal languages that show the same evolutionary path in the China South region. Solely based on the fact that the Annamese scholars had been continuosly studying the mainstream official Mandarin carefully since A.D. 0 to 939 at the very least, ancient Annamese must have been complete with the Middle Chinese 8 tones long before the 10th century.
There is nothing special about an Asian linguist writing about subjects on the English linguistics, but when it comes to the fact that a Western linguist who happened write something about Vietnamese, it would make big splashes. The whole matter may make one to smile if they have watched some Vietnamese or Chinese shows on some VTV or CTV channels or Youtube where the local audiences uproar with claps and keep wowing and hooplaing and applauding when some Westerners, mostly expat students from Western countries, appear on the stage cracking some cheap jokes in Vietnamese or Chinese.

What made the local Vietnamese specialists to become so fond of Haudricourt's theory? The Vietnamese, out of their inferior complex, have an unhealthy habit of overly putting their admiration to virtually all Westerners who just simply show off some fluency in Vietnamese from the old days, which is seen in positive perspective just actually another way to show their welcoming acceptance of the Western scientific methodologies along side with their pride to have their language being paid much attention to from Western academics thanks to their superior complex, as we see it. As a matter of fact, most Western linguists might have limited fluency in the Vietnamese language and at the same time mainly focused on analyses of available data. Some could still reach a certain level mastery of its linguistics by academic training; however, they were seriously lacking 'linguistic feelings' (W). Imagine a scenario that a Mr. Western linguist who knew something about Vietnamese had proposed something in the Vietnamese linguistics, then there came his Vietnamese fans with their "wows" and "hoorays". Based on Vietnamese listings by Haudricourt cited by Shafer (1972) to be quoted in Chapter X on Sino-Tibetan etymologies, I wondered if he was fully capable of distinguishing Sinitic-Vietnamese from Sino-Vietnamese words given his flip-flop of VS "mã" that should be "mả", to be exact, in place of SV "mộ". Each of his disciples repeats the same error one after another but they failed to see its flaws under today's views thanks to the fact that the whole hypothesis did fit nicely into a right spot at the right moment. Some current Western linguists indeed made the same mistake by some predecessors (See Ding Bangxin. Ibid. 1977. p. 263).

Was Vietnamese originally being toneless or having 2 or 3 low and high tones like many Mon-Khmer languages in the 12th centuried time-frame that Haudricourt had proposed? Sentimentally, for those who want a quick answer to this question, the fact of the matter is that it is hard for many Vietnamese speakers to accept that many of their tonally melodious cadao (folksongs), fixed expressions, proverbs, and idioms in Vietnamese believed to have originated from ancient times, were originally toneless, of which each individual word is always associated with every single Sinitic-Vietnamese etymon (refer to my Han-Nom etymology dictionary at http://vny2k.com/hannom/ for their etymology and meaning), for example,

• Bốcái Ðạivương;
• Con dại cái mang;
• Gậtđầu lắccái;
• Chácđược củarẻ;
• Chồng chúa vợ tôi;
• Cõng rắn cắn gà nhà;
• Giặc đến nhà đànbà phải đánh;
• Ăn coi nồi, ngồi coi hướng;
• Một miếng khi đói bằng một gói khi no;
• Nghèo cho sạch, rách cho thơm;
• Giấy rách phải giữ lấy lề;
• Nghêdại chẳng hay cóc;
• Tiên học lễ, hậu học văn;
• Đi một đàng, học một sàng khôn;
• Bỏ thì thương, vương thì tội;
• Không mợ thì chợ vẫn đông;
• Có mống tựnhiên lại có cây;
• Rán đàngđông vừa trông vừa chạy;
• Nựccười châuchấu đáxe;
• Bàcon xa khôngbằng lánggiềng gần;
• Thương cho roi cho vọt, ghét cho ngọt cho ngào;
• Cảnh cũ non quê nhặt chốc mòng;
• Quântử hãy lăm bền chí cũ;
• Cổ tới nhẫnkim, sinh thời có hoá;
• Thà làmquỷ nướcNam cònhơn làmvua nướcBắc;
• Bầu ơi thươnglấy bí cùng, người trong một nước phải thươngnhau hoài;
• Nhiễuđiều phủlấy giágương, người trong một nước phải thươngnhau cùng,

etc.

and so on so forth with hundreds of other similar folk-styled expressions of which the rhyming stanza and lyrics structurally indicate they must have existed long before the 12th century – even though some expressions are extracted from 14th centuried works. – In the centuries preceeding that period, the Vietnamese people had not learned the Chinese languages of those mandarins spoken throughout the Han to the Tang dynasties, the Sino-Vietnamese or HánViệt for that matter, but also had composed rhyming proses and poetry with literary elegance Drake, F.S. ed. 1967, ibid.) Did they study the mandarin language with a Khmer-like toneless language? If that were the case, what did the Vietnamese call their fabled lovely Huyềntrân Côngchúa ('Princess Huyềntrân') at that time? How were historical names being called then? he author challenges any Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists to successfully reconstruct any of hundreds of similar folores, idioms, and proverbs with toneless ancient lexicons. In other words, it is unconceivable that ancient Vietnamese was partially toneless until the 12th century.

If any of Vietnamese philologists of our time has already forgotten and is having a hard time to appreciate those simple Vietnamese expressions above then they need to learn more of Vietnamese before starting re-thinking about writing anything else serious about the Vietnamese language. The important thing is not to let innocent newcomers in the field to step on the long worn tracks left by long-gone pioneers in the early Vietnamese linguistics, which will obstruct them from accessing possible Sino-Tibetan etymologies and Sinitic linguistic entities are predominant in modern Vietnamese .

