A New Disyllabic Sound Change Approach To Be Explored

The Role Of Vietnamese Disyllabism In Tracing Sinitic-Vietnamese Vocabulary

by dchph

Abbreviations:

SV: Sino-Vietnamese (HánViệt)
VS: Sinitic-Vietnamese (HánNôm)

Contemporary Vietnamese vocabulary is dominated by disyllabism, the prevalence of two-syllable lexical units. This structural feature has become one of the defining traits of modern Vietnamese, most visible in compounds formed from two synonymous word-syllables. Strikingly, this pattern parallels developments in modern Chinese, where disyllabic synonyms are coined in similar fashion and often serve as models for their Vietnamese counterparts.

Contemporary Vietnamese vocabulary is marked by disyllabism – the predominance of two‑syllable lexical units. This structural feature has become one of the defining traits of modern Vietnamese, most evident in compounds formed from paired, near‑synonymous syllables. Strikingly, this pattern parallels developments in modern Chinese, where disyllabic synonyms are coined in similar fashion and often serve as models for Vietnamese counterparts.

Vietnamese thus reveals itself as inherently disyllabic, demonstrated by the abundance of composite words whose constituent syllables overlap semantically. Examples include tức|giận ('mad/angry'), trước|tiên ('firstly/initially'), cũ|kỹ ('ancient/old'), and kề|cận ('by/near'). These pairings embody a kind of semantic doubling that is both stylistic and etymological.

Why does this matter for etymology? A close analysis of disyllabic compounds uncovers underlying sound‑change patterns that trace back to Chinese equivalents. Both lexical and semantic approaches are relevant. Lexically, many Vietnamese compounds consist of two monosyllabic elements that are not simple translations, but nuanced adaptations of distinct Chinese syllables.

Take tức|giận (~ tứckhí) as an example. This compound divides into tức and giận, two near‑synonyms. Their Chinese counterparts, qì 氣 ('anger, energy') and hèn 恨 ('resentment'), occupy similar semantic fields. Yet the modern Chinese compound shēngqì 生氣 ('to get angry') provides a more plausible cognate for tứcgiận. Notably, the Vietnamese word order is reversed – a phenomenon frequently observed in borrowings from Chinese disyllabic structures, and one that merits further exploration.

Similarly, trước|tiên corresponds to shǒuqiān 首先 (đầutiên). It is composed of trước (a Sinitic reflex of qián, cf. Hainanese /tăi/) and tiên (SV form of qiān). In this pairing, trước semantically substitutes for đầu (shǒu 首), forming a compound through associative sandhi, a process in which conceptual overlap drives lexical pairing.

The compound cũ|kỹ /kʊkei/ illustrates another pattern: kỹ functions as a reduplicative echo of cũ, yet phonetically aligns more closely with jiù 舊 ('old'), suggesting a layered etymological relationship. The same compositional logic applies to kề|cận /kekʌn/, derived from kàojìn 靠近 ('to be near') or jiējìn 接近 ('to approach'). These are also cognate with expressions such as gầngũi and gầnkề, whose syllabic order is reversed to fit local speech habits.

Disyllabism emerged as a later development in both Chinese and Vietnamese. However, native forms such as trước, cũ, and gần, in contrast to their Sino‑Vietnamese counterparts tiên, cựu, and cận, represent older lexical materials that point to shared roots. These native forms participate in the same disyllabic constructions and carry equivalent contextual meanings across both languages.

This convergence reveals how deeply intertwined Vietnamese is with Chinese. The two languages share structural features – most notably disyllabism – that shaped the trajectory of sound change between them. These changes did not occur in isolation, but within the framework of shared phonological and morphological tendencies.

Several sound‑change patterns can be observed at face value: ‑ang > ‑at, ‑ong > ‑aw, n‑ > d‑, and so forth. While these shifts follow principles that will be addressed later, the key insight is that sound changes often occurred in phonological batches – transformations of entire syllabic units rather than isolated phonemes. Examples include ‑ương > ‑ang, ‑ong > ‑aw, ‑ang > ‑at, and ‑at > ‑an. These changes reflect a systemic restructuring of disyllabic clusters, not simple one‑to‑one correspondences of vowels or initials.

