Rainwash from the Austroasiatic sky

New battles in the Sino-Tibetan front

New approaches in the V etymology

The end of Austroasiatic approach

History is the soul of a national language

New battles in the new internet era

Humans like to hear what they believe in

Dongtinghu, birthplace of rice


MAP OF...

Southern Han (917-971 AD)


Han's Giaochau Prefecture in 111 BC

Dongson bronze drums in Indonesia

Vietnamese       Chinese
What Makes Chinese so Vietnamese?

An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies

(Ýthức mới về nguồngốc tiếngViệt)

DRAFT

Table of Contents

dchph

 

Chapter Two

II) Rainwash from the Austroasiatic sky

The usage "rainwash" herein, besides the designated context of "brainwash", points to the fact that repeating precipitation will wash away old imprinted marks on people's long-term memory eventually. That was what had happened to the ST theory of the origin of the V language. It has undergone constant pressure of the antagonistic force aimed to eleminate it since the early decades of the last century. I am determined to defuse such injustice and reinstate what had been represented by the ST camp with renewed and newfound etymological proofsof those basic words cognates to Sino-Tibetan (ST) etymologies. I will also present two new approaches and their methods on how to get VS etyma of C origin that make up a lager portion of V vocabularies and identify linguistic characteristics of the two languages that the AA MK are completely absent.

Before we get to the core of VS etymology, let's first position our stand by making it clear that we are starting from a geographical pivotal point. Under the view of a V, it is further to the north of where China South 華南 (CS) is now located. Specialists who know well of history of VN's and China's national development in that region know it best the essence of the Yue with regard to the Vietic language, or ancient V, and how it has evolved from the CS region within a historical time frame that we consider it is vital and relevant to the VS etymological studies.

The term etymology used here is to mean the study of the origin of words or parts of their components, such as morphemes and syllabes, and how they have evolved into the current forms. All the related words from different languages under investigation are called etymons or etyma. Specifically, it is related to mostly those of V and the C counterparts, mostly about VS etyma. As said, only those basic words could be traced back to those ST etymologies .

A) New battles in the Sino-Tibetan front

In search of the existence of the ancient Yue who lived there in ancient China, recent regional excavations by archaeologists have unveiled specifics that match references to the Yue aboriginals (BáchViệt 百越 BăiYuè) as recorded in C throughout China's 5000-year-old history, of which ancient C records confirmed that the CS is the native habitat of the ancient Southern Yue (南越族) where other tribal branches had originated from. (See Zhang Zengqi. 1990. 中國西南民族考古 Archaeology of Ethnic Minorities in China's Southwestern Regions)

Geographically aligned with 'China South' is the northern region in the heartland of the Yellow River Plain, the area that stretches beyond the northern plank of the Yellow River possibly all the way to the peninsula Shandong Province (山東省) in the northeastern China that is known as regions of Hoabắc 華北 Huáběi, or 'China North'.

As the modern term "Việtnam" (越南) can be precisely translated as "the Yue of the South", it also implicitly suggests that there also existed the "Việtbắc", or "the Yue of the North" (越北). In our contemporary era, it is about those sinicized Yue peope (漢化粵族) who have been living inside the borders of modern China, including their ancestral native habitat in CS (Hoanam 華南 Huánán). The same term also refers to 'the Yue of the North' (粵北). In a limited sense, it may refer to speakers of 蠻聲 Mansheng (tiếngMôn) of the Shaozhou Tuhua (韶州土話) sub-dialects spoken in the border region of the north of Guangdong 廣東, Hunan 湖南, and Guangxi 廣西 provinces, mutually unintelligible with Hunanese, Cantonese, and Mandarin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuebei_Tuhua). Ethnologically, their forefathers were descendants of those earlier Taic aboriginals who had made up the populaces of the Chu State (楚國). Those ancient Yue habitats are located in today's China's areas where Hebei 河北, Anhui 安徽, and Jiangsu 江蘇 provinces are now located. (See Bình Nguyên Lộc, 1972.)

Following trails of artifacts that the Yue descendants left along their emigratory routes out of their ancient heartland of the Yangtse Basin as the ST migrants moved , we can say that the proto-Yue tribes did spread out southward past the Indo-China's peninsula — postulated the Austroasiatic (AA) home — and all the way to those faraway islands of Indonesia. The discovery of Dongson drums reaffirms southward migration past the islands of Java and the New Guinea, which would logically to explain the presence of relics of the bronze drums found there are similar to those of Đôngsơn-styled culture (700BC - 100AD) excavated in the Red River Delta of northern VN (See map.)

The bronze drums were produced by the Yue people from about 600 BC or earlier in the areas of CS and north of ancient Annam (交趾 Jiāozhǐ) until the first century AD. The Book of the Later Han (後漢書) recorded that the Han's General Ma Yuan (馬援) melt all the bronze drums seized from the local rebel of LuóYuè (雒越 LạcViệt) for bronzes (14 BC – 49 AD). The ones being found are those of the finest examples of metalworking by the indigenous Yue artisans.

The precise dating of those bronze artifacts for comparison provides some solid evidences to support the historical records regarding the ancient Yue people spreading to different regions. The earliest big and heavy Yue bronze drums similar to those found in VN's Dongson were also found in Wangjiaba in Yunnan Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture (萬家埧楚雄彝族自治州) China in 1976 that existed 2700 years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%C3%B4ng_S%C6%A1n_drums) Further work still needs to be done, though, to strengthen the archaeologically based Yue theory for the pre-historic period as opposed to that of Austroasiatic (AA) hypothesis of its racial stock, which makes the whole matter to look like both of them were of the same racial stock but only in different time-framed settings.

We are here, however, not to talk about what happened 10 thousand or so years ago in CS and the whole Southeast Asia's region, ethnologically and racially. This paper will instead focus on much later historical events that had happened within a lesser time frame approximately from 2000 to 3000 years ago surrounding the usage of some ancient aboriginal languages, one of which was the speech once spoken by the Chu (楚 Sở) popolation, in the same period that the Yue people were native inhabitants in CS prior to the birth of China as recorded in C classics. ( See APPENDIX J).

Linguistically, all early ST and the aboriginal languages spoken by the early proto-Yue called Taic and other subjects of other states besides the Chu State had blended and contributed to the make-up of the newly emerged speech forms known as the Archaic Chinese (ArC, 上古漢語), Old Chinese (OC, 上古先秦雅音), and Ancient Chinese (AC, 西漢古漢語) spoken by those known to us as the Han-Chinese of a unified empire called Middle Kingdom (中國 Zhongguo, known to the outside world as China irrespective of all the dynastic changes). China's territorial expansion to the south had continuously brought the Han C into those regions secured under its rule and, in turn, sped up the process of sinicizing the Yue natives. Anthropologically, racial mixture of the Han with the ancient populaces living within the perimeter of today's CS and those natives in the habitat of northern VN had inevitably brought about their affiliation in related languages spoken by different groups that might include but not be limited to Mon-Khmer (MK), Vietic, and Han C.

Historically, all ancient states in ancient China had come and gone and caused displacement of their subjects many of whom fled southward and survived slaughters of wars (See Bo Yang. 1983-93). In Annam, southern portion of the earlier NamViet Kingdom, throughout 1009 years under the rule of C colonialists, foot soldiers, refugees, officials, and immigrants, all kept coming and resettling there. They had mixed with the locals and made up the overall Annamese populace now known as the Kinh people. All of the above factors are direct causes and effects on the becoming of the modern V and their language in our time. To have full picture of it let's image what would have become of a tiny vassal state like VN that had undergone C colonialization like what today's Taiwan sans modern comunication will become some 700 years later?

The whole linguistic world seems to enjoy initiating a new theory of some sort once in a short while. Institutionally, conspiracy or not, every specialist in a related field who happens to come up any discovery does so, such as the work by Paul Benedict (1975) who built anew the case of the Kadai-Tai branch of the Austro-Thai linguistic family. Call it another "Austro-" theory then.

V historical linguistics, in effect, requires not only mastery of the V language but also ancient C philology so that leaners are able to distinguish classes of VS from SV lexicons in V vocabularies and identify OC remnants in modern V. That appears a simple matter on the surface but it is not, though. C linguistics was something new for western scholars to venture in the early 20th century. The learning curve on C historical linguistics appears even steeper for them to learn from ancient C rhyme books such as Guangyun 廣韻 or Huiyun 會韻 that required the strenuously mental labor to extract phonological values from ancient C linguistics and to decipher sounds and connotation that each C character conveys in such classical C books. for instance, the intrigue "chongniu" (重紐) in divisions III, IV, etc. (音).

In the field of VS historical phonology, on the one hand, different standards utilized by C philologists in the ancient times have caused enough confusions already because methods of delivery in classic C etymological linguistics did not conform with the way we used to see in modern presentations and methodologies which made the former look 'unscientific'. However, by chosing to ignore them once and for all the AA specialists already missed a lot of important sound bits that had long been buried under hefty weight of classical C dossiers. On the other hand, ancient C classical and rhyme books have not been fully appreciated and acknowledged as they should be and so far only a handful of contemporary western sinologists have truly understood, explored, and made use of them in order to meaningfully contribute more to the research of related ST etyma that appear in the V language, and for the latter, all of such efforts may help in re-classifying the V language into the ST linguistic family as well. (See the chapter on "the Sino-Tibetan etymologies".)

It is no need to say it is also tough even for native V scholars to study V etymolgy of C origin. To be excused from associating the sinitic subject matters in V, many of them choose to keep distance from C affiliation by avoiding the whole matter altogether and picking the AA MK hypothesis. Alternatively, they are disinclined with the issue of real V linguistic affiliation by sublimating into the realm of nationalism. It appears, nevertheless, such runabout shortcuts will not make it in V etymological studies.

As for the AA-MK theory of the V language, we have the right to suspect that AA pioneers from a bygone era of the previous century, however strong their innovative initiative could be, all seemed to have conspired in the scheme to start with AA premise. All could be done rather easily without the burden to exert too much effort on their parts, such as to investigate the history of respective country that has its language under discussion and to learn all related languages in the regions. Similar issues like those did not exist in AA languages when the initiators of the hypothesis of AA MK origin of the V language, altogether, in effect, just disregarded anything C once and for all.

Early in the 20th century the Austro-Asiatic theorists classified the V language into the AA linguistic family mainly based on data from tabulations of some dozens of basic words that scatter throughout other MK languages that are cognate to those of V. Only a small portion of their selective loanwords fall into the range of 99 percent of V vocabularies, though. Of course they did not bother to offer explanations for all other linguistic peculiarities of the V language that share with the C language. After they were done with analysis and postulation job, our AA fellows went on blanketing identified Sintic items with the rest of SV lexicons as C loanwords. In their own time they might have never heard of the "Yue", perhaps, or it could have been harsh on them to distinguish which one is from Yue or C, e.g, 戌 xū, 狗 gǒu, 犬 quán, etc. ~> 'chó' (dog) (?) In many a case, they are all assigned as '*kro' that of AA-MK. Probably an old cliché applies here appropriately, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

After all these years certain AA specialists have effectively made use of well-prepared works on C and V by others as a baseline in stepping up the process of theorizing their AA hypothesis (A), including those papers by Mark J. Alves (2001, 07, 09), Jerry Norman (1988), Tsu-lin Mei (1976). A few of them demonstrated their ability to distinguish how SV class was different from that of VS in V vocabularies to a certain degree, but they have never stepped out of the constraints of common norms on traditional approaches and technicalities. Besides those limited basic words of MK cognates have been quoted repeatedly over the last few decades since David D. Thomas (1966), no novel breakthrough in nature about them to counter evidences that show the ST or C origin of those related words being cited.

Their paper definitely would hinder the progress of our overall efforts in trying to rekindle interests and recognition on a renewal work of reclassifying the V language into the ST linguistic family. The brandname of western institutions associated with their works have successfully attracted many local followers inside VN, who have readily shown admiration for those westerners that demonstrated some knowledge of V. Following the crowd with the trendy fads puts up some vanity air in their own locally made products, as a result, but of disputable academic values.

Works of reinforcement on the MK theory built on the AA foundation, as a result, have duplicated and popped up everywhere on the internet especially since the last two decades. AA-MK theorists, hence, had undoubtedly gained an upper hand in competing for the acceptance of their theorization in addition to other technical gains after long decades of having continuously cultivating the belief that western methodology is scientific and superior, implying assurance of the same quality for their newly built AA-MK theories.

In the meanwhile, continuing recognition of the aggressive AA domination would further consolidate the legitimacy of the principal purpose of AA-MK theory on the V origin. The whole matter would then create an unfavorable environment that put our ST theorists in an underdog position to compete for acceptance of their newly generated supposition of VS etyma of ST origin. If we in the ST camp do not keep on the fight, that is equal to an acknowledgement of our own defeat and it would implicate even more of a spiritual side, a sense of being denied of one's own national identity. When that phenomenon propagates on a large scale, nationality of a country might be at stake as well.

Unavoidably, the political issue apprears under the disguise of nationalism. The issue is growing bigger on every front that interferes not only advancement on the V historical linguistics but also on natural scientific fileds as well, like that of bio-genetics that could be used in tagging the genomes of the targeted people. In a real world, it is assumed that as more and more new Confucius institutes -- Chinese cultural centers subsidized by China worldwide -- have sprung up in larger numbers and as more China's teachers of the C language are heading towards US schools, the whole new shift in attitude towards linguistic matters would change accordingly in the respect that we are fucusing on. As the C language is increasingly attract more students, it is they who will change the balance as more of C savvy, not the AA, theorists will incline to the ST theorization then. The whole new perspective will then undermine the axiom that people tend to believe more in what they have believed in.

On the oposite side of the scale which balances emotion with respect to what has been going on with our China the Big Brother in our contemporary era, it is apparently more of a political issue than that of history. The phenomenon repeats what their precedessors did in the past but the core matter still remainssinitic because he issue will not simply go way by just denying the existence of the old C affiliation, genetic or not. With regard to the philosophical aspect of the historical linguistics as a science, in the V average educated brain the emotional issue of national awareness of identity has replaced a sinocentric ST theory by that of the late AA entry, of which its groundwork has been elevated gradually over time and gained more popular rapport up until present.

Why do all those matters as well as other political issues matter? That is "the Zen of the Vietic matter", namely, the sinitic core of the V etymology, so to speak metaphorically. A western-educated person would probably find it hard to grasp the implication of V politics that got entangled with any C-related academic subjects and V historical linguistics is no exception. Nobody understands the issue better than those locally groomed scholars. The Sino-V delicate relation is to be dealt with later separately to demonstrate that the truth of the matter could be either twisted to serve a political purpose or masked under the national guise called nationalism, unfortunately. All has bored a loophole for non-historical linguistically based AA hypothesis to creep in.

Be reminded that history of VN is that of about chronology of resistance wars. China has been always so aggressive towards VN in the south for hundreds of years even since she gained independence in 939. The years VN at war are greater than they are at peace. Of the 2271 years of her written history the historical state of VN had been at war for 1474 years, mostly against the C aggressors up until 1979 and C sporadic incursions on land at seas in 1984, 2013, etc., plus some 200 years of war against the Chams, Khmer, French, and Japanese, and all other internal civil wars, including that with the US troops involved totalled 262 years altogether were also in the fight against factions, all more or less involving interventions by China on either side. All in all VN had a mere 897 years of peace time periods at intervals.

