Shifts in Linguistic Climate on the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer Front

The "Rainwash" Effect

by dchph

This article addresses several central issues in the linguistic classification of Vietnamese. It begins by challenging the widespread misconception that Vietnamese descends directly from Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer languages, arguing instead that historical and linguistic evidence points toward an alternative lineage. The discussion also highlights the influence of political motivations, showing how nationalism has shaped classification to favor Austroasiatic frameworks. Such biases underscore the need for a reevaluation grounded in historical and linguistic evidence rather than ideology.

Building upon earlier concepts, the chapter introduces new approaches for uncovering hidden Sinitic‑Vietnamese cognates, forms that may have been overlooked even by specialists in Austroasiatic studies. Two innovative methods are outlined, each designed to identify linguistic traits that Vietnamese shares exclusively with Chinese.

These methods have yielded groundbreaking discoveries in Sino‑Tibetan and Sinitic etymology, identifying more than 400 foundational words within the Sinitic‑Vietnamese lexicon. Taken together, these findings provide compelling evidence for reconsidering Vietnamese within the Sino‑Tibetan framework, revitalizing debates on its linguistic origins.

I) The "Rainwash" Effect

The metaphor rainwash, echoing the psychological resonance of brainwash, evokes the cleansing force of torrential rainfall, sweeping away entrenched misconceptions much as it purges environmental pollutants. This image aptly captures the historical trajectory of the Sino‑Tibetan classification of Vietnamese, which, despite staunch resistance in the early twentieth century, has undergone continuous refinement and reevaluation.

Meanwhile, Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer theorists have sought to fill perceived gaps in the Sino‑Tibetan framework, particularly the absence of cognates for foundational Vietnamese lexemes. Many of these deficiencies have, in fact, been addressed through deeper etymological mapping.

In the digital age, Sino‑Tibetan linguists face mounting challenges of accessibility, while Mon‑Khmer advocates increasingly leverage online platforms to promote counterarguments. Learners of Vietnamese historical linguistics often encounter a flood of contradictory data, ranging from rigorous scholarship to speculative claims, allowing misinformation to circulate unchecked.

Confronted with competing narratives, many readers disengage, concluding that the classification of Việt, whether Sinitic or Austroasiatic, is inconsequential. Reports suggest that both Chinese and Vietnamese authorities regulate Wikipedia entries, enforcing politically correct boundaries even in linguistic domains.

Despite digital proliferation, much of the Sino‑Tibetan etymological corpus remains inaccessible online. Scholars continue to rely on printed materials, yet these texts increasingly languish in obscurity, gathering dust on library shelves beyond the reach of most readers. This decline raises concerns about the long‑term viability of print‑based research, which, despite its depth, risks being eclipsed by algorithm‑driven content.

Search engines further reinforce the Mon‑Khmer narrative, shaping public perception through keyword bias. Queries involving "Austroasiatic", "Vietnamese", or "Khmer" often yield results dominated by Austroasiatic perspectives, conditioning interpretations among digital audiences unfamiliar with broader frameworks. Even a handful of prominent search results, accurate or not, can disproportionately influence novice understanding.

Alternative perspectives increasingly face resistance in this algorithmic landscape. While information circulates through both print and digital channels, mainstream education has yet to incorporate the full scope of linguistic debates into formal curricula. The internet, while democratizing access, also accelerates the global spread of unverified claims. Over seventy percent of users reportedly trust online sources, many of which originate from anonymous or unverifiable outlets, further complicating the epistemological terrain. (Nielsen: Consumer Trust in Online, Social and Mobile Advertising Grows, 2025)

Moreover, fewer readers today dedicate time to consuming long dissertations online. Many web users skim materials for quick facts rather than reading thoroughly. This trend exacerbates the negative effects of brief online engagement, with newcomers' cognitive development easily influenced by predetermined suppositions packaged in concise, affirmative, but often misleading, formats.

Enthusiastic debaters frequently engage with such socially engineered, abridged, and unverifiable articles, which circulate widely on the internet. Unfortunately, some even resort to personal attacks, further muddying the discourse.

Selective hearing is a fundamental aspect of human nature. People instinctively gravitate toward information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs, often shaped during early cognitive development when they first encounter a new domain of knowledge. Such initial impressions tend to take root deeply, influencing perception for years to come. As the saying goes, love strikes at first sight, metaphorically speaking.

Moreover, the author has observed recurring patterns of slander and misconduct in online debates, particularly those concerning Vietnamese origins. Over the past decade, responses to this preliminary research, shared across various internet forums, have consistently highlighted these trends. Notably, a significant portion of Vietnamese commenters appears hesitant to engage constructively in meaningful discussions.

Consequently, the author often finds himself addressing only a few readers, or, metaphorically, his own shadow. This dynamic presents a clear obstacle to the broader recognition and reception of his theory.

As noted in the introductory chapter, this research is best suited for print publication rather than online dissemination. Printed books engage readers more deeply, allowing them to immerse themselves fully in the material, whereas online posts often fail to sustain prolonged attention. Should future specialists encounter the newly uncovered Sinitic evidence presented here, they may build upon this foundation, moving beyond misleading Austroasiatic narratives. With this groundwork in place, their focus can remain anchored in reliable discoveries, protecting them from the Mon-Khmer fallacies prevalent in cyberspace.

The author is less concerned with persuading veteran specialists already entrenched in their positions. However, given the challenges posed by deeply held convictions, it remains essential to disseminate these findings widely. The goal is to inform and guide newcomers in the field of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology, ensuring that groundbreaking research does not remain obscured but instead inspires new avenues of inquiry before reaching its final form.

Like many young scholars today, the author initially accepted the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer framework during his college years in Vietnam in the late 1970s, fully embracing theories advanced by leading historical linguistics experts. Over time, however, he began to distance himself from the Austroasiatic hypothesis, despite its endorsement by respected mentors. Among them was Professor Nguyễn Tài Cẩn (1926-2011), one of Vietnam's most distinguished linguists internationally. The authoritative grasp these scholars held over the subject often overshadowed students' ability to challenge prevailing views, even when Sino-Tibetan perspectives were privately acknowledged. This dynamic left a lasting impression on the author's intellectual journey, ultimately prompting him to break away from the confines of campus orthodoxy.

Overcoming the conceptual divide between Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer and Sino-Tibetan classifications required considerable time. The author initially approached the latter with hesitation, only committing fully after further investigation. His early exposure to Chinese, acquired as a schoolboy, provided insight into linguistic patterns that had long puzzled him. His independent exploration of the Sino-Tibetan framework began in the early 1980s, a long, arduous, yet rewarding endeavor. By the 1990s, as he developed the Sinitic-Yue hypothesis, moments of unexpected breakthroughs brought exhilaration, each discovery enriching his understanding of Vietnamese etymology. For example, how many Vietnamese Sinologists could instantly recognize the Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma in words such as:

• 飯 (fàn) ~ bữa (buổi, "time of the day") {cf. Hainanese /bui2/}
• 重 (zhòng) ~ nặng ("heavy") {cf. Hainanese /dang2/}
• 寒 (hán) ~ cóng ("chilly") {cf. Hainanese /kua2/}
• 檨 (shé) ~ soài ("mango") {cf. Fukienese /soã/}

These linguistic correlations underscore the significance of reconsidering Vietnamese classification within the Sino-Tibetan framework, encouraging a departure from outdated Austroasiatic assumptions.

In the past, linguistic knowledge was acquired gradually, one book at a time. In contrast, today's students confront an overwhelming flood of online information, and misinformation, that complicates their ability to discern reliable content for specialized studies. As a result, many newcomers are "rainwashed" into accepting the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, as search queries on Vietnamese historical linguistics consistently return results saturated with its imposed perspective on the language's origins.

Figuratively speaking, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer narratives have eclipsed the Sino-Tibetan theory, much like neglected trees overshadowed by overgrown shrubs. When was the last time fresh growth emerged in Sino-Tibetan perspectives on Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology? While Austroasiatic research has continued to advance, progress within the Sino-Tibetan framework regarding Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology has remained limited. Since the late twentieth century, few new Sino-Vietnamese elements have surfaced, and longstanding linguistic gaps remain either overlooked or unresolved. As a result, the potential for further exploration appears increasingly distant.

Through the reconstructive mechanics of traditional historical phonology of ancient Chinese, conducted by renowned linguists, the author has assembled substantial evidence of Sino-Tibetan and Sinitic-Vietnamese cognates, which he is eager to share. He firmly believes that analyzing these discoveries in Sino-Tibetan etymology, unveiling a vast array of basic words cognate with Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma, can radically shift readers' perspectives. Interestingly, many of these etyma overlap with foundational Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer lexicons, accounting for approximately fifty percent and forming the theoretical basis of the Mon-Khmer sub-family. Contrary to Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer assertions, these findings strongly reinforce the Sino-Tibetan perspective.

The so-called "Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer rainwash", as discussed earlier, illustrates the rationale behind why contemporary Vietnamese scholars, unlike their South Vietnamese counterparts prior to 1975, such as Lê Ngọc Trụ, Nguyễn Đình Hoà, Nguyễn Hiến Lê, and Hồ Hữu Tường, have aligned themselves with proponents of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis. In doing so, they have frequently downplayed or disregarded Chinese linguistic influences. Given the historical backdrop, including the limited Western understanding of Chinese prior to the nineteenth century (see Lumbæk, 1986), it is plausible that Austroasiatic pioneers of the previous century formulated their hypothesis through an Austroasiatic-centric lens. Their simplified approach required minimal engagement with the linguistic complexities of Chinese dialects and subdialects, further reinforcing their premise.