As Chinese evolved toward a more disyllabic structure, its lexical influence on Vietnamese likewise manifested in disyllabic form. When Chinese disyllabic words entered Vietnamese, they did so as paired syllables – whole entities – rather than as atomized phonemes. This underscores the importance of disyllabic sound‑change patterns in the etymological study of Sino‑Vietnamese vocabulary.

The logic behind this approach rests on both historical evolution and linguistic typology. If Chinese is now widely classified by leading institutions as a polysyllabic language, then Vietnamese, which mirrors many of its structural features, should be considered polysyllabic as well. Only within this framework can we fully grasp how sound changes occurred and why disyllabic words appear as they do today. In essence, these words retained their disyllabic identity as they transformed within Vietnamese.

Consider the following examples:

• 氣 qì → hơi, as in 氣車 qìchē: xehơi
• 小氣 xiǎoqì → keokiệt and bủnxỉn (kiệt, xỉn)
• 客氣 kèqì (~ 客套 kètào) → kháchsáo, kháchkhứa (sáo, khứa)
• 生氣 shēngqì → tứcgiận (with reversed order: giận/tức), while 生 shēng alone corresponds to sống

Additional examples include:

• 家人 jiārén → ngườinhà (reversed order)
  
• 人家 rénjiā → ngườita (jiā → ta)
  
• 大家 dàjiā → tấtcả (jiā → cả)
  
• 幫忙 bāngmáng → bênhvực, with 忙 máng giving rise to bận and mắc
  
• 巴掌 bāzhǎng → bạttai ~ bàntay

The preceding examples show that disyllabic Chinese compounds entered Vietnamese not as isolated syllables, but as cohesive semantic and phonological units. In the process, they frequently underwent reversal of word order, reduplication, or substitution by native elements. This disyllabic logic provides the foundation for the methodology advanced in this study of Vietnamese etymology.

When disyllabic words are treated as unified lexical entities, the scope of sound change becomes multifaceted. Crucially, these changes operate independently of the constraints that govern monosyllabic words. A syllable that behaves predictably in isolation may shift unpredictably when embedded within a compound. To classify Vietnamese as strictly monosyllabic is therefore to miss the central hypothesis of this research: sound change must be analyzed through a disyllabic lens.

Once this principle is adopted, the rationale behind transformations such as ‑ư > ‑a, ‑iê > ‑a, ‑au ~ ‑ông, ‑at ~ ‑an, ‑an ~ ‑ôt, ‑ai ~ ua, and others becomes clear. Rigid one‑to‑one phonemic correspondences (e.g., ‑a‑ must be ‑ươ‑, ‑ng must be ‑ng, d‑ must be n‑) fail to capture the broader phonological dynamics at work.

In practice, sound changes unfolded within linguistic constraints shaped by cultural factors (e.g., mẹ ~ mợ) and local speech habits (e.g., kháchkhứa). They also followed patterned trajectories within a shared kinship of languages. For instance, while English cut and Vietnamese cắt are not cognates, Chinese 隔 gé [kə²] and cắt may be linked when viewed through the historical lens of Vietnamese development alongside Chinese, with extensive borrowing across dialectal strata.

This study therefore adopts a disyllabic‑centered approach to the etymology of Vietnamese words of Chinese origin. By recognizing the disyllabic nature of Vietnamese, we move beyond viewing sound change as isolated phonemic events, and instead treat them as dynamic transformations of entire syllabic clusters. These patterns resemble the evolution of Latin polysyllabic roots, which generated diverse lexical forms across Indo‑European languages.

Accordingly, Vietnamese disyllabic words in this paper will be transcribed in combined formation, mirroring Mandarin pinyin conventions, to reflect their structural integrity, for example:

• 廢話 fèihuà 'nonsense' → bahoa ~ baphải
  
• 溫馨 wēnxīng 'warm' → ấmcúng
  
• 開心 kāixīn ~ 高興 gāoxìng 'pleased' → vuilòng

A distinctive feature of disyllabic formations is that sound changes between syllables often diverge sharply from their original phonological forms. These shifts are not random; they reflect dynamic processes that reshape both sound and meaning. Examining this phenomenon in depth helps explain why many Vietnamese words, though derived from Chinese, appear both phonologically and semantically distinct from their sources.