The war-hardened endurance and strong will for survival have mold the spirit of the V people with what they perceived nationalism as mentioned herein and it is real, as best exemplified by current events in the early first-half of the 21st century where young patriots with their blood boiling and yearned to take up arms and even accepted jail time for staging forbidden demonstrations against China's aggression, ironically, sentenced by their own government in their own country. Several of them have been sent in exile to the US because of their nationalistic spirits since then. Resentful sentiments towards the northern neighbor hence have kept building up and continued to pass down to the next generations.

So it is of no surprise that they become a degrading factor in establishing an objective theorization on the core V linguistic affiliation matter, i.e., AA instead of ST. And it is real, too, not a product of imagination. For example, some writings of mine in which I state that the V people are of mixed race with what the C immigrants had brought into the country from the north who resettled down, and married local women have met with fierce criticism from the V community. Readers can google that. In this paper I repeat the same thing again in order to support the point that from 111 BC to 939 AD as the ancient Annam was a prefecture of the imperialist China, the C with different dialects and, eventually, the linguistic mixture had almost totally eliminated the Yue linguistic stratum. The whole chained events like those have given rise to the modern V of which over 99 percent of linguistic elements are composed of C linguistic components.

For all of the aforementioned issues, you will see why the author actually would dedicate a whole chapter next solely to discuss influence of Sino-Vietnamese politics on academics for what it will be discussed next because matters a lot in forging impartial judgment on whether or not the ST theory would hold fast in its new stand. The Vietnamese know best that history of their country has been rewritten again and again as dictated by rulers of the country to reflect changing viewpoints on Sino-Vietnamese relations; hence, theories on the origin of their people have also changed accordingly regardless of the truth. In other word, the winner writes history.

To easily grasp the core issue of the matter, let's compare similar circumstances of 3 national entities in the region. Like that of VN thoughout her history, (1) Singapore is a country of multi-ethnic citizens having enjoyed its status of sovereignty. 2200 years ago the historical ancient VN started with status like (2) Hong Kong in its darkest days in our contemporary era with its historical Yue-originally Cantonese speakers. Many of Hongkongers still contemptuously refer to the maniland with the name shina (支那). However, sovereign status of VN's appear to be shaking periodically at intervals in the past as well as in the present time, like that of (3) Taiwan for some time now, a reluctant alliance with the mainland China. So said, the Tainwanese are also experiencing similarly identity crises in weighing choices between either taking side with sinicized Minnan (閩南) values brought over by their forefathers from historically ancestral Fujian homeland, called MinYue Kingdon (閩越王國) in ancient times, to the Formosa island since the 17th century or associating them with the Austronesian natives to emerge as genuine masters of the island to join in unison the fight for Taiwan's independence. At the early years after the colonialization of the C, the native mimorities living in those places were never in equal footing with the colonialists.

In contrast to their status as minority groups in China South, the V descendants in the Southern State — or 南國 Namquốc, VN in ancient times — are having an obsessive pride of their Yue ancestral heritage. The early sinicized Yue of the ancient NamViet Kingdom had long encountered similar racial discrimination under the rule of imperial China since 111 BC. History witnessed influx of C immigrants out of the China's mainland to its Annam Prefecture, or today's eastern part of North VN (Bo Yang, Zizhi Tongjian, Vol. 69, p 172. 1992), of whom a larger number of the VN's nationals known as "the Kinh people" were Yue descents. Strong individual will for survival has transformed and sublimated in different forms which is nationalism and national identity.

Ethnologically, symbolistically, VN, the only independent country still in existence is thought to have hold and represented all different ethnic groups of the ancient Yue descents. To be exact, her current populaces are descendants of all minorities of her aboriginal subjects and migrants whose ancestors were also of Yue ethnic groups, which made up the Kinh majority group. Racial mixture of the latter was composed of ancient Chu and Han subjects prior to 111 BC. By then the C people included descents of subjects in those "ancient states", children of the Yue people who had been either sinicized as Han Chinese or absorbed into a minority group being pushed or fled to remote areas, mostly in its vast mountainous terrains spreading from Guangxi to Yunnan provinces of China, including those of the Daic and Zhuang minorities in autonomous regions specifically designated for those populous ethnic people in our contemporary epoch. In effect, until Annam's independence in 939 AD, components of the whole Annam's population had been virtually the same as, at least, those people of ancient Lingnan region (嶺南道) that consisted of today's provinces of Guangxi, Hunan, Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, etc.

In the meanwile, for the most parts of the history of the Middle Kingdom full penetration of any other foreign elements from the north of China North (華北 Huabei) such as those of Tartaric, Altaic, Mongolian, and Manchurian who each in succession had gained control of what is known to the world as China and made up the people collectively called 'Chinese'. For those who later emigrated to VN such as the Ming expatriates (明鄉人 NgườiMinhhương) after the Manchurians brought down the Chinese Ming Dynasty made up another different racial component of the Hoa ethinicity (華橋).

As VN's national identity was forming after her complete separation from the old imperial China, her nationalism emerged out of several resistant wars against C invaders of each dynasty established in the land of China, namely, the Song, the Yuan, the Ming, the Qing, the People's Republic of China (PRC), of which its monarch never forgot to try to retake VN back, at least as a vassal state when each C monarchy had reached the height of its power. It is too bad that all emperors of China never learnt the lessons of VN's history. It is that no matter how powerful each dynasty had been, each one was eventfully defeated by VN, including the border war as recently as in 1979. Unfortunately, for the larger part of VN's history, men were born just to go to fight in wars, most of whom all had lost their lives in fighting in previous wars one after another until VN ended their last 10-year war against the China-backed genocidal Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea in 1989. The V men are men of wars.

In the national arena, ironically, the ruling members of the country's current Poliburo altogether paid dearly for their debts owed to the rulers of communist China, who had helped put them in power in return for fighting for China's imperialist ambition of expansion in the Vietnam War against the US-supported Vietnam's government (1954-1975). The rise of the Maoist PRC again denied VN a fair chance of peaceful restoration of national independence from the French colonialists (1858-1954) and free of tyrannical rules thereafter, politically, as being enjoyed many countries such as India or Malaysia after the collapse of western colonial rules around the world after the WWII and the early 1960's.

For such historical reasons, national identity crises, as it turns out, become ghostly shadows that have kept returning to haunt them time and time again. No other nation has ever existed on earth could ever be so capable to uphold high spirit of nationalism like those of the V people in the face of constant external threats. To deal with such emotional issues, each segments of the V populace had their way to deal with. It is believed that the inferno of nationalist spirit inflamed by their forefathers is still being funneled inside the hearts of the younger generation.

For V youngsters, the AA-MK theory of genetic affiliation is only an academic classification. When facing sensational issues about their ancestral origin, like youngsters in the American society, they do practice self-denial of true identity, mostly of C descent based on their genetic line of paternal family's tree approximately three or more generations ago, by stating that they are of the "Kinh" majority which is a general ethnic-designated category implicating only ancient Vietic values, namely, those of the Yue.

The same feeling is shared by those of the older ones. Whether or not they are serving the modern communist regime, local scholars tend to deny themselves of links to the past that had anything to do with the C, e.g., share of 1000 year plus history prior to 939 AD, so they chose to go with the new western trend in accepting the AA-MK hypothesis that is likely that of the Yue.

Their selective choice shows that in their collective consciousness they are well aware of the fact that their ancestors have migrated from the north, or the China South region, to be exact. In other words, historical matters of the later acquired southern stretches of land did belong to the ancient kingdoms of Champa and Khmer having AA-MK and Austronesian-Chamic roots as in the respective AA and Autronesia theories.

Formullarily, if we are to express all Yue entities in symbols to represent the proportion of racial transmutation which formulated the genetic affiliation for the Viets, we shall then assign some weight to their racial entity with componental properties as {4Y6Z8HCMK}, loosely based on historical records such as census data of population increasing from 400,000 to 980,000 people — Annamese {2Y3Z4H} — in three Han's prefectures of Jiaozhi 交趾 (Giaochỉ), Jiuzhen 九真 (Cửuchân), and Rinan 日南 (Nhậtnam), respectively, during 100-year period from 111 BC to 11 BC. Historical records show that in Qin Danasty NamViet's 15,000 to 30,000 unmarried women were forced to marry Qin foot soldiers (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Eng. p. 11, Chin. p. 47). The purport of the following enumeration of the V racial mixed components, not pretended to be scientific at all, though, which needs your imagination to help postulate on how the C emerged after the Yue and both of them gave rise to the present V racial mixture.(S)

The composition of the V racial transmutation appears much more similar to those of Han-Chinese. In general, that had been a process during which the early proto-Chinese {X)}, of Tibetan origin, intermingled with the proto-Yue aboriginals {YY} (supposedly the Taic people) — on the proportional ratio of 2 to 1, that is, 2Y/X — to have become parts of ancient Yue indigenous populace represented by {ZZZ} in those ancient states of Wu 吳, Yue 越, Chu 楚, etc., of which their subjects were later to be called 'the Han' symbolized as {HHHH} — that is, 3 x Z, 4 x H, repectively, where "x" means "times" — in a unified Middle Kingdom of the Han Dynasty, sort of a "united states of Qin", as Qin was later known as 'Chinese', analogously.

Composition of the later Han-Chinese as {X2Y3Z4H}, in effect, were results of mutated racial mixture of {(X)(YY)(ZZZ)(HHHH)}, so to speak, while racial composition of the Viets was made of the proto-Yue {YY} and later Yue {ZZZ} to become the proto-Vietic {YYZZZ}, ancestors of the Vietic, or early Annamese {2Y3Z4H}, who would later become the modern Vietnamese {4Y6Z8H+CMK} where C is for Cham and MK for Mon-Khmer, a componental double of {2Y3Z4H} plus {CK} taking place with a series of similar events that had brought about the same composition of the Fukienese or Cantonese populace, that is, they had the same racial transmutation as that of the Vietic mixture during the same period under the rule of the Han Dynasty. So it was, suggestively, then symbolistic formula for Austroasiatic could be assigned as {6YCMK}.

Currently, as the Viets continued on their journey further to the south, they brought with them their language, having lost contacts with Tang colloquial variants since 938 when the NanHan was defeated by Annam's General Ngô Quyền (吳權 Wu Quan) who became the first king of an independent Annam in 939 (Bo Yang, Zizhi Tongjian, Vol. 69, pp. 209, 210. 1992.) Linguistically, morphemic changes from one sub-dialect to the other obviously show how it has evolved from north to south, all having left tonal marks in their sub-dialects which show gradual stages from those of thick accent of Hanoi, to Hatinh, Hue, heavy Binhdinh, Tuyhoa, Ninhhoa, Phanthiet, Saigon, and light south-western accent in the Mekong Basin areas. No matter how V is classed into different sub-dialects, any of them intelligible by all V speakers.

The perception that their national language was on par with any C dialects for it was a sub-family of ST family language might have not been easily disturbed until the last century when AA hypothesis emerged to classify languages in the Southeast Asia. V was one among them. The whole perspective shifted after Annam fell under the French colonial umbrella in 1862.

In prelude to the arrivals of French colonialists into the country in the mid-19th century, European missionaries had come and stationed inside the country as an organ of propaganda of the Catholic church since the 17th century. Representatives of the church had the full support of the colonial government to aggressively spread western values in form of passing holy messages of the bible to the illiterate mass and literati alike. Annam under the 100 year rule of the French colonialists had been fully prepared to enter the new phase breaking away from haunting past with the China.

As a series of historical events taking place, such as that of the division of Annam into 3 different admistrative dominions, or regions, the Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina, respectively, by the French colonialists, over the next 100 years, did serve as a wake-up call for her people in several areas including the dependency of their feudalistic system of the central Hue region that was still in place totally adapted from that of China. On the one hand, only through the light of western civilization shining in the southern region — overshadowed by the colonial oppressiveness, yet, with innovative minds of those Frenchmen that stood for the batallion of western civilization, though — were the Annamese able to rise up on their feet and to see beyond China's horizon. On the other hand, the occidental ideas posed cultural threats to those who hold on to the traditional values.

There came the most fierce attacks from the west launched against the two most backward and corrupt but resiliently repulsive citadels of confucianism by then, that is, the French force attacking the Annam's Hue Imperial Palace in 1883 and the Eight-Nation Alliance troops trampling the Qing's Peking's Forbidden City in 1900, respectively, both having been unmercifully ransacked one after another. Symbolistically, the whole events signaled the chained collapse of the old Chinese feudal systems in both China (1911) and VN (1954). The successive historical event continued to unfold thereafter had removed the French Annam away from China's eyesight.

In the process of colonialization of the highly sinicized Annam's society, those overly enthusiastic colonialists had wasted no time and sprung into action to propagate their western values with multiple cultural prongs that include imposition of supposedly superior occidental values to those of locals. Western methodology was prominently one among them and proved its quasi effectiveness, though, in most of academic fields. Throughout the colonial period, however, French intellectuals had been always in a position of authority to forge western scholarship which even more horrific than the old values that they replaced. A French-educated V of the early 20th century generation might recall that when the French colonists were there in Annam, they had even gone far enough in the field of history by boldly teaching native children of their colonized Annamese subjects that their ancestors had been of the Gallic race, for example.

It is the western ideas that make physical transformation in real world, though. Novel scientific methology showed their superiority through effectiveness and advancement in many aspects of civil society. The last century witnessed how efficient western mechanism at work after having experienced the showdown of forces between those new vanguards of the free world's values represented by the US throughout the war against the totalitarianism of the same old tyrannical sytem of imperial China addressed by the new name called 'communism'. Ironically, the world has not seen nothing yet until China's economic powerhouse rolls out hi-tech products with the same efficiency after more than 30 years of open-door policy in implementation of what the C have learnt from the West.

The V intellectuals are taking notes on rewarding incentives, e.g., recognition from the academic world, that go with proven benefits based on can't-go-wrong western methodologies, in this case, the western initiated AA theory, specifically. Despite controversial on association of AA-MK with Viets, local academics are eager to take on a prestigious western AA-MK stand because it is easier to reconcile the AA hypothesis with archaeological excavations — for example, focus on the southeastern region of the Indo-China's peninsula as AA homebase in order to explain finds of highly advanced Dongson-styled bronze drums also found in Indonesia — than elaborate on unreliably traditional V legends, folktales, or folklores, etc., which sounds more like a fairytale, to depict one's national pre-historic history. Such oral form has already earned negative marks and posed challenges on its credibility for interpretation of pre-historic events even though that has been how one generation to another passed down history of the founding of the nation long before it is ever recorded in C history on contact with the 'Tàu' (秦 Qin) prior to 204 BC.

However, the AA-MK camp could never compile basic words skipping across MK languages that are cognate to scores of them in V that could relate to V legends to help identify sound change patterns in etyma related to C records. For example, 董 dǒng in the legend of "Phùđổng Thiênvương" (扶董天王 Fúdǒng Tiān​wáng, a mythical folk hero in VN's history, who defeated the Ân (殷 Yin or 殷商 Yinshang) invaders from ancient China's Yin Dynasty. (Y) ) is also called 董聖 Dǒng Shèng (Đổng Thánh) or 'Thánh Gióng (Dóng)', Saint Gióng or Dóng /Jong5/ and the phonology of both pronunciation are mapped well into the sound change pattern of {d- ~ gi-(j-)}.

