Prelude on the Sinitic Etyma

Tracing Colonial Layers in Vietnamese Lexicon

by dchph

This prelude situates Vietnamese within the broader Sinitic world, emphasizing how etyma — lexical roots and morphemes — migrated through centuries of colonial contact. Rather than treating Vietnamese as derivative, the article frames it as a survival language: Yue substrata grafted with Sinitic overlays, producing a layered lexicon that embodies both resilience and hybridity.

The prelude introduces a new etymological methodology for uncovering camouflaged Sino‑Vietnamese cognate that emphasizes:

• Sound change analysis and morphemic decomposition as tools to reveal hidden Sinitic origins in Vietnamese words.
• Sample picked from hundreds of Vietnamese terms are shown to have plausible Sinitic etyma, even when they look non‑Chinese at first glance.
• The prelude is of a linguistic tree: Yue roots as the foundation, with Sinitic branches grafted on.
• This challenges the Austroasiatic narrative, suggesting Vietnamese belongs within a Sino‑Tibetan framework rather than being purely Mon‑Khmer.

The article concludes by introducing a new etymological methodology for uncovering camouflaged Sino‑Vietnamese cognates. Through sound change analysis and morphemic decomposition, hundreds of Vietnamese words are shown to have plausible Sinitic origins. Vietnamese emerges as a linguistic tree with Sinitic branches grafted onto Yue roots, challenging Austroasiatic narratives and inviting a reevaluation of Vietnam's place within the Sino‑Tibetan family.

The article serves as a methodological overture:

• It introduces the idea that many Vietnamese words, even those not obviously Chinese, can be traced back to camouflaged Sinitic etyma through sound change analysis and morphemic decomposition.
• It frames Vietnamese as a grafted language: Yue substrata as the roots, with successive Sinitic overlays forming the branches.
• It challenges the Austroasiatic narrative, suggesting Vietnamese belongs within a Sino‑Tibetan framework, not simply Mon‑Khmer.
• It sets up the later case studies by showing how lexical survival and hybridity are revealed through etymological methodology.

I) Colonial lexical layers

As the term suggests, a prelude (Chin. 序言, VS 'lờitựa') actually offers no definitive conclusions, but it sets the stage for what follows. This section introduces the underlying Sinitic elements embedded within the Vietnamese etymological layer, elements that have long lain dormant yet may hold the key to reinforcing the fragile foundations of Sino-Tibetan linguistic theory. While some well-informed Vietnamese readers may find the presence of multiple Chinese substrates unsettling, especially when these are layered atop what are traditionally considered native residues or mere loanwords. The purpose here is not to provoke, but to identify compelling etymological candidates through a series of intriguing observations.

To be clear, the postulation of Yue versus Chinese substrata in Vietnamese is not meant to assert a direct genetic lineage between Vietnamese and Chinese dialects, nor between Vietnamese and Tibetan languages. Instead, the undeniable lexical and phonological similarities suggest a possible kinship—metaphorically speaking, “long-lost relatives” within the broader Sino-Tibetan family. When constructing a linguistic family tree that links Vietnamese to Sino-Tibetan roots, it is the shared features of tonality, phonological structure, and semantic intimacy that point toward a deeper affiliation.

Take, for example, the Vietnamese terms for “mother”: 'mẹ', '(cậu)mợ', 'má', 'u', 'nạ', 'mẹ đẻ', 'mẹ ruột', 'mẹ ghẻ'. These correspond closely to Chinese equivalents such as '母 mǔ', '(舅)母 (jìu)mǔ', '媽 mà', '姆 mǔ', '娘兒 niár', '母親 mǔqīn', '親母 qīnmǔ', and '繼母 jīmǔ'. Likewise, Vietnamese terms for “father” such as 'bố' and 'tía' align with '父 fù' and '爹 diè', respectively. These are not obscure or specialized terms; they belong to the core vocabulary of both languages and reflect deep-rooted parallels that merit further linguistic investigation.

