Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies

What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese?
An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies

dchph

(Continued)

Originally this paper is entitled Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies. What I had initially in mind is to introduce some new findings in the study field of the Chinese (C, Chin.) origin of a vast little-known stock of the Vietnamese (V, Viet.) vocabulary, which is to be called the HánNôm, or Sinitic-Vietnamese (VS, Nôm).

During the course of putting things together, I have to reconcile myself with the fact that in the Asian linguistic circle philologists appear to be strongly in favor of the Mon-Khmer (MK) origin of the V language with some scores of basic words in V that appear to be in agreement with those of MK languages. Interestingly, by doing so they are not aware that many of those very same V etyma are related to those in C one way or another as they are cited in this paper.

For the change of the title of this work into What makes Vietnamese so Chinese? I find it deemed to be much more appropriate for what will be put in discussion in this paper that will refect the substantial findings of massive V etyma that resemble those of C so much that they could still shed doubts on the MK theory. Insomuch as for such obvious reason, main points of my discussion about the C factors in the V language still remain the same insofar as V and C are concerned, etymologically.

Those newly identified words of C origin to be cited in this paper are direct results of my applying two etymological methods called dissyllabic and analogical approaches. The first one is to treat sound changes of two-syllable C words to those cognates in V as being independent entities which is unrestricted to and of generative characteristics based on indentification of multiple patterns of sound resulted from changes in individual morphonemic syllable in polysyllabic words and diverged from the same syllable as in those of monosyllabics as their natural adaption in V. This method, in turn, will help analogize sibling lexicons within a categorical group and in a cultural context, i.e., if a word has a C origin, chances are that its related words could be the same, too, which would go unnoticed otherwise. This subsequent methodology is called the analogical approach.

By applying these two new etymological approaches, more V words of C origin, including those of basic MK vocabulary stratrum, can be unveiled. Implications of any new development in this study can be used to rebut the arguments that the origin of V is of the MK branch of the Austroasiatic linguistic family. In addition, additional evidences on C linguistic traits found in this study, therefore, may eventually help strengthen the foundation for re-classifying V into the Sino-Tibetan (ST) linguistic family.

In the meanwhile, even though the HánViệt, or Sino-Vietnamese (SV), sound system, obviously a variation of Middle Chinese (MC), is not the subject matter under discussion in this study, its sound change patterns and rules are also utilized here (See Nguyễn Tài Cẩn).

I) INTRODUCTION:

Before I go into discussion of the main subject, I would like to introduce a sketch of the main points made in this study, along with the background underlining a compelling motive that has drawn me to do this research, the goal I wish to achieve, and I will define some terms and explain the conventions, abbreviations, and symbols used here.

This paper is intended for both linguistic specialists and journeymen, including general readers, too, so please bear with me should I explain too much of anything, which is so obvious to specialists in the field study, or too little of everything, which general readers will find it difficult to follow (for more historical and linguistic backgrounds, please see "Bibliography" in the end of this paper).

A) Foreword:

I am well aware that today's belief in the linguistic world is going strongly more for theories of Mon-Khmer (MK) root in the Austroasiatic linguistic family for the origin of V than for those of older Sino-Tibetan (ST) camp. However, bear in mind that current hypotheses about the MK genetic affinity of V, only another theory and an unfinished work, is not final and not quite satisfactorily proven yet. For this reason, the ST school of thought is still holding ground for its prior theoretical merits, still worth being recapped and explored further because there are equally solid linguistic evidences pointing to that direction as V and C etymologies cited in this paper will provide some food for your thoughts in the end.

In studying the V language as it appears in its wholeness, in terms of its linguistic characteristics and traits, actually it doesn't matter much whether initially it was originated in the MK linguistic sub-family or not(1) but all it counts is what makes it up as a living language as it appears today with all the attributes considered as natural parts of a language. Analogically, the English language can be regarded as such a case, that is, when we look at this language, we see the language presents itself in its wholeness, not just only the Anglo-Saxon parts of it. Similarly, V is a language that has blended itself beautifully with all C elements that are impartible and one can see in it neither only those common peculiatiries nor solely MK traces of a limited amount of their etyma. The same holds true for those of other languages in the Austroasiatic family such as Munda despite of the fact that one can find a few basic cognates between the two languages and that does not make Munda even a distant cousin of V.

The fact that, as will be presented in this paper, the nature of linguistic attributes of V is so similar to C in most of the aspects that make what a language of the ST linguistic family look like should also make V a class of the same linguistic family. For this reason, sidelining the main objective to prove the C origin of thousands of V words, this study is also an attempt to answer the question: "Is the V language is characteristically much closer to the C language than to a MK language such as Khmer?" This research will demonstrate that it is much more like C, which is so undeniable in terms of, above anything else, grammar, including grammatical markups, classifiers, and particles and instrumental prepositions, along with tonal system, phonology, peculiar experessions, and, especially, monosyllabic stems and lexical compositions from the same etyma which make up a vast amount of V words, which, at first sight, seem to be "pure" V, or indigenous, but, actually in most cases, might have C origin.

By taking the dissyllabic and analogical approaches suggested in this paper, you will see how thousands of more V vocabularies can be positively identified, which undoubtedly have been either missed or neglected in the field of V historical linguistics up to date from the day those V specialists have started abandoning the ST ship and jumping on the Austroasiatic bandwagon since the later half of the last century.

As you may not expect, for the term "the Austroasiatic linguistic family" I will identify it with linguistic roots of many indigenous languages being spoken by many ethic groups of the Yue (Yueh, or BáchViệt) descendants, also known as the Yues as termilogically mentioned in C ancient historical records, who are still living in the southern part of China today, including the largest Zhuang (Tráng or Nùng in V) minority group whose language is universally classified as that of the ST linguistic family, not to mention several other ethnic groups currently living in those mountainous regions of North Vietnam, in Laos, as well as the peoples of Daic origin in today's Thailand, of which their racial stock sometimes are classed as of Austronesian (see Baxter). Those facts will eventually bring us to converge other notions that all ancient Yue dialectal speakers did have common ancestors, who have sometimes been referred to as "the larger Proto-Tai (or Pre-Tai) indigenous stock" that might have split up into many distinct ethnic goups such as Zhuang and Dai as best known in our era. Aboriginals of this stock, in some sources being identified with ancestors of the Zhuang ethnicity, might have lived in the habitats which in ancient times used to embrace a vast region below the Yellow River, east and south, all the way to the surrounding northeastern region in today's China's Shandong Province and to all areas south of the Yangzi River. Notably, Proto-Tai people coud also have been the ancestors of the Zhou's Kings, as having been long speculated by many renown East Asian historians. They had not only made up the ethnic composition of citizens -- possibly with the exception of those of the Qin State if we equate them with "the Proto-Chinese" without the inclusion of the states of Chu, Qi, Jin, Yan, and Han in the Six States in the Warring Period that in the later time all merged with the Qin's populace to become "the mixed-stock Chinese" -- but also, at the same time, further broken down into smaller tribal groups and finally evolved into ethnic diversities, hence the Yue peoples as later appeared in Chinese historical records, over the span of many thousand years prior to the unification of a vast pre-China's empire ruled by Qin Shihuang of the Qin Dynasty. In other words, all the Qin's citizens in the melting pot of the first unified emprire had become "the Early Chinese" of the later Middle Kingdom in periods following the rise of the Han Dynasty that ruled for 406 years after that. Those Yues who could have not withstood the process of integrating forces of the Han culture fled to mountainous regions, notably the Zhuang people. Over the time their forced migratory and fleeing paths had been pushed further southwards into the aforementioned areas and became what they appear at the present time. (Interestingly enough, similar scenarios repeated again exactly the same process that had happened to both those indigenous peoples and migrants who had previously lived or already long resettled in the Northern part of today's Vietnam around the Red River's delta regions when the "composite Han" -- or "the Early Chinese", the Chinese in Han Dynasty from many regions of those states which had fallen under the umbrella of Qin Dynasty in the previous period -- armies came to invade, including those war-savaged immigrants to follow later. Once having reached the new territories those Northerners as conquerers mostly had resettled there forever. Undoubtedly their offsprings over the time had numerously multiplied and give birth to next generations. Again, all could have mixed up with the indigenous people, who in turn would have possibly intermarried with other waves of those mixed-stock Han immigrants from the China-North (華北 Huabei) and -South (華南 Huanan) who have come later throughout the next two millenia until our time to form the new "Kinh", or Jing as known in modern Chinese as 京, ie. Vietnamese, group.) Under such historical circumstances, languages in "the Austroasiatic linguistic family" had been formed out of Pro-Taic languages around 3000 years ago, long before the emergence of the Zhou Dynasty. In other words, on the one hand they all had been stemmed from an ancestral Proto-Taic linguistic form supposedly spoken by the so-called "larger Proto-Tai indigenous people" and finally evolved themselves into linguistic forms of the Yues including those spoken by the Zhuang, the Dai, etc. while, on the other hand, they had branched off to become other languages included in what is now universally named as "the Austroasiatic linguistic family". Furthermore, during the reigns of Zhou's Kings Proto-Taic glosses had also found their way into, intertwined and interpolated, and merged with the Archaic Chinese, also known as Ancient Chinese, that had come a long way since its break-off from the ST route and evolve itself independently. (See Brodrick, 1942. Norman, 1988. Wiens, 1967. FitzGerald, 1972) Variants of this early form of old Chinese later had followed the Han soldiers and emigrants to go south all the way to Annamese ("Tonking") regions and have blended well gradually with the Proto-Vietic language.