Multiple sound changes within a single syllable of a disyllabic word can illuminate broader patterns, but they also risk confusing readers, who may misinterpret such variants as irregular or ad hoc. This study clarifies these patterns by demonstrating that disyllabic sound change is systematic, historically grounded, and central to identifying the extensive corpus of Vietnamese vocabulary of Chinese origin.

Consider the disyllabic characteristics of the examples cited above. One may reconcile the phonological shift from 費 fèi to ba, yet the semantic connection remains elusive. Clearly, ba in Vietnamese bears no relation to meanings such as 'three' or 'father'. Conceptually, fèi aligns more closely with phế ('waste') and bỏ ('abandon'), both of which carry connotations of rejection or uselessness.

Equally important is the fact that the individual syllables ba- and ‑hoa in bahoa do not hold independent lexical meaning in Vietnamese, unlike their etymological roots in Chinese. As bound morphemes, they function together to form a unified semantic unit: bahoa ('nonsense'). In this case, one plus one yields one – a single meaning rather than two separate definitions. The same structural logic applies to baphải.

By contrast, the semantic evolution of fèi into bỏ- is more transparent. Consider the following examples:

• bỏphế 費除 fèichú, 'eradicate'
• bỏđi 費棄 fèiqì, 'abandon'
• đồbỏ 費物 fèwù, 'the unwanted' (reverse order)
• bỏhoang 荒費 huāngfèi, 'deserted' (reverse order)

Yet, as with ba, bỏ is not exclusively linked to fèi. Sound changes from Chinese into Vietnamese – particularly those embedded in disyllabic compounds – are manifold and highly context‑dependent. To grasp how these changes operate beyond the limits of monosyllabic etymological roots, and how they are shaped by both phonological association and semantic dissimilation, we must turn to additional Vietnamese expressions derived from Chinese disyllables that produce homophones with bỏ.

• bãibỏ 排除 páichú, 'abolish'
• bỏphiếu 投票 tóupiào, 'cast a ballot'
• bỏrơi 抛棄 pàoqì, 'abandon' (~ bỏngõ)
• bỏđi 離去 líqù, 'leave' (~ rađi)
• bỏqua 放過 fàngguò, 'let go' (~ bỏlỡ), alternation of 錯過 cuòguò, a doublet of 放過
• bỏmặc 不理 bùlǐ, 'abandon'
• bỏlỡ dịpmay 放過機會 fàngguò jīhuì, 'miss an opportunity' (~ bỏqua dịpmay)
• bỏtiền (vô túi) 放錢(進入口袋里) fàngqián (jìnrù kǒudài lǐ), 'put money into the pocket'
• bỏtiền ra mua 花錢來買 huàqián lái măi – 'spend money to buy'
• bỏphí 白費 báifèi, 'to waste'
• bỏphiếu 投票 tóupiào, 'to vote'

The examples above demonstrate how Vietnamese disyllabic formations often diverge both phonetically and semantically from their Chinese origins. These transformations are not random; they reflect dynamic processes of adaptation, reordering, and semantic realignment. This reinforces the central thesis of this study: Vietnamese etymology of Chinese origin must be approached through the lens of disyllabism, where sound change is understood as a holistic restructuring of paired syllables rather than isolated phonemic substitutions.

The emergence of bỏ in the examples above, along with other lexical innovations, reflects a range of contextual factors. These transformations involve not only phonological and semantic assimilation but also syntactic reordering, particularly through reversed word structure. This is evident in compounds such as đồbỏ and bỏhoang, which likely arose as local adaptations to fit Vietnamese syntactic habits.

Similarly, the phonological evolution of 話 huà into hoa is plausible. But how does huà become phải? The sound change rule /hw/ > /fw/ is well attested in Chinese dialects such as Cantonese and Fukienese, diverging from Middle Chinese or Mandarin. In disyllabic formations, /fwa/ can naturally shift to /fai/, producing forms like baphải ('nonsense'). Meanwhile, monosyllabic huà evolved into lời ('spoken word') in Vietnamese, with the Sino‑Vietnamese equivalent thoại. This pattern parallels other correspondences such as 火 huǒ → lửa, and 夥 huǒ → lũ.

