Rainwash from the Austroasiatic sky

New battles in the Sino-Tibetan front

New approaches in the V etymology

The end of Austroasiati 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 since the early decades of the last century. It is the determination of author of this paper to defuse such injustice and to reinstate what had been represented by the ST camp with renewed and newfound etymological proofs. The author will also present two new approaches applying methodologies of how to get them, VS etyma of C origin.

The term etymology used here is to mean the study of the origins of words or parts of words and how they have arrived at their current form and meaning. 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.

Before we get to the core Vietic matter, i.e., 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 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, or ancient V, and how it had taken roots in the China South region within a historical time frame that we consider it is vital and relevant to the VS etymological studies.

A) New battles in the Sino-Tibetan front

In search the existence of the ancient Yue who had been there in ancient China, recent regional excavations by archaeologists unveil specifics that match references to the Yue aboriginals (BáchViệt 百越 BăiYuè) as recorded in C throughout China's 5000-year-old history, which confirms that the native habitat of the ancient Southern Yue (南越族) had always been in China South where other diversed tribal branches originated from.

Geographically aligned with 'China South' are the northern region in the heartland of the Yellow River Plain, areas that stretch beyond the northern plank of the Yellow River to the peninsular Shandong Province of the northeastern China is known as regions of Hoabắc 華北 Huáběi, or 'China North'.

As the modern term "Vietnam" (越南) can be precisely translated as "the Yue of the South", it also implicitly suggests that there might also exist the concept "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 China South (Hoanam 華南 Huánán). The same term also refers to 'the Yue of the North' (粵北), who may include 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). Historically, they are descendants of those earlier Taic aboriginals, ancestors of the later Yue kings of the Chu (楚國) and their subjects whose 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.

Following trails of artifacts the Yue descendants left along their emigratory routes out of their heartland in China South, we can say that they did spread out southward past the Indo-China's peninsula — the Austroasiatic (AA) home — and all the way to those islands of Indonesia and New Guinea by the discovery of Dongson drums, which reaffirms southward migrantion to this region and Java. That 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 China South 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 culture's finest examples of metalworking by the indigenous Yue artisans.

The precise dating of those bronze artifacts for comparison provides some solid evidences to further support the historical records regarding the ancient Yue existence 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 earlier Austroasiatic (AA) hypothesis of its racial stock radiating from its home in Yunnan which made the whole matter as if both of them were of the same racial stock in different time-framed settings.

We are here, however, not to talk about what had happened 10 thousand or so years ago in those two regions or that of the whole Southeast Asia's region, ethnologically and racially. This paper will instead focus on historical events that had happened within a lesser time frame approximately from 2000 to 3000 years ago surrounding the usage of some ancient Yue languages, for instance, the speech that was once spoken by the Chu (楚) subjects long after the period that the Yue people had already recorded in C history as original habitors in China South prior to the birth of China See APPENDIX J.

Anthropologically, the mixture of whatever races of the earlier ancient populaces living within the perimeters of today's China South and northern VN had inevitably brought about their affiliation in related languages, i.e., V and C dialects. Historically China's territorial expansion had continuously brought the Han Chinese into those regions under its rule and, in turn, sped up the process of sinicizing the local population, who could originally have been the Yue natives and they themselves had been sinicized. They all had blended and contributed to the make-up of the newly emerged people known to us as the Han-Chinese of a unified nation called Middle Kingdom (中國 Zhongguo), but still known to the outside world as China. Prior to such historical events, all other different ancient states had come and gone away but portions of their subjects that survived those slaughters of wars continued to live on (Bo Yang. 1983-93). In the meantime, after all those 1000 years under the China's domination, foot soldiers, refugees, officals, and immigrants, all kept coming and resettled down with the Annamese locals and made up the overall populace for the ancient land of Annam. All of the above factors had become direct causes and effects on the becoming of the modern V language in the later period.

As for the AA-MK theory of the V language, we have the right to suspect that AA pioneers from bygone era of the previous century, however strong their innovative initiative could be, all seemes to have conspired in the scheme to start the new AA theory. 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. Specifically, in our V etymolgy of C origin, those AA advocates must have found it hard to distinguish even classes of VS and SV lexicons in V vocabularies let alone getting engaged on the strenuously mental labor, for instance, approximating phonological values of the intrigue "chongniu" (重紐) in divisions III, IV, for example. (音) Instead, they just disregard them once and for all since similar issues like that did not exist in any AA-MK languages under investigation. They altogether, in effect, avoid anything C. It was probably that the learning curve on ancient C rhyme books for classic C historical linguistics had been so steep for them.

It is not so simply because it is C hot stuff. In effect, its steepness for westerners, on the one hand, may be limited to only mastering the classical C languages themselves but for the native V scholars, on the other hand, it is also about sublimating in C affiliation, that is, chosing saying or not saying, and showing inclination whether or not to take a nationalist stand just to avoid associating the Sinitic subject matters per se with C. What could one's imagination be extended to the reality of what would have become of a tiny vassal state like VN that had undergone 1000 years od C colonialization then? Look at the Taiwan's issues now and one could put things in their own perspective. That is how they deal with the V language in terms of its linguistic affiliation.

Shortcuts will not make it in the realm of V etymological studies. Nevertheless, it appears that 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. They usually start with an AA premise, such as the work by Paul Benedict (1975) who built his case on the Kadai-Tai branch of the Austro-Thai linguistic family. Call it another "Austro-" theory then.

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 V basic words cognate to those that scatter throughout other MK languages. After they were done with analysis and postulation job, our AA fellows went on blanketing identified Sinic items with the rest of Sino-V lexicons as C loanwords. Only a small portions of their selective loanwords fall into the range of 99.99 percent of V vocabularies, though. Of course they had given no explanations for all other linguistic peculiarities of the V language that share with the C language. In their old 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 all being assigned as that of AA. 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), nothing novel of 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 locals followers inside VN, who have readily shown admiration for those westerners who have demonstrated some knowledge of V. Following the trendy fads with the crowd already put some vanity air in their own locally made products, as a result, of empty academic values.

