Archaeology and Phonology in Two New Approaches
by dchph
After nearly so many years pondering on Vietnamese classification, the author came to realize that repeating old debates would never resolve the question of origins. The Austroasiatic framework, though dominant, left too many words unexplained and too many cultural echoes unheard. Out of this long process of cultivation and re‑examination, two new approaches emerged. The first compares Chinese etymologies systematically against Vietnamese vocabularies, revealing overlooked cognates. The second applies nucleus‑based phonological grouping to uncover hidden correspondences that traditional methods missed. Together, these approaches open a fresh path toward understanding Vietnamese not as an isolated Austroasiatic language, but as a voice resonating within the wider Sino‑Tibetan world.
The excitement surrounding this research stems from two new theoretical approaches significantly depart from traditional methodologies, which is the core of this research. This linguistic progression exemplifies how Vietnam's history, despite forging its own independent path, was deeply entwined with that of China's has a unique linguistic legacy, which has raised so much of stakes.
New approaches have emerged, enabling the identification of Vietnamese core words and their classification within the Sinitic-Vietnamese domain while linking them to Sino-Tibetan etymologies. After more than three decades of independent exploration, the author considers himself an innovator in Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology. His self-directed journey has freed him from reliance on established Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer narratives. As Professor Nguyễn Đình-Hoà remarked in 1997, dismantling the Austroasiatic framework, starting with its foundational premises, would be a Herculean task. According to Professor Nguyễn, the essential issue lies in the evolution of Vietnamese itself, regardless of how Western linguists classify it. Similarly, Lê Đình Diệm, the author's linguistic mentor at Saigon University, echoed this sentiment. This paper serves as a wake-up call to seasoned scholars in Vietnamese historical linguistics, urging them to reevaluate their reliance on outdated tools and the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis.
The intellectual enlightenment experienced through these discoveries will likely resonate with readers, fostering excitement as new horizons unfold. Positioned at the forefront of this discussion, the author has learned to remain composed in response to antagonistic or contentious remarks regarding the Sinitic-Vietnamese subject, regardless of their origin. Over time, he has stood firm against the "Austroasiatic Mon-Khmerists", who now freely disseminate their narratives online. As an active researcher, he counters by publishing his Sinitic-Vietnamese etymological findings rooted in Sino-Tibetan origins.
To wrap up our defense of postulation of the Sinitic position, the author emphasizes again that the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis was constructed based on lexical data from scattered Mon-Khmer languages, founded on the assumption that isolated languages might preserve original forms despite diachronic sound changes. Throughout their theorization, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists consistently overlooked Yue linguistic elements extensively documented in Chinese historical records, especially in the Kangxi Dictionary where the author found basic words such as 'eat', 'sleep', 'poop', 'fuck' as cited above. It is in this intersection of Yue and Sinitic elements that both Chinese and Vietnamese languages took shape.
These Yue entities, however, were disregarded, both historically and linguistically, in favor of constructing a new framework termed Austroasiatic. By establishing an entirely new linguistic family on their own terms, Indo‑European theorists circumvented the need to engage with the extensive information about the Yue available in ancient Chinese classics. They developed their theory by selectively manipulating data from living languages while largely ignoring significant historical contexts.
In contrast, Yue linguistic elements encompass not only analytical methodologies but also integrate history, archaeology, anthropology, and, where applicable, a spiritual dimension tied to national ideology.
I) Approach one: Nucleus‑Based phonological grouping
Firstly, this comprehensive approach, grounded in Chinese historical records, ancient rhyme books, and classical texts, is foundational, as many Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma naturally intersect with anthropological categories in various ways.
By organizing Vietnamese words polysyllabically around their nucleus and comparing them with Chinese phonological patterns, a deeper stratum of correspondence becomes visible. This nucleus‑based alignment uncovers cognates that traditional comparative methods have consistently missed, revealing connections otherwise obscured in surface forms. The framework thus provides a systematic means of recovering neglected parallels and offers persuasive evidence for situating Vietnamese within the broader Sino‑Tibetan tradition.
A striking example is the Vietnamese concept thờ ('worship'), which resonates with several Sinitic correspondences: 侍 (shì, SV thị), 祠 (cí, SV từ), 祀奉 (sìfèng, VS thờphượng), and 奉事 (fèngshì, SV phụngsự). Expressions such as 忠臣不事二君 (Zhōngchén bù shì èr jūn), rendered in Vietnamese as Tôi trung không thờ hai chúa ("Loyal subordinates will not serve two kings") illustrate how the semantic field of thờ bridges spiritual devotion and political allegiance. The closer Sino‑Vietnamese version, Trung thần bất sự nhị quân, remains intelligible to most educated Vietnamese speakers, underscoring the deep cultural resonance of this concept. Notably, thờ spans two domains at once: the sacred act of worship and the ideological expression of loyalty.
The following discussion explores the Yue linguistic and cultural sphere while intentionally excluding Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer values, which diverge from ancestral belief systems rooted in Vietnamese spiritual ancestral worship. This spiritual heritage constitutes the soul of the national language, complementing its historical evolution. Austroasiatic linguistic structures lack these two essential semantic dimensions.
Consider the developmental trajectory of 飯 (fàn, SV phạn, 'meal'), which evolved into ban, bữa, buổi 'period of the day' (cf. Hainanese /buj²/, Fukienese /bəng²/). Similarly, one might examine the morph ban- in 白日 (báirì) as in banngày 'daytime' as an independent linguistic element coexisting with other etyma, where both sound and concept have transferred to signify 'daytime.' By analyzing these transformations without being confined by the original representation of Chinese characters, one gains fresh insight into the Sinitic theory presented here, opening avenues for new interpretations.
Among these developments, words such as 'eatery' 食 shí (SV thực, VS xơi) and 'rice' 稻 dào (SV đạo, VS gạo) reflect fundamental aspects of Vietnamese cultural identity. This is exemplified in the proverb "Có thực mới vực được Đạo" ("One must first have sustenance before upholding principles," which underscores the deep integration of sustenance and philosophy within the Vietnamese language.
In the early 2000s, when the author first shared these preliminary discoveries online, he faced indifference and resistance, including dismissive responses from several linguists at prominent U.S. institutions. Yet the author remains confident that newcomers to the field who approach his findings with an open mind will recognize their novelty and significance, as they represent a fresh and groundbreaking perspective.
As life has gone on in pursuit of this new approach, the author has consistently advocated for the Sinitic‑Vietnamese perspective whenever the topic arose. While some may have found his repeated references to classic examples excessive, he maintains that his theorization offers something unique, building upon existing concepts while refining them into a clearer and more comprehensive framework.
To further elaborate on this perspective, one must consider the spiritual dimension that underpins widespread belief in the ancestral Yue aborigines of South China, irrespective of their inclusion in Sinitic classifications. The Vietnamese practice of ancestral worship, termed "tínngưỡng thờcúng tổtiên" or "(tục) thờcúng ôngbà" (祖先崇拜 or 祖先教), has persisted for over two millennia. This tradition parallels Buddhist conceptions of the afterlife, influencing conduct in earthly life regardless of simultaneous adherence to other religions. Far from being dismissed as a superstitious folk cult, ancestral worship constitutes a legitimate spiritual tradition interwoven into Vietnamese identity.
Vietnamese integrate elements of various religions into tangible expressions of belief, such as placing photographic images of deceased ancestors alongside figurines of Buddha or even Jesus, complemented by incense‑burning rituals. Regardless of whether Buddhism, Daoism, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, or indigenous movements like Caodaism and Hoahaoism were introduced to Vietnam, all converge in the spiritual offerings dedicated to honoring ancestors. This fusion of Buddhism and Daoism underscores the enduring reverence for the ancient Yue, recognized as the forebears of the Vietnamese.
These ancestral traditions persist among Yue‑descended communities across South China, including Fukienese, Hainanese speakers, and the Zhuang nationality, groups such as the Nùng and Tày, whose cultural practices remain evident in shrines and temples throughout Vietnam.
The Austroasiatic theory notably fails to acknowledge the role of spiritual values in the early stages of collective identity formation. This omission extends to historical contexts essential for understanding later developmental phases following tribal divisions. When juxtaposing linguistic theories, prehistoric social structures must be considered, as they played a crucial role in shaping shared languages within communities during documented historical periods. Linguistic evolution must also reflect geopolitical factors, including economic systems and state governance structures.
Such considerations are vital in classifying related Sinitic languages, including Southern Wu, Cantonese, and Min Nan dialects, within the Sino‑Tibetan family. Conversely, efforts to deny Yue origins alongside Han admixture, particularly their roots in the Chu State and its Yue subjects, illustrate how political influences distort linguistic research, diverting inquiry from its natural trajectory. A similar phenomenon occurs in Vietnam, where anti‑Sinitic sentiment shapes scholarly classifications, underscoring the need for an analytical approach to politics' impact on linguistic studies.
II) Approach two: Comparative etymological mapping
Our second approach remains fundamentally Sinitic in essence, well documented, with Chinese serving as its core foundation. "Sinitic" is the established linguistic term, and Chinese dialects fall within the Sino‑Tibetan family, a classification based not on historical political affiliations but on typological cognateness linking Vietnamese words across multiple dialects with extant Tibetan languages.
To illustrate, consider the Vietnamese word bò 'cow,' which demonstrates strong cognateness with Old Tibetan forms. According to Shafer (1966–1974), 'cow' in Old Tibetan appears as ba, with variations across Bodic languages such as Western Bodish Burig bā, Groma and Śarpa bo 'calf', Dangdźongskad and Lhoskad ba, and Central Bodish Lagate pa‑, Spiti, Gtsang, and Dbus ãba bʿa. Additional cognates include Mnyamslad and Dźad pa, Rgyarong (ki)‑bri, ‑bru, and modern Bodic dialects such as New Mantśati 'bullock', Tśamba Lahuli 'ox bań', or Rangloi 'bań‑ƫa' 'bullock'.
Moreover, in Chinese, the character 牝 (byi/) denoting female animals aligns with Old Tibetan ãbri‑mo 'tame female yak'. A plausible etymological connection can be drawn between Old Tibetan ãbri‑mo and the Vietnamese bê 'calf'. Given the cultural and agricultural significance of 'cow', or more precisely 'water buffalo', to Vietnamese water‑paddy agriculture, it is implausible to classify this term as a loanword, particularly within the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer hypothesis.
Earlier attempts to postulate Vietnamese etyma often relied on juxtaposition‑based brainstorming, an intuitive method that predated the emergence of Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer theorization in Vietnamese linguistics. These efforts lacked methodological refinement, as evidenced in misattributed examples. Many researchers failed to differentiate Sinitic‑Vietnamese lexicons from Sino‑Vietnamese categories, focusing exclusively on the superstrata of Sinitic‑Vietnamese layers. This superficial resemblance between Chinese and Vietnamese etyma led to misclassification, with many lists erroneously presenting Vietnamese words as Chinese loanwords.
For instance, while the Sino‑Vietnamese term sư for 師 (shī, "teacher") is widely recognized, scholars may also note thầy as an additional cognate. Furthermore, thầymô reflects a normalized variant of 巫師 (wūshī, "shaman") in reverse syllabic order. Similarly, Sinitic‑Vietnamese etyma such as sải 師 (shī, "monk") and phùthuỷ 巫師 (wūshī, "shaman") demonstrate how Vietnamese forms extend beyond simple loanwords, revealing deeper cognate structures(see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Tsu-lin Mei's APPENDICE G-8) and share linguistic root ancestry with thầycô 老師 (lǎoshī, "teachers"). Further cognates include:
- 婿 (xū, rể, 'son‑in‑law')
- 姑爺 (gūyě, conrể, 'son‑in‑law')
- 生 (shēng, SV sanh, VS sống, 'live') vs. đẻ 'give birth to' (cf. Hainanese /te1/)
These lexical relationships demonstrate how Vietnamese evolved through sustained interactions with multiple Chinese dialects across different historical periods, both diachronically and synchronically.