Table 1 - Kinship and family terms: Vietnamese – Chinese – Sino-Vietnamese

Vietnamese	Chinese	Pinyin	Sino- Vietnamese	Gloss / Notes
cậtruột	骨肉	gǔròu	cốtnhục	'blood kinship'
mẹruột	親媽 / 親母	qīnmā / qīnmǔ	mẫuthân	'natural / biological mother'
charuột / bốruột	親爹 / 親父	qīndiē / qīnfù	thânphụ	'natural / biological father'
mẹghẻ	繼母	jìmǔ	kếmẫu	'stepmother'
chaghẻ / bốghẻ	繼爹 / 繼父	jìdiē / jìfù	kếphụ	'stepfather'
bố	父	fù	phụ	'father'; cf. ba 爸, cha 爹 diè → VS tía
mẹ / mợ	母	mǔ	mẫu	'mother'; cf. mợ, mái (female fowl); nạ 娘 niáng 'mommy'
con	子	zǐ	tử	'child, son'; cf. Fuzhou 囝 kiaŋ, Hainanese /ke1/, Austroasiatic kiã
người	人	rén	nhân	'human'; cf. 日 rì → ngày, 牙 yá → răng, 壓 yàn → ngán
anh	兄	xiōng	huynh	'older brother'; cf. anhem 兄妹 xiōngmēi (huynhmuội), anhtam 兄弟 xiōngdì (huynhđệ)
trai	丁	dīng	đinh	'man'; also 'nail, peg'
cha	爹	diè	đa	'daddy'; cf. VS tía
ba	爸	bā	ba	'dad'
má	媽	mā	ma	'mom'
nạ	娘	niáng	nương	'mom'; cf. nàng 'miss'
ông	公 / 翁	gōng / wēng	công / ông	'grandfather, elder'; also cf. lông 'feather'
ôngnội	爺爺	yéye	giagia	'paternal grandfather'; replaces non‑extant 內公 nèigōng (nộicông)
ôngngoại	外公	wàigōng	ngoạicông	'maternal grandfather'
bà	婆	pó	bà	'grandmother'; inclusive usage
bàngoại	外婆	wàipó	ngoạibà	'maternal grandmother'
bànội	奶奶	năinai	nãinãi	'paternal grandmother'; cf. 姥姥 lăolào → lãolão
tôi	我	wǒ	ngã	'I, me'; cf. VS qua, mỗ; possibly influenced by 婢 bì (tì) → nôtì
đôilứa	我倆	wǒliǎng	ngãlưỡng	'we both'
chúngmình	咱們	zánměn	tamôn	'we, exclusively'
mình	我們	wǒmén	ngãmôn	'we'; Beijing subdialect /mne/
ta	咱	zá	ta	'we, inclusively'
nàng	娘	niáng	nương	'young lady'; cf. 姑娘 gūniáng → cônương
chồng	君	jūn	quân	'husband'; cf. 郎 láng → lang; also 丈夫
vợ	婦	fù	phụ	'wife'; cf. VS bụa in goábụa ← 寡婦 guǎfù (quảphụ)
vợlẻ	妻妾	qīqiè	thêthiếp	'concubine'; also vợnhỏ, vợbé
chị	姊	zǐ	tỷ	'older sister'; cf. 姐 jiě → thư
em (younger sister)	妹	mēi	muội	'younger sister'; VS bậu; cf. 妹妹 mèimèi → em(gái) < 阿妹 āmèi → 'em' (sound clipping)
em (younger brother)	俺	ǎn	am	dialectal; cf. 弟 dì → đệ in 兄弟 xiōngdì
cô	姑	gū	cô	'paternal aunt'; also short for cônàng ← 姑娘 gūniáng (cônương)
cậu	舅	jiù	cữu	'maternal uncle'
chú	叔	shù	thúc	'paternal uncle'
thím	嬸	shěn	thẩm	'wife of paternal uncle'
bác	伯	bó	bá	'father's elder brother'
dì	姨	yí	di	'maternal aunt'
mợ	母 / 舅母	mǔ / jiùmǔ	mẫu	'maternal uncle's wife'; also used for 'mother' in northern dialects
cháu	侄	zhí	điệt	'nephew or niece'
cháuđíchtôn	嫡孫子	dísūnzi	đíchtôn	'first grandson'
dượng	丈	zhàng	trượng	'uncle‑in‑law'; contraction of 姑丈 gūzhàng, 姨丈 yízhàng, 姐丈 jiězhàng
xuigia	親家	qīnjiā	thângia	'in‑laws'; cf. VS thônggia ← 親家 qìngjiā
bốvợ	岳父	yuèfù	nhạcphụ	'father‑in‑law'
mẹvợ	岳母	yuèmǔ	nhạcmẫu	'mother‑in‑law'
chịdâu	嫂子	sǎozi	tẩu	'older sister‑in‑law'
(con)dâu	兒媳(婦)	érxí(fù)	nhitức	'daughter‑in‑law'
(con)rể	(女)婿	(nǚ)xù	tế	'son‑in‑law'
cộtchèo	連襟	liánjīn	liêncâm	'husbands of sisters'

Observations

1. Layered lexicon (Native + SV + Dialectal)

   • Vietnamese kinship terms exist in triplets:

     • Native substratal forms (mẹ, bố, con, người).

     • Sino‑Vietnamese prestige forms (mẫu, phụ, tử, nhân).

     • Colloquial/dialectal borrowings (má, ba, cha, nạ).