Works of reinforcement on the MK theory built on the AA foundation, as a result, duplicates and pops up everywhere on the internet. AA-MK theorists, hence, has 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 field of VS historical phonology, in fact, different standards utilized by C philologists in the ancient times have caused enough confusions already because methods of delivery in classic C etymological linguistics does not conform with the way used to see in modern presentations and methodologies. 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 heavy piles of classical C dossiers. Ancient C classical and rhyme books have not been fully appreciated and acknowledged as they should be. 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 in the end 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".)

In the meanwhile, continuing recognition of the aggressive AA domination would only further consolidate the legitimacy of the principal purport 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 origins. If we in the ST camp do not keep on the fights, 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 linguistics but also on natural scientific fileds like that of bio-genetics which 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 have spung up in larger numbers and that more China's teachers of the C language are heading towards US schools, the whole new balance in attitude towards linguistic matters would change accordingly. As the C language is increasingly attract more students, it is they who will change the balance as said. That is, more of them, not the AA theorists, will incline to the ST theorization then. The whole new perspective, therefore, will strengthen the axiom that people tend to believe more in what they have believed in.

On the oposite side of the scale which balances emotion in relation to what has been going on with China in our contemporary era, which is apparently more of a political issue than that of humanities. The phenomenon repeats for what their precedessors has done in the past but the core matter is still sinitic and the issues will not simply go way by just denying the existence of the old C affiliation. With regard to the philosophical aspect of the historical linguistics as a science, in the V average educated brain the emotional issue of national identity awareness 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 to now.

Why do all these matters as well as other political issues matter? That is "the Zen of the Vietic matter", namely, the sinitic core of the V etymolgy. A western-educated person would probably find it hard to grasp the implication of politics that got entangled with any C-related academic subjects. 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. All has bored a loophole for non-historical linguistically based AA hyposthesis to creep in.

As a matter of fact, history of VN is that of about resistance wars. China has been always so aggressive towards VN in the south for hundreds of years even since VN's independence in 939. The years VN at war are greater than the years 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, with less than 200 years of war against the Chams, Khmer, French, and Japanese, and all other internal civil wars totalled 262 years altogether were also in the fight against factions, more or less intervened by China on the one 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 has mold her people's spirit for what is called nationalism here, as best exemplified by current events in the early first-half of the 21st century where young patriots accepted jail time for demonstrations against China's aggression, ironically, sentenced by their own government in their own owntry. 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.

For all of the aforementioned issues, readers will see what the author actually means by saying to devote in a whole chapter on Sino-Vietnamese politics coming up next for the reason that it matters a lot on one's own judgment for an impartial verdict. 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.

Historically, VN is the only independent country, still in existence, of all different ethnic groups of the ancient Yue descendants. In the meanwhile children of their long lost Yue cousins in other "ancient states" that are now parts of China's provinces, e.g., Hunan, Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang. etc., had long been either sinicized as Han Chinese or absorbed into a minority group in an autonomous regions specifically designated for those populous ethnic people being pushed or fled into 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 our contemporary epoch.

In contrast to their status as minority groups in China South, the V in the Southern State — 南國 as VN was known in ancient times — are having an obsessive pride of their Yue ancestral heritage. It is believed that the inferno of nationalist spirit built up by their forefathers is still being funneled inside the heart of the younger generation, the same feelings as shared by those of the older ones, 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 Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea in 1989. In the larger part of VN's history, men were born just to go to fight in wars. They were men of wars. No other nation has ever existed on earth could ever be capable to uphold high spirit of nationalism as those of the V people in the face of external threats.

To easily grasp the core issues of the matter, let's compare similar circumstances of other political entities in the region. Like that of VN thoughout her history since 939 AD,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 Hong Kong in its darkest days in its contemporary era with its historical Yue-originally Cantonese speakers with many of them 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 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 values brought over by their forefathers from historically ancestral Fujian homeland 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.

The early ancient Annamese had long encountered the same racial discrimination after 1000 years under the rule of imperial China. History witnessed influx of C immigrants out of the mainland to ancient China's Annam Prefecture, or today's eastern part of North VN (Bo Yang, 1983-1993), of whom a larger number of the VN's nationals known as "the Kinh people" were descents. There is no doubt about the fact. As VN's national identity were forming, her nationalism emerged and took strong shape with simmering flames out of several independence wars against invasions from the imperial China, e.g., the Yuan, the Ming, etc. Strong individual will for survival has been transformed into that of the whole nation and sublimated in different forms.

National identity crises, however, had become ghostly shadows kept returning to haunt them time and time again, though. To deal with such emotional issues, each segments of her populace had their way. For example, local scholars tend to deny themselves of links to the past that had anything to do with the C, so they go with the new western trend accepting the AA-MK hypothesis while serving the communist monarch, a form of modern feudalism. In the national arena, the ruling members in country's current Poliburo altogether paid dearly for their debts owed to the C rulers, who had helped put them in power, by fighting for China's imperialist ambition of expansion in the Vietnam War against the French-backed (1945-1954) and US-supported Vietnam's government (1954-1975), which all denied VN a fair chance of non-violent restoration of national independence, free of tyrannical rules thereafter, politically, like what happened to many countries under colonial rules around the world after the WWII, especially in the early 1960's.

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" majoriy which is a general ethnic-designated category implicating only ancient Vietic values, namely, those of the Yue. Their selective choice has shown that in their collective consciousness they are well aware of the fact that their ancestors have migrated from the north and historical masters of the lately acquired southern steches of land did belong to ancient habitants having AA-MK and Austronesian-Chamic roots in the ancient kingdoms of Champa and Khmer, respectively.