This concept of "Austroasiatic", as a result, is only implicitly used in this paper, which is to be often referred to as "the Yue languages" with the implication that this terminology does notinclude the MK languages in the direct sense of affinity that the ancestral V as Proto-Vietmuong had emerged and formed from them even though, they, as a whole, constitute another sub-family in the larger Austroasiatic linguistic family as commonly referred to by modern linguists. That is to say, in this paper Austroasiatic languages may mean the same thing as the Yue languages and this implication inevitably will put V in line with popular theories that it originally had started out from a common Austroasiatic linguistic root. It is so because they had actually broken off from the "Proto-Daic" mainstream hundreds of years before the Proto-Vietmuong formation. Under this perspective, the difference is that the MK languages are not included in this classification since they are not in synchronic connection with the Sinitic scope we are investigating here (Chinese traces in the Khmer language are very recent and could have been borrowed via the Vietmuong) where C elements are seen to have been adopted and their materials used profusedly and vehemently to nurture genesis of a new form of speech built around the Proto-Vietic core largely by illiterate common popupace from all walks of life (food for your future Doctorate linguistic thesis: "Could it have been that Vietnamese is the result of 'pidginization' of some forms of Chinese vernaculars staring from the Han's time?). Both Daic and ArC C strata in V solidly support that point of view.

Nothing is contradictary about this idea if we take into consideration that C and Tibetan, despite of their affinity, are two completely different languages, just like the V and MK languages. Nonetheless, in the case of V and its becoming, the so-called indigenous Proto-Vietmuong language originally spoken by those people living in the delta of the Red River began to have split up into those of Proto-Muong, to have gone with those Muong groups who fled into the mountainous regions, and Proto-Vietic, with a much further fusion with what appears to be variations of AC brought in by the Han invading armies, often accompanied by new settlers, to have been spoken by those who stayed behind and integrated with Han expansionists and then their descendants as well as many more other "composite Chinese" who came later en masse, waves after waves. Again, remnants and residues identified as of AC still exist in modern V allow us to see the matter as such (see Wang Li, dchph in Appendix H, Bùi Khánh Thế in Appendix I). From that time on the V language has been developed and evolved around the C linguistic cores, though characteriscally unique and separate due to the habit of people's speech, that seem to be parallellism of the origin and evolution of Zhuang or Tai languages, which are affirmatively, at least by Chinese linguists, classified as those of ST linguistic family.

Regarding to the "MK origin" of the V language, what has been discussed to date prior to this study mostly has been based on claims that certain V basic words correspond to those basic lexicons scatteringly dotting throughout many MK languages, a majority of which, amusingly enough, turns out to be cognate to those of C (so then reasonably a question can be asked: "Who had borrowed what from whom?") However, the question of whether those arguments on the matter of MK affinity of V are still valid or not after examing the findings presented in this research is open for further discussion and investigation.

B) The background:

The purpose of this mumbling passage is to throw some credibility sand substance on this piece of writing, not pretending this sort of research paper is a serous scientific one. How have I gone about this etymological affair this far? Admittedly I am no V historical linguist by training whatsoever except for having taken those introductory linguistic courses 101 taught by Profs. Nguyễn Tài Cẩn, Hoàng Tuệ, and Bùi Khánh Thế at the School of Letters of Saigon University back in the late 1970's. In my spare time, however, I simply have been lucky enough for having been exposed to the C language in some scholarly fields for quite a time and possessing a mastery command of the modern M for more than 20 years now by daily conservation with my China-born wife, reading C, listening to the news and watching C soap operas fron China on TV, etc. all places me in the position of authority to state something with high accuracy regarding the C and V etymology matters. How could that be? Well, let's take an example in a practical situation where I'm amazed at how close modern M expressions to those of V when following a series of C soap operas, so it be should you plunge yourself wholeheartedly deeply into this muddy C and V matter with tongue-in-cheek attitude.

The encounter with the C historical linguistics over the years has aroused inside me a curiosity for the C linguistic past and that experience -- analogically the same as that of English learners who know well Greek, the Latin and other Roman languages -- has widened my knowlege of the C etyma and V etymology of C origin. Hence from there arose my conviction of the ST connection, in the sense that all other variants of the Yue languages being regarded as of the same linguistic family, and that has grown much more firmly. For this matter, in the end of this research paper you will find a long list of the bibliography with titles that I have read word by word -- not just by excerpts for the purpose of citing quotations to support my arguments, which I hate the most and do skip many quotable quotes -- over the past twenty some years and that has led me into such belief. Also, I will try to identify as many related resourceful linguistic websites as possible which I will readily admit I have only skimmed for related information and not deliberately read them as those in print. Even though the electronic forms have proven their superior strength, the problem of their reliabilty and durability lies in the fact they are in constant changes as their authors see fit and that down the line for the next 20 years, who knows how many of them will still be around and available as they are today in the cyberspace, aka the www, for interested readers to refer to just in case. (Please try to find any quoted sources no longer existant on http://archive.org/).

Anyway, being totally so fascinated by this subject I have spent enormous time teaching myself V and C and their historical linguistics and been compelled to explore the ideas of tracing etymological proofs for many Nôm words of C origin. Metaphorically, just like a pilgrim who is in constant search for sacredly spiritual revelation in his or her life, in this etymological expedition I have unexpectedly stumbled upon hitches and hits in the ancient world of C linguistic sound bits, for which I have jotted down in the old-fashioned index cards, and discovered a whole picture of the V etymological structure and essence. Indeed, I have finally come to terms that the V and C languages have so much more similarities -- even more than what they share among the ST languages themselves -- than those of any other MK languages as have been suggested so far that they all were originated from the same root as that of V. It is from this conviction that I have begun sorting things out, literally out of my index cards that are numbered 20,000 plus, and now I am in the process of gathering supporting arguments to nurture my hypothesis that most, if not all, V words have a C origin and, sometimes, for those basic vocabularies, they appear to be cognate to those of C, that is, both from the same root.

In the process of working on this project, to be specific, I have recorded substantial findings and have started to theorize them and I will, gradually, post them on the internet as I am progressing. This is the goal I am determined to pursue by setting forth the new linguistic expedition going for the ST direction since I view languages as a living thing as what actually appears to me with all its characteristics other than what originally was from start, let's say, ten thousand years ago. With the results found and its genetic affinity proven valid or not, V will probably once again be reconsidered and reclassified as a language that belongs to the ST linguistic family given the common linguistic peculiarities existant in both V and C.

