Sinitic-Vietnamese Philology

On the Relativity of Historical Phonology and the Limits of Reconstruction

by dchph

The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer hypothesis is critiqued for its methodological rigidity and lack of historical grounding. Western theorists often imposed Indo-European frameworks onto Southeast Asian languages without fluency in Vietnamese or Chinese. The theory's reliance on basic-word lists and speculative reconstructions has led to circular reasoning and misclassification. Vietnamese etymology, when examined through analogical and dissyllabic methods, reveals stronger ties to Sinitic-Yue than to Mon-Khmer. Examples include mẹ, mợ, mái, gàmẹ, gàmái, and cậumợ, all traceable to Old Chinese 母 mǔ and its derivatives.

I) The Zen of Sinitic-Vietnamese

Vietnamese etymology must be approached meditatively, akin to Zen practice, tracing phonetic resonance with historical depth. The term "Sinitic-Vietnamese" reflects layered linguistic convergence between Vietnamese and Chinese, not genetic descent. Ancient Yue entities predate the Qin state, and many Vietnamese etyma – such as cộ, sọ, răng, chua, heo, lợn – align with archaic Sinitic forms documented in classical Chinese texts. These connections, often overlooked by Austroasiatic theorists, are supported by phonetic keys like 讀若, 反切, and 形聲. The Sinitic Vietnamese lexicon reveals deep cognacy with Sinitic-Yue roots, distinct from Mon-Khmer vocabulary.

Etymologically, research on the origin of any Vietnamese word should be conducted in an appreciative and meditative manner just as one would do in practicing Zen or Yoga, slowing down, calmly, tracing one's feelings on the sounds meditatively that happen to one's lips. To be truthful, it should be the same with Chinese as well. For example, 弩機 nújī (crossbow trigger) where 弩 nú=nổ=nỏ=ná (in the same rhyming table with 魚 yú=ngư=nga=ngá=cá and 機 jī=cơ=cò as specifically described in 說文 "Shuowen" by 許慎 Xu Shen of the Han Dynasty, not as originally of 'shuttle' of a weaving device as speculated by 段玉裁 of the Qing Dynasty (See Xu Zhongshu, 1934. pp. 425, 427, 441).

II. Overlooked Sinitic‑Yue evidence

The contemporary Austroasiatic avant-gardes have focused much about on the genre of their basic words, minus tonality and the like, as compared to other prominent Sinitic linguistic attributes, all intrinsically. The Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer theorists have simply ignored what has originally been essentially in store on the Sinitic-Yue (or Sinitic-Vietic) side of the Chinese historical linguistics in several anthropological aspects. "Vietic" is a later term for a linguistic sub-family affiliated with ancient Vietnamese – as in Viet-Muong – for the concept of ancient Yue isoglosses that were nominally transcribed in Chinese records as 粵, 越, 戉, 鉞... that are now grouped into different Chinese Southern dialects such as Cantonese and Fukienese.

Bibliographically speaking, etymological evidences of the Yue etyma are actually buried deeply in ancient Chinese literary and historical books. The plausibility of proven cognates, indeed, are manifested in parts by phonetic keys, or clues, amply noted in numerous ancient classical materials with notations such as the "dúruò" 讀若 (read as... or 'pronunciation'), "fănqiè" 反切 (spelling), "xíngshēng" 形聲 (phonographic), etc. in traditional Chinese linguistics. For instance, VS "cộ" /ko6/ (carriage) is a [轂 gǔ] variant of an archaic sound of 車 chē (carriage) as shown in HòuHànshū (後漢書 'Books on the Later Han') "dúruò" (is pronounced as) 居 jū (SV cư), which is in turn evidenced by the phonetic sign of 古 gǔ (SV cổ, OC *ku). Many old characters as etyma lexicographically are listed in the Kangxi Dictionary 康熙字典 with over 50,000 out of more than the possible 70,000 single Chinese glyphs ever recorded with quotations and notations derived from variant dialectal forms and keys to pronunciations. Anybody who uses the Kangxi dictionary, now of course conveniently accessible online,  can find numerous interesting examples therein, including thousands of ancient ideographs.