Over time, fallout from the "rainwash" under the Austroasiatic paradigm has solidified Western views on Vietnamese linguistic classification. The author of this research seeks to challenge the entrenched "business as usual" approach by reviving long-overlooked Sino-Tibetan perspectives. Specifically, Chapter 10 - Parallels with the Sino-Tibetan languages, which elaborates on Sino-Tibetan-Vietnamese cognates, draws upon Shafer’s long-recognized Sino-Tibetan etymology work (1972) to reintroduce the century-old theory into the Sino-Tibetan-Vietnamese linguistic radar.

By the early twenty-first century, historical linguistics had firmly placed Vietnamese within the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer family. This classification was based on comparative analyses of basic vocabulary across Mon-Khmer languages, which revealed sporadic cognates with Vietnamese. Austroasiatic scholars routinely designated foundational Sinitic-Vietnamese elements as Sino-Tibetan lexicons or Chinese loanwords. In doing so, they avoided confronting the deeper linguistic peculiarities shared exclusively between Vietnamese and Chinese, features conspicuously absent in Mon-Khmer languages. Nevertheless, these theorists elevated the perceived importance of such foundational words, reinforcing their framework within linguistic analyses.

II) Dispelling Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer misconceptions

By the time readers examine the Chinese etymologies of Sinitic-Vietnamese words presented in this research, they may have already formed opinions about whether Vietnamese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan or Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguistic family. Like all scholarly debates, this discussion presents two primary frameworks that intersect in ways still underexplored. When evaluating both classifications, theoretical gaps exist on each side, yet the absence of definitive answers does not invalidate either perspective.

Linguistically, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis has introduced a modern narrative that contrasts sharply with traditional Vietnamese viewpoints, ones shaped by centuries of legends, folklore, and cultural continuity. Empirically driven Indo-European linguists, who prioritize scientific analysis, have often shown little regard for historical memory, let alone the spiritual values deeply embedded in Vietnamese cultural convictions.

For instance, Austroasiatic proponents frequently dismiss the interpretive chronology of the eighteen reigns attributed to Vietnam’s ancestral King Hùng I, II, III, and so forth. They view such accounts as implausible, particularly due to the significant chronological gaps spanning hundreds of years within the speculative timeline of over 4,896 years since 2879 B.C., the date traditionally believed by the Vietnamese to mark the birth of their nation. This timeline remains difficult to substantiate, as numerical inconsistencies challenge the credibility of these historical narratives. (1) 

Over the years, a small but discerning group of Austroasiatic specialists has acknowledged the importance of Chinese-Vietnamese linguistic research carried out by independent scholars. These foundational studies have played a role in refining the Austroasiatic hypothesis, with notable contributions from Tsu-lin Mei (1976), Jerry Norman (1988), and Mark J. Alves (2001, 2007, 2009), among others. Yet it remains noteworthy that some Austroasiatic scholars still struggle to clearly distinguish between Sino-Vietnamese terms and deeper Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma when analyzing Vietnamese vocabulary. This is especially evident in the confusion between Hán-Việt and Hán-Nôm layers, despite the fact that Vietnamese lexicon is structured across three principal strata: Nôm (V), Hán-Nôm (VS), and Hán-Việt (SV). (2)

Sino-Vietnamese words, much like Latin words in English, are relatively easy to identify, yet this distinction remains muddled in scholarly citations. Therefore, evidence demonstrating Sino-Tibetan linguistic origins for numerous cited Vietnamese vocabulary items has not been properly addressed while Austroasiatic researchers present their works on Mon-Khmer basic words. they continuously recycle citations of Mon-Khmer cognates dating back to David D. Thomas (1966) without introducing meaningful breakthroughs. 

At the time of its inception, many Indo-European theorists who originally proposed the Austroasiatic hypothesis may not have been aware of the Yue people documented in ancient Chinese annals, or they simply did care at all. Instead, they arbitrarily assigned linguistic classifications based on their assumptions, even erroneously attributing these populations to the Southern Hemisphere, metaphorically speaking, that is what the prefix 'Austro-' means.

Until relatively recently, scholars continued to struggle with the etymological classification of certain lexical items, such as 戌 (xù), 狗 (gǒu), 犬 (quán), and the Vietnamese word chó ("dog"), or 死 (sǐ), 折 (zhé), 逝 (shì), 陟 (zhì), 卆 (zú), 卒 (zú), 殂 (cú) for chết ("die"), uncertain whether these originated from Yue substrata or Chinese sources. Rather than undertaking a comprehensive historical etymological analysis, many of these terms were indiscriminately assigned to the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer subfamily and reconstructed as /kro/, bypassing their complex linguistic trajectories.

The Mon-Khmer theory, built upon Austroasiatic foundations, has proliferated across internet-based research platforms, particularly over the past three decades. This favorable digital environment has granted Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists a distinct advantage, leading to widespread acceptance of their classification model while benefiting from methodological conveniences in the field of historical linguistics.

The prominence of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer scholarship is partly sustained by the enduring perception that Western linguistic methodologies are inherently scientific and superior. This belief has reinforced the credibility of Austroasiatic classification models, especially through their association with prestigious Western academic institutions. As a result, these frameworks have gained considerable influence, attracting a broad intellectual following in Vietnam.

Many Vietnamese scholars, eager to engage with Western-trained linguists, have aligned themselves with these perspectives, further legitimizing Austroasiatic theories. However, this tendency has often inflated the perceived scholarly value of certain localized contributions, sometimes at the expense of methodological rigor.

Such imbalances have hindered efforts to reevaluate Vietnamese linguistic classification within the Sino-Tibetan framework. Over time, the dominance of Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theory has become entrenched, solidifying its status as the prevailing model for Vietnamese origins with minimal critical scrutiny. This has placed Sino-Tibetan theorists at a disadvantage, limiting their ability to introduce new insights into Vietnamese etymology.

The discourse surrounding Vietnamese linguistic classification has grown increasingly politicized, though, shaped by nationalist debates that amplify its cultural significance. As a result, discussions about the origins of Vietnamese are now deeply entangled with broader questions of national identity ,  a reality often obscured by nationalist or Sinocentric historiographies. So said, although the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis emerged relatively late, it has been warmly embraced and gradually gained local support.

Vietnamese academia may eventually revisit its linguistic heritage, recognizing that its true origins could diverge from long-standing narratives. While the adoption of the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer framework has provided a convenient interpretive lens, scholars have repeatedly sought ways to sidestep the Sino-Tibetan classification. Yet the issue now extends beyond the reach of any single researcher. Prevailing anti-Chinese sentiment has obstructed scholarly progress, fostering an anti-academic climate that continues to stall meaningful advancement for native Vietnamese linguists.

The Vietnamese are well aware that their country's history has been repeatedly rewritten by its rulers to align with shifting perspectives on Sino-Vietnamese relations. As a result, theories regarding the origin of the Vietnamese people have been reshaped to serve these changing narratives, often disregarding historical accuracy. In essence, history is written by the victors.

In contrast to the pursuit of academic truth, Vietnamese historical linguistics remains burdened by political considerations, much like the broader historical narrative of the country, which has often been shaped by the victors. This dynamic echoes earlier patterns, including resistance movements against imperialist China. Yet, paradoxically, the core of Vietnamese culture remains deeply Sinicized in so many respects.

From a philosophical standpoint, heightened national identity awareness among educated Vietnamese has complicated the reception of the Sino-Tibetan, Sinocentric narrative, even as it continues to trail behind China’s historical and academic dominance.

Strong nationalism in Vietnam cannot be resolved simply by rejecting historical Chinese influence and replacing it with alternative narratives. Truth, as a persistent force beneath ideological constructs, inevitably resurfaces. In time, the revival of historical convictions will compel nationalist scholars to reassess their positions, separating academic inquiry from political bias and restoring the impartiality that once defined the discipline.

Disentangling politics from national identity remains a formidable challenge. The reassessment of historical narratives and their broader implications continues to resonate, even in recent years in the United States. Prior to 2016, before the presidency of Donald Trump, the proliferation of Confucius Institutes, Chinese cultural centers funded by the Chinese government and widely viewed as instruments of geopolitical influence, was evident. These institutes expanded rapidly, shaping U.S. academic institutions through donations and extending China’s global reach. As a result, growing interest in Chinese language studies among students outside China has gradually shifted the balance toward Chinese proficiency, eclipsing the linguistic relevance of Austroasiatic specialists.

In the first two decades of the new millennium, influenced by Western academic trends, Vietnamese theorists began to show increasing openness to the Sino-Tibetan framework (see Bùi Khánh Thế, Appendix L.) However, the axiom that individuals tend to reinforce their preexisting beliefs remains steadfast. Eventually, the prevailing linguistic perspective will shift, regardless of any resistance. This anticipated shift will inevitably reshape the Sino-Tibetan framework explored in this study. As with other humanities, historical linguistics evolves in tandem with broader socio-political transformations.

Readers may wonder how academic inquiry becomes entangled with nationalism. The answer lies in the sublimation of national identity into ideological frameworks that shape scholarly interpretation. In historical linguistics, the Yue foundation of Vietnamese core vocabulary has often been deliberately reinterpreted through Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer terminology, likely as a means of distancing Vietnamese origins from Sino-Tibetan or Sinocentric associations traditionally linked to Chinese influence. Caution is warranted when consulting academic publications from government-affiliated institutions in Vietnam, as such works frequently function as state-sanctioned instruments rather than independent scholarly research (Knud Lundbæk, 1986, p. 45).