   • This layering shows how everyday vocabulary coexists with formal registers, reflecting both Yue substrata and Sinitic overlays.

2. Semantic doublets and overlays

   • Many Vietnamese terms have doublets: one native and one SV.

     • trời vs. thiên (sky),

     • nước vs. quốc (country),

     • đất vs. địa (earth).

   • Kinship terms mirror this pattern: mẹ vs. mẫu, bố vs. phụ, chị vs. tỷ, em vs. muội/đệ.

3. Dialectal parallels with Chinese vernaculars

   • Forms like má (媽 mā), ba (爸 bā), cha (爹 diè), nạ (娘 niáng) show direct parallels with colloquial Chinese dialects, not just classical SV.

   • This suggests borrowing across multiple time periods and dialect zones, not a single “classical” stratum.

4. Prestige vs. vernacular distribution

   • Sino-Vietnamese forms dominate ritual, legal, and scholarly contexts (e.g., nhạcphụ, kế mẫu, thêthiếp).

   • Native forms (mẹ, bố, ông, bà) remain dominant in everyday speech.

   • This prestige/vernacular split reflects the Kinh trajectory: hybridization with Sinitic overlays while retaining substratal kinship vocabulary.

5. Structural conservatism in kinship system

   • The kinship grid shows systematic correspondences: every Vietnamese kinship role has a Chinese equivalent, often with an Sino-Vietnamese overlay.

   • This suggests not random borrowing but a structural grafting of the Chinese kinship system onto Vietnamese, while native terms persisted in daily use.

6. Cultural depth

   • These are core kinship terms, not peripheral borrowings. Their presence in both languages points to deep cultural entanglement – family structure, inheritance, and ritual obligations were mediated through shared lexicon.

Takeaway

The table demonstrates that Vietnamese kinship vocabulary is triply layered: native substrata, colloquial borrowings from Chinese dialects, and prestige Sino‑Vietnamese forms. This layering is not accidental — it reflects centuries of contact, bilingualism, and cultural negotiation. Kinship terms, being central to social life, became the most resilient markers of both continuity and hybridity in the Kinh vs. Mường trajectories.

II) Registers of borrowing

A. Vernacular borrowings reshaped by Yue phonology.

The lexical items examined here, presented in their native encapsulation, form the foundation of a controversial hypothesis regarding Sinitic influence on tiếng Việt. The objective is to isolate linguistic features that may suggest shared etymology, particularly where plausible cognates emerge through patterns of sound correspondence.

One illustrative case is the Chinese expression 抵賴 (dǐlài, 'to deny, to shift blame'), proposed as the source of the Vietnamese compound đỗlỗi. In parallel, 賴 (lài) is posited as the origin of tại 'because of'—a term that coincidentally resembles the locative adverb 在 (zài, SV tại, 'at') but diverges semantically. The correspondence follows a phonological alternation between initial consonants /l‑/ and /t‑/, with both terms conveying notions of 'causality' and 'blame'. Meanwhile, in Sino‑Vietnamese, 賴 is rendered as lại, meaning 'to depend on'.

This analytical framework diverges from conventional assumptions about Chinese loanwords, which typically rely on direct phonetic equivalence word‑to‑word. Here, đỗlỗi reflects a more nuanced structure. Its internal composition reveals layered semantic associations: đỗ linked to 倒 (dǎo, SV đảo, 'to pour over') and lỗi to 罪 (zuì, SV tội, 'guilt, wrongdoing').

Further support comes from the Vietnamese expression đỗthừa 'to shift blame', aligned with the Chinese compound 推卸 (tuīxiè). These examples illustrate a core principle of the methodology: polysyllabic compounds are decomposed into morphemic syllables, each carrying distinct semantic value and traceable to individual Chinese roots. In this framework, đỗlỗi is parsed into đỗ (< 倒 dǎo) + lỗi (< 罪 zuì), with each syllable functioning as an independent lexical entity capable of etymological linkage.

The same principle applies to 在意 (zàiyì, 'to care, to pay attention'), equated with Vietnamese đểý. Such comparisons support the broader hypothesis that Vietnamese–Sinitic etyma can be identified not merely as loanwords, but as plausible cognates when examined through the lens of sound change and semantic convergence.

While these items may still be classified as loanwords in a strict sense, the framework invites a reevaluation of their origins. By focusing on phonological transformation and morphemic decomposition, this approach offers a novel pathway for tracing Vietnamese–Sinitic cognacy beyond conventional borrowing models.