In this Sinitic etymological realm alone, as the time goes on more of those obsolete etyma have been gradually identified, tagged, analyzed, and reconstructed. That kind of work appears to be a painstaking task, though, like sieving tiny bits of gold dust from ground rocky sandy grains in streams of Chinese classics for every single etymon that can or cannot be identified with modern set of common lexicons, for example,

• "sọ" (head) 首 shǒu (SV thủ),
• "răng" (tooth) 齡 líng (SV linh),
• "ngọt" (sweet) 𩜌 yuē (SV ngạt),

or those highly plausible cognates, such as


• "chua" (sour) 酸 suān (SV toan),
• "rát" (sore) 熱 rè (SV nhiệt),
• "heo" (pig) 亥 hài (SV hợi),
• "lợn" (pig) 腞 dùn [ or 豘 tún ] (SV độn), etc.

Austroasiatic theorists have overlooked these connections. It is possible that they remain unaware of the linguistic traces linking archaic Yue and Sinitic languages – traces that are gradually being uncovered through etymological analysis. These connections span proto-forms and archaic scripts that evolved into Sinitic etyma, now found in both Chinese lexical items and their Sinitic-Vietnamese equivalents.

All words in this category may be classified as 同源辭 (tóngyuáncí), meaning "etyma" or "words of the same root", for example, 川 chuān, 水 shuǐ, and 江 jiāng all signify "river" or "stream." The Vietnamese word "sông" should not be rigidly tied to 江 jiāng alone. Etymologically, Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma are postulated here as having evolved from Sinitic-Yue forms, as illustrated in the case of "river".

Specifically, the Sinitic-Yue etymon 狗 gǒu corresponds to "chó" (dog), while its Sino-Vietnamese reading "cẩu" aligns with the Sinitic-Vietnamese form "cầy." This coexists with 犬 (quán), which gives rise to "cún" ('puppy'). Similarly, 眼 yǎn and 目 mù correspond to "mắt" ('eye'), while 首 shǒu and 頭 tóu relate to "trốc" ('head'). These examples reflect layered etymological relationships.

In contrast, the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer wordlist offers no characteristically parallel forms to those fundamental terms as described above. The absence of such correspondences further underscores the limitations of the Austroasiatic framework in accounting for the depth and complexity of Sinitic-Yue linguistic convergence (see Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993)

III. Archaeological and Historical Context

Archaeological excavations of cultural relics from the ancient Chu State (楚國), located in parts of the South China region, have revealed a substantial presence of proto-Taic vestiges embedded within early Yue cultural elements. These findings align closely with developments in historical linguistics, particularly through the identification of Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma, Vietnamese words that share cognates with Sinitic lexical items.

It is worth recalling that Liu Bang (劉邦), the founding emperor of the Han Dynasty (漢高祖), was originally a subject of the Chu polity, as were many of his subordinates and military forces. Following the process of Sinicization (漢化), linguistic features of Chu, rooted in Tai-Yue origins, were gradually absorbed into the Han cultural and linguistic framework. Over time, these Chu elements came to be treated as if they were inherently Han, and thus classified within the Sinitic language sub-family due to their integration with other Han-affiliated forms.

A similar phenomenon can be observed in the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer context. Early Mon-Khmer resettlers from the southwest of what is now northern Vietnam migrated into the Red River Delta, where they came into direct contact with local Daic populations and later Yue emigrants from the Dongtinghu region of China South. This convergence produced linguistic overlaps that have often been misattributed or oversimplified in classification models (Nguyễn Ngọc San, 1993, p. 43).

IV. Toward New Methods

Whether or not these findings overturn Mon–Khmer assumptions, they complement underdeveloped Sinitic‑Vietnamese studies. Current work leans on diachronic Han‑Viet readings, while Sinitic‑Vietnamese etyma evolve synchronically.

Two new techniques strengthen credibility:

1. Analogical approach – identifies obscured Chinese‑origin etyma beneath Mon–Khmer substrata. Examples: chim 'bird' 禽 qín, chuột 'mouse' 鼠 shǔ, ngựa 'horse' 午 wǔ, heo 'boar' 亥 hài, trâu 'buffalo' 丑 chǒu.

2. Dissyllabic method – examines sibling etyma within semantic categories. đất 土 tǔ 'soil' and 地 dì 'land'; nặng 'heavy' 重 zhòng (SV trọng) vs. nhẹ 'light' 輕 qīng (SV khinh).

The analogical approach allows for the positive identification and plausible reconstruction of Vietnamese etyma of Chinese origin, including those obscured beneath basic Mon-Khmer vocabulary substrata. Without this method, many such forms might have gone unnoticed. Examples include "chim" (bird) corresponding to 禽 qín, "chuột" (mouse) to 鼠 shǔ, "ngựa" (horse) to 午 wǔ, "heo" (boar) to 亥 hài, and "trâu" (water buffalo) to 丑 chǒu. These cases illustrate how analogical reasoning can reveal deep etymological relationships otherwise hidden beneath surface-level classifications. (For further examples, see Comparative Mon-Khmer and Vietnamese basic words.)