Linguistically, a whole new contemporary episode theorized by AA-MK initiates has painted a picture of the V people quite different from the perspective they used to visualize, look at, and see themselves, through the mirror of legendary and folklores as said. Those scientifically-minded AA specialists could not care much more about factual historical data, let alone spiritual values to that the Viets have devoted with their conviction for any particular issue. For instance, the AA camp would not buy into those interpretive numbers such as total years of the 18 reigns ruled by their ancestral King Hung I, II, III... of the Viets, The irony of history of Vietnam is that her people could not be sure how to say with certainly the names of their revered legendary ancestral king, specifically, that is, King Hùng or King Lạc(?) Two of the important, but intriguing, names are those of the kings called King "Hùng" 雄 (Mand. Xióng) and King "Lạc" 雒 (Mand. Luó). "Hùng" is the SV pronunciation mainly based on ĐạiViệt Sửký Toànthư (大越歷史全書 'Complete History of DaiViet') by Ngô Sĩ Liên in which "Lạc" 雒 might have been mistaken as "Hùng" 雄 as recorded in Chinese historical books. which is illogical, leaving a large gap of hundreds of years in the speculative span of more than 4893 years since 2879 BC, the birthyear of their nation, which is hard to prove, simply all numbers not adding up logically, and so on (H).

The AA-MK followers, on the contrary, hit on the weather-beaten trails pioneered by their predecessors which had first had their stand blessed with the French academic underwriting. Thanks to the colonial legacy left behind by the French after they stepped out of the threshold of their Indo-China's colony in 1954, the AA theorists had creatively captivated the western-educated V academicians with wildest immagination that allows them to perceive their own national language, now, via its western periscope, specifically, advanced tools and innovative methodogies, so to speak.

As time goes by, fallout from the rainwash under the AA sky would become much more of the re-enforcement to the western front on what already soaked in related V linguistic matters. Unlike what had become of the AA-MK hypothesis, the ST classified V, on and off the radar screen due to lack of fine-tuning, was built on premises of sinitic-based vocabularies but not many breakthroughs in fundamentally etymological for decades since its inception until now that it has become matured on similar linguistic particularities and historical background, which is to be enumerated in the next chapters.

Everything comes with a price, though. The agony endured by the Viets who have undergone through process of AA 'colonization', spiritually, that is comparable to the feeling of being coerced to compromise one's own belief, i.e., conviction in terms of oriental philosophy on 'the Way of life' ('Nhânsinhquan' 人生觀 or Dao 道), to be replaced by occidental values. Their collective subconsciousness of conflicting values will make them suspicious of those foreign work with hidden ideological agenda under different guises coming from different sources, say, Russia or China, which would affect social sciences or other humanity disciplines, including archaeology and historical linguistics. (See works by Nguyen Tai Can, Bui Khanh The, ibid.).

In the ancient times in the land of Annam the emergence of the V Kinh people was marked by the intermarriage of migrants from the China Soutth region with those aboriginals having inhabited in the Red River basin and northeastern coastal area of today's north of VN. In the back of their mind the V people are well aware that their ancestors were of the Yue genealogical line, with linkage to the largest indigenous population as popularly known today as the Zhuang (壯族) and the Daic (傣族) minority groups both concentrating in the regions of today's Guangxi and Yunnan provinces. For those who are living remote mountainous regions, their ancestors might have probably been forced to retreat there for the ancient Yue people were originally rice growers in plain regions of cultivated paddy fields on both sides along the Yang-Tzi River banks.

On a grand scale, all of the above are related to the other sinicized Yue groups who had long become parts of the C-Han majority such as those Cantonese, the Fukienese, or the Wu speakers in Guangdong, Fujian, or Zhejiang province. Nobody questioned their sinicized Yue origin but the AA MK theorists did with the contemporary V people due to their country 1100 years after their separation from a part of China in the end of the Tang Dynasty. In the meanwhile the MK components in the V picture is really small in many aspects. Linguistically, their speech was solidly recorded in C scripts in ancient times ever since they had been first invented, e.g., 'ngày' 日 rì (day), 'suối' 川 chuāng (creek), 'rựa' 戉 yuè (axe), all quite distinctively different from those of the AA-MK groups.

On a smaller scale, intellectual drainage to the AA MK camp was a material loss per se. In VN there are plenty of Mandarin (putonghua) learners nowadays but scholars in historical C seem to belong to a bygone era now. VS historical linguistics demands additional skill sets. Those locally groomed scholars from the second generation after 1975, who have been trained in the socialist educational system, surprisingly tend to admire anything western, though, and they seem to defect the ST camp. They belong to a novel class of V scholarship that carries the 'western air', probably sublimated from their inferior complex, but also politically motivated to serve the socialist system for personal gains. We will talk more about the role of politics in the academic arena in complete detail in the next chapter.

B) New approaches in the Vietnamese etymology

The AA-MK was created out of no historical records but only theorizing on available data from archaeologiical and linguistic vestiges. In contrast the Yue's existence has been treated as that of "aliens from another planet" on earth by the AA-MK camp. It is the the Yue theory that covers not only both history and archaeology but also anthropology with a spiritual respect of it. Before the author goes on to discuss the core approaches, let's bring in an abstract evidence of such aspect that underlines popular belief in the undeniable existence of the long-discussed ancestral Yue aboriginals in the CS region whether or not sinitic factors are taken into consideration to account for all differentiation of AA-MK intrinsic values to those in the holdings held by the V in the country of "the Viets of the South", or Vietnam. The main reason for doing so is that many VS etyma will creep into our discussion that fit into such anthropological category. For instance, the V concept of "thờ" (worship) may corespond to 侍 shì (SV thị), 祠 cí (SV từ), 祀奉 sìfèng (VS thờphụng), or 'thờphượng' 奉事 fèngshì (SV phụngsự) or 忠臣不事二君 Zhōngchén bù shì è jūn. 'Tôitrung không thờ hai chúa.' (Loyal subordinates will not serve two kings.)

Just like the V religion of 'ancestral worship" ("tụcthờcúngôngbà') the V people's spiritual belief is so sacred in such a way that their perception of the afterlife governs most of their social conducts in their earthly life. On the one hand, as they might not readily admit theirs is not a religion, but it is an 'ancestral religion' back in time because one could not say any relegion of 2500 or less years old is a true region while the other is not. On the other hand, their belief could even surpass that of 'Trời' (天 Tiān), the existence of the One and Only, or 'His Supremacy the Highness' and suchlike. He, however, apparently is not revered the same way by all peoples on earth. However, the 'Trời' hereupon in general terms is comparable to the grand perception of God in the west and elsewhere, namely, the very same Supreme Master that all religions share, 'the Creator', so to speak.

Let's expand the matter above a little further. Religiously, for speakers of the V as their mother tongue, however, 'Trời' exists mostly in their speech form. They, nonetheless, may place their belief of 'Trời' on equal footing with 'His Supremacy' of any other religions. The V 'ancestral religion' was incorporated into each respective religion and materialized with modern photographic images of their deceased ancestors to be placed side by side with other symbolic figurines of Buddha or Jesus. No matter what religion had been introduced to VN in the late period of their history, whether it is Buddhism, Catholic, Christianity, or home-grown Caodaism or Hoahaoism, etc., all ending up being engulfed in fragrant smoke of incense sticks, as spiritual offerings, liberally burned on each sacrificially ceremonial occasion to pay their respect to their 'ancestors'. The bottom line is this form of reverence shows authentically the existence of the ancient Yue being highly respected as their ancestors, which is, besides the Viets, still commonly practiced by many ethnic groups of Yue origin still living in China South, for example, the Zhuang nationality in China and the 'Nùng' in VN.

All in all, to suplement historical facts that are totally absent from the AA theory, in addition to the spiritual value as discussed above, we could now continue to juxtapose each theory that accompanies with other social activities, for example, in terms of the political economic side of it, to include both the economic system and the political form of government that runs a country. That is another important factor, believe it or not, that truly has determined the classification of related sinitic languages, politically speaking, such as putting those of Cant. and Main dialects under ST, for example. Moreover, they interfere in lingusitic area in such a way that it distort the truth with the fact of natural linguistic delelopment, say, speakers of the northern V sub-dialect tend to use complicated and heavy SV jargons than the relax mode of speech used by most V southerners even though the southern version were formed later than the other. So politics will be put in perspective and its role will be approached with analytical mind. Readers will learn more in detail in a separate chapter that deals with political issues in humanities.

Another reason for having multiple perspectives ranging from religion to politics and the likes in the round on top of archaeology, anthropology, history, linguistics, etc, is that for those western-educated people with a practical mind, adoption of industrialism from the west in the turn of the 20th century — which has been proven to work rather efficiently with most of its institutions — would likely result in the same scientific efficiency and accuracy to be extended to the field of linguistics as well. VN's adoption of western ideas has been through the first type of people who were raised as French-educated generation of scholars in the periods that followed national independence from France in 1954. In the transitional period toward modernization they acted quickly toward not only total replacement of the C-based V script but also the last use of French as primary language for the contry's colonial educational system. With a firm and without-looking-back attitude, they set remarkable trend which had swept away C quintessence of the thousand-year-old schooling with the lately romanized Quocngu once and for all.

While local Han-Nom specialists have become rarer these days now, those who can read C literature are just language learners in general populace. However, our approach is still sinitic in essence where C is the fundamental core -- for C is classified in ST lingusitic family -- with regard to typology, i.e., not of history but cognateness of a V word with other forms in other TB languages, say, 'bò' (cow) [ Shafer: OB ba, OB E. *bik. A W. Bod. Burig bā (p. 83), Groma, Śarpa bo (calf), Dangdźongskad, Lhoskad ba (p. 93), Central Bodish Lagate pa-, Spiti, Gtsang, Dbus, Ãba bʿa, Mnyamslad, Dźad pa (p. 98), other Bod. languages Rgyarong (ki)-bri, -bru (p. 120), modern Bod. dialects New Mantśati (bullock), Tśamba Lahuli (ox) bań, Rangloi bań-ƫa (bullock) (p. 130). Also in Chin. 牝 byi/ (Chin. cow, female of animal), OB ãbri-mo (tame female yak) (p. 59).]

In the low end of the academic ladder, individuals with mentality being opted for abatement of traditional pop-n-mom and state-run economic system are the second type of people who would always impossibly be reasoned with such factual arguments as premises to start with having never been agreed on, which is inarguably used to be sticky issues to deal with. The author thinks that it is not worth the time to argue with them (See APPENDIX L ) and that is one of the main reasons why this paper has been mainly crafted in English to avoid unruly crowd.

It appears that there exists also the third type of people and they are new students in the field of V historical linguistics who need to make a decision in taking side. It is advisable for them to bear in mind that even though it is fashionable to embrace the new 'capitalist system' (as opposed to the VN's state-controlled academics), i.e., western methodology and free of governmental interference, their participation in this linguistic field could not just be simply regarded as to replace the core matter of hundreds of years old that has roots in the agriculturally-based economy with those of western theories. The bottom line is those newcomers are likely to follow the AA-MK trend, in other words. While the late postulation of AA theory did offer some new leverage for us to explore the V etymology, i.e., scientific methods to collect and tabulate MK data systematically, it may not be truthful in essence for a fluid matter that exists in those V and C etyma that are cognates.(水)

In our contemporary era in other unrelated areas flaws have shown up in adopting western values as compared to the traditional ones since they could not be simply judged right and wrong. Besides instances of culturally archaeological artifacts or religious belief as forementioned, they could be further found in other areas such as medications (for example, preference of western medicines to the traditional herbs with the latter seen as the last resort), or changing customs such as holidays (e.g., Chrismas, Valentine day), birthday (e.g., more people enjoying celebration of their western-styled birthday these days), death or wedding customs (e.g., choosing white wedding gowns, engaging ring of diamonds instead of gold, black attire to attend burial ceremonies instead of the white color and coarse fabric, and so on), etc. In other words, they are comparable adoptions having the same nature. So did the western AA-MK theorists with regard to the V etymological matters that we are now discussing.

All in all, therefore, it is not surprising that advocates of new western methodologies prefer new western 'metric' tools to traditional 'soft' approaches on this etymological field of linguistics, that is, precision on measurement of data vs. fluid interpretation, respectively. In the late 19th into the succeeding century our local western-educated scholars had carried over a good and last laugh at some remarks made by some French grammarians that the Annamese language did not have grammar of its own and it needed French grammar in order to write cohesive sentences! Probably that was the last resonance from what has been mistakenly conceived and classed as an "isolate language" by western linguists which they specifically assert both V and C languages were. Fortunately, they are not exactly what the westerners want them to be. We will return to this matter in the next chapter.

We welcome new western methodologies for an old matter that has been in existence hundreds of years but one must understand that the linguistic core had existed there long before western scholars came in the arena early in the 20th century. They need to explore and learn, not to invent one at one's convenience to make a shotcut or detour in order to avoid a steep learning curve. In other words, aggressive assertions that came on from position of power would never be appreciated.

Some had tried brainstorming juxtaposition — an intuitive approach that had existed before the AA-MK theory came into the V linguistic arena — but did not reach a refining level yet as we have seen through their cited examples that show most of them could not distinguish lexicons of Sinitic-Vietnamese (VS) from Sino-Vietnamese class or only a few of super-strata of the VS layer of C and V etyma, which make their lists to appear all as C loanwords. For example, besides the SV sound 'sư' for 師 shī (teacher) for someone s/he may already know that 'thầy' is another cognate, and while some even know 'thầymô' is a variant of 巫師 wūshī (shaman), others may not know that both VS 'sải' 師 shī (monk) and 'phùthuỷ' 巫師 wūsh (shaman), respectively, are also of the same roots as that of 'thầycô' 老師 lăoshī (teachers), similarly, so are 婿 xū 'rể' (son-in-law) vs. 姑爺 gūyě 'conrể' (son-in-law), 'sống' 生 shēng (live) vs. 'đẻ' (give birth to), etc.

In actuality, discrepancies in new VS etyma presented in this paper generally can complement what has come out from a western-based AA-MK camp. Ideally, etymological finds from both VS and AA-MK approaches could co-exist in harmony instead of rejecting one another. For instance, a V cognate in MK does not necessarily negate its root from a C or ST stock. Metaphorically, an AA-MK affair could end up to be, like an arranged marriage in the C way and camouflaged under a western-style wedding gown — as opposed to traditional outfit — that could still go with those customary rituals with 'Vietic' matters in the core. In other words, AA MK theory on V linguistics could be considered incomplete without C elements and unavoidably their cultural entanglements, historically and anthropologically. The AA MK linguist may have a case but need a history to support it. The matter is explicable because that is a direct consequence of 1000 years under China's imperial rule and beyond periods with ealier prehistoric contacts. The issues seem to be sensual in minute details but they have not been properly dealt with by the related academic circle.