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 you postulate on how the C appeared after the Yue and both of them gave rise to the present V racial mixture.(V)

The composition of their racial transmutation appears much more similar to those of Han-Chinese. In general that is a process during which the early proto-Chinese {X)}, of Tibetan origin, intermingled with the proto-Yue aboriginals {YY} — on the proportional ratio of 2 to 1, that is, 2Y/X — to 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, are results of mutated racial mixture of {(X)(YY)(ZZZ)(HHHH)}, so to speak, while racial composition of the Viets is made of the proto-Yue {YY} and later Yue {ZZZ} to become the proto-Vietic Viets {YYZZZ}, ancestors of the Vietic, or early Annamese {2Y3Z4H}, who would later become Vietnamese {4Y6Z8H+CMK} of the modern Vietnam where C is for Cham and MK 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. The morphemic changes 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 as that of ST family language might have not been easily disturbed until the last century when AA hypothesis emerged to classify languages in 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, those European missionaries had been 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 forge forward aggressively to spread western values in form of passing holy messages in the bible to the illiterate mass and literati alike. Annam 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, 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 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 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 Annam's Hue Imperial Palace to the French force in 1883 and the Qing's Peking's Forbidden City to the Eight-Nation Alliance troops 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 events the 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 actions 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 in many academic areas. 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 may recall that when the French colonists were there in Annam in their prime time in the early 20th century, they had even gone far enough in the field of history to boldly teach native children of their colonized Annamese subjects that their ancestors had been of the Gallic race.

It is 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 had 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 throughiout the war against the totalitarianism of the same old 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 effectiveness after all those 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. Despite controversials on association AA-MK with Viets, local academics eagerly 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 peninsular 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 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, but 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 111 BC.

However, if the AA-MK linguists could compile basic words skipping across MK languages that are cognate to scores of them in V, V legends could also help identify sound change patterns in etyma related to C records. For example, 董 in the legend of "Phùđổng Thiênvương" (扶董天王 Fúdǒng Tiān​wáng, a mythical folk hero in VN's history, who defeated the An (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 he phonology of 'Gióng' or 'Dóng' is 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 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 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, simply all numbers not adding up logically, and so on (H).

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.

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 the Indo-China 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.

Everything comes with a price. On the scale of grandeur, the agony endured by the Viets who have undergone through process of AA 'colonization', spiritually, that is comparable to being coerced to compromise one's own belief, i.e., conviction in term 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 humanity disciplines, including archaeology and historical linguistics. (See works by Nguyen Tai Can, Bui Khanh The, ibid.). In the back of their mind they are well aware that their ancestors were of the Yue genealogical line with linkage to the presence of the largest indigenous population in the China South whose ancestors always have been living there, probably having forced to retreat to remote mountainous regions for they had been originally rice planters along the Yang-Tzi River basins, as popularly known today with the Zhuang or the Daic minority groups as well as the other sinicized Yue groups had long become parts of the C-Han majority in Guangdong or Zhejiang provinces, all comparable to the V-Kinh having inhabited firstly aroung the Red River basin and coastal araes of today's VN. Linguistically, their speech were solidly recorded in C scripts since ancient times ever since they had been invented, e.g., 'ngày' 日 rì (day), 'suối' 川 chuāng (creek), 'rựa' 戉 yuè (axe), etc., all quite distinctively different from those of the AA-MK groups.

On a smaller scale, intellectual drainage is a material loss per se. In VN there are plenty of Mandarin learners nowadays but scholars in historical C seem to belong to a bygone era now. 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 to the AA-MK camp. They belong to a novel class of V scholarship that carries the 'western air', probably sublimated from their inferior complex, but politically motivated to serve the new 'socialist-oriented market system'. We will learn more about the role of politics on this scale in complete detail in the next chapter.

B) New approaches in the Vietnamese etymology

The historical Yue's existence has been treated as "aliens from another planet" on earth by the AA-MK camp. Before the author goes on to discuss the core approaches, let's bring in some more Yue evidences that undermines popular belief in the undeniable existence of the long-discussed ancestral Yue aboriginals in the China South 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.

Just like their religion of 'ancestral worship" ("tụcthờcúngôngbà') their spiritual belief is so sacred in such a way that It governs most of their views of life and social conducts. As they might not readily admit theirs is 'ancestral religion', it could even surpasses their belief in '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. The 'Trời' hereupon 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.

For speakers of the V as their mother tongue, however, 'Trời' exists mostly in their linguistic form. They, nonetheless, may place their belief of 'Trời' on equal footing with 'His Supremacy' of any other religions. No matter what religion had been introduced to the V in the late periods of their history, whether it is Buddhism, Catholic, Christianity, Caodaism, etc., 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 other symbolic figurines of Buddha or Jesus, all ending up being engulfed in fragrant smoke of incense sticks liberally burned on each sacrificially ceremonial occasion to pay their respect to their 'ancestors'. This spiritual reverence was authentically of the ancient Yue, commonly practiced by many ethnic groups of Yue origin living in China South, for example, the Zhuang nationality in China and the 'Nùng' in VN.

In addition to historical facts, we could now further suplement the spiritual value discussed above to juxtapose it with other social activites on the economic side, in cluding both the economic system and the form of government that runs a country. That is an important factor that truly has determined the classification of related sinitic languages, politically speaking, believe it or not. Reader will learn more in detail in a separate chapter that deals with political issues in humanities.

Aother reason for having multiple perspectives from religion to economics in the round besides archaeology and history is that for those western-educated people with a practical mind, adoption of capitalism from the west — which has been proven to work efficiently with most of its working institutions — would likely result in the same scientific efficiency and accuracy to be extended to other fields such as linguistics. VN's adoption of western ideas, as a result, has been firstly raised French-educated generations of scholars in the periods that follow national independence from France in 1954m, who acted quickly toward the total replacement of the C-based V script. With a firm and without-looking-back attitude, they set remarkable trend which had swept away the quintessence of the thousand-year-old Vietic language with the romanized Quocngu once and for all. While local Han-Nom specialists have become rare these days now, those who can read C literature are just language learners in general populace.

