What Makes Chinese so Vietnamese?
An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies
Table of Contents
VI) The Chinese connection
China? Chinese? What is it? Who are they? How is the V language related to those of C? How invasive is it about their cultural exertion on such strongly identity-conscious Vietnamese (V) people? We are talking about the history of the Chinese (C) connection here, about which the AA-MK theorists have nothing to say since they do not have a history to build a case.(W) There certainly still exist many other issues that could damp down one's impartiality very much depending on where one stands. If we all pretend the historical issue does not exist, the novices in the field will follow their predecessor's footsteps again.
In this chapter the author will discuss about (1) the core C linguistic elements in V that are actually the other form of transcendence beyond the biological mutation of the V with that of the C immigrants, mostly via cross-marriage that has been carried on for the last 2200 years over their social intercourse, (2) main historical factors that lead to the negation of the fact thanks to historical antagonism from both sides in the first place, causing biased judgment on the origin of VS etymology, and (3) the reasons why it matters so much that V etymology could mainly be discriminately weighed on the sinitic scale as the most decisive factor in the V linguistic development in the postulation, that is, the C connection.
A) Is it Chinese or Vietnamese?
Is it Chinese or Vietnamese? Is it a loanword or an aboriginal form? We are talking about the plausibility of an etymon which is plausibly cognate to each other, for example, 'sông' for *krong that gives rise to 江 jiāng (river), an irreplaceable word in C, just like a member its sinicized nationals of Yue descents. On this specific phonetic shell in the form [C+V+C] which represents a majority of all existing lexicons in both V and C vocabulary, a morphemic attribute -- such as its tonality -- of a V lexeme /sowŋ/ is characteristically of the same nature of the ancient root /*krowŋ/. Such a linguistic build is parallel to that of genetic stock that has formed the same biological physique, e.g., 'Is she C or V?'. Metaphorically, what counts is not the mechanics of bio-engineering that grafts C branches onto the trunk of the V tree but the bio-genomes that bear similar fruits, branches, leaves, flowers like other trees.
Vietnamese, specifically, is a language that has populated all sinitic elements on top of its common base of ancient aboriginal strata known as that of some indigenous Yue mother language. However, the case of the V development has been different from some other 'postulated hybrid', but not creolized, languages such as Albanese of which vocabularies are totally comprised of loanwords from several other prominent languages with a few hundred native words of its own (Bloomfield. 1933). Even though V etyma largely consist of a greater amount of C loanwords in both SV and VS categories, a small number of the latter had actually evolved from ancient Yue roots which had also been shared by several C dialects as well, i.e., those variants from Cant., Fukienese, in China South (see illustrations in sections after the next).
It is interesting to note that some of the basic Yue-based lexicons might have already existed in V prior to their doublets finding their way back again into the V fundamental stock by way of other routes, e.g., 'heo' 亥 hài SV 'hợi' (pig), 'ngựa' 午 wǔ SV 'ngọ' (horse), etc., including those postulated as of AA family such as Mon-Khmer (MK) languages. The whole process is similar to that of how Japanese words of modern western concepts of the early 20th century such as 'dânchủ' 民主 mínzhǔ (democracy) or 'cộnghoà' 共和 gònghé (republic), that were built with C materials, have found their way back into the C language.
The people of VN are of racial mixture of earlier natives in the regions from China South to North VN, including those of the ancient China's northeastern and Annam's northwestern territories, respectively, with those racially-mixed Han soldiers from the northern part of the Han Empire and the later C immigrants who kept coming throughout periods of C colonization since 111 BC and beyond. We have made a round trip back to the history of the most related countries, China and VN, that is how their languages are affiliated. It is said that VN did have her own written record and literary works -- scribed in C, of course -- prior to her becoming an independent state in 939 AD.
Our theorists went on saying that when the C colonists left the country, they had destroyed or taken home with them all available books. Such a supposition of C colonists' withdrawal their former prefecture, however, is unlikely for the reason that Annam of 清源軍 Qinghaijun Military Zone was then the safest place further away from the savaged civil wars among warlord factions going on in the mainland and most of the C would rather chose to remain there during the chaotic period that had been happening between 907 to 939 AD when the whole Middle Kingdom had been broken into pieces with 7 major different states each was ruled with a king for the next 72 years. (Bo Yang, Vols 65, 66, 1992) So when they say "when the C colonists left the country", we could ask the question: "Who were leaving and when?" In fact, all C generals were busy securing their own rule in Giaochi 交趾 Jiaozhi.(V)
In other words, there existed no historical records written specifically of a continuous "Yue nation", or something of continuation of the long lost NamViet Kingdom, the national forefather of VN's history, to be found in ancient VN before her independence, Jiaozhi history has been always a part of C history from the Han to Tang dynasties. In any cases, in order to investigate earlier records on the ancient Annamese language philologists need to dig deeply into C classics. Remember that the ancient VN had been about 1000 years with a short interval of independence (VN's Early Lý Dynasty, 544–602 AD) until then having continued to be a prefecture under Tang's rule until it ended in 907 AD. In short, her own history had been an extension of China from 111 BC to 939 AD. China's ancient history is, hence, an indispensable part of that of VN.
Ethnically, compositon of the populace of China in ancient times had encompassed all the subjects of other six states previously conquered and unified by the Qin Dynasty, including all those tribes of Yue origin from the earlier periods of the Shang and Xia dynasties followed by the Western Zhou. In the V language, a degrading word to call the subjects of the previous Qin Dynasty were then known as 'Tàu' in the V language, or 'Tần' (秦 Qin) as to other states during the Warring States and Eastern Zhou periods. In a later development the short-lived Qin Empire collapsed and the defiantly reborn Chu State was totally defeated by the empowered Han Empire.
The Han Dynasty rose to a prominent superpower, unprecedented since the Western Zhou Dynasty, and its empire had been populated with a larger number of the Chu subjects, biologically and linguistically, of the Yue natives, to be exact, including those early Viets of the later NamViet Kingdom. The new unified entity called Han as an empire and those who had been sinicized under the umbrella of the new Han Empire and its people born since then were called the Han people. (See Bo Yang. 1983-1993. Ibid.) In other words, the formation of the Han Empire's populace had been in reality of another mixture of the ancient Yue people, who previously had already made up a part of the populace of the Zhou Dynasty, with a larger population of the Chu State, and those of the Qin and the Han empires. That is to say, the Yue and the Han elements had already blended well long before Annam as a prefecture broke way from the Middle Kingdom by the end of the Tang Dynasty (907) .(V) to become an independent nation that has become internationally known as today's Vietnam.
Map of the Zhou Dynasty
As said, altogether, such mixed Han elements had infiltrated into VN's native sphere for a total of more than 2200 years since the first waves of the Han expansionists with their foot soldiers advanced southward beyond China South region further into their newly acquired territories and annexed parts of them into their newly unified empire. Many of BaiYue (百越 or BachViet) natives, as a result, were displaced from their ancient northern base, as perceived by an older school of scholars, V, originally in Lake Dongtinghu (洞庭湖) region of China's Hunan Province, to other places in VN's Red River Delta's perimeters at present time.
As many of the long-marched weary Han soldiers finally resettled and made their home in their newly occupied territories, later known as Annam Đôhộphủ' (安南督護府 or 'Annam Protectorate Prefecture'), those new resettlers further encroached onto lower level cultivated land of southeastern basin in Vinhphuc and Hoabinh provinces of today's VN.
The presence of newcomer C enlisted men as permanent resettlers had pushed those uncooperative native aborigines -- technically known as Vietmuong -- further to remote mountainous regions, who are now called the Muong ethnic group, one among the other 54 national minority groups displaced in their own ancestral land. For those cooperative populace who had chosen to stay behind in the lowland, many newcomers married local and aborigine women and the end result was the emergence of children of the next generations who were born into racially-mixed family of the ancient Annamese natives and the Han resettlers from the north during their southern expedition and conquer. In other words, the ancient 'Annamites' (安南居民) were earlier forefathers of VN's Kinh majority today, or the V people, of whom 99.9 percent bear C family surnames.
Map of the Han Dynasty
To understand the matter better, one can compare such postulation of the origin of the V people with some other similar national developments that had taken on the same path establishing a new nation, multi-racially, regardless of specific ethnicity origin, that was how Annamese entity emerged 2200 years ago. For example, our contemporary history has witnessed the three consecutive prime ministers of Singapore and all Taiwan's presidents, like their fellow countrymen, are all of C origin in terms of where their ancestors come from, and they take pride in themselves as Singaporean and Taiwanese, respectively, in such a proud manner that goes hand in hand with one's national identity. The modern V feel the same way today, even much more understandably arrogant for their gung ho attitude throughout their long history, succeeding in acquisition of stretches of lands, one by one, that used to belong to the now extinct Kingdom of Champa and, partly, of the Khmer Kingdom (currently Cambodia), in the context that it actually does not matter much what their actual origin is genetically; it is their country of birth that counts, for which they have fought more than 1000 years one generation after another to throw off the yokes of colonialization thrown upon by the much bigger bullies from the north, internationally known as China. Like today's Taiwanese for Taiwan, the V are holding tight on the precious status-quo, their national independence, for which the Tibetan people have been still struggling for since the 10th century.
Of the 23 million people in Taiwan, 98% are descendants of ethnic Han Chinese immigrants who migrated from China from the 17th to the 20th century. Of these, around 70% are descended from immigrants from Fujian and identify themselves as Hoklo whilst 15% are Hakka from Guangdong (Canton) and also Fujian. The ancestors of these people were laborers that crossed the Taiwan Strait to work on plantations for the Dutch. It is believed that these male laborers married local aborigine women, creating a new ethnic group of mixed Chinese and aborigine people. It is these descendants who identify themselves as Taiwanese and increasingly reject their identity as Chinese. The reason for this lies to a great extent with the authoritarian rule of the foreign Kuomintang (KMT) which fled mainland China during the Chinese Civil War and set up government in Taiwan. There was martial law that lasted four decades and was discriminatory against the existing inhabitants of Taiwan. Mandarin, a foreign language, was imposed as the national language (國語) and all other languages were made illegal. The harsh rule over Taiwan was lifted in 1988 and began a new era in Taiwanese history when Lee Tenghui, a Taiwanese, became president. The first transition of power from the China-centric KMT occurred in 2000 when Taiwanese Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential elections. He made efforts to push for Taiwan independence with statements that there are two nations across the Taiwan Strait; a push for plebiscite on independence; and the abolishment of the National Unification Council. Taiwanese opinion on independence is split between the northern and southern half of Taiwan which interestingly also divides the "mainlander" (外省人) in the north from the "Taiwanese" (本省人) in the south.
