VNU Joumal of Science, Sorial Sciences and Humanitíes 25, No.5E (2009) 12-17

On the relationship between the Aưstroasiatic and in Southeast Asia

Tran Tri Doi*

Collcge ofSocial Sciences and /lumaniỉies, VNU 336 Nguyên Trai, Thanh Xutin. ìỉanoi, Vieínam

Received 20 June 2009

Abstract. As havc bccn known, the Ausiroasiatic and Austroncsian languagcs phonetically and lexically havc corrcspondcncc. Howcvcr, whcthcr this 1S horrowed or iíĩhented relationship has long bccn an issue of controvcrsy, bccause plausibỉe evidcncc to thcsc poinls of view 1S still unavailable. In this papcr, cquivalent data írom basic vocabulary bctwccn thc Vict Muong disyllablic / scsquisyllablic languagcs (c.g. Arem, Ma Lieng, Sach. Ruc, Aheu) and the Chamic languagcs arc carcíully investigatcd. Dcspitc the shared basic vocabulary, this kind of cquivalence lends lurther weight to thc vicw that preference is given to the borrowed rclationship. For that rcason, Ihese lexical rcscmblances arc of a restricted range vvhieh supports thc relation of speciaỉ borrowings betwcen the two languages.

1. P.K. Benedict, in his 1973 papcr, argued ternnnology) ralhcr than to Sino languagcs, this for a ‘substratum’ rclationship between link is rcgardcd as a borroxving rclationship [2]. Austronesian (abbrcbrialcd as AN) and A year latcr, A.Cì.ỉIaudicourt shared thc Austroasialic (AA) languagcs whcn hc otTered a samc linc of analysis with P.K. Benedict and furlhcr cxplanation of ihc so-called ‘Austro- S.E. Jakhontov (3,4]. IIc furlhcr cmphasizcd Thai’ and Its rclatcdncss to Ausiroasiatic that tlìis is a spccial borrovving rclationship languages [1]. In his terminology, ‘Austro- sincc thc sharcd words of the two language Thai’ refers to thc languages of Miao-Yao, Tai- familics belong to the basic vocabulary and Kadai, and Austronesian. regularly appcar in diíTcrent sub-groups. As hc In thc samc ycar of 1973, ihc link bctvvcen pointcd out, thcrc arc some Mon-Khmcr worđs thesc t\vo languagc íamilies was also put in the M alaysian language, vvhich are forward for consideration hy S.E. Jakhontov. unavailable in the Cham languages, for Having suggcstcd that Vieừiamcse is part of the instance: ‘crab’ ketam, Bahnar kotam, Khmer Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer, in his vvords) ktam, Mon ỊỊUlam, Samre tham, Khasi tham, and Tai is inhcritancc-rcíated W a tam " (3, tr.33]. Also, the vocabulary of some Mon-Khmcr languagcs mcluding Maa, to thc Austronesian (or Indoncsian, in his Mnong, Bahnar consists essentially of Ioans made ỈVom thc Cham languagcs as a • DT: 84-4- 35588603. E-mail: doihanhậ yahoo.com consequcncc of thc long-tcrm dominance of the 12 T.T. Doi / VNU ịournaì of Science, Soãal Sciences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2(X)9) 12-17 13

