Abstract
This article presents an updated view of the language history of Vietnamese from its native Austroasiatic roots, including key historical phonological, morphological, and syntactic features and developments; a characterization of its Austroasiatic etyma; and the context of this information in Vietnamese linguistic ethnohistory. It is now possible to make better supported claims and more precise characterizations due to improved understanding of the history of Austroasiatic and Vietic and their reconstructions, the nature and effect of language contact with Chinese, and the process of typological convergence of the ancestral language of Vietnamese. This study shows that, while Vietnamese is not a typologically characteristic Austroasiatic language, the Austroasiatic components of the Vietnamese lexicon and linguistic structure are more prominent than previously supposed.
1. Introduction
This study highlights the Austroasiatic lexical and structural elements (phonology, morphology, syntax) in modern Vietnamese and characterizes Vietnamese language history in terms of its Austroasiatic roots. This can be accomplished via the use of modern digital resources and tools, substantive comparative data from both modern languages and proto-language reconstructions, and recent ethnohistorical research in the region.
The Austroasiatic origin of Vietnamese has long been recognized, but there was considerable debate in the first half of the 20th century. Uncertainty about the linguistic affiliation of Vietnamese was due to (a) the limited amount of available comparative data, (b) what is now understood to be major changes in phonological word structure from Austroasiatic to Vietnamese, (c) the complex language contact situation in Mainland Southeast Asia over past millennia, (d) the intense lexical influence of Chinese on Vietnamese and neighboring languages, and (e) the typological resemblance of Vietnamese to Chinese and Tai languages, among other factors. Even though the Austroasiatic origin of Vietnamese was widely accepted, there has been considerable focus in linguistic literature on the Chinese influence on Vietnamese and less detail about the Austroasiatic elements. It is only in the 21st century that enough digital lexical resources and proto-language reconstructions (and crucially, advances in reconstructions of Chinese, Proto-Austroasiatic, and Proto-Vietic), combined with ethnohistorical and archaeological information, have become available to create a clearer picture of both the retentions of and changes to the original Austroasiatic components of Vietnamese.
The Chinese typological and lexical features of Vietnamese are a highly visible aspect of Vietnamese. Vietnamese has significant typological similarity with Chinese in its tone system, isolating morphology, vocabulary, and disyllabic lexical compounding. Also, Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese, which number in the thousands, are an essential part of Vietnamese etymological study and are seen in its literary tradition and cultural matters. However, despite the effect of two thousand years of language contact with Sinitic, the similarities should not be overstated. First, the typological convergence leading to the modern template happened over a period stretching from the beginning of the 1st millennium CE to the 1800s: this was not a sudden event. Next, many native Austroasiatic and Vietic features have been retained, while conversely, many features seen among Chinese languages did not become part of Vietnamese typology (e.g., the A-not-A question pattern, pre-nominal adjectival modifiers, post-nominal possessive markers, etc.). Also, though the lexical impact of Chinese is statistically significant, Vietnamese still has a robust core native Austroasiatic and Vietic component. However, the latter aspect has been difficult to assess, as previously, knowledge of Austroasiatic language history was less developed, and no reliable Proto-Austroasiatic (hereafter pAA) reconstructions were available.
The primary goal of this article is to characterize the historical changes from Austroasiatic to Vietnamese at primary linguistic levels: phonological, morphological, and syntactic. An attempt is made to identify features that are considered retentions of Austroasiatic, while putting aside those which may arguably be considered the result of areal contact. Despite the Chinese-like features of Vietnamese, Vietnamese still has core Austroasiatic elements at all linguistic levels, some of which can only be seen through reconstructions, but others which are much like pAA or any other modern Austroasiatic language.
2. Overview of Vietnamese Language History
To provide context for the historical linguistic hypotheses in this study, this section summarizes past stages of the language situations of Vietnamese supported by ethnohistorical and archaeological information. Table 1 presents the posited historical linguistic periods, their approximate timing, and hypothesized stages of typological characterizations from Austroasiatic to modern Vietnamese.
Table 1.
Tentative stages from Austroasiatic to modern Vietnamese.
Table 1 begins with the Austroasiatic dispersal,1 over 4000 years ago, at which point the ancestral language of Vietnamese would have been a typical Austroasiatic language, with sesquisyllabic word structure (i.e., disyllabic words with an iambic stress pattern) and onset clusters with medial -l- and -r-, but no tones. At some point after the dispersal, the Vietic group speciated but kept the Austroasiatic morphophonological template, like other modern conservative Vietic languages. The beginning of the Metal Age in the region in c. 1000 BCE is noted as a chronological point of reference, as it was long after the dispersal, enough for linguistic differentiation, but at a time when presumably there was contact with other groups and potential sociocultural developments and corresponding linguistic changes. After contact with the incoming Sinitic ethnolinguistic community around the beginning of the Common Era, there may have been increasing linguistic distinctions between the northeast and southern Vietic speech communities, as suggested by the many early Chinese cultural loanwords present in Vietnamese but not Vietic groups to the south ().
The hypothesized lexical differentiation of Vietic sub-branches, with associated cultural implications, precedes further speciation of the northeast group consisting today of Vietnamese and a few dozen lects collectively called Muong.3 The Viet–Muong languages share lexical and phonological features, including tone system patterns. The timing of tonogenesis in this group is unknown, but () has posited that it happened by the end of the 1st millennium CE in Vietnamese, though whether this is also the case in Muong lects has not yet been determined. Also, no analysis has shown a precise phylogenetic tree of this sub-branch, and it has been posited that, considering the lack of shared phonological innovations, no precise tree is even possible ().
Next, at the start of the 2nd millennium, a variety of Chinese of a hypothesized Chinese ethnolinguistic group merged with the Viet–Muong language(s) (). The speech community after that merging can be said to have spoken Archaic Vietnamese. At this point, thousands of Late Middle Chinese words—in both literary and vernacular Vietnamese—became part of Vietnamese and Muong, which in Vietnamese is typically called từ Hán-Việt or ‘Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary’.
As for the phonological word at that time, it is difficult to reliably determine the Proto-Viet–Muong template given the transitional nature of the language, but there was likely retention of presyllables into the early 2nd millennium. Two sets of evidence for this are (a) lenited onsets in Vietnamese that softened in intervocalic position (discussed in Section 3 before Table 5) and (b) textual evidence from the 1200s suggesting that Archaic Vietnamese still retained presyllables.4 The Chinese-based Nôm orthography at that time offers evidence of a lingering number of disyllabic words (). Regarding the timing of the process of monosyllabification, we can only speculate that there may have been decreasing percentages of disyllabic words over the centuries, but there are insufficient data to offer details. However, by the Middle Vietnamese stage, as exemplified by the 1651 Romanized Vietnamese–Portuguese–Latin dictionary (), the process was complete, as Vietnamese had no prosodic disyllabic words. However, it retained some onset clusters with -l- at that time. It is only by the mid-1800s that mainstream Vietnamese had its complete modern template with only medial [-w-] (in CGVC, G refers to a ‘glide’) (though some rural Vietnamese dialects in north–central Vietnam have been reported to have/tl/onset clusters ()).
Thus, based on available evidence, in this hypothesized scenario, the Vietic ancestor of Vietnamese retained its Austroasiatic template into the late 1st millennium CE, though it had developed tones by that time. Then, at some point in the first half of the 2nd millennium, it completely lost presyllables. Finally, in the 19th century, Vietnamese largely reached its modern largely CVC syllable canonical shape, which resembles the typology that Chinese had developed by the period of Early Middle Chinese in the first half of the 1st millennium CE. Thus, it can be said that only in the past half millennium did Vietnamese take only a truly Chinese-like appearance, and that prior to that, it was still very much an Austroasiatic-like language.
The next sections review the phonological, morphological, and syntactic matters in more detail and connect the Austroasiatic origins to modern Vietnamese features.
3. Historical Phonological Aspects
Thus, Vietnamese has been substantially restructured from the original Austroasiatic template, and today, the phonological typology of Vietnamese resembles that of Chinese in many ways. However, as noted, this situation was only fully reached in the last several hundred years. The Vietnamese syllable is most often a simple CV(C) structure, with only [-w-] as a medial in at most 10 percent of Vietnamese syllables (), or as little as 5.2 percent (). Vietnamese has a complex tone system (i.e., six contour tones with phonation features, while two tones exhibit phonetic distinctions in syllables with p/t/k codas) that maps directly onto the system of the Chinese historical phonological tradition (i.e., the four ping/shang/qu/ru tone categories divided into eight tones by height according to onset voicing). In early 20th century research, this situation created uncertainty regarding its linguistic affiliation, with speculation of Tai or Chinese origins (see and for a summary). However, language contact and typological convergence extends beyond Chinese. Vietnamese is in a larger sphere of language contact, sharing the typology of Kra–Dai and Hmong–Mien languages of southern China and Mainland Southeast Asia. These languages are also largely monosyllabic and have typologically comparable tone systems.