To cut it short, the pronunciation of the current Sino-Vietnamese vocabularies being as the most active usage in spoken language in the thousands – not just the Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma as we know of at present is enough to answer the question above. Also note that the common folk languages as the main tool of communication for the mass late in the Southern Han period in mountainous China South regions south of Lingnan from Giaochâu to Guangzhou prefectures must probably be similar. (See Bo Yang, Ibid., vols 71, 72. 1993) Do any historical linguists dare to say variants of today's 9-toned Cantonese was spoken with incomplete tones, 4 or 5 perhaps, by then in the 10th century?

Specifically, regarding Haudricourt's view that the Vietnamese 8 tones had been originally not completely formed until the 12th century, if his theory of tonal formation specifically for the Vietnamese language were dated as far back a millenium as the 2nd century B.C., it might have been plausible because by then the 3rd to 4th tones in Old Chinese words started to evolve. In fact the Vietnamese "huyền" [\] and "sắc" [/] tones had existed long before their Sino-Vietnamese 1st-toned doublets, that means, all the 1st, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tones in 2 higher and lower registers by then, e.g., "mồi" (in the 1st lower tone = the current 2nd tone) vs. "môi" (in the upper 1st tone = the current 1st tone) of 煤 méi (coal), "mối" (the 3rd upper tone = the current 5th tone) vs. "môi" (the 1st upper tone = 1st) 媒 méi (go-beween), "dì" (2nd) vs. "di" (1st) 姨 yí (aunt), "lấm" (5th) vs. "lâm" (1st) 淋 lín (soak), etc. By the end of the Tang Dynasty, the 8 tone system had been already long in place, e.g., "dâm" (the 1st tone) vs. "dầm" (2nd) 淫 yín (wet), "mả" (3rd) vs "mã" (4th) 墓 mù (tomb), "bố" (5th ) vs "phụ" (6th) for 父 fù (father), "mắt" (7th) vs "mục" (8th) 目 mù (eye), etc., which made the perfect Tang 8-toned poetry – and the tones split into 2 lower and higher registers having been already complete based on the no-differentiating voiced and unvoiced words, such as "buồng" vs "phòng" 房 fáng (room), "đục" vs. "trọc" 濁 zhuó (murky), etc. In short, it is improbably that the becoming of Vietnamese tones would only been wholly formed 2 centuries after the ancient state of Vietnam gained her independence.

Regarding 'tonal' or not 'tonal', it is safe to say most human languages on earth certainly started with simple utterances first and only then developed with either tones or complex consonantal clusters, e.g., kl-, kr-, bl-, etc., as we see now with the cases of several Daic languages in China South or tonal Tibetan spoken in Lhasa (see Ding Bangxin. Ibid. 1977. p. 263) – versus 'monosyllabicity' in the case of Old Chinese or proto-Vietic languages, l-, s-, tr-, etc. – before they became more complicated with differentiation in tonality as in the case of Sino-Vietnamese or Middle Chinese. Many original Mon-Khmer words existing in Vietnamese should have retained and pronounced the way they originally had been without the tones if the ancient Vietmuong people all had evolved from the same toneless Mon-Khmer root, simply because their speakers did not need to add tones on top of them, or did they? We had a hard time to figure out why the whole tonalily existing in scores of those basic Mon-Khmer ~ Vietnamese cognates, that is, Mon-Khmer toneless-turning-tonal etyma in Vietnamese, to say the least. Under no circumstances it is unlikely that all those Vietnamese folklores, folk songs and lyrics sound monotonous, toneless, or simple high and low tones in ancient times, so to speak.

As previously said, Haudricourt’s theory of tonal development in Vietnamese appears to work the other way around in the Mon-Khmer languages. Lexically, his postulation excludes the existence of the tonal contours of Vietnamese words, i.e., multiple tones for each word, that are cognate to Chinese etyma as the cited etymological examples above. The large amount of Chinese-origin words existing in the Vietnamese language in any period in history is enough to say that Haudricourt's specific theory of the origin of Vietnamese need to be adjusted then. Like other Yue descendant languages such as those Zhuang or Daic linguistic family, tonality in today's Vietnamese evolved along side by side with that of Chinese tonality development before the Han Dynasty and throughout 1,000 years of Chinese colonization after 111 B.C. , that is, their tonalilty concurrently developed or were acquired from and evolved under Chinese linguistic phere as reflected on etymological cognates in each respective language. Periods of colonization of the Annam from 111 B.C. to 939 A.D. with short intermittent independence times that mirrored the situation of break-away states that simulaneously occurred every time an era of a Chinese dynasty collapsed. That is to say, the ancient Vietnamese tones had not been a separate phenomenon independent from that of other Old Chinese and Chinese dialects as hypothesized by Haudricourt's theorization of tonegenesis; otherwise, all Mon-Khmer languages might have already become tonal by now, not only some with 2 or 3 tones like that of Old Chinese that evolved during the Han Dynasty period, which sounds more or less like those pitches of level, high, and low intonation.

Compared with Spanish-speaking Latin Americas in or recent history, less than 300 years of colonization under the rule of Spanish conquistadors, Native Indians were actual minorities while racially mixed Spanish speakers became predominant. This historical fact is repeated here just to re-engage those idle and nationalistic brains.