The analogical method allows us to examine sibling etyma that may have emerged within the same semantic or cultural category. If a word demonstrably shares linguistic traits and attributes with a Chinese-origin term, its related forms can often be postulated as belonging to the same etymological genre. For example, "đất" corresponds to 土 tǔ ('soil'), while 地 dì ('land') shares overlapping semantic space. Similarly, "nặng" ('heavy') aligns with 重 (zhòng, SV trọng), and "nhẹ" (light) with 輕 qīng (SV khinh).

In cultural contexts, these relationships extend to morpho-syllabic constructions that express shared conceptual meaning. Shared morpho‑syllabic expressions illustrate conceptual overlap:

• 懷念故土 huáiniàngùtǔ → nhớvềđấttổ 'homesickness'
• 心地 xīndì (SV tâmđịa) → tấmlòng 'heart's core'
• 重擔 zhòngdàn → gánhnặng 'heavy burden'
• 輕視 qīngshì → khinhkhi, xemnhẹ 'to look down'
• 容易 róngyì → dễdàng 'easily' vs. 困難 kùnnán → khókhăn 'difficult'

These examples demonstrate literal (nghĩađen, 正義 zhèngyì) and figurative (nghĩabóng, 偏義 piānyì) meanings.

The second approach focuses on dissyllabic characteristics of two-syllable words. This methodology is used to trace the etymology of many basic Sinitic-Vietnamese terms and often complements the analogical method. For instance, 田地 tiándì corresponds to đồngruộng ('paddy field'), while 下地 xiàdì ('to go to the field') aligns with rađồng. The term 地 dì (SV địa) maps to đồng, and 田 tián (SV điền) connects to both đồng and ruộng. In this case, 地 dì may have evolved into đồng, represented by 垌 tóng ('paddy field'), which is semantically linked to 田 (tián).

The dissyllabicity approach requires historical linguists to treat sound changes in two-syllable Chinese words as synchronic events. Each syllable may function independently as an allophonic unit with its own generative properties. For example, 田 (tián) originally meant "hunt" in Old Chinese and is plausibly cognate to the Vietnamese word săn, following a sound change pattern from /t- to s-/ (M 田 tián < MC dɛn < OC *l'iːŋ ).

This transformation process is not governed by rigid phonological rules such as those found in Middle Chinese, Sino-Vietnamese, or Cantonese interchanges. Instead, it reflects a range of phonetic outcomes resulting from lexical mutation, contraction, metamorphosis, metathesis, or spoonerism. These are sporadic synchronic events in which each morphemic syllable diverges into multiple phonemic forms.

The analogical and dissyllabic methods reframe Vietnamese etymology within the Sinitic‑Yue continuum, challenging the limits of Austroasiatic reconstruction and opening new pathways for comparative historical phonology.

V) Crowding Vietnamese into Sinitic-Yue of Sino-Tibetan framework

Ultimately, the implications of these two extended approaches as discussed above – analogical and dissyllabic – provide evidence of Chinese linguistic traits embedded in Vietnamese. Together, they lay the groundwork for classifying Vietnamese within a new Sinitic-Vietnamese sub-family, placing it alongside other languages in the Sinitic branch of the broader Sino-Tibetan linguistic family.

A. Linguistic positioning

The analogical and dissyllabic approaches outlined above reveal Chinese linguistic traits embedded within Vietnamese. Together, they support the classification of Vietnamese within a new Sinitic‑Vietnamese sub‑family, positioned alongside other languages of the Sinitic branch in the broader Sino‑Tibetan family.

  
  Sino‑Tibetan
   └── Sinitic
         ├── Seven major Chinese dialectal groups
         └── Sinitic‑Yue
                └── Sinitic‑Vietnamese

----------------------
   (*) (based on the cognacy of 
        400+ Sino‑Tibetan fundamental words with Sinitic‑Vietnamese forms)

1. Austroasiatic accommodation

How do Mon‑Khmer etyma fit into this framework? To satisfy Austroasiatic theorists, a positional designation is proposed:

How would the Mon-Khmer etyma, i.e., those Austroasiatic cognates, fit into the diagram above?