In the low end of the academic ladder, those individuals whose mentality is opted for abatement of traditional pop-n-mom and state-run economic system are type people would always impossibly be reasoned with factual arguments, which inarguably that used to be sticky issues to deal with. The author assume 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.

It emerged that there exists also the third type of people, that is, new students in the field of V historical linguistics who need to make decision taking side. They are advised to bear in mind that even though it is fashionable to embrace the new 'capitalist system', i.e., western methodology, their participation in this linguistic field could not just be simply to replace the core matter of hundreds of years old that has roots in the agriculturally-based economy with those of western theories. The 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 thethods 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 intepretation, respectively. In the late 19th into the next 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 to write cohesive sentences. Probably the same idea was further developed and V was classed as an "isolate language".

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 thruough 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 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' (monk) and 'phùthuỷ' (shaman), respectively, are also of the same roots, 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 western-based AA-MK camp. In other words, etymological finds from both VS and AA-MK approaches could co-exist in harmony instead of rejecting one another. Ideally, an AA-MK affair could end up to be, metaphorically, like an arranged marriage in the sinitic way camouflaged under a western-style wedding gown that could still go with those customary rituals with 'Vietic' matters in the core. Let's put it this way, no theories on V linguistics could be considered complete without sinitic elements, historically and archaeologically. The matter is easy to see because that is a direct consequence of 1000 years of China's rule prior to 939 AD, including those ealier prehistoric contacts and unavoidably later cultural entanglements. 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 that had given rise to those Dongson-styled bronze drums. Those similar artifacts unearthed in Indonesia were dated in a much later period. That is to say, archaeologically, other bronze drums of older ages such as those of Ngoclu-styled bronze drums — which have been excavated across regions of North VN and China South, where bustling activities, such as cultivated water paddies, of the ancient Yue had left their footage — have not been discovered in Indonesia yet. For ancient Yue cultural objects such as bronze drums readers can contemplate those real excavated relics with their own eyes as the author has already done so. Numerous similar items are being in display in a Zhuang Cultural Village near Liuzhou (柳州) in China's Guangxi autonomous region, or in its national museums in other cities of Nanjing, Yangzhou, Chongqing, Kunming, Nanning, or in Vietnam's Hanoi and Saigon.

Once a larger number of evidences points to the fact that the ancient Yue people did exist in the far north is reckoned, the academic circle will see immediately the rationization that archaic languages once spoken by those aboriginals had been different from those of MK, which is based on the fact that those fundamentally basic words proved to be not only sharing with the AA-MK roots but also those of the ST. More of many of the latest finds of V etyma, in fact, are cognate to those of ST etynmologies of which the linguistic circle in the VS historical linguistic field might have never heard. For newcomers in the field who are still undecided to take sides should feel encouraged to widen their mindscape as unlimited VS etyma on the ST side are 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 are so great to ignore, like in this case, either that of China or Khmer Kingdom. For the latter, many local scholars have been seduced into their magnificent realm, that is, 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.

Do not take the warning above lightly since that is exactly what has 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. In fact, more than once V archaeologists have unreservedly claimed national ownership for the treasures of the real excavated antiques materially. Similarly, 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 created by their 'V ancestors'. To reach an impartial judgment of the periodic scope as said, valid assertion to 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 is null.

In the meanwhile 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, sentimentally too cumbersome to fit in this introductory space. 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 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 China South to regions south of the VN's Red River Basin. They all, racially and anthropologically, later 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 argumentation on controversial issues starting from fundermental groundwork of the AA-MK origin of the V language.

The whole matter could be reasoned out with very simple logics as follows. Say, suppose that VN were to return to the Chamic and the Khmer peoples all of her old annexed lands that now are located in the country's central and southern parts, that is, stretches of coastlined land from a bit north of Hue and all the way to the southern tip of her current territory bordering the Sea of Thailand, let's ask ourselves the question, "After some 700 years under the rule of Vietnam until now, what mixture of linguistic forms 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 in nearly 10 centuries in their own lands must have been undeniably a very similar scenario of sinicization that had become of the Annam State after 1000 years of under the Middle Kingdom's rule throughout different dynasties that ended with that of the Tang in 939 AD. In short, the "Annamese people" would definitely no longer speak the indigenous language that the ancestral aboriginals had spoken hundreds of years prior to VN's independence, given the fact that the ongoing influx of the mixed race of Han people from the north on constant conquering missions to the southern lands and C refugees fleeing wars and hunger had kept moving in and resettled down in the country. The V nationals now could look around every corner of their country and will see that that phenomenon has been going on for quite some time now. Proofs are evident with the presence of mainland's Chinese migrant laborers in many chinatowns have sprung up around the country, e.g., in Hatinh, Phuyen, Daklak, etc., provinces, while VN is still considered a sovereign country. By the way, you can take a note of what is being raised hereof to understand how influential the politics is to this linguistic subject matters, an inevitable subject that needs to be discussed in the next chapter.

Once you appreciate such a raison d'être of the formation of the V language, you 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. Actually you can entertain youself by meditating on them, just like praticing that of Zen but with Vietic spirituality, and you would be enlightened with new findings and theorization. Only then could you appreciate the essence of Vietic, or Yue, core matters, primarily by means of reinstatements of Yue ethnological and geo-historical settings that come with solid historical records.

So it did not matter much even if the AA 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 the MK languages if it were supposedly the true aboriginal language be fore the C as theorized by the AA camp.

