"The language itself varies from Northern to Central to Southern region and it is only in the Southern region that bears similarities to the Khmer language. This is only natural since Vietnamese migration and permanent settlement in this area would have influenced and been influenced by the indigenous language there. The Northern Vietnamese accent has managed to retain its original form and does not sound anything like the languages that lie southern to its periphery."
If you look at the history of the viet people, you will know that originally vietnam as we know it today only consists of "north vietnam" which was called annam when it was part of china. When the khmer empire to the south collapses into the smaller modern cambodia, the vietnamese expanded south to the modern "southern vietnam". It is not illogical to presume that at that time the pure vietnamese dialect was diluted with mon-khmer words since the cambodian's language is mon-khmer. Therefore, the northern vietnamese is actually more sino-tibetan.
So it is more logical to say that the vietnamese language is actually sino-tibetan rather than mon-khmer.
Thanks for your input "drunk_on_tea".
I think the westerners need to research more on the vietnamese dialect in relation to the cantonese dialect.
Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
-
montela77
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
I doubt the chinese origin of vietnamese. And in my opinion the arguments you give in favor of sino-tibetan are not convincing at all.
First, one cannot conclude just by examining lexicon.
Obviously there are a lot of chinese borrowings but I still believe that the core vietnamese language has a different origin.
AlexNg states the opposite: that the core language is chinese and other words are alien. You should have a look at what can be considered the core of the language: interestringly enough, numbers or words related to body parts are definitevely not chinese (which I think would be kind of weird for a chinese language).
Second, one cannot conclude by saying that "tonal language" implies "sino-tibetan language". What about thai (and of course vietnamese...) ? Old chinese also did not have tones. Just because vietnamese has tones does not mean they were borrowed from chinese: they could have developped independently. Moreover, fine tone system analysis suggests that phonology (the way tones are distinguished) is quite special in vietnamese (compared to cantonese for instance). (See Mark J Alves papers on this topic). The tones features of vietnamese could have been built on vocal features of related vietic languages (such as vocalic creakiness for instance).
Of course it is tempting to compare vietnamese to major language such as chinese dialects, but the languages of vietnamese highlanders share some intersting features with the"kinh" vietnamese and should be seriously considered.
And third, the structure of vietnamese should be considered. It really differs from chinese. For instance the word order is the OPPOSITE for the determinancy relationship between words. This is an important point, a language is not just a lexicon, but also structures and usage. Vietnamese seems to resist chinese to the extent that sometimes vietnamese words composed of sino-vietnamese components only does not follow the chinese order, but the vietnamese order...
One more thing: the controversy between sino-tibetan and mon-khmer should not be reduced to a chinese/khmer opposition. Mon-khmer is a group, which is not encompassed by khmer. Of course southern vietnamese is more influenced by genuine khmer because of geography, but I don't agree with your conclusion on "vietnamese is actually sino-tibetan". You should discuss on mon-khmer fundation (common structures etc) rather that on khmer.
And I also want to add that this kind of discussion is often higly politically oriented: some chinese people may consider vietnamese as a chinese dialect just because they also consider that vietnam was and should be a chinese province.
First, one cannot conclude just by examining lexicon.
Obviously there are a lot of chinese borrowings but I still believe that the core vietnamese language has a different origin.
AlexNg states the opposite: that the core language is chinese and other words are alien. You should have a look at what can be considered the core of the language: interestringly enough, numbers or words related to body parts are definitevely not chinese (which I think would be kind of weird for a chinese language).
Second, one cannot conclude by saying that "tonal language" implies "sino-tibetan language". What about thai (and of course vietnamese...) ? Old chinese also did not have tones. Just because vietnamese has tones does not mean they were borrowed from chinese: they could have developped independently. Moreover, fine tone system analysis suggests that phonology (the way tones are distinguished) is quite special in vietnamese (compared to cantonese for instance). (See Mark J Alves papers on this topic). The tones features of vietnamese could have been built on vocal features of related vietic languages (such as vocalic creakiness for instance).