Comparable processes explain other shifts:

• 快 kuài → mau (also a loan graph for 'happy', cf. Sino‑Vietnamese vui)

• 點 diǎn → lên

Importantly, lên in this context does not mean 'ascend' or 'get on'; rather, it functions as a command particle, akin to "up" in English phrases like "hurry up." Phonologically, the shift from [tjen] to [len] is plausible. The syllable 點 [tjen] corresponds to a wide semantic range in Vietnamese – tiếng ('hour'), châm ('ignite'), chấm ('dot/dip'), tí ('a bit'), điểm, đếm ('count') – all reflecting the breadth of 點 in classical and modern Chinese dictionaries.

Consider lênđây 上來 shànglái ('come up here'): shàng aligns with lên ('ascend'), while ‑lái functions as a particle and ‑đây corresponds to a directional adverb, akin to 這 zhèi in Chinese.

Now take 溫 wēn → ấm, a straightforward correspondence. But how does 馨 xīn become cúng? Clearly, this is not the same as cúng 供 gòng (Sino‑Vietnamese cống, 'to offer to spirits'). Instead, it reflects a phonological transformation: 馨 xīn is also pronounced xīng, with Sino‑Vietnamese hinh, Middle Chinese xieng < hing. The velar x‑ often shifts to a labiovelar /k‑/ or /kʰ‑/ in Vietnamese. Compare 慶, 磬, 罄, all pronounced qìng and rendered as khánh in Sino‑Vietnamese. This phonological pathway helps explain forms like thơmlừng ~ thơmlựng, derived from 新香 xīnxiāng ('fragrant smell').

These examples illustrate the multifaceted nature of sound change from Chinese to Vietnamese. Each disyllabic compound consists of bound morphemes, often inseparable, and each syllable may yield a new sound that diverges significantly from its monosyllabic counterpart. Whether the resulting syllable retains meaning depends on its phonological and semantic association with other words.

Take mau‑ in mauchóng 敏捷 mǐnjié ('quickly'), which reflects a variation of 盡快 jìnkuài (> chóng + mau) and colloquial 馬上 mǎshàng. These forms show how disyllabic Chinese compounds can yield diverse Vietnamese outcomes, often with reversed order to suit local speech patterns – a topic explored further in subsequent sections. Homophones and homonyms abound in both languages.

The true nature of Vietnamese has long been mischaracterized as monosyllabic (tínhđơnâmtiết 單音節性), a language composed primarily of one‑syllable words. While this may have held in ancient times, it no longer reflects the reality of modern Vietnamese. This misconception has misled linguistic scholarship and hindered progress in understanding Vietnamese etymology.

This study aims to correct that misconception by introducing a disyllabic‑centered approach to exploring Chinese‑origin vocabulary in Vietnamese. Departing from the traditional focus on isolated monosyllables and basic roots, this method embraces the structural, semantic, and phonological integrity of disyllabic compounds. It also seeks to establish the linguistic kinship between Chinese and Vietnamese through comprehensive lexical analysis and historical phonology.

The two dimensions of disyllabism and Chinese origin are deeply intertwined, as inseparably as the two languages themselves. Research in either field cannot be pursued satisfactorily without reference to the other. Karlgren (1915), Haudricourt (1954), Chang (1974), Denlinger (1979), Pulleyblank (1984), and many others drew upon Vietnamese when reconstructing Ancient Chinese phonology. Conversely, specialists in Vietnamese such as Haudricourt (1954), Lê (1967), and Ðào (1983) relied on Chinese dialectal evidence to illuminate Vietnamese etymology. All recognized the affinity – whether genetic or areal – between Chinese and Vietnamese. Yet, because their analyses were largely confined to monosyllabism, they did not perceive that the majority of Vietnamese vocabulary in fact derives from Chinese. This narrow focus obscured the broader range of sound changes and structural adaptations that emerge when disyllabic forms are taken into account.

The disyllabic approach to Vietnamese etymology rests on two premises. First, both modern Vietnamese and modern Chinese are fundamentally disyllabic languages: semantically and lexically, each is dominated by two‑syllable words. Second, once cognacy is established at the level of basic vocabulary, kinship between the two languages becomes plausible, since basic words constitute the original lexical core of any language. As we will see, Vietnamese is closely affiliated with both ancient and modern Chinese dialects, literary and vernacular alike (here collectively referred to as "Chinese"). This approach has already yielded striking results: the identification of roughly 20,000 Vietnamese words of Chinese origin, many of which have long been misclassified as Nôm or "pure" Vietnamese.