Advanced proficiency in Hán‑Nôm, or Sinitic‑Vietnamese (VS) studies, requires measurable mastery of linguistic analysis. Highly qualified scholars specializing in historical linguistics have become increasingly rare, contributing to a decline in rigor within contemporary research. Many academic papers written in English, as noted earlier, fail to distinguish between Sino‑Vietnamese (SV) and Sinitic‑Vietnamese terms, a fundamental oversight that undermines their credibility.
Although no direct critique is intended, such misclassifications remain widespread. At the same time, general readers of Chinese literature often lack the expertise of prominent scholars such as Karlgren or Maspero.
Aspiring students of Vietnamese historical linguistics must make critical methodological choices early in their studies. While adopting Western methodologies and emphasizing objectivity free from state interference may seem appealing, this shift does not inherently equip researchers to address core linguistic issues embedded in centuries‑old subjects tied to agriculturally driven economies.
The Sino‑Tibetan classification of bò 'cow' and related etyma aforementioned serves as a case study highlighting foundational elements in Vietnamese linguistic evolution. Unfortunately, newcomers often gravitate toward the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer framework because of its structured data collection and systematic tabulation of Mon‑Khmer lexical forms. Yet this approach frequently fails to account for the phonetic shifts and fluidity inherent in Vietnamese and Chinese cognates.
This study seeks to refine these areas by reevaluating Vietnamese through a Sinitic‑Vietnamese lens, emphasizing historically supported etymologies rather than speculative Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer classifications. (2)
III) Historical and cultural context
Incorporating multiple perspectives – religion, politics, archaeology, anthropology, history, and linguistic proficiency – is essential in understanding Vietnam's linguistic evolution and in applying the two new approaches. Western‑educated individuals with pragmatic mindsets often advocated industrialization as a guiding principle for progress. By the turn of the twentieth century, Western industrialism had already demonstrated efficiency across institutions, leading to the belief that scientific precision and methodological rigor could be applied to historical linguistics.
Determined to modernize linguistic studies, reformers spearheaded the adoption of the Romanized Quốcngữ writing system. Vietnam's embrace of Western ideas gained momentum with the first generation of French‑educated scholars following independence from French colonial rule on July 20, 1954, a decisive break from Chinese influences that dismantled a thousand‑year tradition. In this transitional phase, scholars acted swiftly to eliminate the Chinese‑based Nôm script while simultaneously phasing out French as the primary academic language within colonial educational structures.
It is no surprise that proponents of Western methodologies favored measurable tools over traditional interpretative approaches, prioritizing precision over approximation in the study of Vietnamese etymology. Some theorists, however, took this ideology to extremes. By the late nineteenth century and well into the new millennium, locally trained French‑educated scholars perpetuated the dismissive notion, reportedly introduced by French grammarians, that the "Annamite" language lacked its own grammatical framework and required French grammar for proper writing. This misconception reinforced a lingering classification of Vietnamese as an isolated language, technically defined by rigid syntactic order rather than morphological inflection, attempting to fit it into categories based on inflected languages such as German, Russian, and Latin. Western linguists similarly classified Chinese under this framework.
In reality, Vietnamese and Chinese do not conform entirely to these classifications. The label "isolated language" carries significant interpretative weight and is often associated with contentious debates regarding linguistic categorization. This issue will be explored later in the chapter on disyllabicity, where the structural aspects of Vietnamese and Chinese will be examined in greater detail.
In contemporary times, Western influences extend beyond linguistic classification into daily life, shaping cultural preferences in ways that cannot always be judged as entirely right or wrong. Traditional Vietnamese practices frequently undergo reinterpretation through Western frameworks, reflecting a globalized society where traditions merge and adapt.
Examples range from Western pharmaceutical diagnoses replacing traditional remedies, now often regarded as a last resort, to lifestyle preferences involving commercialized holidays such as Christmas, Western New Year, Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, and Halloween. Wedding customs have similarly evolved, with increasing adoption of Western‑style celebrations, including white wedding gowns, diamond engagement rings, and black attire for funerals, contrasting sharply with traditional Vietnamese mourning customs that emphasize coarse white fabrics.
Despite these cultural shifts, Chinese characters remain widely used in ceremonial inscriptions and religious practices. Whether in Spring Festival couplets, written prayers, or ancestral name plaques displayed in temples and altars, their presence underscores an enduring reverence for tradition.
Western Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer theorists have applied a similar lens to Vietnamese linguistic studies, aligning classification with dominant trends. Yet a balanced approach is necessary, one that reconciles opposing perspectives to develop an etymological framework accommodating diverse viewpoints.
Discrepancies in newly identified Sinitic‑Vietnamese etyma, Nôm words of Chinese origin, or Hán‑Nôm, can complement Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer findings rather than contradict them. Ideally, etymological discoveries from both perspectives should coexist rather than be dismissed outright. Core Vietnamese cognates identified in Mon‑Khmer languages do not necessarily negate their origins in Chinese or Sino‑Tibetan linguistic stocks.
For instance, examining the Khmer counting system, structured around a base‑five system, can provide insight into numerical etymology. By breaking it down further into binary and then back into the decimal system, one may uncover explanations for foundational numerical terms that have long dominated Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer arguments since the inception of its theorization. (See The Mon-Khmer Association)
One might compare the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer approach metaphorically to an arranged marriage within traditional Chinese customs, wrapped in a Western-style wedding gown, distinct from previously discussed traditional attire but still incorporating customary rituals imbued with Vietic elements. In other words, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory on Vietnamese historical linguistics remains incomplete without recognizing Chinese influences, just as Chinese influences are inextricably linked with Vietnamese linguistic evolution.
Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguists may have a valid case, but historical support is essential to substantiate their arguments. This reality stems directly from Vietnam's 1,009 years under Chinese imperial rule, as well as earlier prehistoric interactions. While the finer details may appear intricate, they remain inadequately addressed in academic circles.
Western methodologies offer a valuable framework for addressing long-standing linguistic classifications. However, one must acknowledge that Vietnamese linguistic foundations existed long before Western scholars initiated systematic analysis in the twentieth century. Essential linguistic resources, including dictionaries and rhyme books such as Éryá (爾雅), Shuōwén (說文), Tángyùn (唐韻), Guǎngyùn (廣韻), and dialectal annotations within the seventeenth-century Kangxi Dictionary, were already in circulation. Western scholars must engage deeply with these sources rather than attempt to develop entirely new theories, such as the Austroasiatic hypothesis, primarily for convenience in addressing a millennium-old field of study.
Consider, for instance, the misguided assertion that "Vietnamese has no grammar; take the French one and use it instead." This approach merely offered a shortcut to circumvent the complexities of learning Vietnamese grammar, just as similar tactics were employed to bypass the intricate study of ancient and modern Chinese. Assertions driven by convenience rather than academic integrity ultimately prove counterproductive.
Up until the late eighteenth century, Western academics possessed only minimal knowledge of the Chinese language (See Knud Lundbæk, 1986). The steep learning curve inherent to Chinese philology and historical linguistics necessitated alternative approaches. While certain methodologies proved useful in advancing linguistic classification, oversimplifications designed to accommodate Western audiences often failed to reflect the historical and cultural intricacies of Vietnamese linguistic development.
Reconciling linguistic methodologies with historical realities demands rigorous engagement with primary sources. Whether analyzing Vietnamese within the Sinitic-Vietnamese framework or assessing its Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer affiliations, scholars must recognize the impact of Vietnam's geopolitical history on its linguistic trajectory.
Rather than impose theoretical constructs that neglect historical context, linguistic inquiry must strive for a balanced synthesis that respects documented historical interactions, cultural transformations, and evolving linguistic structures.
Figure 2.3 , Han's Giaochau Prefecture in 111B.C.
Source: http://chinese-dialects.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post_22.html
IV) Comparative techniques linking Chinese to Vietnamese vocabularies
Readers may wonder how Vietnamese integrated words with Mon-Khmer elements into their language. This process involved the distinct method of accentualizing borrowed words, assigning tonal distinctions to each syllable, much like how Vietnamese adapted French loanwords into its phonological system.
The comparative method begins by aligning Vietnamese words with their Chinese counterparts across both semantic and phonological dimensions. Rather than isolating single syllables, the analysis groups Vietnamese forms polysyllabically by nucleus, then compares them against Chinese phonological patterns. This approach reveals hidden cognates that traditional methods have overlooked, exposing correspondences otherwise obscured in surface forms. For example, the Vietnamese concept thờ 'worship' resonates with a range of Sinitic parallels: 侍 (shì, SV thị), 祠 (cí, SV từ), 祀奉 (sìfèng, VS thờphượng), and 奉事 (fèngshì, SV phụngsự). Such comparisons show how Vietnamese vocabulary participates in broader Sino‑Tibetan semantic fields, bridging domains of spiritual devotion and ideological loyalty.
Regarding the inquiry into the presence of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer cognates within Vietnamese basic vocabulary, my findings reveal that many Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma simultaneously appear within Sino-Tibetan etymologies, aligning seamlessly with corresponding Chinese forms. For example, ngà (牙 yá, 'tusk') and máu (衁 huāng, 'blood') exhibit such correspondence (3). These etyma quantitatively extend beyond the limited Mon-Khmer lexical items frequently cited and recycled in Austroasiatic research. Qualitatively, they display subtle 'genetic' linguistic traits absent from Vietnamese words that bear resemblance to the Mon-Khmer lexicon (4).
The broader discussion regarding commonalities between Chinese and Vietnamese, encompassing word clusters, fixed expressions, idioms, and structural parallels, remains an ongoing debate. These similarities inevitably reflect the extensive influence of Chinese culture on Vietnamese language development, shaping its trajectory across centuries. The process of linguistic absorption can be divided into three distinct phases:
- The period preceding 111 B.C., when Yue linguistic elements were deeply embedded in the languages spoken across southern China.
- The millennium of Chinese colonial rule, which intensified Sinicization and reinforced administrative linguistic practices.
- The post-10th-century era, during which the independent state of Annam selectively absorbed additional Sinitic elements to support governance and scholarship, albeit at a slower pace than in earlier periods.
Vietnam continued to use the Chinese official court language for government records and literary works long after separating from China in the late 19th century. This parallels the approach adopted by Japanese and Korean, which actively incorporated Chinese-character-based vocabulary during the Tang Dynasty.
Over time, this linguistic evolution shaped Vietnamese into a distinct entity, yet one retaining deep historical ties to its Sinitic-Yue origins. (5)
Language evolves organically over time, shaped by continuous generational transmission. The development of Vietnamese from ancient periods to the present has followed a path of natural continuity, ensuring its growth remains unforced. Colloquially, Vietnamese speakers across diverse backgrounds, including scholars and merchants, continue to use a language heavily enriched with Sinitic-Vietnamese and Sino-Vietnamese words, which remain essential components of daily speech.
