Table of Contents

« Click here to return to the previous page

(Continued)

2) Comparative Mon-Khmer basic words and Vietnamese

Overall, lexical correspondences among those basic words in MK languages with V could point to V as the source whereas many are cognate to those of either or both Chin. and other ST languages (for ST, see next chapter). We are going to discuss some of these matters in this section. Linguists of V commonly started out with a usual approach, that is, they examine only scattered words of Vietnamese neighboring languages of Mon-Khmer origin, similarly as with the case of Danaw in Luce's list. Surprisingly, this methology is widely employed by many specialists of Vietnamese, some being based on the basic common word lists in comparative works between Vietnamese and other Mon-Khmer languages like the two lists compiled by Wilson (1966) and Thomas (1966, p.194) below and we are about to examine one after another that are of major works in the field of MK language studies.

Thomas started out with the premise that "language relationships can only be established with certainty by a study of phoneme shifts and mergers, as their imprint is indelible, while lexical and syntactical features are easily erased." It is especially true when we apply that principle in comparative work of V with other ST languages as we will do in the next chapter. However, even though the idea is commonly practiced as a linguistic norm, this approach needs to be proceeded with great caution because etyma are found scattered and not uniformly proved to be cognate in the same realm of certain lexical classes or even categories in different languages. For this reason we normally have to filter borrowings partially due to geographical proximity between languages, like in the case of V and MK languages, as well as mere coincidental factor commonly associated with monosyllabic words, for instance, the etymon equivalent to 'eye' seem to appear in almost all Austroasiatic, Austronesian, and ST languages.

Let’s now examine all the entries in the word list of Mon-Khmer languages as selected by Thomas, who completed the work with the help of local field recorders. He states that they are genetically related with those of Vietnamese :

Let’s continue to examine another representative work by Wilson (1966) in which the author sided with J. Przyluski's, Thomas' and Buttinger’s view in her quoted statement: “Both the Vietnamese language and the Mường dialects are based on a Mon-Khmer (Cambodian) vocabulary. The words for numbers, family relationships, and domestic animals are of Mon-Khmer origin.” (p. 203) In that paper she calculated the percentage of

“196 basic Mường words compared with the Mon-Khmer family, 65 or 33% are apparent cognates with three or more Mon-Khmer languages. Another 30 possible cognates appear on the second list. Together the two lists yield 48%. Either of these percentages seems to establish Mường as a member of the Mon-Khmer family. This in turn would lend additional strength to the arguments for the inclusion of Vietnamese in the Mon-Khmer family.” (p.213)

This argument is based on the assumption that Mường and Vietnamese being of the same family as widely accepted. However, Wilson also noted that: “Mường seems to show greater similarities to the Mon-Khmer languages than does Vietnamese.” (p.204) Nevertheless, the point to be made here is that Wilson was not aware that many Chinese words also show similarity with her word list. The same is true with the list provided by Thomas above since in that list many of what are commonly shared between them are partially shared by either or both Chinese and several Sino-Tibetan languages (See next chapter on ST).

Here are all “the better attested cognates [which are] listed first in the list” (p.204) and more:

Note: The Mon-Khmer languages considered were Bahnar (Bah), Sedang (Sed), Bơnam (Bnm), Jeh, Rơngao (Rng), Cua, Hre of the Kontum area; Mnong Gar (Gar), Mnong Biat (Biat), Chrao (Chr), Koho of the southern area of South Vietnam highlands; Katu, Bru, Pơkoh (Pko) of the norther area of South Vietnam; Boloven (Bol), Laʔven (Lv), Alak of southern Laos; Kui of east Thailand; and Khmer (Khm) of Cambodia. (p.204)

Ruth S. Wilson's analysis:

"Four points can be seen from the cognate lists: First, frequent correspondences. Second, Mương form intermediate between Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer forms. Third, a wide geographical distribution of the cognates. Fourth, significant cognate percentages between Mương and the Mon-Khmer family."