The objective of this section is to familiarize readers with such postulations and to address questions surrounding the presence of Sinitic elements in Vietnamese. Linguistic traits in contemporary tiếng Việt often mirror peculiarities found in various Chinese dialects. Readers will come to see how and why certain colloquial expressions are interchangeable across Vietnamese and Chinese, often without formal acknowledgment. Examples include: lâylất 賴活 (làihuó, 'hand‑to‑mouth'), bànchân 腳板 (jiǎobǎn, 'sole of the foot'), ănmày 要飯 (yàofàn, 'beggar'), đitiền 隨錢 (suìqián, 'give a monetary gift'), and scholarly Sino‑Vietnamese idioms such as sưtửHàđông 河東獅子 (Hédōngshīzǐ, 'a tiger wife from Hadong') or máuđàonướclã 血濃於水 (xuěnóngyúshuǐ, 'blood is thicker than water').

Together, these examples underscore the intricate and often overlooked interplay between Vietnamese and Chinese linguistic traditions. This approach invites readers to reconsider long‑held assumptions and explore the possibility of deeper, historically grounded connections.

In the early stage of this survey, the author has compiled more than 420 essential monosyllabic lexical items sourced from a broad array of Sino-Tibetan etymologies, as originally documented by Shafer (1972). These entries were chosen for close examination and serve as conceptual anchors for exploring deeper linguistic affiliations (see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese? - Chapter 10 on Sino-Tibetan etyma.) The remarkable similarity many of these items bear to Vietnamese vocabulary raises a compelling question: how has such linguistic proximity gone largely unnoticed?

For seasoned researchers in Sinitic–Vietnamese historical linguistics, the presence of cognate relationships is difficult to overlook. Yet the broader task of establishing genetic affiliations across language families remains formidable, requiring renewed scholarly engagement. It may ultimately fall to a future generation of Sino‑Tibetan specialists to revisit and refine Shafer's foundational work with updated methodologies and a more rigorous comparative framework.

The central thesis of this study rests on preliminary etymological evidence drawn from a range of Sino‑Tibetan languages, to be explored in greater detail in the following chapter. While the paper offers original insights, it does not explicitly seek to reignite the contentious debate over whether tiếngViệt should be reclassified within the Sino‑Tibetan family. Nonetheless, readers sensitive to the notion of Chinese influence should be forewarned: the hypotheses advanced here involve identifying Vietnamese etyma with potential Chinese origins – an endeavor that may challenge entrenched assumptions and nationalist interpretations.

Consider, for instance, the term Tiều as a variant of Tàu ('Chinese'), which may trace back to Middle Chinese 朝 (cháo, zhāo, zhū), reconstructed as MC ɖiaw and Old Chinese *r'ew. Similarly, 水 (shuǐ) appears to correspond with Vietnamese nước or nák (possibly derived from đák, 'water'), and with sông or kông (from krong, 'river'), the latter showing phonetic parallels with Cantonese kong5 and 工 /kong1/ ('work').

Other examples include:

• 川 chuān → dòng, con ('stream, current') [MC tɕʰʷiɛn < OC *kʰjon]

• 井 jǐng → giếng ('well')

• 艘 sǎo → tàu ('ship')

• 江 jiāng → sông ('river')

• 泉 quán → suối ('spring')

These correspondences suggest a network of doublets and cognates embedded in Vietnamese that reflect deep Sinitic roots.

Additional examples reinforce the pattern:

• 日 rì → giời ('sun') vs. 天 tiān → trời ('sky') vs. 太陽 tàiyáng → trờinắng ('sunshine')

• 月 yuè → giăng ('moon') vs. 個月 gèyuè → contrăng ('monthly moon') vs. 年月 niányuè → nămtháng ('months and years')

• 石 shí → đá ('stone') vs. 石 dàn → tạ ('weight unit')

• 土 tǔ → đất ('soil') vs. 地 dì → địa ('earth')

• 鼠 shǔ → chuột ('rat') vs. 子 zǐ → chuột ('zodiac')

• 羊 yáng → dê ('goat') vs. 未 wèi → dê ('zodiac')

• 貓 māo → mèo ('cat') vs. 卯 máo → mèo ('zodiac')

Some of these lexical parallels have been noted by earlier Sinitic scholars, while others remain provocative and open to further inquiry. Together, they form a compelling body of evidence that invites a reexamination of Vietnamese linguistic origins through a Sinitic lens.

Until now, mainstream discourse has largely positioned Vietnamese basic vocabulary within the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer framework. For example, Khmer numerals from one to five – muəj, piː (pɨl), ɓəj, ɓuən, pram – are routinely cited as cognates of Vietnamese một, hai, ba, bốn, and năm. Because these are basic words, the assumption follows that they must share a common ancestry. Yet this approach, repeated across countless studies, leaves us in a defensive posture, asking the same unresolved question: "What about numbers six through ten?"