For a linguist, on the one hand, sole elaboration on the political, cultural, and historical aspects of a language under survey is sufficient if the matters under discussion are considered as irrelevant to one another like those of MK and V. History of their development had been independent of each other until the last millenium. That is not the case between V and C at all. In the field of VS study it is more of the norms than not, s/he still needs a more comprehensive approach to cover all of the above plus other anthropological elements because they all are relevant and interrelated intimately; otherwise, one could not explain the cognateness of such words for impolite and private human reproductive organs and sexual acts such as 'cặt' 龜 guī, 'hĩm, lồn' 隂 yīn, 'đụ, đéo, bề' 嫖 piáo, etc., not to mention all other 'polite' words are of the same roots. Those similarities are the undermined genomes that gave rise to unique peculiarities that exist only in genetically affiliated languages. They are linguistic intrinsic commonalities that characterize all different dialects and sub-dialectal variants, exposing shared features that could not be found in languages of different linguistic family.
On the other hand, it is such uniqueness that has also masked the true appearance of the same etyma that possesses so many similarities that could be either used to posit as word of the same root, including aborigine words from the Yue or discarded outright as loanwords for their closeness, e.g., 'đường' 糖 táng (sugar) vs. 'đàng' or 'đường' 唐 táng (path), respectively. You will see more of the same kind later, however, we cannot solely depend on lexical aspects to determine linguistic family affililation of a language.
Let's put it this way, suppose that V were "English", as opposed to those of Germanic, Roman, Latin, Greek, etc., it should be treated in the same manner like any other languages in the framework of Indo-European languistic family. That analogy is another way to substantiate the interrelationship of V with all C dialects on the TB linguistic tree. That is another way to suppose that if China were not a unified nation like those of European Union now, then each dialect in Guangdong and Fujian provinces could have not been called dialects but languages themselves actually (analogously, cf. Danish, German, English, or Italian, Spanish, French, etc.) Reversely, for the same rationalization, if VN had not become an independent country from that one greater imperial China since 939 AD, there is no doubt that her language would have been classed as one of C dialects by now in China as well.
Methodologically, while most of renown sinologists in the West had been trained with modern methological tools found common in Indo-European linguistic application, it is noted that their approach did not do justice to VS linguistic studies and their western linguistic principles would yield little help in understanding a 'strange language' (Bloomfield, 1933, p. 93). For example, syntactic concepts of inflective cases, i.e., accusative, nominative, dative, etc. as in Latin, German, or Russian, are vitually non-existent in all sinitic languages, except for what appears so in reconstructed OC roots *-s as verb function (Bloomfield, 1933. p. 17). In the earlier period of French colonialism in VN French linguists had even mocked the Annamese language to the effect of "primitively having no grammar" and had all those of V syntax put all under the umbrella of French gammatical framework, e.g., different concepts such as parts of speech, verb conjugation, or tenses aggregately altogether being absent in C and V languages.
Balancing compromises is the main step to achieve fairly the same degree of objectivity that was rendered by those French pioneer linguists in the early decades of the previous century, i.e., Maspero and Haudricourt, who might neither give a thought about influential fact of nationalism nor feel the heat of C influence by taking side with sinitic scholars such as Wang Li 王力 or Chao Yuen-Ren (趙元任).
One could not, nevertheless, shy away from concepts of Indo-European methology in historical linguistics, which could be interpreted as the result of one's privately hold sentiment on irreconcilably nationalistic issues like what is elaborated in the previous chapter. Not until recently V home-grown scholars have finally sorted out and modified the whole system based on previous work done by those western pioneers. But all that belongs to methodology, not of substance and nature of the V language (See Cao Xuan Hao, 2009). Overall, in any case, we all agree that it is those early linguists who have solidly set up a monumental groundwork, or at least a movable springboard, for us to seriously continue the work in this linguistic field started with the same western methodology and spirit. It is too bad, though, that those revered veterans are no longer with us in our time to disagree more with the author so that the new historical, implicitly including both geographical and cultural as well, framework on which the modified sinitic theorization of VS etymology initiated in this research is based could be further strengthened.
By identifying shortcomings of previous work by pioneers the author believes that this paper would fill in some vacant exotic categories lacking from them – which mainly focus on lexemes framed into western syntactic flexible form, for instance – namely, the concept of toneme in tones that make up glossemes and exist largely in both C and V, that function as primary phonenes to differentiate lexical meanings, e.g., ma1, ma2, ma3, ma4, ma5, ma6, ma7, and ma8, etc., In the meanwhile variant intonation of a similar lexeme /ma/ in English does not change the core meaning of it, at all, if any. In other words concepts of such feature perceived as pitch register phonemics, or tones, does not exist on the other side of equation, namely, the Indo-European languages.
Lexically, in another separate development, on the one hand, it is noted that many VS compounds have evolved fom individually solid C ideograms for which 'Annamite scholars' (NhàNho 安南儒家) had absorbed before they passed down to their children those learned concepts along with other dissyllablic formation, that has been hundreds of years prior to the introduction of the current and modern romanized V orthography. Of course, pronunciation of those 'words' would have easily deviated from those phoneticized etyma originated from romanized writing systems, for example, 'rác' < 'rácrưới' < lāji, lēse 垃圾 (garbage).
On the other hand, one may recall that most of SV vocabularies are literary forms so their usages are always associated with written C characters, which are in effect of a high level system of ideograph-phoneticization on which many characters have been based to be coined or created, and then some either discarded or saved for people did have choice in adapting them for actual usage or not. You may want to refer to the Kangxi Dictionary 康熙字典 to see hundreds of doublet, i.e., one concept with several various characters, e.g., for VS 'xanh' (blue) ~ 靑 qīng (SV thanh) ~ 清 qīng (SV thanh) vs. 'xanh' 倉 cāng (SV thương) ~ 滄 cāng (SV thương) ~ 蒼 cāng (SV thương), etc. What is left in our current repository of characters are at our disposal now.
Many exotic characters might exist only in the V domain after the 10th century onward. That is to say, any V root that originally appear in C character bank could have distanced itself a bit differently from the forms of colloquial speech depending on who sold their new vocabularies in marketplaces even if they were derived from the same ideographic concept, all due to dialectal and historical factors thorougout the history of its development, e.g., SV 'tàu' (boat) 刀 dāo (SV đao) ~ 舟 zhōu (SV chu)~ 舠 dāo (SV đao) ~ 艘 sōu (SV tao), etc.
As a result, justification of Sinitic to VS transformation seems to belong to a separate field of research with different sets of expertise. Western linguistic mechanics are just like the machine codes running behind modern computer operating systems in which language-specific applications, analogously, V and C languages in this case, are not western programmer's expertise but they belong to those localizers who know specific linguistic theories and related languages. Phonetically, common "laws" in sound change applicable in western linguistics therefore could not be used to explain phenomena of irregular sound patterns that operate sporadically on syllabic values with words that carry similar phonemic forms at all in staging scenarios of C and V, simply for the reason that their current polysyllabic forms have evolved from monosyllabics along with tonemes, or tonal morpemes. For example, Grimm's laws of sound changes such as the theory of great shift that works well with German seem to have their limits in supporting etymological evidences that solidly purport much of the claims of ST and V genetic affiliation with applicable Sinitic data – not to mention SV loanwords which characterize sound change patterns from C to V forms – because V etyma of C origin could be probably extracted and collected from textual quotes buried deeply in C classics, say, notatation of 車 chē (carriage) in 後漢書 HòuHànshū reads 居 jū (SV cư) as */ku/ as indicated by 古 */ku/ which is equivalent to 'cộ' /ko6/ in modern V, including estranged and orphaned dialectal items or alternative lexical forms as recorded in the Kangxi Dictionary. In fact, many plausible instances VS etyma as such could probably be discovered by chance, not by "Grimms laws" or any laws at all, simply because their uniqueness does not fit well into the whole picture, or at least, cross-referenced patterns with those of high frequencies.
In any case, sinitic impressions have left deep marks in VS vocabulary; all seemingly point to etyma of the same origin. Newcomers in the field should be able to determine that shared basic words in both C and V centrally lexical stocks are caputs in many languages not in the same family, of which their linguistic peculiarities may shed light on their ancestral roots. They will see illustrations of some hard-to-find VS etyma in this paper along with those etyma long cited by pioneers in the VS field such as Maspero and Haudricourt in the early days. However, for some of their cited word list there had still existed numerous irreconcilable issues left regarding their roots before they were plausibly posited by the Austroasitic roots, though. For many of those cognates ventually theorists in both AA-MK and ST-Yue camps would come to terms reckoning they are actually either etyma of the same root that could have not only penetrated deeply not only in V but also distributed widely accross different linguistic families and sub-families such as the case of /mat/ (eye), for instance, the etymon uniformly appearing in those of the MK languages versus 目 mù (SV mục) in C.
You need not to fall for my ST theorization on VS yet but, for the time being, at least be preprared to defend your stand if you already have one when new historical etymological supporting proofs come up in this paper. Only then could you appreciate what is being elaborated here. Do the same with contrast views, i.e., from the AA theorists, and let it not be swept away amidst commotions by the enraging AA waves once their riders react to what is incited by new discoveries herein that you will have eventually learnt in the end that some are fundamental in others but not in V and vice versa as amusingly argued otherwise by some specialists simply because they are mirrors of one another, undeniably.
The idea that issues of something V having to do with anything C are always a matter of delicacy is not new as mentioned in the previous section of politics. At all times for a larger majority of V populace facts regarding certain C influences on their life would be always downplayed and overwritten with depiction undoubtedly dampened by nationalistic sentiment, sometimes becoming controversial. Thanks to current climate in the diplomatic relation between China and VN, political absurdity would once again play critical role putting innocent students of VS linguistics in the hot seat. To be honest nobody could argue with V militant nationalists because they believe only in what fits into their mindset.