This disyllabic perspective also accords with the proper treatment of Chinese lexicography. Each Chinese word must be understood as composed of one or more morphemes, each represented by a character, regardless of whether the morpheme is monosyllabic or polysyllabic. In both Chinese and Vietnamese, morphemes typically coincide with syllables, which freely combine with others to form new words. Crucially, these combinations often generate meanings that diverge from the sum of their parts, both in Chinese and in Vietnamese.

Consider the following examples:

1. On the Chinese side:

• 馬上 mǎshàng → mauchóng 'quickly'
• 起碼 qǐmǎ → ítra 'at least'
• 便宜 piányì → bèo 'cheap' (clipping of sound)
• 東西 dōngxī → đồđạc 'things'
• 聊天 liáotiān → tròchuyện 'chat'
• 無聊 wúliáo → lạtlẽo (~ nhạtnhẽo) 'boring'
• 陌生 mòshēng → lạlùng 'strange'
• 花生 huāshēng → đậuphụng 'peanut' (Hai. /wundow/)

2. On the Vietnamese side:

• mặnmà 舔蜜 tiánmì (~ mậtngọt) 'tasty'
• thathiết 體貼 tǐtiè 'heartily'
• cẩuthả 苟且 kǒuqiě (~ ẩutả) 'carelessly'
• vấtvả 奔波 bēnbó (~ tấttả) 'hand to mouth'
• múarối 木偶戲 mùǒuxì 'puppetry'
• trờinắng 太陽 tàiyáng 'sunshine'
• bồihồi 徘徊 báihuái 'sadly'
• chịuđựng 忍受 rěnshòu 'endure'
• bắtđền 賠償 péicháng (~ bắtthường) 'ask for compensation'

These examples show that disyllabic combinations, whether in Chinese or Vietnamese, often generate meanings that cannot be reduced to the sum of their individual syllables. They also demonstrate how Vietnamese has systematically absorbed, adapted, and restructured Chinese disyllabic forms – sometimes through semantic extension, sometimes through phonological transformation, and often through reordering to fit local speech habits.

For the Chinese examples cited above, any trained linguist will immediately recognize the complexity. Chinese dictionaries are filled with characters and polysyllabic words that carry multiple meanings, often with little direct connection between the written graph and the semantic range it conveys. When these forms evolved into Vietnamese, the same phenomenon persisted: words of Chinese origin frequently display semantic shifts and expansions that diverge from their original senses. It is therefore unsurprising that what appears in Vietnamese is not always identical to its Chinese source.

Consider the morpheme 起 qǐ. Its core meaning is 'to rise' (dậy), as in 起義 qǐyì → nổidậy ('rise against'). Yet in other compounds it yields very different senses:

Both qǐ and shùn are bound morphemes in Chinese, yet in Vietnamese they have evolved into multiple sounds, meanings, and lexical items. Their productivity is virtually inexhaustible. Pursuing this line of inquiry reveals that a vast portion of Vietnamese vocabulary can be traced back to Chinese sources.

As the illustrations throughout this paper show, the misconception that Vietnamese and Chinese are essentially monosyllabic has long obscured the reality of disyllabism. Scholars who confined their analysis to monosyllabic roots overlooked the fact that sound changes in disyllabic formations operate independently of their monosyllabic equivalents. Historically, both languages may indeed have been more monosyllabic in structure. For Chinese, this is easier to confirm through literary evidence dating back over two millennia. For Vietnamese, whose oldest texts are only about a thousand years old, the evidence is thinner. Still, the shared stock of basic words points toward an early monosyllabic stage.

In modern Vietnamese, however, the situation is clear: thousands of disyllabic and even polysyllabic words fill the dictionary, though they are written as separate syllables. Earlier scholars such as Barker (1966, p.10) insisted on Vietnamese monosyllabism, claiming: 'With the exception of certain compounds, reduplicative patterns, and loan words, Vietnamese and Muong are both monosyllabic languages.' Yet if this logic were applied to English, it too could be called monosyllabic. Barker's statement betrays a limited grasp of Vietnamese, and unfortunately, some Vietnamese linguists uncritically embraced his authority simply because he was a Western scholar. His phrasing, 'certain compounds, reduplicative patterns, and loan words', misleadingly suggests that such forms are marginal, when in fact they constitute the bulk of the Vietnamese lexicon. By this measure, his claim disqualifies him as a serious authority on the language.