Due to the political complexities surrounding Vietnamese linguistic classification, the author has devoted  The politics of Chinese-Vietnamese Linguistics examining the influence of Sino-Vietnamese relations on academic discourse. This topic significantly affects the ability to render impartial judgments on whether the Sino-Tibetan framework can gain renewed traction. Those familiar with Vietnam’s history, even as presented by its ruling government, may recognize the paradox inherent in this issue. Applying Western value systems to fully grasp these intricacies proves virtually impossible.

For Western-educated readers unfamiliar with Vietnam’s political landscape, the entanglement of scholarly discourse with China-related sensitivities may appear abstract. Yet these dynamics are well understood by locally trained scholars and members of the diaspora. The historically fraught Sino-Vietnamese relationship, addressed in later sections, illustrates how political motivations can distort academic narratives, concealing nationalist interests beneath ostensibly neutral frameworks.

Among educated Vietnamese youth, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer classification may seem straightforward. However, when confronted with questions about ancestral origins, many exhibit a form of cultural self-denial. Much like American youth who gradually lose connection with ancestral heritage, Vietnamese youth often downplay their predominantly Chinese descent, traced through paternal lineage across generations. Instead, they identify with the Kinh majority, participating in an assimilation process that omits traces of Chinese heritage, even when census records and Vietnamized surnames of Chinese origin suggest otherwise. This distinction reflects enduring Vietnamese values rooted in the Yue genealogical legacy.

As each generation inherits societal roles and cultural narratives from the last, perspectives and identities continue to evolve, perpetuating a cycle of historical interpretation shaped by complex socio-political influences.

In earlier sections and a separate article-length paper, the author argued that the Vietnamese people emerged from a complex intermingling of Chinese immigrants from the north and local women. This assertion understandably provoked strong reactions from intellectuals and patriotic netizens (see Some Thoughts on the Origin of the Vietnamese People in Vietnamese in the Appendix K of this survey.)

This paper employs detailed racial profiling to support the argument that, from 111 B.C. to 939 A.D., ancient Annam functioned as a prefecture of imperial China. Like any province within the Middle Kingdom, it received continuous waves of Chinese immigrants from diverse multilectal backgrounds. Over time, the convergence of these lects with indigenous languages obscured the Yue substratum, embedding it beneath successive layers of linguistic evolution.

This long continuum of historical developments ultimately shaped modern Vietnamese, a language in which over ninety percent of its lexical components derive from Chinese.

To contextualize the issue, Vietnam’s historical trajectory may be compared with three other sovereign entities in the region that, like Vietnam, absorbed large numbers of Chinese immigrants:

• Hong Kong underwent political unrest in 2019 and was reintegrated into Greater China during the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2024). Its predominantly Cantonese-speaking population traces its lineage to mainland China. The region’s transition from British colonial rule to Chinese sovereignty parallels Vietnam’s ancient history, which began under Chinese domination in 111 B.C. This mirrors the transformation of the former NanYue state into the fully Sinicized Guangdong province.
  
  
• Singapore, once a Chinatown within Malaysia, gained sovereignty in 1965 and evolved into a multi-ethnic nation, with ethnic Chinese forming the majority.
  
  
• Taiwan maintains a precarious relationship with mainland China. Its contested sovereignty echoes Vietnam’s experience of intermittent tensions, both historically and in modern times.

Together, Singapore and Taiwan serve as contemporary reflections of the Annamese sovereign state, which eventually evolved into modern Vietnam. By contrast, Hong Kong simply resembles a younger extension of Shenzhen. 

Among these regions, Taiwan faces a distinct identity crisis. It stands at the intersection of competing cultural trajectories while navigating political survival under increasing pressure from mainland China. On one side, it may embrace its Sinicized MinNan heritage, brought to Formosa by forebears from the MinYue Kingdom, now part of Fujian Province. On the other, there is a growing effort to align with Austronesian natives, those who identify with traditional customs such as betel-nut chewing and claim status as the island’s true indigenous inhabitants. These groups were initially marginalized following the influx of mainland Chinese migrants after the Kuomintang’s retreat in 1949.

Vietnam has similarly wrestled with a fundamental question of identity: whether its ancestry stems primarily from South Chinese migrants or from indigenous minority populations. In Vietnam’s case, this identity crisis has evolved beyond cultural heritage into a broader issue of nationalism, deeply entangled with political dynamics.

After the fall of the Ming Dynasty to the Manchurians in the seventeenth century, Ming expatriates (明鄉人, VS NgườiMinhhương) emigrated to Vietnam, contributing to a distinct racial component within the contemporary Hoa ethnicity (華橋). Many of these refugees hailed from Teochew origins in Guangdong’s Chaozhou region, including Chaozhou Prefecture and Foshan City. Today, their descendants form a significant portion of Vietnam’s southern provinces, as reflected in the local saying: Dướisông cáchốt, trênbờ Tiềuchâu, "In the river, there are catfish; on land, there are Teochew people."

Etymologically, it is clear that Tiều is the origin of Tàu (Chinese), a clarification that dispels longstanding misconceptions. Contrary to popular but inaccurate interpretations, Tàu does not derive from Tần (Qin), Đường (Tang), or BaTàu ("three ships"). This distinction settles the etymon conclusively.

Adding further dimension to this narrative, subjects of the "Southern State", informally referred to as Namquốc (南國), take pride in their Yue ancestral heritage, which they continue to honor through annual sacrificial ceremonies centered around bronze drums. These rituals serve as cultural affirmations of lineage and identity. Ironically, the Vietnamese Kinh majority does not incorporate bronze drums into formal ritual practice. Instead, they often exhibit a sense of cultural superiority over minority groups who do use them, groups that, as indigenous peoples, may credibly share the same ancestral lineage and may even have been the original creators of the bronze drums themselves.

Ethnologically, Vietnam remains the only existing sovereignty that represents the living descendants of the Yue, including related Daic and Zhuang minorities in southern China. These communities are culturally distinct and historically significant, recognized by Beijing through the granting of autonomous status in acknowledgment of their heritage. Many of their ancestors sought refuge in remote mountainous regions following the Qin invasions.

China’s ethnic composition continues to reflect its Yue lineage, comprising Chu and Han subjects both before and after 111 B.C., until the arrival of Tartaric peoples from the north who established successive dynasties in the Central Plains, including the Liao, Kim, Yuan, and Qing. During the Han era, Sinicized Yue, descendants of annexed states, were incorporated into imperial forces that expanded southward to conquer Giaochỉ (交趾, Jiāozhǐ), the territory known historically as ancient Annam. (3)

Prior to Vietnam’s independence in 939 A.D., and excluding Han immigration during its 1,060-year colonial period, Annam’s racial composition closely mirrored that of the Lingnan Range region, historically encompassing today’s Guangxi, Hunan, Guangdong, and Fujian provinces. (4)

Following Vietnam’s separation from China, nationalism intensified through successive wars against Chinese dynasties seeking to reclaim the territory , including the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing , as well as ongoing conflicts with the People’s Republic of China. Historically, each time a Chinese monarchy reached the height of its power, it sought to reassert Vietnam’s status as a vassal state. The Annamese defied expectations by defeating the Mongols not once but three times in the twelfth century, an achievement that astonished contemporary European observers. Yet no Chinese emperor, past or present, seems to have learned from Vietnam’s historical resilience. Regardless of dynastic strength, every conquest attempt ultimately ended in defeat, including the border war of 1979.

III) Reassessing Austroasiatic theories

This section reexamines the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis through an anthropological lens, with particular emphasis on the Yue origins of Sinitic-Vietnamese (VS). The approach integrates newly identified basic cognates within Sino-Tibetan (ST) etymologies, offering a revised understanding of Vietnamese linguistic development. The Austroasiatic family can only be meaningfully connected to the Yue if it includes populations originating from the Yangtze River basin (揚子江). Reframing the discussion through Sino-Tibetan insights allows these etymological findings to clarify the presence of basic Vietnamese words that have long been misclassified as Mon-Khmer. Readers will encounter the significance of this argument as they progress through the text.

Historical grounding is essential to any rigorous linguistic theory. In contrast, the widely circulated Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer framework lacks such grounding. It has not been supported by a comprehensive historical perspective or substantiated by concrete records. Nevertheless, Austroasiatic advocates have long enjoyed academic prominence. Meanwhile, Sino-Tibetan proponents, despite relying on written documentation, continue to face institutional resistance.

For Mon-Khmer theorists, the framework rests primarily on a limited set of basic lexical items. Some are transcribed from oral speech, others reconstructed from early substratal forms. Yet the number of selectively identified loanwords accounts for less than 0.5 percent of the 80,000 Sinitic-Vietnamese entries potentially present in the Vietnamese lexicon. This is a negligible fraction of the language’s overall vocabulary. While Vietnamese lexicons do exhibit some cognates with Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer, they also reveal substantial overlap with Sino-Tibetan etyma. Given the limited lexical support for the Austroasiatic narrative, its dominance may prove unsustainable.

In contemporary linguistic discourse, the term Austroasiatic is often used interchangeably with Mon-Khmer, though Austroasiatic encompasses a broader geographic scope. The hypothesis, which implies a southern origin, proposes that ancestral Austroasiatic populations migrated both northward and southward from a homeland in Southeast Asia. These migrations are believed to have crossed now-submerged land bridges into South Asia, India, and southern China, while also extending toward present-day island regions.