Supposition of some earlier contacts in ancient times is in line with the ancient Yue metallurgic know-hows and bronze objects of the Shang Dynasty and while those Dongson-styled bronze drums might be related to similar artifacts unearthed in Indonesia dated in a much later period than those of older ages such as Ngoclu-styled bronze drums, of which similar objects have not been discovered in Indonesia yet. All bronze drums excavated across regions of North VN and China South, where bustling activities, such as cultivated water paddies, of the ancient Yue people had left their footage. For ancient Yue bronze drums readers can contemplate those real excavated relics with their own eyes as similar items are being in display in a Zhuang Cultural Village near Liuzhou (柳州) City in China's Guangxi autonomous region, or in its national museums in other cities including Nanjing, Yangzhou, Chongqing, Kunming, Nanning, or in Vietnam's Hanoi and Saigon.

As more archaeological evidences point to the fact that the ancient Yue people did exist further in the north, the academic circle would see that the rationization that archaic languages once spoken by those aboriginals in CS had been different from those of MK whose speakers were clumped around the Indo-Chinese peninsula. Etymologically, those fundamentally basic words shared with the AA-MK roots were only of a subset of those of the ST and C languages. With many more of the latest finds of V etyma cognate to those of ST etynmologies of which the linguistic circle in the VS historical linguistic field might have never heard, newcomers in the field who are still undecided to take sides should feel encouraged to widen their mindscape and come to check out unlimited VS etyma on the ST side that are being disposed in this paper.

In any case, the underlining purposes of all the passages above are theoretical introduction to our new approaches for this section. Readers should be on the lookout and not to be freaked in enticements of being prestigiously identified with great ancient cultures that ever existed on earth. While VN has a long history and monumentally archaeological movables, her neigboring countries have left colossal vestiges such as temples and walled pallaces, of a much higher developed civilization that were so great to ignore, like in this case, either that of China, Khmer, or Champa kingdoms. For the former two, many local scholars have been seduced into their dreamscape that they could not refuse the temptation of affiliating oneself with their creators, namely, the people who had built one of seven great wonders of the world, i.e., sites of the ancient ruins of Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat palaces and the likes which are associated with the MK in the AA-MK scheme. For example, V archeaologists even claimed artifacts excavated in those lately acquired pieces of land as vestiges left by their "ancestors".

In fact, more than once V archaeologists have unreservedly claimed national ownership for the treasures of the real excavated antiques materially. They copyright claims for the creation of not only those ancient bronze drums but also many earthenware artifacts excavated thoughout the lately acquired southern lands only after the 15th century, all to the effects that they were the masterpieces produced by ancestral V artisans. Supporting evidences to reach such impartial judgment on their ancestral linkage, anthropologically, to the other respects of the Sahuỳnh or Ốc-Eo culture and civilization found in those central and southern areas in VN are null.

That was what happened in the past. When local specialists in the field were anxious to distance themselves from the 'China's camp', they would put even more effort in the AA direction than a specialist normally would do, which, in return, could do injustice to the sinitic or ST-related theorization of Vietic linguistic matter.

On the other scale of the matter, the AA theorists might not not care much about all those acclamations. However, in the case of Dongsonian bronze drums that were found not only in 'Dongson' but also in some Indonesian islands as previously mentioned, both AA and the Austronesian camps had come on in full force to embrace them so as they could prove the existence of the aboriginals of respective peope and their hypothesis in the roll call. Should that be the case and truthful to what they had claimed, theorization on the AA and the Yue hypotheses would be mutually inclusive then.

For practical purposes with regard to possible impartiality, the author could not cut loose into deeper argumentation for it is sentimentally too cumbersome. Practically readers of all sorts actually could grasp some core substances once they are ready to absorb new things, starting with little sidelines, say, those illustrated maps on historical facts. Graphically, collection of all unmodified maps and illustrations pulled off from prestigious sites on the internet such as wikipedia.org and delibrately incorporated herein, most of them having been prepared by the AA-MK advocates themselves, ironically, will sufficiently reveal a lot more than what it had been originally intended for. They could tell a different story for our purposeful advantages. Readers could vividly visualize the picto-geography that in effect points historical roads that have made up what are called V entities today. They will also be able to identify which had first diverged from the cradle of the Yue origin of ÂuLạc and LạcViệt, ancient Vietic ancestors, so to speak, that once stretched from today's areas of Hunan Province in CS to regions south of the VN's Red River (SôngHồng) Basin. They all, racially and anthropologically, had long merged with the later emergence of mixed Han elements to form the Kinh ethnic group and expanded further to the southernmost tip of Indochinese peninsula. Old-timers may even want try to break away from the AA-MK hypothesis in which they have admittedly had deep conviction prior to their encounter with the ST theory. If you happen to be one among them, be prepared for debates on that controversial issue starting from fundermental groundwork of the AA-MK origin of the V language.

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

Process of 'Vietnamization' of the Chamic and Khmer peoples having started nearly 10 centuries in their own lands must have been undeniably a very similar scenario of sinicization of the Annam State after 1000 years of under the imperial China's rule throughout different dynasties that ended with that of the Tang Dynasty. In short, the "Annamese people" would definitely no longer speak the 'indigenous' language of the period prior to 111BC that the ancestral aboriginals had spoken hundreds of years given the fact that the ongoing influx of the mixed race of the Han invaders from the north on constant conquering missions to the southern land, including C refugees fleeing wars and hunger who had kept moving in and resettled down in the country. V nationals now could look around every corner of their country and will see that phenomenon has been going on incessantly since the ancient times. Proofs are evident with the presence of mainland's C migrant laborers in many chinatowns have sprung up around the country, e.g., in Hatinh, Phuyen, Daklak, etc., provinces, while VN is considered as a sovereign nation. Readers can take a note of what is being raised hereof to understand how influential the politics is to this linguistic subject matter, an inevitable topic that needs to be discussed in the next chapter.

Once readers appreciate such a raison d'être of the formation of the V language, they will be able to steer their train of thoughts to focus on other matters such as those ST evidences presented in this paper and expand it from there. They could entertain themselves by meditating on the topic, just like praticing that of Zen but with Vietic spirituality, to be enlightened with new findings and theorization. Only then could they appreciate the essence of Vietic, or Yue, core matter, primarily by means of reinstatement of Yue ethnological and geo-historical settings that come with solid historical records.

So it did not matter much even if the AA camp could gather some historical records for the goodness of their theory to prove that the native locals had spoken some forms of MK language when they first met "the Han conquistadors". In any cases, the state of the V language in present day is absolutely no way near anything existing in the MK languages if it were supposedly the true aboriginal language before the C as theorized by the AA camp.

C) The end of Austroasiatic approach

The AA-MK theory has never been sucessfully proved through history. History is the soul of a theory. The already well-publicized AA-MK theory on the origin of V does not have a soul. It has never been known to start from a historical point of view or backed up with written records by any means, though, yet the AA-MK advocates are still holding out on high ground in comparison with the ST runners-up. In other words, there is no history to back it up. Their only links to the past, in fact, are of scores of basic words from some earliest layers of lexical substrata. Scores of V lexicons found cognate to the AA-MK ones happen to overlap those of the ST language as well. With new finds of the very basic words in the field of V etymology that used to have made their days in the AA-MK camp that may be ending soon. There is a reason for much ado about such discoveries because they are results of new methodologies that somewhat deviate from the usual approaches.

The AA term is now mostly homonymous to what is known as Mon-Khmer (MK) today even though it covers a larger geographic area. As conveyed in the name of AA itself, those AA theorists have postulated that the ancestral AA people had migrated to adjacent land brigdes from Southeast Asia cross South Asia's regions to India and northward to China South. As the Indo-China's pennisula had been once bridged by stretches of land to all present islands which are now lying deeply below the sea level, the AA people emigrated southward as well. But the theory is still hypothetical. For example, for those indigenous peoples in the southern land Paul Benedict (1975) did in a separate paper designating a branch call "Austro-Thai" (泰). Whether or not the same theorization could be further expanded to embrace that of Austronesian hypothesis and to blanket all other Polynesians and Malaysians across South Pacific regions is another matter. (M)

It is not only that as hypothesized above the AA homeland eventually has been re-positioned as having radiated from the Mekong River (Paul Sidwell, The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis, in "Journal of Language Relationship" 4 (2010) • Pp. 117–134). From his postulation the AA people could NOT be of the same racial stock of those Yue aforementioned. Prior to his theory, the AA homeland was previously proposed to have been located in Yunnan Province where it is geographically known now as the actual home habitat of the ancient Yue who had been fanning out to other areas in the south.

It is noted that excavated cultural artifacts buried under the ground in the southern region before the late Viets immigrated and resettled there, of course, could not be claimed as ancestral heritage of the new masters of the land. As readers will learn more later, the later Kinh ethnic had been formed with racially-mixed stocks from the CS, genetically, as well; therefore, those AA-MK ancient aborginals in the south could not be affiliated with the earlier Yue ancestry of the V. In other words, long before the later Kinh majority arrived and resettled into the Mekong River Delta region, their ancestral Vietic race had been pre-transmutated, i.e., mixture of the Yue and Han, and only after that southward movement they encountered the southern aboriginals, i.e., the AA-MK people. The MK registry to the V family have been just latest added-on 'features' throughout the last ten centuries. That is to say, the Yue could not be the AA in anyway as one might have speculated; otherwise, theory of Han-C race would have to be re-invented. Think about it. Thing must be simpler if specialists could only talk in terms of DNA, which is out of our linguistic scope to be discussed here, which is, analogously, just like what is being disccussed about the English people.

In the case of the AA-MK theory, lacking supporting historical proofs, its postulation in picturing pre-historic people from different backgrounds, i.e., AA vs. Yue, has given rise to fallacies one on top of the other, that has subsequently caused linguistic misinformation. Its theorization had been set up as a premise for another succeeding hypothesis and then demanded an anti-thesis to prove otherwise. On the contrary, ancient C records about the history of the land now called China also cover those of the Yue people, who are identified with ancestral Vietic people. Etymologically, as new counter-evidences in V basic stock that shares with other non-sinitic languages also in the ST linguistic family have started coming out with all new finds of some 400 fundamental words (see Chapter 4), they all showed deep roots in a wide range of ST etymologies, geographically, spreading across the vast terrain of southern Asia. Such a solid fact has laid a solid base to support the groundwork for the re-classification of the V language.

At the same time, similar to the shortcoming as noted for the AA hypothesis, it would be almost impossible to prove by means of history the interrelationship of those V basic words with those cognates of the identified ST languages in the same manner that we could meticulously elaborate on sintic roots of VS etyma like what we have seen in each forming stage for each C character that is in turn cognate to a VS etymon. In effect, for each and every C character, from the earliest days, archaic rudimentary C written forms had been created initially with phonetic ideograms sinologists could decipher both their sounds and meanings which had evolved chronologically in such as way that they speak for themselves. For example, the later form 麥 mài replaced 來 lái for its original meaning of 'millet' when its early speakers had borrowed 來 for its sound to mean 'to come' (cf. VS 'lúa', 'lại', etc., along with other derived variants as readers will learn later in the next chapters.) That is history, in a broader sense. So, the "history" for those related VS and ST words then appear to be framed within chains of history, that is, VS is cognate to Sinitic, and Sintic to ST, hence, history of a ST item is what it is for a sinitic one and then that of the VS. In the context of "Sino-Tibetan" (ST) that embraces other sinitic languages, their history is also related to those of reconstruction of OC lexicons which are tentatively proved to be of the same roots as that of Bodic, or ancient Tibetan, languages, etymologically proved by means of their phonologically structured scripts regarded as another form of history.

Right from the beginning the term AA was already a misnomer. AA-MK initiators knew little about the ancient VN or that of China's history. They simply ignored, hence denied, the existence of both Yue and an entity of its called 'LạcViệt' (雒越 LuòYuè) which were recorded in C classics. It might have been either too cumbersome for them to learn about the Yue peoples or simply they did not know how to relate ancient VN's history with that of MK if there existed anything at all to be related to with what is known as the LacViet. The fact that the ancient Viets as LacViet did exist would lead to the theory about some other dialectal form of some ancient Yue language which set the core of a Vietic language. The AA specialists simply equate 'proto-Vietic' forms with 'proto-AA' ones by means of their cognate etyma found in modern MK languages. (Robert Parkin, A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their Languages, 1991)

In terms of history the AA-MK theorists could not possibly posit an ancient MK form of an aboriginal language that could have shared with what the ancient LacViet people had in common with the OC through their contact that dated back to 3000 years ago, the most crucial period that has left basic words in the modern V language. For instance, historically, etyma of the V 'cầy' and 'chó' both are related to 狗 gǒu (SV cẩu) and 犬 quán (Sichuan dialect /co1/), all meaning 'dog', and their derived words, perfectlty matched cognates as well, e.g., 犬坐 quánzuò vs. 'chồmhỗm' (to squat), 犬牙 quányá vs. 'răngkhểnh' (canine), or 小狗 xiăogǒu vs. 'cầytơ' (puppy-dog), etc.. As you will see in the next chapters, similar etyma as such which used to be emphatically grouped within MK realm by AA-MK specialists (see Mei Tsu-lin APPENDIX D - G) are also proved to be of the ST linguistic family.

In the linguistic perspective, we have recorded history to back up the Yue theory. For example, ancient C classics noted that the Yue aboriginal ancestors had been heard speaking some archaic forms of ancient Yue speech, assumingly a Taic language which might have given rise to the language spoken by the subjects of the Chu State 楚國 (See APPENDIX J). Jerry Norman (1979) called it a 'foreign extinct language'. In fact, King Liu Bang (劉邦) must have spoken a sub-dialect of it for the reason that he and his followers, as said, all had been the Chu's subjects before they triumphantly established the Han Dynasty (漢朝). The AA theorists would be able neither to build a theory and support it with similar historical records nor enumerate details of how the MK picture fits into the history of pre-historic 'Viet' state, i.e., LacViet, given a Yue background.

As we are saying that ancestors of today's 'Vietnamese' speakers had spoken some form of an ancient Yue language, it could be that of a proto-Vietic speech (Taic) but unlikely of the same origin of the proto-MK form that the AA theorists were referring to. At the same time, however, we all could have been talking about the same thing as theorized in the AA hypothesis with the southern MK pivot, or geographical base, that had given birth to the VietMuong group. That is to say, the ancient immigrants from the north, or China South, could only be considered as guest settlers regardless their status even though they mave made up a majority group that was known as the Kinh people. As a result, the AA-MK theory would then become not much different from a material claim made by those jealous V scholars exerting national ownership on all excavated artifacts under their country's annexed territories. In this case, the whole theory is based on the indigenous base of minority people. It is just like branding the true American citizens are natives of indigenous Indian ancestry or that of Taiwanese descents of Austronesian roots, both countries having less than 300 years of history which is known as the US or Republic of China, respectively.

Hhistorical names play a significant role in determining what was from what and which one had come first and where it belongs to. Of the naming convention in the acedemic world, just like the term "sinitic" being applied to an ancient entity that had not emerged yet and the "Yue" being talked about was another entity that had been in existence long before northern resettlers moved in southern territories who mixed with the native Yue to make up an entity that was later know as 'sinitic'. Amusingly, the same process with those aboriginals further in the south repeated to give rise to those later known as 'Vietnamese' in our modern time. Geo-politically, the historical name of 'Vietnam' has given rise to the word 'Vietnamese' in terms of roll calling. Similarly, the AA theorists have painted the AA-MK picture that there had existed the AA first in the pre-historic epoch, and followed next by the MK, and then came Viet-Muong, which then diverged into what is known today as 'Vietnamese' per their perspective, but sans history.