As a matter of fact, most Mon-Khmer speakers tend to do away with tones that are embedded in those Vietnamese loanwords in their own speech as evidenced by their Mon-Khmer accented Vietnamese can be heard in those southernmost or western mountainous highland's provinces in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Kinh people, contrarily, have the tendency to tonalize all foreign loanwords instead. The most obvious features of tonalization of those words were loaned from French or English, say, "xìcăngđan" (scandal) or "xìtăngđa" (standard), "quánhhtùtì" (one, two, three), etc. Similarly, there is no need to re-emphasize the same process that rendered naturally-occurred corresponding tones to those supposedly acquired Mon-Khmer words, for example, for local objects, e.g., bòhóc ('prahok') (fish paste) or sàrông (sarong) and placenames such as Buônmêthuột (Buon Ama Thuot), Đắklắk (Daklak), Đàlạt (Dalat), etc. If those Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese cognates indeed were of the same linguistic root and shared the same linguistic peculiarities, native fellowmen would have intuitively used them without the need to change any other phonemic features to be added to those of the same root such as Thai, Laotian, Hmong, etc., among Daic languages at all except for the dubious etyma under examination. In other word, if Vietnamese had been originally like a toneless Mon-Khmer language with its late loanwords, the Vietnamese speakers would not have the need to change any of their articulation from zero-tone to the 'later tonalized Vietnamese' language so just to compensate the lack of tonality. Haudricourt's argument about the tonal development in Vietnamese as being independent of that of Chinese is thence rejected because if that were the case, the Vietnamese speakers could simply strip off any tones that come with those Chinese loanwords as the Japnese or Korean have done.

At the same time, however, there existed Old Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese whereby their exact 4 tones as having been suggested by Haudricourt's tonegenesis by the 12th century, perhaps, in terms of both time-space and morphemics. The phenomenon suggests that they could have been ancient tones that appear to have been well preserved in those Central Vietnamese dialects spoken from regions of Thanhhoá to Thuậnhoá provinces, especially in Nghệan Township, say, "chimchóc" (birds) where "chóc" is cognate to ancient "雀" què [ cf. modern SV 'tước', VS 'sóc' (sparrow) ]. As it was Vietnam's lately acquired southern territory as a betroth to the King of the then Vietnam's Tran Dynasty as the Princess Huyềntrân was married off to the King of Champa Kingdom, the ancient Annamese emigrants started to emigrate to that newly acquired Chamic territory and they might have brought along their fossilized 4-toned languages still existing in the northern Central Vietnam, which may reflected in those Chamic toneless placenames were also been tonalized completely such as Đànẵng, Quynhơn, Nhatrang, etc. Further in the south, earlier Annamese resettlers who migrated there carried certain ancient peculiar consonental sounds that hold the pronunciation keys to the Early Midde Chinese sound system such as those intials 知 zhī (SV trí), 徹 chè (SV triệt), 澄 chéng (SV trừng), 于 yú (SV vu), 匣 xiá (SV hiệp), etc. (See Ding Bangxin. Ibid. 1977. pp. 266-269).

Bernhard Karlgren in his research entitled Tones in Archaic Chinese (1960) reached the conclusion that Archaic Chinese of pre-Han periods after analyzing rimes in Shijing Odes that "Archaic Chinese, like Ancient and Modern Chinese, had distinct tone classes. One of them corresponded to the p'ing-sheng of the Ancient Chinese, another to the shang-sheng, another to the k'ü-sheng and the last (words ending in p-, t-, k-) to the ju-sheng(..) [His conclusion that] Archaic Chinese had tone classes roughly corresponding to those in Ancient Chinese [..] that words figuring in the "pure one-tone sets of rimes" in all probability belonged to the Arch. tone class corresponding to the Anc. class concerned (p'ing, shang, k'ü, ju). (p. 133)"

We, therefore, can say with certainty that when the Han conquered ancient Annam in 111 B.C., their tonal Ancient Chinese must have influenced profoundly the local speech that would last well beyond 939 A.D., that is, the ancient Vietnamese had not needed to wait until the 12th century to start to accentuate their language with tones. Interstingly, Vietnamese tonality match all tones in Chinese dialects in all aspects.

Back to top

C) Correspondences in basic vocabularies revisited

Western scientific methodology, of course, would give rise to a correct theory most of the times; otherwise, it is no longer scientific. Theories have changed over the time and would be replaced in the end, especially with those of linguistics. In the Vietnamese case, based on what has been presented so far, it appears that their authors, while it is undeniable that they were pioneers in the filed, have just made shortcuts by making use of data that were available to them then, avoiding altogether the longer road that require them to study hard on both Chinese and Vietnamese, historically and phonologically (See Ding Bangxin. Ibid. 1977. pp. 263). (See more on the Vietnamese tonegenesis paper by Thurgood, Graham http://www.csuchico.edu/~gthurgood/Papers/Vietnamese_tonegenesis.pdf - as of Jan. 2017)

Haudricourt's tonegenesis created convenience for the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists as they frequently quoted his work. Nevertheless, because of some constraints of the time they lived in, as compared to new studies in Old Chinese and Sino-Tibetan available to us over the last sixty years, their researches still need to be re-evaluated or even revamped then. When arguing about the genetic affiliation of Vietnamese to other Mon-Khmer languages, thanks to their inadequate mastery level they have missed or failed to see any relationship between the Vietnamese and Chinese languages. Specifically, among the origin of the words cited in Haudricourt's illustrated items, the case of chó 'dog' (Norman. 1988) is of Proto-Miao-Yao origin, which is in turn cognate to C 狗 gǒu and that demonstrates they share common basic words in the fundamental stratum at different levels. Similar basic words, e.g., 雞 jī ~ 'gà' (chicken), 來 lái 'lúa' (paddy), 為 wéi 'voi' (elephant), 熊 xióng 'gấu' (bear), etc., and similar items as such show the earliest relationship with those basic words in Chinese as well.

Haudricourt’s argument about tonal development in Vietnamese involved the etymology of many Vietnamese basic words cited in his examples, which is important in the discussion about Sino-Vietnamese in the lexical aspect and with which, as in previously cited cases, there often exist Chinese cognates. I will discuss about these issues and attempt to provide their etymologies in detail as follows, and more in the next chapter on Sino-Tibetan etymologies.