My observation: A similar conclusion drawn from all the lists above demonstrates that the correspondences between those of Vietnamese and Chinese or ST words (see next chapter) are frequent and in high percentage and they could plausibly be cognates. The fact that the Mương forms stand in between with those of Mon-Khmer could be seen as an intermediate vehicle that spreads words from one language to another. This view fits into the theory of "lexical ripling effect" of neighboring languages, which could be numbers or basic words scattering here and there.

What Thomas called “fundamental words” are also fundamental to both Vietnamese and Chinese. The question of whether genetic affinity with some of the Mon-Khmer languages can be established based solely on those listed words is undoubtedly rebutted by resemblance between Chinese and Vietnamese of the same words, many being closer than those of Mon-Khmer languages and appearing uniformly in all lexical classes and categories. Characteristically, all other linguistic features are shared by both Vietnamese and Chinese and they are also intertwined historically and culturally, so it is logical to opt for the assumption that either those Vietnamese words were derived from Chinese or they evolved from the same roots. What is wrong with the interposed relation of Vietnamese words with those of Mon-Khmer languages in the cited lists is that they are isolated and scattered words even though many are apparently related. Yet, that is how work on the V etymology was normally done with the old approach that usually starts with the premise that Vietnamese is a monosyllabic language. Forrest (1948, p.25) put it well when he paraphrased Karlgren’s words in his work that :

“it is faulty method to compare [..] an isolated word in each of the languages; rather must the comparison begin with related groups of words in one and in the other language, words which, linked in both form and meaning, involve a buried phonetic element common to their group, beside which may be placed a similarly constituted group in other language.”

In fact, lexically, etyma should be examined in categorical batches or related groups of words. For example, since we already known Sinitic-Vietnamese words for 'head' 頭 tóu (đầu), 'eye' mù 目 (mắt), 'heart' 心 xīn (tim), and the like, we can extend our search to other human body parts for phổi 肺 fèi 'lung', gan 肝 gān 'liver', etc., of which many are so obvious that they are barely mentioned in this paper. Most of the etymological cases discussed here are only those which appear to be difficult to relate to.

Similarly we will apply Forrest's "categorical principle" and what is mentioned by Thomas, as quoted previously, regarding to the realm of sounds, or phonology to be exact, in which the manners that sound changes have brought about, to strings of sound. Collectively in polysyllabic formation, they could have taken place differently from those of monosyllabism. In Forrest's time, the idea of dissyllabics might have not been conceived, brought up and considered by many specialists of Vietnamese. Speaking in phonological term, we can take his concept of "related groups of words" one step further to apply it to words not only in the same group, but also within the connotative expression in presenting certain concepts. For instance, inside the group of anatomy, we also have distinct denotation of