The narrative has become a recursive echo of early Austroasiatic theorists, perpetuated like a chain of reposts from the same uncritical source. Search engine returns for "Vietnamese basic words" overwhelmingly reinforce this view, sidelining alternative perspectives rooted in Sino‑Tibetan analysis. This repetition shapes public and academic perception, often before readers have had the opportunity to explore competing theories.

The author is concerned that the newly proposed Sinitic–Vietnamese etymological framework may be prematurely dismissed, not only due to entrenched academic bias but also because of broader political sensitivities surrounding Chinese influence. To counter this resistance, the approach begins gently. Metaphorically, the task resembles restoring a faded painting: carefully tracing and retouching obscured details until the original image reemerges with clarity.

In the next chapter, the author will present a body of evidence of over 420 Vietnamese lexical items that show compelling associations with a wide range of Sino-Tibetan etyma. It is his hope that this work will prompt the linguistic community to reconsider long-held assumptions and begin a serious investigation into the proposed affiliations outlined in (see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese? - Chapter 10 on Sino-Tibetan etyma.) 

The presence of Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma presented in this study plays a crucial role in establishing a visible Sino-Tibetan perspective within the digital linguistic landscape. As long as researchers continue to stake out intellectual space online, literally and figuratively, they offer readers alternative viewpoints beyond the dominant Austroasiatic narrative that saturates search results whenever queries on Vietnamese etymology arise. This is not a game of catch-up; it is a deliberate effort to build a network of hyperlinked indices, whether modest or expansive, that guide readers toward the Sinitic framework. The author's strategy involves disseminating hundreds of Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma across cyberspace, laying the groundwork for future scholars to build upon.

B. Sino‑Vietnamese (SV) as prestige vocabulary

Consider, for example, besides the commonly quoted sông ('river') which aligns with 江 jiāng (SV giang), while suối ('creek') corresponds to 泉 quán (SV tuyền), diverting attention from dòng 川 chuān (SV xuyên), other foundational Vietnamese words and their Sinitic counterparts are worth mentioning:

These examples illustrate how one etymon may overlay another with prestige Sino-Vietnamese, and how disyllabic Vietnamese forms can yield doublets and homophones through associative sound‑change patterns, for instance:

• tháidương: 太陽 tàiyáng ('sun') vs. trờinắng; 太 tài → trời; 陽 yáng → nắng

• anlạc: 安樂 ānlè ('peaceful and happy') vs. anlành, yênlành; 樂 lè → lành < lương 良 liáng ('benign')

• longtỉnh: 龍井 lóng​jǐng​ ('dragon's well')  vs. 'giếngrồng' vs. 天井 tiānjǐng ('sky well') → giếng trời; 井 jǐng → giếng; 天 tiān → trời

• côngtác: 工作  gōngzuò ('work') vs. 幹活 gànhuó ('to work') → làmviệc; 活 huó → việc ('work')' vs. 拉活 làhuó ('to seek work') → làmviệc; 拉 là → làm ~ 幹 gàn → làm ('work'); 

• tơhào: 絲毫  sīháo ('minutes') vs. 'týnào' vs. 毫無 háowú ('not at all') → khônghề; 無 wú → hổng or không; 空 kōng → không, Ex. 絲毫不差 sīháobùchā (VS khôngsaitýnào, 'correct to the finest detail')

These patterns suggest a new set of rules for sound change and etymological association that have yet to be formally codified in the field. Identifying doublets in varied forms may also reveal hidden substrates. Importantly, historical linguistics does not operate under absolute formulas, despite what some conventional Vietnamese etymological studies may imply.

While this research may not offer universally accepted conclusions, it has garnered attention and feedback since early drafts appeared online over a decade ago. The author is gratified to see that both Austroasiatic and Sino‑Tibetan scholars have begun to acknowledge the significance of these findings. This survey, though open to refinement, contributes to unraveling the complex web of genetic affiliation between Chinese and Vietnamese etyma.

III) Semantic fields

A. Colonial imposition: Law, ritual, scholarship

Academically, this Sino-Tibetan etymology project is the product of painstaking effort, work that has indeed burned the midnight oil. Methodologically, it adheres to sound change principles rooted in Middle Chinese and Sino-Vietnamese phonology, while also incorporating Western analytical frameworks to support a cognitive approach to Sino-Tibetan etyma. Though it may not yet dismantle the prevailing Austroasiatic hypothesis, it offers a complementary classification of basic words into a core linguistic base.

Historically, paradigm shifts in linguistics often require generational turnover. It may take another 60-year cycle for entrenched consensus to yield to new perspectives. By then, veteran theorists from both camps may have exited the stage, and a new cohort, unburdened by legacy biases, could revive the Sino-Tibetan theory with fresh energy and expanded evidence. As Austroasiatic resources become increasingly repetitive and depleted, the renewed Sino-Tibetan framework may gain traction.