In his basic eord lists, firstly, let’s examine his examples of Khmu and Riang words, the two Mon-Khmer languages, that end with a glottal stop [ʔ] corresponding with related Vietnamese words of sắc and nặng tones. (Norman 1988, p. 55-56; 1991, p. 206):

Việt	Khmu	Riang	Chinese correspondences suggested by dchph
‘leaf’ lá (1)	hlaʔ	laʔ	葉 yè (leaf) (SV diệp) [ M 葉 yè < MC jep < AC *lhap < OC *lap < PC **lɒp | Note: The pattern OC /*l-/ ~ MC /j-/ is very common in Mandarin as /j-/. Most of the Tibetan languages carry the the sound near lá. For example, Tibetan: ldeb lá, tờ, Burmese: ɑhlap cánhhoa (floral petal), Kachin: lap2 lá, Lushei: le:p búp, Lepcha: lop lá, Rawang ʂɑ lap lá (used to wrap rice pastry) ; Trung ljəp1 lá, Bahing lab. (Shafer p.138; Benedict, p. 70. ]
‘rice’ gạo (2)	rənkoʔ	koʔ	稻 dào (SV đạo) [ Starostin posited this etymon as "lúa" (paddy) in Vietnamese. See also etymology of "lúa" in previous sections. ]
‘fish’ cá (3)	kaʔ	--	魚 yú (SV ngư) [ M 魚 yú < MC ŋʊ < OC *ŋha | According to Starostin, ST fish. For *ŋh- cf. Xiamen hi2, Chaozhou hy2. | Protoform: *ŋ(j)a. Meaning: fish. Chinese: 魚 *ŋha fish. Tibetan: ɳa fish. Burmese: ŋah fish, LB *ŋhax. Kachin: ŋa3 fish. Lushei: ŋha fish, KC *ŋhɑ. Kiranti: *ŋjə. Comments: PG *tàrŋa; BG: Garo năk, Bodo ŋa ~ na, Dimasa na; Chepang ŋa ~ nya; Tsangla ŋa; Moshang ŋa'; Namsangia ŋa; Kham ŋa:ɬ; Kaike ŋa:; Trung ŋa1-plăʔ1. Simon 13; Sh. 36, 123, 407, 429; Ben. 47; Mat. 192; Luce 2. | OC *ŋh- ~ k- (ca-) || See APPENDIX M on the case of "ketchup" or "catsup", where "ke-", ca-" is "cá" ('fish'), while '-tsup, -tchup' is 汁 zhí ('sauce'), etymologically. ]
‘dog’ chó (4)	soʔ	soʔ	狗 gǒu (SV cẩu) [ ~ VS 'cầy' | M 狗 gǒu < MC kjəw < OC *ko:ʔ | Note: In C 狗 gǒu (Proto-Viet **kro, Mon-Khmer *klu) might be a loanword from the Yue. cf. 犬 quán (SV khuyển) ~ VS 'cún' (poppy) which could be a cognate with 狗 gǒu if both forms descended from the same source, either of the Yue or Sino-Tibetan languages. ]
‘louse’chí (5)	--	siʔ	虱 shī (SV siết, sắt) [ M 虱 (蝨) shī < MC ʂit < OC *srit || Note: The case of /-ʔ/ ~ "sắc" is similar to "lá: 葉 yè (leaf) (SV diệp) ]

Notes on the Chinese cognates:

Actually it is nothing special a about the change of the ending /-ʔ/ to /-k/ or /-t/ or even to the tone 'sắc'. Nowadays in the Vietnamese central and southern dialects the word 'mắt' 目 mù (eye) is still said just like 'mắc' (cf. SV mục). While the Vietnamese 'mắt' (C 目 mù) did not cause the M reading /mu5/, or 'cắt' 割 SV cát 'cut' to M gē and hundreds of other similar sounds like that. So what's the fussing heck about a few aforementioned Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese correspondences? In the meantime, etymologically:

1. One thing we are pretty sure that the V lá corresponds to 葉 yè, which in turn is from AC *lhap < OC *lap < PC **lɒp. "Leaf" in all other Tibetan languages point to inital l- with little semantic variations. Meanwhile, since the Khmu and Riang languages do not have tones so the upper high departing tone "sắc" was replaced with the glottal -ʔ
2. The Chinese word 稻 is borrowed from a variant of languages, defined in this paper as 'the Yue language', possibly the same as those languages of Austraoasiatic linguistic family as classed by moder Western philologists, spoken by ancestors of minorities now still living in Southern China of which the ancestral Vietnamese likely originally were a member. In the similar manner to the case of "lá", since the Khmu and Riang languages do not have tones so the low departing tone "nặng" was replaced with the glottal -ʔ.
3. Like lá, it is highly probable that cá and 魚 yú are cognate to Old Chinese *nga. It is not hard to see how a velar initial OC *ŋh- has changed to another glottal sound /k/. The case is similar to "lá: 葉 yè (leaf) (SV diệp).
4. Per Norman (1988) the C 狗 gǒu is an early loanword from Proto-Miao-Yao form *klu for ‘dog’ (Haudricourt: spoken Mon 'kle' and written Mon 'kluiw') (p.17). Note also that in V "chó" is also called "cầy". This case is similar to "lá: 葉 yè (leaf) (SV diệp). According to Tsu-lin Mei,

The Shuo-wen says 南越名犬#### “Nan-yüeh calls ‘dog’ *nôg **g.” This explanation occurs under the entry for ## which implies that the meaning “dog” is attached to this character. The first character of the compound probably represents a pre-syllable of some kind. Tuan Yü-ts’ai mentioned in his Commentary to the Shuo-wen that this word was still used in Kiangsu and Chekiang, but did not give any further detail.