Cham people. Notcvvorthily, ‘thc borrowcd Austronesian has yct to be prcsented. Although lexicon onginatcd either from Sanskrit or many aspccts of this hypothcsis remain unclear, Indoncsian languagcs’ [3, tr.33]. there is solid indication that thc special The issue seems to be sorted out until lately relatedness bctvvccn the tvvo language íamilies, some othcr proposals of thc classiíìcation of which vvas first noticcd by A.G. Haudricourt, is Southcast Asian languagcs have bcen released. worthy of dcepcr considcration. This paper, Most recently, from sound corrcspondences, thereforc, is conccmcd with cmpirical data from shared vocabulary and sharcd morphology, L. different languagcs in order to shcd somc light Sagart (2004) has argucd ihat the Tai-Kađai on this unusual relationship. languages are a subgroup of Austroncsian and 3. Having invcstigatcd somc languages that additionally, Austroncsian and Chinese are still keep in cxistcncc characteristics of thc genetically relatcd within a macrophylum ancient Viet-Muong languages, vvhich bclong to which he callcd ‘Proto-Sino-Tibctan- Mon-Khmer, a branch of thc Austroasiatic Austronesian' (PSTAN) [5]. Accordingly, in family [7]t we rcalizcd that thcse languages the area of prc-litcrate Southcast Asia and have much of corc vocabulary cognate shared South China, Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, and with some other Ausưoncsian languages. Taken Tai-Kadai languages all bclonged lo a macro- into account, thc lcxical cquivalcncc is devoted family, vvhich excluding Austroasiatic. to illuminatc thc naturc of thc rclationship Thcrcíore, despite of diffcrcnt approaches, between Viet-Muong and Austronesian languages, previous scholars have shared the same idea or more spccifically, betwcen northeastem Ihat the correspondence between Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer and mainland Austronesian (particularly Mon-Khmer) and Austroncsian languages of the Southeast Asia region. languagcs is not as proof of an inheritance The languages investigatcd including Arem relationship, but as a result of borrowings. (Ar), Malieng (ML), Sach (S), Ruc (R) or Aheu 2. On the othcr hand, Phạm Dức Dương, in (Ah), Kha Phong (Kh), ctc. arc well known for his effort to build up a modcl of a mixed having a ‘sesqui-syllabic patlem’, which is languagc vvhich ariscs through language supportive of the fact that thcy wcll sustain the contact, has been argucd for a hypothesis of linguistic peculiarities of the Proto-Viet Muong ‘ngừ hệ Dông Nam Á’ (literally means: (PVM) period. Sincc Proto-VictMuong is the Southeast Asian language-family) or Proto- most conservative mcmbcr of the Mon-Khmer Austroasiatic as he íurthcr explained. In his branch, the lexical correspondence between system, this languagc family consists of the Viet-Muong and Austroncsian languages is of languages of Austroasiatic, Austroncsian and great significance. Dong Tai (cquivalcnt to Tai-Kadai in other Speakers of scsqui-syllabic Viet-Muong systems) [6, tr.30]. It mcans that are primarily locatcd in the provinces and Austronesian initially originated from the of Quang Binh, lia Tinh, and south Nghe An, same family, which subscqucntly divided into where they live along mountainous areas of the three present-day sub-groups, namely -Laos bordcr (scc the map belovv). Due Austroasiatic, Austroncsian and Dong Tai. to rugged terrain, tormcntous weather and Phạm Đức Dương, hovvcvcr, provided only limited transportation in this gcographical ethnolinguistic argumcnts to support his* region, these languagcs consist of some well- position. Strictly spcaking, linguistic evidence preserved phonetic pattcms of the Proto-Viet for a kin relationship bctwccn Austroasiatic and Muong language [8]. 14 T.T. Doi /V N U loumaỉ of Scừnce, Social Sãences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2009) Ĩ2-Ĩ7

Figure of the rcsidential territory of the sesqui-syllabic Viet-Muong languagcs (rcd-lincd area).

3.1. Presentation o f data interestingly, most of the shared vvords are essential components of the vocabulary of the Data observatỉon reveals that the sesqui- two languages under comparison. Tvvo sub- syỉlabic Viet-Muong and the Cham languages categories of lcxicon are given vvith respect to lexically have correspondence. More land and temporal elements.

3.1.1. Land-related words

C ham Vietnamese, Muong Sesqui-syỉỉabic VietMuong chơk (C) núi đả (V), nủi tá (M) c i t ( R ) , lakù:ji ?ate? (Ar) “rocky mountain ” “ rocky mounỉain ” “rockỵ mountairì' patău (C) đá (V), tá (M) latá (R, S), ?ate? (Ar) “stone” stone" “stone" haluk (C) đất (V), tất (M) bon (R, S), ?atắk (Ar) "earth" “ earth” “ earth" haỉuk lơn (C) đất sét (V) bsn tlet (R), ?atăk kupec (ML) “c/ợv” “ c/ợv” “clay" chuah (C) cát (V), kách (M) takẳc (R), ?at8? kất, takax (Ar) s“ u n đ’ “sand ’ “sand ’ T.T Doi / VNU Ịoumaỉ ơf Science, Social Sciences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2009) 12-17 15