Besides, hidden political agenda, since the remote past, have dearly affected the course of V linguistic development as a result. For example, after a recommendation made by a politburo member regarding usage for more "purely V" selective syllables, frequency of VS "xelửa" (train) or "máybay" (airplane), or each individual word in within those two compounds for the same reason, has overtaken that of the forms of SV "hoảxa" or "phicơ" in modern V. Historically, however, such means of transportation were only introduced to VN by the French colonialists one after another in the early 20th century, so they are not to be credited to a localized or translated word for such reason while both compound words are apparently derived from C 火車 huǒchē and 飛機 fēijī, respectively, and, interestingly enough, they are in turn having Japanese origin. Etymologically it is easy to recognize their cognateness in those obvious cases, though. In other cases, words of the same nature are not that obvious since they could be of euphemism or taboo such as avoidance of word sounding more like names of kings, for example, "lợi" (利 'gain', name of King Lê Lợi) substituted by "lời".
Why should we care if V is C influential or not? Well, firstly, that is what V and the core of this paper are all about. Talking about which de facto C core has influenced the most on anything V is just like describing what the Romans, the Celts, the Anglos, or the Saxons had done to Britain in ancient times (Palmer, 1972. p. 356) (英). We could affirmatively state that C cultural and historical embeds are strikingly as impressive in all intimate facets in the life of the V as in their speech, exquisitely down to earth in every minute detail of unmistakenly peculiar linguistic expressions. They are even hitting home in a very discreetly intimate spot of cupids' life in fundamental lexicons, that is, most of V words for not only straightforward sexual organs but also their depictive action, functions, and organism, etymologically, as well, all cognate to those equivalents in C equivalents.
Let's quickly nail each C factor in several areas with some analytical critics. Firstly, there are seven major C dialectal groups and each is mostly unintelligible to any of the other dialects for most of the times, neither is it to another sub-dialect within its own dialect, e.g., Amoy vs. Hainanese or Tchiewchow in the same Minnan linguistic sub-family. They are related to each other only in a historical sense, though. On the surface, speakers of each sub-dialect from the same major dialect are often having a hard time to articulate properly the national standard Putonghua, aka Mandarin (M), with the same reason phonetically. For example, older "Cantonese" generation would still probably be having difficulties to imitate those M phonemes correctly because marginally phonetic crossover interferes with positional pronunciation between the two major dialects of northern M and southern Cant., especially those with pinyin intials such as z-, zh-, ch-, c-, q-, j-, etc.
Historically Cantonese-speakers are descendants of the later "Han" from the totally Tang-dominated subjects having moved in en masse into today's Guandong Province of China located in eastern part of the NanYue (NamViet) Kingdom and mixed with ancient natives (given the weight of X2Y3Z4H (交)) prior to the 10th century. Their amassed Middle-Chinese (MC) sub-dialects had already been formed out of a Tang Dynasty speech known collectively as today's Cant. with today's Guangzhou dialect being picked as representative since the early days.
There is no coincidence that the SV lexical stock is just another side of the same MC dice, with the five other facets could be seen as of Cant. sub-dialects, 台山 Táishan, 白話 Báihuà, etc.. The SV formation could have started long before VN had successfully established herself as an independent country and proved to be much stronger after her complete beakaway from the Middle Kingdom's protectorate umbrella not long after the Tang Dynasty died a violent death in 907 AD. That said, SV had been formed from MC with common linguistic features that also had concurrently made Cant. a sub-dialect of the same Tang's language.
Besides, similar historical events had occurred to the V language a much earlier period parallel to the development of major speeches of Fujian such as Fuzhou, Amoy, etc., as well. What made VS vocabulary stock on par of the same class of those Minnan (Fujian) sub-dialects was that all had previously formed some time before the Han Dynasty. However, after the NamViet Kingdom had been annexed into the Han Empire, even though the ancient V had also submerged in the sinicized process afterward the very same way like the Fukienese or Cant. dialects, VN's breakaway from China since 939 had made ancient Annamese a turn 1100 years later when the nation continued to expand further to the south, only then the Chamic and MK elements began to increasingly penetrate into the earlier V language.
Anthropological connections among all of the above were dated at least way back more than 2300 years. In a very similar fashion as that of Cant. development which had happened to the V language, phonemic variants in C phonology in its diachronic loanwords can also be 'mispelled' and mispronounced within the realm of V neighboring allophones. So there is no surprise that those C morphs show up and become different phonemes in V phonology in return. Such fact is manifested by modern modification and overcorrection made by those of today's V learners of Putonghua.
It is no wonder that nowadays readers need a lot of help in comprehending 18th and older V literature since V started to change a lot, having gradually distanced itself with classic C and rebuilt with French linguistic structure where its grammatical mechanisms had provided modern V with new syntactic and semantic forms.
Syntactically, in a long and complex sentence one could possibly manage to make a complete V sentence with minimal words of SV or original C roots, via interpretation or translation from SV into VS of each word-concept, e.g., 'máybaylênthẳng' or 'máybaychuồnchuồn' (helicopter) instead of 'phicơtrựcthăng' 直升飛機 zhíshēngfēijī, and the longer it is the less frequent a C element would appear. Note that for the later grammatical feature, long, complex but coherent speech segment has now solidly taken roots in the V language thanks to contemporary development recently under new grammatical structural imitations, firstly, from French and then English, i.e., 1868 until present, and they have become de facto writing mechanics for building V sentences.
In term of linguistic vintages of the formation of SV from MC, in a similar fashion like what Latin and Greek had impacted onto many other languages in the same Indo-European (IE) linguistic family such as English or French, yet greatly in contrast with Latin's being scholarly but dead, the essence of phonology the Tang's speech, its designated MC is mostly still alive and in active use in a manner that is so much more vigorously than expected. With some minor exceptions, modern sound of each SV word has actually been well-preserved, funelled, and molded by strict sound change rules within an academic framework, i.e., SV pronunciation of C characters must follow Fanqie 反切 (spelling) rules. It is noted that, interestingly, like its Cant. counterpart, literary SV vocabularies in V were not just limited to scholars and their literary work, they have been popular and transmittable to the colloquial speech as well, positively indispensable in daily conversation of the common mass. Such a penomenon could have an end result of emersion in some form of immpeccable oral communication in some Tang's speech that became contagious to the general public in Giaochi prefecture.
As we all are entering the revolutionary era of the multi-media internet, both spoken and literary SV forms are being spead quicker even in a much more uniform and consistent fashion than they were used to -- in comparison to what utilities of the feather brushes had brought to the V in the past where such writing tools in ancient times were made available to only to certain social circles that actually could afford them.
In fact, the SV usage exists in both speech and writing naturally in V to a degree that nobody could speak the language properly without utilizing the learned SV vocabulary set. For cases that are fluctuating in articulation, for instance, phonological nuclei tucked underneath almost every correspondent SV kernel would implicate its usage in the V spoken language by certain sound change rules, e.g., 'tràng' vs. 'trường' for 長 cháng, 'đàng' for 'đường' 唐 táng, 'đảm' for 'đởm' 擔 dàn, etc.
Moreover, virtually, if not all, all of V grammatical markers including particles and adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions, relative clauses, along with its classifiers, called 虛詞 xūcí (SV hưtự), are all virtually proven being derived from C, the actual links that connect words together coherently. (That is the case that the author mentioned previously regarding the matter that cognates might be cross languages but 'peculiarities' between the limited two languages of V and C could determine if they are derived from the same roots.)
Specifically, in this 'peculiar' case of 'xuci' should one avoid using one or more of that grammatical word in a sentence or even a clause or phrase, basically a V speech structure would then become a composite C classical-styled phrase then, such that their common expression later usually appears in idiomatic phrases (文), so to speak, to the effects of 文言文 Wényánwén (literary classical style) where a complete sentence is 'composed' and C 'word' changes 'cases' in a grammatical order of composite structure, i.e., combining isolate words.
The only exceptions for not to use a xuci is those of the shortest V sentences which are mainly composed of one or two words, yet, one could probably only build them with words mostly of C origin, for example,
- 'Chúa ơi!' 我主! Wǒ Zhǔ! (My God!),
- 'Trờiơi' 天啊 Tiānna! (My Lord!)
- 'Đụmá!' 他媽 Tāmā! (F_k you!),
- 'Vâng.' 行 Xíng. (Agree.),
- 'Xong.' 成 Chéng ('Deal.'),
- 'Rồi.' 了 Liăo (Done.),
- 'Được!' 得 Dé (Okay.),
- 'Đi!' 走 Zǒu! (Let's go!), etc.
To go more in detail of what is described as a feature of "peculiarities", some other linguistic aspects are also found common in both C and V in a way such that their similarities are characteristically of the same origin, for example, 'mắt' 目 M mù ('eye'), Hai. /mat7/, which marks it not of Malay origin then, so are other SV versions of the MC literary forms that coexist with VS derivatives of another C dialect persistently of all times, e.g.
- 'Được' 得 dé (okay), Hai. /dewk8/,
- 'Đi' 走 M Zǒu (go), Hai. /duj3/,
- 'Biết', Hai. /bat7/ (know),
- 'Xơi' 食 shí (eat), Hai. /ca1/,
- 'Đũa' 箸 zhú, H. /duo3/, etc.,
that is, they are not coincident at all.
Note thatin the examples above they are VS words that are still considered as different from those correspondences in the SV vocabulary set but each complementing the others though. They are identified to belong to the older lexical layer of AC (OC) of an earlier period or, coloquially, of dialectal variants which vary a great deal as one moves away from a regional speech, that was standardized with its metropolitan version representative of an isogloss, usually the "lightest" accented version of it.
Both classes, i.e., VS vs. SV, are actually products of the same historical linguistic development reflecting characteristics of either a certain particular era as dynasty changes or of regions where they were spoken, similar to the process that occurred to Minnan sub-dialects as their having being derived from the OC of Han Dynasty while Yue (Cant.) sub-dialects heavily influenced by popular speech of the Tang Dynasty continuously brought in by late immigrants from other northern regions. However, unlike those two Yue dialects that had almost totally been replaced or 'sinicized' as of now, ancient V emerged as an independent language that consists each set of VS and SV vocabularies as sole major C strains, but not sinicized, for instance, most of V words are built with the syntax [noun + adjective], or the modified followed by a modifier: 'trờixanh' vs. '蒼天 cāngtiān (SV thươngthiên)' for the concept of 'blue' + 'sky (heaven)'.