Confucius said, "名正言順", or, loosely, 'everything is just in the name'. The AA camp may have never suspected that anything related to the name of 'Vietnam', the people and their language, their entities being blended together, was actually sometime after 939 AD. By then it was called NhàNgô (the 'Ngo State' or 吳朝 Wuchao) and had nothing to do with the core of 'Vietnam' yet. THe country was destined to have become an independent state with different names centuries later on. It is noted that in that period the NamHán (南漢 NánHàn) of the southern state -- that covered the coastlined stretches of today's Guangdong and northwestern strip of today's north VN (see maps) -- interestingly, King Liu Yan (劉嚴) of the NanHan Kingdom had adopted the name for his newly established state as 'ĐạiViệt', or 大越 DàYuè ('The Great Viet'), prior to the historical name 'NanHan' (南漢) as permanently adopted (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Chin. p. 147). Therefore, we can see "Việt" and "Hán" just reflected the true nature of composition of the population for the former name and geo-historical position of the later. 'ĐạiViệt' would later become the name of the ancient VN starting with the Ly Dynasty (1009–1225). In reality, the state name of "大越 DàYuè" was used more than twice in China's history, for example, in 895 in the mid of chaotic declining Tang Dyasty 董昌 Dong Chang was enthroned and established his kingdom as 大越羅平國 in a place where it was known as 越州 Yuezhou, now in 紹興 Shaoxing City, located in Zhejiang Province (Bo Yang, Vol.63, p. 155).

NamHan (917-971 AD)

The Southern Han (917-971 AD)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Han

arrow up Back to top

Simply put, the 'Vietnamese' people and their language of the 10th century that we are talking have nothing to do with the AA-MK enclaves located deeply in the south as being referred to in the early 20th century. The "Vietnam" in the AA MK theory might be limited to what actually contained in the newly named "Vietnam" by Emperor Gia Long in (1804) (V) with extended newly acquired territories annexed from the Cambodia from the 16th century. The moral within is that we all could possibly end up talking different things referring to different entities with the same state name called "Vietnam", historically, if the AA-MK theory has history to support itself at all.

Similarly, the AA-MK-Vietmuong-Vietic chain that was associated with today's concept of 'Vietnamese' could be regarded as arbitrary names that hadnothing to do with the ancient independent 'Annam' of the 10th century of which the boder stopped short at today's Hatinh Province, having not crossed to the southern territory yet. Any of the nation's variant adopted state's name, or to be exact, the titles of the reign of different dynasties (quốchiệu 國號) in the ancient times, naturally did not fit into any recent historical period under the AA-MK theorical perspective at all because what it referred to had to be backtracked further into the past in the pre-historic time.

Nominally, like what we mentioned previously in comparison with the term 'Vietnamese' or 'Sinitic', by the same gesture, the AA-MK's 'Vietmuong' and 'Vietic' terms could be considered as only modern concepts for modern entities even though they were used to refer to ancient entities that were highly theoretical. Compare that to the official figures that say there are 1.7% of Khmer minority people and 1.2% Chinese ones in contemporary Vietnam's population and, of course, the census did not take into consideration that a majority of Chinese immigrants had be absorbed into the mainstream of the Kinh majority populace. History suports that simple fact. That explains the reason why it is said that the AA-MK theory did not have a history to back itself up. Vietnam's history is not that of AA-MK, so to speak, where the MK geographical base happened to be annexed to what belongs to the modern Vietnam. Without history, names would have probably misled those AA specialists who are ignorant of VN's history. In other words, what had happened in the history of the Khmer Kingdom did not have anything to do with that of ancient 'Annam'.

All of the above regarding the V language fits well in to the whole picture of Vietnam's history in return. When talking about it we could not avoid talking about that of China, linguistically and historically. Its history is traceable in that of China as further back in time of 4000 years ago. The point to make here is that, any language should have a history of its own as we know it so that other linguistic parts of it should not be just a matter of laboratory tests.

Let's put everything in historical perspective. Toward the end of the Tang Dynasty, the ancent Annamese and Cantonese communicated to each other either in MC or some form of local Yue dialect, which had nothing with the AA-MK southern isogloses. In fact, with what equates to the 'Annamese' language in terms of isoglossic linguistics, the author could not see how the AA-MK factors fit into a string of historical facts that would normally come up one after another. For example, when we are talking about a specific group of the ancient Yue who had been living within the perimeter of the ancient NanYue Kingdom (南越王國) we would normally support it with historical facts, all of what would later constitute the Âulạc (歐越 OuYuè) of the Annamese populace, either the LạcViệt (雒越 LuòYuè), 西越 XiYuè, ancestors of the Cantonese and Tchiewchow, and other populace of 東越 DongYue, etc., like the Fukienese from regions of today's Fujian Province, respectively.

That was how they, all in all, at some point prior to the end of 111 BC the Yue tribes must have shared some common speech of the ancient Yue language intelligible each other, including their Chu neighbors (楚國 circa 1030–223 BC). As mentioned previously, King Liu Bang 劉邦, as well as his followers, had been also of Chu subjects before Liu became the first emperor of the Han Dynasty (漢朝), which had given the name 'Han' to most of the populace living within the boundary of the Han Empire (大漢帝國) since then. It is postulated that ancestors of the Chu subjects might speak some form of Taic language, that had also diverged into other linguistic forms spoken in different states during the Warring Period (475 BC - 403 BC).(See Bình Nguyên Lộc, 1972)

After the NanYue Kingdom was conquered and annexed to the Han Empire in 111 BC, its subjects might still have been understood by one group of isogloss with another, depending on their approximity, that is, the farther they lived apart, the more unintelligible among those speeches by then. Territories of the ancient NanYue in the CS region encompassed a portion of today's northeastern VN known as Annam, a prefecture of the Han Empire. Modern V and Cant. languages, in effect, originally were Yue languages with increasing sinitic elements un der the rule of the Han Empire. Naturally, descendants of the Annamese populace who had been once living inside the southern territory hence started speaking a newly mixed form of the 'Annamese' speech influenced by the OC by then, parallel to similar development of its ancient cousin speech that would later give rise to what is known as Cant., also a Yue language (粵話). Both languages had been mixed with the Western Han's ancient forms known as Ancient Chinese (AC) which had evolved on top of the Archaic Chinese (ArC), or Old Chinese (OC) elements, both of which had already existed in the ancient Yue language in the earlier contacts as previously mention, e.g., the Chu and the Yue languages.

"Annamese", predecessor of modern V, in the overall picture, that had been a language spoken by people living within a prefecture called "Annam" continued to evolved taking different path from that of its former neighboring Yue language (粵話) well beyond 939 AD when the country separated from China after 1000 years long under its rule. In the meanwhile, the Cant. speakers still remained a part of China and their speech gradually had become totally sinitcized. Technically, Cant. is now considered a sinitic language with many sub-dialalects, such as those forms of Guangzhou (廣州話), Taishan (台山話), Baihua (白話), etc. The 'Vietnamese' language sounds modern, but the 'Vietic' language as 'Yue' (越 = 粵), like that of Cant., was not. It is only that the sinicized language that we are referring, though. We should, therefore, stop debating now whether or not it should be classed as of the AA-MK but acknowledging it as a Sinitic-Yue language.

Like the conceptually problematic modern 'Vietnamese' "Sinitic" is a prefix of Latin origin to refer to what historically belonged to the "Qin" for 秦國 Qinguo, or "the State of Qin", also known as "Chine" for "Chin". China has been has been called as such all along indiscriminately with any dynasty -- ttile of the reigns called by its rulers -- that had ruled the Middle Kingdom. Dynasties come and go, though, such as the Great Tang or Great Song Empire, including those of the Mongolian, i.e., Yuan Dynasty, and the Manchurian, i.e., Qing Dynasty. However, the "Sinitic" is anything originated from the country bearing the name 'China', a national entity that is equal to that of the "Middle Kingdom" regardless of its ruling dynasty and its reigning era.

Anthropologically, the Middle Kingdom was a union of multi-nationals as limited by the political boundaries of each state in the past or larger provinces at present day. What constitutes 'China' as a 'union' with its speakers of all sinitic languages combined appears to be analogous to what makes up the whole linguistic map of Europe, comparably, with all having each own history distinctively irrespective of the composition of the people who live in and the related language they speak. In China, each sinitic language spoken inside its boundary then called a "Chinese" dialect or sub-dialect and each major C dialect is classified as of the Sinitic language. Annam used to be one.

V is not a Sinitic language in a narrow sense, though. To easily grasp the idea of the V linguistic development, it appears somewhat analogous to the becoming of the English language in such a way that in a whole, holistically, the latter is mapped into in the Indo-European linguistic family (IE) in which the Greek and Roman lexical components having built up on the Anglo-Saxon foundation are inseparable parts of the English language. Similarly, that is how the V language fit into the whole picture of the Sinitic-Yue language as said given the fact that the ancient Annam's land was a part of China as repeatedly mentioned previously.

History is the soul of a nation and her language.

History is specifically emphasized here due to the development of 'Vietnam' within the historical scope as a "breakway prefecture" from ancient China. If it were never an independent state, there has never been an issue whether of not her people speak a Sinitic language of the ST family. On the AA-MK front history is what has been notoriously absent of which neither those of the MK nor the Khmer Empire would fit into that of ancient 'Vietnam' in anicent periods.

Any other theory on the origin of any other living language, either of the ST or IE linguistic families for that matter, often needs the respective national history to back one up or it would remain hypothetical as always. For all IE and ST linguistic sub-family branches, history of pre-historic and histrorical periods did cover their respective languages, dead or not, e.g., Latin, Sanskrit, etc. History is the soul of both a nation and its language, so to speak. In contrast, AA-MK theory had none and should be regarded as a hypothesis based on vestiges of basic data.

Distinctive aspects of the AA hypothesis set apart our researching approaches, as a matter of fact. Beauty of the whole thing is the process of how a new foundation of its theorizationh has been built, following a governed flow in data manipulation, even with only a limited amount of basic words and preliminary evidences of regional archaeology. That is the mechanic that had driven the newly well-defined theory with raw data having been systematically tabulated and categories nicely classified, namely, the AA, MK, Khmer, Mon, Katuic, Bahnaric, Nicobarese, Vietmuong, Vietic, Muong, etc. A similar methodological framework then could be expanded to work on for other languages. In fact, with the same tools and methodologies initiated by those AA-MK forerunners one could learn how to build a new theory irrespective of its historical reference and have it disposed to the academic world at our convenience, say, we could theoretically build exemplied African tribal language.

Needless to say, scientific methods have been effectively utilized in many other scholarly disciplines as they have brought about numerous academic breakthroughs, starting with languages in the IE linguistic family to that of the ST, not to mention new theories in historical linguistics in the field of reconstruction of OC phonology from the early 20th century onward. It is so said with inferences from those early MK basic words originally presented by a few prominent field-players such as Maspero of the 1940s or Thomas in the 1960s. They had come into the spotlight with their MK-V cognates, all fitted in structural framework, e.g., sound change patterns and tonal genesis, right at the time when western ideas were riding high in popularity.

It is no wonder that under such influential factors the AA-MK views on the origin of V have been echoed repeatedly by enthusiasts because to go with the crowd is the way. A few improperly trained native scholars, whose collective mindset has just barely got out of 100 years of colonialism under the French rule, have accepted a whole rationalization system that has been forcefully imposed on them. In other words, those local specialists must join in the AA camp in order to be recognized for their work. It is a matter of survival, so to speak, in exchange for the inclusion of their academic circle of the new literati class. In most of the cases they remain in the AA camp throughout their linguistic career with no new academics and nobody could help them get out of that carosel but themselves.

It is noted that AA theorists have crafted their linguistic masterpieces with instrumentalism but their works have brought in evidences of a fair amount of basic V words that are undeniably cognate to those of the AA-MK. One possible explanation for that phenomenon, based on new finds of ST roots that are to be presented in this paper, is that they might have arisen from linguistic contacts with other MK languages. However, interaction among the V and MK peoples could have only happened long after Vietnam had expanded her territories further to the south after the 12th century.

Similar results could be achieved with western scientific methodologies and laboratory tools. It took me some time to get over mental block by getting my feet wet in the ST, seeking the answer for the question above. I started my own journey since then, a long and difficult one, but rewarding. Back in the early 1990's while working on theorization of my sinitic hypothesis attempting to demystify the AA-MK monotone, my counter reaction of impromptu could not have been better than that outbursts of joy each time a new find is made on the V etymology.

As many young readers do now, I used to follow AA-MK mapped paths early in my V college years and believed in what had been said by pioneers in the field. In restrospect, even though I have long disengaged myself from sacred gospels preached by the old school of AA, including those of my own respectable teachers — some being the top-notch V linguists, known internationally, in our time — permanent dents were etched in my nerve. Their authority on the subject would still epidemically scare the heck out of their students before they could voice an opposing view from the opposite ST camp, until I was no longer confined in school campus.

Those were the days when I, like other students of yesteryears, acquired additional linguistic knowledge from books, one at a time. Our contemporary counterparts, in contrast, nowadays are being flooded with downpour of information from the cyberspace, too much to digest for any particular field of studies. Mostly newcomers, as a result, have been brainwashed with the AA-MK when the query returns with hits flooded with AA-MK theoretical views for each search on the root of V historical linguistics.

Actually nothing new have come out of those AA-MK basic words that have been quoted again and again. When was the last time a new round of something novel about AA on the V etymology? There has been new work done on the AA-MK but not much progress made about V etymology. Everything still remains the same time at the landscape of VS etymology in the ST camp since the last decades of the 20th century. New SV elements perhaps have either been overlooked or gone unrecognized (See Bui Khanh The, 2010). Figuratively putting, in around the places that old trees that have outgrown their age in the backyard garden and if no one cares so much about them and having no guts to cut them down, new gardeners may find young shoots only in shadowy spots and the AA-MK bushes have overgrown those of the ST.

A rose is a rose is a rose. My views have drastically changed after my own discovery of those ST etymologies having basic vocabularies cognate to those in VS and, interestingly, it turns out that they overlap with those basic AA-MK words which were the foundation for the AA-MK theory itsef. Contrary to what the AA camp has been trumpeting about all along these years, I have found something much more interesting pointing explicitly instead to the Yue direction while analyzing reconstructive mechanics for some traditional historical phonology in ancient C. Eventually I have gathered a large amount of VS etyma with even more evidences using new data collected from ST etymologies and I would like to pass along the findings.

I have come up with a new way to explore the sinitic core in the VS etyma which lead to ST etymologies by playing some my own linguistic tools with sinitic data. Over the time thoughout my own venture that I have started nearly 3 decades ago, I see myself as an initiate in the field of VS etymology, eliminating the need to heed on any trails left by veterans in the opposite camp, i.e., the AA-MK, any longer. This paper could even serve as a wake-up call to those oldtimers in V historical linguistics who are still resting on business-as-usual MK routine inside the same old AA framework.

I could imagine that the same enlightenment that has elated me would also entertain newcomers as well, all with exhilaration of revelation of new intellectual expanse. I have positioned myself in the frontline to hold back stampedes of triumphant AA-MK "therorists" roaming freely in the cyberspace. I myself have also emerged as a netter, trying to stay afloat on top of current events. Being an internet guru myself I fight back by publishing discoveries of VS etymologies of ST origin as quickly as new etyma come out.