The benefits, accordingly, from such classification come from the fact that it will enable us to approach V historical linguistics from a much different and wider pespective by being able to access plenty of research tools and accompishments in C linguistic studies made avalable to us to apply not only in V historical linguistics or etymology, but also in various fields of V studies as well, such as V anthropology and archaeology regarding the origin and biological composition of Vietnamese people and their nation.

It is possibly so, as we all have known, most largest linguistic institutions on earth all have devoted and invested a large amount of resources and expertise in the field of studying the C linguistics, so those benefits are foreseeable, for instance, any progress in any fields of C linguistics can be equally applied to V research without much reservation. Ironically, the same cannot be done much with those achievements in the fields of studies of the MK languages. Let's say, C is now treated as a polysyllabic language and that linguistic characteristic has faithfully reflected in its "pinyin", or romanized C transcription system, so should be the V orthography in the context of attempting to reform its current inefficient monosyllabic writing system.

Lastly, as to my goal as stated from the outset, hopefully my final work will also give the V etymology this kind of fresh perspective with concrete results with which future lexicographers will make use of to corporate them into a V dictionary with all etymological list for each word, which a V dictionary has never had before.

B) Convention:

1) The unconventional convention:

The unconventional technical approach taken in the writing of this paper is that there will not be a whole section to be devoted to listing all the rules of sound changes, natural or unnatural, from C to SV as one usually would expects, but only a synopsis will be provided in the last section. The reason is that, firstly, that is tantamount to a complicated task since the sound changes patterns have occurred somewhat rather unsystematically and unnaturally, not in batches and shifts and drifts, as in the case of the SV sound system which has been quite well documented (see Nguyễn Tài Cẩn, 1979, 2001). The sound changes did happen, though. Throughout the examples cited in this research you will see that C words have infiltrated the V vocabulary continuously since the ancient time in different periods and, concurrently, from a viariety of C dialects colloquially, including Mandarin seen as official language of imperial courts of C throughout its history including those of dynasties after V gained it independence in the 10th century. If my work will later on prove to be of any value, some specialist in categorization will help systemize and catalog all the possible sound change rules accordingly for us.

Secondly, this research, for the time being, should be treated only as a demonstration of how the application of my two new etymological approaches have been utilized and how their yielded results have come about throughout the whole process in finding the V words of C origin, which I call the Sinitic-Vietnamese (VS). Accordingly, the underlined rules of phonological changes by no means can be treated as a complete reference manual because this research, as a matter of fact, is still an on-going work that is constantly being edited and modified in the years to come.

Thirdly, as a result, the methodologies utilized here are more experimentally suggestive than definite and, unless stated otherwise, they always should be considered and used as one among other etymological tools to explore tentative rules of sound changes from one word to another, that is, what changes into what or how it has happened.

Lastly, it would become a long and boring paper as I have seen in many works should we just cite long list of rules of sound changes instead of focusing on exploring interesting case studies and discussing about the process of how to draw a conclusion of sound changes for specific newly-discovered words found to be of C origin. By doing so, in the end you can learn how to do the same yourself after understanding how I have manipulated my approaches to reach certain conclusions. Therefore, sound change rules will be discussed only in a scattering, but not sparingly though, manner throughout this paper, that can be found in any sections or paragraphs, as needs arise when a demand for explanation of how the final sound changes have actually occurred and which could be only applicable and limited to certain cases and why they did not occur to the other sounds of the same nature. Again, the important thing is to let you understand how the sound changes have occurred in certain ways either by linguistic rules or just a matter of speculation. Similarly, you can learn to apply the same mrthods yourself just as I will be doing in the next sections.

2) Symbols and conventions:

In this paper I will use both common conventions utilized in the fields of historical linguistics and some uncommon signs and symbols of my own. The reader should already be familiar with most of commonly used linguistic symbols, the International Phonetic Symbol (IPA), and Vietnamese (V) orthography (Quốcngữ) (2). Abbreviations will be noted once when they first appear. Examples within a paragraph will be wrapped to the next separate line and numbered or bulleted () for better illustration. Also, in most of the cases, there may be lengthy comments about patterns of sound changes and evolution of those V words under scrutiny, to be put in between square brackets as [xxx yyy zzz ], as how they have come about in order to support arguments about the C origin of those words. After all, that is the purpose of this etymological research.

English meanings will be noted once after each word and by no means exhaustive. Sometimes they will be omitted if deemed irrelevant. The commonly used symbols include

“>” denoting “evolves into” (diachronically),
“<” sign “derived from” (diachronically),
“=>” “giving rise to” (by a phonetic rule),
“~>” “giving rise to” (by analogy),
“<=” "built with",
“~” “alternating with” or "is cognate to" (synchronically),
"$" for literarary use only, as opposed to a vernacular or colloquial form
"#" in reverse order ("iro"),
"@" associated with, identified with, assimilated with ("liêntưởng", "đồnghoá")
"©" archaic, old usage, obsolete
"®" contraction, sound dropped or deleted
"§", cf., compare
"¶" pattern of sound change
"%" possible alternate
"&" in combination with
"/" under the condition of, being conditioned by,
"\" alternatively, under the influence of,
"[xxx]" exact phonetic value, else, indicating an insertion to further explain the case under discussion,
"/xxx/" approximate phonetic value,
/ã/, /ẽ/, /õ/... nasalized vowels,
"X- , -Y-, Z-" capital letters signify arbitrary consonants of similar class of articulation in phonetic transcriptions,
"=" equal to,
"(?)" unidentifiable or unknown element or source,
"|" "syllabic divider" or "hononymous or parallel elements", also, a separator
"{x- ~ y-}" and/or "~" sound change patterns, also, being conditioned by
“*” and “**” hypothetically reconstructed (* ancient – denoting the AD period to the Middle Age – and ** archaic, Proto- form – BC and maybe dated as far back as to the pre-historic age) sound”.

Since the resemblance of both V and C in terms of linguistic traits, to be discussed later throughout this paper, in many cases, is closer than those of a great number of ST languages as they appear to C, I will use the term Sinitic-Vietnamese (VS) or the HánNôm, including Nôm (supposedly indigenous or "pure", but actually not, Vietnamese words), to signify the C linguistic attributes that exist in those V words, mostly, of C origin. It is because for those etyma under investigation the V counterparts of those C roots are mostly conformable to those phonetic, phonological, semantic, syntactical, lexical, and other linguistic peculiarities such as the tonal system that exist in the C language. Accordingly, the term "Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies" is chosen to denote those fields of studying common linguistic traits shared by both C and V and approaches to research the V etymology of C origin but not studies that have been done by other authors. While awaiting further studies to be done, neither term necessarily means proven genetic affinity between the two languages, equally applying to other ST languages as well, even though obviously they imply a linguistic classification. For now it should be considered only as a mere suggestion that, with all of its little-known “Sinitic”, or Chinese, pecularities, V may belong to ST or, probably a new classification to be created, a Sinitic sub-division in the ST language family.