3.1.2. Time-reỉated worcJs

Cham Vietnamese, Muong Scsqui-syỉlabic VietMuong haray (C) “ d ư ỳ ngày (V), ngày (M) “day” pakuoh (S, R), br.h (Ar) pako: (Kh) “day" gok page (C) “early sảng sớm (V), lảng khờm (M) “early /Am (R, S), ?arom’ (Ar) “early morning mornìnịỉ' morning" jalà (C) “noorí' trưa (V), tlưa (M) “noorí pakuoh (S, R), cilÌA (Ar) kalia (ML) “noon mưđơni (C) “nighí” đêm (V), têm (M)“nighr lim(S, R), lắm(Ar) “nighr mưđơm mưdơm (C) ‘7ate đêm hôm (V), têm (M) ‘7 aíe nighr hom (S, R), tarpp (ML) "laỉe nighí" ni ghi*1 bi lan (C) “month” thảng (V), khảng (M ) 4imoniYì th£g’ (S, R), Xìì€.ĩ]\A t) "month”

bi lan (C) “moorì' trang (V), tlăng (M) “moơw” palian (S, R), ? m r e A h (Ar) “moorì' thun (C) year" năm (V), năm (M) “year” năm (S, R), thun (Ar), sanăm (Kh) “year*' Note: Cham data follow Bùi Khánh Thể [9]; Muong data fỡlỉơw [I0],ẩ Ruc data follow Nguyễn Phú Phong [11]; Ruc, Arent, Sach, Mali eng, Kha Phong data come from our fieldwork Cham and Mu ong transcriptions follow the original texts, others are transcribed in IPA.

3.2. Discussion o f dcìta while the chosen word for ‘carly morning’, to some extern, is jointly cmployed by Cham, Apparently, the two wordlists arc parts of Sach, Ruc, Kha Phong. the core vocabulary. Pollovving the treatments of P.K. Benedict, S.E. Jakhontov, A. G. lt is fairly easy to see the phonetic I laudricourt, and L. Sagart, thcsc lexical regularity among these basic vvords, such as correspondences, at firsl glancc, are more likely Cham bilan, Vict trăng, M uong blăng/ílâng, indicative of inherited rclationship. Thoroughly Sach và Ruc palian. Based on this kind of considered, this is probably not the case. equivalence between Cham and VietMuong only, it seems to lcnd further weight to the vievv 3.2.1. In the first place, regarding land- that preíerence is given to the genetic related terms, the Ruc vvords for “rocky relationship. mountain” and i4earth” arc quite similar to the cquivalcnt Cham words. Regarding words 3.2.2. A careful examination of the data, referring to time, thc correspondence between hovvever, reveals different results. The Cham Cham and Viet-Muong is more varied. In and Viet-Muong forms do not truly correspond particular, Cham and Viet are equivalent in regularly in the sense that some Viet-Muong terms of the word for ‘day’; Cham and Viet, vvords are similar to Cham’s, but not to those of Muong, Arem, Malieng have the term for other languages in the same Viet-Muong group. ‘noon’ in common; vvhilc Cham and Viet, For exampte, vvith regard to the vvords for Muong, Sach, Ruc correspondingly share the tcyear”, un in Arem is related to thun in Cham, vvord for ‘moon’, which is synonymous to yet has no connection vvith năm or sanăm in ‘month’ in Cham. On the other hand, the term other Viet-Muong. Similarly, the Cham word for ‘year’ is shared only by Cham and Arem; for “moon” forms identiíiable pattems of 16 T.T. Doi / VNU lournal o f Science, Social Sáences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2009) Ĩ2 -Ĩ7