Of course it is tempting to compare vietnamese to major language such as chinese dialects, but the languages of vietnamese highlanders share some intersting features with the"kinh" vietnamese and should be seriously considered.
And third, the structure of vietnamese should be considered. It really differs from chinese. For instance the word order is the OPPOSITE for the determinancy relationship between words. This is an important point, a language is not just a lexicon, but also structures and usage. Vietnamese seems to resist chinese to the extent that sometimes vietnamese words composed of sino-vietnamese components only does not follow the chinese order, but the vietnamese order...
One more thing: the controversy between sino-tibetan and mon-khmer should not be reduced to a chinese/khmer opposition. Mon-khmer is a group, which is not encompassed by khmer. Of course southern vietnamese is more influenced by genuine khmer because of geography, but I don't agree with your conclusion on "vietnamese is actually sino-tibetan". You should discuss on mon-khmer fundation (common structures etc) rather that on khmer.
And I also want to add that this kind of discussion is often higly politically oriented: some chinese people may consider vietnamese as a chinese dialect just because they also consider that vietnam was and should be a chinese province.
-
Huong
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
I believe that Vietnamese are Sino-Tibetan, and I don't know what "Sino" is but maybe I can provide readings that has been researched from Chinese books, etc.
Vietnamese is half Mongolian and Chinese; they migrated to Indochina, Manchuria, etc. I am at college, but I will send the link when I get back home. Email me!
Vietnamese is half Mongolian and Chinese; they migrated to Indochina, Manchuria, etc. I am at college, but I will send the link when I get back home. Email me!
-
Huong
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
I believe that Vietnamese are Sino-Tibetan, and I don't know what "Sino" is but maybe I can provide readings that has been researched from Chinese books, etc.
Vietnamese is half Mongolian and Chinese; they migrated to Indochina, Manchuria, etc. I am at college, but I will send the link when I get back home. Email me!
P.S... Even my name is Vietnamese/chinese.
Huong Ho
[%sig%]
Vietnamese is half Mongolian and Chinese; they migrated to Indochina, Manchuria, etc. I am at college, but I will send the link when I get back home. Email me!
P.S... Even my name is Vietnamese/chinese.
Huong Ho
[%sig%]
-
thribbi
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
Having studied Mandarin, Cantonese and Vietnamese, I must strongly disagree with any suggestion that Vietnamese is of Sino-Tibetan origin.
As montela77 pointed out, the structural and phonetic differences between Vietnamese and the Chinese languages/dialects (I prefer the word languages since many Chinese dialects are mutually unintelligible) are too great for the language to be derived even from Ancient Chinese (Shang/Zhou/Spring-Autumn periods).
In addition to the differences in word order between Vietnamese and Chinese, which has already been mentioned, I would like to point out the completely different use of measure words in Vietnamese. The use of measure words is very similar in all Chinese dialects and only refers to quantity, whereas in Vietnamese their use is sometimes closer to the use of definite articles in European languages. Vietnamese also has a more developed tense/aspect system than Chinese does.
Whether the language is more distantly related to Sino-Tibetan is a more difficult question, but as the origin of those languages (notabene including Tibetan) is believed to be in Northern China, in the Yellow River basin, I am more inclined to believe that the ancestor of modern Vietnamese was a language unrelated to Sino-Tibetan languages, spoken in the area that now comprises Guangxi and Guangdong. Consider that it took Chinese people a long time to settle the Southern provinces due to their geographic isolation, and I would venture to say that before the Southern migrations of Chinese people there would have been very little contact between northern China and the South-Western provinces.
As to the Mon-Khmer question, I am not familiar enough with those languages to state anything for sure.
If anyone can confirm or contradict any of the above, any references to current work underway on the origin of the Vietnamese language would be welcome. All I have read so far seems to indicate that Vietnamese has not been proven to be related to any other Asian language. If this sounds unfeasible, consider Japanese and Korean, which may possibly be related to each other (albeit very, very distantly) but are wholly unrelated to other Asian languages.