C) The end of Austroasiatic approach

The already well-publicized AA-MK theory on the origin of V has never been known to start from a historical point of view or backed up with written records by any means, though. Their only links to the past, in fact, are of scores of basic words from some earliest layers of lexical substrata, yet the AA-MK advocates are still holding out on high ground in comparison with the ST runners-up. In this section it is to emphasize that the AA-MK theory has never been sucessfully proved through history and a linguistic theory that does not have history to back it up does not have a soul.

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. Scores of V lexicons found cognate to the AA-MK ones happen to overlap those of the ST language as well. There is a reason for much ado about such discoveries because they are results of new approaches that somewhat deviate from the usual methodologies.

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 all is still hypothetical. For example, for those races 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 for 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 people aforementioned because in the early days the AA homeland was previously proposed to have been located in where Yunnan Province is geographically known now which was actually the 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. In addition, as readers will learn more later, the later Kinh ethnic had been formed with racially-mixed stocks from the China South, genetically, as well; therefore, those AA-MK ancient aborginals in the south could not be affiliated to 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 mobement they encountered the southern aboriginals, i.e., the AA-MK people. The MK registry to the V family have been just added-ons throughtout 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-Chinese 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 og our linguistic scope to be discussed here, just like what is being disccussed of the English, analogously.

In the case of the AA-MK theory, with its lack of historical proof, its postulation in picturing a pre-historic era of people from a different background, i.e., AA vs. Yue, has given rise to fallacies one on top of the other, that has caused linguistic misinformation. Its illogical theorization had been set up as premises and then demanded anti-theses to prove otherwise. Etymologically, as new counter-evidences in V basic lexicons that share with other non-sinitic languages also in the ST linguistic family have started coming out with all new finds of some 400 fundamental words, 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.

Like those of AA, it would be almost impossible to prove via 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 Sintic roots of VS etyma. For instance, like what we have seen in the forming stages of each C character which is cognate to that of VS word. In their earliest days, archaic C characters were created in forms of phonetic ideograms by which we could decipher both their sounds and meanings which had evolved chronologically in such as way that they speak for themseves. For example, the later form 麥 mài replaced 來 lái for its original meaning of 'millet' when its 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, in a sense, could be considered as history. 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, with their history to belong 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, by means of their phonologically structured scripts regarded as another form of history in a broader sense.

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. Those AA specialists simply ignored, hence denied, the existence of both Yue and its entity called 'LạcViệt' (雒越 LuòYuè) which was recored in C classics. It might have been either too cumbersome for them to learn about LacViet or simply nobody knows how to relate ancient VN's history with that of MK. 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 the antecedent 'Vietnamese' 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 the 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 shaped 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 form archaic speech, assumingly Taic, 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 Bei (劉備) must have spoken a sub-dialect of it for the reason that he and his followers, as said, all had been Chu's subjects before they triumphantly established the Han Dynasty. 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 but not of the same origin as the proto-MK form that the AA theorists were referring to. At the same time, we all could have been talking about the same thing if the AA theorized their hypothesis with the southern MK base, or geographical base, to be exact — giving birth to the VietMuong group — whereas the ancient Vietic immigrants could only be considered as guest settlers from the north, or China South. However, it is they who would later of a majority group that was known as the Kinh people. 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 lands, but in this case, based on the indigenous base of minority people. It is just like branding the US citizens with indigenous Indian ancestry or that of Taiwanese with Polynesian ancestry in only less than 300 years of the Taiwan's or US history, respectively.

Amusingly, of the naming convention in the acedemic world, just like the term "sintic" being applied to an ancient entity that had not come into existence yet, the "vietnamese" being talked about was another entity that came into existence only long after the late resettlers moved in onto the newly acquired southern territory. Geo-politically, the historical name of 'Vietnam' has given rise to the word 'Vietnamese' in terms of roll calling. In fact, historical names play a significant role in determining what was from what and which one had come first and where it belongs to. 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.

Like Confucius saying "名正言順", 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 as recently as 939 AD. By then it was called NhàNgô (the 'Ngo State' or 吳朝 Wu Chao) and it had nothing to do with the entity 'Vietnam' yet, nominally, which was destined to become an idependent state by the same name centuries later on. It is noted that in that period the NamHán (南漢 NánHàn) of the Middle Kingdom, interestingly, King Liu (劉) of the NanHan had adopted the name for his newly established state as 'ĐạiViệt', or 大越 DàYuè ('The Great Viet'), prior to the historical name 'NamHan 南漢 NanHan was permanently adopted (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Chin. p. 147) and 'ĐạiViệt' would later become the name 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 Zhejinag 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

The moral behind is that we all could possibly end up talking same things under the guise of different context, historically, if the AA theorists care about history at all. So the aforementioned AA-MK-Vietmuong-Vietic chain associated with today's concept of 'Vietnamese' could be regarded as arbitrarily named which has nothing to do with the ancient independent 'Vietnam' in 10th century which had not crossed today's Hatinh Province to the southern territory yet. The name, naturally, does not fit into any recent period in terms of history in this case because what it was referred to had been much older backtracking further into the past in the pre-historic time, naturally. Like what we just mentioned previously in comparison with the term 'sinitic', by nature, the AA-MK's 'Vietmuong' and 'Vietic' terms were only modern concepts for modern entities but used to refer to ancient entities that had existed before. That explains the reason why the AA-MK theorization does not have a history. Vietnam's history is not that of AA-MK 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 illiterate in VN's history. In other words, the history of the Khmer Kingdom does not have anything to do with that of Vietnam, so to speak.