Despite linguistic influence due to language contact, we can still identify features that are retentions of Austroasiatic features. Among the pAA etyma in Vietnamese, pAA vowels *i, *a, *u and common pAA consonants *m/n/ɲ/ŋ, * k, and *l/r in onsets of main syllables are readily found retained in modern Vietnamese reflexes. Indeed, some modern Vietnamese words closely or completely resemble their original proto-language source forms (main syllables in cases of pAA disyllabic words), including both pAA and Proto-Vietic (pV hereafter), as in Table 2. Basic vocabulary items such as ‘dog’, ‘bird’, ‘fish’, and others are clearly connected to their pAA counterparts, which have 4000-plus-year histories.
Table 2.
Vietnamese words with retentions of pAA main syllable forms.
Following are notes on data presentation in this article. Subsequent tables with data contain (a) neutral IPA transcriptions of Vietnamese words (i.e., not matching a dialect but rather based on the Vietnamese orthography, following the system of phonetization of (), followed by Vietnamese Quốc Ngữ romanized orthographic spelling in parentheses, (b) pV reconstructions based on those of Ferlus as in the SEALang Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary but modified to parallel the format of the pAA reconstructions, and (c) the pAA reconstructions of () 500-word list with their specified indicators (e.g., AA030) after them. Some potential pAA reconstructions (mostly by Sidwell in the spreadsheet assembled by Sidwell and Alves) that currently lack identifying numbers are marked ‘AAP’, while others are from () reconstructions (marked with # and the reference number) when they are attested in at least several Austroasiatic branches, indicating deep history in Austroasiatic but not necessarily back to the pAA stage.
Naturally, many other pAA segments have changed over time in Vietnamese, but the phonological slots have been retained. The main-syllable onset system has undergone restructuring not only in voicing but also manner of articulation, with some becoming the implosives /ɓ/ and /ɗ/, as in Table 3, or fricatives such as /v/, /z/, or /ɣ/, as in Table 5, as discussed below.
Table 3.
Onset voicing of pAA and corresponding tone height in Vietnamese.
Changes in onset voicing, which have occurred in many languages in the region, is seen in pAA and pV etyma in Vietnamese, though the details of this change in Vietnamese are not well understood. Onset voicing is also related to tone height in Vietnamese, as in other neighboring tonal languages: original pAA voiceless stops *p/t/c/k occur in syllables with upper register tones in Vietnamese (1 = the ngang tone, 3 = the hỏi tone, 5 = the sắc tone), while proto-language voiced onsets *b/d/g occur in those with lower register tones (2 = the huyền tone, 4 = the ngã tone, 6 = the nặng tone). For example, pAA *ciːnʔ—‘cooked, ripe’—is the source of a modern Vietnamese word with the upper register tone 5, while *ɟarˀ—‘run (v)’—is the source of a modern word with the lower register tone 6. While counterexamples exist, and not all details are accounted for, the pattern is reasonably consistent.
Some changes in the onset system have resulted in some original sounds being lost. For instance, pAA implosive onsets have become Vietnamese nasals instead (), as in Table 4. And yet, though not retained from a proto-language stage, the implosives /ɓ/and/ɗ/ have been revived in the modern Vietnamese phonological inventory by developing from voiceless plosives, as seen in Table 3. Implosives are common in Austroasiatic languages, but the WALS database () shows that such sounds are not as common in languages in other language families in Southern China and Southeast Asia. Thus, we can speculate that there has been a regional typological pressure towards retaining or redeveloping these. In Vietnamese, implosive onsets are distinct from plosive onsets in that (a) they tend to correspond to upper register tones 1, 3, and 5, unlike plosive voiced onsets, which correspond to lower register tones 2, 4, and 6, and (b) they do not undergo lenition to become voiced fricatives in intervocalic position, unlike plosive consonants, as in Table 4.
Table 4.
Nasal onsets from pAA implosive *ɓ/ɗ.
One particularly notable change that makes Vietnamese typologically less like other Austroasiatic or even other Vietic languages is its series of voiced onset fricatives: /v/, /z/, and /ɣ/ (represented in Vietnamese orthography by ‘v’, ‘d’ and ‘gi’ for /z/, and ‘g/gh’ respectively).5 These developed from main syllable onsets in intervocalic position (see and updates by ), as in the examples of Table 5, in which all the reconstructed forms are disyllabic.
Table 5.
Voiced fricative onsets in intervocalic position in pAA presyllables.
Table 5.
Voiced fricative onsets in intervocalic position in pAA presyllables.
| Vietnamese | pV | pAA | Gloss |
|---|---|---|---|
| vɨən6 (vượn) | *kə.waɲʔ | *kwaaɲʔ (Shorto #934) | gibbon |
| voːj1 (vôi) | *kə.puːr | *knpur (Shorto #1636) | lime (mineral) |
| zaːm1 (dam) ‘field crab’ | *kə.ta:m | *kə.’taːm (AA004) | crab |
| zɔː5 (gió) | *kə.jɔːʔ | *kə.’jaːl; *kə.’jɔʔ (AA075) | wind, air (n) |
| ɣəw5 (gấu) | *cə.guːʔ; cə.kuːʔ | *cguːʔ; ckuːʔ (Shorto #1817) | bear (n) |
| ɣoːj5 (gối) | *tə.kuːlʔ | *Cə.’kuːl (AA326) | knee |
| ɣaːw6 (gạo) | *rə.koːʔ | *rəŋ.’koːˀ (AA066) | husked rice |
While many instances retroflex onsets in Vietnamese words are retentions of retroflex onsets in Middle Chinese loanwords (), in native Vietnamese words, such sounds often correspond to earlier onset clusters, as in Table 6. In a development distinct from the just noted lenition, some of these onset clusters appear to have come from previous presyllables that at some point lost syllable status. There is a regional process in Austroasiatic of presyllable reduction due to the iambic stress pattern weakening presyllables, leading to a variety of manifestations of the so-called sesquisyllabic typology ().
Table 6.
Retroflex onsets from onset clusters.
The Vietnamese tone system has served as a key example of the historical process of tonogenesis. () seminal study of the origins of Vietnamese tones as a seminal study, and that theoretical model has been applied to the study of the emergence of tones in Chinese, Kra–Dai, Hmong–Mien, and Tibeto-Burman languages, as well as other Vietic languages. Among cognates in other Austroasiatic languages, there are correspondences between Austroasiatic coda fricatives *-h/-ɕ and Vietnamese tones 3 or 4 and between final voiceless stops *-p/-t/-k/-ʔ and tones 5 or 6, as exemplified in Table 7. Crucially, Vietnamese has lost final *-h/ɕ and *-ʔ, while reflexes of these segments are found among many Austroasiatic languages. The rephonologization of previous codas as tones in Proto-Viet–Muong was likely stimulated by contact with Chinese. However, tonogenesis in Viet–Muong may also be seen as the result of a larger trajectory predating Sinitic–Vietic language contact. Pharyngeal and registral features and phonation have been seen as stimulants of suprasegmental features in Austroasiatic languages (e.g., ), such that tonogenesis could have occurred regardless of contact with Chinese. Nevertheless, the borrowing of numerous Chinese words with matching tones allows for the influence of the Chinese tone system on the Vietnamese one.
Table 7.
Tone categories corresponding to pAA coda types.
Overall, while various pAA consonants and vowels have changed in Vietnamese, many have still been retained in their original forms. The later stage of pV phonology also shows examples of changes from pAA phonology, but in many cases, the reconstructions are very close to or the same as the pAA reconstructions, so they also help demonstrate the ultimate pAA origin of these speech sounds and words.
Regarding the influence of Chinese, despite the evidence of its impact on Vietnamese phonology, the native elements of Vietnamese phonology are still evident. In a study of some 8000 Vietnamese phonemically distinct monosyllabic words (with the number including distinctions due to tones), () determined that, while native words in Vietnamese have statistically prominent phonological features identifying them, Sino-Vietnamese loanwords (i.e., Late Middle Chinese and the system of readings of Chinese characters) mostly do not. For instance, the onset /ɣ/ ‘g/gh’ occurs only in native Vietnamese words (and very early Chinese loanwords, at least several centuries before the Sino-Vietnamese layer), not in Sino-Vietnamese Chinese character pronunciations. Another example is the diphthong /uə/ ‘uô/ua’, which is found in only nine Sino-Vietnamese words but in 279 words of native Vietnamese (again, the latter including some early Chinese loanwords). Regarding other phonemes of Vietnamese, there are consistently higher ratios of those sounds in native words than among Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary such that no phonological features specifically mark syllables as Chinese loanwords.