Karlgren gives **gas the OC value for ## (GSR 109 7h). At the time of the Shuo-wen (121 A.D.), -g had probably already disappeared; in Eastern Han poetry, MC open syllables (OC –b, -d, -g) seldom rhyme with stopped syllables (OC –p, -t, -k); in old Chinese loan words in Tai (specifically, the names for twelve earth’s branches 地支 ti-chih), probably reflecting Han dynasty pronunciation, Proto-Tai –t corresponds to OC –d, but no trace can be found for –g. The proper value for our purpose is therefore **ô.

This is the AA [Austroasiatic] word for “dog,” as the following list shows: “dog”: VN chó; Palaung shɔ:; Khum, Wa soʔ, Riang s’oʔ; Kat, Suk, Aak, Niahon, Lave có; Boloben, Sedang có; Curu, Crau ʃŏ; Huei, Sue, Hin, Cor sor; Sakai cho; Semang cû, co; Kharia sɔ’lɔʔ, ; Ju solok; Gutob, Pareng, Remo guso; Khasi ksew; Mon klüw; Old Mon clüw; Khmer chkɛ.

The forms after VN represent almost all the major groups spoken in the Indo-China and Malay Peninsulas, as well as the Palaung-Wa, Khmer, and Mal groups. The proto-form for these languages appears to be soʔ or coʔ, preceded perhaps by k- (cf. Khasi, Gutob, etc.). On the basis of Mon, Haudricourt suggested that VN ch- < kl-.** But there is another possibility, namely, VN ch- < kc-; “to die” *kcət, VN chết, Kuy kacet, Kaseng sit. And even if VN ch- did come from kl-, this change must have occurred quite early, since in all the AA languages except Mon, the initial is either a sibilant fricative or affricate.

Source: http://tlmei.com/tm17web/1976a_austroasiatics.pdf

The point to be made here is that the V "chó" and C 狗 gǒu go hand in hand, dated back to more than 2,200 years ago whence the indigenous Yue people had already been in contact with the early Chinese and the C 犬 quán (SV khuyển) was for 'dog' which must have been native. [ M 犬 quán < MC khwijen < OC *khwyi:nʔ | Note that 犬 quán and 狗 gǒu could be cognates or doublets, as said earlier and mentioned in Tsu-lin's paper after Tuan Yü-ts’ai in his Commentary to the Shuo-wen that this word was still in use in Jiangsu and Zhejiang. ] The two words concurrently exist and are in use with 狗 gǒu in higher frequency until this day in the Chinese language, which sheds light the reconciliation to the fact that other basic words in both languages originated from the same roots, whether they are from Old Chinese, Yue, or Austroasiatic languages, which embraces all the modern Dai, Zhuang, Miao, Yao, etc.

Likewise, in the case -s or -h frequently corresponding to tones hỏi-ngã in Vietnamese, the Chinese ~ Vietnamese correspondences become not so obvious/

Việt	Mon	Mnong	Chinese correspondences
‘nose’ mũi (1)	muh	mǔh	鼻 bí (SV tỵ) [ M 鼻 bí < MC pɦji < OC *bji | Note: Based on other Chinese ~ Vietnamese solid cognates of human body parts, for this item, we can posit the pattern ¶ /b- ~ m-/ (See footnaotes.) According to Pulleyblank, the Yuan and modern Mandarin readings as well as many other modern dialects, e.g., Taiyuan piə', Amoy literary pit, imply E. bjit, L. pɦjit. ]
‘root’ rễ (2)	rɜh	ries	蒂 dì (SV đế) [ M 蒂 (蔕) dì < MC tiaj < OC *tɛjs | ¶ d- ~ r- ]
‘seven’bảy (3)	tpah	poh	七 qī [ M 七 qī < MC chjit < OC *shit | Note: all dialects, like M, have longer retain the final -t | According to Starostin: Protoform: *nit (s-), meaning: seven, Chinese: 七 *chit seven ( < *snhit ʔ). Burmese: khu-natɕ seven. Kachin: sjənit2 seven. Lushei: KC *s-Nis. Comments: Limbu nu-si seven; PG *ɲi(s) seven; BG: Garo sni, Dimasa sini; Rawang sanit, Trung sjə3-ɲit1; Kanauri stiʂ; Mantshati nyiz/-i; Rgyarung ʂnis, -ʂnes; Namsangia iŋit; Andro sini. Sh. 123, 134, 411, 429; Ben. 16; Mat. 203. Also, the Khmer language does not have the morph for 'seven'. (See elaboration for this etymology of this item in Chapter Ten on Sino-Tibetan etymologies.) ]

Footnotes on the Chinese cognates:

1) The Ancient Chinese sound of 鼻 bí for VS "mũi" is reconstructed by different linguists as biuzj (MC) < OC *bjiwer (Chou 1973), b’ji- (MC) < OC *b’òcd (Karlgren 1957), bi (MC) < OC *bjidh (Li 1971), bi (MC) < OC *bjcs (Schuessler 1987), phjì (MC) < OC *bjis (Pulleyblank 1991). While Chou's MC /biuzj/ is the closest sound of VS /muj4/ by way of /b-/ > /ʔɓ-/ > /m-/, any of the proposed sound changes above could have given rise to similar sounds in othe Chinese dialect, for example, bei6 (Cantonese, Wenzhou dialects), pó (Xiamen and Chaozhou dialects) and p’ei6 (Fuzhou dialect), but, amusingly, it became tị [tej6] (conditioned by -j-) in SV along with other irregular patterns in Sino-Vietnamese ¶ /b-, p- ~ t-, th-/ where there exist no similar Fanqie spellings in Kangxi dictionary. However, if it could become /bei6/, it could be nasalized (fronted due to the original labial like /b-/) to become /mej6/, giving rise to /mwoj6/ then /mwoj4/ (fronted due to a rounding effect of the glide -w-). Compare the pattern of /-ej/ ~ /-uj/ as follows.