Characteristically, it is for the same reason that C elements had permanently and prominently imprinted in every aspect of V so profoundly that each etymon, with their being cognate to each other so apparently, it is oftentimes postulated as a whole as a C loanword. In fact, when a V word closely carries all the shapes and sounds of an original form in a related C dialectal source so close morphemically, it is commonly for people to mistake it as a V word of C origin rather than both V and C form to have evolved from the same root, including those that belong to the basic group, for example, Hainanese /mat7/ 目 M mù ('eye') SV 'mục' vs. VS 'mắt', Cant. /t'aj5/ 睇 M dì vs. VS 'thấy' ('see'), etc. However, it is not always the case by solely basing on their subtle phonetic and phonological closeness for us to postulate a V word a loan. The most obvious cases are those words so native to southern region, e.g., gạo 稻 dào (rice), dừa 椰 yě (coconut), đường 糖 táng (sugar), sông 江 jiāng (river), etc. Of course they are absolutely could not be C loanwords at all and the other way around is true.
In a way the development of VN's national language parallels with the history of those earlier Viets who fled the crushing advances from their powerful enemies from the north, carrying a nation and her soul in exile with them, that is, to be exact, giving up pieces of land up north and expanding to the south by taking other people's land. After her independence starting from the 10th century onward they had become horrific aggressors themselves, ironically, having wiped off the Champa Kingdom from the map completely and annexed all of its occupied territories. Like many other ethnic groups like the Muong and the MK at a much later period, the Champic people had become a minority in VN since then.
As they marched to the south, the Viets also had carried with them their 'mother tongue'. They were the ancient Yue who had been increasingly becoming as genetically formulated as (4Y6Z8H+CMK), added with touches of some 'local flavors'. The linguistically 'local' concept is what was described by Bloomfileld (1933, p. 51) as dialectal area where a dialectal difference is small and the differences accumulate only when one travels in one direction. We could draw lines between places called isoglosses. Bloomfield called such a larger area as dialectal geography that furnishes a key to tackle some unknown issues -- for example, why MK numerals from 1 to 5 are so similar to those of V -- as they have been gradually being solved in many cases of Indo-European languages so far.
How is it to compare V sub-dialects to those Sinitic dialects accross VN's northern border in terms of 'local flavor'? (Think of Egglish vs. German in order to grasp the ideas that come next.) Amusingly enough, on the scale of from the "lightest" to "heaviest" glides that tonal phonemes register an accented pike, the V northern pitches sound to V southerners' ears are somewhat amounted to what a Cant. or Fukienese listener hears natives of Beijing speaking Mandarin, a northern dialect version of 'Beijinghua', which is the 'lightest' version, phomemically and phonologically, of a syllabically and tonally simplified 'language' as compared to those Mandarin original southwestern sub-dialects spoken by C in Liuzhou (Guangxi) or Yueyang (Hunan) in the China South. To some degree it is relatively not only that the southern accents are 'heavy' within the same dialect, but the northern Mandarin ones are also quite distinctive from its mirrored southwesthern variations spoken in the provinces of Sichuan, Jiangxi, Hunan, Yunnan, or Guangxi.
In the case of VN's sub-dialects, nonetheless, unlike those of of China's major dialects consisting of hundreds of sub-dialects with each individually unintelligible to each inside the same dialect, any regional V speech as a whole is intelligible throughout the country, which is the direct result of people movement migrating from north to south thoughout the length of roughly 2200 kilometters long one year at a time, though, during the span of 2200 years and still going on (note the timeline is dramatized here for mnemonic reason). Analytically, with its gradual linguistic variation from one locality to the next one, and, reversely, to the previous one, each transitional 'sub-dialect' could be easily understood by all, with registered pitches either softened and laxed ("lightness") or a bit or heavier concaved accents ("heaviness"). The whole scenario of V dialects is quite different from the unintelligibility within sub-dialects of Cant. or Amoy, that is, Guangzhouhua to Toishanese, or, Fukienese to Hainanese, etc., but more like regional variants within a sub-diaclect, e.g., Haikou vs. Wenchang in Hainanese or Toishan vs. Guangzhou in Cant., etc.
How does racial factor play its role in the V linguistic matter here and what residual vintage of it could a historical linguist expect from a 'previously breakaway renegade prefecture' as always so regarded by C rulers at all times? Recognition of such historical twists already discussed is crucial to understand the affiliation of both V and C entities with all probabilities that there exists continuation that interconnects the present V and C for both having originated from different types of people in the earliest period whence those proto-C horsemen conquered and would later become intermingled with the Yue tribal aborigines, aka Nanman 南蠻, some 3000 years B.C. (cf. the relation of the VN's Kinh majority with other minorities such as Muong, Tay ethnic groups in VN for the last 1500 years). All habitants of the land would later become subjects of other powerful emerging states in the Eastern Zhou period scattering all over pre-Han's territories which could have been called Chu Empire of the Yue instead of Han Empire, the latter also of the Yue, of course. Therefore, again, 'Chinese' is a civlization, not a race and everything now appears to be that the differences are in the names. The only entities left unknown habeen those tribal people who were neither of the ST (ancestors of prto-C) nor of the Yue.
For the better or worse the V have inherited the C culture after 1000 years under China's rule and they are eagerly to continue pass down, one generation after another, with no question asked, the feudalistic values such as observance of the hierarchical line that calls for absolute obedience of their rulers and then their teachers, aka, scholars (君師父). That is where our debating messiness has originated from. Interestingly enough, by any standards, however demeaning such common C legacy is, our nationalists doubtless still accept and value their traditional legacy, or Confucianism, to be exact. In effect, for a practical reason they would never question its spiritual values in respective family genealogy. Such a mindset could be explained by way of anthropology that their brains have been genetically programmed as such. Evidences of that manifest in their preference of more male descendants so that their heirs do not fail to carry down a family surname. It is one of major C culture characteristics. That said, in a lager view of collective unconsciousness of the V people as a whole their family lineage then could be traced back to native ancestors not only in regions of northernmost VN and China South but also in those places of the old northeast -- as opposted to that of the northwestern Shaanxi 陜西 -- China, where today's province of Shandong 山東 is located, land of ancient Lu State (魯國), the birthplace of Confucius, where, to their belief, the BaiYue 百越 were once inhabiting there.
Altogether they all -- racial factions that made up China also made up early VN after the colapse of the Tang's Dynasty in 907 AD -- in turn had been racial components that prominently made up the later Viets, including those non-Han factors of earlier historical periods such as the NanYue, the Chu, the Qin, etc., had reflected not only in different family surnames of most V nationals but also, except for a few cases of name changes due to identity hideouts or being regarded as a taboo, setting in the tones for V personal proper names. Semantically "textures" of those given names sound 'light', very similar to those bearing C names in the Tang's era, such as 'Lý Thế-Dân' 李世民 or Dương Ngọc-Hoàn 楊玉環 -- as apposed to 'rough Chinese names' which sound foreign to the V ears, such as 'Hồ Cẩm-Đào' 胡錦濤 or 'Tập Cận-Bình' 習近平.
Transformation of cultural tradition like that of adopting C names and the like had deeper roots in the development history of the old Annam Descendants of those northern resettlers from mainland of China to the eastern region of today's North VN continued on with their own children who carried C last names. Those are actually only of a subset of an even larger ancestral pool from the melting pot Yue-Han, i.e., Chu-Han 楚漢, in China South, part of which was included in the tally of population statistics under the Great Tang Empire totaled nearly 42 million people in 726 AD (Bo Yang. 1983-1993. Ibid. Vol. 51. 1991. p. 86). WIth regards to the latter matter, in 763 AD, unimaginably, however, the overall population had greatly decreased to 17 million after only a little more than 12 year war fighting against An Lu Shan (安祿山) Rebellion (Bo Yang. 1983-1993. Ibid. Vol. 53. 1991. p.214). That is not impossible as one carefully read Chinese history, thousands of people died easily after each major battle in any Chinese civil wars.
For the same matter, there had been no reports of changes in the Tang's population in its Annam protectorate's portion. Not that the number of the Annamese population in the ancient times that started growing from the Han's Jiaozhou 交州 (Annam) prefecture was recorded at a total 900,000 heads in the beginning of the first century. After 1000 years later additional Annamese residents might have been descents from those children who were fathered by thousands of C infantry who stationed there and immigrants who chose to resettle there permanently having married local wives during 1000 year-long colonial period. The whole picture is easily seen by comparing the growth of the population with approximately more than 50,000 'Eurasian Vietnamese' who were fathered by those American soldiers who had been sent across around half of the globe on their two-year mission to the country in South VN to fight the VN War within the short 10 year period of 1965-1975 out of its population of about 22 million by that time, a ratio of roughly 1/55.
Analogously, the same process is being currently taking place in Singapore and Taiwan -- in terms of racial ratio -- of which their standing is where VN stood more than 1000 years ago. The difference in the time frame as of our modern era with advancement in communication such as that of the internet means that there will be not much noticeable changes in the modern Mandarin language they are speaking now down the road. In other words, what happened to VN must have been more complicated than that, starting 2200 years ago.
Beside those historical illustrations cited throughout in this research to be coupled with other apparent C linguistic properties existing in V, anthropologists will still have to deal with much more complex changes and variations in all other cultural aspects with other sinitic elements aforementioned. For example, they need to investigate many other subtle dialectal peculiarities in order to posit words of kinship, including those used in calling close blood relatives, terms of endearment, and intimacy, etc., and postulate the C kinship and affiliation in the genealogical line that make up the racial balance of the V populace, e.g., 'tía' 爹 diè (daddy) vs. 'ba' 爸 ba (papa) vs. 'bố' 父 fù (father), etc. All of which in no way is any cited AA languages compatible with V as we will see later.
The matter appears to be as simple and straightforward but turns complicated because it is an uneasy topic for those locally-grown V scholars to handle impartially in a professional manner. Believe it or not, many of them had a hard time to digest the idea that 'Chinese' is a civilization and not a 'race', that is, there had been no 'Chinese', at least conceptually, prior to the emergence of a unified Qin Dynasty (秦朝), the first unified empire of all C entities (221 BC to 207 BC). Historically, the V refers to them as 'Tàu' for the SV term 'Tần' which there might have been existed mumerous similar pronunciations the archaic 秦 Qin, a degrading concept having been shared by those old states in the Eastern Zhou period that were later totally eradicated by it.