Historical context, as emphasized in earlier chapters, remains essential to understanding the development of Vietnamese and its speakers. This project uses strategic dissemination, akin to cultural restoration, to repair long-standing misconceptions. The dominance of Austroasiatic lexicons has misled many scholars in Sinitic fields. Yet their presence in Vietnamese is explainable: ancient migrations led to contact and word exchange, with some groups losing their native tongues and assimilating with local populations (Phan Hữu Dật, ibid.).

Many Austroasiatic remnants in Vietnamese also carry Sinitic features, suggesting origins in southern China. If these traces stem from Yue sources, then the term "Austroasiatic" may itself be a misnomer, just as "Sinitic" is a linguistic designation rather than an ethnic one.

As previously discussed, the term "Sinitic" is often understood today as referring to something affiliated with "Chinese" civilization. However, the concept itself predates the rise of the unified Qin Empire, from which the name "Qin" ultimately gave rise to the term "Sinitic." Ironically, this terminology has inadvertently strengthened Austroasiatic claims that seek to discredit Chinese linguistic influence. Their argument hinges on the assertion that since the Qin state had not yet emerged, the linguistic family labeled "Sinitic" could not have existed either; therefore, Vietnamese etyma could not plausibly originate from it.

But this reasoning overlooks a critical point: the overwhelming presence of Sinitic elements in Vietnamese, over 99 percent of the Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma, including basic vocabulary, must have predated the Qin dynasty by centuries. If we cannot call it "Sinitic," then what should we call it?  Western scholars mostly unfamiliar with the terms like 'Taic-Yue' and 'Yue', etc., so to speak. And what of the term "Vietnamese," which itself did not exist in antiquity? In this paper, we use the term "Sinitic-Vietnamese" to encompass the shared linguistic heritage between Chinese and Vietnamese, regardless of whether specific etyma originated in Chinese or were shaped by Yue substrata and other linguistic forces moving in either direction.

Vietnam's historical trajectory reflects a gradual emergence from a Sinicized feudal colony. Ancient Annam remained a prefecture under Chinese imperial rule from 111 B.C. until 939 A.D., a fact emphasized repeatedly to underscore its significance. This pattern of influence continued into the era of Middle Chinese, particularly through northern Mandarin, which left a lasting imprint on Vietnamese phonology and vocabulary. The impact was especially pronounced during the fourth period of Chinese domination under the Ming Dynasty (1407–1427).

Beyond official rule, waves of Chinese immigration driven by famine, war, and displacement, led to deep integration of Chinese settlers into Vietnamese society. These migrants brought with them not only cultural practices but also linguistic contributions, including basic words that had long been wrongly attributed to Mon-Khmer origins. Examples such as "chồmhỗm" (犬坐 quǎnzuò, "squat like a dog") and "hủtiếu" (果條 guǒtiáo, "rice pasta") reveal unsuspected Sinitic roots embedded in everyday Vietnamese speech.

All things considered, the Vietnamese language may have evolved from an ancestral Yue form, initially resembling certain Taic variants likely spoken by the subjects of the ancient Chu State ("楚民") (see AWhat Makes Chinese So Vietnamese? - Appendix K - 越人歌 'Song of the Yue'; see also Bình Nguyên-Lộc, 1972). These forms existed long before the rise of Sinitic entities such as the Zhou, Qin, and Han dynasties. The Taic linguistic family also gave rise to Yue-related speech among southern Chinese ethnic groups like the Zhuang and Dai. Vietnamese likely underwent a developmental trajectory similar to that of Hokkienese (MinNan) and Cantonese (Jyut), both of which, by 939 A.D., had absorbed dominant Han and Tang linguistic elements that largely replaced their original aboriginal Yue forms spoken some 3,000 years ago (see Drake, F.S., ed., Symposium on Historical Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South-East Asia and the Hong Kong Region, 1967).

Had Vietnamese been classified under the Sino-Tibetan family prior to the emergence of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory in the early 20th century, its Sinitic-centric features would have been more widely acknowledged. Loosely, Vietnamese might be described as a "Sino-Xenic topolect", or metaphorically, a Sinitic hybrid or "graft" language. This stands in contrast to an "adoptive language", a purely hybrid form (as Bloomfield described Albanese in 1933), or a creole like French-based speech in New Guinea or Haiti. To be exact, Vietnamese emerged from a scholarly and systematic transformation rooted in Mandarin, the official language of Chinese imperial courts.

This research presents findings of Vietnamese words cognate with Chinese etyma, potentially supporting the placement of Vietnamese within a Sinitic-Yue branch of the Sino-Tibetan family. While it stops short of classifying Vietnamese as a fully Sinitic language, the concept of "Sinitic-Vietnamese" (VS) refers to Sinitic elements layered atop ancient Yue substrata. One may visualize Vietnamese as a linguistic tree: its roots are aboriginal Yue, while its trunk, branches, and leaves are grafted with Sinitic tissues. Think of nursery apple trees bearing multiple varieties, each grafted onto a common rootstock.