• 酸梅 suānméi ‘salted dried plum’ (VS xímuội ~ mechua, SV toanmai) [ cf. 梅 méi (SV mwoj6, mai), Chaozhou /bhuê5/ ¶ /m- ~b-/ ],
• 每 měi ‘each’ (VS mỗi, SV mỗi) [ M 每 méi < MC mɔj < OC *mjə:ʔ | Dialects: Cant. mui22, Amoy muĩ2. Chaozhou mue21, Fuzhou muei2. cf. 母 mǔ (SV mẫu, VS mẹ), Chaozhou /bho2/. ],
• 妹 mēi ‘younger sister’ (VS em, SV muội) [ VS 'em' /ēim/ (contraction) <~ 妹妹 mēimēi | M 妹 mēi < MC moj < OC *mhjə:ts < PC *mjət | According to Starostin, Burmese: mat husband's younger brother, younger sister's husband. Comments: Kham mama mother's younger brother. For *mh- cf. Xiamen be6, Chaozhou mue6, Fuzhou muoi5, Jianou mue ]
• 魅 méi ‘obscure’ (VS mờ , SV muội) [ M 魅 mèi < MC mɔj < OC *mjə:ts ],
• 味 wèi ‘smell’ (VS mùi, SV vị) [ M 味 wèi < MC mʊj < OC *mjəts | FQ 無沸 | According to Starostin: Standard Sino-Viet. is vị. Since the Chinese word also means (in later times) 'interest', Viet. muồi 'interesting' may be traced back to the same source. For *m- cf. Xiamen, Chaozhou bi6, Fuzhou muoi6, Jianou mi6. | cf. 未 wèi (SV 'mùi'), 'mìchính 味精 wèijīing (SV vịtinh) 'MSG'],

and corespondence ¶ {b ~ m} in Chinese between Middle Chinese ~ Sino-Vietnamese and Mandarin and Vietnamese can be found, such as


• 疲 pì ‘tired’ (VS mệt, SV bì) [ M 疲 pì < MC be < OC *bhaj | ¶ b- ~ m- ],
• 肥 féi ‘fat’ (VS mập, mỡ, phệ, phị, SV phì) [ M 肥 féi < MC bwyj < OC *bjəj | According to Starostin, ST be fat, rich. Viet. phệ is a colloquial reading (cf. also reduplicated: phềphệ); standard Sino-Viet. is phì (reduplicated: phìphị).],
• 秘 mì ‘secret’ (SV bí /bei5/) [ M 秘 bì < pi < OC *prits],
• 忙 máng ‘busy’ (VS bận , SV mang) [ M 忙 máng < MC mjəŋ < OC *ma:ŋ | Dialects: Amoyu boŋ12 (lit.), baŋ12; Chaozhou maŋ12; Fuzhou mouŋ12; Shanghai mã32 ], and
• 悶 mèn ‘sad’ (VS buồn, SV muộn) [ M 悶 mèn < MC mɔn < OC *mjə:ns | Dialects: Amoy bun32, Chaozhou buŋ32. According to Starostin, 悶 mèn means 'melancholy, sorrow', absent from Schuessler's dictionary, although attested already in Yijing. The character is also used (since L.Zhou) for *mjə:n, MC mon, Mand. mén 'to be stuffy, stifling, close, airless' (both readings may be actually related). cf. Viet. 'ngộp' (stuffy) \ m- ~ ŋ- ]

2) The appearance of { 蒂 dì rễ ~ SV đế } corresponds to the patterns of

• 婿 xù ‘son-in-law’ (VS rể ~ SV tế) [ M 婿 xù < MC siej < OC *sas. Also: *sēs (Zhou zyxlj p.256), Karlgren: OC *srir, TB *krwy | cf MC *sa 胥. MC siej could be from OC *sēs. MC description 解開四去 ],
• 鬚 xū ‘beard’ (VS râu ~ SV tu /tʊ1/) [ M 鬚 xū ~ 須 xū < MC ʂjʊ < OC *so | FQ 相俞 | ¶ x-, s- ~ r- : ex. 蛇 shě (SV xà) rắn 'snake', 縮 suō (SV thúc) rút 'shrink' ],
• 縮 suò ‘shrink’ (VS rút ~ SV thu /thʊ1/ [ Also, VS 'co', 'thụt' | M 縮 suò < MC ʂʊk < OC *sruk ],
• 菜 cài ‘vegetable’ (VS rau ~ SV thái /the3/ [ Also, SV 'thể', VS 'cải' | M 菜 cài < MC chɤj < OC *shjə:ʔs ],
• 愁 chóu ‘sad’ (VS rầu ~ SV sầu /sʌw2/ [ cf. 秋 qīu VS thu /thʊ1/) | M 愁 chóu < MC ʐjəw < OC *dhu | Dialects: Suzhou zoy12; Wenzhou zau12; Changsha cou12; Nanchang chɜu12 ; Cant. sʌu12 ],
• (及)速 (jí)sù ‘hasty’ (VS (gấp)rút ~ SV (cấp)tốc ) [ M 速 sù < MC suk < OC *so:k ]
.

3) For 'bảy', see elaboration for its etymology in the next chapter on discussion of cases of counting numbers.

Some of the above SInitic-Vietnamese words give us the impression that the sound changes were derived from Sino-Vietnamese, which in turn had originated from Middle Chinese. However, the other way around could have been more likely, assuming that basic words have a closer relation with Old Chinese or even with proto-Chinese than that of a later period.