To satisfy the Austroasiatic demand given the postulation of Taic > Mon-Khmer as well, their positional designation is proposed as follows:

 
    
    proto‑Taic

   ├── Sinitic‑Yue
   │      └── Sinitic
   │             └── Sinitic‑Vietnamese* → Annamese → Vietnamese
   │
   └── Taic**
          └── Austroasiatic*** → Mon‑Khmer → Vietmuong → Vietic → Vietnamese****

----------------------
   (*) including Sino-Vietnamese
  (**) linguistic elements predating Austroasiatic classification
 (***) Yue without Sinitic elements
(****) redundant with the above, can be omitted

2. Proto‑Taic origins

The Sinitic-Yue theorization presented above suggests that Yue linguistic forms may have originated from a common proto-Taic family, likely dating back 4,000 to 6,000 years before present. This ancestral stratum may also have contributed to the emergence of what is now classified as the proto-Austroasiatic linguistic family. The entire process unfolded in parallel with the dissemination of Dongsonian bronze drum culture, carried by early Yue emigrants who may have introduced these artifacts to the Indonesian archipelago, where they remain visible today.

If this scenario holds, then the previously proposed theory of a northward migration from the Indo-Chinese peninsula cannot be attributed to either the Yue or Austroasiatic populations as traditionally speculated. Both frameworks – Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer and Sinitic-Yue – remain speculative in their own right.

3. Fusion and identity

During the same formative period, Yue-Sinitic entities began to take shape through the fusion of elemental linguistic and cultural forms. This transmutation occurred among aboriginal groups who remained in situ and incoming Sino-Tibetan populations migrating from south of the Yellow River, the ancient cradle of the Shang-Yin civilization. From this convergence emerged the genetic and cultural foundations of early Chinese identity.

These early populations shared mythological traditions that continue to resonate in Chinese and Vietnamese cultural memory. Shared mythological traditions resonate in both Chinese and Vietnamese memory:

• 炎帝 Yándì (SV Viêmđế)
• 神農 Chénnóng (SV Thầnnông)
• 龍種 'children of the Dragon' (VS dòngdõi Tiênrồng)

These figures embody symbolic heritage across Yangtze River Basin. (See Nguyen Nguyen's on the origin of Vietnamese)

4. Fluid boundaries

Whether one considers the Yue as the dominant lineage or the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer as a lesser branch, both groups appear to have evolved from a shared ancestral strain – commonly referred to as proto-Taic – dating back approximately 4,000 to 8,000 years before present. At that early stage, the boundaries between these populations were fluid and subject to interpretation, based primarily on archaeological findings and oral traditions passed down through generations.

Historically, while some theories remain speculative, others are substantiated by classical records. Classical sources substantiate Yue presence:

• 夜朗國 Yèlángguó (SV Dạlangquốc) in Sichuan
• 越國 Yuèguó (VS NướcViệt) in Jiangsu (Shaoxing)
• Chu State in the west
• 吳國 Wúguó (VS nướcNgô) in the north
• 閩粵 MǐnYuè (SV MânViệt) in the south

These states, active during the Warring States Period (475–403 BCE), were inhabited by proto‑Yue speakers with distinct cultural identities.

These well-documented states were inhabited by early Yue populations who spoke proto-Yue languages and preserved distinct cultural identities during the Warring States Period (475 to 403 B.C.). Historical records from this era offer meaningful evidence of proto-Taic-speaking communities, their settlement zones, and the linguistic forms they likely used.

B. Limits of Austroasiatic labeling

Austroasiatic theorists, however, assigned these populations a generalized label "Austroasiatic" without adequately addressing the complexity of their origins. The prefix "Austro-" simply means "southern," yet its referent remains ambiguous. Is it meant to indicate South China, the southern portion of the Indo-Chinese peninsula, or even the Southern Hemisphere? Such vagueness reflects the limitations of a framework that overlooks the deeper Yue-Taic substratum and its historical continuity.

Well into the early 1970s, Vietnamese literary works remained deeply shaped by Chinese stylistic conventions. Prose and poetry alike reflected classical aesthetics, with verse often composed in Tang‑style rhyme schemes and enriched by imagery drawn from traditional Chinese settings. Snow‑covered landscapes in Suzhou or Hangzhou, for instance, became recurring motifs, emblematic of the enduring influence of classical Chinese poetics.
(See Tô Kiều Ngân, 2013; Hà Đình Nguyên, 1992).