It is true that many Vietnamese disyllabic words can be decomposed into monosyllables that also function independently. Yet a great number cannot. Basic body‑part terms such as cùichỏ ('elbow'), đầugối ('knee'), mắccá ('ankle'), màngtang ('temple'), mỏác ('fontanel'), chânmày ('eyebrow') are disyllabic and indivisible, much like their English counterparts. While components like đầu ('head') or gối ('to lean against') retain independent meanings, the compound as a whole is semantically fixed. The same applies to countless other disyllabic words: càunhàu ('growl'), cằnnhằn ('grumble'), bângkhuâng ('pensive'), bồihồi ('melancholy'), bùingùi ('sorrowful'), mồhôi ('sweat'), mồcôi ('orphan'), bằnglòng ('agree'), taitiếng ('notorious'), tạmbợ ('temporary'), tráchmóc ('reproach'). Sino‑Vietnamese compounds such as hiệndiện ('presence'), phụnữ ('woman'), sơnhà ('fatherland'), and polysyllabic expressions like mêtítthòlò ('irresistible'), húhồnhúvía ('Oh my Lord!'), bađồngbảyđổi ('unpredictably'), hằnghàsasố ('innumerable'), lộntùngphèo ('upside down'), tuyệtcúmèo ('wonderful') further demonstrate the vitality of multi‑syllabic word formation. If written in combined formation rather than as separate syllables, these words would present a very different impression to learners, Barker included.

Vietnamese linguists such as Bùi Ðức Tịnh (1966, p.82) and Hồ Hữu Tường rightly rejected the monosyllabic classification, treating Vietnamese instead as a disyllabic language. The sheer proportion of Sino‑Vietnamese vocabulary in modern usage, comparable to the role of Latin and Greek roots in English, is sufficient to establish Vietnamese disyllabism, even before considering native compounds and polysyllabic forms. Koreans and Japanese have long recognized this principle, consistently writing Chinese loanwords in grouped formation. By contrast, the Vietnamese writing system still separates disyllabic words into individual syllables, obscuring their true lexical unity.

The same applies to Chinese itself. Modern Chinese dialects are overwhelmingly disyllabic. As Chou (1982, p.106) cites Eugene Chin: 'If we admit that words, not morphemes, are the construction material of Chinese, we cannot but admit that Chinese is polysyllabic. If we may use the majority rule here, we will have no trouble establishing the fact that Chinese is dissyllabic.'

From this premise, it follows that Vietnamese and Chinese must be studied as disyllabic systems. A single Chinese disyllabic word can yield multiple Vietnamese outcomes. For example, 三八 sānbā (Sino‑Vietnamese tambát, 'nonsense') has evolved into a wide array of Vietnamese forms: tầmphào, tầmbậy, tầmbạ, bảláp, bảxàm, basạo, xàbát, xằngbậy, and more.

The problem with earlier scholarship is clear: by assuming both languages were monosyllabic, linguists sought one‑to‑one correspondences between Chinese characters and Vietnamese words. This old approach confined etymology to isolated monosyllables, obscuring the broader dynamics of disyllabic sound change.

In reality, both languages are disyllabic, and their sound changes follow the same principles as those of other polysyllabic languages. In Indo‑European, for instance, polysyllabic roots often evolve unevenly across languages: Latin gelatan → French gelée; or the word 'police,' which appears as politi, polizei, policia, polizia, polite, polis, polisi, and even phúlít (an older Vietnamese borrowing from French). Vietnamese and Chinese must be understood in the same way: as disyllabic systems whose sound changes operate at the level of whole compounds, not isolated syllables.

What, then, does this rule reveal about Vietnamese words of Chinese origin? In theory, when a single Chinese character – coinciding with both a syllable and a word – is borrowed into Vietnamese, it should yield only one equivalent sound or form. In practice, however, the situation is far more complex: many Chinese characters correspond to multiple Vietnamese sounds and words.