equivalence vvith those of Viet, Muong, Sach, moming”, “noon”, “late night”, “month", and Ruc, but not with PmreAh in Arem. The terms “year” exhibit a consistent pattcrn of bchavioi for “noon” are mostly shared by the languages throughout the Viet-Muong group. The under comparison, except Sach, Ruc. In exceptional cases of the words for ifcday,? and parallel, the Cham words for “rocky mountain”, “moon” do not fundamentally fail to agree with and probably for “earth” exhibit pretty direct this pattern. correspondcnce vvith those of Sach, Ruc, but In summary, the consistent correspondence not vvith those of other Viet-Muong. vvithin the Viet-Muong group provides strong The irregular similarities within Viet- evidence to coníìrm that the Vict-Muong basic Muong languages shovv that Viet-Muong words, vvhich are quite sim ilar to those o f the languagcs only correspond individually with Cham languagcs, are of borrowed origin. Due Cham. Despite the fact that Cham and Viet- to thc non-indigenous origin, they are preserved Muong have the core vocabulary in common in some, not all languages of the entire Viet- (as shown in 3.2.1), this kind of equivalence is Muong group. In other vvords, the Cham group hardly indicative of inhcritcd phonetic of Austronesian does sharc witlì the Viet- relationship. Muong group of Austroasiatic some core vocabularics, and this similarity is bcst taken as This irrcgularity, hovvever, can be explained a solid indicator of spccial borrovvings. in the following vvay: some Cham words are sustainablc in some Viet-Muong languages, but Consequently, Southeast Asia, in our point are lost in other languages of the samc Viet- of view, is liome to five language families, Muong group. Thcreforc, the individual namcly Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Tai - correspondence, by itself, wou!d bc insufficient Kadai, Sino - Tibetan and Miao-Yao; which is to cast grave doubt on the kin link betvveen also strongly held by other scholars. It is not Cham and Viet-Muong. incompatible vvith the vievv that the Southeast Asia region exhibits a consistcnt cultural- 3.2.3. A more thorough investigation of the linguistic resemblance. This cultural-linguistic data, hovvever, gives out an interesting point, correspondence, however, sliould be sưictly namely the consistency o f each wordlisl o f the diíĩerentiated from the similarity of linguistic Cham and sesqui-syllabic Viet-Muong origins. languages under comparison. This is probably the most apparent evidence o f the borroNving relationship bctween the two groups. Reíerenccs In the Tirst list of land-related words, the terminologies for “stone”, “rocky mountain”, [1] P.K. Bcncdict, Austro - Thai and Austroasiatic, “earth”, “clay”, and “sand” in the sesqui- Austroasiatic Studies, part I, 1976, pp 4-36. syllabic Viet-Muong languages uniíbrmly have [2] S.E. Jakhontov, về sự phán loại các ngôn ngừ ở the matching fomis in Vietnamese and Muong. Đông Nam châu Á, Ngôn ngữ n°l (1991) 73-77. Although the vvords for “rocky mountain” and [3] A.G. Haudricourt, Limites ct connexions de “earth” in Ruc are different in detail, they Paustroasiatique au Nord - Esl. Asie du Sud-Est cannot in principle be considered as a violation et monde insuỉinduen 5, N°1 (1974) 1-14. of the consistency relation of the whole group. [4] A.G. Haudricourt, Giới hạn và nối kết của ngôn ngừ Nam Ả ở Đông Bắc, Ngôn ngừ n°l (1991) The samc holds true for the second list of 33-40. time-related vvords. Temiinologies for “early T.T. Doi / VNU loumaì of Science, Social Sciences and Humanities 25, No.5E (2lX)9) 12-17 17

[5] L Surgat, The higher phyl()Ị*eny o f Austronesìan [8] M. Fcrlus, The Origin o f Tones in Viet-Muơng, and tlìc positiotì o f Tai - Kaddi, \Vorkshop on SALS Xl" Conícrcncc, Mahidol Univcrsity, “Prcmicrcs austroncsicn: langucs, gcncs, Bangkok, Thailand, May 16-18-200ỉ. syslòmcs dc parentc", Paris, May 5, 2004. [9] BÙI Khánh Thẻ (Chủ bicn) (1996), Từ điền Việt - [6] Phạm Đức Dương, Hức tranh ngôn ngữ-vân hoá Chăm, NXB Khoa học Xã hội, 1996. lộc người ờ Việt Sam và Dỏng Sam A, NXB Đại [10] Nguyễn van Khang (Chù bicn), Từ điển Mường- học Quốc gia Hà Nội, 2007. Việt, NXB Vân hoả dãn tộc, Mà Nội, 2002. [7] Trằn Trí Dõi, Giáo trinh lịch sư tiếng Việt (sơ [11] Nguyễn Phú Phong ct al, Lexique Vietnamien - thào). NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, 2005. Rục - Francais, U m vcntc dc Paris VII, Pans 1988.