As montela77 pointed out, the structural and phonetic differences between Vietnamese and the Chinese languages/dialects (I prefer the word languages since many Chinese dialects are mutually unintelligible) are too great for the language to be derived even from Ancient Chinese (Shang/Zhou/Spring-Autumn periods).
In addition to the differences in word order between Vietnamese and Chinese, which has already been mentioned, I would like to point out the completely different use of measure words in Vietnamese. The use of measure words is very similar in all Chinese dialects and only refers to quantity, whereas in Vietnamese their use is sometimes closer to the use of definite articles in European languages. Vietnamese also has a more developed tense/aspect system than Chinese does.
Whether the language is more distantly related to Sino-Tibetan is a more difficult question, but as the origin of those languages (notabene including Tibetan) is believed to be in Northern China, in the Yellow River basin, I am more inclined to believe that the ancestor of modern Vietnamese was a language unrelated to Sino-Tibetan languages, spoken in the area that now comprises Guangxi and Guangdong. Consider that it took Chinese people a long time to settle the Southern provinces due to their geographic isolation, and I would venture to say that before the Southern migrations of Chinese people there would have been very little contact between northern China and the South-Western provinces.
As to the Mon-Khmer question, I am not familiar enough with those languages to state anything for sure.
If anyone can confirm or contradict any of the above, any references to current work underway on the origin of the Vietnamese language would be welcome. All I have read so far seems to indicate that Vietnamese has not been proven to be related to any other Asian language. If this sounds unfeasible, consider Japanese and Korean, which may possibly be related to each other (albeit very, very distantly) but are wholly unrelated to other Asian languages.
-
AlexNg
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
thribbi,
Your input is welcome.
First of all, since I know mandarin, cantonese, hokkien, I would say these are not different languages but dialects. If you study these dialects carefully, there are "transformation rules" between these dialects and one can accurately guess a related sound. I will not elaborate what the transformation rules are but suffice to say, if one knows one of these dialects and also know the basic transformation rules, it is very easy to learn a new dialect as opposed to a completely different language like english or japanese.
As for vietnamese, a true mon-khmer language do not develop tones, korean and japanese were both influenced by china and north korea had a similar history as vietnam, it was a territory of china in the past. But they never develop any tones. Tones are very difficult to pick up for
There are some basic words like tam (heart) which differs from cantonese by just the beginning sound "sam".
Chinese also has subject noun verb in some phrases such as "Ngo hiong nei pui chui" meaning "I apologize to you".
As my knowledge of vietnamese is still quite shallow, I cannot give more solid evidence. So this requires more research.
Your input is welcome.
First of all, since I know mandarin, cantonese, hokkien, I would say these are not different languages but dialects. If you study these dialects carefully, there are "transformation rules" between these dialects and one can accurately guess a related sound. I will not elaborate what the transformation rules are but suffice to say, if one knows one of these dialects and also know the basic transformation rules, it is very easy to learn a new dialect as opposed to a completely different language like english or japanese.
As for vietnamese, a true mon-khmer language do not develop tones, korean and japanese were both influenced by china and north korea had a similar history as vietnam, it was a territory of china in the past. But they never develop any tones. Tones are very difficult to pick up for
There are some basic words like tam (heart) which differs from cantonese by just the beginning sound "sam".
Chinese also has subject noun verb in some phrases such as "Ngo hiong nei pui chui" meaning "I apologize to you".
As my knowledge of vietnamese is still quite shallow, I cannot give more solid evidence. So this requires more research.
-
qrasy
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
Although the structural and phonetic differences between Vietnamese and the Chinese are too great, but Vietnamese could still be a member of Sino-Tibetan, because Sino-Tibetan consists not only of Chinese branch, and I think Vietnamese is very different in ruel with Austroasiatic
-
sarah abbott
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
This is really a shot in the dark!
But I was wondering if someone could help,
i work in my local Hospital and we have just had an old lady admitted to our ward who as far as we can make out is Catonese!
She does not speak a word of English and nor any of us in her language.