Lexically, the Vietnamese vocabulary includes a significant number of words with direct correspondence to Chinese etyma, such as:
- ăn ("eat") ~ 唵 ǎn (SV àm)
- ngủ ("sleep") ~ 臥 wò (SV ngoạ)
- đụ ("fuck") ~ 屌 diào (SV điệu)
- ỉa ("poop") ~ 屙 é (SV a)
- uống ("drink") ~ 飲 yǐn (SV ẩm)
- trừng ("stare") ~ 瞪 dèng (SV trừng)
- nói ("chat") ~ 聊 liáo (SV liễu)
- nấu ("cook") ~ 熬 áo (SV ngao)
- gạo ("rice") ~ 稻 dào (SV đạo)
- gà ("chicken") ~ 雞 jī (SV kê)
The presence of these words highlights the deep linguistic integration between Vietnamese and Chinese, making them indistinguishable from native vocabulary through the natural process of phonological adaptation. Whether these words originated directly from Chinese remains an area of continued exploration, but their assimilation into Vietnamese speech patterns suggests organic linguistic transmission rather than deliberate imposition.
Beyond these fundamental terms, Vietnamese also retains phonological similarities with certain southern Chinese dialects, such as Hainanese. Examples include:
- xơi ("eat") ~ 食 shí (Hai. /zha2/)
- bể ("broken") ~ 破 pò (Hai. /be6/)
- bồng ("carry a baby") ~ 抱 bāo (Hai. /bong2/)
Hainanese, as a subdialect of the MinNan linguistic group, descends from Yue languages, reinforcing the Yue-Sinitic theorization linking Vietnamese to a shared linguistic heritage.
In contemporary Vietnamese usage, approximately 90% of words in an average sentence derive from Sinitic-Vietnamese stock, while only 10% constitute pure Vietnamese or Nôm vocabulary. Even among Nôm words, many share undeniable cognates with Chinese etyma, verifying them as indigenous expressions. Consider the following examples:
- dừa ("coconut") ~ 椰 yé (SV gia)
- chuối ("banana") ~ 蕉 jiāo (SV chiêu)
- đường ("sugar") ~ 糖 táng (SV đường)
- sông ("river") ~ 江 jiāng (SV giang)
- gạo ("rice") ~ 稻 dà (SV đạo)
Even so-called pure Vietnamese words may trace their origins to Chinese or common Yue etyma, words also attested in Cantonese or Fukienese dialects. Examples include 睇 /t'ej3/ ("see") and 檨 /soã/ ("mango"), which have evolved into the modern Vietnamese forms thấy and soài in Quốc ngữ, preserving close phonological resemblance to earlier pronunciations despite slight deviations over time. . (See Parallels with the Sino-Tibetan languages)
Modern Vietnamese sentence structure shares similarities with the classical literary Chinese style seen in major works from the 12th century onward, allowing for near word-for-word translation. However, literary works from 16th-century Vietnam, including Buddhist scriptures, often sound "Shakespearean" to contemporary Vietnamese speakers, rendering them challenging to comprehend.
Two key reasons explain this linguistic disparity:
1. The target audience , sixteenth-century texts were written by and for Vietnamese scholars and the intelligentsia, whereas classical Chinese novels were composed in a vernacular Mandarin style that reflected everyday spoken language.
2. Grammatical evolution , ancient Annamese compositions differed significantly from modern Vietnamese grammar, which was later influenced by French syntactic structures due to Romanized Vietnamese orthography introduced by Western-educated pioneers such as Petrus Trương Vĩnh Ký and Phạm Quỳnh in the early 20th century. (6)
This evolution significantly refined Vietnamese composition, introducing structured sentence formations, thesis-driven arguments, and a systematic punctuation mechanism. Consequently, modern Vietnamese sentences integrate Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabulary within a grammatical framework influenced by French linguistic structures, developing independently from Chinese while reflecting broader cultural transformations. This linguistic progression illustrates how language and cultural development advanced concurrently, reinforcing each other over time.
V) Challenges and accessibility
Despite the promise of these comparative techniques, significant obstacles remain. Sino‑Tibetan resources are still largely confined to print, requiring painstaking consultation of dictionaries, etymological reconstructions, and philological studies. By contrast, Austroasiatic narratives dominate digital platforms, shaping classification debates through sheer accessibility. This imbalance creates a practical challenge: scholars and readers alike encounter Austroasiatic explanations first, while Sino‑Tibetan evidence remains hidden behind specialized sources. The task, therefore, is not only methodological but also editorial, making comparative findings accessible, curating bibliographies that balance exhaustive coverage with readability, and presenting results in formats that invite engagement. Addressing these challenges ensures that Vietnamese classification can be reconsidered on equal footing, with both traditions visible to a wider audience.
Languages naturally evolve. Subdialectal deviation is a universal phenomenon that causes languages to diverge from their ancestral forms. Within the vast territory of the Middle Kingdom, Ancient Chinese fragmented into seven major dialects, eventually becoming mutually unintelligible. Each of these dialects continued branching into numerous subdialects. Similarly, Middle Chinese loanwords in Japanese, as reconstructed by Bernhard Karlgren, exhibit notable variations compared to those found in the Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, both phonologically and semantically.
Vietnamese has followed its own distinct path. Even after only two decades of division between northern and southern Vietnam (1954-1975), linguistic variations emerged, with regional speakers sometimes struggling with word choices used by those from the opposing side. This underscores the profound influence of geography and historical shifts on linguistic differentiation, demonstrating how even relatively brief separations can leave lasting linguistic imprints. (See What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Appendix O.)
Historically, following Annam's separation from China in 939, its language evolved independently, minimizing the extent of Sinicization and allowing it to develop into the early form of ancient Vietnamese. This linguistic trajectory contrasts sharply with the evolution of southern Chinese subdialects, such as Cantonese, Fukienese, Hainanese, and Taiwanese. Although originating from Yue-speaking regions, these dialects have undergone significant Sinitic influence, to the extent that they are now classified as Chinese dialects rather than Yue-origin languages.
Ironically, the Austroasiatic camp applies a similar argument, attributing Vietnamese's heavy Sinitic influences to Sinicization rather than shared hereditary origins.
Despite centuries of geographical expansion, the core of Vietnamese has remained intact as a unified language. While northern Vietnamese is distinguished by its greater usage of Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, likely due to its proximity to China, southern Vietnamese has incorporated Chamic and Khmer elements over the past 1,100 years. Nevertheless, Vietnamese speakers across regions still understand subdialectal differences.
Languages naturally evolve through recurring generational transmission. However, history provides many examples of language extinction, including the displacement of Manchurian by Mandarin in China, a process in which Mandarin itself absorbed elements from Manchurian. Similar cases are evident worldwide, where indigenous languages in North and Latin America continue to decline.
Government intervention frequently poses threats to linguistic minorities. The Sinicization of Cantonese serves as a stark example, beginning in 1911, following the fall of the Qing Empire. When China became a republic under Sun Yat-sen, northern officials pressured Sun to cede the presidency to Yuan Shikai, whose administration favored Mandarin as China's official language, declaring it the national standard.
In modern times, such policies persist, as seen in the ban on Cantonese TV broadcasts in its native Guangdong Province, an ongoing attempt at linguistic homogenization.
Expanding this discussion, similar complexities arise in the classification of minority languages in China. For instance, Zhuang was originally classified under the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family (Shafer, 1941) but was later reclassified as part of Tai-Kadai (Fang-Kuei Li, 1966). This highlights the evolving nature of linguistic classifications and the influence of political and sociolinguistic factors on language recognition.
The Zhuang people constitute the largest minority group in China, with a population exceeding 17 million. Despite significant Chinese influence, primarily through cultural adaptation, the Zhuang language has preserved distinctive characteristics. This resilience is likely due to the historical settlement patterns of Zhuang communities, many of whom have lived in remote regions since ancient times. Unlike Cantonese, which has undergone extensive Sinicization, Zhuang remains uniquely distinct even though it is classified under the Tai-Kadai linguistic family. However, the Zhuang are an ethnic group rather than strictly a linguistic one. Given variations among their subdialects, many Zhuang speakers struggle to communicate across dialectal boundaries (7) Overall, Zhuang variant speeches exhibit diverse non-hereditary influences, including linguistic features from Zhuang, Daic, and Chinese groups (Lan Hongyin, 1984, pp. 131–138).
Historically, both the Viets and the Zhuang were recorded as descendants of the Yue people, potentially referenced as "Bjet" or a term resembling "Bod" (cf. 百越 Baiyue, 百姓 Baixing; see Terrien Lacouperie, 1887). These groups are among the most evident representatives of the ancestral Yue aborigines, as documented in historical accounts. Vietnamese identity, more than ethnicity, is primarily defined through language, with strong Sinitic elements unifying the group. Chinese linguistic attributes, including syllabic structure, tonal variation, and semantic development, are apparent across Nôm, Sinitic Vietnamese, and Sino-Vietnamese lexical sets. Vietnamese melodic intonation, as seen in transliterations of foreign place names, further supports these connections. For instance, ancient Chamic names such as Vijaya and Kauthara were softened in Vietnamese through Sino-Vietnamese adaptations into Quinhơn (歸仁 Guiren) and Nhatrang (牙莊 Yazhuang).
Conversely, the Mon-Khmer groups represent ethnic identities rather than linguistic classifications. People of Mon-Khmer ancestry tend to define themselves collectively through ethnicity, distinguishing themselves from the Vietnamese Kinh majority and neighboring Muong minorities. For example, an individual of Muong ethnicity typically has no difficulty identifying with Vietnamese nationality, whereas a Vietnamese citizen of Khmer origin, despite being born and raised in Vietnam and fluent in the language, may or may not consider themselves ethnically Vietnamese. If they identify as Khmer rather than Vietnamese, their distinction is typically rooted in language rather than racial affiliation, as seen in similar cases with Vietnamese individuals of Chinese descent.
Bilingual speakers of Khmer origin often view their racial identity as aligning with Khmer communities in Cambodia, while simultaneously identifying as Vietnamese nationals based on citizenship. This dual perspective underscores the intricate relationship between ethnicity, language, and national identity among minority groups in Vietnam.
The formation of Vietnamese place names further illustrates linguistic divergence. If Vietnamese and Khmer languages had shared a genetic affiliation, there would have been little need for Vietnamese speakers to create entirely new place names such as Sóctrăng in place of Khleang, Càmau for Khmaw (in Khmer), Namvang for Phnom Penh, or Caomiên for modern Cambodian Khmer. Similarly, they developed transcriptions such as Sàigòn (西岸 Xī'àn, Cant. /Sajngon/ for "Westbank"). In contrast, Sino-Vietnamese place names like Tâyninh (西寧 Xining, "The Pacified West") or Bắcninh (北寧 Beining, "The Pacified North") align directly with corresponding Chinese place names, reflecting a strong linguistic pairing.
Anthropologically, Chinese identity is defined more as a cultural construct than a racial classification. The Chinese script is historically credited with unifying diverse ethnic groups within China, facilitating communication across speakers of different dialects regardless of their native languages. For example, in southern China, people from Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, and Yunnan speak various forms of Southwestern Mandarin, distinct from southeastern dialects spoken in Jiangsu or MinNan provinces. Despite these dialectal differences, all groups can read and understand written Chinese, including Cantonese speakers and, interestingly, even ancient Annamese.
Linguistically, however, Sinicization has had minimal impact on groups such as the Uyghurs, Inner Mongolians, or Tibetans, even though these formerly independent regions were annexed into the Middle Kingdom centuries ago, a historical process comparable to Annam's colonization under Chinese imperial rule.