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 specific groups 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; they were the LạcViệt (雒越 LuòYuè), 西越 XiYue, or 歐越 OuYue, etc., ancestors of the Cantonese and Tchiewchow, and other populace of 東越 DongYue, like the Fukienese from regions of today's Fujian Province, and also all of what would later institute the Aulac (歐雒) of the Annamese, respectively. All in all, at some point prior to that the end of 111 BC they must have spoken some common speech of the ancient Yue language that could be understood by 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 Han Empire's boundary since then. It is postulated that ancestors of the Chu subjects might speak some form of Taic language, that had also diverged into other different languages spoken in different states during the Warring Period (475 BC - 403 BC) including other forms of the Yue language. By 111 BC after the NanYue Kingdom was conquered and annexed to the Han Empire its subjects would have already no longer been understood by one group of isogloss with another, depending on their approximity, that is, the farther they lived apart, the more intelligible among those speeches since ancient times.

Territories of the ancient NanYue encompassed the China South region included a portion of today's northeastern Vietnam of what later would be known as Annam, a prefecture of the Han Empire. Naturally, descendants of the Annamese populace who had been once living inside the southern territory hence started speaking a new form of the 'Annamese' speech by then, parallel to similar development of its ancient cousin speech that would later give rise to what is known as Cantonese. Both "languages" had been mixed with the Han's ancient forms known as Ancient Chinese (AC) which had evolved on top of the Archaic Chinese, or Old Chinese (OC) elements, that had already existed in the ancient Yue language in the earlier contacts as previously mention, e.g., the Chu and the Yue languages.

Modern V and Cant. languages are totally sinicized languages with a Yue substratrum. Technically, Cant. is now considered a sinitic language with many sub-dialalects, such as those forms of Guangzhou, Taishan, Baihua, etc. In the meanwhile, for the V language, we are still debating now whether it should be classed as of the AA-MK or a Sinitic-Vietnamese language, that is, a sinicized one on top of the Yue substratum.

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, respectively. Each sinitic language spoken inside its boundary then called "Chinese". And again, the "sinitic" is to refer to the origination of the country bearing the name 'China' and it is a concept of a national entity that is equal to that of the "Middle Kingdom".

Historically, China was also known as "Chine" for "Chin" or "Qin" for 秦國 Qinguo, or "the State of Qin". China has been has been called as such all along indiscriminately regardless of what dynasty that was ruling the Middle Kingdom and each dynasty went by the name called by its rulers. Dynaties come and go, 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, rulers. Anthropologically, the Middle Kingdom has been a union of multi-nationals as limited by the political boundaries of each state in the past or larger provinces at present day.

"Annamese", predecessor of modern V, in the overall picture, had been a language spoken by people living within a prefecture of China called "Annam" and it continued to exist beyond 939 AD when the country separated from China after 1000 years long under its rule. The V linguistic development of 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 components that had built up on the Anglo-Saxon foundation are inseparatable as the world see today.

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.

History is the soul of a nation and her language.

In contrast to the AA-MK hypothesis, other theories on the origin of each respective language, either of the ST, IE, or any other linguistic families for that matter, often need the respective national history to back one up or it would remain hypothetical as always. For all IE and ST linguistic branches all forementioned pre-historic and histrorical periods did cover their respective languages. History is the soul of both a nation and its language, so to speak. History is specifically emphasized here due to the development of 'Vietnam' under the historical perspective as a "breakway prefecture", that is, there would have never been an issue whether of not it was a ST language that its people spoke if it had never become an independent state. History is what has been notoriously absent on the AA-MK front where neither those of the MK nor the Khmer Empire would fit into that of ancient 'Vietnam' in any periods long before 111 BC or after 939 AD.

Distinctive aspects of the AA theory set apart our researching approaches, though. It is a well-defined theory with linguistic entities of which lexicons are systematically tabulated, and categories nicely classified, like AA, MK, Khmer, Mon, Vietmuong, Vietic, Muong, etc. Beauty of the whole thing is how a new foundation for the AA-MK theory was methodologically built, following a governed process in manipulating raw data, even with only a limited amount of basic words and preliminary evidences of regional archaeology, sans history. A similar methodological framework then could be expanded to work on for other languages. In fact, with the same tools and methodologies used by predecessors one could learn how to build a new theory irrespective historical references and have it disposed to the academic world at our convenience, say, let's build a theoretically exemplied African tribal language, for example. That is how the new term AA-MK has made its debut.

Needless to say, scientific methods have been effectively utilized in many other scholarly disciplines as well and they have brought about numerous academic breakthroughs, starting with languages in the Indo-European linguistic family, in the field of reconstruction of OC phonology from the early 20th century onward, not to mention new theories in historical linguistics. It is so said with inference of 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 spotlights 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 enthusiastic followers because to go with the crowd.

In exchange for the inclusion of their academic works in the new literati class, nevertheless, 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 most of the case they remain in the AA camp for the rest of the life with no academic breakthroughs and nobody could help them get out of that spiral clog but themselves. While the AA theorists have crafted their linguistic masterpieces with instrumentalism, the same marvels have been achieved by the western scientific methodologies and laboratory tools. Their works have brought in evidences of a fair amount of basic V words that are undeniably cognate to those of the AA-MK, though. One possible explanation for that phenomenon, based on new finds of ST roots that are to be presented in this paper, is they might have arisen from linguistic contacts with other MK languages. However, interactions 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.

It took me some time to get over mental block by getting my feet wet in the ST, seeking the answer for the questions 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 of spontaneous outbursts of joy each time when a new discovery 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 forerunners 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 cuts were etched in my nerve. Their authority on the subject would still epidemically scare the heck out of me before I could voice an opposing view from the other side, the ST camp, until I was no longer confined in school campus.

Those were the days when I, like other students of yesteryears, acquired extraordinary knowledge from books, reading one at a time, while our contemporary counterparts nowadays are being flooded with downpour of information from the cyberspace, too much to digest for any particular field of studies. Mostly newcomers have been brainwashed with the AA-MK.