4. Native Lexicon: The Vietic and Austroasiatic Components
We now consider the native portion of the Vietnamese lexicon in terms of quantitative data and semantic/cultural domains of words. The Vietnamese lexicon is well known for its Chinese component, though in the past, inflated numbers (e.g., 70 percent) of the portion of Chinese loanwords have been mentioned without reference to a specific study or research method that determined such numbers. More recently, numbers based on focused counts of entries in dictionaries () and selected lexical sets () show a range of 25 to 35 percent.6 Thus, according to these recent studies, the bulk of the Vietnamese lexicon—some two-thirds to three-quarters—is native, not borrowed. Based on data assembled for this study, of the native portion of the Vietnamese lexicon, (a) nearly two hundred words are pAA etyma or at least early Austroasiatic items, (b) at least several hundred are likely pV items,7 (c) some can be reconstructed only to the Proto-Viet–Muong stage, and (d) an uncertain number but likely thousands of words can only be found in Vietnamese.8
Which strata words belong to can be determined by collating lexical data for Vietic languages, determining which are widespread in Vietic and which are restricted to Vietnamese and Muong lects, identifying those which are likely Austroasiatic etyma, and excluding those of likely external origin (primarily Chinese, other Austroasiatic languages, Tai, and Indic).9 Ferlus’s Vietic reconstructions contained in the Mon–Khmer Etymological Dictionary, combined with a dozen other sources of Vietic languages, constitute a spreadsheet with over 1200 reconstructions that I have assembled and to which I have added reconstructions. Vietic reconstructions have then been considered for their potential relationship to other Austroasiatic etyma, though this has previously been a problem as a developed set of pAA reconstructions was lacking.
An early statistical study of the lexical relationship of Vietnamese to other Austroasiatic languages is that of (), who used 100-word lists of basic vocabulary. Their study showed that inter-branch lexical relatedness of the languages mostly ranged from 20 to 30 percent, and such was the case for Vietnamese and Muong, making them as close to Austroasiatic languages as any others. As for studies that propose pAA etyma of Vietnamese, two are by () and (). Hồ’s work, listing about 200 words, does not explicitly refer to pAA reconstructions, making those claims tentative. Alves (Ibid.) similarly identified about 200 possible Austroasiatic items (many of which are not the same as Hồ’s) and another 500 pV etyma in Vietnamese. For the Austroasiatic words, he referred to () 2200 Mon–Khmer reconstructions, but as Shorto’s work should be regarded as a work in progress, Alves also considered the geography of Shorto’s reconstructions and utilized only items with distribution widespread enough to validate a claim of proto-language status.
However, only recently has () provided a list of pAA etyma reconstructions based on criteria to focus on words which have demonstrable historical depth. Applying () approach in determining which words are reconstructable to the time of the pAA dispersal over 4000 years ago, Sidwell’s reconstructions consist only of items with attestations in Austroasiatic branches both inside and outside of Mainland Southeast Asia, the latter consisting of Munda, Nicobarese, Aslian, and Khasian. This geographic distribution is strong evidence for the posited deep-history time-depth. In Sidwell & Alves’s working spreadsheet, besides the 500 pAA reconstructions, a few hundred more have been marked potential pAA items. Another few hundred items are found only in Mainland Southeast Asia, which means they do not meet Sidwell & Alves’s criterion to be high-confidence pAA etyma, but they still may have substantial time-depth in Austroasiatic language history. Thus, both of these latter categories are also considered in the current study.
The results of checking these data are that 146 Vietnamese words are modern reflexes of pAA etyma (Appendix B), and an additional 46 items can be regarded as potential pAA etyma or at least words early in Austroasiatic history (Appendix C), a total of 192 words. While the number of Austroasiatic words in Vietnamese is modest, those words include a wide range of basic vocabulary (e.g., body parts, common animals, natural phenomena, basic actions, etc.). Moreover, other words provide somewhat more specific information about early Austroasiatic activities (e.g., to cook, to dream, to meet, to gather/associate, to comb, to hunt, etc.) and families (e.g., grandchild, child, mother). Crucially, many of the words match archaeological portrayals of the daily life of settled agriculturalists in this region (e.g., ). Some of these words are related to farming practices in the Neolithic period of Austroasiatic history (e.g., rice, bran/husk, mortar, pestle, winnowing basket, to plant seed, etc.). The 13 function words in the lists include number terms, units of time, and deictic terms. It is notable that, while neighboring Kra–Dai languages have mostly lost their native numeral word systems, Vietnamese has retained an Austroasiatic set, in spite of other significant lexical borrowing from Chinese. Table 8 lists the various categories and provides examples taken from Appendix A and Appendix B.
Table 8.
Semantic domains of Austroasiatic vocabulary in Vietnamese.
Altogether, despite the seeming modest number, these nearly 200 words form a core of Austroasiatic etyma in Vietnamese that can hardly be considered trivial. Indeed, these words highlight the Austroasiatic essence of Vietnamese.
5. Morphology and Syntax
Identifying the Austroasiatic elements of Vietnamese morphology and syntax requires comparison with both modern languages and earlier stages of Austroasiatic and Vietic. While there are more grammatical descriptions of Austroasiatic languages than ever, many of them are short treatments, with only some more thorough descriptions in articles and dissertations. Regarding pAA syntax, recent advances in understanding have been made, but the claims in this area are still general and somewhat speculative. As for morphology, some affixes are well represented among Austroasiatic languages, such that categories of derivational morphology can be reconstructed. Austroasiatic-style reduplicative can be assumed to have been an operational word formation strategy, though no reduplicative words have been reconstructed. The connections of these matters to Vietnamese are less direct than for the lexicon and speech sounds but still demonstrable.
5.1. Syntactic Structures
One impediment to developing hypotheses of Vietnamese diachronic syntax is that some features are shared by many neighboring languages in the region regardless of language family, such as SVO/AVP clause structure and post-nominal modifiers in noun phrases. Thus, it is difficult to distinguish retention from contact-induced typological convergence. Still, according to recent work, we can posit that pAA had head-initial phrase structure in both clauses and noun phrases, while modern Vietnamese has a blend of this due to later contact-induced factors. These issues are discussed below.
In the past decade, pAA clause structure has been hypothesized to be verb-initial (; ). () provides supporting evidence for this claim from multiple sources: (a) main clauses in some Khasian, Nicobarese, and Aslian languages, (b) embedded clauses of some Palaungic languages, and (c) noun compounds of Munda languages. If this hypothesis is valid, one distinct possibility is that a shift to verb-medial main clause structures happened among many Austroasiatic languages in the region due to language contact, though this cannot as yet be determined. As for pAA noun-phrase structure, no specific studies have presented a complete argument for a reconstruction, but a head-initial type is strongly indicated. Noun phrases with strictly post-nominal modifiers occur in Old Khmer texts from the pre-Angkorian period of the early 1st millennium CE, and head-medial order in Vietic appears to be later a development due to the spread of classifier phrases at least partly due to language contact with Chinese ().
For Vietic clause structure, () reconstructs topic–comment structures (with subjects/agents morphologically indistinguishable from topics), verb-medial clauses, middle-passive constructions (lacking any explicit lexical means of marking the passive), and a right-branching VP with objects/patients, other complements, and adjuncts after verbs. These hypothesized proto-language features are feasible considering the most general properties of Vietic languages and such features in early Vietnamese texts.
() posits the following syntactic structures in pV, in which clauses are verb-medial and noun phrases are head-initial. There is no language-internal evidence to hypothesize an earlier verb-initial stage like that of Jenny’s claim for pAA. In modern Vietnamese, clauses are similarly verb-medial.
| The Early Vietic Clause *[topic-verb-complement] | Modern Vietnamese [topic-verb-complement] nó bắt cá 3s catch fish ‘He/She/It… catches fish.’ |
Similarly, Modern Vietnamese noun phrase structure has a head-medial structure with elements both before and after head nouns. In Vietnamese, quantification (i.e., phrases consisting of quantity words followed by measure words or classifiers) precedes head nouns, while all other elements (i.e., modifiers, determiners, and possessives) follow them. In a reconstruction of the pV noun phrase, () posits that it matched the modern Khmer structure of head-initial, with all modifiers following a head noun. Additional support comes from Vietnamese textual evidence from the early 2nd millennium CE in which there was substantial flexibility of the position of quantification. Quantification commonly occurred varyingly before and after head nouns. The following early text sample from the mid-2nd millennium shows a quantification phrase (e.g., ‘one unit’) following the head noun (e.g., ‘letter’).
| 情 | 書 | 蔑 | 幅 | 封 | 群 | 謹 |
| tình | thư | một | bức | phong | còn | kín |
| love | letter | One | cls | seal | still | tight |
| ‘A love letter still sealed tight.’ (From the poem “Ba Tiêu” in “Quốc Âm Thi Tập”) | ||||||
This was hypothetically a transitional stage leading from the earlier post-nominal position to the modern stage with only pre-noun position quantification. While the adoption of Chinese classifiers and measure words may have influenced the position of quantification in the Vietnamese noun phrase, the position of other modifying elements, including adjectival elements, possessive nouns, and determiners, was unaffected.
| The Early Vietic Noun Phrase *[noun–modifier–quantity] | Modern Vietnamese [quantity–noun–modifier] một con cá lớn ấy one cls fish big distal ‘That one large fish.’ |
If the pAA verb-initial hypothesis holds, at best, we can say that Vietic participated in the early regional change to topic-comment clauses and that Vietnamese shares with pAA a post-verbal object. As for noun phrases, the post-nominal position of modifiers is a retention from pAA. A summary of clause and noun-phrase structures at different stages is provided in Table 9.
Table 9.
Clause and noun-phrase structures in pAA, pV, and Vietnamese.