The author has often considered Vietnamese a linguistic embodiment of ancient Yue speech due to its early divergence from the Chinese mainstream. However, this perspective does not fully hold. Unlike Cantonese or Fukienese, spoken by communities that have remained in their ancestral homelands in southern China for millennia, Vietnamese has followed a distinct evolutionary trajectory. Historically, while ancient Annam was a part of China, its linguistic development reflected the racial makeup of its population.
Following its separation from imperial China and establishment as an independent state, Annam expanded southward, leading to the inevitable integration of Chamic and Mon-Khmer elements both racially and linguistically. Nonetheless, the nation's core population consisted of descendants of early settlers whose demographic composition had solidified during Annam's colonial period under China. Over time, racial admixture with indigenous groups accompanied territorial expansion, paralleling the assimilation carried out by the Qin-Han dynasties with native populations in ancient northern Vietnam.
Notwithstanding these racial dynamics, the issue seems to have largely escaped the attention of anthropologists and linguists specializing in Vietnamese studies. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis has positioned the narrative to suggest that local Mon-Khmer natives were "Vietnamized" rather than the reverse, a perspective likely shaped by the historical prestige of the Khmer Kingdom. However, proponents of this hypothesis appear to have overlooked key historical events, particularly the arrival of settlers from southern China who colonized and later Sinicized the local populations. This process of racial admixture began around the start of the first millennium A.D. and continued for the following thousand years after 111 B.C. These settlers later formed what became Vietnam's Kinh people, who subsequently "Vietnamized" later waves of Chinese immigrants, including the Minhhương people (明鄉人), descendants of the fallen Ming Dynasty. Fleeing Manchurian rule in mainland China, hundreds of Ming refugee fleets sailed southward to seek asylum in Vietnam during the 18th century. Some of these groups initially settled in Cambodia, living among Khmer communities before relocating to Vietnam.
Despite the historical significance of these migratory waves, little discourse has emerged on this subject within linguistic scholarship. Instead, academic focus has been largely placed on classifying the Vietnamese language within the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguistic sub-family, a classification shaped more by prevailing academic trends than definitive historical analysis. This framework primarily relies on identifying basic word cognates between Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese languages, emphasizing shared lexical features.
To further understand the presence of Mon-Khmer lexicons in Vietnamese, it is critical to note that Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer vocabulary comprises far fewer core words compared to Sinitic-Vietnamese lexicons, which closely align with both Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Tibetan etymologies. Ethnically, this mirrors the historical precedent wherein Chinese immigrants from southern China colonized and shaped ancient Annam. Following the 12th century, the early Annamese migrated southward, resettling across newly acquired territories in the now-extinct Champa and Khmer kingdoms. These interactions facilitated close ethnolinguistic exchanges, with groups adopting vocabulary from one another. Fundamental Mon-Khmer terms entered Vietnamese through direct linguistic contact, much like how Yue words were assimilated into Old Chinese. Evidence of these exchanges appears in the uneven distribution of basic Mon-Khmer words, which are present in some branches of the linguistic family but absent in others. Such words have been spoken across the high western mountain ranges of Vietnam since the early stages of territorial expansion.
For comparative reconstruction within the Sinitic linguistic framework, anthropological factors, such as history, culture, and speech patterns, must be carefully considered, as they shape Vietnamese national identity. Today, Vietnam comprises 54 distinct minority groups, each maintaining unique native dialects (e.g., Hmong, Daic, Nung, Chamic, and Mon-Khmer subdialects). These linguistic divisions persist independently of whether their ancestors were subjects of the ancient Nam Việt Kingdom. For example, the Li minority (黎族) of Hainan Island shares genetic affiliations with the Chamic people of Central Vietnam, reflecting their Austronesian linguistic roots. However, they were not directly connected to the ancient Annamese population until after the 12th century, when Chamic groups began intermingling with Annamese resettlers. This raises questions about the validity of linking Chamic lexical items such as ni and nớ ("that, there") to Chinese 那 (nà).
Figure 4 - Map of Vietnam in 1650 A.D.
The comparative significance of Mon-Khmer basic words in Vietnamese must be weighed against the extensive Sino-Tibetan etymological parallels present in the language. This comparison is analogous to how Japanese and Korean selectively adopted Chinese loanwords by choice, integrating them into daily use. Similarly, fundamental Vietnamese words with clear cognates in various Sino-Tibetan languages may have existed from ancient times, potentially dating as far back as the legendary tale of Phù Đổng Thiênvương, Thánh Dóng (聖董), which describes ancestral resistance against invaders from China's Yin Dynasty (殷朝) (9). If this legend contains historical truths, then centuries earlier, the Xia kings may have descended directly from nomadic horseback warriors, likely of proto-Tibetan origin. These groups may have migrated south of the Yangtze River, establishing contact with Taic-speaking natives, the ancestors of late Chu subjects and the Yue people, comprising most ethnic groups of southern China in later historical periods.
The complete formation of Vietnamese as it exists today likely took approximately 1,900 years, beginning in 111 B.C. and culminating in 939 A.D., when Middle Vietnamese emerged as a distinct entity. This marked its departure from the Sinicization that shaped Cantonese and Fukienese, which remained within the Sino-sphere. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer components can be conveniently factored into two separate periods, either remote antiquity or the 12th century, when Annam expanded south of the 16th parallel. Just as Chamic elements can be set aside in analyzing Vietnamese linguistic history, Mon-Khmer components had relatively little influence on the language's earlier evolutionary stages.
Historical evidence strongly supports this view. Over centuries, waves of Han immigrants, including foot soldiers, newly appointed or exiled officials, and displaced refugees, emigrated from southern China, permanently settling in Annam. These new settlers eventually integrated into local communities long after Annam's formal separation from Chinese rule. Remarkably, this process persists even today, as Chinese migrant laborers continue to resettle permanently in Vietnam.
During the French colonial era, spanning nearly 100 years, linguistic reforms had a lasting impact on Vietnam's writing system. The modern Romanized Vietnamese script gained widespread adoption as intellectual circles spearheaded efforts to replace the traditional Vietnamese writing system in the early 20th century. This radical transformation marked a definitive break from the Sinitic cycle, altering semantic and syntactic structures derived from classical Chinese used in 17th-century and earlier texts. Today, spoken and written Vietnamese have been modernized to the point of increased precision and logic, incorporating Western linguistic mechanisms, including structured topics, complete sentences, and punctuation, while retaining a vast vocabulary stock of Chinese origin.
When Annam gained independence in 939 A.D., its territory was limited to the rice-growing regions surrounding the Red River Basin, located in present-day northern Vietnam. Historically, this region had been part of the Nam Việt Kingdom in southern China, approximately 300 years before 111 B.C. The Austroasiatic theory of a Mon-Khmer genetic affiliation with Vietnamese is challenged by the fact that Vietnam's central and southern territories, south of the 16th parallel, were only incorporated into Annam after the 12th century. This territorial expansion resulted from warfare and political concessions from the Champa Kingdom (192–1832 A.D.). The Chams, of Austronesian origin, had established a long-lasting and powerful state, effectively serving as a geographical buffer between ancient Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer populations. (8) The hypothesis that Vietnamese shares an ancestral connection with Mon-Khmer is problematic, as contact between these groups occurred far later than Austroasiatic theorists propose.
By the time Annamese resettlers expanded southward, they were already of mixed racial heritage, descended from early northeastern Vietnamese aborigines and Han immigrants from southern China. These settlers included people from Chu (楚), Wu (吳), Yue (越), Min (閩), and other Yue-related states recorded during the Western Zhou period. After the Han Empire annexed NamViệt in 111 B.C., Han settlers migrated en masse into Annam, intermarrying with local populations. Their descendants continued migrating into what would later become central and southern Vietnam, beginning in the 12th century and lasting until the early 16th century.
Linguistically, interactions between southern Annamese settlers and Mon-Khmer speakers in newly acquired mountainous and delta regions likely contributed to Vietnamese absorption of Mon-Khmer vocabulary. These spatial contacts occurred primarily in the Central Highlands along the Trườngsơn Range, as well as the fertile Mekong Delta, where Khmer populations were concentrated. The presence of Mon-Khmer vocabulary in Vietnamese is largely the result of linguistic contact, rather than an intrinsic genetic relationship.
Austroasiatic theorists have repeatedly emphasized Mon-Khmer influences in Vietnamese linguistic classification. However, whether Vietnamese truly belongs within the Austroasiatic family depends largely on whether the analysis is approached historically or geographically. From a historical standpoint, Austroasiatic claims regarding genetic affiliations between Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer languages remain speculative, particularly given Vietnam's prolonged northern migrations. From a geographic perspective, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer speakers inhabited the Mekong River Basin long before Annamese settlers arrived, and proponents of the hypothesis often assume that the earliest Vietnamese were originally Mon-Khmer, disregarding evidence of massive Han migration.
A parallel can be drawn between these Austroasiatic claims and Vietnamese nationalist narratives, which assert cultural ownership over excavated relics from the Sahuỳnh and Óc-Eo civilizations. These regions once thrived under Chamic monarchs long before Annamese expansion. Nationalist scholars, eager to establish uninterrupted Vietnamese lineage, boldly claim these artifacts as the creations of their own ancestors, ignoring the fact that indigenous artisans had long since disappeared.
Similarly, Austroasiatic linguists attempt to trace Vietnamese linguistic ancestry to prehistoric Mon-Khmer origins, negotiating academic support for Mon-Khmer cognates. As early as the 20th century, Vietnamese scholars began asserting ancestral heritage over Dongsonian bronze drums, discovered across vast regions of Southeast Asia. These artifacts were widely credited as belonging to the forefathers of modern Vietnamese, despite limited evidence regarding their manufacturing techniques. Surprisingly, few Vietnamese scholars have linked these drums to Zhuang communities, who continue using similar instruments in northwestern Vietnam and southern China.
The key question remains: who were the actual creators of these advanced bronze drums found across Southeast Asia? Did the ancient Yue, who migrated south from China, introduce them? Or were they produced by Austroasiatic peoples who spread across Southeast Asia thousands of years ago? Nationalist scholars often cite accounts from The Book of the Later Han (後漢書 Hòu Hànshū) to argue that Han imperial forces annihilated Vietnam's indigenous cultural heritage, as recorded in General Ma Yuan's campaign, in which captured Lạc Việt bronze drums were melted down to create bronze horses. (See Wikipedia: Ma Yuan's bronze horses).
Despite the geographical distribution of bronze drums placing both the Vietnamese and the Zhuang within the same cultural sphere, historically, the latter group continues to use such drums for sacrificial ceremonies. Moreover, Zhuang folklore explicitly details the origins of their bronze drum tradition, whereas the Viet-Muong exhibit no equivalent connection. If the nationalist claims regarding Vietnamese heritage were taken at face value, then the Vietnamese would indeed be heirs to bronze drums, but this reasoning becomes inconsistent if they simultaneously assert ties to Khmer heritage, which holds an undeniably vast cultural footprint. The question then arises, who should be considered legitimate descendants of the Yue ancestry? Both spatially and temporally, this contradiction must be clarified.