B. Everyday speech: vernacular adaptation

In contrast, the Sino-Vietnamese (SV) lexicon more closely resembles Middle Chinese, particularly similar to "Chinese" lexicon in Cantonese. Interestingly, many Sino-Vietnamese words that overlap with Sinitic-Vietnamese forms resemble northern Mandarin vernacular, especially the colloquial language of imperial courts. Examples include:

• 'đừng' 甭 béng ("don't")
• 'xong' 成 chéng ("done")
• 'được' 得 dé ("okay")
• 'vâng' 行 xíng ("yes")
• 'dạ' 喳 zhā ("yes, sir")
• 'mainày' 明兒 míngr ("tomorrow")
• 'luônluôn' 牢牢 láoláo ("always")
• 'được rồi' 得了 déle ("fine"), etc.

Mandarin, a northern Chinese dialect, evolved from Middle Chinese under heavy influence from Altaic-speaking conquerors who ruled China for nearly a millennium, roughly the same duration as Vietnam's colonization under Chinese rule. These northern dynasties, including the Xiongnu (匈奴) of the BěiWèi State (北魏), Liáocháo (遼朝), the Mongols of the Yuan Dynasty, the Jurchen of the Jin Dynasty, and the Manchurians of the Qing Dynasty, shaped the linguistic landscape of northern China and, by extension, influenced Vietnamese speech.

Historical evidence supports the influence of colloquial Mandarin on Vietnamese. Many examples cited in this paper are original contributions that complement earlier etymological work by scholars such as Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin and Lê Ngọc-Trụ. For instance:

• VS 'màu' (color) ← 貌 mào (SV mạo)
• VS 'khói' (smoke) ← 氣 / 汽 qì (cf. SV 'khí' for "air", VS 'hơi' for "vapor")
• VS 'việc' (work) ← 役 yì (SV dịch), 務 wù (SV vụ)
• VS 'buồn' (sad) ← 煩 fán (SV phiền), 悶 mèn (SV muộn)
• VS 'việc' (work) ← 活 huó (SV hoạt), etc.

IV) Identity and Divergence

A. Lexicon as a marker of survival and resistance

The degree to which one accepts these etymological connections depends on their background in historical linguistics and openness to the Sinitic framework. Many readers, especially novices, may struggle to appreciate the breadth of postulated cognates due to preconceived beliefs. Some may even overlook self-evident etyma such as:

• 早 zǎo → 'chào' ("hello")
• 腚 dìng, 臀 diàn → 'đít' ("buttocks")
• 屁 pì (SV tí, "hip") → 'phaocâu' ("chicken butt"), possibly linked to 'cáiđít' via 股 gǔ ~> 'cái' 個 gè (SV cá)

These examples may be treated as doublets to explain sound change patterns such as /-ng/, /-n/ ~ /-t/ and /p-/ ~ /d-/.

Whether all postulations are accepted or not, earlier findings of Chinese-origin etyma retain their scholarly value. Newly proposed etyma in this study will be elaborated with detailed analysis of sound change mechanisms, both common and specific. This reconstruction process is akin to restoring a faded painting, carefully revealing subtle details lost over time.

Readers are assumed to be familiar with basic sound change patterns, such as:

• /j-/ → /g-/ (e.g., 雞 jī → 'gà', "chicken")
• /zh-/ → /gi-/ (e.g., 紙 zhǐ → 'giấy', "paper")

These patterns are discussed further in What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese? - Appendix B - Sound change patterns  and will be referenced only minimally for simplicity.

B. Kinh vs. Mường trajectories

Throughout this article we have seen how geopolitical forces, colonial dynamics, and sustained cultural exchange have shaped the Vietnamese lexicon in ways that defy simplistic classification. The presence of Sinitic elements, often embedded beneath layers of Yue substrata, demands a reevaluation of Vietnamese linguistic identity. These etyma are not isolated anomalies; they are part of a broader pattern that reflects deep-rooted historical contact and shared linguistic ancestry that show in linguistic divergence.

1. Phonological Patterns

    a) Kinh trajectory:

• Developed tonogenesis under Chinese influence (Haudricourt's classic finding).
• Borrowed SV words often preserve Middle Chinese initials and finals, e.g., quốc (國, SV quốc) vs. Mường nác ('country, water').

    b) Mường trajectory:

• More conservative consonant clusters and vowel qualities.

• Example: Mường krong ('river') vs. Vietnamese sông (江, SV giang).