Please could someone help with a few words like
1/ goodmorning
2/would you like a cup of tea
3/does it hurt anywhere
4/can you stand
5/how are you
6/ my name is....
I would be very very greatful if anyone could help.
sarah.
But I was wondering if someone could help,
i work in my local Hospital and we have just had an old lady admitted to our ward who as far as we can make out is Catonese!
She does not speak a word of English and nor any of us in her language.
Please could someone help with a few words like
1/ goodmorning
2/would you like a cup of tea
3/does it hurt anywhere
4/can you stand
5/how are you
6/ my name is....
I would be very very greatful if anyone could help.
sarah.
-
Huong
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
Maybe this link will help- http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108144.html
Here is the much needed information on Vietnam and their language.
Here is the much needed information on Vietnam and their language.
-
qrasy
Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?
I'm quite sure that Vietnamese is Sino-Tibetan but NOT Chinese. 'Chinese origin of Vietnamese' should be ' "Chinese" origin of Vietnamese', (note the additional quotes) since it could not be the real Chinese. Since Sino-Tibetan consists of NOT ONLY Sinitic Branch, NOT ALL Sino-Tibetan languages derive from Ancient Chinese. (for example: Tibeto-Burman languages, which consists of more than 300 languages). And, it also means that most of Sino-Tibetan languages are NOT Chinese dialects. And certainly, Vietnamese does not either.
Tones and Grammar:
If the tones of Sino-Tibetan had not existed since proto-Sino-Tibetan, why do ALL Sino-Tibetan Languages have tones? Do you think that they developed the tones together?
It implies that proto-Sino-Tibetan could have tones (and Old Chinese also. 'Old Chinese was toneless' is just a speculation, because we lack of data. Tones could be limited by the "shape" of the word, but it does not mean "toneless".). If tonal development could be unrelated to Sino-Tibetan, why did the tonal development ONLY occur in East/Southeast Asia? (and also why the languages have simple structure?). If tones could not be loaned, and could not be independent of Sino-Tibetan, why aren't all tonal languages classified as Sino-Tibetan?
Nothing is really important with word order. Although Tibeto-Burman put possessives before a noun, but adjectives are generally placed AFTER a noun (OPPOSITE order). Chinese is the only branch of Sino-Tibetan that always puts adjectives before nouns. Tibeto-Burman grammars are quite well different from Chinese, but 'inflectionless' is the same. And we can see that in many cases the word order of French and English is OPPOSITE to each other.
How about Tay-Thai and Miao-Yao languages? They are also
inflectionless! And their numbers seems related to Chinese (Thai: Song=2, Chinese: Shuang1=Double, Twin, Pair). There are still a few linguists that consider them as Sino-Tibetan (but NEVER Sinitic Branch, which consists olny of Chinese) The correspondence of Initial/Endings ~ Tones did also exist in Sino-Tibetan.
History and Genetics:
It was possible to have proto-Sino-Tibetan far before proto-Chinese. (Who could rule out that possibility?) Chinese history is available at www.uglychinese.org
If Thai do not look like Chinese, look at their skins. They ALL have light skins. It is nearly impossible for them to have light skin if their ancestors were not similar to Chinese, since the native people of Indochina, "Indonesians" had dark skins.
Lexicons:
Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese are mostly from Middle Chinese, so what we should filter out are the Sino(Chinese)-Vietnamese words, but NOT plain(native)-Vietnamese words. Although a language can borrow from a nearly unrelated language, it can calso borrow from a closely related language (as English). I do not take Sino-Korean, Sino-Japanese and Sino-Vietnamese words into consideration, since they are purely loanwords.
Vietnamese "Head" is like Chinese.
If Chinese "Hand" "Shou3" started with "T" (as in Sino-Vietnamese), it would be very similar to Mon "Tau".