To sum up, today's V 'composite' popuplace consists mainly of the majority of the Kinh ethnicity, just like that of the Han in relations to other minorities in China. Those other ethnic groups include direct descendants of those Yue forefathers emigrating southward away from China South region along with those aboriginals who partly make up 52 other ethnic groups scattering in most VN's remote mountainous regions, including those in northwestern border areas currently shared by both China and VN. Specifically, the Kinh majority is not racially pure in terms of indigenity like theirs but they are actually of a mixture of all of the above plus the influx of immigrants of all walks of life from the north (4Y6Z8H+CMK), of whom many early aforesaid immigrants had already been of mixed race bearing their own C family surnames, who had been in turn of another blend of 'Hundred Yue' (百越民族) that had been also a part of both the "Chu" and "Han" before the Han conquered NamViet Kingdom in 111 BC. Since then, the early V had been on becoming with mixture of the locals and the continuous on coming pd immigrants and C infantry from the north hundreds of years later until now.
There are many ways to elaborate on mistakes in identifying true biological line of people and their languages, specfially among V and C, which might less likely occur in Japan or Korea. On affiliated C connection, in Indonesia or Malaysia, people of the C ethnic minority are distictive, no matter how many generations have passed by, like in the latter case, the C have risen to approximate 30 percent of the populatioon. In comparison to that of Taiwan as recently as mere 350 years ago in absorbing massive numbers of laborers from mainland China for Dutch plantations in 17th century and foot soldiers and refugees in 1949 after the Kuomingtang was defeated by the communists, the indigenous people have been quiclly absorbed in to the larger C ethnicity. However, the Taiwan's experience with all the events that had occurred in the island nation was in much lesser magnitude as compared to what VN has gone through to accomodate thousands of thousands of them since the time she was still a prefecture of China 1000 prior to and another 1000 years after the 10th century. All those earlier C immigrants actually had become an inseparate and undistinguished part of the V popuplace, including massive the Ming subjects, around 50,000 C refugees lfeeing from the mainland of China after the Manchurian took power over there in the 16th century. Only those recent C immigrants freshly off the boats in less than a century ago, literally, are identified in the contemporary national statistics as "Hoa" (華) ethnicity. In our modern time, on a practical note, descents of the third or fourth generation of the Hoa (華) ethnicity in VN mostly check 'Vietnamese' box in the census survey when asked of their nationality of origin. The author did the same thing for his household member in the last 3 US census survey. His son did check "Vietnamese" on all application to US colleges even though his mother is also of Chinese descent. For instance, beyond the practical purpose of filing the census survey forms, V family surnames identical to most naming covention and connotation, semantically in similar MC phonology and tonality, especially in Tang Dynasty aforementioned in addition to those of the Han commonly with 2 syllables, composed mainly of surname and given name. Physically and visually, a V national could be mistaken for a southern C person and vice versa, which is observable not only in China but in other countries as well.
Racial issues, in fact, underline much more complications than those of linguistic subtleties alone. Perceptionally on the surface anyone can miserably fail to recognize most of the V standing in the crowd among those C youngsters at schools in US cities. For the most parts the are presumed to be of C origin before positively identified otherwise. Personally the author often incorrectly does so on a crowded public gatherings in San Francisco's Chinatown or buses as well as in markets or restaurants in any cities in China. V lone travelers in that country, unlike 'American caucasians' in Europe among other white Europeans, amidst those C locals are unavoidably mistakenly thought as of 'their own kind' who might be assumed from other parts of China. Any V visitor to China might already have such a personal experience. Again, the author, having with a dark complexion and speaking non-native accented Mandarin, can also positively affirm such a fun guesswork game on many occasions on field studies in China. In other words, by a mere look, V and C youngsters who were born and raised the western countries are hard to be distinguished from each other. Readers can personally observe such phenomenon by visiting YouTube.com and watch quality video clips of V music concerts produced by Asia Entertainment Channel (Asia 74, 73, 72...), Vanson in Vietnam, or Paris by Night 110, 109, 108, etc., and among those artists who performed some are of C ethnicity, even though you know the languages, you will hardly be able to make out who are Chinese singers!
Anthropologically, two phenomena could be easily observed on the behaviors by overseas C from VN living abroad, especially in western countries. In big cities in the US, overseas C from VN, firstly -- like the way Koreans hate the Japanese imperialists who occupied their country the past but as in the back of their mind they are more often than not drawn to gather among Japanese settings, for example, they tend to establish their business presence in Japantown instead of Chinanatown -- their shops have been mostly opened it in either Chinatown or Vietnamtown rather than in Japantown or Koreantown. Secondly, they enjoy to mingle with other fellowmen from VN, including overseas V, rather than with those C expats from Taiwan or mainland China. The point raised here is that of the 4 countries that were built on Confucian values, as opposed to capitalism or socialism, their people are still conciously attracted to those who seem to be compatible to each other in term of racial affiliation, so to speak..
Linguistically, sounds of a toneless foreign speech spoken by either a Japanese or Korean are undoubtedly peculiarly distinct even to the untrained ears of a C or V, with an interesting fact, even that both Japan and Korea historically had systematically imported C vocabularies en masse, having purposely borrowed a complete set of common C characters from the long identified past until recently. When hearing a C speak his or her dialect on the other side of the room in a party, for example, a V firstly needs to listen and concentrate, hard, in order to tell if it is not another V sub-dialect, partly because the pitch levels of tonality of their languages sound so familar. Westerners oftentimes mistake Cant. for V. The author's wife, a 'Hainanese-Han' (海南人), spealing some Cant., commented the same thing when she had first heard V.
It is noted that sometimes races and languages of a people may not be related at all. It is observable that people of different races such as those in the countries of Latin America or India, who adopt a complete set of a language, namely, Spanish or English, for the convenience of their unified national communication, comparable to the what happened to the old China from the beginning. In the former case, for some Latinos or Indians, even those with Spanish origin or Indo-Eropeans, they are not completely up to the language they speak, say, there were reports that the earlier Apple's iPhone voice recognition apps tend to recognize easier English spoken by an English speaker of Indian's descent better than a US-born person.
In the case of VN, however, in terms of ethnicity, for the majority Kinh, issues of unresolved mystically genetic affiliation with the historical C-Han mixture have still long been a matter of argumentation. Could the race issue be finalized if scientific DNA maps come out? That may not be the case, though. If we look into the end results of scientific researches of DNA that have been done on the Taiwanese model, there have been always something else involved, a mixed result with human emotion.
It is assumably that those mutationally mixed genes carried inside the blood of V people are solidly compatible with what makes those racial compositions of the 'Han-Chinese' stock of those who are still living within the peripherals of all China's southern provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, and Guangxi, which was prior to invasions and long occupation by people of Altaic, Mongolian, or Tartarian origin from the further north, which make up the composition of the northern C in China who have long been migrating further southward. Those Han nationals, as officially listed in a China's census survey, are actually all descendants of sinicized natives (herein perceptionally coded herein as X2Y3Z4H), that is, their genes had been mutated with the same ancestral Yue racial mixture, all having evolved from aborigines living in the habitat of the previous the NamViet Kingdom (南越王國). In any cases at present its highly sinicized populace still can not be mistaken with other 'Han' northerners like those natives from Beijing or Shaanxi.
1200 years after Tibet had been annexed to China, Tibet is still uniquely Tibetan for culturally its and that China are quite different and not many Han people moved and resellted there. On the contrary, Taiwan has much less than 350 years starting having any connection with the mainland of China but the influx of immigrants from Fujian Province whose ancestors had been sinicized starting 2200 years ago have long outnumbered the Taiwan's natives of Austronesian origin. Which one is analogous to the case of VN? Any answer must take into consideration the factor that prior to 939 AD VN had been a prefecture of China for more than one thousand years and Han immigrants have been moving and resttled in that country of the Southern Yue.
For illustrations, read the episode that follows. You may notice that the details described below are to elevate your understanding of cases of V émigrés out of their homeland across the vast Pacific Ocean in our modern time, analogous to stories about journeys over the rugged Lingnan mountainous ranges on foot by those Yue aboriginals out of their native China South land fleeing further to south of VN's Tonkin areas more than 2000 years ago. That was how the nation of VN had come into being after the NamViet Kingdom was annexed into the greater Han territory in 111 BC. Similarly the V language affirmatively tells the same story regardless of what one would wish it could be since there existed only one road leading to the becoming of it, there being no other path otherwise .
Let's take you to a place where mistaken identities frequently occur between a person of V or C origin. I am a regular customer of a thriving V cafe in Chinatown in a US city such as Oakland, California, recognize and have interacted with numerous employees there, eating the V food they cook, and talking to them for quite some time now. For those people working there I know for sure that, except for the cooks, prominently being V, a Mexican helper and an American son-in-law, the store's owner and the rest of employees are half and half ethnically in the sense that they are "Chinese" genetically, yet, having immigrated from VN since 1975. Historically it is known that, for many generations already, they are descendants of China's Ming's citizens fleeing the Qing's suppression and taking refuge in VN in the 17th century, many being C Tchiewchow speakers. In real life they have been heard talking in different C dialects with different local C customers. What actually identifies them with V nowadays is that they are in social intercourse with their V fellow countrymen, talk and behave like any natives of VN, such as idolizing V pop singers, for example. Figuratively all of the above represents a complete picture of ethnological components in V racial and cultural make-ups, hence, their dominant languages.For those Vietnamese of Chinese origin who could not speak V properly, they are indiscriminately classed as members of the C minority group living within the VN's perimeters. In a general sense, though, they are a portion of the VN's population prior to 1979 before their mass exodus out of the country as boatpeople. Up until now once in a while in some Vietnamese TV sitcoms, they have been mocked by comedians who imitated, innocently, yet shamefully, a V mimicry spoken by those Chinese-Vietnamese. For those who are of the same camp living back there in the backward VN to learn something about the severity of such behavorial display that if such an incident happens in the US, even prominent public figure who does so could fall into eternal disgrace.
In this story, the existing VS words that we speak are living parts of nature just like the food we eat and the air we breathe in such a natural way that we react without even questioning the 'foreign sinitic' nature of them. Everything comes and goes so naturally and smoothly. Analogously, compared to what we might still remember how we had reacted when we had happened to notice and admired how fluently a young German salesperson in a store somewhere in Germary speaks English, just like a Britain's native. However, don't you realize that we as a civilized society have hardly done so with those V of C descents? It is because we expected them to speak V like a native as parts of the multilingual salespersons in the anecdote of the V cafe above and not admired them for their V native flency. In actuality I observe that the employees switch back and forth with ease from V to other different C dialects, unconsciously and naturally.