Actually nothing is new about a few of those AA-MK basic words being quoted again and again. When was the last time a new AA renewal of indoctrination having been strengthened further to challenge the ST theory of the V? There were some works done on the AA-MK, but there has been not much progress about V. Figuratively putting, it is like old trees have outgrown their age in the backyard garden and if no one cares so much about them or without the gut to cut them down, one may only find only shadowy spots to grow new ones. That is how the AA-MK bushes have outgrown those of the ST in "the woods' wild web". It still remains the same while a new linguistic landscape of V etymology has changed again since the last decade with a re-introduction of renewed ST elements, which has been previously either overlooked or gone unrecognized.

A rose is a rose is a rose. My views have drastically changed after my own discovery of those ST etymologolies having basic vocabularies cognate to those in both VS and AA-MK cognates that overlap. 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 inguistic tools with sinitic data. Over the time thoughout my own venture in the field of VS etymology that I have started some 26 years ago, I see myself as an initiate in the field of VS, 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.

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 got tired of repetition on what I call my own new VS approach over the years. By now I has learnt smart enough to keep cool and indifferent to attacks on his Sinitic theorization across internet forums and rarely refuted opposite views. Back in the early 2000's with some preliminary results I had posted on the internet my findings with just some minor laboratory errors. What I got in return had been cold shrugs on what I thought was novel. In any cases, if you care enough, new insights of the sinitic theory brought up here could unveil a new horizon, say, 飯 fàn (meal) ~ 'ban' ~> 'bữa' ~> 'buổi' (period of the day) while 'ban' is independent from 白日 báirì ~ 'banngày' (daytime). 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.

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 northern areas in China South where ancient Yue speakers, i.e., LuoYue, OuYue, and the likes as recorded in C hisorical records, had been overwhelmed with new racially mixed 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 which equally match C forms consistently found cognate to those of other ST etymologies as well. Quantitatively, they are not just limited to those MK lexical items usually listed in each and every publication by AA authors but, qualitatively, they all contain subtle 'genetic' traits which are certainly absent from those V basic share in the MK lexical stock as we happen to know of (T).

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

Then comes the issue that similarities between C and V might be argued that their commonalities are inevitable consequences of dominantly C cultural factors that had perpetually permeated into the V language, e.g., word clusters, fixed expressions, idioms, etc, that had already taken place for hundreds of years prior to 111 BC and during her 1000 years under China's rule. Insomuch as factually stated, in effect, linguistically, it is similar to the case of Japan or Korea in borrowing C-charactered vocabularues very late in Tang's Dynasty (日), VN continued on with her long adopted C official court language in governmental documents and literary work as before even after her "breakaway" from China in 939 AD until the end of the 19th century.

However, coloquially, her people were be still speaking the same natural language, a VS-based language, so to speak, for it uses tons of VS words of C origin and nobody forced them to do so. In other words, the V people have been speaking their mother's tongue. For most of the time, one can find that in each sentence more than 90 percent of VS words have been used as opposed to "pure V" words, or 'Nôm'. If any 'Nôm' words are used there at all, once proved beyond any doubts as indeginous words, e.g., 'dừa' 椰 yé (coconut), 'chuối' 蕉 jiāo (banana), 'đường' 糖 táng (sugar), 'sông' 江 jiāng (river), 'gạo' 稻 dào (rice), etc., they could not be etyma that originate from C unless they are completely either genetically or etymologically related to any of those ST etymologies as specified in the ST chapter. In this case, portions of the "pure V" words are of Yue origin as previously discussed.

Language is a natural product formed over periods of time. People just speak what naturally passes to their tongue; nobody could force them to talk or not to talk with a full mouth of C words. That were how some souther C dialects dialects and 'Vietnamese' had become with Sinitic elements on top of ancestral Yue linguistic strata. The speakers of each respective language just speak with natural vocabularies that they had acquired from their forefathers. No matter how much effort of human intervention on the national level could imperial courts of China successfully exerted on the will of people to make their language to be reborn to become of a surrogate of the other such as a C dialect.

What has actually happened to the evolution of V since the ancient times until now is of neutral continuity, that is, things have taken their natural course. Such phenomenon had possibly been recurring events similar to and, in effect, it is of a process of cultural formation, which has happened at the same time to the V language; therefore, even after so many centuries, the nature of the core V language has still remained the same as opposed to what has been going on inside other C dialects as well as great phonological changes in the other two East Asian languages.

In C history, there were cases of one language to have become history and been totally replaced by the other in less than 300 years, like that of Mandarin vs. Manchurian. In other corners around the globe, similar cases of linguistic replacement are numerous, such as Spanish spoken by racially-mixed populace in those Latin nations in contemporary era.

The whole argument above could also be used to contribute to the invalidation of the AA-MK classification of the V language even though the nature of its development has evolved just like those of Cantonese, Fukienese, Taiwanese, etc., dialects, which are classsified as of the ST linguistic families.

To expand our view in the same perspective besides the cases of southern dialects of C, like that of some minority languages spoken in China which were once classified as of the ST linguistic family (Shafer 1941) and re-classified as of other, such as Tai-Kadai, let's take a look at the fact that the population of some 17 plus million of the Zhuang minority people, also descenadants of a branch of the Yue, to see an overall picture of how the Zhuang languages have evolved under heavy influence of Chinese while their speakers have been living inside China since the ancient times, given the fact that they have purportedly strived to adapt the C ways but their language still remain distinctively Zhuang characteristics.

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 C linguistic groups, of which only the latter matches those C traits. In contrast, all possible Sinitic elements e.g., syllabic, tonal, semantic, etc., even in translitering ancient Chamic placenames such as 'Quynhơn' 歸仁 Guiren (Vijaya), 'Nhatrang' 牙壯 Yazhuang (Kauthara), etc., are affirmatively found in the Nom, VS, and SV sets. Even though both the Viets and Zhuang are considered as descendants of the Yue, though, the V are a linguistic rather than an ethnic group and their language is shown to be of ST characteristics that hold them together. In the meanwhile, "C is a culture rather than a race". Notwithstanding such fact the whole matter somehow has slipped away the radar screen of anthropological experts since it appears that there has been not a single argumentative shot as main focus on the same matter from the linguistic circle. Among all other of similar characteristics, the V language has been singled out to be grouped into the AA linguistic family, a hasty act without going a thorough analysis involving typical cases of linguistic incarnation of ancient Yue speech such as sinicized Cantonese or Fukienese.