By contrast, writings in the 21st century, especially those published in official outlets such as Tuổitrẻ and Thanhniên newspapers, exhibit a distinctly modern and liberal Vietnamese style. These works reflect contemporary themes, colloquial expression, and a departure from classical Chinese literary frameworks, signaling a broader cultural and linguistic transformation.

1. Fusion and formation of Sinitic‑Yue

From the perspective of Sinitic linguistic development, it is postulated that Sinitic-Yue evolved through the fusion of speech forms spoken by indigenous Yue populations and early Sino-Tibetan migrants. These newcomers – possibly nomadic, intelligent, and militarily assertive – were likely ancestral to the subjects of the Yin Dynasty. They resettled south of the Yellow River Basin, entering regions inhabited by Yue communities in what is now southern China (S).

The etyma associated with this fusion, originally derived from ancient Yue languages, continue to be reflected in the speech of ethnic minorities such as the Zhuang, Dai, Dong, and Miao. These linguistic survivals offer compelling evidence of a deep historical substratum that shaped the evolution of Sinitic-Yue forms still present in southern China today. (See What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Appendix K)

2. The Vietnamese exception

As for Vietnamese specifically, historically, the language has distinctively emerged as a special case of a Sinicized Yue speech that has been largely mixed with Chinese elements dominantly prominent for a simple reason that it had gone through 1,060 years under the rule of the imperial China as one of its prefectures. Its case, however, is much less Sinicized and different from the same process that has turned all Cantonese and Fukienese as "Chinese" lects since the Han and Tang dynasties, respectively. While the two prefectures continued to stay under the shadow of Chinese Han who have kept moving in and resettling there throughout their history, in contrast, since the year 939 the ancient Vietnamese speakers inside Annam have managed to keep the country as a sovereign state and its language to evolve in its own way. The same phenomenon has now been recurring in the Chinese Hainan Province island as of now, a process that has picked up more and more northern Chinese resettlers since the start of the current millenium. Most of Vietnamese specialists have not paid enough attention to such historical details.

3. Classification within Sino‑Tibetan

The classification of Vietnamese within the Sino-Tibetan language family is grounded in substantial evidence drawn from core linguistic elements and etymological patterns associated with Sino-Tibetan origins (see What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese: Chapter 10 on the Sino-Tibetan etymologies). Accordingly, the approaches proposed in this study diverge significantly from frameworks that attempt to reinforce the Austroasiatic theory of Vietnamese origin.

In essence, the Sinitic-Vietnamese lexical items examined here stand in contrast to the linguistic traits found in Mon-Khmer lexicons. This opposition will be further illustrated in the comparative analyses presented in the following sections.

VI) On the relativity of historical phonology and the limits of reconstruction

Since the early 1980s, the mountainous areas along the western edge of Vietnam's central highlands—home to Mon‑Khmer speaking minorities since antiquity—have faced significant demographic change. Large numbers of migrants from northern Vietnam, fleeing poverty, resettled in these regions, altering long‑standing social and cultural balances.

At the same time, China continued to dispatch laborers to work in leased enclaves within Vietnam. Many of these workers remained permanently after their visas expired, further contributing to shifts in local populations.

What may seem a straightforward process of migration has, in fact, intensified the already complex web of regional linguistic contact. Such interactions among ethnic groups have been continuous since ancient times, and the modern influx only extends this deep historical pattern of multilingual exchange.

A) Incubation of doublets

1. Layered cognacy

With respect to the etymology of Vietnamese doublets, words sharing a common root, there must have been an incubation period prior to the emergence of derived forms in a union of cognacy. At first glance, many of these items appear to be "pure Vietnamese" or indigenous. However, upon closer examination, they may descend from a pre- or non-Chinese substrate, here designated as [X], for example:

• VS sông (river) <~ { Taic ~ [X] ~ Yue } ~> 江 jiāng (C 'river')
• VS sọ (cranium) <~ { Taic ~ [X] ~ Yue } ~> 首 shǒu (C 'head')

This stands in contrast to the later development of the doublet 頭 tóu, which is also SV đầu (head). Interestingly, for the same Chinese character 首 shǒu, the corresponding ancient Vietnamese form is VS trốc. The SV đầu 頭 tóu, as found in the disyllabic compound 頭腦 tóunǎo, gives rise to both SV đầunão (headquarter) and VS đầunậu (ringleader), the latter of which means 'headquarter' in Chinese.