In all probabilities, as a customer of that cafe shop you have never questioned the authenticity of the tasty food they cook, presumably V cuisine, some with obviously C-styled items but you eat them like any V dishes anyway. Mostly those C plaes are prepared with the same ingredients and cooking process as are being used in C culinary, with an exception that they are usually being seasoned with sprinkles of fish sauce, though. In all you appreciate their cooking with those tasty dishes you enjoy at the eatery. Isn't it that makes that restaurant stand out in comparison with those made by other C restaurants nearby not doing that good business like our cafe?
You enjoy all those C-seasoned V dishes – or C food with V-accentuated seasonings, e.g., anchovy sauce, lemongrasses, or basils, etc., for that matter – as you do with those of southern-style dishes of Khmer origin, adding up a bit more of sweet and sour taste. All said, metaphorically, the whole picture is comparable to that of how VN has come into being with all the racial and linguistical mixtures from north to south throughout the length of her history. The whole scenario above is depicted with those of a sinitic background who, themselves or their offsprings, have contributed to the racial composition of the V people as well as their language. In other words, VN is just another cultural sub-domain of a larger sinitic domain in which we all already getting used to be called by somebody with the surname and given name undeniably all having C origin and we naturally respond, which has become a part of our nature, cultural and linguistic heritage.
Let's peek into our social circles and we would see that many of our acquaintances in our close V social network happen also to be of C origin, that is how many C immigrants have become V nationals in the process. That is a fact of life for many of us, if not all of us. We do have friends of C origin, absolutely having no discriminative or hard feelings about them, and even some among them they are us ourselves. Many of us have come out of such family background and become a national of VN as a result. (See APPENDIX L)
On forming of the national identity, as a society as a whole we have no control over what has become of history of one's country, just like our own nativity, yet prejudice could muddy our personal perception of our surroundings. We, in our contemporary era, including also those who have gone exile, all were born, have grown up, lived, socialized, associated with C substantiality in V cultural values that had taken deep roots in the V society after more than two millenia. Imagine we were back in time more than 1000 to 2200 years ago when portions of ancestral Viets were starting to move out of the China South to its southern geographical planks long after and independent of previously earlier migratory movements toward the Southeast Asian rims which made up large portions of the later grouped AA. In a foreign land the early Viets kept moving southward accross 16th parallel into the newly acquired territories from the Kingdom of Champa in the 12th century and resettled there thereafter.
Along the way we have often come accross many of our own kind – including those in exile, like in the case of the V cafe as dramatized above – with whom we usually communicate in V and have never discerned slight sinitic elements in everything interactive around us that we have been so accustomed to, notably the V language as a common bond for socialization. There is no reason for us to shed doubts about those we know and the authenticity of the mother tongue that they speak and our vocables we utter without the realization that those VS words have blended well like mixture of air and water, naturally.
The anecdote above and the inclusion of Taiwan into the whole picture for illustration as we are discusssing here – by any measure, it even has experienced less with China than what VN had gone through, not to mention all other prehistoric contacts from the ancient times throughout those periods recorded in history as applicable to both locales – are intentionally prepared and tailored discreetly for both of those historically-conscious V diaspora and fellow citizens back home who, normally viewed as hard-cored nationalists, have been grown weary and would stubbornly refuse to buy any sinitic proposals.
For V nationalists patiotism is not an abstract idea. To see how intense is the magnitude of nationalism inside V citizens, one can visualize with concrete flames of pariotic acts with those of Tibetans in the contemporary setting.s The V have many a time gone through long struggles one after another against imperial China similar to the ones that are currently carried on by Tibetans who completely lost their independent state into the hands of the Qing's emperors. Their own acts of patriotism could be seen through the month of May, 2014 that witnessed all demonstrations and riots against China for what they see as an act of aggression when it moved the oil-rig into the Spratly islands. At all price those nationalists cannot compromise their spirit as nationalism for what they see as compromise of national sovereignty with acceptance of other C cultural elements, which should be treated as neutral, though. In fact they are core elements of the V social norms that most V from birth have been conditioned with, namely, rigidly intrinsic Confucian values. The hot-blooded V patriots are determined to be united on every front to fight against any encroachment initiated by China from the north, e.g., its recent delimitation of international borders in land and at seas with China's claims virtually of the entire South China Sea.
For the V people as a whole, thanks to their mistrust of China's past and present, they feel strongly sentimental on nationalistic issues. In other words, they are sensitive and quick to respond unfavorably to any national argumentation that said of C origin, either linguistically or anthropologically, which partly helps explain why the V academics do not go with the sinitic scheme as already discussed in the chapter on politics with China. On such divide issues those scholars inside the country are of the type that is not easy to submit themselves to any authority that appears to be an expert on any sinitic topic which would disaccord with their firm nationalist conviction. In this case they have become ignorant of history, which is to blame for their being afraid of their own nationalist belief to be uprooted by those possessing much more knowledge than theirs, viewed as real threats. Believe it or not, that is the stupid nature of the V intelligentsia on the ugly side. Generally speaking, they would never admit so and tend to refrain from acknowledging any author who has made some breakthoughs and is still alive, for example, contemporary history on the Vietnam War written by western historians as opposed to those by native V proves this viewpoint.
For academic purposes, no matter what, nationalistic or not, this paper is going to deal specifically with those undeniable sinitic elements existing in the V speech and make them available for all the academic world to see. The author will approach the true sinitic subject matter and pin down on some plausible aspects of it, linguistically, with no prejudice attitude against any C entities, attempting to treat those related matters in their whole totality anthropologically with plain and simple truth out of human second nature, intuitively, so to speak, towards the world around us regardless of how discriminatory a well learned V might become disoriented due to obvious layers of C substrates on top of what is left of the locals.
The code of conduct for the foregoing statement is based on core substance of a V proverb that loosely means 'let's better offend first then please each other later' ("Mấtlòng trước đượclòng sau") and that of C for 'we would have not recognized each other if we did not fight' ("不打不相識"). On the one hand I shall make enemies anyway among those who would read my paper and not accepted my theorization simply because they do not want to believe in history. It is no point for me to waste time beating around the bushes with those nationalists. In the past, as some among us might notice, I have virtually responded to nobody, namely, those critics against myself personally which have appeared on the internet in recent years.
As much as how they feel, the author also resents China's indoctrination of its people and its policy of expansionism handed down by its imperial rulers who have been bullying the little VN all along her one thousand years of colonial period until these days. Yet linguistics is linguistics. For the past 25 years I have made numerous fieldtrips to China to do dialectal surveys, but I have stopped doing for the time being on seeing China's hegemony has been increasingly griping firmly VN and she appears to succumb at any time to the under her current rulers as its timid puppets. They, like those V submissive little kings of the decadent feudalist state, have to rely on those C rulers to exist -- they share the socialist system that in the world they are considered the enangered species along with that of North Korea and Cuba. That is the reason why. They will lose their seats if they take side with the democratic side, in this case the western countries such as the US and Great Britain.
As the organs of the regime the V academics have always been behaving exactly the same way working to that effect. Unlike us scholars in free western sphere, it is difficult for them to appreciate what it means to be free of politics in scholarship no matter what. Politics would eventually nullify the authenticity of any academic work
For certain well-founded reasons, firstly, I am also purposely writing this paper in English to seek understanding from learned readers on the V language, a bold venture in an uncleared land-mined field the author has been anxiously tiptoeing wishing for the best. I will fight and work to defend my belief. I already know the fate of all my efforts taking the ST path, for which the V linguistic circle would deplore revelation about the hereditary affiliation between the V and C languages but that prospect would not deter the author's determination to forge forward with an altruist heart. If any recognition is to be conferred upon the author's work at all, that would likely happen only long after his death.
Additionally, my other purpose of having written this paper in English is for the sake of keeping certain people at bay, that is, not to let them to be fully engaged until somebody is crazy enough to translate this paper into V. At least for the time being I still do not want to hear dirty words from some fellow countrymen of lower, to be exact, uneducated classes. Their behavior is a product of socialism in modern VN which I believe that will mot change any time soon in my lifetime.
Surprisingly, however, the irony is that my true understanding allies, unexpectedly, happen to be those western specialists in the AA camp who are having an open mind and enough patience to hear what I have to say on subject matter of ST linguistic affiliation of the V language. Until now, nevertheless, those listeners are still not convinced enough with my sinitic hypothesis probably for a couple of reasons that I could think of, namely, (1) my reconstruction of ancient phonology may appear to be faulty, such as corespondences of multiple sound values assigned to have evolved a root without any further backup, for instance, (2) western linguists are still being so rigid in adjusting their western methodology to make their sound change rules work for tonal languages, or simply, (3) I just do not know how to package and sell my ideas.
To be on the safe side for the statement above, though, this discussion, to a lesser extent, actually is neither intended to draw a direct line of genetic linguistic affinity between V and C dialects, nor any of those of Tibetan languages for that matter, but only to show possibilities of their "linked kinship", or, metaphorically, "long lost relatives" either one of ST languages, as we either draw a straight line or family-tree branches connecting a ST language to V for their Sinitic roots of many linguistic commonalities. For example, with their intimate share in terms of endearment, the implications are not only for semantic conveyance, but also in all other linguistic traits such as tonality and conceptual connotation. Say, for the concepts of 'mater, maternal, mother, blood mother, step-mother', or 'mom', the V language has 'mẹ, mợ, má, u, nạ, mẹruột, mẹghẻ', etc. which are in paralellel with '母 mǔ, 媽 mà, 姆 mǔ, 娘兒 niár, 母親 mǔqīn, 親母 qīnmǔ, 繼母 jīmǔ', etc.
Overall, lexically, at first count, more than 420 fundamental items from a variety of ST etymologies as listed by Shafer have been selected. They are coins for our thoughts (See Sino-Tibetan etyma). What makes them so close and how come nobody seems to notice them in the first place? Even though the cognateness among the V and any of the listed ST etymologies is so obvious to any journeyman in this VS field of historical linguistics; nevertheless, it is needless to say the task of proving the genetic relationship between the two languages is still tantamount, that is awaiting another figure as big as Shafer to work on such colossal work.
This paper in a sense is original and the new finds of VS etyma would elevate you to the new cognition of their study. To save your sanity while reading this paper, try not to let personal sentiment cloud your judgment. For those readers who are so sensitive to anything C, this paper may not suit their taste for what they are about to read is mostly about VS etyma of C origin beside those ST etymologies. Their show of latent antagonism against any sino-centric interpretation is likely to be exhumed as long as each and every generation still faces real threats of invasion from the north. So it has never been a good idea to renew argumentation, even in scholarly terms, on any controversial issue such as re-classification of the V language into the ST linguistic family.