• mù 目 (SV mục) : mắt 'eye' which makes
• mùguāng 目光: # ánhmắt 'looking' (SV mụcquang) [ M 光 guāng < MC kwɑŋ < OC *kwa:ŋ | MC reading 宕合一平唐見 | According to Starostin : Also read *kʷa:ŋ-s, MC kwʌ\ŋ, Mand. guàng 'be extensive' (probably < *kʷa:ŋʔ-s, cf. 廣). Schuessler prefers to read it as *kʷa:ŋ with level tone, but Karlgren seems to be right in distinguishing it phonetically from *kʷa:ŋ 'be bright' (a level-tone rhyme for *kʷa:ŋs > EZ *kʷa:ŋh is quite normal). Viet. quáng 'to dazzle, blind' is a colloquial loan (reflecting an unattested *kʷa:ŋ-s > MC *kwʌ\ŋ 'be bright, dazzle' ?); standard Sino-Viet. is quang. | ¶ w- ~ a-],
• máng 盲: mù 'blind' (SV manh) [ M máng 盲 < MC maiŋ < OC *mhra:ŋ ],
• dí 睇 [Cant./thaj/]: thấy 'see' (modern Chin. 'gaze'),
• yăn 眼: nhìn 'look' (modern Mand. 'eye'),
• qīnyăn 親眼: chínhmắt 'see with one's own eyes',
• yănshǐ 眼屎: ghèn 'eye excrete',
• yănpí 眼皮: # mímắt 'eyelid',
• méimáo 眉毛: mimắt 'eyelash' which makes
• yì zhāng méimáo 一張眉毛: chânmày, lôngmày 'eyebrow' (ommissions: yì 'một' ~> méimáo 'mày');
• zuǐ 嘴: môi 'lip',
• zuǐbā 嘴巴: # bờmôi ''lip';
• pìgǔ 屁股: @# cáiđít 'buttocks' (cf. 'phaocâu' chicken's butt) which is certainly related to
• pì 屁: địt 'fart' (SV tí) [ ~ VS 'đít' | M 屁 pì < MC phji < OC *phijs ( *phijts) | MC reading 止開三去至滂 (OC *phijs => đít, địt ) ],
• shǐ 屎: cứt 'feces' (SV thiệt) [ ~ VS dử, ráy | M 屎 shǐ < MC shǐ < OC *ʂij < PC *kijh, ʂijh | Zhou zyxlj p.251 | TB *kip, Burmese: khjijh excrement, Kachin: khji3 excrement, Dimasa: khi, Garo: khi, Bodo: kí, Kham kī; Kanauri khoa, Bahing khl, Digaro: klai. Simon 19; Sh. 44; Ben. 39; Mat. 191.];
• ěrduo 耳屎: tai 'ear', which is related to
• ěrlóng 耳聾: # lãngtai 'partially deaf' (SV nhĩlung) [ ~ VS lãng <~ lãngtai <~ @ ® M 耳聾 ěrlóng ('deaf') | M 聾 lóng < MC luŋ < OC *rho:ŋ | MC reading 通合一平東來 ]
• ěrshǐ 耳屎: # cứtráy 'ear wax'
• tìng 聽: nghe (Hainanese /k'e/): 'hear';
• jiăo 腳: chân (~cẳng) 'leg' (SV cước) [ M 腳 jiăo < MC kak < OC *kak ~ zú 足 ~ giò | MC reading 宕開三入藥見 | FQ 居勺 ] which makes
• bājiăo 巴腳 ~ jiăobăn 腳板 'foot' [dialectal] : bànchân (literally meaning "a table of foot") [ cf. bàntay 手板 shǒubăn ],
• què 瘸: què 'limp' (SV cài) [ M 瘸 què < MC gwa < OC *gwjaj ];
• shǒu 手 ~ zhăng 掌: tay 'hand', which makes the
• shǒubăn 手板 ~ bāzhăng 巴掌 'hand' [ dialectal ]: bàntay 'palm' (literally meaning "a table of hand").

  For zhăng 掌, it must be a later development after shǒu 手, also "tay" (hand). Shǒu 手, at the same time appears in other compounds that has given rise to many Vietnamese words with the same structure as in:

• shuǐshǒu 水手: thuỷthủ 'sailor' ,
• qiáoshǒu 巧手: khéotay 'skillful',
• shùnshǒu 順手: thuậntay (~ sẵntay) 'handy, at one's convenience',
• shǒuzhú 手足: taychân (~ shǒujiăo 手腳) 'hands and feet' (and in the context of 'close kinship'),
• mộttay (~ mộtcây): 'the connoisseur' which might have evolved from yì shǒu 一手 (subsituting 'cây' for shǒu, literally meaning 'one hand' while in Chinese it means 'he himself, he with his hand... doing something) [ cf. cây 樹 shù (SV thụ) 'tree' ],

  and sometimes with alternations as the result of local innovation, such as

• gēshǒu 歌手 (~ @ gēxīng 歌星): casĩ 'singer' (subsituting 'thủ' shǒu 手 or xīng 星 for 'sĩ ' 士, a common affix in building Vietnamese composite words)

or in family relationship:

• fù 父: bố 'dad',
• diè 爹: cha (~ tiá) 'daddy',
• qīndiè 親爹 : charuột 'natural father',
• bā 爸: ba 'father'
• fùqīn 父親: # bốruột 'natural father' [ (SV thân) ~ qīnfù 親父 | | M 親 qīn < MC chjin < OC *shjən ], or
• mǔ 母: mẹ (mệ, mạ, mợ) 'mother',
• niáng 娘: nạ 'mommy' (archaic),
• mā 媽: má 'mother',
• mǔqīn 母親:# mẹruột 'natural mother' [ ~ M qīnmǔ 親母 ],

  and other compounds such as bốmẹ 父母, chamẹ 爹媽, bamá 爸媽 ('parents')...

Obviously, all these words are interconnected in group setting.

Obviously Forrest's concept of "related groups of words" is similar to those words categorized in this paper as "dissyllabics", "corollary", "association", and "analogy" as best reflected in (Read more at VI) Case study worksheet):

• dòu 逗: trêu, đùa, chọc (make fun of) (SV đậu) [ M 逗 dòu < dow < OC *dho:s ]
• dòuxiào 逗笑: trêughẹo, chọcghẹo, đùachợt (make fun of), chọccười (joke), thọclét, cùlét (tickle)
• dòuwán 逗玩: đùagiỡn, chơigiỡn, giỡnchơi (play), đùabỡn (> #bôngđùa), đùadai (play a trick on),

  or

• diăn 點 [tjen]: tiếng (hour), châm (ignite), chấm (dot and dip), tí (a bit), điểm, đếm (count), etc.,
• diándiăn 點點 : títi, tíxíu, chútxiú, lèotèo,... (a little bit, sparingly..),
• diănxīn 點心: lótlòng (SV: điểmtâm) ("dimsum", snack, breakfast),
• kuàidiăn 快點 maulên (hurry up),
• màndiăn 慢點 chậmtí (slow down).

Our cited items are associated with other linguistic contours or attributes of words from one category to another. From there we can even go further with words that seem to be culturally accented. That is to say languages should be studied as a whole with all their linguistic pecularities and, sometimes, even with cultural resemblance which can be used to help linguists establish a timeline of root stock, i.e., when a specific gloss were loaned, on which connections with other words can be reliably used as a baseline. In other words, isolated words are just like displaced words from contextual text. In order for these points to be better illustrated, we must strike hard against the long rooted notion of monosyllabics that has been associated with the Vietnamese language.

Interestingly enough, for certain words we find common idiomatic sayings in both languages that match beautifully, for example, for

1. 葉落歸根 yè luò guī gēng, we have "lá rụng (rơi) về cội" (litterally : 'leaves fall to their root', metaphorically: 'sentimental attachment to one's root'),
2. 飲水思源 yín shuǐ sī yuán "uống nước nhớ nguồn" ('be graceful for what one got'),
3. 含笑九泉 hán xiào jǐu quán "ngậmcười (mĩmcười) chínsuối" ('rest peacefully in the Heaven'),
4. 後會有期 hòu huì yǒu qí "hẹnngày gặplại" ('so long'),
5. 井蝸之見 jǐng wò zhī jiàn "ếch ngồi đáy giếng" ('have a brain of a chicken'),
6. 螳臂擋車 tángbìdăngchē "châuchấuđáxe" ('it's a suicidal fight'),
7. 長氣短嘆 chángqìduăntàn "thanvắnthởdài" ('be depressed'),
8. 含血噴人 hán xiě fèn rén "ngậmmáuphunngười" ('to wrongly accuse'),
9. 結草銜環 jiécăoxiánhuán "kếtcỏngậmvành" (be grateful even unto death),
10. 青天白日 qīngtiān báirì "banngàybanmặt" (daylight),
11. 三更半夜 sāngēng bànyè "banđêmbanhôm" (in the depth of the night),
12. 扣帽子 kòumàozi "chụpmũ" (brand label on somebody),
13. 受不了 shòu bú liăo "chịukhôngnổi" ('cannot hold it'),
14. 忍不住 rěn bú zhù "nhịnkhôngđược" ('cannot stand'),
15. 什麽東西 shénmedōngxī "thứgìđâunè" ('what a jerk!)), etc.