2. Doublets and Divergence

    a) Kinh doublets:

• trời (native) vs. thiên (天, SV thiên)
• nước (native) vs. quốc (國, SV quốc)
• đất (native) vs. địa (地, SV địa)

    b) Mường parallels:

• nác ('water') vs. Vietnamese nước
  
• krong ('river') vs. Vietnamese sông (江, SV giang)

Table 2 - Mường forms compared to Kinh and Sinitic

Gloss	Kinh Vietnamese	Mường form	Chinese	Pinyin	Sino-Vietnamese form
water	nước	nác	水	shuǐ	thuỷ
river	sông	krong	江	jiāng	giang
sky	trời	tlời	天	tiān	thiên
mother	mẹ	mẹ	母	mǔ	mẫu
father	bố	bá / pó	父	fù	phụ
soil/earth	đất	đác	土	tǔ	địa
country	nước / quấc	nác	國	guó	quốc
stone	đá	đác	石	shí	thạch
sun	trời / giời	tlời / mặt tlời	日	rì	nhật
moon	trăng /giăng	trăng	月	yuè	nguyệt
dog	chó	chó	狗	gǒu	cẩu
pig	lợn	nác lợn	豚	tún	thốn

Notes:

• Phonology: Mường often preserves clusters (krong vs. sông) and conservative vowels (nác vs. nước).
• Lexicon: Mường retains substratal forms (đác, tlời) where Kinh has adopted SV overlays (địa, thiên).
• Doublets: Kinh shows hybridization (nước/quốc, trời/thiên), while Mường conserves native forms without prestige Sinitic doublets.
• Identity marker: These forms highlight upland preservation vs. delta hybridization — the linguistic reflection of the Kinh vs. Mường trajectories.

You will encounter further discussions in other articles on the author's newly developed etymological methods that have enabled the identification of numerous camouflaged Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma. These findings help illuminate the missing links in the linguistic and cultural affiliation between Vietnamese and Chinese, connections rooted in a 'linked kinship' and shaped by over a thousand years of Han Chinese domination in ancient Vietnam.

Conclusion

Vietnamese etyma reveal not a passive borrowing but an active grafting process. This prelude sets the stage for deeper analysis of how colonial centuries forged a lexicon that is both indigenous and entangled, preparing readers for the case studies that follow.

The author's newly developed etymological approach, centered on uncovering camouflaged Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma, offers a fresh lens through which to examine the linguistic evolution of Vietnamese. These findings help bridge longstanding gaps in our understanding of Vietnamese-Chinese affiliation, not merely through lexical resemblance but through historical and cultural entanglement. The concept of "linked kinship" is not speculative; it is grounded in over a thousand years of Han Chinese domination, migration, and integration in ancient Vietnam.

The author's methodology, which combines historical documentation with phonological analysis, opens new pathways for identifying overlooked cognates and reinterpreting Vietnamese vocabulary through a Sinitic lens. This work does not aim to erase Austroasiatic contributions, but rather to restore balance to a discourse long dominated by one-sided narratives. By recognizing the complexity of Vietnamese linguistic heritage, we move closer to a more nuanced and accurate understanding of its origins.

As the paper continues, readers will encounter hundreds of Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma, each a thread in the intricate tapestry of Vietnam's linguistic history. These examples are not just academic curiosities; they are linguistic artifacts that speak to centuries of cultural convergence. In reclaiming these etyma, the author invites scholars to reconsider the foundations of Vietnamese and to explore the possibility of a Sinitic-Yue linguistic branch within the broader Sino-Tibetan family.

Chapter 6 thus closes not with finality, but with an invitation: to look deeper, question inherited assumptions, and engage with the Vietnamese language as a living record of historical transformation.

References

• Bình Nguyên Lộc. 1972. Nguồn gốc Mã lai của dân tộc Việt nam. Saigon: Khai Trí.

• Ferlus, Michel. 2012. “Trade Routes and Sound Change Patterns in Vietnamese Cognates across Southeast Asia.” Mon–Khmer Studies 41: 1–18.

• Haudricourt, André‑Georges. 1954. “De l'origine des tons en vietnamien.” Journal Asiatique 242: 69–82.

• Kiernan, Ben. 2017. Việt Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Li, Tana. 1998. Nguyen Cochinchina: Southern Vietnam in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

• Nguyễn Ngọc San. 1993. Tìm hiểu về tiếng Việt lịch sử. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục.

• Phan Hữu Dật. 1998. Nhân học Việt Nam. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia.

• Sima Guang. 1956. Zizhi Tongjian 資治通鑑 (Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

• Sima Qian. 1993. Shiji 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

• Taylor, Keith W. 2013. A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Trần Quốc Vượng. 2000. Việt nam: Văn hoá và Con người. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.