Although Vietnamese numbers are not similar to Chinese, they are related to other languages in Sino-Tibetan. For Example: 7, 8 and 10 are similar to Phunoi of Tibeto-Burman, and 3 is similar to all Miao-Yao languages.(number comparisons are available at http://www.zompist.com/asia.htm; http://www.zompist.com/sino.htm)
Numbers 6-9 in most of Mon-Khmer languages must come from somewhere else, since Khmer has only 1-5 (One language can add words, but cannot DELETE important words like 6-9)
Also, no one should say that Japanese is unrelated to other Asian languages. You can see that Japanese "hand" and "rain" are similar to Mon-Khmer Languages.
If you have visited this site before, this site could have changed a lot.
http://vny2k.net/vny2k/SiniticVietnamese.htm
I think this is not yet a good proof, and still have many errors. (example: MaoNan should be Daic). In Spite of that, there you can find many Vietnamese words similar to Sino-Tibetan.
Tones and Grammar:
If the tones of Sino-Tibetan had not existed since proto-Sino-Tibetan, why do ALL Sino-Tibetan Languages have tones? Do you think that they developed the tones together?
It implies that proto-Sino-Tibetan could have tones (and Old Chinese also. 'Old Chinese was toneless' is just a speculation, because we lack of data. Tones could be limited by the "shape" of the word, but it does not mean "toneless".). If tonal development could be unrelated to Sino-Tibetan, why did the tonal development ONLY occur in East/Southeast Asia? (and also why the languages have simple structure?). If tones could not be loaned, and could not be independent of Sino-Tibetan, why aren't all tonal languages classified as Sino-Tibetan?
Nothing is really important with word order. Although Tibeto-Burman put possessives before a noun, but adjectives are generally placed AFTER a noun (OPPOSITE order). Chinese is the only branch of Sino-Tibetan that always puts adjectives before nouns. Tibeto-Burman grammars are quite well different from Chinese, but 'inflectionless' is the same. And we can see that in many cases the word order of French and English is OPPOSITE to each other.
How about Tay-Thai and Miao-Yao languages? They are also
inflectionless! And their numbers seems related to Chinese (Thai: Song=2, Chinese: Shuang1=Double, Twin, Pair). There are still a few linguists that consider them as Sino-Tibetan (but NEVER Sinitic Branch, which consists olny of Chinese) The correspondence of Initial/Endings ~ Tones did also exist in Sino-Tibetan.
History and Genetics:
It was possible to have proto-Sino-Tibetan far before proto-Chinese. (Who could rule out that possibility?) Chinese history is available at www.uglychinese.org
If Thai do not look like Chinese, look at their skins. They ALL have light skins. It is nearly impossible for them to have light skin if their ancestors were not similar to Chinese, since the native people of Indochina, "Indonesians" had dark skins.
Lexicons:
Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese are mostly from Middle Chinese, so what we should filter out are the Sino(Chinese)-Vietnamese words, but NOT plain(native)-Vietnamese words. Although a language can borrow from a nearly unrelated language, it can calso borrow from a closely related language (as English). I do not take Sino-Korean, Sino-Japanese and Sino-Vietnamese words into consideration, since they are purely loanwords.
Vietnamese "Head" is like Chinese.
If Chinese "Hand" "Shou3" started with "T" (as in Sino-Vietnamese), it would be very similar to Mon "Tau".
Although Vietnamese numbers are not similar to Chinese, they are related to other languages in Sino-Tibetan. For Example: 7, 8 and 10 are similar to Phunoi of Tibeto-Burman, and 3 is similar to all Miao-Yao languages.(number comparisons are available at http://www.zompist.com/asia.htm; http://www.zompist.com/sino.htm)
Numbers 6-9 in most of Mon-Khmer languages must come from somewhere else, since Khmer has only 1-5 (One language can add words, but cannot DELETE important words like 6-9)
Also, no one should say that Japanese is unrelated to other Asian languages. You can see that Japanese "hand" and "rain" are similar to Mon-Khmer Languages.
If you have visited this site before, this site could have changed a lot.
http://vny2k.net/vny2k/SiniticVietnamese.htm
I think this is not yet a good proof, and still have many errors. (example: MaoNan should be Daic). In Spite of that, there you can find many Vietnamese words similar to Sino-Tibetan.