However, the theory remains speculative. Archaeological evidence suggests that populations reaching Oceania likely traveled by sea rather than land. Whether future research will expand the hypothesis to include Austronesian and Austric classifications, potentially linking Polynesian and Malaysian populations across the South Pacific, remains an open question. (5)

As hypothesized above, the Austroasiatic homeland has been reevaluated, centering around the Mekong River region (Paul Sidwell, "The Austroasiatic Central Riverine Hypothesis," Journal of Language Relationship 4, 2010, pp. 117–134). Sidwell postulates that the Austroasiatic peoples could not have originated from the same racial stock as the Yue, whose habitat was historically situated in South China below the Yangtze River. Prior to Sidwell’s revision, earlier theories had proposed Yunnan Province as the Austroasiatic homeland, an area now recognized as the primary territory of the ancient Yue, who expanded southward. 

For the indigenous populations of the southern regions, Paul Benedict (1975) classified a distinct linguistic branch under the designation Austro-Thai, introduced in a separate publication. His framework represents an alternative model distinct from traditional Austroasiatic classifications, suggesting a potential link between Austroasiatic and Tai-Kadai languages. (6)

Regardless of whether Vietnamese origins are framed through a Yue or Austroasiatic lens, it is important to recognize that the cultural artifacts unearthed in southern Vietnam predate the arrival of late Vietic-speaking populations. These relics cannot be considered part of the ancestral heritage of the later inhabitants who came to dominate the region. As some readers may have already inferred, the Kinh majority emerged from racially mixed origins, primarily descending from Sinitic-Vietnamese speakers shaped during the early phases of Han colonization. For this reason, the ancient Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer populations of Indochina cannot be directly linked to the prehistoric Yue ancestry of the Vietnamese further north.

It was not until the sixteenth century that Annamese Kinh groups began resettling the Mekong River Delta, migrating from the north. Long before this movement, ancestral Vietic speakers had already undergone significant linguistic and ethnic transformation through sustained contact with Yue and Han populations. These changes were later compounded by fusion with Mon-Khmer and Chamic communities during westward and southward migrations. Upon reaching the southern tip of Càmau Cape, they encountered the southern Khmer people. The Mon-Khmer influences found in Vietnamese culture today are therefore relatively recent, layered onto an existing cultural framework over the past ten centuries.

This historical trajectory precludes the possibility of the Vietnamese being direct descendants of prehistoric Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer populations, particularly in linguistic terms. While genetic analysis may offer further insight into these ancestral relationships, such biological inquiries fall outside the scope of this linguistic investigation.

Etymologically, countering the claims made by Austroasiatic proponents, recent findings indicate that the Vietnamese lexical base shares linguistic traits with over 400 fundamental words in the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family (See Parallels with the Sino-Tibetan Languages). These roots span a vast geographical terrain across southern Asia, forming a solid foundation to support the reclassification of the Vietnamese language.

The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis, which attempts to reconstruct prehistoric Yu, hence, Austroasiatic and  lexicons, lacks historical substantiation and has led to notable linguistic inconsistencies. This framework has often been used as a foundation for subsequent theories, requiring counterarguments to challenge its claims. In contrast, the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis is supported by ancient Chinese records. Historical annals acknowledge the existence of the Bai Yue tribes, among whom certain groups are identified as ancestral pre-Viet-Muong peoples, including those from ÂuLạc (歐雒, OuLuo) and LạcViệt (雒越, LuoYue).

One of the most significant shortcomings of the Austroasiatic hypothesis is its inability to demonstrate a historical relationship, through ancient Khmer scripts, between basic Vietnamese words and Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer cognates. This stands in contrast to the careful reconstruction of Sinitic roots in Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma, supported by extensive documentation in Chinese characters across multiple linguistic periods. For example, the four basic human needs, ăn, ngủ, đụ, ỉa, align well with Chinese characters of equivalent meaning: 唵 ǎn (SV àm, "eat"), 卧 wò (SV ngoạ, "sleep"), 屌 diǎo (SV điệu, "copulate"), 屙 ē (SV a, "defecate").

Unlike the Austroasiatic framework, Chinese characters, each corresponding to a Sinitic-Vietnamese etymon and its alternants across various Chinese dialects, offer a rich body of linguistic evidence. From their earliest forms, archaic Chinese writing systems were constructed with phonetic-ideographic principles. Over centuries, Sinologists have deciphered their evolving sounds and meanings. Many original forms are self-evident, ranging from basic ideographs like 日 (rì, "sun" and "day") to more complex ideo-phonetic structures such as 麥 (mài, mạch, "wheat"), which originally replaced 來 (lái) in the sense of "millet." Over time, 來 (lái) was repurposed phonetically to mean "to come", as reflected in Vietnamese usage such as lúa ("rice paddy") and lại ("come"), among other derived forms discussed in later chapters.

Understanding linguistic history requires tracing the development of Sinitic-Vietnamese and Sino-Tibetan words through historical events and cultural shifts. The presence of Sinitic-Vietnamese words with cognates in Sino-Tibetan languages points to a shared linguistic ancestry. The etymology of a given Sinitic term often reveals its connection to a Sino-Tibetan counterpart, both contributing to derived Vietnamese forms that are distinct from Mon-Khmer elements. Within the Sino-Tibetan family, including Chinese dialects, historical linguistic patterns intersect with the reconstruction of Old Chinese lexicons. These lexicons, tentatively shown to share roots with Bodic (ancient Tibetan) languages, are supported by structured phonological analysis and preserved in Bodic scripts composed of syllabic alphabets.

In this context, etymology refers to the study of word origins, including their morphological components and evolution into modern forms. Related words across languages are termed etymons or etyma. This study focuses on Vietnamese and Chinese linguistic counterparts, with particular emphasis on Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma. Many basic Vietnamese words trace their roots to Sino-Tibetan sources, representing findings from the second stage of linguistic analysis as outlined by Ruhlen.

From the outset, the classification of Austroasiatic was a misnomer. Early Mon-Khmer theorists had limited knowledge of ancient Vietnamese and Chinese history, and Sinology was still an emerging discipline in the seventeenth century (see Knud Lundbæk, 1986). These scholars disregarded the existence of the Yue and their entity known as Luó Yuè (雒越, SV Lạc Việt), dismissing them as folklore despite extensive documentation in Chinese annals and classical texts. Whether due to difficulties in studying the Yue or an inability to link ancient Vietnamese history with Mon-Khmer linguistic ancestry, Austroasiatic pioneers struggled to correlate the Lạc Việt with other Yue groups, including ŌuYuè (歐越, ÂuViệt), XīYuè (西越, TâyViệt), MǐnYuè (閩越, MânViệt), and WǔYuè (吳越, NgôViệt). Collectively known in Chinese records as the Hundred Yues (百越, BáchViệt), these groups encompassed the Chu State, the Kingdom of NamViệt (南越, NamViệt), and others. Within this broader historical framework, the placement of Austroasiatic and Mon-Khmer peoples remains unclear.

The proto-Viet-Muong speakers, equated with the Lạc Việt, undeniably existed. This requires theorizing dialectal forms of the ancestral Yue language, which laid the foundation for the Vietic branch. To address this complexity, Austroasiatic specialists adopted a simplified approach, equating proto-Vietic forms with Austroasiatic ones. They relied on cognate etyma found in the Viet-Muong subbranch, which aligns with modern Mon-Khmer languages (see Robert Parkin, A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their Languages, 1991).

From a historical perspective, Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists face significant challenges in reconstructing ancient linguistic forms that plausibly align with connections between the LạcViệt, the BaiYue, and Old Chinese. These interactions, dating back more than 3,000 years before present, left enduring linguistic imprints on the Vietnamese lexicon.

For example, Vietnamese words such as cầy and chó are historically linked to 狗 (gǒu, SV cẩu) and 犬 (quán, Western Sichuan Mandarin /co1/), both meaning "dog". Their derived disyllabic forms further reinforce cognacy with Sino-Tibetan roots. Notable examples include:

• 犬坐 (quánzuò) → chồmhỗm ("to squat")
• 犬牙 (quányá) → răngkhểnh ("canine")
• 小狗 (xiǎogǒu) → cầytơ ("puppy")
• 犬子 (quánzi, "pup") → concún ("puppy-dog")

The word  chồmhỗm, which has been dubiously attributed to Khmer chorohom  (see Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993), is merely coincidental. As later chapters will demonstrate, such etyma, formerly grouped emphatically within the Mon-Khmer classification by Austroasiatic specialists (See Mei Tsu-lin, What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese: Appendix D-G), are now validated as belonging to the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family.

From a linguistic perspective, recorded history supports the Yue theory of an ancestral Yue language and its descendant speakers. Jerry Norman (1979) referred to it as a foreign extinct language. Ancient Chinese classics recount the Yue people speaking archaic Yue forms, coexisting alongside what were assumed to be early Taic languages spoken by subjects of the Chu State (楚國 Chuguo).

For example, The Yuèrén Song (越人歌) was recorded in the Yue language during the sixth century B.C. by Ejun Zizhe (鄂君子皙, Ngạcquân Tửtích) (see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Appendix J). Chinese linguists have studied the song’s lyrics to analyze a few surviving words of the Yue language (see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Appendix K). Additionally, King Liu Bang (劉邦), as previously discussed, likely spoke a subdialect of the Chu language, as he and his followers were former subjects of the Chu State before their triumph in establishing the Han Dynasty (漢朝).