The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, meanwhile, disregards historical chronology and implicitly asserts that the Vietnamese descend from aboriginal forefathers who inhabited vast southern territories around 6300 B.C., long before Annam emerged as an independent state. These Austroasiatic aborigines are postulated to have spoken archaic forms of Mon-Khmer languages, with the Vietnamese model tailored to fit within an Austroasiatic framework. However, this classification fails to account for the significant presence of Chinese lexical influences in Vietnamese, which have shaped its linguistic structure in a manner distinct from traditional Mon-Khmer languages. Comparatively, the Vietnamese language is not wholly composed of borrowed Chinese vocabulary, as seen in the Bulgarian language's absorption of Slavic elements. Instead, it shares some traits with the Haitian French Creole model, making it a false Chinese dialect akin to Cantonese. Other national languages around the world, including Spanish across Latin America, do not stem from indigenous languages but from colonial influences. Similarly, Mandarin is spoken by indigenous Taiwanese and native Singaporeans despite its foreign origins. Crucially, the ancestral Yue elements in Vietnamese existed prior to the development of Sinitic linguistic entities, as evidenced by the common Yayu (雅語) diplomatic language used for inter-state communication during the Eastern Zhou era.
Although the Austroasiatic hypothesis has been widely accepted and has classified Vietnamese within the Mon-Khmer sub-family, its foundational word list has yet to be systematically reviewed alongside Sino-Tibetan etymologies. Specialists in Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan studies have remained unaware of the degree to which over 400 Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma align with Sino-Tibetan linguistic structures. This study aims to examine Sino-Tibetan etymologies beyond those traditionally classified within the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer framework.
The Austroasiatic theorists will likely react with astonishment upon reviewing the Sino-Tibetan basic word lists presented here. Furthermore, this repudiation of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis is grounded not only in linguistic evidence but also in archaeology, anthropology, history, and philology. Recorded history indicates that Vietnamese forebears originated from the north, far removed from the Indo-Chinese peninsula, dating back at least 3,000 years. Anthropologically, Vietnamese mythology asserts that the Vietnamese are "offspring of dragons and deities" (Con Rồng Cháu Tiên) and were once considered "descendants of the Yellow Emperor" (黃帝 or 炎帝 SV Viêm Đế ), a legend also embraced by the Chinese. Both traditions appear to reinforce a shared ancestral Yue heritage, suggesting that early Yue peoples may have worshipped alligators, a practice absent among Mon-Khmer cultures (See Terrien Lacouperie, 1887). Historically and culturally, descendants of pre-Qin states, comprising subjects from Chu (楚), Wu (吳), Yue (越), and other southern polities, continue to commemorate the poet Khuất Nguyên (屈原, Qu Yuan) on the Fifth Day of the Fifth Month in the Lunar calendar (端午節, Duanwujie or the Dragon Boat Festival), honoring his martyrdom in resistance to Qin domination (See Trần Trọng Kim's Việt-nam Sử-lược, Ngô Sỹ Liên's Đại-Việt Sử-ký, Bo Yang's Sima Guang 資治通鑒, Zizhi Tongjian. 1983, Vol. 1).
Meanwhile, whether or not modern Vietnamese are true Yue descendants, they frequently identify themselves with the prestigious metallurgical tradition of bronze casting, a cultural legacy extending throughout Southeast Asia, including the Indonesian archipelago. However, they have cautiously refrained from claiming ownership of Chamic Hindu temple ruins scattered along Vietnam's central coast, recognizing their distinct historical origins.
Vietnamese nationalist enthusiasm aligns with academic narratives crafted by Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists, who framed Vietnam's linguistic and cultural history within a broader Southeast Asian context. This perspective positioned Vietnam within grand civilizational narratives, including the Khmer Empire, which was once the most dominant regional force prior to the 11th century. Austroasiatic followers have been led to believe that Mon-Khmer speakers, having left cultural remnants across Southeast Asia, were ancestral Vietnamese. From a historical perspective, however, none of the Khmer ruins or thousands of years' worth of artifacts discovered in Vietnam's central region are connected to early Annamese populations.
Over a span of three millennia, successive waves of settlers encountering Khmer groups on-site contributed to linguistic development, resulting in Vietnamese absorption of new Mon-Khmer elements. On one hand, indigenous Mon-Khmer speakers in Vietnam logically retain their locally evolved languages, persisting among Mon-Khmer minority communities in remote mountainous regions. On the other hand, the Vietnamese Kinh majority remains concentrated in arable lowland areas along the central coast, the Red River Delta, and the Mekong River Basin, with the most recent major waves of settlement occurring around 310 years ago. The formation of Vietnamese identity was driven by intermarriage between indigenous foremothers and immigrant men, fostering family structures rooted in Confucian values. Generational cycles resulted in a racially mixed populace, expanding Vietnam southward through both demographic growth and territorial consolidation.
As we continue uncovering inconsistencies within the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, historical analysis must take precedence over speculative prehistoric timelines. It is important for Austroasiatic scholars to recognize that indigenous Mon-Khmer speakers, having retreated into remote mountain regions, never played a governing role in Annam's statehood. The historical Annamese, inhabitants of the Chinese-administered Annam Prefecture for approximately 1,060 years prior to independence in 939 A.D., formed the actual ancestral lineage of today's Vietnamese Kinh majority.
The Austroasiatic camp has long maintained that Mon-Khmer linguistic elements coexisted alongside Vietic ones, regardless of whether the former group originated from the same Yue lineage. It is further assumed that both groups ultimately derived from Taic origins dating back to prehistoric times. The presence of contemporary Mon-Khmer minority communities, likely descendants of aboriginal settlers from neighboring Indo-Chinese territories, may have once been dominant in their native regions (Nguyễn Ngọc Sơn, 1993).
In any case, the method of wet rice farming with paddy fields, which Mon-Khmer groups continue to adopt, must have spread southward from the north, originating just below Dongting Lake (Độngđìnhhồ) in Hunan Province. This region has traditionally been regarded as the ancestral homeland of the Yue people, dating back approximately 3,000 years. Over time, wet rice agriculture extended further into mountainous areas where Daic and Zhuang ethnic groups remain concentrated today. This suggests that water paddy cultivation had already existed in the region long before its widespread adoption by Mon-Khmer communities.
The southern regions of China, home to the descendants of the ancient Yue, who had Taic roots and established the Chu State, later contributed to the diverse population of the Nam Việt Kingdom. These regions are likely where the ancestral Vietic people originated before migrating to what is now northern Vietnam for various reasons. Immigrants from southern China were not limited to refugees and exiles; they also included officials, foot soldiers, servants, and others who followed Han colonial expansion. As previously noted, these groups integrated with earlier resettlers, creating a racially mixed demographic composition, a classic example of anthropological assimilation.
Over generations, the descendants of these Yue emigrants completed their southward migration and permanently settled in Annam, laying the foundation for its emerging sovereignty. Initially, earlier generations communicated using either their mother's or father's language or a hybrid of both, eventually developing a distinct local speech. As successive generations moved further south, their descendants continued to identify as "people of the southern Yue" (Việt Nam), whether through a process of cultural assimilation or as a declaration of anti-China sentiment. This population evolved into the Kinh majority, who today speak the Vietnamese national language.
Where, then, do Austroasiatic factors fit into the broader framework of the ancient Yue theory, which is substantiated by historical evidence? Despite the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer framework offering largely speculative prehistoric connections, its speakers may also trace their lineage to the same Taic roots associated with the historical Annamese, likely originating from a southern Yue branch. They may even share ethnic ties with Zhuang or Daic groups, who are historically credited with creating bronze drums. More specifically, they might be linked to the Maonan ethnicity (冒南族) of southern China, potentially related to ancestral Mon peoples. This hypothesis aligns with the cultural significance of bronze drums but excludes artifacts from the Óc-Eo and Sahuỳnh civilizations found in modern Vietnam. These artifacts were created by indigenous populations distinct from the early Vietnamese settlers and predate the emergence of Chamic peoples, who were likely related to the Li minorities residing on China's Hainan Island.
The earliest Annamese resettled into the central coastal corridor regions relatively late, around the 12th century. In contrast, dominant Mon-Khmer speakers had inhabited the Indochina region for over 6,000 years before present, distinguishing them from later Vietnamese settlers. The Vietnamese remain a distinct group, separate from the 53 indigenous minority groups in Vietnam today. Among these minorities are southern Mon-Khmer speakers, referred to by the French as 'Montagnards,' who still live on their ancestral lands under Vietnam's governance. These minority groups only came into contact with the late-arriving Vietnamese resettlers within the last few centuries. They inhabit areas along Vietnam's border with Cambodia, spanning the western mountainous ranges and high plateaus, and extending into the southern Mekong Basin, territory annexed by Vietnam from Cambodia during the 16th century.
This raises two key questions regarding the origins of the Vietnamese. First, do they descend from a branch of the Yue, or are they Austroasiatic? A reality the Vietnamese must confront is that, despite nationalist claims, the Vietnamese today, including their Muong cousins, may not be direct descendants of the Yue. Unlike the Zhuang people, who continue to use bronze drums in tribal sacrificial ceremonies, Vietnamese nationalist narratives linking their origins to the Yue often reflect wishful thinking reinforced by collective belief. Second, what is frequently overlooked is the possibility that ancestral religious practices, the belief in ever-present spirits of one's forebears offering protection and blessings, may have originated abroad as far back as 5,000 years ago (see Dong Zuo-Bin, 1933; Wu Qi-Chang, 1934; Fu Si-Nian, 1934).
This hypothesis is particularly relevant when examining the southern populations living in Vietnam's recently annexed territories. These groups had no direct connection to the later immigrants from the north, who resettled and intermingled with earlier inhabitants, contributing to the gradual genetic transformation of the Annamese population. This regional transmutation laid the foundation for what ultimately became the Vietnamese nation, a process that aligns with the formula {4Y6Z8HCMK}.
Ethnically, their descendants, the modern Vietnamese, now live atop archaeological sites where cultural artifacts, including bronze drums, have been unearthed. Interestingly, these relics have been found not only in southern China, the ancestral homeland of the Yue, but also in regions as distant as Indonesia's southernmost islands.
The discovery of Đông Sơn drums in New Guinea further supports evidence of ancient trade connections. These findings allow Austroasiatic scholars to align their narrative with Yue theorization, as both frameworks demonstrate inclusivity despite originating in distinct historical periods. This convergence is particularly significant for Vietic entities, both racially and linguistically, as their history spans more than 3,000 years, rooted in references to "Southern barbarians" in early Chinese records.
Figure 5 - Dongson Bronze Drums found in Indonesia
(Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Son_drum)
x X x
Table 1 - Dongson bronze drums
Đôngsơn drums (also called Heger Type I drums) are bronze drums fabricated by the Đôngsơn culture in the Red River Delta of northern Vietnam. The drums were produced from about 600 BCE or earlier until the third century CE and are one of the culture's finest examples of metalworking.
The drums, cast in bronze using the lost-wax casting method are up to a meter in height and weigh up to 100 kilograms (220 lbs.) Đôngsơn drums were apparently both musical instruments and cult objects. They are decorated with geometric patterns, scenes of daily life and war, animals and birds, and boats. The latter alludes to the importance of trade to the culture in which they were made, and the drums themselves became objects of trade and heirlooms. More than 200 have been found, across an area from eastern Indonesia to Vietnam and parts of Southern China.
The earliest drum found in 1976 existed 2700 years ago in Wangjiaba (万家坝) in Yunnan Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture China. It is classified into the bigger and heavier Yue (粤系) drums including the Dong Son drums, and the Dian (滇系) drums, into 8 subtypes, purported to be invented by Ma Yuan and Zhuge Liang. But the Book of the Later Han said Ma melt the bronze drums seized from the rebel Lạc Việt in Jiaozhi into horse.
The discovery of Đôngsơn drums in New Guinea, is seen as proof of trade connections , spanning at least the past thousand years , between this region and the technologically advanced societies of Java and China [South].
