VNU Joumal of Science, Sorial Sciences and Humanitíes 25, No.5E (2009) 12-17 On the relationship between the Aưstroasiatic and Austronesian languages 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, language family 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 Austroasiatic languages 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 Vietnam-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.