In the lexical aspect, in contrast with VS, is the term Sino-Vietnamese (SV), or HánViệt as it is commonly used mostly to refer to the systematic V pronunciation of massive C vocabulary essentially used in modern V. Analogically SV words are just like those of Latin or Greek origin in English. There is a consensus that SV is a slight variation of Middle Chinese (MC) sounds. Sometimes the term SV loosely embraces some other variants of SV lexicons found in the Old Chinese (OC) (also called Archaic Chinese (ArC)), the Ancient Chinese (AC) (sometimes called the Early Middle Chinese (EMC)) loanwords or Tiền-HánViệt (“the Pre-Sino-Vietnamese” (Pre-SV)), and their variants in V which are found dated as far back to the Proto-Chinese (Pro-C) source, for instance,

(1) bụt, (2) Phật, (3) vãi 佛 Fó (Phật) [ M 佛 fó < MC but < *OC bjət | %@ OC *phjət > MC phut > M fó, from 'Buddha' (Sanskrit) | cf. VS 'Bụt' > SV 'Phật' | Cant. : fat 42, Wenzhou : vai42, ] : Buddha, buddhist, buddhist monk,
(1) vợ, (2) phụ, (3) bụa 婦 fù (phụ) [ M 婦 fù < MC bjəw < *OC bjəʔ] : wife, lady, woman,
(1) chài, (2) lưới, (3) chàilưới, (4) là 羅 luó (la) [ @ & 羅 luó (la) + 羅 luó (lưới) | M 羅 luó < MC lɑ < OC *jraih ] : fish by net, Also: bird-net, net,
(1) cộ, (2) xe, (3) xecộ, (4) cỗ, (5) cỗxe : 車 chē (xa) [ @& 車 chē (xe) + 車 chē (cộ) ~ M 車 chē, jū < MC kʊ < OC *kla | Note that "cỗxe" could also orginated from Cantonese 架車 /kache/. | According to Starostin, in MC 車 also read tʂa, FQ 尺遮 (whence Mand. chē, Viet. xa), but this reading is rather recent (judging from rhymes, not earlier than Eastern Han) and must stem from some Old Chinese dialect. Vietnamese has also a colloquial loan from the same source: xe. If the reconstruction is indeed *kla, one can think of an early borrowing from IE. (hence, 'cộ' ],

etc.

and other compound words not found in a C or SV dictionary, such as côngcuộc (incorrectly assumed as 公 gōng + 局 jú) 'task' (see below).

In this paper, except where the term SV clearly applies to words as best exhibited in a HánViệt từđiển, i.e. a Sino-Vietnamese dictionary, the VS lexicons will include all mono- and dissyllabic words of C origin, including those that appear and sound like a SV term, for example,

cuộc in côngcuộc (< 工作 gōngzuò ‘task’)

is not a SV word, but it is an innovation of the sound change from

作 zuò [tsuɔ4] ‘task’ to cuộc [kwok8] [ M 作 zuō, zuó, zuò < MC cʌk < OC *ɕa:k | FQ 則落 ]

and merely a local development in V. In all probability it, of which its characteristic similarity will be extended to other words of the same nature, was originally derived either from a vernacular form of Northern C dialects (represented by Mandarin (M)) by changing [ts-] to [kw-] and by keeping the old final labiovelar [-ɔk] as demonstrated by the Cant. /dzwɔk/. Another scenario is that it could be a result of association of the sound and meaning of cục [kʊkʷ] (局 jú), as in 世局 shìjú (SV: thếcục) # 'cuộcđời', which I call the sandhi process of assimilation or association. This phenomenon has commonly taken place in the V etymology of C origin, to be discussed in detail later.

As illustrated in the above examples and throughout this paper, I will provide with related C characters to be accompanied by Pinyin (拼音) for the purpose of identifying the related sounds even though in many circumstances Pinyin transcription is enough and actually less distracting than those illustrated C characters constructed with jiăjiē 假借, or loangraphs. Loangraphs in C mean something like homophones having different meanings such as English ‘yard’, ‘glass’, ‘page’, ‘lie’ and the like. Pinyin is the People's Republic of China’s official romanization system utilized to transcribe Mandarin or “Pŭtōnghuà ” 普通話 now have been widely adapted thoughout the world, including the Taiwan as lately as of recency.

For exact sound transcriptions International Phonetic Alphabet symbols are mostly used to transcribe dialectal, ancient sounds, as well as precise phonetic value (to be put in square brackets “[xxx]”, as opposed to the two slashes "/yyy /" to indicate only an approximate sound value) in certain circumstances to emphasize the true phonetic values of cited lexicons, such as the case of V dung , that is [jʊŋʷ1 ] /joung/, but not [dung], or thìn [t'ɤn4] /thein/, but not [thin4], or tin [tin1] /tin/, but not [tɤn1] /tein/, or thu [t'ʊ1] /thou/, but not [thu1] /thu/, etc. for the sake of clarity where subtle phonemes need to be identified as dipthongs for a comparative analysis. To be easier for typography, the above cited symbols are also transcribed as [ou] and [ein] or /ou/ and /ein/, respectively, whenever the true sound values could not be mistaken for something else. This way of transcriptions will be applied to other sound values, too, which will be noted and illustrated when needs arise.

In fact, with the IPA transcriptions, in many cases it will be easier to see the relationship of those exact V phonetic values with those of C characters than with pinyin transcriptions, for example, "gu" and "ku" are actually pronounced [ku] and [k'u], not [gu] and [ku], respectively.

This mechanism is also utilized by Pulleyblank (1984) in his reconstruction work of OC with his discussion of the possibility of certain phonetic values of OC which were seen as vaguely described in the ancient C materials. Also, to avoid typographical complications and confusion with IPA diacritical symbols, just as illustrated in the above examples, different tonal indications such as that of numbers 1, 2 ... to 9 to follow after each sound transcription, as they are specifically designated for each respective C dialects, such as Fukienese (Fuzhou), Tchiewchow (Chaozhou), Hainanese, or other languages, i.e., Daic, Thai, Vietnamese, etc. Per convention these tonal symbols are commonly used in transcribing Cantonese (Cant.), Fukienese, and other C dialects and, sometimes, also even in V, of which tones specifically are numebred according to the old traditional 8 tone classification as described in Guăngyùn 廣韻, Jerry Norman (1988. p.55) Chinese, and other historical linguistic books including modern Nguồngốc và Quátrình Hìnhthành Cáchđọc Âm HánViệt ('The Origin and Transformational Process of the Sino-Vietnamese Pronunciation') by Nguyễn Tài Cẩn (1979, 2001). Specifically, they are:

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

However, the tonal numbered system will be used sparingly only when essentially needed, mainly to avoid confusion with the exact tonal values that are commonly used with other C dialects, each of which may carry a slight different tonal value even with the same numbering denotation.

In transcribing V sound and tonal values, its modern diacritics will be the first choice to be used in combination with the IPA system, e.g., [à], [ả], [ã], etc. if they are not to be confused with other phonetic IPA values such as a nasalized /ã/. Therefore, for a precise tone value of V or Mandarin the reader can always refer to Quốcngữ diacritics or Pinyin tonal marks, respectively, e.g., ā, á, ă, à, a, etc., which certainly take on different tonal values than those of V diacritical look-alikes.

However, there will be cases of tonal omissions. The reason for occasional omissions of the tonal indication is their irrelevancy with the belief that the tones of many SV words must have been changed completely after having gone through so many cycles of tonal alternations over the span of hundreds of years. In many cases they might have changed back to the exact values of the initial ones! (This phenomenon is found common in Chinese historical linguistics like in other aspects such as initials or syllabic finals.)

Phonemically, like their initial and medial counterparts, such as ch- [c], kh- [k'], ph- [pf], r-[rh] th-[t'], tr-[ʈ], and nh-[ɲ] (sometimes to be transcribed as c-, kh-, f-, r-, th-, tr-, and ɲ- or nh-, respectively) and -uy -[wej] or -iê -[iə] (which are transcribed in IPA, respectively, as [wej] and [iə], not [wi] and [ie]), ending consonants in Vietnamese orthography do not always represent exact phonetic values, especially those ending with unaspirated -p [p], -t [t], -ch [jt], -c [k], and -nh [jŋ], which will be assigned with the IPA symbols -p, -t, -jt, -k, -jŋ, respectively. Variant labiovelars preceded by a rounded vowel, e.g. o- or ɔ-, or a medial -w-, will be transcribed in IPA either as -kw, -wk or -kʷ for [kʷ], either -wŋ, -ŋw, -ŋʷ for [ŋʷ ] respectively. Similarly ng of the velar [ŋ] will be transcribed as both [ŋ] or [ng]. This convention applies equally to Cant. or any other C dialects that share the same articulation.