Austroasiatic theorists lack historical records to substantiate their claims and cannot demonstrate how the Mon-Khmer framework fits into the prehistory of the Viet state, i.e., LạcViệt, especially when viewed within the broader Yue historical context of the same timeframe.

At the same time, we must acknowledge the limitations inherent in postulating the Taic-Yue language, a proto-Yue speech, particularly when juxtaposed against the Austroasiatic hypothesis, which lacks historical evidence to support its claims. By the time the Mon peoples migrated from South China into the Indo-Chinese peninsula, they had established a southern Mon-Khmer homeland, which later became a geographic pivot extending northward toward the Viet-Muong group. This movement preceded subsequent waves of Yue-mixed Han infantry that followed Han colonialists into ancient Annam.

It is suggested that the LạcViệt ancestors of the ancient Vietnamese may have spoken an archaic form of Yue, possibly a proto-Viet-Muong speech derived from a Taic ancestral language. Interestingly, Austroasiatic theorists inadvertently included such linguistic ancestry in their reconstructions of Vietnamese origins, even though it does not align with modern Mon-Khmer languages.

In other words, a prehistoric Taic language likely served as the ancestral root of proto-Mon-Khmer, but as linguistic evolution progressed, the Mon-Khmer and Viet-Muong branches diverged. The Mon-Khmer lineage gradually shifted away from archaic Taic forms, while the Viet-Muong branch integrated elements of Sinitic linguistic fusion through interactions with ancient emigrants from South China. Initially regarded as guest settlers regardless of social status, these migrants intermarried with the local populations, ultimately forming the majority ethnic group now known as the Kinh, distinct from other minority groups such as Mon-Khmer speakers.

As a result, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theoretical narrative bears a striking resemblance to material claims made by certain Vietnamese scholars who assert national ownership over excavated artifacts found in annexed territories. Such claims often frame indigenous relics as ancestral heritage despite the absence of direct lineage. In this regard, the Austroasiatic theory relies heavily on linguistic and anthropological assumptions grounded in minority populations historically exiled to mountainous regions.

Analogously, this approach is similar to branding modern American citizens as direct descendants of indigenous American Indian ancestry or equating Taiwanese identity exclusively with Austronesian or Daic Han roots, both nations having less than three centuries of recognized history (U.S.A. and the Republic of China, respectively).

Any credible theory regarding the origins of languages, whether Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan, requires historical validation, often reinforced by written records, as seen with Latin, Greek, Pali, or Sanskrit within their respective linguistic families. Without historical substantiation, such theories remain purely hypothetical. Both prehistoric and documented historical periods play a critical role in shaping linguistic evolution, influencing whether languages endure or become extinct. In essence, history is the foundation of both a nation and its language.

By contrast, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis lacks direct historical evidence and remains largely speculative, relying primarily on reconstructed basic lexicons. While its proponents have devised plausible classifications and methodologies, the theory notably omits any substantive connection to Chinese linguistic development. This study adopts linguistic principles from the Austroasiatic hypothesis to examine the structural framework that shaped its theoretical evolution. The strength of this hypothesis lies in its methodological ingenuity, including the use of limited sets of basic words and substituting historical records with archaeological evidence and preliminary DNA analysis of Vietnamese Kinh populations where applicable. These approaches have systematically defined the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis based on raw linguistic data from languages such as Mon, Khmer, Katuic, Bahnaric, Nicobarese, Viet-Muong, Vietic, and Muong.

Similar to structuralist theories of sound change, impersonal, mechanical, non-intuitive, and strictly formal, the methodological framework applied in Austroasiatic studies could theoretically be expanded to construct hypotheses for other languages (Roberts J. Jeffers et al., 1979, p. 91). Using the same tools and methodologies introduced by Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists, one could potentially formulate a linguistic model for any language, even one without historical reference, and present it as a legitimate framework. For instance, an unfamiliar African tribal language could be theorized using existing linguistic data. 

It is undeniable that Western methodologies have significantly advanced linguistic research, yielding breakthroughs across multiple linguistic families. Beginning with Indo-European languages, these methods later extended into Sino-Tibetan studies, contributing innovations such as the reconstruction of Old Chinese phonology from the early twentieth century onward. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis was similarly shaped by this wave of Western linguistic inquiry, as early scholars, including Maspero in the 1940s and Thomas in the 1960s, introduced Vietnamese lexical roots based on comparative Mon-Khmer word lists. Their work gained prominence by identifying Mon-Khmer-Vietnamese cognates that conveniently aligned with structuralist frameworks addressing sound change patterns and tonal genesis, reinforcing dominant Western linguistic paradigms at the time.

Under such influential factors, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer perspective on the origin of Vietnamese has been widely accepted, largely due to its institutional backing. Going with the crowd often appears to be the safest path in academia. Much like their Sinologist predecessors, Western-trained Vietnamese scholars, emerging from nearly a century of French colonial rule, have generally conformed to new rationalizations, either under external pressure or voluntarily. Consequently, local specialists frequently align themselves with the Austroasiatic camp to ensure their research receives recognition, circumventing the obscurity that befell many overlooked studies in earlier decades.

For many, this phenomenon is less a matter of intellectual preference and more about academic survival, ensuring inclusion within mainstream scholarly circles. Unfortunately, most scholars entrenched in the Austroasiatic framework fail to produce groundbreaking insights, ultimately remaining caught in a scholarly merry-go-round. Breaking free from this paradigm is a challenge only they can overcome.

If readers revisit the geographical divisions underpinning Austroasiatic theories, originating in the southeastern portion of the Southeast Asian peninsula, where the Mekong Basin meets the sea, they may notice stark contrasts with northern Vietnam’s historical ties to South China. These northern regions were once home to ancient Yue speakers, LuoYue, OuYue, and other groups documented in Chinese historical texts, who later intermingled with early Han resettlers following the annexation of the Nam Viet Kingdom into the Han Empire in 111 B.C. Linguistically, the ancient Vietnamese language and certain Chinese dialects developed in parallel through a comparable process of racial and cultural blending.

By 939 A.D., it is highly plausible that the ancient Annamese population possessed bilingual proficiency, enabling them to conduct official affairs in Middle Chinese (MC) while maintaining colloquial speech in a Sinitic-Yue mixed language. This hybrid tongue, referred to here as Ancient Annamese, would have been intelligible to metropolitan subjects within the Nam Hán State, encompassing Guangdong and Guangxi.

Austroasiatic theorists, despite their methodological shortcomings, have introduced linguistic instrumentalism into their studies. Their work has produced a catalog of over 100 basic Vietnamese words that plausibly share cognates with Mon-Khmer languages. However, based on recent findings of Sino-Tibetan roots, presented later in this research, many of these words likely emerged from linguistic contact with Mon-Khmer speakers residing in remote mountainous regions. This contact likely dates back to a distant past when Mon-Khmer and Viet-Muong speakers, displaced by Han expansion, remained in their homeland.

Eventually, both local inhabitants and northern settlers were absorbed into a colonial society, forming the emergent majority now recognized as the Kinh people. This linguistic convergence likely occurred during interactions between Annamese and Mon-Khmer speakers, as Vietnam's territory expanded southward beyond the 16th latitude after the twelfth century, culminating in the late 18th century when Cà mau extended to the Gulf of Thailand. Consequently, linguistic exchanges and borrowings became inevitable, evidenced by Chamic lexical elements in the Central Hue subdialect.

Through ongoing territorial expansion and intermarriage between settlers and indigenous populations, Mon-Khmer elements gradually integrated into Vietnamese vocabularies over time.

The homeland of all Southeast Asian languages originated in the same geographical area as Vietnamese. Merritt Ruhlen, in The Origin of Language (1994, p. 143), outlines the Austric linguistic family and its classification:

"The Austric family of Southeast Asia consists of four subfamilies: Austroasiatic, Miao-Yao, Daic, and Austronesian, the last two of which appear to be the closest to each other. The Austroasiatic sub-family consists of two branches, Munda and Mon-Khmer. The small Munda branch is restricted to northern India, while the Mon-Khmer branch, more numerous in both languages and speakers, is spread across much of Southeast Asia, often interspersed with languages of other families. Vietnamese and Khmer (or Cambodian) are the two best-known Mon-Khmer languages."

    Further contextualizing Southeast Asian linguistic distribution, Ruhlen elaborates:

"The Daic languages, of which Thai and Laotian are the two best known and the only ones to achieve the status of national languages, are found in Southern China, northern Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Austronesian languages are found on Taiwan, which is probably the original homeland of the family, but also on islands throughout the Pacific Ocean, and even on Madagascar in the Indian Ocean close to Africa. The presence of Chinese domination of Taiwan is a consequence of a recent migration from the mainland that began in 1626. Over six millennia earlier, a previous migration from the mainland, of people closely related to the Daic family, led to the original Austronesian occupation of the island, which turned out to be a small step in one of the longest and most hazardous migrations in human history."

Regarding Austronesian expansion, Ruhlen (1994, p. 178) notes:

The archaeological record of Southeast Asia indicates that the Neolithic revolution in this part of the world began in China around 8,000 years ago. Evidence of millet cultivation in the Yellow River basin and rice cultivation in the Yangzi basin dates to approximately that time. By 5,000 B.P. [before present], farming had spread southward to Vietnam and Thailand and eastward to coastal China. Archaeological findings from this period include villages, pottery, stone and bone tools, boats and paddles, rice, and the bones of domesticated animals such as dogs, pigs, chickens, and cattle.