The same multiplicity appears in compounds. Consider 場 chǎng (Sino‑Vietnamese trường, tràng), which surfaces in Vietnamese with several distinct realizations:

• 場 chăng SV trường, tràng, but in Vietnamese there are several sounds:
• 劇場 jùchăng (SV: kịchtrường, VS sânkhấu, 'stage'),
• 式場 shìchăng (SV: thítrường, VS trườngthi, 'examination site'),
• 戰場 zhànchăng (SV: chiếntrường, VS chiếntrận), hence, trậnchiến 'battle' (note: word order is in reverse in all three cases above),
• 一場夢 yì chăng mèng (SV: nhất trườngmộng, VS một giấc/cơn mơ/mộng, 'dream') (binoms),
• 一場病yì chăng bìng (SV: nhất trườngbệnh, VS một trận/cơnbệnh ,'illness') (binoms),
• 一場戲 yì chăng xì (SV: nhất trường hí, VS một xuấthát, 'a show') (binoms),
• 一場空 yì chăng kong (SV: nhất trườngkhông, VS một khoảngtrống, 'nothingness, nada') (binoms),
• 在場 zàichăng (SV: tạitrường, VS tạichỗ ~ tạitrận, 'on spot, red-handed'), etc.

The sandhi process of association operated not only at the level of syllables, where adjacent sounds with similar forms and meanings could be assimilated, but may also have occurred prior to their transmission into Vietnamese, as in cases where 陣 zhèn (Sino‑Vietnamese: trận) or 黜 chù (Sino‑Vietnamese: xuất) became associated with chăng.

These examples show that the transfer of Chinese into Vietnamese is not a matter of one‑to‑one equivalence. Instead, each character may yield multiple Vietnamese reflexes, shaped by phonological shifts, semantic extensions, and even syntactic reordering, such as the frequent reversal of word order in compounds.

Conclusion

The evidence presented in this study makes clear that Vietnamese cannot be adequately understood through the outdated lens of monosyllabism. Both Vietnamese and Chinese are fundamentally disyllabic languages, and their shared reliance on two‑syllable lexical units has shaped the course of their historical interaction. By tracing disyllabic sound‑change patterns – often involving reversal, reduplication, or semantic extension – we uncover systematic processes that explain why so many Vietnamese words, long assumed to be 'pure' or Nôm, in fact derive from Chinese.

This disyllabic‑centered approach reframes Vietnamese etymology: sound change is not a matter of isolated phonemes but of whole syllabic clusters transforming together. It also situates Vietnamese within a broader typological context, comparable to the evolution of polysyllabic roots in Indo‑European languages. The result is a more accurate picture of Vietnamese as a language deeply intertwined with Chinese, not only through shared vocabulary but also through structural and phonological logic.

Recognizing this kinship allows us to move beyond the limitations of earlier scholarship and to appreciate Vietnamese as a language whose identity has been forged through centuries of dynamic interaction with Chinese. In doing so, we not only correct misconceptions about its supposed monosyllabic character but also open the way for a richer, more comprehensive understanding of its etymological heritage.

dchph 

DRAFT Mar.16.2003, 19:54 pm

References

• Jean Aitchison. (1994). Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Mark J. Alves. (2001). "What's So Chinese About Việtnamese?" In Papers from the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society.

• Raimo Anttila (Editor). (1989). Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

• Leonard Bloomfield. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.

• Theodora Bynon. (1977). Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• André G. Haudricourt. (1954). "Comment reconstruire le chinois archaïque." Word, 10, 351 – 364.

• André G. Haudricourt. (1961). "The Limits and Connections of Austroasiatic in the Northeast." In Norman Zide (Editor), Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.

• Lü Shih‑P'eng. (1964). Việtnam During the Period of Chinese Rule. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

• Nguyễn Tài Cẩn. (1979). Nguồn gốc và Quá trình Hình thành Cách đọc Âm HánViệt. Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa học Xã hội.

• Nguyễn Tài Cẩn. (2000). Giáo Trình Ngữ âm Lịch sử TiếngViệtnam. Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo dục.

• Keith Weller Taylor. (1983). The Birth of Việtnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.

• Herold J. Wiens. (1967). Han Chinese Expansion in South China. USA: Shoe String Press.

x X x