Note that the phonetic contour in the Vietnamese phrases have been altered accordingly to match the Chinese counterparts phonologically and semantically with the sound change patterns that could only occur in polysyllabic clusters or continual strings of sounds, not just only one by one correspondences. That is, the whole string of sound change took place at the same time. In that case, any sound changes in that string would not necessarily undergo strict patterns as they had normally occurred in Sino-Vietnamese phonological system with monosyllabic words. Oftentimes, in such a case, local innovation usually occurs, such as substitution or grammatical word order, as we see with many polysyllabic examples throughout in this paper.

Therefore, while acknowledging the resemblance of the counting numerals and a number of other words in Vietnamese with other Mon-Khmer languages we must recognize that those correspondences in the Mon-Khmer languages are closer among themselves than in Vietnamese. However, this linguistic imprint ought not in anyway be used to deny other connections between Chinese and Vietnamese for most of other words. Here is a word of caution, "too close a likeness is even more suspicious than too distant a one" (Forrest 1958). Hauricourt also observed that "at first sight it may seem dangerous to abandon the principle of regular phonetic change, even in specified cases, but one is forced to admit that the blind application of the principle of regular correspondence leads to the proliferation of reconstructed phonenes and hence to the proliferation of pruely accidental coincidences." (Haudricourt 1966. p328-29.)

On the level of basic words, mostly started as baseline to establish genetic affinity among languages by philologists of Asian Languages, my purpose of reciting of a broad range of several word lists in different languages compiled by several speialists in the field and my additional annotations of Chinese matches is to demonstrate the Vietnamese affiliation with Chinese elements that, in turn, share with different tongues in the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family. What actually makes V stand out as a distictive and unique language is the same features that should put everything Vietnamese under the Sinitic umbrella given all similarities of what makes up the wholeness of a language. As previously mentioned, in this paper the writer is not trying to prove genetic affinity of V and Chin. but only to show what they have in common with Chinese, etymologically, in addition to other linguistic peculiarities that no other language in the ST linguistic family could equally match. (1)

Historically, to recap, in ancient times composition of "Annamese" populace had been an integration of a large number of Chinese immigrants (as discussed in the section Hypothesis of Chinese origin of Vietnamese) into a larger mixed population of earlier migrants of the Yue origin, also from the farther north, and those Mon-Khmer speakers of indigenous minorities. Having resettled in close proximity they were in contact with each other for some periods of time and, as a result, their languages undoubtedly had shared many common stems, including those of cognitive concepts. For example, we will see that in Thomas' word list below numerals from one to ten in other MK languages are cognate only to those limited to the set of one to five in the Khmer counting system whence they could have been loanwords from V. In this case the argument whether the Vietnamese numerals actually have any connection with Chinese or not is irrelevant, neither does Haudricourt’s argument about the tonal development as illustrated previously. (2)

Based on the examples cited in the previous section and more to follow, but not only limited to, with the scenarioVietnamese > neighboring Mon-Khmer languages that we have established, given the historical settings as forementioned, what shall we classify the V language to better reflect the true nature of V? Even though its linked kinship with Chinese is to be further investigated -- for Haudricourt's hypothesis and its supporters and the popular acceptance of V being currently classed into the Mon-Khmer linguistic branch of the larger Austroasiatic linguistic family in the Asian linguistic circle -- once a larger portion of its basic words has been demonstrated to be cognate to those of Chinese plus all their commonalities and other similar linguistic peculiarities, then I can see why it cannot be a member of the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family, or at least a sub-family, in par with those of Sinitic branch. We will explore this matter in detail in a separate chapter regarding the Sino-Tibetan connections for this purpose.

Back to top

» Click here to read the next page

Back to VNY2K Homepage