Some etyma may appear speculative but reveal layered cognacy upon analysis, for instance:

• VS ngà 牙 yá (SV nha) for C 'tooth' vs. V 'tusk'
• VS răng ('tooth') cf. OC */run/ vs. 齡 líng (C 'age')

(See Tsu-lin Mei's discussion on 牙 in What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Appendix G.)

In other cases, historical perspective helps determine the chronological order of emergence. Consider:

• VS lẽsống (raison d'être) ~ SV lýtưởng 理想 lǐxiǎng
• SV sinhhoạt (生活 shēnghuó, 'living activities') ~ VS cuộcsống (life), where 生 shēng corresponds to VS sống and 活 huó to VS cuộc.

Additional doublets include:

• VS bậnviệc (busy) ~ 忙活 mánghuó
• VS loliệu (handle) ~ 料理 liáolǐ

Each character – 生, 活, 忙, 想, 料, 理 – carries multiple etymological meanings and aligns closely with the semantic content of its Vietnamese counterpart. Notably, in Japanese, 料理 also conveys the concept of 'cooking'.

By contrast, Vietnamese etyma in relation to Mon-Khmer languages rarely allow for such layered analysis. Direct basic cognates are difficult to establish, with the exception of a few items, such as numerals from one to five, that are assumed to be of Mon-Khmer origin.

2. Sound change patterns

Rather than applying a blanket one-to-one model to sound change patterns in surveyed etyma, syllabically and phonologically, it is unrealistic to assume that a single Chinese word corresponds to only one cognate in the target language. Exceptions abound, and recognizable patterns do emerge, such as initial /s- > t-/, /sh- > th-/, /th- > t-/, or phonemic shifts like /san/ > /tam/, /sui/ > /tuy/, /shui/ > /thuy/, etc. While such tabulation methods are valid in Sinitic-Vietnamese historical linguistics, they also apply to foreign lexical elements absorbed into Vietnamese from French, English, and other non-Yue Austroasiatic languages, including Munda and Austronesian. Yet, Chinese–Vietnamese phonological correspondences also exhibit unique deviations, such as /l- ~ s-/, /l- ~ d-/, /b- > s-/, /s- > r-/, /h- ~ t-/, /j- ~ m-/, and others.

These irregularities underscore the need to distinguish genuine cognates from coincidental lookalikes – e.g., English 'six' vs. VS sáu, or 'cut' vs. VS cắt. Similarly, Khmer numerals from one to five may align with Vietnamese forms either by coincidence or as loanwords, much like the subset of animal names in the cyclic zodiac table. For regional languages, the challenge of determining shared linguistic ancestry extends beyond Chinese–Vietnamese parallels to include Malay 'mat' vs. VS mắt (eye), Chamic ni ~ VS nầy (this), nớ ~ VS đó (that), tê ~ VS đấy (there), etc. In many cases, individual analysis is unavoidable.

While foreign elements are excluded for methodological clarity, Old Chinese phonology must be deliberately considered when examining Chinese–Vietnamese etymology. Both languages exhibit irregular sound change patterns that support plausible cognacy. Specialists in Chinese historical linguistics have long embraced this approach, recognizing that languages evolve over time. With more than half a dozen Old Chinese reconstruction models now available – each developed by distinguished scholars – the question arises: which framework best serves the Sinitic-Vietnamese study?

3. Old Chinese reconstructions

Selecting a single reconstruction model is not straightforward. One may be tempted to favor a particular scholar whose system aligns with a pre-established hypothesis. For instance, the author has repeatedly resisted the temptation to rely solely on Pulleyblank's 1984 reconstruction, despite its compelling consonantal vocalism that mirrors modern Vietnamese closed rounded finals – e.g., không /k'owngw1/ for 空 (empty), học /hɔwkw8/ for 學 xué (study) – which no Chinese dialect replicates with such precision. Many more cases remain to be explored.

Unless otherwise noted, the author will present a modified reconstruction based on multiple sources, integrating and adapting various models. This approach may disappoint readers expecting a conventional module on Old Chinese phonology. Instead, this paper offers an unconventional presentation of variably ancient sound values, given that every reconstructed sound has been debated and no single value is universally accepted. This reflects the dynamic nature of synchronic sound change.

Case Study:  羅 luó —  Take 羅 luó (net), which has yielded SV la, VS rọ, chài, lưới, chàilưới.