5.2. Word Formation Strategies
As for morphology, pAA has been reconstructed with derivational prefixes and infixes (), and lexical reduplication involving alliteration, riming, and ablaut is widespread enough to consider a word formation strategy in pAA. A more challenging matter is to determine how much phonesthemes played a part in pAA word formation, but some evidence allows for that possibility. The Austroasiatic-style reduplication is robustly attested in Vietnamese, and some evidence of pAA phonesthemes is evident. As for Austroasiatic derivational morphology, there is some evidence of this in the remaining monosyllabic roots, though most of them have been completely lost with no means of recovering them.
5.2.1. Reconstructing Lost Affixation
The complete loss of presyllables in Vietnamese has made recovery of past prefixes and infixes challenging at best and impossible in many instances. Reconstructing the presence of presyllables alone is difficult, let alone their precise phonological material. However, one type of retention for which there is some persuasive evidence is pAA nominalizing nasal infixes, a widespread word formation strategy among Austroasiatic branches. Table 10 shows examples of source verbs and derived nouns with vowel-plus-nasal sequences in several branches of Austroasiatic. This type of derivational infix is even seen in Munda and Nicobaric, demonstrating that these date to the pAA stage.
Table 10.
Nominalizing infixes in Austroasiatic languages.
While derivational morphology is mostly fossilized even in conservative Vietic languages, some examples can be provided, as in the first two instances in Table 10. The possibility then exists for Vietnamese in a previous stage to have lost the presyllables of these derived nouns, leaving main syllables with nasal onsets.
() provides such instances in Vietnamese of pairs of verbs and nouns that share rhymes (i.e., vowel, coda, and tone), and the actions apply to the related nouns, as in Table 11. While Ferlus notes that a couple of these pairs have cognates in Khmu in the Khmuic branch of Austroasiatic, he provides no instances in other Vietic languages.10
Table 11.
Possible instances of retained nominalizing infixes in Vietnamese.
While nominalizing infixes and causative prefixes are common among Austroasiatic languages, affixes with other functions have developed among Austroasiatic languages. We can thus speculate that other affixes may have existed as well in earlier stages of Vietic. As noted, onset clusters *kl in pAA and pV have become [ʈ] ‘tr’ in modern Vietnamese, and in some cases, such phonological material may have come from presyllables. Table 12 contains instances of potential pairs of verbs and either stative or active verbs in which the posited source words have [l] onsets while the derived verbs have [ʈ] onsets. Also in Table 12 are the words spelled in early romanized script from de Rhodes’ 1651 dictionary, in which these words had [tl] cluster onsets instead of the possible [ʈ], which also existed at that time. These must be regarded as tentative until additional comparative evidence can confirm or refute them (e.g., similar evidence in other Vietic languages, early Vietnamese textual data showing evidence of presyllables, etc.), but they at least show early onset clusters and thus possible previous presyllables that represent earlier stages of Vietic with a more Austroasiatic-like template.
Table 12.
Vietnamese source verbs and derived verbs that may have had prefixes.
5.2.2. Austroasiatic-Style Reduplication
Another Austroasiatic-like feature of Vietnamese is reduplication. Austroasiatic languages exhibit a type of reduplication in which templates of monosyllabic or disyllabic words are copied, but typically one or more segment alternates from the root. This results in patterns of alliteration, rhyming, or ablaut, as exemplified in Table 13. While precise reduplicative forms cannot be reconstructed to pAA or even pV, they are widespread enough among Austroasiatic languages (e.g., note the instance in Mundari in India, as shown in Table 13) to regard as a word formation strategy at the proto-language stage.
Table 13.
Examples of reduplication with alternating segments in Austroasiatic languages.
While Vietnamese has instances of full reduplication (e.g., thɯəŋ2-thɯəŋ2 (thường) ‘sometimes’), a type of reduplication involving alternating segments is much more common, with thousands of words formed in this way, as in the Từ Điển Từ Láy Tiếng Việt [Dictionary of Vietnamese Reduplicative Words] (). This type of reduplication is distinct from the prominent types of reduplication in Chinese languages (e.g., full reduplication with pragmatic functions, partial reduplication such as the A-not-A questions, an ABB pattern of copied second syllables, etc.).11 As expected, it is also a feature of conservative Vietic languages, such as the instance of Cuoi in Table 13.
5.2.3. Phonestheme Onsets
While Vietnamese lacks presyllables—and thus lacks prefixes or infixes—it does exhibit some phonesthemic word formation patterns with ideophonic features related to oral actions or senses. In some instances, these patterns are shared by other Austroasiatic languages, including some that can be seen in pAA etyma. One can cast an excessively wide net and find chance similarities or even more common typological patterns connected to sound symbolism. Nevertheless, the ideophonic sound symbolism was undoubtedly a factor in the original creation of the words and patterns, and their widespread distribution suggests a deep history in the language family, especially when neighboring language families (e.g., Kra–Dai, Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman, etc.) show different patterns that cannot be considered part of a real phenomenon. The proposed phonestheme onsets in Vietnamese and other Austroasiatic languages include (a) nasal onsets for words related to oral activities (snoring, choking, sucking) and taste (sweetness), (b) /h/ onsets in words referring to inhaling, singing, sniffing, or singing, and (c) /l/ onsets for words expressing licking or sticking out a tongue.
Nasal Onsets
pAA etyma in this category include *ɲɔːkˀ ‘suck’ (AA483), *ɲɔːtˀ ‘drink, suck (v)’ (AAP), and *ŋaːm ‘sweet’ (AA113), but Vietnamese does not have cognates of these. Instead, several pV etyma in Vietnamese with senses related to oral and nasal activities similarly have nasal onsets, mostly engma, as shown in Table 14. It is not clear what the purpose is of the presyllables on these items.
Table 14.
Vietnamese words with nasal onsets expressing oral and nasal activities.
/h/ Onsets
Another set of words has/h/onsets and semantics of verbs to denote inhaling or breathing. The number of words with this feature suggests that this onomatopoetic feature became part of a modestly productive word formation pattern. pAA has only *huːtˀ ‘drink, sip (v)’ (AA233), but pV and Vietnamese have additional relevant instances, as in Table 15.
Table 15.
Vietnamese words with /h/ onsets expressing oral activities.
/l/ Onsets
Words with /l/ onsets that are related to the mouth can be readily found in languages outside of Austroasiatic, for example, Proto-Indo-European *leigh ‘lick’, Proto-Sino-Tibetan *liek ‘lick, tongue’, and Proto-Tai () *C̬.lwiəA ‘to lick’ and *li:nC ‘tongue’. Thus, the ideophonic status of such words seems likely. Regardless, in pAA, similar categories of words with /l/ onsets have been reconstructed, such as *lən.’taːkˀ ‘tongue’ (AA054) and *liəmˀ, *liːmˀ ‘lick (v)’ (AA1h19) (and also *liətˀ and *liəpˀ ‘lick (v)’ (AAP)). Of these, only *liəmˀ, *liːmˀ has a reflex in Vietnamese, but Vietnamese has other such words with an /l/ onset, which are pV etyma, and in other Austroasiatic languages, there are also instances of words (both cognates and non-cognates) with /l/ onsets having senses, as in Table 16.
Table 16.
Vietnamese and cognate or non-cognate Austroasiatic words with /l/ onsets and senses related to the mouth.
Overall, while words in this section can be considered part of an ideophonic feature in other languages, the number of Vietnamese words with cognates in Austroasiatic proto-language and modern Austroasiatic languages altogether suggest an ideophone phonestheme pattern of word formation in Austroasiatic that has been retained in Vietnamese.
6. Implications in Vietnamese Linguistic Ethnohistory
Despite the impact of Chinese on Vietnamese, especially in its lexicon, but also its phonology (e.g., syllable structure and tones) and noun phrase structure (i.e., movement of quantification to before head nouns), there are many retentions of Austroasiatic features at all linguistic levels. In addition, Vietnamese maintained its Austroasiatic typology for many centuries after the start of Sinitic–Vietic language contact; the linguistic restructuring was not an instance of rapid transformation. While tones in Vietnamese may have emerged in the later part of the 1st millennium, disyllabic words were retained into the early centuries of the 2nd millennium (), and onset clusters lasted into the early 1800s (). Also, while hundreds of early Chinese loanwords were borrowed in the 1st millennium, the large-scale borrowing of Chinese words did not take place until the beginning of the 2nd millennium. This was the time of the hypothesized shift of a local Chinese community to Archaic Vietnamese and the contemporaneous spread of Chinese rime dictionaries and a tradition of Chinese-character reading.
Altogether, despite the Chinese administration in northern Vietnam for a millennium and significant impact on the Vietnamese lexicon and some elements of its phonology, these changes did not result in a language that was unrecognizable as an Austroasiatic language. Thus, we can speculate that the Vietic community in northern Vietnam in that period held considerable sociocultural status. There was even retention of a native numeral system (in contrast with replacement of the numeral systems of Tai languages with the Chinese one), despite an influential resident Chinese community in which early Vietic speakers intermarried, while borrowing many other categories of words. While details of the sociocultural situation in northern Vietnam in the 1st millennium CE are not available, the sociolinguistic status of Viet–Muong and, later, Vietnamese, was apparently significant enough to stave off many of the potential effects of intense language contact.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
See Appendix A for a list of the online lexical data resources consulted for this study. Other publications are noted throughout this article and are publicly available.