In 1902, a collection of 165 large bronze drums was published by F. Heger, who subdivided them into a classification of four types.
Terminology such as Taic, Yue, Daic, Vietic, Muong, Annamese, Kinh, or Vietnamese corresponds to distinct historical periods. If the Austroasiatic term is included among them, it would likely fit between the Taic and Yue timeframes. In this sense, each term reflects a specific historical implication rather than retroactively attaching "good things", such as cultural developments and material artifacts, to forebears from later periods. National pride in inherited traditions often leads to subjective interpretations, enticing people to embrace all perceived "good things," including fine clay utensils or advanced bronze drums, under the assumption that they were exclusively passed down by their ancestors. Such historical misattribution is not unique to Vietnam; modern Chinese scholars have similarly claimed cultural curios found in southern China as their own. Examples include claims that bronze drums were invented by Ma Yuan (馬楥) of the Western Han and Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮) of the Eastern Han, or assertions that copperware existed in earlier epochs despite the absence of known bronze mines in the northeast, where the Shang Dynasty originated (Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993). These false claims obscure objective analysis of prehistoric anthropological matters.
This dynamic raises an essential question: who, then, are the Vietnamese? The answer lies in the historical record showing that Han Chinese society was the result of a fusion with Yue peoples, represented by both Nam Việt (南越) and the Chu subjects before their kingdoms were incorporated into the Han Empire. Long before Annam gained sovereignty, earlier Muong groups, descendants of the Yue entity following the Viet-Muong split after the Qin-Han period, chose to flee into the mountains rather than assimilate under Han rule. As a result, they retained a relatively pure aboriginal lineage compared to those who remained and intermarried with migrants from southern China. Over time, the racially mixed descendants of these resettlers became known as the Kinh, forming the Vietnamese population.
Similar to the linguistic structure of the Vietnamese language, which features a combination of Yue and Sinitic elements but lacks direct ties to the prehistoric Austroasiatic framework, the racial makeup of contemporary Vietnamese likely emerged during the later colonial period in Annam. If one adheres to the timeline suggesting that the proto-Taic people gave rise to the Yue and Vietic populations, then the Austroasiatic peoples must have already migrated far beyond their Indo-Chinese homeland, reaching the southern hemisphere at least 6,000 to 4,000 years before present. This period lies beyond the scope of the present discussion on the historical development of Vietnamese and its speakers, which traces back to 111 B.C. Further exploration of this topic will be addressed in subsequent chapters.
Regarding linguistic affiliations with Sinitic languages, which closely parallel the racial composition of today's Vietnamese populace, one could argue that had Vietnam remained a dependent prefecture of China's successive dynasties beyond 939 A.D., rather than securing independence from the Nam Han (南漢) State, its language, even in its present 21st-century form, would have been classified as another Chinese dialect. The same linguistic framework that categorizes Fukienese (Amoy 廈門 Xiamen) and Cantonese as Sinitic languages would have applied to Vietnamese.
The linguistic divergence of Vietnamese, Fukienese, and Cantonese, alongside subdialects such as Amoy, Hainanese, Chaozhou (Teochow), and Toishanese, suggests they all originally evolved from a proto-Yue language. Their paths diverged significantly after 111 B.C., when the Han Empire annexed the vast territory of Nam Việt in southern China. Regardless of which dynasty governed, the land remained known as "China." Annam, or ancient Vietnam, remained part of China for 1,000 years until its mid-10th-century independence. To contextualize Vietnamese within the Sino-sphere, one could imagine an alternate historical scenario in which Fujian and Guangdong provinces had also seceded from China around the same period. Such speculation underscores the enduring Sinicization of Vietnam, even after separation, mirroring processes observed among its Yue cousin states to the north.
Anthropological evidence points to a shared ancestral lineage between Vietnamese and southern Chinese populations. Lexically, Vietnamese basic etyma preserve striking remnants of the common Yue substratum. Illustrative examples include con 'child' alongside 子 (仔) Amoy /kẽ/; mợ 'mother' with 母 mǔ Hainanese /maj2/; biết 'know' with 明白 míngbǎi Hainanese, Amoy /mɓat7/; soài 'mango' with 檨 Amoy /swãj4/; dê 'goat' with 羊 Chaozhou /jẽw1/; gàcồ 'rooster' with 雞公 jīgōng Hainanese /kōj1koŋ1/; and gàmái 'hen' with 雞母 jīmǔ Hainanese /kōj1maj2/.
While Fukienese and Cantonese were fully Sinicized and classified among the major southern Chinese dialects, Vietnamese followed a distinct trajectory after Giaochỉ (交趾 Jiāozhǐ) became one of nine prefectures under the Western Han. Unlike its northern counterparts, Vietnamese developed within a racially mixed populace of aboriginal Yue and Han officials, together with northern foot soldiers who settled in the region. Following independence, the southward resettlement of Annamese introduced additional foreign influences along their expansion route.
Archaeological findings complicate nationalist claims over southern indigenous artifacts, yet linguistic affiliations are more reliably traced through consistent evolutionary patterns. As Sinitic languages expanded southward around 100 B.C., the Indian‑influenced Champa Kingdom, situated south of ancient Annam, failed to establish sustained contact with its northern neighbors and lost ties with its racial relatives, now identified as the Li minority of Hainan Island. Further south, Chamic groups often clashed with Khmer populations. The eventual annexation of Champa into Annam, completed in the eighteenth century, left only limited traces in Vietnamese. Beyond placenames, linguists attribute a handful of Chamic loanwords, such as u 'mother', ni 'this', and nớ 'that' in the Hue dialect, though even these claims remain contested.
Beyond geography and anthropology, linguistic features found exclusively in Chinese and Vietnamese, such as tonality and disyllabicity, reinforce a Sinitic‑Yue affiliation. This stands in sharp contrast to the assimilation of Chinese loanwords into toneless Altaic languages like Korean and Japanese, where borrowed lexemes were structurally reshaped in Kanji and Hanji to fit native speech patterns.
Taken together, the comparative analysis underscores Vietnam's linguistic and historical position within the Sino‑Tibetan framework rather than the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer model. The continuity of shared attributes between Vietnamese and Chinese, juxtaposed against the separation between Chinese and Korean or Japanese, further substantiates the argument for a Sino‑Tibetan classification of Vietnamese.
The linguistic proximity between Vietnamese and Chinese is evident in their shared semantics, tonal registers, lexical classifiers, grammatical prepositions, conjunctions, and syntactic structures, reinforcing their common linguistic heritage. Before the adoption of Romanized Vietnamese, Chinese script was used in official documents for over 2,200 years to transcribe Nôm, the native Vietnamese language, as well as indigenous dialectal names for local products and places. This script, known as chữNôm, coexisted alongside standard Chinese writing, with one serving an official function and the other reserved for vernacular usage. For instance, "Nôm" (喃) and "Nam" (南) were used for "Nồm" while "tử" (子) and "tý" were utilized for con "child" and chuột "rat." Similarly, "xú" (丑) and "sửu" were written for xấu "ugly" and trâu "buffalo," while tơ and ty (絲) corresponded to silk‑related terms.
Beyond these spatial and temporal factors, Chinese cultural influences, particularly Confucianism, directly impacted phonological changes in Vietnamese, including linguistic taboos and euphemisms. Words deemed homonymous with royal names or venerable elders were often avoided, as seen in substitutions like lời or lãi in place of Lợi (利) from King Lê Lợi's name. Sound shifts must therefore be central to examining Yue roots in Vietnamese, as variations in pronunciation over time illustrate deeper linguistic patterns. Consequently, this study refrains from unearthing substrata for fossilized etyma, which may represent local remnants from the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer stock, a domain long defended by Austroasiatic theorists.
Linguistic truth belongs to those who recognize what others overlook and continue advocating their views, even when they diverge from mainstream Sino‑Tibetan classifications. Grammar also warrants exploration, even though it is among the fastest‑changing elements of language. A 2017 linguistic study published in Phys.org, "The myth of language history: Languages do not share a single history," highlights this variability. To illustrate, Vietnamese word formation often follows a syntactically reversed order of {stem + modifier}, which differs from that of other Chinese dialects, yet retains identical syllabic components. Ancient terms display similar structures in both languages, such as Hoanam (華南, "China South") or Thầnnông (神農, "God of Agriculture") instead of the reversed Nánhuá (南華) or Nóngshén (農神). Despite differences in syllabic order, particularly in phonological and syntactic structure, Vietnamese and Chinese linguistic similarities remain closely knitted in semantics. This is evident in several Middle Chinese words that Vietnamese still preserves in dual forms, for example bảođảm vs. đảmbảo (擔保 dānbǎo, "guarantee"), áiân vs. ânái (愛恩 ài'ēn vs. 恩愛 ēn'ài, "conjugal love"), hoen‑ố 染污 (rǎnwū, "tainted") vs. ônhiễm 污染 (wūrǎn, "polluted").
The primary strength of the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer hypothesis lies in its claim that Vietnamese shares foundational vocabulary with Mon‑Khmer languages. Yet, as revealed in this study, the same core words also appear in Sino‑Tibetan languages. These fundamental lexicons extend beyond the scope of basic Austroasiatic word lists, encompassing additional native and indigenous words within Vietnamese linguistic stock. Western‑trained specialists in Vietnamese linguistics within the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer camp have taken notice of this pattern and continue efforts to recruit institutional graduates into their school of thought. Expanding scholarly engagement in this field further reinforces Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer classifications. Novices in Vietnamese historical linguistics often reiterate previously established narratives taught in academic settings, effectively turning linguistic classification into a repetitive cycle.
If increased interest in this field fosters broader discussions, scholars may reconsider Vietnamese linguistic classification by examining Sino‑Tibetan etymologies alongside Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer word lists. This study introduces new evidence revealing cognacy among Sino‑Tibetan and Vietnamese basic etyma, demonstrating their linguistic affiliation beyond Austroasiatic narratives. (See Parallels with the Sino-Tibetan languages)
At the outset, it is necessary to examine the basic word lists that Austroasiatic specialists have relied on as the foundation of their hypothesis for over a century. At the turn of the 20th century, in an effort to solidify their theory, Austroasiatic pioneers launched counterarguments against the widely accepted Sino‑Tibetan classification of Vietnamese (Meillet, A., 1952, pp. 526–27). Their approach primarily involved extensive lexical tabulation and categorization of Khmer etyma, referred to here as etymology harvesting, within various Mon‑Khmer linguistic subfamilies, such as Banahric and Katuic, while equating them with sibling Viet‑Muong languages, including Muong, Ruc, and Thavung. Austroasiatic theorists have remained confident in their hypothesis, arguing that Vietnamese basic words align closely with Austroasiatic etymologies found across various Mon‑Khmer dialects.
However, once the initial excitement surrounding the Austroasiatic classification subsided, it became clear that these basic etyma were distributed unevenly across multiple Mon‑Khmer languages. In other words, some dialects retained similar forms, while others did not, suggesting that linguistic diffusion, rather than a shared genetic origin, may explain the similarities. In certain instances, this phenomenon may be attributed to regional linguistic contacts, particularly among Muong subdialects.