For the V language to have fully developed as we got to know nowadays, the whole process could have taken place within the time frame of 3000 year or so period. For the purpose of comparative resconstruction under the linguistic perspective, specifically in the case of the V, we should particularly take into consideration of additional anthropological factors — people, history, culture, speeches, etc. — that make up the V nationality, i.e., VN with an identity. Ethnically, in our comtemporary era all the racial composition of her populace consisting of 54 minority groups altogether who have always existed along with their distinctively native speeches, e.g., Hmong, Daic, Camic, or MK sub-dialects, etc., without regard of whether their ancestors had ever been parts of original subjects of the ancient NamViet (NanYue) Kingdom or not, are the composite makeups of the V people. Therefore, it is natural that over long periods of time close contacts across ethnical borders would in effect loan words to each other groups, which would exlain the MK element presence in the V basic words.

Only after such fact is reckoned could we easily accept the historical factor that massive 'Han' immigrants in all walks of lives, from the foot soldiers, newly oppointed or exiled officials, to war refugees, had in effect left the mainland of China for various reasons to have permanently resettled and taken roots in VN's soil and become active members of their newly adopted country, who wouls all later merge in to the mainstream of the Kinh majority populace as one would normally expect. Such phenomenon had continued on until now, long after VN gained her independence in 939 AD that ended the 1000 years under the C rule.

It is also noted that in our contemporary era results of the French colonization of the sinitized country had also broghuht in some positive development of the modern romanized V script as larger intelligentsia had fully partaken in the reform of the writing system, which took a complete turn from the seventeenth centuried semantic and syntactic plaforms. That is to say, the current tone and structural of the spoken and written V have revolutionized the language to the point that it has become more precise and logical, and altogether they have grown more matured per our own 'western standard', e.g., writings with concepts of complete and topic sentences, that are being complemented with its vast vocabulary stock of C origin.

Geographically, when Annam gained its independence in 939 AD — as such called by the time it was still a part the Wu State (吳國) in 220 AD during the well-known Three Kingdom Period (三國時代) — it had not expanded that much from the area with stretches of fertile areas of the Red River Delta where her ancient northeastern part of the modern VN was located, regions south of the ancient NamViet State in China South. For the negation of MK genetic affiliation the V historical linguists must know that what is known today as VN's southern territory as marked by contemporary political boundaries 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) (林) and by acts of wars.

Linguistically, contemporary V has absobed some new mixture of several southern vocabulary stocks that must have been formed accordingly by spatial contacts, especially, since that 12th century period onward. Such a plain fact on historically geographical division alone could have put restraints on those AA fashionable propaganda on V and MK genetic and linguistic affiliation at bay, but, Curiously enough, it did not. In effect, MK isoglosses border the lately acquired southwestern mountainous and southernmost regions, i.e., the Central 'Caonguyen' Plateau along the North-South Truongson Range and Mekong Basin's last stretches, where today's MK minority speakers concentrate the most. The MK speakers had long existed before the historical Annamese arrived, given the fact that by then they had already considered as racially mixed stock. Briefly, the Annamese, as described previously, historically, were the racial mixture of those earlier ancestral aboriginals who originally had been inhabiting only areas in northern part of VN and those also racially mixed immigrants from the Yue stock from the China South since the annexation of the territories of the NamViet Kingdom into the Han Empire in 111 BC. That is to say, the "Vietnamese" ancestors had migrated southward to a foreign region that would later constitute the central and southern parts of VN from the 12th to the late 19th century.

The AA theorists exaggerated much about the MK inheritance in the V language. Amusingly, nature of their claim was, analogously, not much different from those bogus claims frequently made by those V nationalistic scholars jealously exerting their entitlements on those cultural relics unearthed on-spot, which they said were from "their ancestors", in the areas once flourished with the ancient Sahuỳnh to Ốc-Eo civilizations in central and southern regions governed by today's Vietnam. The boomerang effects of the anthropological matter hit right on a linguistic spot which had negotiated from acclamations by local archaeologists who have eagerly acknowledged all given credits for the aboriginal cultural artifacts. They have boldly gone far enough to fight for the 'copyright' of them all as if they had been crafted with the hands of their own "V ancestral forefathers". Many of those local AA-MK theorists habitually forget the timelines of VN's history. They simply pretend that the ancient aboriginals having originally living there at all times were the ancestors of the modern V. In reality, the Kinh majority of the V people of are descendants of those ancient Annamese whose already racially mixed ancestors had immigrated from the region of China South and resettled on the land where indigenous artisans had been living and left behind them sophisticate 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 China South 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 has been 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 China South 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 the AA people. 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 China South 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, China South 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.

So is it that the V ogrinate from a branch of the Yue or the AA then? The plain but bitter truth for the V comes to the fact that the V today (4Y6Z8HCMK), unlike Zhuang people, could not be direct descendants of the Yue who appeared to be true creators of those sacred bronze drums to be used in their tribal sacrificial ceremonies. In other words V nationalisits have just propagated their wishful thinking to the general V populace as 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.

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 latitude, 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 China South 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


(V) 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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9442802
(Note: always try http://archive.org if the link no longer exists).

(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 DC 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 in 'kẹođường' 糖果 tángguǒ (candies) in both of which each syllable carry a different meaning, though. Sound pattern machanism may not work well in this case then.

(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)

(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.


 

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