Back in the early 2000's when I posted some preliminary results on the internet, I met with cold shrug. However, if novices in this field care enough to see something interesting such as what shows in an example like 飯 fàn (meal) ~ 'ban' ~> 'bữa' ~> 'buổi' (period of the day) but you can at the same time accept that 'ban' in 白日 báirì giving rise to 'banngày' (daytime) could become an independent item that co-exists with the other etyma. That is what I call new insight in the sinitic theory brought up herein that could lead you to a new horizon.

For all of the above, at first in the beginning I had to fight on at every chance whenever the subject matter of 'Sinitic Vietnamese' came up. Many among us might have already become tired of what I kept saying about my own VS approach over the years that mine is novel and unique. I had been even reminded verbally by a renown supportive veteran in the field of the fact that it would be extremely difficult to uproot the already well-established AA cornerstone, even to debunk its fallacy from the foundation and premise it had been statrted with. By now I has learnt smart to stay in the cool and indifferent to verbals on this VS subject across several internet forums, a few with an antagonistic attitude.

If you review again geographical divides where the AA theorization substantiates the MK roots as having originated in the southeastern regions of the Southeast Asia's peninsula where the last legs of the Mekong Basin stretch out to the sea, you may now see a picture quite different from those depicted VN's northern areas in CS where ancient Yue speakers, i.e., LuoYue, OuYue, and the likes as recorded in C hisorical records, had been overwhelmed with new racially mixed early Han resettlers who logistically started their migratory journey southward after the NanYue Kingdom (南越王國) was annexed into the Han's map in 111 BC. Linguistically, similarly development of ancient V and several other C dialects had been formed in the same manner of such racial mix.

arrow up Back to top

With regard to the previous question about the existence of those AA-MK cognates in V basic words, the answers can be found in my findings of the same VS basic etyma found consistently cognate to those of other ST etymologies which equally match C forms as well. Quantitatively, they are not just limited to those MK lexical items usually listed in each and every publication by AA authors but more. Qualitatively, they all contain subtle 'genetic' traits which are certainly absent from those V basic share in the MK lexical stock as we happened to know of (T).

Then comes the issue that similarities between C and V, e.g., word clusters, fixed expressions, idioms, etc, might be debated for their commonalities. That is the inevitable consequence of dominantly C cultural factors that had perpetually permeated into the V language. However, we should break that into two period, one that had already taken place for hundreds of years prior to 111 BC and another one during 1000 years under China's rule and thereafter. Insomuch as factually stated, in effect, linguistically, VN continued on with her long adopted C official court language in governmental documents and literary work long before and after her "breakaway" from China in 939 AD until the end of the 19th century. In the latter case the whole process was similar to the way Japan or Korea had borrowed C-charactered vocabularies in the Tang Dynasty (日).

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

Language is a natural product formed over periods of time. What actually happened to the evolution of V since the ancient times until now has been of neutral continuity, that, is, things have taken their natural course and people speak naturally with their mother's tongue. Coloquially, the V people still speak the same VS-based language with tons of VS and SV words as their natural language until now. In other words, that is a language that contains so may sintic words as their mother's tongue. People just speak what naturally passes to their tongue and nobody could force them to talk or not to talk with a full mouth of C words, that is, they are parts of the language. That is a result of a long period of time that Sinitic elements have grown up on top of ancestral Yue linguistic strata for some southern C dialects and 'Vietnamese'.

In modern V, one could find that on average each V sentence is composed of more than 90 percent of VS as opposed to some 10 percent of "pure V" words, or 'Nôm'. If any 'Nôm' words are in use at all -- like those proved beyond any doubts as indigenous words, e.g., 'dừa' 椰 yé (coconut), 'chuối' 蕉 jiāo (banana), 'đường' 糖 táng (sugar), 'sông' 江 jiāng (river), 'gạo' 稻 dào (rice), etc. -- the rest could also be of VS etyma that genetically or etymologically originated from either C or a related ST etymology as listed in the ST chapter. In this case, portions of the "pure V" words are of either C or common Yue origin as previously discussed except for the use of modern romanized script called Quốcngữ that uphold the nearest pronunciation where V used to have phonologically deviated a lot in the old way with written C characters in addition to syntactic changes due to influence under French grammar -- which render better structured sentence, such as punctuation mechanisim, complete sentence structure, etc. -- thanks to those western-educated advocates such as Petrus Trương Vĩnh Ký and Phạm Quỳnh in the turn of the early 20th century. That is what makes 17th centuried V literary works to sound a bit so "Shakespearean" to the ears of the common mass.

In reality, the core of V language still remains the same in its holding as one complete unit as it was stretching out even after so many centuries. The northerners speak with dominant SV vocabularies in comparison with those V speakers in the south but the people still understand the sub-dialects in other regions. However, languages change over time. For example, only the 20 year period the division of North and South VN caused the southerners to have problem to understand word choices by the people in nothern regions. Inside the vast land of the Middle Kingdom C had evolved in to seven different dialects and their sub-dialects which are totally unintelligble to one another. The MC loanwords in the other two East Asian languages, i.e., Japanese and Korean, as cited by Bernhart Kagren have also varied notably in comparison to what appears in SV.

The whole argumentation as such was used by the opponent camp to make the V language as being heavily influenced by C cultural factors rather than that of hereditary one even though the nature of its evolution has changed its course since the country's separation from China in 939 which minimizes the sinicization process to a lesser extent which is different from what had going on to those C dialects of Cantonese, Fukienese, Taiwanese, etc., which are finally classsified as of the ST linguistic family simply because the sinitic elements have overwhelmed them all.

In effect, the speakers of each respective language just speak the mother tongue with natural vocabularies that they have acquired from their parents who in turn inherited them from their forefathers. Such phenomenon is an on-going recurring event. It is of a process of cultural formation that happened concurrently to the development of the V language, specifically. In C history, however, there were cases of languages to become history, such as the replacement of Manchurian with Mandarin. Human intervention on the national level such as decrees from the rulers of China could also posed threats to the existence of competitors, like that of Mand. vs. Cant. in our modern time where TV broadcasts in the latter language have been prohibited in the native spekers' homeland, Guangdong Province, which is an extreme cases of further sinicization. In other corners around the globe, similar cases like that leading to the extinction of languages are numerous, such as indigenous languages in Latin nations in contemporary era.

In addition to the perspective of dominant factors in classifying languages, let's expand our view in viewing some of those minority languages spoken in China such as the Zhung languages which had been once classified as of the ST linguistic family (Shafer, 1941) and then later were re-classified as of Tai-Kadai family. Their speakers make up a single largest minority group of 17 plus million people and most of these Zhuang groups have been living in CS remote regions inside China since the ancient times but their languages had still evolved under heavy influence of C for the reason that they have purportedly strived to adapt the C ways. Unlike those sinicized Cant. their language still remain distinctively Zhuang characteristic for (Lan Hongyin. 1984. pp. 131-138)

The Zhuang people are an ethnic rather than linguistic group of the Tai-Kaida linguistic family. Many Zhuang groups may not communicate with one another due to differences in their sub-dialects. (Z). Overall, variant speeches of the Zhuang all contain non-hereditary strains which manifest in different sets of vocabularies, namely, of Zhuang, Daic, and, especially, C, linguistic groups.

Both the Viets and Zhuang were historically all recorded as descendants of a branch of the Yue. They are the two most evidently representatives of the ancestral Yue descents supported by history. However, the V are a linguistic rather than an ethnic group and their language is shown to be of sintic characteristics that hold them together. In V all possible C elements and their attributes, e.g., syllabic, tonal, semantic, etc., are affirmatively found in the Nôm, VS, and SV sets. Sinitic intonation and melody seem to be intrinsic nature of the V language, which best reflects in transliteration of foreign placenames. For example, to smooth out unfamiliar foreign sounds in ancient Chamic names of "Vijaya" or "Kauthara", the V speakers softened them with SV words of 'Quynhơn' 歸仁 Guiren and 'Nhatrang' 牙壯 Yazhuang, respectively.

In effect, the MK groups exist as racial rather than linguistic groups, that is, people of MK ancestry project themselves collectively of an ethnicity that distances itself from that of the V Kinh majority, including neigboring Muong minority groups, and vice versa. An individual of Muong ethnicity absolutely has no problem to identify himself or herself with the V nationality. A Vietnamese of Khmer origin who was born and raised in VN and can speak the V language as a native may or may not consider herself or himself a V, but if so chosen, his or her pick is based on the linguistic but not of a racial determination. That is to say, s/he always perceives herself or himself racially the same as that of a Khmer person in Cambodia while being a V national in terms of legality. The bottom line is if there had been a genetic affiliation between the V and Khmer languages, the V did not have the pressing need to change most of the Khmer placenames or take efforts to invent the name "Sóctrăng" in place of 'Khleang' or "Càmau" 'Khmaw' in Khmer, or VS "Namvang" or VS "Caomiên" for modern Cambodian 'Phnom Penh' or 'Khmer', respectively. They tended to change virtually them all into meaningful SV or VS words, not simply a transliteration such as VS Sàigòn 西岸 Xi'an (Cant. /Sejngon/) 'West Bank', SV Tâyninh 西甯 Xining 'West Peace', etc.

In the meanwhile, analytically, "Chinese is a culture rather than a race" and it is the writing system with the C scripts that hold all C nationals together by facilitating communication among speakers of different dialects and languages from various regions. For example, people in the vast region of CS such as those of the Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, or Yunnan, speak some versions of southwestern Mandarin. Nevertheless, linguistic sinicization has never been the case for the people of Uyghur, Inner Mongolia, or Tibet, etc., which has been annexed into the Middle Kingdom despite of the length of colonialization by the C in those formerly independent countries lasting for hundreds of years.

We could consider that V is a typical case of linguistic incarnation of ancient Yue speech for its early breakaway from the C mainstream. Unlike those of totally sinicized languages such as Cant. or Fukienese whose local speakers have always been staying in their CS home base where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years. For the reason that ancient Annam as a part of China, its language was an exemplified case that has developed parallel to the C racial makeup. Now that since it became an independent state and separated from the old imperial China, as it expands its territories further to the south it inevitably absorbed more Chamic and MK elements, both racially and linguistically. Nevertheless, the core populace of the nation was composed of decendants of those early populace components that had been solidly formed throughout its colonial period with China. In the 16th century the V history witnessed the last mass exodus of C refugees amounted to over 50 thousand C asylum seekers who sailed ashore in the VN's southern shore after the fall of the Ming Dynasty in China and they were pemanently resettled in the southern land of VN. Most of them were 'Vietnamized' by the third, or fourth generation the latest. By the way, more than 99 percent of V family surnames were of C origin.

Notwithstanding such facts the whole matter somehow slipped away from the radar screen of anthropological experts since it appears that there has been not a single argumentative shot as main focus on the same subject matter in the linguistic circle. It was more like that the local MK natives were "Vietnamized" rather than the other way around. The V language, however, was still selectively singled out and eventually grouped into the AA-MK linguistic sub-family. Such linguistic classification was mainly based on scores of similar basic words found being cognate to those similar lexicons in the MK languages. That is all about the similarity that the MK and V languages share.

Ethnically, like preceeding C immigrants from CS to north of ancient Annam, the southern-bound Annamese migrants tended to mix with local people in their new resettlement in the distinct Champa and Khmer kingdoms. That is how those fundamental MK words had infiltrated into V, which is evidenced by uneven distribution of a limited number of words to some but not all MK languages stretching out in the high western mountainous regions from north to south during the nation's territorial expansion. Over long periods of time the compositely overall makeups of the V nationalities have naturally built up close contacts across ethnical borders borrowing words from each other groups. That would explain the existence of MK elements in the V basic words of which their presence appear in a much smaller number than those compatible with C and its respective ST etymologies.

How are a few scanty MK words compared with those V basic words that appear across many ST etymologies? Contemporary racial composition of the VN's populace consists of 54 minority groups altogether along with their distinctively native speeches, e.g., Hmong, Daic, Chamic, or MK sub-dialects, etc., without regards to whether or not their ancestors had ever been parts of original subjects of the ancient NamViet (NanYue) Kingdom, for example, the Li minority groups in Hainan Island are genetically affiliated with the Chamic people in Central VN but not directly related to the composition of the ancient Annamese people. For the purpose of comparative resconstruction within the sinitic linguistic scope, we should specifically take into consideration of additional anthropological factors — people, history, culture, speeches, etc. — that made up the V nationality, i.e., VN with an identity. To put another way, it is unlike the way those C loanwords in Japanese or Korean are analyzed, the V words cognate to those etyma in the ST were absolutely no loans and they might be somehow interacted in remote ancient times as retold by V legend of "Phùđổng Thiênvương" about fighting against invaders from ancient China's Yin Dynasty. (See footnote (Y) as previously noted above). By that time, the Yin nomadic warriors, probably of Tibetan origin, might have already moved in south of the Yangtze River and began having contacts with the Taic natives, ancestors of the late Chu subjects and the Yue people.

For the V language to have fully developed as it has been known in our contemporary era, we should reckon the fact that the whole process could have completed only within the time frame of 1900 years or so since 111 BC; hence, in a sense, we could conveniently exclude the AA MK factors dated back to either remote antiquity or as recent as the 12th century when Annam advanced below the 16th longitude, just like that of the exclusion of the Chamic element as mentioned above, which has nothing to do with the modern V in its wholeness.

Only after such rationalization is reckoned could we easily accept the historical fact that for various reasons massive 'Han' immigrants in all walks of lives, from the foot soldiers, newly oppointed or exiled officials, to displaced refugees, had continually emigrated from the CS and permanently resettled in Annam. Those newcomers would later merge into the local grassroots long after VN ended the C rule as one would normally expect and such phenomenon still continued to happen until the present time.

In our contemporary era it is also noted that 100 years of the French colonization of the deeply sinitized country also resulted in some positive linguistic development that had the modern romanized V script to take off as the mass followed intelligentsia to partake in the revolutionary reform of the writing system around the turn of the early 20th century, which, again, took a complete breakup from the sinitic cycle in terms of semantic and syntactic C plaforms of seventeenth century and older. In its current form, the tone and structure of the spoken and written V have modernized the language to the point that it has become more precise and logical. Altogether they have grown more mature with additional western linguistic mechanism, e.g., writings with concepts of topic and complete sentences, punctuations, etc., to be further enriched with its vast vocabulary stock of C origin.