Back to top

» Next

---

(H) "The Phùng Nguyên culture of Vietnam (c. 2,000 - 1,500 B.C. ) is a name given to a culture of the Bronze Age in Vietnam during the Hong Bang Dynasty which takes its name from an archeological site in Phùng Nguyên, 18 km (11 mi) east of Việt Trì discovered in 1958. It was during this period that rice cultivation was introduced into the Red River region from southern China. The most typical artifacts are pediform adzes of polished stone." Source (as of March 2018): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phùng_Nguyên_culture

(S) List of he 23 identified fundamental basic words for which we could plug in all Vietnamese and Chinese cognates into place without much difficulty. Let's save this for worksheet practice in the end, and wait and see what the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer camp will come up with.


1. Thou:______________
2. Not:______________
3. To give:______________
4. Man/male:______________
5. Mother:______________
6. Bark:______________
7. Black:______________
8. I:______________
9. That:______________
10. We:______________
11. Who:______________
12. This:______________
13. What:______________
14. Ye:______________
15. Old:______________
16. To hear:______________
17. Hand:______________
18. Fire:______________
19. To pull:______________
20. To flow:______________
21. Ashes:______________
22. To spit:______________
23. Worm:______________



See "Ancient Languages Have Words in Common" by Zachary Stieber, Epoch Times (May 6, 2013).
Source (as of Jan. 2017): http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/42284-ancient-languages-have-common-words-in-common/

(T) As previously discussed, those Cantonese and Fukienese subdialects of the common ancestral Yue language are officially classified as of Sino-Tibetan language family.

[In the meanwhile, ] the Tai–Kadai languages, also known as Daic, Kadai, Kradai, or Kra–Dai, are a language family of highly tonal languages found in southern China and Southeast Asia. They include Thai and Lao, the national languages of Thailand and Laos respectively. There are nearly 100 million speakers of these languages in the world. Ethnologue lists 95 languages in this family, with 62 of these being in the Tai branch.

The diversity of the Tai–Kadai languages in southeastern China, especially in Guizhou and Hainan, suggests that this is close to their homeland. The Tai branch moved south into Southeast Asia only about a thousand years ago, founding the nations that later became Thailand and Laos in what had been Austroasiatic territory.

[...] 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.

Several Western scholars have presented suggestive evidence that Tai–Kadai is related to or a branch of the Austronesian language family. There are a number of possible cognates in the core vocabulary. Among proponents, there is yet no agreement as to whether they are a sister group to Austronesian in a family called Austro-Tai, a backmigration from Taiwan to the mainland, or a later migration from the Philippines to Hainan during the Austronesian expansion.

The Austric proposal suggests a link between Austronesian and the Austroasiatic languages. Echoing part of Benedict's conception of Austric, who added Tai–Kadai and Hmong–Mien to the proposal, Kosaka (2002) argued specifically for a Miao–Dai family.

In China, they are called Zhuang–Dong languages and are generally considered to be related to Sino-Tibetan languages along with the Miao–Yao languages. It is still a matter of discussion among Chinese scholars whether Kra languages such as Gelao, Qabiao, and Lachi can be included in Zhuang–Dong, since they lack the Sino-Tibetan similarities that are used to include other Zhuang–Dong languages in Sino-Tibetan.
[...]
Tai–Kadai consists of five well established branches, Hlai, Kra, Kam–Sui, Tai, and the Ong Be (Bê) language:

- Ong Be (Hainan; Lin'gao (臨高) in Chinese)
- Kra (called Kadai in Ethnologue and Gēyāng (仡央) in Chinese)
- Kam–Sui (mainland China; Dong–Shui (侗水) in Chinese)
- Hlai (Hainan; Li (黎) in Chinese)
- Tai (southern China and Southeast Asia)
(Source (as of Jan. 2017): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai%E2%80%93Kadai_languages

(A) As for that modern broad grouping of languages in the Austroasiatic linguistic family, except for the same concept that is used to refer to a smaller scale of a linguistic sub-family to include only those Mon-Khmer languages while separately the Vietnamese language and its Vietic sibling descents, e.g. Muong, Tha, Vung, Ruc, etc., all originated from those ancestral speeches which originated from a proposed ancient proto-Taic language – which "were once spoken much more widely in China” (Norman, ibid.) – and that their variants have been explicitly referred to as remotely diverged from Taic forms that gave birth to the Yue languages which in turn gave rise to all those contemporary languages that are classed as of Sino-Tibetan linguistic family, such as Cantonese and Fukienese dialects. That is how nominally the Yue languages have come to fit into a much larger picture. Note that "Vietnamese" and "Muong" are specifically not grouped into the Mon-Khmer languages (Norman, ibid.), which indicates that Norman was also aware of the problems in their affirmative classification.

(W) Without the mastery level of "linguistic feelings" that a specialist needs with near native level of the target language due to lack of first-hand experience in modern Chinese, both standard and coloquial, they would never know the roots of many Vietnamese words such as:

- 'đầunậu' (ring leader) 頭腦 tóunăo (SV đầunão),

- 'dàydạn' (experienced) 經驗 jīngyàn (SV kinhnghiệm),

- 'láibuôn' (merchant) 大販 dăipán (Cant. /tai2pan3/),

- 'lẻtẻ' (trivial) 零星 língxīng (SV linhtinh, miscellaneous),

- 'ănnhậu' (social engagement) 應酬 yìngchóu (~ 'eat and drink'),

- 'cụngly' (raise glasses and cheers) 碰盃 bèngbèi,

- 'đừnghòng' (don't you ever) 甭想 péngxiăng,

- 'luônluôn' (always) 牢牢 láoláo,

- 'lạcloài' (solitude) 落落 luòuò [ ~ '失落 shìluò (SV thấtlạc) ],

- 'đượclắm' (pretty good) 得來 dé lái,

- 'đượclòng' (pretty good) 心得 xīndé,

- 'giờgiấc' (time) 時間 shíjiān [ while 'thuở (thủa)' (a period of time), a contraction of phonetic sandhi of 時候 shíhòu (SV thờihậu) ],

all that match exactly the same usage and meanings of the Chinese counterparts, not to mention in-depth knowledge required for the Chinese phonological historical linguistics to appreciate the roots of basic lexicons such as