If there is a legitimate field of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymological linguistics, it must be distinguished from natural sciences, where standardized measurement tools are used universally. Linguistic methodologies rooted in Indo-European analysis may not be adequate for examining tonal languages. As a result, cognate etyma in different linguistic families should not be expected to share identical phonological forms. For example, words would generally be classified as loanwords if their phonology closely resembles that of another language, as seen in Sino-Vietnamese lexicons, which largely mirror Middle Chinese pronunciations. In contrast, Mon-Khmer cognates display phonological similarities across different languages, raising the possibility of coincidence. This contradicts the linguistic axiom that states: the closer two words are in phonetic appearance, the more distant their genetic affiliation is presumed to be. This pattern is particularly evident when comparing tonal and non-tonal languages, for instance, Vietnamese chồmhỗm ("squat") and Khmer /chorahom/ versus Mandarin 犬坐 (quánzuò).
VII) Languages are not isolated codes but living archives of history
Anthropologically, the racial admixture of Vietnamese bears striking similarities to the evolutionary processes shaping the Han Chinese. To be expressed in a formulary manner, initially, proto-Chinese {X}, originating from Tibetan regions of southwestern China, intermingled with proto-Yue aboriginals {YY}, presumably the Taic people, who comprised the majority of the Chu State's population and spoke an ancient Daic language. This interaction occurred at a proportional ratio of 1, to 2, symbolically expressed as X/2Y. Over time, these groups formed the indigenous Yue populace {ZZZ}, inhabiting states such as Shu, Wu, and Yue. Their mixed descendants were later classified as Han {HHHH}, represented as 3Z4H (3 x Z and 4 x H). Under the Han Dynasty, these groups unified within the Middle Kingdom, effectively a "united states of Qin", marking the transition from Qin subjects to Han Chinese.
The racial composition of the Han Chinese, hence, represented as {X2Y3Z4H}, emerged through the fusion of proto-Chinese (X), proto-Yue (YY), indigenous Yue (ZZZ), and Han (HHHH). Similarly, the racial makeup of Vietnamese nationals evolved from proto-Yue {YY} and later Yue {ZZZ} to proto-Vietic {YYZZZ}, hence, assumingly, the ancestors of the Vietic or early Annamese represented as {2Y3Z+4H}. These groups gradually transformed into modern Vietnamese, represented as {4Y6Z8H+CMK}, where {C} symbolizes the Cham component and {MK} denotes Mon-Khmer influences. This racial admixture closely mirrors the composition of Fukienese and Cantonese populations, shaped by similar fusion processes during the Han Dynasty before and after 111 B.C.
Consequently, the Austroasiatic formula can be tentatively expressed as {6YCMK}, contrasting with the modern Vietnamese formula {4Y6Z8H+CMK}. These formulations encapsulate the historical processes that forged distinct yet interconnected racial and cultural identities.
As later chapters will elaborate in terms of historical factors, the development of Vietnamese has progressed in parallel with the racial composition of its speakers ({4Y6Z8H+CMK}). Historically, when Qin armies advanced southward, native Yue inhabitants ({2Y3Z2H}) from the Độngđìnhhồ region in present-day Hunan Province migrated en masse to the Red River Delta in northern Vietnam. This migration led to racial intermixing with indigenous groups, including the native Muong and the peoples associated with the Phùngnguyên Culture (c. 2000–1500 B.C.) (8) In subsequent periods, resettlers ({2Y3Z2H}) who had previously occupied the region intermingled with the newly arrived Yue groups ({4Y3Z2H}). Later, the ancestors of the Viet-Muong ({4Y3Z2H}) fled to the southwestern mountainous regions in response to Han invasions from 208 B.C., placing their linguistic heritage in direct contact with local Mon-Khmer speakers ({4Y+MK}). This historical interplay helps explain why certain Viet-Muong dialects exhibit phonological proximity to Mon-Khmer languages.
In short, symbolically, if Yue entities were expressed numerically to represent the proportions of racial blending shaping the genetic composition of the ancient Annamese, a plausible model might assign weighted values as {2Y3Z4H}. This theoretical construct draws upon historical records, including census data documenting population growth from 400,000 to 980,000 across the three Han prefectures of Giaochỉ, Cửuchân, and Nhậtnam within a century (111 B.C.-11 B.C.). Additionally, accounts indicate that between 15,000 and 30,000 unmarried women from the NamViệt State were forcibly married to Qin soldiers during the brief Qin Dynasty (Lu Shih-Peng, 1964, Eng. p. 11, Chin. p. 47).
Since antiquity, Muong-speaking communities in mountainous regions have borrowed loanwords from Khmer or Kinh speakers when engaging in trade or striving for prestige, thereby integrating Mon-Khmer terms into the broader Vietnamese linguistic mainstream. This mutual exchange also facilitated the transmission of essential vocabulary among various languages. Even today, these linguistic interactions persist, as waves of northern migrants resettle in Vietnam's western Central Highlands. Observing speech patterns among Muong villages in Hoàbình Province or Mon-Khmer communities in Gialai and Kontum provinces provides direct insight into this linguistic integration.
In practice, Vietnamese Kinh speakers in lowland areas rarely need to borrow lexicon from Montagnard groups for words they already possess in their language. Even among their close Muong relatives, lexical redundancy often negates the necessity of linguistic borrowing. Instead, the reverse scenario occurs more frequently. Additionally, shared words may be the result of linguistic coincidence rather than direct borrowing. Examples include:
- chồmhỗm ("squat") = Khmer /chorahom/
- chòhõ ("stand") = Khmer /ch ho/
- tầmvong ("stick") = Khmer /dm boong/
- rùmbeng ("fuss") = Khmer /rm poong/
- hầmbàlàng ("mix") = Khmer /ʔhm blang/ (Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993, p. 45)
Austroasiatic theorists focus primarily on proving shared linguistic roots between Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese rather than scrutinizing social linguistic interactions that may explain these similarities. This approach underpins their classification of Vietnamese within the Austroasiatic family. At the same time, they have largely disregarded comparisons between Vietnamese and Sino-Tibetan etymologies, likely due to an insufficient awareness of potential linguistic affiliations. Their analytical framework also neglects other linguistic factors, including structural similarities between Vietnamese and Chinese. Again, that is where our second approach kicks with etymological analysis.
The Austroasiatic classification compensates for discrepancies in Vietnamese by linking its linguistic development with that of other Viet-Muong languages. This assumption suggests a common ancestral root within the broader Yue linguistic family of southern China. However, given the extensive migration and historical shifts that shaped Vietnamese linguistic evolution, this classification remains incomplete without considering its extensive Sinitic connections.
Popular Vietnamese wisdom wonders: "Is this a case of putting the plow in front of the buffalo in preparation for the paddy field?" (Cáicày đặt trước contrâu?) In other words, is a theory, i.e., Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer paradigm, being constructed before the supporting data is even plugged in? This evokes the classic analogy of the chicken and the egg, illustrating how logic can be bent to fit a narrative. The folk axiom humorously reminds us of a similarly questionable claim made by some Western grammarians in the early 20th century, that the Vietnamese language lacked grammatical rules until French structures were adopted and adapted, effectively "bringing it into existence."
This perspective misses the point entirely. Grammar does not define a language, just as words alone do not constitute it.
Basic word cognacy in many languages can often be attributed to linguistic contact rather than direct genetic affiliation. For instance, Indo-European numeral systems provide a clear example of semantic contamination, as seen in words such as September and October, which originally denoted the seventh and eighth months, respectively, but now correspond to the ninth and tenth months due to calendar modifications.
Terminologically, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer concept was strategically devised to encompass remnants of Indo-Chinese languages found in isolated communities across Vietnam's western mountainous regions south of the 16th parallel. Additionally, it incorporates dialectal enclaves further north in southern China, spanning areas below the Yangtze River Basin, dating back to prehistoric periods. This classification remains flexible, adjusting to accommodate linguistic elements that might not fit elsewhere, such as Daic or Zhuang linguistic features.
Methodologically, Austroasiatic specialists have adapted Indo-European linguistic frameworks, which may appear scientifically rigorous to novice researchers, to advance Mon-Khmer etymological studies. Generally, Mon-Khmer basic words form the primary Austroasiatic lineage that entered the Vietnamese lexicon much later, particularly following Vietnam's independence and subsequent territorial expansion. Consequently, nearly all Viet-Muong dialects originating from northern Vietnam's Red River Delta have been mapped onto southwestern Mon-Khmer languages spoken in regions that did not historically belong to Vietnam before the 12th century. The assertion of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer roots in Vietnamese thus traces back to a linguistic heritage belonging to a population that had not yet emerged, namely, the later Kinh people. In both historical and linguistic contexts, ancient Viet-Muong resettlers had no direct affiliation with Mon-Khmer speakers before the 2nd century B.C., nor with the Khmer Kingdom, which developed much later around the 10th century.
Conclusion
In the absence of fresh and compelling research, scholars working within the Sino‑Tibetan framework have encountered increasing difficulty in gaining academic traction. This chapter establishes a foundation for renewed inquiry into Sino‑Tibetan and Vietnamese linguistic connections, long eclipsed by the prevailing Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer paradigm. That framework, however, continues to be challenged with growing intensity.
Through historical and linguistic analysis, this study emphasizes the need to refine the classification of Vietnamese. By investigating the external forces that shape linguistic narratives, the discussion opens the way for a broader reevaluation of Sinitic and Vietnamese linguistics. This includes the study of phonological development and the identification of core cognates embedded within Sino‑Tibetan etymological strata.
Over the course of more than 2,000 years, post‑Qin and Han Chinese populations gradually merged with the Yue, shaping what would become the modern Vietnamese identity. This transformation was defined by successive integrations of pre‑existing native communities. While the racial enumeration presented here does not claim absolute scientific precision, it serves as a conceptual framework to inspire further inquiry into the evolution of the ancient Vietnamese people.
Efforts to reestablish scholarly objectivity extend beyond Vietnamese historical linguistics. Comparable inquiries occur in fields such as biogenetics, which trace racial origins by mapping the genomes of targeted populations. These studies, in turn, will contribute to advancements in linguistic research and reinforce the interdisciplinary nature of this investigation. (10)
Echoes of the Yue continue to reverberate in Vietnamese identity, not as faint relics of the past, but as living voices woven into the nation’s language, culture, and history.
"Languages are not isolated codes but living archives of history."
FOOTNOTES
(1)^ Starostin derives this word from Proto-Sino-Tibetan *rij (“many”), cognate with 皆 (OC *kriːj, “all”), 偕 (OC *kriːj, “together with”), as well as Tibetan ཁྲི (khri, “ten thousand”) and Burmese ရဲ (rai:, “police”).
(2)^ For example, '果 guǒ' is fluid in the case of VS 'tráicây' 水果 shuíguǒ (fruits) and it could become VS 'kẹo' as a contraction of the normalized 'kẹođường' 糖果 tángguǒ (candies) in both of which each syllable derived from '果 guǒ' carries a different meaning, though. Sound pattern mechanism may not work rigidly in a uniform manner in this case then.