"About 6,000 years ago, one or more of these agricultural groups crossed the Strait of Formosa (now the Taiwan Strait) and became the first inhabitants of Taiwan. From Taiwan, these ship-building agriculturalists spread first southward to the Philippines and then eastward and westward throughout most of Oceania. The archaeological record indicates that the northern Philippines were reached by 5,000 B.P., and 500 years later, these migrants expanded southward to Java and Timor, westward to Malaysia, and eastward to the southern coast of New Guinea. By around 3,200 B.P., their expansion had reached Madagascar to the west and had extended as far east as Samoa, the central Pacific, the Mariana Islands, and Guam in Micronesia."

In the Epilogue of The Origin of Language, Ruhlen (1994, pp. 195–196) emphasizes the two essential stages in historical linguistics: 

1. Classification (Taxonomy): This stage defines all language families at every level and is crucial in establishing the linguistic lineage of languages before reconstruction efforts begin. 

2. Comparative Method (Reconstruction): Once a language family is identified, scholars address specific historical linguistic questions, including sound correspondences, homelands, and the transformation of proto-language words into their modern derivatives.

Ruhlen critiques twentieth-century Indo-Europeanists for attempting to reverse these analytical levels, insisting that family-specific reconstruction and sound correspondences must be used to determine linguistic classifications. This inversion has led to theoretical stagnation, where anything beyond the obvious is considered outside the comparative method’s scope.

This methodological flaw is precisely what Austroasiatic theorists have perpetuated with the Mon-Khmer hypothesis concerning the Vietnamese language.

The hypothesis of Vietnamese linguistic origins was initially proposed by Indo-Europeanists who relied predominantly on the comparative method. Their approach involved identifying basic words with similar meanings and sound-change patterns within topological isoglosses, ultimately postulating a descent from common proto-languages. However, this classification effort lacked engagement with historical documentation, failing to incorporate Sino-Tibetan etymological continuity.

As linguistic research advances, reassessing the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis through comparative analysis, paired with historical records, is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of Vietnamese linguistic ancestry. (7) 

The methodology applied by Austroasiatic theorists was rooted in rigid mechanical paradigms, often modeled after mathematical formulas derived from Indo-European linguistic schools, historically insufficient for Southeast Asian linguistic reconstruction. Specifically, these early approaches lacked substantial evidence regarding the people, their language, and their homeland. Consequently, they failed to establish the language family prior to engaging in comparative analysis, an inversion of the proper historical linguistic methodology, as Merritt Ruhlen previously emphasized.

Historical names play a crucial role in distinguishing origins, timelines, and affiliations. In academic discourse, naming conventions shape linguistic classification frameworks. For instance, the term Sinitic designates an ancient entity that had yet to emerge, whereas Yue refers to an earlier, distinct ethnolinguistic group that existed long before northwestern and northeastern resettlers moved south, intermixing with the native Yue population to form the entity later recognized as Sinitic. A similar transformation occurred with the aboriginal inhabitants further south, in what is now northern Vietnam, ultimately giving rise to those later known as Vietnamese.

Geopolitically, the historical name  Vietnam eventually gave rise to the term Vietnamese, a designation that emerged long after Annamese. Similarly, Austroasiatic theorists constructed a linguistic narrative in which Austroasiatic predates the Mon-Khmer epoch, followed by Viet-Muong, which later evolved into modern Vietnamese, an assertion lacking concrete historical substantiation.

As Confucius aptly stated, "名正言順", that can be loosely translated as "Everything is justified in the name." The Austroasiatic camp may not have considered that the earlier ancient state names associated with "Vietnam", its people, and their language only materialized after 939 A.D. During this period, Vietnam was referred to as NhàNgô (吳朝 Wǔcháo, the Ngô Dynasty), which bore no direct relation to the nominal state of Annam. The nation gradually evolved into an independent polity with successive name changes over the following centuries.

Notably, during this era, the historical NamHán Kingdom (南漢 NánHàn, "Southern State of Han"), encompassing coastal stretches of present-day Guangdong Province and the northwestern segment of northern Vietnam, featured an intriguing historical designation. King Liu Yan (劉嚴) of NamHán initially named his newly founded state ĐạiViệt (大越 DàYuè, "The Great Viet") before adopting the lasting historical identity NamHán (南漢), as documented in Chinese historical records (Lü, Shih-P'eng, 1964, p. 147). This nomenclatural shift reflects the demographic composition of the population itself, where Việt and Hán symbolized the integration of these identities.

The name ĐạiViệt would later become synonymous with ancient Vietnam, beginning with the Lý Dynasty (1009-1225). Interestingly, 大越 DàYuè surfaced more than once in Chinese history. One notable instance occurred in 895, during the turbulent decline of the Tang Dynasty, when Dong Chang (董昌) declared himself king and established 大越羅平國, later known as 越州 Yuezhou, in what is now 紹興 (Shaoxing City), Zhejiang Province (Bo Yang, Vol. 63, p. 155)

Figure 1 - The Southern Han (917-971 A.D.)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Han

History is the soul of a nation and her language.

 

Further reinforcing this historical continuity, today’s Guangdong Province retains its ancestral state designation, NamJyut Kwok (南越國, SV NamViệtquốc), a reminder of the Yue origins of the region.

In Annam, the succeeding reigns of different dynasties adopted varying state names (quốchiệu 國號) throughout ancient times. Linguistically, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer, Viet-Muong, and Vietic classifications, alongside the concept of Vietnamese, are modern scholarly constructs employed to describe the independent Annam of the tenth century. At that time, its territorial boundaries stopped short at what is now Hàtĩnh Province, without extending into the southern-central region.

Under the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theoretical framework, Vietnamese conveniently aligns with each state name assigned in subsequent historical periods, extrapolating its origins back to prehistoric times. However, the intrinsic linguistic nature and characteristics of pre-Vietnamese, before evolving into modern Vietnamese, were not identical to what Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists often classify as proto-Vietnamese.

Today, discourse surrounding Vietnamese often shifts toward analyzing distinct linguistic influences, such as Chamic elements embedded in regional subdialects like Huế. Indicative pronouns such as ni, nớ, mô, tê, ri, rứ, chừ, etc., have been theorized to originate from Chinese influence, among other sources. This underscores the reality that discussions on Vietnamese encompass disparate linguistic elements. The Vietnamese people and language of the tenth century likely had little connection to the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer linguistic enclaves referenced in the early twentieth century.

Such assumptions are reinforced by the earliest forms of Nôm vocabulary, found in fifteenth-century texts such as Phậtthuyết Đại Báo Phụmẫu Ântrọng Kinh (Buddhist Canon on Returning Favors to One’s Parents).

The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis relies heavily on a curated list of basic words purportedly sufficient to determine Vietnamese linguistic origins. However, such an approach may be limited in accurately reflecting historical reality, especially given that Vietnam was first officially designated as a state in 1804 under King Gia Long of the Nguyễn Dynasty. (8)

By this period, Vietnamese resettlers had only limited interaction with Khmer communities inhabiting territories annexed from Cambodia as late as the sixteenth century. The ethnic composition of these regions today reflects roughly equal proportions of three major groups: Vietnamese Kinh, Chinese Teochew, and Khmer.

For example, if the Vietnamese word chồmhỗm ('squat') shares cognates with Khmer chrohom, such an association appears natural given linguistic contact in overlapping geographic zones. Yet chồmhỗm can also be traced to 犬坐 (quánzuò), a term recorded more than 2,000 years ago in Zuozhuan (左傳), revealing a deeper etymological lineage beyond Mon‑Khmer influence.

Labels such as Austroasiatic, Mon‑Khmer, Viet‑Muong, and Vietic are modern constructs, applied retrospectively to historical linguistic entities that remain largely theoretical. By analogy, consider the 2020 census, which lists Khmer and Chinese minorities as 1.37% and 0.78% of Vietnam’s population, respectively.

Such figures, however, obscure broader historical realities: many early Chinese immigrants gradually assimilated into the mainstream Kinh population, while Khmer communities have been officially recognized as Vietnamese nationals since the early 1960s, both in legal classification and sociopolitical integration.

From a historical perspective, Austroasiatic specialists often disregard Vietnamese history, likely because of the absence of evidence supporting their linguistic hypothesis. The southern territories of modern Vietnam once belonged to the Khmer Kingdom, yet events in Khmer history bear no direct connection to ancient Annam.

Figure 2 - CHINA 2500 B.C.-1500 B.C.

(See Time maps of China - Source: http://www.timemaps.com/history/china-1500bc)

The Yellow River region of China, under the rule of the Shang Dynasty (1766–1122 B.C.), marks the beginning of a long succession of Chinese dynasties documented in written history. This flourishing Bronze Age civilization featured some of East Asia’s earliest true cities, each housing tens of thousands of inhabitants.

While the Shang kings likely exercised direct authority over only portions of the region, their influence extended across a much larger expanse of northern and central China. Subordinate lords and tribal chiefs, ruling their own territories independently, nevertheless recognized the Shang dynasty’s overarching sovereignty.

A system of writing, an early form of the modern Chinese script, was already in use during this period, alongside advanced bronze-working techniques. Shang craftsmen produced exceptionally refined bronzes, regarded among the finest in world history.

Cultural influences radiating from the Yellow River region introduced more advanced material traditions to the Yangtze River basin, fostering population expansion. A distinctive, non-literate yet materially sophisticated culture was emerging in this area.