- 'chỉ' 線 xiàn (thread) and 'chỉ' 錢' (ancient monetary unit weighed approximately a 10th of a Chinese unit of 兩 tael) [ cf. 錢 qián (SV tiền) 'money' ],
- 'đường' 唐 táng (road, as apposed to 途 tú (SV đồ), to 道 dào (SV đạo),
- 'lá' 葉 yè (leaf) [ the pattern /j-/ ~ */l-/ is very common in Chinese. ],
- 'lúa' 來 lái (paddy, as opposed to 稻 dào 'gạo' rice) [ cf. 麥 mài (SV mạch) ],
- 'cá' 魚 yú (fish) [ /ke-/ and /ca-/ in English 'ketchup' and 'catsup' is cognate to V 'cá' ],
- 'sông' 江 jiāng (river) as opposed to 川 chuān (SV xuyên) [ cf. 水 shuǐ (SV thuỷ) 'water', another word for 'river' ],
- 'mây' 霧 wù (cloud), as opposed to 雲 yún (SV vân),
- 'mưa' 雨 yǔ (rain) [ the pattern /y-/ ~ /m-/ is very common in Chinese ~ Vietnamese. ],
- 'nắng' 陽 yáng (sunshine) [ Who says there is no Chinese word for 'sunshine'? ],
- 'cóng' 寒 hán (chilly) [ Hai. /kwɔ5/ ],
- 'biển' 海 hăi (sea) as opposed to both VS 'bể' and 'khơi' [ SV 'hải', for 'khơi', cf. Cant. /hoj3/; it is not hard to associate the 2 related sounds. Ex. 海外 hăiwài V 'hảingoại' (overseas) vs. VS 'ngoàikhơi' (out in the seas) ],
- 'bữa' 飯 fàn (Hainanese /buj2/ 'meal' as opposed to SV 'buổi' (period of the day),
- 'ăn' 唵 ăn (eat) [ cf. 吃 chī (cf. 乙 yǐ (SV ất) as opposed 'xơi 食 shí (SV thực) ],
- 'uống' 飲 yǐn (drink) as opposed to 'hớp' 喝 hè (SV hát) 'sip',
- 'đi' 去 qù (go) as apposed to 走 zǒu (SV tẩu) 'run' for 'chạy',
- 'đứng' 站 zhàn (stand),
- 'ỉa' 屙 é (to poo), 'đái' 尿 niào (to pee, same as VS 'tiểu' conotatively as 'urinate', cf. 尿尿 niàoniào 'điđái'),
- 'ngủ' 臥 wò (lie down to rest, hence 'sleep', as opposed to 睡 shuì, connotatiively 'somnus'),
- 'đụ' 嫖 piáo (fuck, a derivative of VS 'đéo', coloquially 他媽 Tāma ('Your mother's fucker'),
- 'đẻ' 生 shēng (Hainanese /te1/) 'give birth to', in addition to 'tái' (Hai. /ta5/) 'uncooked',
- 'việc' 活 huó (work) as apposed to 務 wù (SV vụ),役 yì (SV dịch),
and of a great number of other words cited in this paper. For the same reason, due to lack of first-hand experience in modern Vietnamese the same authors will never know dissyllabic words such as
- 'đốivới' (with respect to) 至於 zhìyú giving rise to 'đếnnổi' (to such a degree that) as apposed to 對於 duìyú,
- 'vòmtrời' 重圓 chóngyuán (SV trùngviên 'sky vault') instead of 宇宙 yúzhōu (SV vũtrụ 'universe'),
- 'gỏi' 膾 (鱠) kuài (SV khoái 'mince meat (fish) salad') instread of 'chopped meat or fish',
- 'quà' 饋 kuì (SV quỹ 'gift') instead of 禮物 lǐwù,
- 'cảirỗ' 菜蘭 càilán (Chinese brocolli) instead of 'cảilàn' or 'cảilan',
- 'dưahấu' 塊瓜 kuàiguā (SV khốiqua 'watermelon') in stead of 西瓜 xīguā,
- 'ănmày' 要飯 yàofàn (beggar) in stead of 乞丐 qǐgài,
- 'thầymô' 巫師 wùshì as opposed to 'phùthuỷ' (shaman), etc.,

all are cognates.

(菲) Archaeological excavations suggest that the aborignals – of Austronesian and Malay origin – in the Philippines were from the China South's region when there had still existed the land bridge cross the seas to the Philipine islands during the Glacier Period (Bao Shi-Tian 鮑事天, "菲律賓的漢學研究 (Sinological Study in the Phillippines)" (pp.55, 67) in Sung Shee, et al., Symposium on the Sinological Study Over the World (Taipei, 1967).

(南) Yet, all such events occurred at much later times not long ago with less impact in terms of cross-cultural influence, though, as compared with what could have come from another indigenous kingdom called Nanzhao 南詔 (NamChiếu) where half of today's North Vietnam's territory to the west belonged to it, which flourished between 649 and 902 during the Tang Dynasty.

(M) Also, see the Chinese translation by Huang Xuan-Fan 黃宣範. "中古漢語聲調與上聲的起源" (in <中國語言學論集>. 1977. pp. 175-197

 

Back to top

 

Back to VNY2K Homepage

« Previous

» Next