D) A revised course in the adaption of the reconstructed ancient sound values:

As you have seen in the foregoing examples, the OC must be taken into account when studying either C or V. C linguists in the fields of C historical linguistics all have followed this approach. However, with more than half a dozen versions of OC reconstruction work completed by distinguished linguists in related fields in existence to date, the question is which one represents the best ready for our own use in the VS study? It is hard to resist the temptation to follow Pulleyblank’s reconstruction (1984) which shows many similarities in vocalism and consonantal articulation with modern V. Nevertheless, unless noted otherwise, I will provide a modified version of my own adapted from many sources. This version may certainly disappoint many of those who try to find another interpretation of the sound system of OC because of the relative variations in the presentation of precise values of sounds of many OC words in this paper, for example, for

羅 luó (net) has given rise to la, chài, lưới, chàilưới, in both SV and VS, in the OC sounds one may find the values
(1) *la (Coblin, 1983),
(2) *jraih (Norman, 1957),
(3) *lâ (Kagren, GSR:6, 1957)
(4) *lar (Li, 1976),
(5) *raj (Schuessler, 1987),
(6) *la (Zhou, 1973), etc.

and I opt for *jraih because that could have given rise to "chài" (net fishing) while in the case of 籮 I choose the M sound "luó", which is close to the V rỗ (basket), which might have been a rather late loanword from a vernacular form of Mandarin. For 羅 as *jraih this word could have been a direct loanword in V from an old vernacular C, to be exact, an earlier form of M, but they all could have been cognate to "chài" since it appears to be an older form in the two syllable-words of the compound "chài+lưới", taken into consideration that the ancient C northerners seemed not to be as good as those C southerners in net fishing in the ancient times.

Nothing is contradictary about this revised course of reconstruction methodology since each reconstructed sound from different sources can be considered actually as a variation from the same original sound in the OC. In this case let’s assume that they are all originated from the form [lwo]. The important point is that, phonetically, all these possible sounds could have been derived from /*jraih/, the most plausible sound value -- in comparison with other slightly variants reconstructed by several C historical linguists at the same time -- at a certain time in ancient days when both "Chinese" and "Vietnamese" were in contact, which had also given rise to chài. The synonymous syllable-word structure of the compound 'chài+lưới' are commonly seen like other V glosses which are composed of two-syllabic words of the same root.

This revised approach used in this paper to treat ancient C sounds with such generosity is based on the hypothesis that no matter how good a reconstruction work of the ancient C language is, as demonstrated by a dozen works of several renowned linguists, actual reconstructed sound values of the OC characters cited in such works are impossibly absolutely accurate and precise to the exact sound value of what was pronounced hundreds of years ago. One sound value may be true in a certain period of time and place, but it was not true in other cases. They are, understandably, merely suggestive representations of the sound system of the C language by and large in a particular locality and time frame. That is to say, for a certain C character or word, there likely have existed different versions with several ways of interpretations; however, in general, those reconstructions, in fact, only represent the most generally accepted presentation, all of which are merely reconstructed values derived from historical records of linguistic materials such as rhyming books or Buddist canons. As a result, unsurprisingly one version may appear very similar to the others with only minor variations, just like with the same character 羅 of which we have different pronunciations in many C dialects nowadays and the core sound value of it, let's say /xxx/, has given rise to "luó" in modern M.

To understand this notion better, let's first pick a C word and ask ourselves how it was pronounced or said 2000 years ago. Then after studying this word in depth we would probably have found out that many specialists in this historical linguistic field have already done so and there have been no precise sound values even witith descriptive guidance from C classics. For example, for 車 chē (SV xa, VS xe, cộ) 'carriage', in several classical books including the 後漢書 Hòu Hànshū (Historical Records of the Later Han Dynasty) we are instructed to read it as [tɕy] for jū in modern M ("車讀若居"), like what is said by players in the popular C chess game when the 車 chess piece is mentioned, but like [tɕy] in jū 居 (SV cư), obviously, is a modern sound. Undoubtedly, 居 carries the sound of 古 [kʊ], hence, it had given rise to V with several words related to 'carriage' : (1) cộ, (2) xe, (3) xecộ, (4) cỗ, (5) cỗxe... just for 車 chē (xa) (see etymology in previous section). Naturally we would like to take the face value of one or more ways of their interpretation and incorporate their results into those of our own research. Only then, naturally, could we see that they are only of relatively approximate reconstructed values for which we may end up coming up with the same sound values.

Of course, old sound values can not be done arbitrarily, as in the case of 'chài+lưới', of which 'chài' is closer to /*jraih/, synonymous to 'lưới' in the synonymous compound construction. Diachronically 'chài' must be an older form of 'lưới', which, in turn, is older than 'la' as in SV, which appears as 'luó' in M of which the sound value might have been close to what was said in MC.

In any cases, “all of them are hypotheses,” as stated in Axel Schuessler’s (1987, p.xi) words, “most of them contain one or other idea which I believe ought to be taken into consideration when attempting to retrieve the Old Chinese language.”

Therefore, taking results completed by renowned specialists -- we do not need to re-invent the wheel, do we? -- and adapt them to this SV study is the author’s intended approach and is regarded as a better way to deal with variations of OC historical phonology. If we strictly follow one reconstruction version, either of our own or of somebody else, beside the question of its authencity, sooner or later we will face problems of sound reconciliation in order to match those etyma under investigation which may obviously appear to be cognates in both C and V.

E) Vietnamese and Chinese commonalities

1) Modern dialectal similarities

The fact that numerous Vietnamese words are quite similar to those of contemporary C dialects, including M, commonly used in a colloquial manner suggests something quite subtle about their kinship beside the cultural context that both the V and C have long been sharing. Let's consider these solid examples:

chào 'hello' [ SV tảo | M 早 zăo < MC tsaw < OC *tsaw ],
chúngmình, chúngta, chúngtôi ~ bọnmình, bọntôi 'we' (exclusive) [ SV tamôn | @ M 咱們 zánměn \ Vh @ 咱 zán ~ chúng, bọn { 幫 bāng (bang)} \ ¶ z- ~ b-],
đó (nớ - tiếngHuế dialect) 'that' [ SV na | M 那 nà, nuó < MC nʌ < OC ɲa:r ],
rồi, nổi (particles indicating 'already, capacity') : [ SV liễu | M 了 lē, liăo | ex. không quên nổi: 忘不了! wàng bùliăo!, quênrồi: 忘了 wànglē! ],
sẽ 'will' [ SV tương | M 將 jiāng < MC tsjaŋ < OC *tsjaŋ | § 醬油 jiāngyóu, Cant.: /sijou/ : xìdầu],
vẫn 'still' [ SV nhưng | M 仍 réng | Xī'ān 西安話 dialect /vaŋ12/ ],
hội, họp, hẹn, hụi, hay, hiểu... 'meeting, dating, loan, understand...' [ SV hội | % @ 會 huì ~ hiểu 曉 xiăo (hiểu) ~ hay 知 zhī (tri) | M 會 huì < MC ɣwʌi < OC *guats ],
lòng, tim 'heart, inner feelings' [ SV tâm | M 心 xīn < MC sjəm < OC *sjəm (< *ljəŋʷ) | Pre-SV *sjʌmʔ, § Cant. /sʌm/, Old Viet. : lâm | VS 'lòng' /lɔŋʷ/ and 'tim', SV tâm /tʌm/ | cf. diănxīn 點心: SV điểmtâm, VS lótlòng 'snack, breakfast' | § tìm: 尋 xún (tầm) < MC tsjim < OC *lhjəm < PC*ljəm ],
mắt 'eye' [ SV mục | M 目 mù < $ OC *mukʷ, Hai. /mat/, ex. 目鏡 /matkɜng/ mắtkiếng 'eyeglasses' (Hainanese), note also the same word order) ],
ốm, ròm, hom, homhem 'skinny' [ SV ân | @ & '奀 ēn (hom)' + '奀 ēn (~ hem)' | M 奀 ēn | § M 瘦 shòu: VS gầy ~ sỏ ],
bụbẫm (mậpphệ) 'healthy (baby), fat' [ SV phìbạn | M 肥胖 féipàn \ @ 'nộm' | @& 肥 féi (phì, mập, bụ) + 肥 féi (phệ, bẩm) | M 肥 féi < MC bwyj < OC *bjəj ],
biết 'know' (?) [ /bat/ (Hananese) | According to: Tsu-lin Mei : FC (Fuzhou) paiʔ, AM (Amoy) bat ‘to know, to recognize’. AM b-generally corresponds to FC m-; the upper register tone with a voiced initial is also incongruous. Douglas gives a Tung-an form pat for Southern Min, so we regard the AM form as irregular. We can compare all these forms with VN biết ‘to know, to recognize.’],
tiếng 'sound, fame, (Viet.) language' [ SV thanh | M 聲 shēng < MC ʂeŋ < OC *xeŋ | Cant. ʃieŋ21, Amoy: sɨŋ11 (literary); siã11, Chaozhou: siã11, Fukienese siŋ11 (literary); Zyyy: ʃijəŋ1],
gàtrống, gàcồ 'rooster' [ SV kêcông | M sound for this dialectal form as 雞公 jīgōng (kêcông) ~ modern M 公雞 gōngjī (côngkê) | Dialects: 雞公 jīgōng (Hainanese /koikong/, Fukienese, and Amoy - note the same word order) ],
gàmái, gàmẹ 'hen' [ SV kêmẫu | M sound for this dialectal form as 雞母 jīmǔ (kêmẫu) ~ modern M 母雞 mǔjī (mẫukê) | 雞母 jīmǔ (Hai. /koimaih/ Fukienese, and Amoy - note the same word order) ],
đậuphụng 'peanut' 花生 huāshēng [ # /wundou/ (Hainanese), § Northern V 落 luò (SV lạc) for 'peanut' ],
soài 'mango' (?) [ /suã/ (Fukienese) ],
cam 'orange' [ SV cam | M 柑 gān <, MC kʌm <, OC *ka:m ],
quýt 'tangerine' [ SV quất | M 橘 jú <, MC kjwit <, OC *kwit ],
chanh 'lemon' [ SV trành, also: VS camsành 'orange' @& '柑 gān (cam)' + '橙 chéng (sành)' | M 橙 chéng | modern M 檸檬 níngméng <~ 'lemon' (Eng.) ],
tầmbậy 'nonsense' [ M 三八 sānbā (tầmbạ, sàbát...)(Fukienese, Taiwanese, Hainanese) ],
cùlét 'tickle' [ /kalɛt/ (Hainanese) (= thọclét, chọccười | M 胳肢 gézhī ],
trúng ~ đúng 'correct', 'hit in right spot' [ M 中 zhòng (C norteastern dialects) ],
đừng 'do not' [ M 甭 péng (Beijing dialect) ],
đuợc 'obtain, get' [ M 得 dé (Beijing dialect) 'OK', Cant /tak/ | M 得 dé < MC tɤk < OC *tjə:k],
xong 'OK, done' [ M 成 chéng (Beijing dialect) | M 成 chéng < MC ʑeŋ <, OC *deŋ],
mai 'tomorrow' [ M 明兒 mínr (Beijing dialect) ~> mainày | M 明 míng < MC maiŋ < OC *mraŋ | modern M míngrì 明日: ngàymai) ],
luônluôn 'always' [ M 老老 láoláo (Beijing dialect -- a case of loangraph or jiăjiē 假借) | M 往 wăng < wɑŋ < OC *waŋʔ | modern Mand. 往往 wángwăng)],
đượcrồi 'that's fine' [ SV đắcliễu | M 得了 déle (Beijing dialect, Hainanese /dakljaw/) ],
hiềnlành, hiềnlương 'good character' [ SV thiệnlương | M 善良 shānliáng \ @ 善 shàn (thiện) ~ hiền 賢 xián (^thiện) | M 善 shàn < MC dʑɜn < OC *ɖarʔ ],
tấttả, vấtvả 'work hand to mouth' [ SV bônba | M 奔波 bēnbó | M 奔 bēn < MC pon < OC *pjə:r, *pjə:rs | FQ 博昆, 甫悶 ],
tắmrữa 'bathe' [ SV tẩytảo | M 洗澡 xízăo /tojat/ (Hainanese) | M 洗 xǐ, xiăn (tẩy, tiển) < MC siej < OC *sjə:rʔ | ¶ x- ~ r- : ex. 婿 xū (tu) rễ, 鬚 xū (tu) râu ],
bánh 'cake' [ SV bính | M 餅 bǐng < MC pjɛŋ < OC *peŋʔ ],
cháo 'rice portridge' [ SV chúc | M 粥(鬻) zhōu, zhù, yù < MC tʂiwk < OC *tɕuwk ],
phở (also: bún, bột, bụi) 'noodle soup, noodle, flour' [ SV phấn | M 粉 fěn < MC pʊn < OC *pjənʔ ],
nào 'which' [ SV na | M 哪 něi, nǎi, nā < MC na < OC *na ],
rácrưới, rácrến 'garbage' [ SV lạpcấp | M 垃圾 lēsē | @ rác < M 垃圾 lāji \ ¶ l- ~ r- <= ra- + k- ],
dêxòm 'lecherous' [ SV dâmtrùng | M 淫蟲 yínchóng (hence giving rise to => another alternation "quỹrâuxanh" 淫蟲鬼 yíngchóngguǐ) ],
đạochích 'burglar' [ SV đạotặc | M 盜賊 dàozéi | M 賊 zéi < MC ʑæk < OC *ʑɦjə:k < PC: **ɕhjə:k ~ ʑhjə:k | Tibetan: ʑag cướp, Kachin: ʑok2, sok2 to scout, spy out ],
đánhcắp 'rob, steal' (~ đánhcướp, => ăncướp ~ ăncắp) 'to rob, steal' [ SV đảkiếp | M 打劫 dăjié \ @ 打 dă ~ ăn | M 劫 < MC kɛp < OC *ka ],
ănđòn 'get beaten' [ SV nhaiđả | M 挨打 ăidă | M 挨(捱)打 ăidă \ @ 挨 ăi ~ ăn 吃 chī ],
bênhvực 'be on one's side' [ SV bangmang | M 幫忙 bāngmáng \ @ 忙 máng ~ vực \ ¶ m- ~ v- | M 幫 bāng < MC pwʌŋ < OC *pa:ŋ || M 忙 máng < MC mjəŋ < OC *ma:ŋ ],
mĩmcười 'smile' (~ ngậmcười) [ SV hàmtiếu | M 含笑 hánxiào | M 含 hán < MC gæm < OC *ghɒm || M 笑 xiào < MC sjew < OC shaws | ¶ x- ~ c-(k-) ],
chánngán (~ ngánngẫm) 'dreary, sick of' [ SV yếmquyện | M 厭倦 yànjuān | M 厭 yàn < MC ʔjɜm < OC * ʔems | cf. VS 'chánđời' 厭世 yànshì (SV yếmthế) 'world- weary, pessimistic' ],
riêngtư 'privacy' [ SV ẩntư | M 隐私 yǐnsī | M 隱 yǐn < MC ʔyn < OC *ʔjənʔ ],
chếtyểu 'die young' [ SV yêuchiết | @# M 夭折 yāozhé ],
mộttay (~ mộtcây) 'the connoisseur, expert' [ SV nhấtthủ | 一手 yīshǒu ]
bạttai, bàntay 'palm, spank, palm' [ SV bachưởng' | ~ VS táttai, bộptai ~ 批打 pīdă (phêđả) bạttai, | M 巴掌 bāzhăng (~ bộptai < bàntay | Viet 'tay' <~ ® @ bàntay | M 巴掌 bāzhăng ~ bạttai, | M 掌 zhăng \ Vh @ 掌 zhăng ~ tay 手 shǒu (thủ) | § 巴腳 bājiăo bànchân, bạttai 巴掌 bāzhăng (~ bàntay) -- bā => bạt, bộp, and bàn, tai in bạttai~> tay, therefore 掌 zhăng => tay || Dialects: Sichuan, Cant., Amoy : 手板 shǒubăn (thủbản) # 'bàntay' | ex. 一巴掌 yī bāzhăng (một bạttai) ]
bắtcóc 'kidnap, abduct' [ SV bảnggiả | M 綁架 băngjià \ @ 綁 băng ~ bắt 捕 bǔ (bổ), @ 架 jià ~ 'cóc' | M 綁 băng < MC pjəŋ ],
lẽsống 'ideal, raison d'être' [ SV lítưởng | M 理想 líxiăng \ @ 想 xiăng ~ sống 生 shēng ]
tồitệ 'vicious' [ SV tibi | M 卑鄙 bēibǐ ]
barọi [ SV phìnhục | M 肥肉 féiròu ]
đáidầm [ SV niệusàng | M 尿床 niàochuáng ]
đồngbạc 'monetary unit' [ SV đồngbản | M 銅板 tóngbăn > 銅 tóng ~> ® 'đồng'. 'bạc' evolved from 錢幣 qiánbì (tiềntệ) 'tiềnbạc' (money) by associating 幣 bì with 白 bái (bạch) <~ 白金 bái (bạchkim). ],
bantrưa 'noon time' [ SV bạchtrú | M 白晝 báizhòu | M 晝 zhòu < MC ʈǝw < OC *triws | Pulleyblank: LMC triw < EMC: *trow ],
banngày 'daytime' [ SV bạchnhật | M 白日 báirì | Note: in V "ban", a syllabic morpheme used as prefix, a marker to indicate period during the day, as in "banngày" or "banđêm", might have been derived from 白日 báirì (banngày). The concept "ban" is further associated with 晚間 wănjiān to give rise to "banđêm" while "ban" is not actually 白 bái or 晚 wăn, but, interestingly enough, 飯 fàn (SV phạn, 'meal' for 'bữa' ~> 'ban'), and "đêm" certainly not from 間 jiān, but 宵 xiāo (SV tiêu, 'evening'). This sound must have been picked up, altered, and spread by the illiterate populace first with the concept of "time" as in "daytime" "and "night time". Similarly, that is how "banmai" 平明 píngmíng, "bantrưa" 白晝 báizhòu, "bantối" 半夜 bànyè, "banchiều" 傍晚 bángwăng, "bannảy" 剛才 gāngcái had come about, a product of association with "ban" or "bữa". The same logic can be equally applied to "banngàybanmặt" (in broadthdaylight) and "banđêmbanhôm" (deep into the night), which are the sound change variants of 青天白日 qīngtiān báirì and 三更半夜 sāngēng bànyè, respectively. As we can see, "ban" in all cited illustrations appears only in dissyllabic formation, and, in fact, as a morphemic syllable, it cannot be used independently. From this observation, we can say that the morpheme "ban-" is a relatively new concept had been associated with other lexical forms to convey the connotation of period during the day. The older monosyllabic words "ngày" and "đêm" might have shared the same roots with those languages in the MK linguistic family or they could have been cognates to the Chinese rì 日 and xiāo 宵 (reconstruction of these two words is another issue to be dealt with later.)],
and so on...