(3)^ "máu" 衁 huāng (SV hoang) [ M 衁 huāng, nǜ < MC hwaŋ < OC *hmaːŋ | *OC 衁 亡 陽 荒 hmaːŋ | Dialect: Cant. /fong1/ | MC 宕合三平陽微 | FQ 武方 | Shuowen: 血也。从血亡聲。《春秋傳》曰：“士刲羊，亦無衁也。” 呼光切〖注〗《字彙》作𥁃。又 𧖬、𧖭，同。 | Kangxi: 《康熙字典·血部·三》衁：《唐韻》《集韻》《正韻》𠀤呼光切，音荒。《說文》血也。《左傳·僖十五年》士刲羊，亦無衁也。《韓愈詩》衁池波風肉陵屯。《字彙》又入皿部，書作𥁃，非 | Guangyun: 衁 荒 hu光 曉 唐合 唐 平聲 一等 合口 唐 宕 下平十一 唐 xwɑŋ xuɑŋ xuɑŋ xuɑŋ hwɑŋ hʷɑŋ hwaŋ huang1 huang xuang 血也 || Wiktionary.org: Phono-semantic compound (形聲, OC *hmaːŋ): phonetic 亡 (OC *maŋ) + semantic 血 (“blood”). Etymology: Borrowed from Austroasiatic. Compare Proto-Mon-Khmer *ɟhaam ~ *ɟhiim (“blood”), whence Khmer ឈាម (chiəm, “blood”), Mon ဆီ (chim, “blood”), Proto-Bahnaric *bhaːm (“blood”), Proto-Katuic *ʔahaam (“blood”), Proto-Khmuic *maː₁m (“blood”). Chinese has final -ŋ because initial and final m are mutually exclusive (Schuessler, 2007). This word's rare occurrence in a traditional saying indicates that it is not part of the active vocabulary of OC, but a survival from a substrate language.|| Note: Bodman, Nicholas C. 1980. 'Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan,' (in Frans Van Coetsem et al. (eds.) <em>Contributions to Historical Linguistics</em>) (p.120) : 'An interesting hapax legomenon for 'blood' appears in the Dzo Zhuan which has an obvious Austroasiatic origin: Proto-Mnong *mham, Proto-North Bahmaric *maham, 衁 hmam > hmang > ɣuáng.' || chardb.iis.sinica.edu.tw/char/21663: (1.) 血液。 , (2) 蟹黃。|| Guoyu Cidian: 血液。《說文解字．血部》：「衁，血也。」《左傳．僖公十五年》：「士刲羊，亦無衁也。」 ]
(4)^ 'Genetic' here could be used to apply to, but not limited to, roots and linguistic attributes, for example, 疼 téng in "đớnđau" ~ 疼痛 téngtòng, SV đôngthống (painful), 痛 tòng, SV thống (pain) \ OC *doŋw /*ŋw ~ -w ~> "đau" /daw1/ (pain), while 疼 téng in 疼愛 téng'ài', SV đôngái (love) ~> "thươngyêu", or "chân" 腳 jiăo (foot) and "bànchân" ~ 腳板 jiăobăn (in reverse order, "foot; sole of the foot"), etc., of which words of the same linguistic roots and peculiarities are absent from those of Chinese loanwords in Japanese or Korean.
(5)^ The cases of Japan and Korea the borrowed the Chinese-based vocabularies in the Middle Age could be analogized with the technical English language used in the computer language today, say, the programming language has been adopted by most countries in the world, including China, which will become an inseparate parts of their languages.
(6)^ Regarding the printing media activities with authors, their writing styles , Nôm scripts and heavily Chinese classical usage, Sino-Vietnamese etyma, etc. , and publication of works in both French and Quốcngữ in the mid-20th century. (See Tô Kiều Ngân's Mặc khách Sàigòn (Literati of Saigon). 2013. p. 16)
(7)^ The Zhuang languages (autonym: Vahcuengh (pre-1982: Vaƅcueŋƅ, Sawndip:
话壮), from vah 'language' and Cuengh 'Zhuang'; simplified Chinese: 壮语;
traditional Chinese: 壯語; pinyin: Zhuàngyǔ) are any of various Tai
languages natively spoken by the Zhuang people. They are an ethnic rather
than linguistic group. Most speakers live in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous
Region within the People's RepThe Zhuang languages (autonym: Vahcuengh
(pre-1982: Vaƅcueŋƅ, Sawndip: 话壮), from vah 'language' and Cuengh
'Zhuang'; simplified Chinese: 壮语; traditional Chinese: 壯語; pinyin:
Zhuàngyǔ) are any of various Tai languages natively spoken by the Zhuang
people. They are an ethnic rather than linguistic group. Most speakers
live in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region within the People's Republic
of China, where Standard Zhuang is an official language. Across the
provincial border in Guizhou, Bouyei has also been standardized. Over one
million speakers also live in China's Yunnan province. ublic of China,
where Standard Zhuang is an official language. Across the provincial
border in Guizhou, Bouyei has also been standardized. Over one million
speakers also live in China's Yunnan province. The sixteen ISO 639-3
registered Zhuang languages are not mutually intelligible without previous
exposure on the part of speakers, and some of them are themselves multiple
languages. There is a dialect continuum between Wuming and Bouyei, as well
as between Zhuang and various (other) Nung languages such as Tày, Nùng,
and San Chay of northern Vietnam. However, the Zhuang languages do not
form a linguistic unit; any cladistic unit that includes the various
varieties of Zhuang would include all the Tai languages.
Citing the fact that both the Zhuang and Thai peoples have the same
exonym for the Vietnamese, kɛɛuA1, Jerold A. Edmondson of the University
of Texas, Arlington posited that the split between Zhuang and the
Southwest Tai languages happened no earlier than the founding of Jiaozhi
(交址) in Vietnam in 112 B.C, but no later than the 5th–6th century
A.D. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_languages )
(8)^ Phùng Nguyên culture (2,000–1,500 B.C.). Đồng Đậu culture (1,500–1,000 BC). Gò Mun culture (1,000–800 B.C.). Đông Sơn culture (1,000 B.C.– 100 A.D.). Iron Age · Sa Huỳnh culture (1,000 B.C.–200 A.D.). Óc Eo culture (1–630 AD). The Gò Mun culture (c. 1,100-800 B.C.) was a culture of Bronze Age Vietnam during the Hong Bang reigns. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gò_Mun_culture)
(9)^ 商朝 又 稱 殷、殷商（約前十七世紀至約前十一世紀），是 中國 第一個 有 直接
且 同時 期 文字記載 的 王朝。 商朝 前期 屢屢 遷都，而 最後 的 二百七十三年，
盤庚 定都 於 殷（今 中國 安陽市）， 因此 商朝 又 稱 殷朝。 有時 也 稱為 殷商
或 殷。
商朝 晚期，中國 的 歷史 由 半信半疑 的 時代 過渡 到 信史 時代。 商 是 中國
歷史上 繼 夏朝 之後 的 一個 朝代， 相較 於 夏，具有 更 豐富 的 考古
發現。
原 夏 之 諸侯國 商 部落 首領 商湯 率 諸侯 國 於 鳴條 之 戰 滅 夏 帝國 後
建立。 歷經 十七代三十一王， 末代 君王 商紂王 於 牧野 之 戰 被 周武王 擊敗
而 亡。 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/商朝 ) 根據《嶺南 摭怪》中 的 越南 傳說，中國 殷代時，雄王 因「缺 朝覲 之 禮」，而
招 致 殷王 率兵 來襲（又 稱「殷寇」；而《大越 史記 全書 · 外紀 · 鴻厖紀》則
記載 為「雄王 六世」時期「國內 有 警」）。 正當 大軍 壓境 之 際， 仙游縣（或
作 武寧縣）扶董鄉 有 一 位 三歲 童子 自動 請 纓， 率領 雄王 軍隊 前往 殷軍
陣前， 「揮劍前進， 官軍（雄王軍）隨後」，殷王 陣前 戰死， 而 童子 亦
隨即「脫衣 騎馬 升天」。 其後，雄王 尊該 童子 為「扶董天王」，立祠
祭拜。
然而，近代 越南 學者 陳仲金（Trần Trọng-Kim）以 實事 求是 的 態度指出，
中國 殷朝 入侵 的傳說「實屬謬誤」， 理由 如下：「中國 殷朝 位於 黃河 流域
一帶， 即 今 之 河南、直隸、山西 和 陝西 地區。 而 長江 一帶 全為 蠻夷 之
地。 從 長江 至 我 北越，路途 甚為 遙遠。 即 使 當時 我國 有 鴻厖氏 為 王，
無疑 也 不會 有 什麼 紀綱 可言，無非 像 芒族 的 一位 郎官 而 已， 因此 他與
殷朝 無 任何 來往， 怎能 引起 彼此間 的 戰爭？ 而且，中國 史書 亦 無任何
記載 此事。 因此， 有何 理由 說 殷寇 就是 中國 殷朝 之 人 呢？」
因此，陳仲金 將 之 視 為「有 一 股賊 寇 稱為 殷寇」而已。
(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/http://baike.baidu.com/view/1854748.htm) [UNLESS LACVIET HAD BEEN PART OF THE ANCIENT CHU STATE(?) While they are about some legends of Thanh Giong, we focus only the
linguistic aspect of the matter here. However, there exist evidences that
the ancient Vănlang state had already been in contact with the Shang Dynasty
with the Shang's 10th century B.C. bronze artifacts found in Hunan
Province. ] In Chinese group to bring relic back to Hunan, by Lin Qi,: "A 3,000-year-old Chinese bronze, called min fanglei, will
soon return to its birthplace to be reunited with the lid from which it was
separated nearly a century ago. The reunion was made possible by a private
purchase by Chinese collectors on April 19 in New York. Acclaimed as the
"king of all fanglei", the square bronze, which dates to the Shang Dynasty
(c.16th century-11th century B.C), served as a ritual wine vessel. It was
excavated in Taoyuan, Hunan province, in 1922." (Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-03/21/content_17366159.htm)
(10)^ In fact, genetically, on the DNA side, at present time there appear new scientific studies made available on the internet at our finger tips, for example, see the quoted abstract from http://www.taiwandna.com/VietnamesePage.htm in the textbox below.
HLA-DR and -DQB1 DNA polymorphisms in a Vietnamese Kinh population from Hanoi.
Vu-Trieu A, Djoulah S, Tran-Thi C, Ngyuyen-Thanh T[sic], Le Monnier De Gouville I, Hors J, Sanchez-Mazas A.
Source: Department of Immunology and Physiopathology, Medical College of Hanoi, Vietnam.
Abstract
We report here the DNA polymerase chain reaction sequence-specific oligonucleotide (PCR-SSO) typing of the HLA-DR B1, B3, B4, B5 and DQB1 loci for a sample of 103 Vietnamese Kinh from Hanoi, and compare their allele and haplotype frequencies to other East Asiatic and Oceanian populations studied during the 11th and 12th International HLA Workshops. The Kinh exhibit some very high-frequency alleles both at DRB1 (1202, which has been confirmed by DNA sequencing, and 0901) and DQB1 (0301, 03032, 0501) loci, which make them one of the most homogeneous population tested so far for HLA class II in East Asia. Three haplotypes account for almost 50% of the total haplotype frequencies in the Vietnamese. The most frequent haplotype is HLA-DRB1*1202-DRB3*0301-DQB1*0301 (28%), which is also predominant in Southern Chinese, Micronesians and Javanese. On the other hand, DRB1*1201 (frequent in the Pacific) is virtually absent in the Vietnamese. The second most frequent haplotype is DRB1*0901-DRB4*01011-DQB1*03032 (14%), which is also commonly observed in Chinese populations from different origins, but with a different accessory chain (DRB4*0301) in most ethnic groups. Genetic distances computed for a set of Asiatic and Oceanian populations tested for DRB1 and DQB1 and their significance indicate that the Vietnamese are close to the Thai, and to the Chinese from different locations. These results, which are in agreement with archaeological and linguistic evidence, contribute to a better understanding of the origin of the Vietnamese population, which has until now not been clear.
PMID: 9442802 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Source: HLA-DR and -DQB1 DNA polymorphisms in a Vietnamese Kinh population from Hanoi.