Acknowledgments
I must thank Paul Sidwell, Hilario de Sousa, and two anonymous readers for providing helpful helpful suggestions in details of the text.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A. Online Resources Consulted
- Blust, Robert and Stephen Trussel. 2010. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Updated 21 December 2014. Web. http://www.trussel2.com/ACD/acd-ak_a.htm (accessed on 1 September 2024)
- Dictionary of Old Khmer. SEACLASSICS Khmer. Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web. http://sealang.net/ok/ (accessed on 12 August 2024.)
- Digital Dictionaries of South Asia. University of Chicago. Web. https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/list.html (accessed on 15 July 2024)
- Old Javanese Dictionary. Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web. http://sealang.net/ojed/ (accessed on 15 July 2024)
- Proto-Tai-o-matic. Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web. http://sealang.net/crcl/proto/ (accessed on 1 August 2024)
- SEALang Library (Digital dictionaries of Burmese, Indonesian, Karen, Khmer, Lao, Malay, Mon, Shan, Thai, Vietnamese, and various other major languages in Southeast Asia). Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web. http://sealang.net/library/ (accessed on 5 September 2024)
- SEALang Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary. Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web. http://www.sealang.net/monkhmer/dictionary/ (accessed on 30 July 2024)
- SEALang Munda Etymological Dictionary. Bangkok: Center for Research in Computational Linguistics. Web. http://www.sealang.net/munda/dictionary/ (accessed on 15 July 2024)
- The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. The University of California, Berkeley. Web. http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl (accessed on 20 August 2024)
Appendix B. Proto-Austroasiatic
| VIET | GLOSS | SEM | PV | PAA | ID |
| ɓaːw1 (bao) | dream (n, v) | cognition | *sə.poː | *ʔəm.’po:ˀ | AA029 |
| ɓaj1 (bay) | fly (v) | motion | *pər | *par, *pər | AA042 |
| ɓaj3 (bảy) | seven | numeral | *pəs | *pɔh, *pəɕ | AA209 |
| ɓan5 (bắn) | shoot (v) | basic | *pəɲʔ | *paɲˀ | AA057 |
| ɓɛː3 (bẻ) | break off (v.t.) | basic | *pɛh | *pɛːh | AA188 |
| ɓɨək5 (bước) | step (v) | motion | NA | *tə.’paːkˀ | AA465 |
| ɓoːn5 (bốn) | four | numeral | *poːn | *puənˀ | AA018 |
| ɓuː5 (búː) | suck(le) (v) | food | *buːʔ | *ɓu:ˀ | AA033 |
| caːj3 (chải) | comb (v) | basic | *caːs | *caːɕ | AA170 |
| caj2 (chày) | pestle | item | *tʃə.reː | *ɟən.’reːˀ | AA044 |
| caj6 (chạy) | run (v) | motion | *ɟalʔ | *ɟarˀ | AAP |
| caw5 (cháu) | grandchild | kinship | *cuːʔ | *cuʔ | AA096 |
| cɔː5 (chó) | dog | animal | *ʔaə.cɔːʔ | *cɔʔ | AA030 |
| cɔːk6 (chọc) | prick, pierce (v) | basic | NA | *cɔkˀ | AA396 |
| cəj5 (chấy) | head louse | animal | *ciːʔ | *ciʔ | AA001 |
| cɛː3 (chẻ) | tear, split open (v) | basic | *cɛh | *cɛːh | AAP |
| ciːm1 (chim) | bird | animal | *ciːm | *ciːm | AA016 |
| ciːn5 (chín) | cooked, ripe | food | *ciːnʔ | *ci:nˀ | AA017 |
| cuːt6 (cụt) | cut short (v) | basic | NA | *gutˀ | AA461 |
| cuə1 (chua) | sour | sense | *ɟɔːʔ | *ɟuʔ, *ɟɔʔ | AA068 |
| zaːm1 (dam ‘field crab’) | crab | animal | *kə.taːm | *kə.’taːm | AA004 |
| ɗaːn1 (đan) | weave (v) | item | *taːɲ | *ta:ɲ | AA005 |
| ɗam1 (đăm (archaic)) | right (side) | spatial | *dam, *tam | *tam | AA117 |
| ɗaŋ5 (đắng) | bitter | sense | *taŋʔ | *ʦaŋˀ | AA041 |
| ɗap5 (đắp ‘embank’) | layer (v) | basic | NA | *tapˀ | AA265 |
| ɗɔː5 (đó) | that, there | function | NA | *tuːˀ, *tɔːˀ | AAP |
| ɗəm1 (đâm ‘to pound (rice)’) | pound (v) | food | *təm | *təm | AAP |
| ɗəp6 (đập | dam, block (v) | basic | *tap | *dapˀ | AA223 |
| ɗɨːt5 (đứt) | break, sever (v) | basic | *tVc (tent.) | *tacˀ | AA252 |
| ɗoː3 (đổ) | pour (v) | motion | *toh | *toh | AAP |
| ɗoːj2 (đồi) | hill, mound | nat. env. | *doːl | *doːl, *duəl | AA423 |
| ɣaːj4 (gãi ‘to scratch due to itching’) | scratch (v) | basic | *ka:s | *kaːcˀ (also cf. *kaːɕ ‘shave, scrape (v)’) | AA162 |
| ɣaːw6 (gạo) | husked rice | agr. and veg. | *rə.koːʔ | *rəŋ.’koːˀ | AA066 |
| ɣap6 (gặp) | meet, associate (v) | social | NA | *gapˀ | AAP |
| ɣɔːm1 (gom ‘gather, collect’) | gather, associate (v) | social | NA | *kom | AA317 |
| ɣəj2 (gầy) | thin, lean | spatial | NA | *rə.’gɨj | AA315 |
| ɣəp5 (gấp) | cover (v) | basic | *kəp | *kɨpˀ, *kɔpˀ | AA067 |
| ɣoːj5 (gối) | knee | body | *tə.kuːlʔ | *Cə.’kuːl | AA326 |
| haː3 (hả) | open mouth (v) | body | *haːʔ | *haʔ | AAP |
| hiːt5 (hít) | inhale, sniff (v) | sense | *hiːt (tent.) | *hɨːtˀ | AA402a |
| hwiːt5 (huýt) | whistle (v) | speech | NA | *huəcˀ | AA138 |
| kaːm5 (cám) | bran, husk | agr and veg | *tə.ka:mʔ | *sə.’kaːmˀ | AA076 |
| kaːt5 (cát) | sand | nat. env. | *tə.kaːc | *sə.’kaːcˀ | AA238 |
| kaː5 (cá) | fish (n) | animal | *ʔə.kaːʔ | *kaʔ | AA009 |
| kam2 (cằm) | molar tooth | body | *gam (tent.) | *-ga:m | AAP |
| kap6 (cặp) | pinch, grip (v) | basic | *gap | *gapˀ | AA361 |
| kɔːn1 (con) | child | kinship | *kɔːn | *koan | AA006 |
| kɔːŋ1 (cong) | bend (v) | motion | *kɔ:ŋ (tent.) | *koŋ | AA409 |
| koːj5 (cối) | mortar | item | *tə.koːlʔ | *goːlˀ | AAP |
| koːt6 (cột ‘tie, bind (v)’) | knot (v) | item | NA | *kuətˀ | AA139 |
| kwat6 (quặt) | turn, bend (v) | motion | NA | *kə.’watˀ | AAP |
| laː5 (lá) | leaf | agr and veg | *sə.laːʔ | *sə.’laʔ | AA010 |
| liem5 (liếm) | lick (v) | body | *C.lɛːmʔ | *liəmˀ, *liːmˀ | AA119 |
| lɨət6 (lượt ‘to glide’) | slippery | sense | *gə.leːt ‘slip (v)’ | *liːtˀ, *leːtˀ | AAP |
| loː4 (lỗ) | hole, perforate (v) | basic | NA | *luh | AA050 |
| loːj6 (lội ‘wade’) | wade, swim (v) | motion | *lo:jʔ | *loːjˀ, *lɔːjˀ | AA135 |
| loːt6 (lột ‘slough’) | slip (off, down) (v) | motion | NA | *loːcˀ, *luːcˀ | AA303 |
| maj2 (mày) | you (singular) | function | *miː | *miːˀ, *meːˀ | AA047 |
| maŋ1 (măng) | bamboo shoots | agr. and veg. | *tə.ɓaŋ | *tə.’ɓaŋ | AA023 |
| mat5 (mắt) | eye | body | *mat | *matˀ | AA024 |
| mɔː3 (mỏ) | beak | animal | *kə.ɓɔh | *cə.’ɓɔh, *cə.’ɓu:ˀ | AA442 |
| mɔːj5 (mói ‘a tool used when transplanting’) | plant seed (v) | agr. and veg. | *cə.mɔːlʔ ‘dibble stick’ | *ɟə.’mɔːlˀ | AA131 |
| mɔːk5 (móc) | hook (v) | item | NA | *ɓɔkˀ, *ɓuəkˀ | AA392 |
| mɔːk6 (mọc ‘grow, come out’) | emerge (v) | motion | NA | *muəkˀ, *mɔːkˀ | AA219 |
| məː3 (mở) | open (v) | basic | *pəh | *pəh | AA398 |
| məj1 (mây) | cloud | nat. env. | *kə.məl | *rə.’mɨl | AA431 |
| mət6 (mật) | gall, bile | body | *mɨ̀t | *kə.’matˀ, *kə.’mɨtˀ | AA079 |
| mɛː6 (mẹ) | mother | kinship | *meːʔ ~ mɛːʔ | *meʔ | AA061 |
| mɨə1 (mưa) | rain (n,v) | nat. env. | *kə.maː | *gə.’maːˀ | AA036 |