Though those cullturally accented words listed above do not include all the basic words, to be discussed later, as one would expect, at least many of them suggest some unique linguistic characteristics and pecularities that C and V both share in common speech. No other MK languages have ever come close in this respect.

Unsurprisingly many people still cannot make connections with a great number of examples cited above and throughout this paper because those words do not look like cognates at all simply because parts of those words, either an initial, medial, final, or ending, do not show close similarities that usually appear in patterns as in the case of SV. In historical phonology of any language sound divergence could commonly go further that those examples.

In historical linguistics, with a span of more than 3000 years in traceable contact (Zhang. 1990), as in the case of V and C words, except for those later loanwords, of the same source, ancient ones as well as those of local renovation or results of lexical development, you cannot always find definite one-to-one correspondences occurring concurrently in all phonetic fileds of initials, medials, finals or syllabic endings (that is, vần -- SV vận -- or yùn 韻, the second part of a whole syllabic sound ending in a string of a monosyllabic word without the attachment of the initials, for instance, -at, -ang, -uyên, etc.. an essential phonological element, a unique linguistic trait, in the fields of C and V linguistic studies.

Historically words in each respective language must have evolved in their own way independent of each other after they found their way into the borrowing language. They have been always in the state of being ready to change to suit speech habits of local people. That phenomenon would have likely happened right after the first stage of infiltration of those very words into V. As the time went by sound changes must have kept taking place, naturally, according to the linguistic internal rules of sound changes. In modern time French and English loanwords in V have illustrated best this statement (See APPENDIX A) To understand how sound changes have their way of affecting on cognates, or words of the same roots, let's examine that phenomenon in some examples below (with most of them intentionally taken from the HánViệt or Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary stock for its unquestionable authencity on the patterns of sound changes):

é 鵝: nga (VS: ngang, ngỗng),
ér 而: nhi (VS: mà),
niăo 鳥: điểu (SV),
wān 灣: loan (VS: vịnh ~ vũng),
xì 惜: tiếc (SV: tích),
xì 吸: hút (SV: hấp),
qì 氣: hơi (SV: khí, Cant. /hei/),
bí 蓽: tốt (VS: rốt),
jí 集: tập (VS: gộp),
lǜ 率: suất (VS: mức, mực),
rì 日: nhật (VS: giời, ngày),
chéng 承: thừa (VS: dâng),
rè 熱: nhiệt (VS: rát, nhức),
xiě 寫: tả (VS: chảy),
xué 學: học (Cantonese: /hok/, Hainanese: /fat/),
yì 議: nghĩa, ngãi,
mín 民: dân,
míng 名: danh,
pīng 娉: sính,
shàn 扇: phiến,
yù 愉: thâu, du (VS: ẩu, vui),
yì 藝: nghệ (VS: nghề),
ròu 肉: nhục (VS: ruốc, (chả)lụa, (ba)rọi),
yì 臆: ngực (SV: ức),
yì 憶: nhớ (SV: ức),
yóu 郵: bưu,
yóu 柚: bưu (SV: bưởi, bòng),
chī 吃: ăn (SV: ngật, cf. radical "ất", ~ shí 食: VS xơi),
tìng 聽: nghe (SV: thính, Hainanese: [k'e]),
shēng 生: đẻ (SV: sinh, Hainanese: [de]),
qián 前: trước (SV: tiền, Hainanese: [tai]),
xí 習: tập (VS: thói(quen)),
xǐ 洗: tẩy [VS: tắm, rữa, giặt | @ xǐzăo 洗澡: tắmrữa (Hainanese: /tojat/), xǐliăn 洗臉: rữamặt, xǐyī 洗衣: giặtáo ],
xuěhèn 雪恨 : rữahờn (SV: tuyếthận)...

Take a closer look and we will see that many of them, in comparison with modern M, have been changed beyond recognition in both initials and finals; they were dropped and changed completely at the same time. Further compare them with Cant., a fairly close phonological system with today's SV, you will have an overall picture of such similar sound changes. In any cases, we can always draw patterns by tracing the lexical and phonological trails that sound changes have left in each language under examination.

As a matter of fact, sound changes might have occurred systematically following strict linguistic rules as clearly shown in SV vocabulary stock (từ HánViệt) with which it is easier to draw general rules than with the older colloquial VS words, which seemed not to have happened by shifts and bounces in batches as those of scholarly SV sound system. Penetration of French words, again, into the V vocabularies during the first half of last century must have evolved into local pronunciation in a somewhat similar manner (See APPENDIX A).