1. *la (Coblin, 1983)
2. *jraih (Norman, 1957)
3. *lâ (Karlgren, 1957)
4. *lar (Li, 1976)
5. *raj (Schuessler, 1987)
6. *la (Zhou, 1973)

The author opts for /jraih/, as this vocalism plausibly yields chài (net-fishing), and other variants of 羅 luó, including SV la and VS lưới. For 籮, which shares the phonetic stem 羅 (cf. 維 wéi), I retain the Mandarin luó, aligning with VS rỗ (basket) and rọ (bamboo net). These Vietnamese doublets may be late loanwords from vernacular Mandarin and are thus classified as Sinitic-Vietnamese etyma of Chinese origin.

In the case of 羅 luó as VS lưới (net), the phonetic similarity suggests another loan from an earlier vernacular Mandarin form meaning "sieve" – or possibly the reverse. Given that ancient northern Chinese were primarily nomadic and less adept at aquatic practices, while southern Chinese excelled in net-fishing, the compound chàilưới likely reflects a southern innovation. The form /jraih/ may also underlie chài, making it an older variant embedded in the compound structure.

B. Methodological flexibility

This revision of reconstruction methodology is not contradictory. Each model represents a variation from a shared ancient root in Old Chinese. In this case, we may assume a common origin in [lwo].

Phonetically, all these variants could plausibly derive from /jraih/ – the most convincing sound value when compared across reconstructions. This root links modern Chinese luó and VS chài (net). The archaic form [X], closely cognate to modern Vietnamese, gave rise to chàilưới, a compound formed through synonymous syllable pairing. Like many Vietnamese two-syllable compounds, both chài and lưới function as verbs and nouns.

The sound change analysis of VS chàilưới follows my revised reconstruction approach, which treats ancient Chinese phonology with flexibility – recognizing that sounds shift across time and geography. No matter how rigorous a reconstruction may be, as evidenced by the dozen models from renowned linguists, no single version can claim absolute precision for how a character was pronounced in a specific locality centuries ago.

Table - Comparative grid of cited sample doublets

Gloss	Sinitic-Vietnamese	Sino‑Vietnamese	Chinese	Meaning / Notes
River / stream	sông	giang	江 jiāng	'river'; VS sông shows Yue substratum
Head / cranium	sọ; VS trốc	đầu	首 shǒu / 頭 tóu	VS trốc corresponds to 首 shǒu
Tooth / tusk	ngà	nha	牙 yá	VS ngà 'tusk'; SV nha 'tooth'
Tooth / age	răng	linh	齡 líng	OC */run/; layered cognacy with 'tooth' vs. 'age'
Life / existence	lẽsống, cuộcsống	lýtưởng, sinhhoạt	理想 lǐxiǎng, 生活 shēnghuó	生 shēng → VS sống; 活 huó → VS cuộc
Busy / activity	bậnviệc	manghoạt	忙活 mánghuó	Parallel semantic field
Handle / manage	loliệu	liệulí	料理 liáolǐ	In Japanese, 料理 = 'cooking'
Net / basket	rọ, chài, lưới, chàilưới	la	羅 luó, 籮 luó	VS compounds show southern innovation; multiple reconstructions

Even in our modern time, it is still a painstaking work to pinpoint the exact sounds of most loans of foreign words in terms of finding their etymology, for example, "Miên" (高)棉 for "KhMER", "Mỹ" 美 "AMERica", "Đức 德 "DEUtsch", Pháp 法 "FRance", Anh "ENGland" 英(格蘭), "Sina" 支那 for "China", "Nga" (俄)羅斯 for "ROssia" (Россия), etc.

C) Historical phonology as relative practice

Historical phonology is inherently relative. Sound changes may occur internally within a language, and a given phonetic value may be valid in one time and place but not in another. Reconstruction models, therefore, are best understood as suggestive frameworks, representative of hypothesized sound systems within specific localities and historical periods. For any given Chinese character, multiple versions likely existed, each with its own interpretation of archaic pronunciation. A plausible reconstruction merely reflects the most widely accepted value derived from a particular dataset, often based on rhyme books, phonetic glosses, or Buddhist canons.

Take 羅 luó (net), for instance. Its pronunciation varies across modern Chinese dialects, even within the same subdialect. For the core phonetic value of 羅 in 籮 luó, we may assume a base form */xxx/, which evolved into Mandarin luó and yielded multiple Vietnamese doublets for "basket": rỗ, sọt, rõ, rọ, rá. These sound changes likely occurred across different temporal and spatial settings. Notably, the Middle Chinese value of 羅 during the Tang Dynasty was /la1/, as in 羅漢 Luóhàn ("arhat"), corresponding to SV Lahán.