| mɨən6 (mượn ‘borrow’) | ask (v) | speech | *maːɲʔ | *sə.’maːɲ | AA335 |
| miəŋ6 (miệng) | mouth, jaw | body | *mɛːŋʔ | *miəŋˀ | AA273 |
| moːt6 (một) | one | numeral | *moːc | *muəjˀ, *moːjˀ | AA049 |
| muːj4 (mũi) | nose | body | *muːs | *muːh, *muːɕ | AA003 |
| muːn6 (mụn) | pimple | body | *mu:nʔ | *muːnˀ | AA070 |
| muːt5 (mút) | suck (v) | food | *cə.ɓuːc | *ɓuːcˀ | AAP |
| muəj4 (muỗi) | mosquito | animal | *mɔːs | *mɔ:s | AA133 |
| ɲaː2 (nhà) | house | item | *ɲaː | *ɲaːˀ | AA110 |
| naj2 (này) | this | function | *Cə.niː | *niːˀ | AA065 |
| nam1 (năm) | year | time | *cə.nəm | *cə.’nam, *cə.’nɨm | AA058 |
| nap5 (nắp) | cover (v) | basic | *Cə.nap | *ɗapˀ | AA360 |
| nɔː6/nɔː5 (nọ/nó) | this | function | NA | *nɔh | AA391 |
| nɔːŋ1 (nong) | winnowing basket | item | *ɗoːŋ; *ɗoːŋʔ | *kə.’ɗo:ŋ | AA214 |
| nəp5 (nấp ‘to hide’) | cover (v) | basic | *ɗəp (tent.) | *ɗɨpˀ | AA224 |
| ɲəw6 (nhậu ‘drink (v)’) | drink, suck (v) | food | *ɲuːʔ | *ɲuʔ | AA218 |
| niːt5 (nít ‘small (of children)’) | small | spatial | *ɗiːt | *ɗiːtˀ | AAP |
| nɨːt5 (nứt) | crack open/apart (v) | basic | *ɗac (tent.) | *dacˀ, *ɗacˀ | AA349 |
| nɨək5 (nước) | water | nat. env. | *ɗaːk | *ɗaːkˀ | AA039 |
| nuːŋ1 (nung) | cook (v) | food | *ɗuŋ | *ɗɨŋ, *ɗuŋ | AA492 |
| nuːp5 (núp) | cover (v) | basic | (Arem n̩tɯp) | *ɗuːpˀ | AA231 |
| ŋaːj5 (ngái) | distant | spatial | *sə.ŋaːjʔ | *cə.’ŋaːjˀ | AA038 |
| ŋaːp5 (ngáp) | yawn (v) | body | *səŋ.ʔaːp | *sə.’ŋaːpˀ, *səŋ.’ʔaːpˀ | AA022 |
| ŋaj2 (ngày) | day | time | *C.ŋiː | *tə.’ŋiːˀ | AA027 |
| ɽaːj5 (rái) | otter | animal | *pə.seːʔ | *bə.ɕeʔ | AA080 |
| ɽaːŋ6 (rạng ‘break (of daylight)’) | daylight (n., v.) | basic | NA | *raːŋˀ | AA167 |
| ɽaːw1 (rao) | call out (v) | speech | NA | *kə.’raːw | AA250 |
| ɽam5 (rắm) | fart (v) | body | *kə.səmʔ | *pə.ɕuːm | AA101 |
| ɽan5 (rắn) | snake | animal | *pə.səɲʔ | *bə.’saɲ | AA115 |
| ɽeː4 (rễ) | root | agr. and veg. | *kə.riɛs | *ʔə.’riəɕ | AA026 |
| ɽəːj1 (rơi) | scatter, sprinkle (v) | basic | NA | *rə:j | AA421 |
| ɽən6 (rận) | body louse | animal | *mə.rəɲʔ | *ʔəm.’rəɲˀ | AA089 |
| ɽiət5 (riết) | tighten, squeeze (v) | basic | NA | *riətˀ | AA381 |
| ɽoː6 (rộ (‘noisily’ in reduplicative compounds)) | speak, make sound (v) | speech | NA | *roʔ | AA090 |
| ɽuː5 (rú) | hill, mountain | nat. env. | *bə.ruːʔ | *bə.’ruʔ | AA322 |
| ɽuːŋ6 (rụng) | fall, drop (v) | motion | *ruŋʔ | *ruŋˀ | AA444 |
| ɽuəj2 (ruồi) | fly (n) | animal | *mə.rɔːj | *roaj | AA028 |
| ʂaː5 (sá) | path | motion | *kraːʔ | *kə.’raʔ | AA073 |
| ʂaːŋ5 (sáng) | shine (v) | sense | *pə.laːŋʔ | pə.’laːŋˀ | AAP |
| ʂaw1 (sau) | back, behind | body | *kraw | *kə.’rɔ(ː)ʔ, *kə.’raw | AAP |
| ʂaw5 (sáu) | six | numeral | *pə.ruːʔ | *tə.’ruʔ, *pə.’ruʔ | AA137 |
| ʂɔː6 (sọ) | taro | agr. and veg. | *sə.roːʔ | *sə.’roʔ | AA084 |
| ʂɔːj3 (sỏi) | gravel | nat. env. | *kə.rɔːs | *kə.’ruəs | AAP |
| ʂɔːk5 (sóc) | squirrel | animal | *pə.rɔːk | *pə.’rɔːkˀ | AA091 |
| ʂəw1 (sâu) | deep | spatial | *cə.ru: > *cru: | *ɟə.’ru:ˀ | AA019 |
| ʂiː1 (si) | banyan, ficus | agr. and veg. | *ɟə.riː | *ɟə.’ri:ˀ | AA064 |
| ʂɨːŋ2 (sừng) | horn | animal | *kə.rəŋ | *kə.’rɨŋ | AA313 |
| sɨəŋ1 (xương) | bone | body | (*tʃə.ʔaːŋ) | *cə.’ʔaːŋ | AA012 |
| ʈaːj5 (trái) | fruit | agr. and veg. | *pə.leːʔ | *pə.’leʔ | AA043 |
| taːt5 (tát) | scoop, bale (v) | item | *ʔaə.saːc | *saːcˀ | AA111 |
| taj1 (tay) | hand, arm | body | *siː | *siːˀ | AAP |
| tam5 (tám) | eight | numeral | *saːmʔ (or *tha:mʔ) | *təN.ɕaːm | AA338 |
| ʈan1 (trăn) | python | animal | *kə.lən | *tə.’lan | AA040 |
| ʈaɲ1 (tranh) | thatching grass | agr. and veg. | *plaŋ | *pə.’laŋ | AA060 |
| tɔːk5 (tóc) | hair | body | *C.suk | *sukˀ, *sɔkˀ | AA032 |
| ʈɔːŋ1 (trong) | inside; belly | body | (Ruc klɔːŋ1, pPong *kluŋ⁴) | *kə.’luːŋ, *kə.’luəŋ | AA106 |
| ʈeːc6 (trệch) | mistake, miss (target) (v) | basic | NA | *lacˀ, *pə.’lacˀ | AA172 |
| ʈɨːŋ5 (trứng) | egg | food | *kə.ləːŋʔ | *pən.’ləːŋˀ | AA485 |
| tɨək5 (tước) | skin (n.,v.) | body | NA | *saːkˀ | AA074 |
| ʈoːn2 (tròn) | round, roll (v) | motion | *gə.lɔːn > *klɔːn | *lun, *lɔːn | AA225 |
| vaː3 (vả) | fig tree | agr. and veg. | NA | *lə.’wa(ː)ʔ | AA160 |
| vaːk5 (vác) | carry on back/slung (v) | motion | *ɓaːk | *ɓakˀ | AA176 |
| van6 (vặn) | twist (v) | basic | *vaɲʔ | *waɲˀ | AA269 |
| veː2 (về) | go around, return (v.i.) | motion | *veːr | *wi:r | AA123 |
| vən1 (vần ‘roll (v)’) | twist (v) | basic | NA | *wəɲ | AA405 |
| voː4 (vỗ) | hit, slap (v) | basic | *pɔh | *pɔh | AA205 |
| vuːn1 (vun) | heap up (v) | basic | *Cə.pun (tent.) | *ɓuːn | AAP |
| vuət5 (vuốt) | rub, stroke (v) | sense | *pɔːcˀ (tent.) | *poːtˀ, *pɔːtˀ | AA217 |
| xaːk6 (khạc) | hawk up phlegm (v) | body | *krə.haːk | *kə.’haːkˀ | AA164 |
| ʑɔː5 (gió) | wind, air | nat. env. | *kʰjɔːʔ | *kə.’jaːl; *kə.’jɔʔ | AA075 |
| ʑɔːt6 (giọt) | fall, drip (v) | motion | NA | *ɟɔ:tˀ | AA416 |
| zəp6 (dập) | bury (v) | motion | *Cə.təp ‘to bury’ (tent.) | *tɨpˀ | AA143 |
| ʔaːk5 (ác) | crow (n) | animal | *krə.ʔaːk | *kə.’ʔaːkˀ | AA011 |
| ʔɔːj1 (oi ‘sultry’) | warm | sense | NA | *ʔuːr, *ʔoːr | AA328 |
| ʔɔːj5 (ói) | choke, vomit (?) (v.i.) | body | *ʔoːlʔ | *ʔo:lˀ, *ʔuəl | AA213 |
| ʔɔːŋ1 (ong) | wasp, hornet | animal | *ʔɔːŋ | *ʔɔːŋ | AA132 |
| ʔəm5 (ấm) | warm | sense | *sə.ʔəmʔ | *cə.’ʔɨmˀ | AA433 |
Appendix C. Austroasiatic Words in Vietnamese Found Only in Mainland Southeast Asia
| VIET | GLOSS | SEM | PV | Shorto’s Recon. | Shorto ID |
| ɓɔ:3 (bỏ) | throw away (v) | items | NA | *pooh | #2025 |
| ɓi:5 (bí) | squash/pumpkin | agr. and veg. | *cə.pi:r | *cpiir | #1637 |
| ɓi:t5 (bít) | cover (v) | spatial | NA | *cɓiit, *cɓiət | #1039 |
| ɓɨt5 (bứt) | pluck, pick | basic | *pəc | *pic, *piic, *piəc, *pəc | #823 |
| ɓuːŋ6 (bụng) | belly | body | *buŋʔ | *buŋ, *buuŋʔ | #624a.b |
| ci:n5 (chín) | nine | quantity | *ciːnʔ | *dciinʔ | #1144 |
| cuːm6 (chụm) | gather, group (n) | spatial | NA | *bɟum, *bɟuum, *bɟəm | #1338a,b |
| ɗɛ:3 (đẻ) | born, give birth | body | *tɛh | *ɗeh | #2013 |
| ɗiːt5 (đít ‘buttocks’) | anus | body | NA | *ktiit | #1007 |
| ɗiək5 (điếc) | deaf | body | *tɛːk | *tik, *tiək, *tək | #303 |
| ɗu:j1 (đui) | blind | body | *duːl, *tuːl | *tuəl | #1734b |
| ɣɔ:4 (gõ) | knock (v) | basic | *Cə.kɔ:h, *gɔ:h | *guəh | #1978 |
| ɣəw5 (gấu) | bear (n) | animal | *cə.guːʔ; cə.kuːʔ | *ɟkaw | #1817 |
| ku:t5 (cút) | quail | animal | NA | *tgut, *tguut | #969 |
| laː5 lajk5 (lá lách) | spleen | body | *laːʔ, laː | *slaʔ | #232 |
| maː6 (mạ) | seed | agr. and veg. | *sə.maːʔ | *maʔ | #133 |
| miə5 (mía) | sugarcane | agr. and veg. | *kə.mɛːʔ | *klmiəʔ | #137 |
| mo:1 (mô (dialect)) | what, where | function | *Cmoː | *moʔ | #136.a |
| mo:j5 (mối) | kind of lizard | animal | *bolʔ | *ɓulʔ, *ɓuəl | #1767 |