Geographically, when Annam — as such called way back in time when it was still a part the Wu State (吳國) in 220 AD during the Three Kingdom Period (三國時代) — gained its independence in 939 AD, its territory had not expanded that much beyond the fertile regions of the Red River Delta where her ancient northeastern part of the modern VN was located, a long and narrow stripe of land located in the southwestern region of the ancient NamViet State in CS. For the negation of the AA therory of the MK genetic affiliation of V, the V historical linguists must know that what is known today as VN's northern central territory as marked by the contemporary geo-political boundary below south of the 16th parallel was actually annexed to the nation only after the 12th century by the territorial concession from the ancient Champa Kingdom (Campadesa, 192 AD–1832 AD) and by acts of wars. The Chams are of Austronesian origin who had built a powerful and long-lasting state, somehow it becoming a geographical buffer between states of the ancient Viets and MK people, so to speak. (林)

Gven the fact that by then the late resettlers, that is, the ancient Annamese had been considered as already racially mixed stock from those earlier ancestral aboriginals in northeastern part of today's VN with other groups of racially mixed Han immigrants of the Yue stock from the CS -- Chu 楚, Yue 粵, Min 閩, etc. -- since the annexation of territories of the NamViet Kingdom into the Han Empire in 111 BC. Those early "Vietnamese" continued to migrate southward to a foreign region that would later constitute the central and southern parts of the modern VN from the 12th to the early 16th century. Spatial contacts of the V resettlers in the south with those MK isoglosses that border the lately acquired southwestern mountainous and southernmost regions, i.e., the Central 'Caonguyen' Plateau along the north-south Truongson Range and the vast plain region of the Mekong Delta where today's MK minority speakers concentrate the most might have resulted in contemporary V to have absorbed some new southern MK vocabulary.

In other words, the MK speakers had long inhabitated that vast fertile basin north and south of the Mekong River before the Annamese immigrants arrived. Such a sole fact on historically geographical division could have put restraints on those AA aggressive propaganda about V and MK linguistic affiliation at bay, let alone that of a genetic hypothesis, but curiously enough, it did not.

The AA theorists had much ado about the MK inheritance in the V language. Amusingly, nature of their claim was, analogously, parallel to those bogus claims frequently made by those V 'nationalistic' scholars jealously exerting all national entitlements on those cultural relics unearthed on-spot in the areas once flourished with the ancient Sahuỳnh to Ốc-Eo civilizations in the central and southern regions ruled by the acient Chamic people and now governed by Vietnam. In fact, they have boldly gone far enough to fight for all claims as if they had been crafted with the hands of their own "V ancestral forefathers". They habitually forget the timelines of VN's history, simply pretending that the ancient aboriginals having originally lived there at all times and it is they who were the ancestors of the modern V without acknowledging the racial mixture that those ancient Han immigrants from the region of CS, who inturn had been already of racially mixed, before having resettled on the land where indigenous artisans had lived and left behind them sophisticate cultural artifacts. The boomerang effects of the anthropological matter hit right on a linguistic spot, i.e., the AA MK, which had negotiated from acclamations by those local archaeologists eagerly taking all given credits for the aboriginal cultural artifacts.

Such proud acclamation, unsurprisingly, in turn, sounds a lot like other older cases as well, such as claims on ancestral heritage of the cultural Dongsonian bronze drums which have been also widely found in vast regions spreading all over the Southeast Asian landscape. It is not surprising, however. that the latecomers, i.e., the modern V people, do not know a thing about any techniques on how to make them or to relate them to those similar drums which are still being used by the Zhuang (壯族 Tráng, or Nùng in V) people. The question then who were those creators of such highly advanced bronze drums found across Southeast Asia and had they migrated from the northern region in the CS where the Zhuang are located now or from the southern hemisphere who resettled in the Southeast Asian stretches thousands of years ago?

To defend their ignorance they — the modern V, as opposed to the ancient original creators — blame the Han invaders for the annihilation of their original culture 2000 years ago, so to speak, as recorded in HòuHànshū 後漢書 'the Book of the Later Han' that General Ma Yuan 馬援 melt the bronze drums seized from the rebel Lạc Việt 雒越 in Jiaozhi 交趾 into bronze horses. If we take their claim at its face value they are truly heirs of bronze drums, presumably descendants of the Yue ancestry, then the whole paradigm should put the V squarely with the Zhuang — who are at present time still using such bronze drums to perform in sacrifice ceremonials, not to mention their meaningful folklore depicting the origin of their bronze drums — in the Vietmuong equation.

Repudiation on the argument that the V people were descendants of AA-MK origin as theorized by the AA hypothesis was based on results from all other related humanity fields, such as archaeology and history, seem to point to the fact that the V forefathers came from the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, on the one hand, the V people incline to regard themselves as sons and daughters of the Yue ancestry — seemingly under the same connotation as "children of dragons" legend — and, on the other hand, anxiously show emotional attachment to a glory past relating themselves to those masters of not only advanced metallurgy who created sophisticate bronze drums but also all excavated cultural artifacts that scattered in a vast area of the Southeast Asian region from CS to Indonesian islands without regards of historical timeframe. The whole picture as such fits into the AA MK hypothesis that their initiators wanted very much to depict with the fact that the Khmer people with their empire once considered as the most powerful in the region prior to the 11th century had left their footprints throughout the Southeast Asian region and beyond of which cultural remnants were what had been left behind by their forefathers.

Theoretically, descendants of indigenous people should logically speak locally groomed languages, which is intrinsically inherited. That is how the V model being molded in the AA basic word framework. For the AA hypothesis the V were descendants of those ancient "local forefathers" who had been native to vast stretches of land which had yet to be annexed to the newly emerged independent state of Annam and spoken some archaic AA MK language. However, as a matter of fact, in most of resettlement cases having taken place in both the Red River and Mekong River regions, both in ancient times and the latter only 300 years ago, respectively, it is "the local foremothers" who were married to non-native men and built up family units had fathered new breeds of chidren who would later follow the same process as the country expand that whould have produced a larger portion of the Kinh population. In other words, for their charactistics as racially mixed people, the V are a linguistic rather than an ethnic group.

As the new AA theory has got into the mainstream, it opens doors for the sintic dominant V language to be tampered with the new AA-MK linguistic elements. The AA theorists were able to manipulate data from MK wordlist, limited to a small number of basic lexicons, though, in such a way that whichever is shared in the V language is seen to fall under their AA-MK umbrellaand the V language was re-classified into the MK linguistic sub-family without the benefits of being reviewed side by side with those basic wordlists from other ST etymologies. This paper will initiate the process.

Least but not last, the AA camp should be reminded again that only the 'historical Annamese' — the people living within paremeters of the Annam prefecture 1000 years before its independence in 939 AD — who would later be known as the Kinh majority living around Red River Delta and along the coastal lowland by then were practically in effect ancestral forefathers of the yet-to-become nationals of the country best known to the world as VN, and that it is NOT those indigenous MK speakers who had retreated into the remote mountainous regions and, hence, would never play the role of masters of the Annam state as the AA theorists imagined.

In reality, the MK factors have long existed in the Vietic elements whether or not the ancestral Yue were classed as that of, in fact, AA origin. On the one hand, the presence of today's MK minorities, probably of the aboriginal tribes, might have long been dominant in their native home base in the past; therefore, we could not exclude cases of ancient rice planters might have also fanned out northward to the CS region to places considered as the Yue cradle where the Daic and Zhuang ethnic groups had concentrated the most at present time. On the other hand, 3000 years in Hunan there existed already a rice agriculture,(see side bar), so a reverse scenario was more likely.

Độngđìnhhồ, or Dòngtínghú 洞庭湖 lake, interestingly that being place of birth of rice agriculture where vestiges of well-preserved artifacts of wild rice species, a whooping amount of 3000-year old remnnants, have been excavated in recent years and confirmed by scientists that, of which their varieties yielding different types of rice that we are eating today have evolved from those ancestral generic strains of wild paddy, their breeds still exist and grow naturally in the very same region to this day. As you may know, CS areas and places futher beyond are where the rice cultivation has been widespead since ancient times as depicted in the legend of Thầnnông, or Chénnóng 神農, a saintly figure, notably shared by both the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples, who had initiated paddy cultivation, for more than 6000 years ago.
It could be from those same places of earlier periods of the Chu State to the lost NanYue Kingdom ancient Yue emigrants of all walks of life had advanced southward to where VN is located today. As many generations have gone by all ancestral northern Yue had long completed their southern journey, resettled in the new Annamese nation for good, and blended well into the local populace — hence, here is how the AA MK had merged into the scene — and altogether they have become known as the Kinh majority who now speak the V language as we know it.

In fact, immigrants, refugees, foot soldiers, etc., from the north — respective to a new destination spreading over time — had been racially mixed for some generations already before they arrived to the new resettlement further to the south. For all dominant MK language speaking people, who are now minorities on their own ancestral land which is now being ruled by VN, it is a plain and simple fact that the V are distinctive people from the indigenous minorities and they had only made contacts with the local southern MK speakers residing on the Cambodia's eastern territorial flank which forms VN's western mountainous ranges and high plateaus and more of additional southern stretches of arable land in the Mekong Basin only after VN's last annexation of Cambodia's southeastern land lately in the 16th century.

Where do AA factors fit into all other segments of the ancient Yue theory that are historical facts? On the one hand one could go for the paradigm that the historical Annamese indeed had descended from a Southern Yue branch, and, on the other hand, accept the fact they had no ideas what all bronze drums were made for and how they had been created. Besides other cultural artifacts of Oc-Eo and Sahuynh civilizations have been found in today's VN's soil and they were, of course, made by the ancient indigenous people of the different race originally prior to the arrivals of first earlier Annamese resettlers into the respective regions. In other words, their descendants — the modern V, so to speak — just happen to live on top of such archeaological excavation sites where findings include bronze drums as well. The key factor is, intriguingly, it is not only that they have been discovered in the regions of China South, the home-base of all the Yue, but also all the way in some faraway Indonesia's southern islands. For such given fact, the AA equates the Yue theorization, but note that the two propositions are refering to different time frames whence that give out different results with regards to the Vietic entities, racially and linguistically.

Did the V originate from a branch of the Yue or the AA then? A plain but bitter truth for the V comes to the fact that, unlike Zhuang people, the V today might not be direct descendants of the Yue who were the creators of those sacred bronze drums used in their tribal sacrificial ceremonies. In other words V nationalisits have just propagated their wishful thinking to the general V populace a religious belief. That postulation is positively true to the case that those southern ancient aboriginals in today's VN's lately annexed southern territories had nothing to do with those later immigrants from the north who had resettled and mixed with the former natives and become parts of the transmutational process that genetically formed the later Annamese in parts, one region at a time, of VN (4Y6Z8HCMK).

Terminologically, whether they are the Yue, the Viet, the Vietmuong, the Annamese, or the Vietnamese, just like each of the names that suits for a particular period in history, they should be what is implicated in the name itself minus all the good things as forementioned usually attached to their 'forefathers'. "Feeling proud" is simply a matter of subjectivity that has led to the forementioned fallacies when people of a country are easily to fall into the trap of embracing all the good things that they thought they have exclusively inherited from their "forefathers". Repetition of such false claims may smear one's abilility to view related anthropological matters objectively, who hold parts of the answer to the question that what makes Chinese so Vietnamese.

The above arguments, nonetheless, would now lead to a more pressing question "VIetnamese, who are they?". Characteristically, composition and history of the evolutional path of its speakers in terms of the racial makeup should have developed in similar manners parallel to those of the V language, i.e., Yue and Sinitic elements, not the the prehistoric AA hypothesis for which even the proto-Taic people would have trailed behind the former since the aboriginal AA had alread emigrated much further way from home.

Dongson Bronze Drums found in Indonesia

Dongson Bronze Drums found in Indonesia
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Son_drums)

arrow up Back to top

Dongson Bronze Drums

The bronze drum culture were shared by peoples of ancient Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi, Guangdong, Hainan, Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia and today Myanmar-Laos-Thailand and China Guangxi-Guizhou boundary regions. The earliest drum found in 1976 existed 2700 years ago in Wangjiaba (万家坝) in Yunnan Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture China. It is classified into the bigger and heavier Yue (粤系) drums including the Dong Son drums, and the Dian (滇系) drums, into 8 subtypes, purported to be invented by Ma Yuan and Zhuge Liang. But the Book of the Later Han said Ma melt the bronze drums seized from the rebel Lạc Việt in Jiaozhi into horse.

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

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

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Son_drums)

With regard to linguistic affiliation, after all introductory presentation on related anthropological elements that make up the V populace as a strong people today, in effect, had VN not become an independent state from the vanishing Tang Dynasty since 939 AD and still remained a dependent prefecture of China's subsequent dynasties thereafter till today, the V language, even with its present state of the 21st century, undoubtedly would have been dubbed as just another C dialect, specifically just like what Fukienese (Amoy 廈門 xiamen) and Cantonese (Cant.) have been long classified as such, by the very same western linguistic world which has grouped V into AA-MK today.

Comparatively the development of V, Amoy, and Cant., and their sub-dialectal variants, e.g., Hainanese, Chaozhou (Tchiewchow), Toishan, etc., all presumed having evolved from the proto-Yue language originally, had diverged, evolved, and gone different ways each some time long before 202 BC when territories of the NamViet Kingdom (南越王國 NánYuè Wánguó) — including today's VN's Red River Delta and her northernmost regions, in addition to those of China's Guangxi, Hunan, Guangdong, and Fujian provinces — were annexed by the newly emerged Han Dynasty after the subsequent collapse of the Qin Empire. Note that the name "China" has been used in the continuity of its history until now no matter which dynasty was ruling that empire in any particular period and VN had been part of it lasting nearly 1000 years until the 10th century. This point is emphasized again to bring up the point that Annamese entity as an independent state had been in a constant process of sinicization until the 10th century, at least like its cousin neighbors up north. Just imagine what would have become of Fujian and Guangdong provinces had they broken away from Middle Kingdom and become two other independent states at the same historical period and you will easily understand why V should be placed into the Sinitic linguistic realm.

With respect to the undeniable Yue roots, at the lexical level, V basic etyma still show strikingly similarities in remnants their common Yue linguistic substratum. For instance, it is undeniable that items such as "con" (child) 子 (仔) Amoy /kẽ/, "mợ" (mother) 母 mǔ Hainanese /maj/, "biết" (know) (?) Hai. /bat7/, "soài" (mango) (?) Amoy /swãj/, "dê" (goat) 羊 Chaozhou /jẽw/, "gàcồ" (rooster) 雞公 jīgōng Hai. /kōjkoŋ1/, "gàmái" (hen) 雞母 jīmǔ Hai. /kōjmaj2/, etc., are of the same Yue roots. While the other two Yue isoglosses had been sinicized much more rapidly in dialectal actualization of Han and Tang speeches, respectively.

The same sinitization process had happened to V after its most important county of Giaochi (or 交趾 Jiaozhi) became one of nine others in Han Dynasty (111 BC), the development of the V language thereon had gone south separately with its mixed speakers (4Y6Z8HCMK), a blend of the aboriginals and the racially mixed Han officials and their foot soldiers from the north. Along the way they inevitably stumbled upon some other foreign elements on their migratory paths.

In addition to all of the above factors, those geo-historical anthropological aspects adding up to the Sinitic-Yue affiliation since the remotely ancient times, approximately 3,000 to 5,000 thousand years ago — of which the time frame actually surpasses some upper limits set for this research — could lend some supports to arguments on affiliation of sinitic and V languages as being seen relative to each other until now. The very existence of linguistic peculiarities existing in both C and V, such as tonality and dissyllabicity, is enough for us to understand how impervious linguistic entities are from one language to another in terms of their genetic affiliaton, that is, tendency of linguistic inclination on either all or nothing to determine their association, if any. For example, while the sinitic had expanded aggressively southward around 100 BC, the then Indian-cultured Champa Kingdom that situated south of Annam appeared to fail to expand further northward throughout its diplomatic contacts with both China and Annam in the north, not to mention the fact that its ancestral cousins of the same racial ancestors now know as the Li minority groups on Hainan island. Such a simple fact plus new archaeological findings of the origin of humans in the nothern hemisphere are enough to refute the AA theorization of the northward formation of VN, that would serve as cold water splashes on those who have made overly jealous claims of copyright on those artifacts of the southern indigenous peoples.