To further illustrate, consider 車 chē. In the 後漢書 Hòu Hànshū, 車 is glossed as [tɕy] ("車 讀若 居"), suggesting a reading akin to 居 jū (SV cư). Today, Chinese chess players still refer to the 車 piece as [tɕy], reinforcing this phonetic continuity. The ideograph 居 carries the phonetic component 古 gǔ (SV cổ), which has given rise to Vietnamese terms related to "carriage": cộ, xe, xecộ, cỗ, cỗxe, all derived from 車 chē (SV xa). These interpretations, drawn from various scholars, represent relatively approximate reconstructed */X/ values.

Additional evidence is found in quartets of 車 chē such as 輂 jù, 輋 jù, 檋 jù, 梮 jù, which correspond to VS cộ, as in 輂車 jùchē ~> VS xecộ (carriages). This compound formation – "車 chē (xe)" + "車 chē (cộ)" – conveys the modern concept of 'automobile'. This model of vocabulary development parallels the case of chàilưới (net-fishing), where chài aligns with /jraih/ and is synonymous with lưới. Together, they form a compound construction. Diachronically, chài predates lưới, which in turn predates SV la and Mandarin luó. The latest sound value likely reflects Middle Chinese pronunciation, which synchronically gave rise to Vietnamese forms like rỗ, rọ, etc.

Of course, reconstructed compound forms must adhere to certain constraints. For instance, 山水 is equivalent to SV sơnthuỷ and VS nonsông, but hybrid variants like sơnsông or nonthuỷ cannot be formed under the {VS+SV} or {SV+VS} model unless organically adopted by speakers.

D) Working across reconstruction models

As Axel Schuessler observed, "all of them are hypotheses… most of them contain one or other idea which I believe ought to be taken into consideration when attempting to retrieve the Old Chinese language." That spirit guides our use of relative sound values across time and space. Each form—symbolized as /xxx/ and its doublet /XXX/—is drawn, rebuilt, or adapted to fit plausible Chinese/Vietnamese* etyma. We adapt results from renowned specialists rather than reinventing the wheel; relying solely on one system invites phonemic mismatches and etymological strain.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, we adapt the results of renowned specialists to suit the needs of Sinitic-Vietnamese studies. This is the most effective way to navigate the complexities of Old Chinese phonology without becoming mired in reconstruction disputes. Relying solely on one author's model – whether our own or another's – risks running into problems of phonemic reconciliation and etymological mismatch.

Illustrative tensions::

• 季 jì (season) ~ SV quí /qwej1/ ~ VS mùa
• 貴 guì (expensive) ~ VS mắc ~ SV quí /qwej1/
• 活 huó (work) ~ VS việc ~ SV hoạt /hwat7/ ~ 務 wù (SV vụ) ~  役 yì (SV dịch /zijt7/)
• 時 shí (time) ~ VS khi /k'ej1/ ~ VS giờ /jiə2/

These etyma may appear cognate across Chinese and Vietnamese, yet they resist fitting neatly into any single reconstruction system. A flexible, comparative approach – grounded in historical context and linguistic nuance – is essential for meaningful analysis.

CONCLUSION

This chapter advances a reclassification situating Vietnamese within a Sinitic‑Yue sub‑branch of the Sino‑Tibetan family, distinct from the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer hypothesis. The proposed lineage (Taic → Sinitic‑Yue → Sinitic → Sinitic‑Vietnamese → Annamese → Vietnamese) is supported by 400+ core cognates with Chinese, reinforced by historical records and archaeology.

Vietnamese literature, deeply Sinicized until the late 20th century, retains Tang‑style aesthetics and classical imagery; even as modern prose turns colloquial, the substratum remains unmistakably Sinitic‑Yue. Archaeological data from Chu and Yue, genetic studies, and classical texts affirm proto‑Taic/Yue elements in Vietnamese predating Mon‑Khmer migrations, challenging the Austroasiatic narrative. The term "Yue" (越, 粵, 戉, 鉞) encodes layered identity within Vietnamese etymology.

Methodologically, we critique the Austroasiatic model's dependence on outdated fieldwork and speculative etymons, calling for renewed rigor anchored in bilingual competence and historical linguistics. This reframing not only clarifies Vietnamese linguistic identity but also invites sustained dialogue on the deeper Sinitic‑Yue continuum to be further developed in Sinitic‑Vietnamese Studies by dchph.

FOOTNOTES

---

(1)^  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://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: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-03/21/content_17366159.htm)