| moːk5 (mốc ‘mould, mouldy’) | rotten | basic | *ɓuk | *ɓuk, *kɓuk | #368 |
| muːk5 (múc) | draw water | basic | *ɓuːk | *ɓəkˀ | #367 |
| naːŋ1 (nang ‘eye tooth, tusk’) | tooth | body | *kə.nɛːŋ | *gnaiŋ, *gniəŋ | #597 |
| nam1 (năm) | five | quantity | *ɗam | *pɗam | #1363 |
| nɔːn5 (nón) | wide-brim hat | items | *ɗɔːnʔ | *.ɗuən | #1159 |
| noː3 (nổ) | burst, explode (v.i.) | basic | *ɗoh ‘to explode’ | *pɗuh, *pɗuəh | #2015a.a,b |
| noːk5 (nốc) | boat | items | NA | *ɗuuk, *ɗuk | #336 |
| ŋaː3, ŋɨə3 (ngả, ngửa) | face upward, supine | spatial | *C.ŋah | *lŋaarh | #1590 |
| ŋəm1 (ngâm) | soak, steep | basic | NA | *.ŋəm | #1321 |
| ŋɨə5 (ngứa) | itch (v.i.) | body | *Cə.ŋa:ʔ | *lŋaaʔ | #35 |
| ŋɨəj1 (ngươi) | pupil of eye | body | *Cə.ŋaːj | *ŋaaj | #1453 |
| ŋɨək5 (ngước) | bend back head (v) | body | NA | *lŋaak | #288.b |
| ŋiəŋ5 (nghiêng ‘inclined, on the side’) | side | spatial | *sə.gɛːŋ | *ɟkiiŋ, *ɟkiəŋ *ɟkaiŋ | #504 |
| ɽɨə3 (rửa) | wash (v) | basic | *ʔə.raːwh | *raawh | #1841 |
| ɽuː4 (rũ) | wash, rinse (clothes) | basic | NA | *ruuh | #2053 |
| ɽuət6 (ruột) | intestine | body | *rɔːc | *ruuc, *ruəc | #844 |
| ʂaːj3 (sải) | fathom (n) | spatial | *pə.laːs | *lais | #1944 |
| saːk5 (xác) | body, carcass | body | NA | *cak | #290 |
| ʂap5 (sắp) | ready, prepared | cognition | *srap | *srap | #1282 |
| ʂəm5 (sấm) | thunder | nat. env. | *kə.rəmʔ | *grəmʔ, *gram | #1392 |
| ʂoːŋ1 (sông) | river | nat. env. | *kroːŋ | *ruŋ, *ruuŋ, *ruəŋ | #668 |
| ʈam1 (trăm) | hundred | quantity | *klam | *klam | #1405 |
| vaː3 (vả) | hit, slap (v) | basic | *tə.pah | *pah | #2022.a |
| vat5 (vắt) | squeeze, wring (v) | basic | *pat | *pat | #1021.a |
| vɨən6 (vượn) | gibbon | animal | *kə.vaɲ | *kwaɲ, *kwaaɲʔ | #934 |
| voːj1 (vôi) | lime (mineral) | nat. env. | *kə.puːr | *knpur | #1636 |
| ʑiət5 (giết) | die (v) | body | *kə.ce:t | *kcət | #987 |
Notes
| 1 | Early Austroasiatic speakers are posited to be among the groups of original hunter–gatherers and incoming agriculturalists in northern Vietnam at the Man Bac archaeological site dated to nearly 4000 years before the present (). A continuous chain of archaeological periods from that time led to the Dong Son culture (c. 700 BCE to 200 CE) of that region. Vietnamese has a significant number of Han Dynasty Chinese loanwords, providing support for a Vietic presence in the region at that time and also connecting Vietnamese to the end point of that chronological chain (). |
| 2 | Questions of the development of phonation features—and thus potential suprasegmental developments early in Vietic phonological history ()—cannot yet be adequately addressed. |
| 3 | The exact number of Muong lects is not known, but there is considerable variety. () provides data on 30 varieties of Muong. |
| 4 | The past situation of varieties of Muong with respect to this development is less clear. Many do not have lenited onsets, so they lack the evidence Vietnamese has. However, some varieties do have them, but they lack history textual evidence, so it is not yet possible to provide chronological information with certainty that these were not borrowed from Vietnamese with those sounds. |
| 5 | Vietnamese dialectal variety is more complex. The IPA transcriptions here are for standard northern Vietnamese. Dialects in other regions have other realizations, such as /j/ for ‘v’, ‘gi’, and ‘d’ and unsoftened /ɡ/ for ‘g/gh’ in southern and central Vietnamese, and other variants in small areas of north–central Vietnamese. These variants still highlight the phonetic effect of their past intervocalic position. |
| 6 | Claims of loanwords in Vietnamese from other languages are beyond the scope of this study, but broadly, possible early Tai loanwords (perhaps two dozen ()) are extremely small in number compared to the thousands of Chinese loanwords. In the Late Colonial period, hundreds of words were borrowed from French (), though only some of those words are highly integrated into Vietnamese, while many of these are not in common usage, as they are old-fashioned, highly technical, or not a common part of Vietnamese culture (e.g., a-nốt ‘anode’, flăng ‘flan’, etc.). |
| 7 | Cognates of many native words can also be found in other Vietic languages, including several hundred that have been reconstructed to the Proto-Vietic level. |
| 8 | Some words in minority Vietic languages are likely recent loanwords from Vietnamese, not retentions from an earlier common proto-language. |
| 9 | Determining loanwords neighboring languages is done by searching through various digitized lexical databases, proto-language reconstructions, and various digital dictionaries. A list of these resources is provided in Appendix A. |
| 10 | Such derivationally related cognates are not easily located in available data, but the Vietic language Ruc has tùnúːt ‘stopper’, corresponding to Vietnamese nu:t5 (nút), though the data does not contain a source verb. Whether this represents an earlier stage in Vietic, borrowing, or a chance shared innovation cannot be known. |
| 11 | There are some instances in Chinese of alliteration, as in Cantonese 咧啡 le5 fe5 ‘messy’, 撈捎 laau4 saau4 ‘messy’, 立亂 lap6 lyun6 ‘chaotic’, and others. English has such words as well (e.g., ‘hocus-pocus’, ‘flim-flam’, etc.), but such word formation -patterns are not as productive in English or varieties of Chinese as in most Austroasiatic languages. |
References
- Alves, Mark. 2006. Linguistic research on the origins of the Vietnamese language: An overview. Journal of Vietnamese Studies 1: 104–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, Mark. 2009. Loanwords in Vietnamese. In Loanwords in the World’s Languages. Edited by Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor. New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 617–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, Mark. 2018. Early Sino-Vietnamese lexical data and the relative chronology of tonogenesis in Chinese and Vietnamese. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 11: 3–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, Mark. 2020a. Báo cáo tóm tắt về từ Proto-Nam Á và Proto-Vietic trong tiếng Việt [A Brief Report on Proto-Austroasiatic and Proto-Vietic Vocabulary in Vietnamese]. Paper presented at Hội Thảo Quốc Tế Ngôn Ngữ Học Lần Thứ IV, Vietnam, December 19–20, unpublished paper for keynote talk. [Google Scholar]
- Alves, Mark. 2020b. Historical ethnolinguistic notes on Proto-Austroasiatic and Proto-Vietic vocabulary in Vietnamese. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 13: xiii–xlv. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52472 (accessed on 5 December 2024).