The simmering sentiment could further boil up steam of "nationalism", or to be exact, "anti-Siniticism", historically, which had been hysterical and phenomenal. Such emotional suppression could erupt into ugly destructive force capable of spoiling a new generation of school of thoughts on sinitic theorization. For example, newcomers would rather choose to twist their career path out of such rugged road, consciously or not, rather than taking risks of being alienated from an unpopular field of studies.
In additon to such unavoidable unpleasantness, it is expected that the same reactions from the old MK conservatives of the western linguistic world all will inevitably launch even more assaults, which could lead to blunt rejection of acceptance of the novelty of the author's elaborative efforts in addressing those existing C and V etymological issues.
The author certainly does not want to see all that promising approach turns sour due to negative aspects of the matter whether it is nationalistic or not. What he is really seeking is measurable recognition in the linguistic world on the undeniable association with the ST etymologies as to be enumerated in the next chapter. The focal point is sinitic attributes reinforced with preliminary ST evidences discussed in this paper, either directly or indirectly, e.g., 秦 Qín for 'Tầu', 水 shuǐ for both 'nước' (water) and 'sông' (river), etc., in addition to those conservatively preserved scarce resources currently available at our disposal so far from traditional approaches made by those sinitic oldtimers, e.g. 漢 for 'hắn' (that guy), 江 jiāng for 'sông' (river), etc.
On the other front, until now as it has been presented to us, the whole picture of the core matter from the start in the V historical linguistics, literally, is only repetitions that echo one version of another AA theory passed down from one linguist following another, just like a chained re-post of a re-post of the same old material on the internet and in the end searching hits on such informational recurrences will make serious readers to re-adjust their thinking, becoming other victims of brainwash from the AA camp. To counter such negative effect, we, of the ST camp, will stage the same strategy. Metaphorically, our complementary task here is like that of the restoration work to retouch those faded spots on an old painting again and again until viewers see what the painting was meant to be.
Presence of our stand on the internet is important. As long as we persistently hold on to our own spots in the cyberspce, literally, every time old and new readers go searching the VS related subject on the WWW they will have choices other than those old views of the AA camp. We are not playing games here but building hyperlinked indices one at a time to link readers electronically to our specific sinitic theorization. Additionally this paper also launching pieces of VS etyma here and there in the cyberspace for the same purpose.
Academically, steering this research towards that ST predetermined direction undoubtedly would burn the midnight oil. It would not necessarily give a satisfactory answer, though, in a well-defined manner significant enough to build a strong case to uproot the belief in the western AA hypothesis. It, in fact, has the advantage of possessing analytic tools over our cognitive approach on ST that is rather weak, comparatively.
By the norm, based on possible rate of change when plausibility for a new theorization is to successfully become materialized from an opposite viewpoint, it usually takes longer than another cycle of 60 years or so to shift an old consensus set by veterans in the field to another direction. By then they and I will have been all dead like those in the ST camp as well as all of the AA pioneers.
The cycle of 60 years has marked its time for some time now so the new ST circle should take off. We have just got new finds that boost up energy while the other AA resources still remain repetitive and duplicative sources one following after another. Therefore, possibility of a resurrection of the ST theory once again could then be revived and nourished by newcomers in historical linguistics whose untainted brains might be impartial and less bland. The next ST theorists would warm routine receptions from those oldtimers.
While this revised sinitic theorization has caught some attention and received some feedbacks since several dafts of the first versions of this paper appeared on the internet a decade ago, the author would be glad that, in his lifetime, both the AA and ST camps will finally acknowlege his findings as meaningful. For such humble wish, they are open up to accept further refinement. We together would demystify those puzzling affiliation and entanglement with regard to theory of the "linked kinship" between V and C etyma on the premise that both of them, like their racial components, had evolved from the Yue base.
B) Prelude on the Sinitic etyma
The meaning of prelude is, well, prelude, not of something substance, yet enough for readers to grasp a sense of what to expect next.
The objective of this section is to acquaint you with major sinitic elements in the V language as well as to answer some questions of why and how V and C coloquial expressions in some dialects are interchangeable in the absence of proactive intervention from knowledgeable hands, e.g., 'bànchân' 腳板 jiăobăn (foot) or 'ănmày' 要飯 yàofàn (beggar), 'đitiền' 隨錢 suìqián (give the money gift), including those scholarly SV items in coloquial V, reversely, e.g., 'sưtửHàđông' 河東獅子 Hédōngshīzǐ (a mean wife like a Hadong's lion) or 'máuđàonướclã' 血農於水 xuěnóngyúshuǐ (kinship is thick like blood vs. water). Also, the author will examine those underscored linguistic traits where the contemporary V speech carries most of the peculiarities that are common in different C dialects.
Description below will further discuss main influential factors that have shaped the course of the development of VN in terms of her people and their speech as sketched in perivious sections. It is a part of stategies that use propaganda as a tool to re-instate what has been proposed to counter the damages having done by the AA camp for all these years. It is not an easy task, though.
VN is a case of breakaway for sovereignty from a colony of a feudal sinicized society since the ancient times when old Annam was still a prefecture under the rule of China throughout many dynasties since 111 BC until 939 AD. History of C immigration to VN is that of full integration of C resettlers in VN, a major factor that will help explain why there exist so many C words in the V language, including some of unsuspected basic items previously classed into other MK cases that could be Sinitic of common Yue origin.
All in all the V language might have evolved from its ancestral form of Yue initially in the form of speeches spoken by the Chu subjects (楚民) that had existed prior to the emergence of Sinitic entities, i.e., Zhu, Qin, Han, etc., that also gave rise to those languages spoken by the Zhuang or Dai minority groups in China South. Its development had been similar to those of Cant. and Fukienese until 939 AD. For the latter two dialects prominent elements of the Tang and Han dynasties had virtually replaced nearly all of its ancestral forms native to those of aboriginal Yue speeches once spoken by the Yue people about 3000 years ago. (See Drake, F.S. ed. Symposium on Historical Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South-East Asia and the Hong Kong Region. 1967.) The whole scenario would later repeat with MC, i.e., process of linguistic changes, by northern Mandarin and this form of dialect continued to influence other speeches in the sino-sphere, including V, but V developed in its own way after independence of the country.
This research, however, is still shy of proposing that V is a sinitic language but loosely it could be described as a Sino-Xenic topolect, or Sinitic 'graft' language – as opposed to that of 'an adoptive language', 'hybrid' one (as described by Bloomfield, 1933, of Albanese), or even creoles (such as French spoken in New Guinea or Haiti) – thanks to its systematic and scholarly transformation from an official C language called Mandarin used in imperial courts throught out the ages. Theoretically, in the past the V language used to be considered as a Sinitic branch in the ST linguistic family long before the emergence of AA MK theorization of the origin of the V language came out in the 50's of the 20th century. For such matter novices in V linguistics do not need to discern much about ST etymologies but only posits of what is to be brought here in the chapter about them and V history as discussed so far.
You can visualize that such Sinitic 'graft' language is that of a linguistic tree with Sinitic plant tissues, branches, and leaves branching from a V trunk grafted onto the root of an aborigine Yue language. In other words, Sinitic linguistic elements exist on top of multiple layers of fundamental ancient Yue substrata, many of which apparently still leave traces in many AA languages such as those of Munda or MK as ancient aboriginal people migrate to places, which would help explain why AA etymological forms exists in V. If it is to be proved truly such a case, terminologically, like that of the Sinitic term, AA would be another misnomer because those AA remnants existing in the V language that carry Sinitic substances suggest something from the north. In fact the sole apprearance of some AA elements have deceive many veterans in the other Sinitic fields.
As discussed earlier on some of such related issues with regard to the terminology "Sinitic' to signify an affiliation having something to do with modern "Chinese" while in fact the core Sinitic substance of that concept had not come into existence yet prior to the rise of the unified Qin Empire. Such a naming termilogy could only enhance the validity of those AA claims trying to dicredit anything Chinese. Nonetheless, genetically or not, for the Sinitic dominance existing in the 99 percent of VS etyma, which could only called by the name "Sinitic" whether or not originally certain etyma were actually from C, e.g, 'chó' 狗 gǒu (dog).
While the characteristics of the SV stock of the V language are more like those of MC, for those of the VS portion they are, surprisingly, more like that of the northern Mandarin, especially the coloquial part of the official language of the court for more than 1000 years. In a sense Nandarin is a northern C dialect which had become of shape out of heavy influence by other Altaic languages after China had undergone the long period roughly 1000 years -- equal to that of the historically colonial VN, the size of one third making up a larger portion of the northern part of today's VN's territory -- of occupation and dominance of the rulers of Altaic and Tartarian origin, such as the Xiongnu (匈奴) from Siberia, the Yuan's Mongolians, the Kim in the Northern Song Dynasty (see Bo Yang. 1983-1993. ibid.), and, especially, the Manchurians in the last 300 years of the Qing Dynasty that ruled the whole Middle Kingdom.
Most of the examples cited in this introductory work are brand-new listings, in a respect, which could be used as complementary work to other etymological works previously pioneered by veterans such as Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin (http://starling.rinet.ru/, 1998) or Lê Ngọc-Trụ for their proposed terms of C origin. For example, the author accepts the new posit of VS 'khói' 氣 (汽) qì (smoke) for the already known SV 'khí' (air) and VS 'hơi' (vapor), or 役 yì for 'việc' (work) in addition to 活 huó, etc.
Whether they are accurate or not, old past etymological findings of C origin will still be salvaged and meticulously patched with new "paints", filtered, not to cover-up but to reveal camouflaged fading spots of an old painting, metaphorically speaking. Let's say, we have found 腚 dìng for VS 'đít' (buttocks) in addition to its doublet 屁 pì (SV tí) for the same concept of different roots denotes the same object. In this case, specifically, we may need to treat them to be of the same origin, to explain the sound change pattern -zero and /-ng/ ~ /-t/ and /p-/ ~ /d-/, or, similarly, 犬 quán and 狗 gǒu both for 'chó' (dog) to explain /kh-/ and /k-/ changing to /ch-/, etc.