If you have problems to reconcile that fact with subsequent rationalization, you may want to stop reading now whether you are a linguist or not. If all is set and ready then let's continue by pausing here momentarily for a short note on the syntactically reverse order (stem + modifier) of the V words, that is, their syllables in their structurally lexical formation of those cited dissyllabic examples througout in comparison with those of other C dialects. That is what has been left of the Yue roots in the V language as heir etyma were fossilized in the substratum at some point during their life cycle through which some imaginery VS historical linguist in the ST camp may excitedly exclaim that those C dialects and V are all from the same root, not to mention distinctive C cultural factors that have strongly influenced the V language such as Confucianism, for example, sound changes due to taboo such as avoidance of the use of sound homonymous to the royal names or even resprectable elders, or adoption of C scripts for well over 2000 years in the past, e.g., transcribing the Nom by using C characters where dialectal sounds were concurrently adopted such as "Nôm" 喃 and "Nam" 南, "tử" and "tý" for 子, "xú" and "sửu" for 丑, or "tơ" and "ty" for 絲, etc.

In any cases, as we will see in the next chapters, except for the cases of syllabic-word order, the V and C linguistic similarities are still credibly the closest, especially in their syllabic structure and syntax, closeness in semantics, equalness in ranges of tonal registered values, or use of lexical classifiers, grammatical prepositions and conjunctions, and so on. You name it, both got it. Compare the overtly straightforward state of C loanwords borrowed into Japanese and Korean and you will see that their intimately associated properties are missing and that sound attributes of those C loanwords had to be heavily modified one way or another, for example, respective Kanji and Hanji become toneless to fit into local speech habits.

On the AA MK side, the only feature that the V share with them are a minimal score of dubious basic words for their appearance in othe ST languages as well, which are indegineous, toneless, and foreign to V speakers. However, in the western front, specialists of V in the MK camp of the AA are apparently upped in gaining a stronghold on their offensive position attracting more and more institutional graduates of linguistics keep joining forces. They just repeat what the pick up at schools. The more the merrier idiom seems to apply here, and undoubtedly the larger crowd has made this happen. The truth still belongs to those insiders who see what others do not see and keep fighting for their theory, though, even if it is not always shining as our ST camp would like to see.

Before the dust settles down, the AA theorists are still quite confidently complacent with their theoretical interpretation, as said, built on the plausibility of scores of V basic words for that they thought only their forms are totally in agreement with those etymologies found present across several different MK glosses. At first glance, it should be noted that those etyma have been distributed scatteringly, though, spanning unequally MK linguistic sub-branches. That is, every MK language may or may not carry the similar forms. Besides, in order to nail on this lexical aspect as their strong base, attention of our AA specialists has been avertly working on lexical surveys and categorization of etymologies ("etymology harvesting") among Vietmuong's sibling speeches, e.g., Muong, Ruc, Thavung, etc., equating them with those of MK linguistic sub-family, e.g., Banahric, Katuic, etc.

Etymologically, in general, as for those nearly identical phonologies of all MK languages considered, one caveat, though, behold at the fact that similar lexical forms exist in different languages, as perfectly cognate as they appear, goes against an old wisdom which states simply to the effect that the closer their sounds mirror each other phonetically the remoter they are in terms of genetic affiliation for those etyma posited as of the same root, especially of those of tonality versus tonelessness. Etymological linguistic sciences, if there exists such a field, are neither that of bio-technology nor of any natural sciences for the same matter at any measures, seriously.

As we shall see more later in the next chapters, the development of the V language has evolved in concordance with racial components making up its speakers (4Y6Z8HCMK). Historically, inhabitants (2Y3Z2H) around Độngđìnhhồ in present China's Hunan Province had emigrated en masse to the Red River Delta areas in today's northern VN and racially mixed with aboriginals (MK) and those later resettlers (2Y3Z2H) who had been there before them (2Y3Z2H). At a later timeline there coming into the picture are the Vietmuong ancestors (2Y3Z2H) of those who fled to the southwestern mountainous regions in the wake of advancement of the Han's invading army from 208 BC where their Vietmuong (VM) speeches had been put in direct contacts with those local MK speakers (2YMK). That is one of the reasons why some VM dialects appear so close to those of MK languages. If you will ever happen to visit Muong villages in Hoabinh Province in North VN and those of MK in Gialai and Kontum provinces on the Central Highlands, observe their speeches, you will easily grasp such rationalization.

Until these days such close contacts are still intact and recurring. Despite of such important historical factor, it is of no secrecy of the fact that AA pioneers have focused mainly on the task of compiling the VM wordlist that contains etyma similar to those MK glosses so as to group V into the AA linguistic family. In most cases rarely the lowland's Kinh V need to borrow local lexicons, even from their close highland's Muong ancient siblings, but the reverse scenario would likely have occurred when the Muong from the mountainous regions see the need to trade, and it was then that the MK local words found their way into the V mainstream for most of the basic words.

For all the efforts, though, the AA-MK theorists have virtually neglected other linguistic aspects such as linguistic similarities between those of V and C and investigate such sameness that several V basic words happen to be cognate to those in other MK languages. In general, the whole AA bloodline had made its way solely into the V basic words with MK cognates, which could have ocurred at a much later period well into the next millenium that followed VN's independence and only then that areas of VN's territories would begin to expand further to the south.

Besides, geographically, concepts of AA have been cleverly repositioned at a later date to encompass not only remnants of Indo-Chinese languages left in every remote corner of today's VN's western mountainous flanks south of its 16th longitude, but also including those dialectal pockets inhabiting further up north in regions south of the Yangtse River only if those had previously appeared not to fit in any way into some other linguistic genetic schemes otherwise. Consequently, virtually all VM dialects originally from the Red River Delta areas in region of north VN have been mapped nicely into those northeastern MK languages spoken in regions faraway from VN's southern border which had not belonged to her prior to the 12th century.

Methodologically, for those AA specialists, it is a very neat way to present MK etymological linguistics with existing Indo-European linguistic tools, seemingly to be scientific enough under the eyes of a linguistic novice. Their new classification compensates fairly most of discrepancies in the V language with other VM (Vietmuong) speeches since their separation from a common root of the Yue language in CS to the northern part of today's VN throughout VN's independent history. However, before the 12th century, as far as we know the VM group had not had anything to do with the MK people, let alone with the Khmer Kingdom, historically or linguistically. Therefore, for the postulation of the AA-MK roots the AA camp has asserted onto V which is spoken by the populace that had not formed yet. The phenomenon amusingly reminds us of similar bogus exclamation made by some western grammarians in the early 20th century that orginally the V language had not possessed a set of grammatical rules until those of French were utilized and adapted, and since then it exists! Compare the analogy of chicken and egg genesis and then anybody will see clearly where our stands are heading from here now and how their logics has been manipulated.

D) New battles in the new internet era

Besides all advantages the AA theorists might have played their hands, the ST camp also face possible side effects of our modern age as more and more people acquire their knowledge online. Internet-savvied learners of V historical linguistics nowadays would normally scout online for quick information, but, unfortunately, at the same time, mixed results will overwhelm online users with related topics that let misinformation to propagate unchecked. Nowadays with only a few keystrokes and hits, alors, they would become either shrewd or rainwashed with teeming data. For all other benefits of a complete future world electronic information would have left many revered theorists envy holding on to their aging books cold in the dark which many of us do read but not available online at all.

For such a matter, specifically, the same process would later repeat itself and dictate their prominence in subsequent search querying patterns on the V subject matters, which would become order of the day. All it needs is only few keystrokes and the very first internet hits would be the old caches whether it is accurate or not. For example, without the needs to know anything else, by simply keying in keywords such as "Austroasiatic and Viet", "Khmer and Viet", and so on, misinformation covertly laid hidden will spring forward, which will probably fit into whatever has been already fed in the back of their consciousness. The search returns would then further fortify what is factually associated with subject matters they have learnt.

In Google, it is those first returns, usually within the first few lines, of queries about AA-MK that would be all it needs to impact permanently on a blank spot of innumerable innocent brains of those newcomer scholars and contemporary readers. Therefore, in our modern time it appears that there, by larger numbers, has arisen a dragging force formed from postings on the internet that forms resisting different views that are meticulously crafted in lengthy printed books but, understandably, not taught in schools. In fact. there are not many readers patiently spending time to read a long dissertation online nowadays. Just relate this matter to your own child in terms of how and where s/he picked up knowledge in a new field and then you would see how revolutionary it is as the www will dominate and control our life, including spreading fallacies globally.

In addition to the negative effect of online engagement, cognitive inception of our newcomers with their lifelong acquisitive discipline would be easily modified by predetermined suppositions, mostly from theorized and abridged versions of unverifiably-mixed articles on the world wide web usually composed in the format that is short and concise with affirmative, and often detrimental, pieces of information. A great number of web users do not read but scan online information, especially with this paper; some eager debaters might have just taken a quick glance of some of the chapters and then launched personal attacks.

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

This observation on such slanderous behaviors has been drawn from statistics on this website, queries growing debates among netizens in related V linguistic forums on the internet ever since my first postings of this preliminary research for more than a decade ago. Usually when somebody comments something about my work s/he would usually start with the premise that V belongs to the AA-MK linguistic family. Chances are that the individual has never intended to positively engage in my argumentation.

As foresaid, this research book is better to be pubblished in print than posted online. People tend to read if they pay for it. However, if that were the case, the author could only converse with a very few readers or even his shadow. In other words, mine is really in disadvantageous position.

An any cases, I would care much less to pay court to the veterans. For an apparent reason, however, on recognition of the existence of such real formidable obstacle be removed for the good of my self-promotion, I feel there is a need to spread the words out before my research is completed with the hope that it could reach out and educate newcomers in this field of VS etymology.

Should our future specialists happen to come accross these newly discovered sinitic evidences right at their first encounter, they could be able to catch on internet windfall and truly benifit from that medium, at least being able to learn how to avoid contaminated tidbits by the AA whatsoever. Only at that time will their focus be hooked onto a new anchor before being awash with MK currents and then carried away in the cyberspace full of fallacies.

arrow Back to top

» Next page

Back to VNY2K Homepage


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


HLA-DR and -DQB1 DNA polymorphisms in a Vietnamese Kinh population from Hanoi.
Vu-Trieu A, Djoulah S, Tran-Thi C, Ngyuyen-Thanh T[sic], Le Monnier De Gouville I, Hors J, Sanchez-Mazas A.
Source: Department of Immunology and Physiopathology, Medical College of Hanoi, Vietnam.


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


Source:https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9442802

(A)Again, as previously mentioned, it is just another western theory! Our western scholars keep inventing but they have ignored the historical Yue artifacts because they were reluctant to learn old things, such as history, so they created new things, building them from the start!

Exactly with the same approach, I could make similar shortcuts to establish a theory on the origin of today's Europeans, for instance, all based on hypothesis. Say I would solemnly state that their ancestors had come from the Middle Eastern region now called Iraq where the craddle of the world's oldest civilization was once located. So said, I have used some theory initiated by another author as premeses for my own theory. Specifically, according to Bo Yang (1983) ancestors of people of Europe, that is, creators of that the 6000 year old civilization in today's Iraq, were descendants of those who had previosly lived there and been forced to flee from attacks waged by the Tartars on horse backs who had rapidly advanced from regions of southwestern Siberia and might have permanently settled there. That is what had happened in the ancient times across the old mainland of China. That historical detail also explains why the ancestral language of Turkey is shared by both of those of Japanese and Korean, namely, they all originating from the same root of the Altaic linguistic family. In fact, C history recorded that the Han's army were frequently defeated by those tartaric warriors. Analogously that is how the AA theory has been built, methodologically. In any case, let's not go astray with details of how such hypothesis could be theorized. Rome could not be built in one day after all.

(音) For example,

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

(H)


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

(Y) 商朝又称殷、殷商(约前17世纪—约前11世纪[註 2])是中国第一个有直接的同时期的文字记载的王朝。商朝前期屡屡迁都。而最后的二百七十三年盘庚定都于殷(今中国安阳市),所以商朝又叫殷朝。有时候也称为殷商或者殷。商朝晚期,中国的历史从半信半疑的时代过渡到信史时代。商是中国历史上继夏朝之后的一个朝代,相对于夏具有更豐富的考古發現。原夏之諸侯國商部落首领商汤率諸侯國於鳴條之戰滅夏帝国後建立。经历17代31王,末代君王商纣王於牧野之戰被周武王擊敗而亡。(http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%95%86%E6%9C%9D)
根据《岭南摭怪》里的越南传说,中国殷代时,雄王因“缺朝觐之礼”,而招来殷王率来袭(又称“殷寇”;而《大越史记全书·外纪·鸿厖纪》则说是“雄王六世”时期的“国内有警”)。正当大军压境时,仙游县(或作武宁县)扶董乡的一位三岁童子自动请缨,带领雄王军队来到殷军阵前,“挥剑前进,官军(雄王军)后从。殷王死阵前”,而童子亦随即“脱衣骑马升天”。其后,雄王尊该名童子为“扶董天王”,立祠拜祭。
[HOWEVER] 近代越南学者陈仲金[Trần Trọng-Kim]以实事求是的态度,指出中国殷朝入侵的传说“实属谬误”,理由是:“中国殷朝位于黄河流域一带,即今之河南、直隶、山西和陕西地区。而长江一带全是蛮夷之地。从长江至我北越相隔路途甚为遥远。即使时我国有鸿庞氏为王,无疑也不会有什么纪纲可言,无非像芒族的一位郎官而已,因此他与殷朝无任何来往,怎能引起彼此间的战争。而且,中国史书也没有任何之处记载此事。因此,有什么理由说殷寇就是中国殷朝之人呢?” 因此陈仲金将之视作“有一股贼寇称为殷寇”而已。(Source: http://baike.baidu.com/view/1854748.htm) [UNLESS LACVIET HAD BEEN PART OF THE ANCIENT CHU STATE(?) While they are about some legends of Thanh Giong, we focus only the linguistic aspect of the matter here. Howerver, there exist evidences that the ancient Vietic state had already been in contact with the Shang Dynasty with the Shanng's 10th century BC bronze artifacts found in Hunan Province. ] In Chinese group to bring relic back to Hunan, ByLin Qi,: "A 3,000-year-old Chinese bronze, called min fanglei, will soon return to its birthplace to be reunited with the lid from which it was separated nearly a century ago. The reunion was made possible by a private purchase by Chinese collectors on April 19 in New York. Acclaimed as the "king of all fanglei", the square bronze, which dates to the Shang Dynasty (c.16th century-11th century BC), served as a ritual wine vessel. It was excavated in Taoyuan, Hunan province, in 1922." (Source: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-03/21/content_17366159.htm)
(Remarks in between [ ] are made by dchph.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

ā ē ě ī ǐ ă ō ǒ ū ǔ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ ü ɔ ɑ ɪ ɛ ɤ ə ŋ ɯ ɪ ʔ ʃ ö χ ɓ ɗ ɱ ʿ ʾ θ ñ