- Alves, Mark. 2020c. Initial steps in reconstructing Proto-Vietic syntax. In Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Edited by Mathias Jenny, Paul Sidwell and Mark Alves. Boston: Brill, pp. 46–81. [Google Scholar]
- Alves, Mark. 2022. The Ðông Sơn speech community: Evidence for Vietic. Crossroads 19: 138–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, Mark. 2024. From Vietic presyllables to Vietnamese simplex onsets. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 22: 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferlus, Michael. 1977. L’infixe instrumental <rn> en Khamou et sa trace en Vietnamien. Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 2: 51–55. [Google Scholar]
- Ferlus, Michel. 1992. Histoire abrégée de l’évolution des consonnes initiales du Vietnamien et du Sino-Vietnamien. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 20: 111–25. [Google Scholar]
- Gage, William W. 1985. Vietnamese in Mon-Khmer perspective. In Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies Presented to André-G. Haudricourt. Edited by Suriya Ratanakul, David D. Thomas and Suwilai Premsrirat. Salaya: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University, pp. 493–524. [Google Scholar]
- Gehrmann, Ryan. 2022. Desegmentalization: Towards a Common Framework for the Modeling of Tonogenesis and Registrogenesis in Mainland Southeast Asia with Case Studies from Austroasiatic. Doctoral dissertation, the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. [Google Scholar]
- Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1953. La place du vietnamien dans les langues austroasiatiques. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 49: 122–28. [Google Scholar]
- Higham, Charles F. W. 2017. First farmers in mainland Southeast Asia. Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology 41: 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higham, Charles. 2021. The Neolithic occupation of Southeast Asia. In The Languages and Linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia: A Comprehensive Guide. Edited by Paul Sidwell and Mathias Jenny. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–32. [Google Scholar]
- Hô, Lê. 1992. Từ Nam Á trong tiếng Việt [Austroasiatic words in Vietnamese]. In Tiếng Việt va Các Ngôn Ngữ Dân Tộc Phía Nam [Vietnamese and Languages of Ethnic Groups in the South]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội, pp. 65–110. [Google Scholar]
- Hùng Việt, Lê Xuân Thại, Lý Toàn Thắng, Nguyễn Hoàng Anh, Trịnh Thị Hà, Nguyễn Thị Tân, and Dương Thị Thu Hà. 2018. Từ Ngữ Hán Việt: Tiếp Nhận và Sáng Tạo [Vietnamese Vocabulary: Receiving and Creating]. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội. [Google Scholar]
- Jenny, Mathias. 2020. Verb-initial structures in Austroasiatic languages. In Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Edited by Mathias Jenny, Paul Sidwell and Mark Alves. Boston: Brill. [Google Scholar]
- Jenny, Mathias, Tobias Weber, and Rachel Weymuth. 2015. The Austroasiatic languages: A typological overview. In The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Edited by Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell. Boston: Brill, vol. 1, pp. 13–43. [Google Scholar]
- Kirby, James. 2008. vPhon: A Vietnamese Phonetizer. Available online: https://github.com/kirbyj/vPhon (accessed on 5 August 2024).
- Kirby, James, and Mark Alves. 2022. Exploring Statistical Regularities in the Syllable Canon of Sino-Vietnamese Loanmorph Phonology. In Vietnamese Linguistics: State of the Field. Edited by Trang Phan, John Phan and Mark Alves. JSEALS Special Publication No. 9. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 104–26. [Google Scholar]
- Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Glottalized Consonants. In WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data Set]. Edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Available online: http://wals.info/chapter/7 (accessed on 5 September 2024).
- Nguyễn, Nhã Bản (chủ biên). 1999. Từ Điển Tiếng Địa Phương Nghệ Tĩnh [Dictionary of the Nghe Tinh Dialect]. Hanoi: Văn hoá thông tin. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyễn, Văn Tài. 2005. Ngữ âm tiếng Mường qua các phương ngôn [The Phonetics of the Mường Language Across Its Various Dialects]. Hanoi: Nhà Xuất bản Từ điển Bách khoa. [Google Scholar]
- Phan, John D. 2012. Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 40: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Phan, John D. 2013. Lacquered Words: The Evolution of Vietnamese under Sinitic Influences from the 1st Century BCE through the 17th Century CE. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithica, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. 2009. The Phonology of Proto-Tai. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithica, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. 2015. Typologizing sesquisyllabicity: The role of structural analysis in the study of linguistic diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of the Art. Edited by Nick. J. Enfield and Bernard Comrie. Volume 649 in the series Pacific Linguistics. Berlin, München and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 500–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, Alexandre de. 1991. Từ Điển An Nam-Lusitan—La Tinh (Thường Gọi là Từ Điển Việt—Bồ-La) [An Annamese-Portuguese-Latin Dictionary]. Translated by Thanh Lãng, Hoàng Xuân Việt, and Đỗ Quang Chính. Viện Khoa Học Xã Hội Tại Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh. Ho Chi Minh: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học Xã Hội. First published 1651. [Google Scholar]
- Schlovin, Vera. 2018. A Comprehensive Corpus of French Loanwords into Vietnamese. Unpublished File. Available online: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/23231 (accessed on 15 June 2024).
- Shimizu, Masaaki. 2015. A Reconstruction of Ancient Vietnamese Initials Using Chữ Nôm Materials. NINJAL Research Papers 9: 135–58. [Google Scholar]
- Shorto, Harry L. 2006. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Edited by Paul Sidwell, Doug Couper and Christian Bauer. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [Google Scholar]
- Sidwell, Paul. 2008. Issues in the morphological reconstruction of Proto-Mon–Khmer. In Morphology and Language History: In Honour of Harold Koch. Edited by Claire Bowern. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
- Sidwell, Paul. 2024. 500 Proto Austroasiatic Etyma: Version 1.0. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 17, i–xxiii. [Google Scholar]
- Sidwell, Paul, and Mark Alves. 2021. The Vietic languages: A phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Language Relationship 19: 166–94. [Google Scholar]
- Sidwell, Paul, and Mark Alves. 2023. Re-evaluating Shorto’s MKCD reconstructions. In Papers from ICAAL 9 & 10. Edited by Mark Alves and Paul Sidwell. JSEALS Special Publication No. 12. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 98–126. [Google Scholar]
- Tạ, Thành Tấn. 2021. The Tone System of Rục and Tonogenesis in Vietic Languages. Tạp Chí Phát Triển Khoa Học và Công Nghệ—Khoa Học Xã Hội và Nhân Văn 5: 955–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, David D., and Robert K. Headley, Jr. 1970. More on Mon-Khmer subgroupings. Lingua 25: 398–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trần, Thị Thúy Hiền, and Nathalie Vallée. 2009. An acoustic study of interword consonant sequences in Vietnamese. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1: 231–50. [Google Scholar]
- Viện Ngôn Ngữ Học [The Institute of Linguistics]. 1995. Từ Điển Từ Láy Tiếng Việt [Dictionary of Vietnamese Reduplicative Words]. Hanoi: Trung Tâm Khoa Học Xã Hội và Nhân Quốc Gia. [Google Scholar]
- Vu, Duc Nghieu. 2019. Vietnamese Initial Consonant Clusters in Quốc Ngữ Documents from the 17th to Early 19th Centuries. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 12: 143–62. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).