To what extent that you are inclined to believe in the truthfulness of the factual etymological evidences depends solely on your historical linguistics background and conviction about the sinitic theorization being discussed in this paper. Except for those who have a grasp in many disciplines related to the subject matter, there will be in reality not many people who would really comprehend or appreciate it. In short, again, people tend to believe in what they have already believed to start with. For some people, they would never understand such self-evident and self-proofed etyma which are so obvious and simple such as 早 zăo for 'chào' (hello), let alone 屁股 pìgu for both VS 'phaocâu' (chicken butts as delicacy) and its contracted form 屁 pì (SV tí) for 'đít', both equivalent to the modern M for 'buttocks', and its extended meaning for 'địt' (fart).
A Vietnamese Folktale
For an overview of the history of V development in a nutshell, artistically depictive, let's first attempt, imaginatively, to sketch the whole picture of a painting depicting the history of VN based solely on revealing transient shades of diminishing colors overlapping each other. They, like folktales passed down by the V ancestors, try to convey to us a highly hypothetical but picturesque story of pseudo-historical bygones.
Linguistically, let's take some examples, 'sông' (river) 江 jiāng and 'suối' (creek) 泉 quán diverting our attention from 川 chuān (SV xuyên), 'cửa' (door) 戶 hù camourflaging 口 kǒu, 'hiểu' (understand) 會 huì (SV hội) replacing 曉 xiáo, 'hiền' (good nature) 賢 xián taking place of 善 shàn (SV thiện), etc., one etymon on top of the other, not to mention each morphemic syllable in dissyllabic forms could give rise to different doublets in V via associative rule of sound changes, for example, 安樂 ānlè (peaceful and happy) ~> 'anlành' / 樂 lè ~ 'lành' <~ 良 liáng (benign), etc, of which the whole new rule like that has never been spotted by any specialists in V at all. Hence the hidden ones could be exposed in doublets or of different shapes and sounds. Therefore there is no such thing called 'absolute' in terms of rigidity in historical linguistics as readers current see on other VS etymological works.
Metaphorically, for entertaining purposes, without being stressed out with all bombarding minute details of an academic subject so as to be easy to remember, V linguistic history might run with the lines as follows:
"More than 3000 years ago the mother proto-Taic had given birth to one hundred children, collectively known as the BáchViệt 百越 or BaiYue, with half of them conquered by the normadic Yin 殷 (or Ân) warriors of the formerly powerful Xia 廈 and Shang 商 dynasties that had long been separated from the Tibetan root with the emergence of the Zhou Dynasty 周王朝 era. The newly mixed race had formed Sino-Tibetan linguistic branch.
All together the Yue tribal people had evolved into ethnic groups at present day known us as the Dai 傣, the Zhuang 壯, the Yao 瑤, the Miao 苗, the Mon 猛 (毛南), etc., respectively. Interestingly, all is nowadays lumped together and named as the Austroasiatic stock by western anthropologists for they were actually descendants of the other "fifty Yue children" who had got to the Southeast Asia in earlier break-ups more than 2200 years ago. When they were fighting against each other in the Spring and Autumn Warring Period (春秋戰國) the other half lost the fight and fled southward to join their long lost cousins in China South 華南, who were later called individually by the name of Yue 粵 (Việt), XiYue 西越 (TâyViệt), LuoYue 鵅越 (LạcViệt), OuYue 毆越 (ÂuViệt), YueChang 越常 (Việtthường), MinYue 閩越 (MânViệt), 吳越 WuYue (NgôViệt), etc., all having well established within their rightful states.
Tracing down the evolutional line, among several vassal states was the Qin State 秦國 that had become increasingly powerful and then forced the Chu 楚國 to become its "concubine" with all of her adopted indigenous subjects. In 208 BC, the Yue states in Huanan ended up to be ruled by a former Qin's general called Triệu Đà (趙佗 Zhào Tuó) who established and ruled the NamViệt Kingdom 南越王國 for more than 100 years, which would later be conquered by the Han Empire 大漢 and, finally, was annexed to the greater unified Middle Kingdom 中國. As history has it, part of it located in today's VN's northern territory became the Annan Protectorate 安南都護府 (Annam Đôhộphủ).
In Annam the Viet-Muong groups, descendents of the LuoYue, further broke up and formed the Kinh group (京族 Jingzu). Linguistically the early V formation and development with all the AC elements parallel to what had happened to ancestral Cantonese Yue and Fukienese Amoy until 939 AD. Since 111 BC, the speakers of the proto-Vietic speech, the Muong groups, who preserved the proto-Muong linguistic form had fled into remote mountainous regions while those who chose to stay behind living under the rule of the Han Empire. The latter, having endured further the imposition of the Han's culture and language, had absorbed and blended itself with a Han dialectal form known as Ancient Chinese (AC), which, over time, diachronically and synchronically, gradually and continually penetrated deeply into the Vietic, or early Annamese, linguistic form which undoubtedly was the ancestral speech of today's V. "
Such affiliation among those of the V and C languages could be dated back to earlier periods of the Western Zhou Dynasty (西周), of which proto-Taic remnants had scattered and diverged into all other speeches spoken by descendants of the BaiYue, i.e., the Yue, which might include those of the today's Austroasiatic stock, e.g., the MK languages. The linguistic splits continued on and further blossomed into a new linguistic form spoken by the Kinh (京族 Jingzu), meaning "the metropolitan people", the newly mixed race historically known as the Annamese since the Han time. Note the connotation of the word "京" for "Kinh", that how the "Chinese-mixed" Annamese called themselves since the ancient times.
So to speak, vestiges of the proto-Taic elements of the pre-Sinitic linguistic forms that made up OC is just like the blend of the sintic elements of the post Western Han in the VS stock since 208 BC onward have permeated throughout the V language, which would explain why both V and C languages are considered linguistically affiliated via the key elements of the Yue aboriginal speeches even though the V language was not on genetically straight-lined Sino-Tibetan.
You will see more of those descriptive details again throughout this paper because it is an important link in V and C relationship from "linked kinship" to culturally-accented imposition and acquisition based on actual historical facts of more than 1000 year domination of the ancient Annam by the Han Chinese.
Like work being done in restoring and rebuilding subtle details from an old painting counterpart, linguistically rescontructed work in scholarly depth could be done in the same manner as we would like to try on cited words and more later throughout the next chapters. It is assumed that readers already familiar with the sound change laws with what is going on, in most of the cases etymological elaboration, i.e., explanation in detail of how sound change patterns have happened on both common and specific cases of cited etyma, could be omitted or kept to the minimum for simplicity.
1) Dương Đình (Diên) Nghệ 楊廷藝 or 楊延藝 (931-937)
2) Kiều Công Tiễn 矯公羨 or 皎公羨 (937-938)
3) Ngô Vương reign: 939–944
4) Dương Tam Kha reign: 944–950
5) Hậu Ngô Vương: Nam Tấn Vương & Thiên Sách Vương co-reign: 950–954
6) Thiên Sách Vương reign: 954–965
7) Ngô Sứquân (吳使君)，reign: 965–968
8) "The Anarchy of the 12 Warlords" or "Thập Nhị Sứquân Rebellion" (966–968)
(W)Journeymen in the field will understand why the ST hypothesis of linguistic wave-theory is being shunned by the new V nationalists, let alone the traditional family-tree one (Bloomfield, 1933. pp. 317, 18).
(英) That is metaphorically comparable to elaborating on China's Simplified C vs. Tradionial C, along with Pinyin vs. Zhuyin transcribing systems being in use in Hong Kong or Taiwan or, analogously, cf. 面 miàn (face, noodle, wheat) for 麵 miàn (noodle, wheat) vs. the derivatives in VS 'mặt' (SV 'diện') and 'mì' (SV 'miến'), respectively, a big difference, so to speak.
(文)A good examples is from "Bình Ngô Đạicáo Tânthời" written in classical language with a modern context by the author. It is a modern slanted version of the 'Vietnamese proclamation of independence from China' in 1428, VN's Le Dynasty. You may want to read the full version of it in APPENDIX L or do a Google search to see how "nationalism" and "politics" can obscure some good judgment:
"凭吾丑告: 女丑讨华, 占有千秋, 婆权成性, 历载叶千, 巨大无双, 蝴蝶婆脷, 汉和岭蛮, 缩头乌龟, 中擦外伤, 坏而恋战, 南越百族, 湖广七雒, 独吾健在, 雄居南方, 旗花移到, 吾邦挚友, 好客有方, 来者良家, 流氓勿忘, 白藤江待, 南杀西杀, 旗中无敌, 维我独尊, 骑越虎也, 上之毋下, 入生出死, 大鱼气小, 急吃豆腐, 九死一生, 贪食疾身, 女等欺人, 甚不可忍, 君子报仇, 十年不晚, 咱走着瞧, 霸权破脷, 惹火焚身, 九泉归依!" (Trâu Ơi Bố Bảo: Trâu số đạo hoa, ngàn lẻ thu qua, hay thói quyền bà, sửxanh ghichép, cụ đại vôsong, baybướm lưỡibò, hánhởmulạnh, đầurùa lấpló, trong sứt ngoài thoa, lâm chiến bại hoài. HồQuảng dù mất, NamViệt vẫncòn, Hùng cứ phươngnam, kỳhoa dịthảo, hữuhảo chi bang, chuộngchìu hiếukhách, nhàlành kếtmối, lưumanh chớhòng, Bạchđằng BểĐông, Trườngsa Hoàngsa, duyngãđộctôn, kỳ trung vô địch, cởi cọp Việtnam, lênvoixuốngchó, vàosinhratử, ỷlớnhiếpbé, nuốtxương mắccổ, dỡsốngdỡchết, thamthựccựcthân, lũbay bốláo, đắcchí tiểunhân, nhịn cũng vừa thôi, quântử ratay, bàihọc ngànnăm, tổcha tụibay, báquyền bảláp, rướchoạvàothân, ngậmngùi chínsuối!)
ā ē ě ī ǐ ă ō ǒ ū ǔ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ ü û ɔ ɑ ɪ ɛ ɤ ə¯ ŋ ɯ ɪ ʔ ʃ ö ä ü ɐ ɒ æ χ ɓ ɗ ɖ ɱ ʿ ʾ θ ñ ŕ ţ ť tś ı ć ¢ ď Ā ź dź ƫ ć ń ç ď ş ŗ ż ſ ņ ʷ ɲ ʈ ɫ ɬ ʈ ƫ ʐ ɣ Ś ¯¯ ¯ ˉ