Another aspect of this matter should be considered is that most of the VS words are not directly derived from those of SV. Even though many of them are close in sound, they must have been originated from one or more major C dialects spoken at different times and places in the long past history when the then "Vietnamese" ancestors, i.e., all those people who spoke some form of Proto-Vietic speech, had been in closer contact with the people who spoke those dialects. It is not difficult to see that many of those V words of C origin appear to be much older than the SV words of the same cognates such as those of

buồng (SV phòng) 'room' [ M 房 fáng < MC baŋ < OC* bwɒŋ | MC reading 宕合三平陽奉],
buồm (SV phàm) 'sail mast' [ M 帆 fán < MC bwɒm < OC *bram ],
bè (SV phà) ‘raft’ [ M 筏 fá < MC bwjət < OC *bhat ],
chài (SV la) 'net' [ M 羅 luó ],
cộ (SV xa ~> xe) 'carriage' [ M 車 chē (xa) ],
chè (SV trà) chá 'tea' [ M 茶 chá < MC ɖa < OC *ɫa: < PC **ɫe | FQ 宅加 ],
bụt, vãi (SV Phật) 佛 fó 'Buddha, monk' [ M 佛 fó ] ,
bua, vua (SV vương) 'king' [ M 王 wáng < MC waŋ < *OC wuaŋ | dialects: Shanghai uã2, Taiyuan (Thn): vã1],
bụa, vợ (SV phụ) 'wife, lady' [ M 婦 fù | cf. goábụa 寡婦 guăfù (SV quảphụ) ],
bố (SV phụ) 'father' [ M 父 < pu < paʔ < OC *paʔ (VS bự) < PC **pah (respectful way to address an older person), 父, 甫 (> bố, ex. Bốcái Ðạivương: 父母大王 Fùmmǔ Dàwáng) | Tibetan: dba 'Your Honorable, Sir' ],
mái, mạ, mệ, mẹ (SV mẫu) 'mother' [ M mǔ 母 < MC myw < OC * mjəʔ | MC reading 流開一上厚明 | Cant. /mouh/, tiếng Hai. /mai/ (~ mái) | see © nạ ~ 妳 nǐ (nhĩ) > 娘 niáng (nương) | cf. Amoy bo3, Chaozhou bo3 ],
nạ, nàng, nường (SV nương) [ M 娘 niáng (Beijing dialect 'mom') (ancient V 'nạ' means "mother") | < MC naŋ < OC* nraŋ | MC reading 宕開三平陽泥 | Pk: nuəŋ12, Zyyy: niaŋ12, Amoy nĩu12, Chaozhou niẽ12, Shanghai niã32 | see © nạ | <~ © 妳 nǐ (nhĩ) > Beijing 娘兒 niár ],
tim, lòng (SV tâm) 心 xīn 'heart' [ M 心 xīn ],
đạc, đo (SV độ) 'measure' [ 'đođạc' > @& 度 dù 'đo' + 度 dù 'đạc' | M 度 dù < MC dʌk <OC *dha:k, *da:s < PC **dha: ],
tìm, kiếm (SV tầm) 'look for' [ M 尋 xún < MC tsjim < OC *lhjəm < PC **ljəm],
rương, hòm (SV sương) 'suitcase' [ M 箱 xiāng < MC sjaŋ < OC *saŋ | ¶ s-, x- ~ r- : ex. 鬚 xū (tu) râu | FQ 息良 ], etc.,

2) The role of Mandarin

As you can see, pinyin transcription for modern M is chosen to illustrate mostly throughout this paper. One may ask how on earth V has to do with M at the time when Vietnam had already gained its independence from China in the 10th century while M, a spoken Northern C dialect, had just taken its later forms and shapes in somewhat similarity with its present state only sometime in the Northern Song's Dynasty in the 11th century? In this aspect, certainly M may not be a good pick to do the comparative work in historical linguistics. Nonetheless, patterns of correspondences can still be established and, at the same time, it can be used to serve as a guide to pronunciation of cited words that are under investigation. In the meanwhile OC sounds are still used to prove their cognates. Historically M is a direct descendant of Middle Chinese which, in turn, is a direct descent of OC even though the phonological system of M has undergone a great deal of changes, e.g., its tonal system was reduced to a 4 tone, instead of the original 8 tone, system and its syllabic final stock, or yùn 韻 vần, became much less. (Zhou Zumo. 1991. Zhōngyuán Yīnyùn)

Historically, these deviatory factors in sound changes in M were attributed to some strong influence of some non-Han northern languages, which were spoken by the Kims, or Jīn 金, ancestors of the later Manchurians, who had been dominating China's vast areas of northern territories for more than 900 years which only ended in the early 12th century when the Mongolians came and ruled the whole China for the next 100 years. (Bo Yang 1983. Zī Zhì Tōngjiàn) Then came the Machurians, in the 16th century, who established the Qing Dynasty and had been ruling China until the early 20th century.

Throughout those periods M had always been the official language used in the imperial court and examinations. This language has evolved into a relatively different appearance in comparison with its MC predecessor. In the meanwhile, other dialects such as Cant. -- a southern C dialect with a 9 tone system, usually referred to as the Tang's language '唐話' /toŋwa/ -- and Fukienese -- or Amoy 廈門方言, Xiàmén dialect, also a southern C dialect with 7 tone system, regarded as remnants of the original speech in Han Dynasty -- still retain many ancient phonological pecularities, beside tones, rich in syllabic finals until this day. Those charateristics are no longer existing in modern M.

However, M still can be used as an illustrative tool for the same old reason that in the past it served as an offical language of China and at the present time any C learners must know and, for that matter, it is easier to relate ancient sounds to it in present forms. On the other hand, it is from this popular dialect, among them, interestingly enough, from the Beijing dialect, a very close variant of Mandarin, that I have found all living proofs that show both subtleness and uniqueness of C linguistic elements exist in the V language (VS) as well, for example, bênh 幫 bàng 'to side with', chào 早 zǎo 'hello, bye', mai 明兒 mínr 'tomorrow', đừng 甭 péng 'do not', đuợc 得 dé 'okay', xong 成 chéng 'done, fine' (Beijing dialect), luônluôn 老老 láoláo (Beijing dialect), xịn 新 xīn 'brand new', keokiệt 小氣 xiǎoqì 'stingy', bàxã 媳婦 xífù 'honey (husband to call his wife)', etc.. That undeniable connection implicitly suggests that many of SV words probably have something to do with this northern spoken dialect M. In the meanwhile, M, like Cant. of Fukienese or any C dialects, for that matter, undoubtedly has directly been evolved from the MC. Again, it is from this MC that had given rise to the systematic transformation of its sounds into the existing SV lexicons as we have come to know today and they all co-exist with all other VS words as well.

In fact, M, a dynamic and lively language -- which language is not? -- with its sounds having tremendously changed from its MC form over the time, still shows all traceable linguistic rules of sound changes from ancient time just as those of SV lexicons from the same source. In the meanwhile VS words, or HánNôm stock, so be it called for its C origin, which are commonly used by all the V people in a much more colloquial manner as opposed to those in scholarly and literary SV forms, must have also changed with or without following the same linguistic rules fot the SV, externally and internally. Putting them together we will have an overall phonological picture of sound-change patterns for us to examine. Starting from this foundation we are able to trace back the V etya to the ancient and archaic forms that have given rise to the Nôm sounds by employing the same comparative historical linguistic mechanisms to establish corresponding sound change patterns with modern M.

» Click here to read the next page

Back to VNY2K Homepage

(1) I think the verbage for the last clause should be stated as "whether initially it originated from the same root as those of MK languages or not." However, most of the specialists of V prefer the other and this is where all the debates start since one cannot say other MK languages were originated from "the V linguistic family" since there exists no such a thing, so when one sees there are MK elements in Vietnamese, it is easier to say that Vietnamese was originated from the MK linguistic family. See more in section III) The Mon-Khmer Association.

(2) For a guide to an approximal pronunciation of V, refer to Vietnamese-English dictionary by Nguyễn Ðình-Hoà (1966) or Nguyễn Văn Khôn (1967)

Back to VNY2K Homepage

« Click here to return to the previous page

» Click here to read the next page

ā ē ě ī ǐ ă ō ǒ ū ǔ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ ü