 

Conversely, Vietnam’s historical trajectory is more congruent with China’s broader historical context , both linguistically and politically. The development of the Vietnamese language can be traced back over  2,500 years to Old Chinese (OC), underscoring its deep historical roots and linguistic evolution. This affirms that a language should not be merely analyzed through linguistic classification or laboratory-based phonological models, it must be contextualized within its historical lineage.

To situate these linguistic inquiries within a broader historical framework, we turn to the Yue groups who once inhabited the territorial domain of the NamViệt Kingdom (南越王國). These include:

• LạcViệt (雒越, LuóYuè) and ÂuLạc (歐雒, OuLuo): widely regarded as the ancestral populations of early Vietnamese.

• TâyViệt (西越, XiYue): considered precursors to Cantonese and Teochew-speaking communities.

• ĐôngViệt (東越, DongYue): proto-Fukienese groups associated with the region now known as Fujian Province.

This progression of Yue linguistic strata illustrates how Annam remained deeply interwoven with China’s historical and linguistic legacy, even as it gradually charted an independent course.

Historical records suggest that both before and after 111 B.C., the Yue tribes likely spoke mutually intelligible variants of a common ancestral Yue language. This included the speech of neighboring communities in the Chu State (楚國, ca. 1030-223 B.C.), whose linguistic patterns might reflect early Taic affiliations.

King Liu Bang (劉邦), founder of the Western Han Dynasty (西漢王朝), and his followers were originally subjects of Chu. Their ancestors likely spoke an archaic Daic language belonging to the broader Taic linguistic family, which gradually diverged into distinct forms during the Warring States Period (475–403 B.C.), culminating in the Qin unification under Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇).

Following the Han conquest and annexation of NamViệt (南越, NanYue) in 111 B.C., its inhabitants likely retained mutual intelligibility with neighboring Yue communities. However, linguistic divergence increased as geographic distances widened. The territorial expanse of ancient NamViệt included parts of northeastern Vietnam, notably the Han prefecture of Giaochâu (交州), which later transitioned into the protectorate of Annam, known as the Pacified South.

From this multilingual environment, early forms of Vietnamese and Cantonese emerged from Taic-Yue foundations, gradually incorporating Sinitic elements through successive periods of Han rule.

These linguistic trajectories show minimal overlap with Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer classifications. Even the Daic ancestry of early Cantonese populations diverges from Austroasiatic models. While the Mon-Khmer framework has contributed methodologically, it fails to align with the documented historical processes that shaped the evolution of the Annamese language.

In contrast, the Sino-Tibetan classification offers stronger alignment with historical narratives. It traces linguistic convergence between ancient Vietnamese and Middle Chinese (MC), suggesting bilingual proficiency among Annamese populations by the tenth century. Language contact between Annamese and Cantonese likely persisted within the NamHán State, which encompassed today's Guangdong and Guangxi provinces and portion of northern Vietnam.

Ultimately, the author finds it difficult to reconcile Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer elements with the historical development of Annamese, a language whose formative evolution reflects closer affinities with Sinitic-Yue transitions than with Mon-Khmer derivations.

Historically, China, referred to as the Middle Kingdom (中國 Zhōngguó), functioned as a central state among smaller vassal entities. Today, it operates as a union of multinational regions under centralized governance. Within this framework, regions such as Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang (Uighur), and the Daic-Kadai areas of Guangxi, along with Hong Kong and Taiwan (Formosa), retain distinct historical identities regardless of their linguistic or ethnic composition.

Within China’s borders, most Sinitic languages are classified as dialects of the broader Sinitic family. Consider Annam, which once served as a Chinese prefecture. Hypothetically, if Canton were to separate from China and evolve into an independent state, it could eventually resemble Vietnam or Taiwan, an outcome consistent with historical patterns. For example, Hainanese, spoken on Hainan Island, is linguistically related to MinNan, introduced by Fujianese settlers during the Han Dynasty. Yet, as with Teochew, speakers of these linguistic cousins often struggle to understand one another despite shared historical roots.

Understanding Vietnam’s development requires recognizing its emergence from a breakaway prefecture of Greater China. Had Vietnam remained part of China, there would be no debate over whether its population spoke a Sinitic language, similar to Cantonese or Fukienese, both of which fall under the Sino-Tibetan classification.

By contrast, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer perspective lacks historical grounding, not only in linguistic terms but also in relation to the former Khmer Kingdom, which developed independently of Vietnam’s trajectory. Politically, no aspect of Khmer history aligns with the narrative of ancient Vietnam under imperial Chinese influence.

After a millennium of Chinese colonial rule, it is notable that the primary language spoken in Vietnam did not evolve into a Sinitic language thanks to its separation from mainland China. Instead, it developed into full-fledged Vietnamese, with Middle Vietnamese emerging as an independent linguistic entity around 939 A.D.

To understand Vietnamese linguistic evolution over the centuries, its development may be likened to that of English. Just as Greek and Latin lexical components enriched the Anglo-Saxon foundation of English, integrating within the Indo-European family, so too did Sino-Tibetan and Sinitic elements merge with the Yue substratum, shaping Vietnamese into its distinct form.

Conclusion

In closing, the "Rainwash Effect" illustrates how entrenched narratives about Vietnamese origins can be rinsed clean by renewed scrutiny. The discovery of hundreds of Sinitic‑Vietnamese cognates demonstrates that Vietnamese shares structural and lexical affinities with Chinese that cannot be explained by Mon‑Khmer affiliation alone. While Austroasiatic models have long dominated, they falter when confronted with the disyllabicity, tonality, and deep etymological parallels that bind Vietnamese to the Sino‑Tibetan continuum.

This reclassification is not merely a matter of linguistic taxonomy; it reshapes our understanding of Vietnam's cultural and historical trajectory. By challenging inherited frameworks and resisting algorithmic bias, the study calls for a more balanced approach, one that acknowledges both contact and genetic affinity. The Rainwash metaphor thus becomes a call to scholars and readers alike: to clear away the residue of ideology and rediscover Vietnamese as a language forged at the crossroads of Yue, Taic, and Sino‑Tibetan traditions.

References

1. Aitchison, Jean. Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge University Press, 1994.
2. Alves, Mark J. "What’s So Chinese About Vietnamese?" In Papers from the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, ed. Graham W. Thurgood, 221–242. Arizona State University, 2001.
3. Alves, Mark J. "Categories of Grammatical Sino‑Vietnamese Vocabulary." Mon‑Khmer Studies 37 (2007): 217–229.
4. Alves, Mark J. "Loanwords in Vietnamese." In Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook, ed. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor, 617–637. De Gruyter Mouton, 2009.
5. An Chi. Rong chơi Miền Chữ nghĩa (Vols. 1–5). Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Tổng hợp, 2016–2024.
6. An Chi. Từ nguyên. Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Tổng hợp, 2024.
7. Anderson, I. J. "Some Fossil Mammal Localities in Northern China." The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 14 (1945): 29–43.
8. Anttila, Raimo. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1989.
9. Bai, Tiao‑Zhou. "集韵 聲類 考". Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 3, no. 2 (1928): 159–238.
10. Bai, Tiao‑Zhou. "關中 聲調 實驗錄". Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 4, no. 4 (1934): 447–488.
11. Baldi, Philip (de.). Patterns of Changes, Change of Patterns: Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.
12. Barker, Milton E. "Viet‑Muong Tone Correspondences." In Norman Zide (ed.), Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.
13. Benedict, Paul K. Austro‑Thai Language and Culture (With a Glossary of Roots). HRAF Press, 1975.
14. Baxter, William H. III. "Zhou and Han Phonology in Shijing." In William G. Boltz and Michael C. Shapiro (eds.), Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991.
15. Bình Nguyên Lộc. Nguồn gốc Mã Lai của Dân tộc Việt Nam. Los Alamitos: Xuân Thu, 1987 [originally Saigon: Bách Bộc, 1971].
16. Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. New York: Henry Holt, 1933.
17. Bo Yang. Zizhi Tongjian (Modern Chinese edition, 72 vols.). Taipei: Yuan‑Liou Publishing, 1983–1993.
18. Bo Yang. "醜陋 的 中國人". (The Ugly Chinaman). Taipei: Yuan‑Liou Publishing, 1985.
19. Bodman, Nicholas C. "Proto‑Chinese and Sino‑Tibetan." In Frans Van Coetsem et al. (eds.), Contributions to Historical Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
20. Boltz, William G. "Old Chinese Terrestrial Names in Saek." In William G. Boltz and Michael C. Shapiro (eds.), Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991.
21. Boodberg, Peter A. Selected Works of Peter A. Boodberg. Compiled by Alvin P. Cohen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
22. Breton, Roland J.‑L. Geolinguistics: Language Dynamics and Ethnolinguistic Geography. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1991.
23. Brodrick, Alan Houghton. Little China: The Annamese Lands. London: Oxford University Press, 1942.
24. Buck, Pearl. Impératrice de Chine (Imperial Woman). Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 1992 [orig. 1956].
25. Bùi Thanh Khiên. Nghệ thuật Nói lái. Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Tổng hợp, 2017.
26. Bynon, Theodora. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
27. Camus, Albert. L’étranger. Paris: Gallimard, 1942.
28. Cao Xuân‑Hạo. Tiếng Việt Văn Việt Người Việt. Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Trẻ, 2001.
29. Chao Yuan‑Ren. "The Non‑Uniqueness of Phonemic Solutions of Phonetic Systems." Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 4, no. 4 (1933): 363–398.
30. Chao Yuan‑Ren. "Tone and Intonation in Chinese." Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 4, no. 2 (1933): 119–134.
31. Chen Guo‑hong. "成語 辭典". (Chinese Idioms Dictionary). Hunan: Yuelu Chubanshe, 1988.
32. Chen Yin‑Ke. "李唐氏族之推測". Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 3, no. 1 (1928): 38–48.
33. Chen Yin‑Ke. "李唐 氏族 之 推測 後記". Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 3, no. 4 (1928): 511–516.
34. Chou Fa‑Kao et al. "漢字古今音彙". (Hanzi Gujin Yinhui). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1973.
35. Chou Fa‑Kao. "Monosyllabics of Chinese Reconsidered." Tsing‑hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14, no. 1–2 (1982): 105–110.
36. Coblin, W. South. "Notes on Western Han Initials." Tsing‑hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14, no. 1–2 (1982): 111–132.
37. Coblin, W. South. A Handbook of Eastern Han Sound Glosses. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1983.
38. Coetsem, Frans Van and Linda Waugh (eds.). Contributions to Historical Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
39. Cohen, Alvin P. Selected Works of Peter A. Boodberg. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
40. Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. London: 1859 [150th Anniversary Edition, Bridge Logos Foundation, 2009].
41. De Lacouperie, Terrien. The Languages of China Before the Chinese. London: 1887 [Taiwan reprint, 1966].
42. Delinger, B. Paul. "The Ch’ung Niu Problem and Vietnamese." Tsing‑hua Journal of Chinese Studies 11, no. 1–2 (1979): 217–227.
43. Ding Bangxin (ed.). "中國 語言學 論集". (Collection of Surveys of Chinese Linguistics). Taipei: You Shi Wenhua, 1977.
44. Ding Shan. "宗法考源".  Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 4, no. 4 (1934): 399–416.
45. Dong Zuo‑Bin. "殷曆 中 幾個 重要 問題".  Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 4, no. 3 (1933): 331–353.
46. Dong Zuo‑Bin. "譠". Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 4, no. 2 (1933): 159–174.
47. Dragunow, A. "對於 中國 古音 重訂 的 貢獻". Bulletin de l’Institut de Historique et Philologique 3, no. 2 (1928): 295–307.
48. Drake, F. S. (ed.). Symposium on Historical Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South‑East Asia and the Hong Kong Region. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1967.
49. Đào Trọng Đủ. Traugiồi TiếngViệt. (Vietnamese Revisited). Toronto: Quê Hương, 1983.
50. Đỗ Hoàng Diệu. Lưng Rồng (Bóng Đè và những truyện mới). Hanoi: Nhã Nam, 2018.

FOOTNOTES

---

(1)^ Figure 3

The oft-repeated claim that "a Hùng king named Chiêuvương lived for hundreds of years and had sixty wives" circulates across the internet. Such assertions reflect the extent to which official narratives, often shaped by ruling elites, have imposed mythologized versions of history upon the general public. This phenomenon underscores how state-sponsored historiography, particularly in countries like Vietnam and China, functions as a tool of ideological control.

When fabricated legends are elevated to historical fact, it raises a deeper question: who holds the authority to determine the truthfulness of other foundational matters, such as the origin of the Vietnamese language? In contexts where history is written by those in power, scholarly inquiry must remain vigilant against politicized distortions masquerading as cultural heritage.

(2)^ As previously noted, the Austroasiatic hypothesis is essentially another Western theorization. Western scholars have often preferred to invent new frameworks rather than restore older traditions, overlooking historical Yue artifacts and neglecting Chinese linguistic records until well into the eighteenth century. Their tendency has been to construct models from scratch rather than engage with existing evidence.

By the same logic, one could devise a parallel theory about the origins of modern Europeans, built entirely on hypothesis. For instance, it might be claimed that their ancestors came from the Middle Eastern region now called Iraq, cradle of one of the world’s oldest civilizations. Using another scholar’s premises as the foundation for a ‘new theory,’ one could cite Bo Yang (1983–93), who suggested that the ancestors of Europe’s peoples descended from those who created the six‑thousand‑year‑old Mesopotamian civilization, later forced to flee under attack from Tartar horsemen advancing rapidly from southwestern Siberia. Such migrations, he argued, resembled events in ancient China. This detail also explains why the ancestral language of Turkey shares affinities with ancient northeastern Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, all linked to the Altaic linguistic family. Chinese history itself records that Han armies were repeatedly defeated by these Tartaric warriors.

Analogously, the Austroasiatic theory has been constructed methodologically in much the same way: by extrapolating from limited premises and speculative reconstructions. In any case, there is little need to be distracted by the mechanics of how such hypotheses are theorized. As the saying goes, Rome was not built in a day.

(3)^ The name "Han" was a derivative from the compound 'Hanzhong' (漢中) where the First Han Emperor Han Gaozu (漢高祖) used to hold the post of viceroy who had ever been a subject of the Chu State (楚國) of which the populace were made up of the pre-Yue people called "Taic", hence, the "original Yue-Chu-Han" people. Readers will see more discussions and emphasis on the Han matter in the succeeding chapters.

(4)^ In 2025, the government forcefully merged two provinces under an ahistorical designation. Gialai Province, named after the Jrai ethnic group of its highland region, was expanded through the annexation of the historically distinct Bìnhđịnh Province. Additionally, all references to administrative units at the 'huyện' (county) level were systematically eliminated, laying the groundwork for a broader territorial restructuring.

This reconfiguration aligns Vietnam’s administrative divisions with China’s geopolitical framework, foreshadowing a future in which Vietnam would be conveniently absorbed into 'Quảngnam Province' (Greater South), situated alongside China’s existing 'Quảngtây' (Greater West) and 'Quảngđông' (Greater East) provinces. With only the terminological shift from 'tỉnh' (province) to 'huyện' (county) remaining, this transformation would seamlessly integrate Vietnam into China’s administrative map!

These developments have sparked widespread discourse among the Vietnamese populace in 2025, highlighting how politics and nationalism are deeply intertwined with historical linguistics. The trend, wherein political imperatives shape academic path, has become increasingly pronounced, particularly in the wake of Trump-era rhetoric surrounding nationalism and the 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) movement. Some Vietnamese who support Trump do so under the belief that he represents a counterbalance to China’s growing influence, an intersection that underscores the broader entanglement between politics and scholarship.

(5)^ The Austroasiatic (Austro-Asiatic) languages, in recent classifications synonymous with Mon-Khmer, are a large language family of continental Southeast Asia, also scattered throughout India, Bangladesh, and the southern border of China. The name Austroasiatic comes from the Latin words for "south" and "Asia", hence "South Asia". Among these languages, only Khmer, Vietnamese, and Mon have a long-established recorded history, and only Vietnamese and Khmer have official status (in Vietnam and Cambodia, respectively). The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups. Ethnologue identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen, which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon-Khmer and Munda. However, recent classifications have abandoned Mon–Khmer as a taxon, either reducing it in scope or making it synonymous with the larger family.

        Austroasiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across India, Bangladesh and Southeast Asia, separated by regions where other languages are spoken. They appear to be the autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia, with the neighboring Indic, Tai, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Tibeto-Burman languages being the result of later migrations (Sidwell & Blench, 2011). ( Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic_languages)

(6)^ The first proposal of a genealogical relationship was that of Paul Benedict in 1942, which he expanded upon through 1990. This took the form of an expansion of Wilhelm Schmidt's Austric phylum, and posited that Tai-Kadai and Austronesian had a sister relationship within Austric, which Benedict then accepted. Benedict later abandoned Austric but maintained his Austro-Tai proposal. This remained controversial among linguists, especially after the publication of Benedict (1975) whose methods of reconstruction were idiosyncratic and considered unreliable. For example, Thurgood (1994) examined Benedict's claims and concluded that since the sound correspondences and tonal developments were irregular, there was no evidence of a genealogical relationship, and the numerous cognates must be chalked up to early language contact.

        However, the fact that many of the Austro-Tai cognates are found in core vocabulary, which is generally resistant to borrowing, continued to intrigue scholars. There were later several advances over Benedict's approach: Abandoning the larger Austric proposal; focusing on lexical reconstruction and regular sound correspondences; including data from additional branches of Tai-Kadai, Hlai and Kra; using better reconstructions of Tai-Kadai; and reconsidering the nature of the relationship, with Tai-Kadai possibly being a branch (daughter) of Austronesian. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic_languages(

(7)^ See Ilia Peiros's Some Thoughts on the Problem of the Austro-Asiatic Homeland

(8)^ The name "Việtnam" [viə̀tnaːm] is a variation of "NamViệt" (南越 Nányuè; literally "Southern Việt"), a name that can be traced back to the Triệu Dynasty of the 2nd century B.C. The word Việt originated as a shortened form of BáchViệt (百越 BǎiYuè, "Bod"), a word applied to a group of peoples then living in southern China and Vietnam. The form "Vietnam" (越南) is first recorded in the 16th-century oracular poem Sấm Trạng Trình. The name has also been found on 12 steles carved in the 16th and 17th centuries, including one at Bao Lam Pagoda in Haiphong that dates to 1558.

Between 1804 and 1813, the name was used officially by Emperor Gia Long. It was revived in the early 20th century by Phan Bội Châu's History of the Loss of Vietnam, and later by the Vietnamese Nationalist Party. The country was usually called Annam until 1945, when both the imperial government in Huế and the Vietminh government in Hanoi adopted Vietnam. Since the use of Chinese characters was discontinued in 1918, the alphabetic spelling of Vietnam is official. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam)