Vietic languages

Vietic
Geographic distribution:	Indochina
Linguistic classification:	Austro-Asiatic Nuclear Mon–Khmer Khmero-Vietic? Vieto-Katuic Vietic
Subdivisions:	Viet–Muong Cuoi Thavung Chut Maleng Kri

The Vietic languages are a branch of the Austro-Asiatic language family. The branch was once referred to by the terms Việt–Mường, Annam–Muong, and Vietnamuong, but today these are understood as referring to a sub-branch of Vietic containing only the Vietnamese and Mường languages.

Origins

Based on linguistic diversity, the most probable homeland of the Vietic languages appears to have been located in modern-day Bolikhamsai Province and Khammouane Province in Laos as well as parts of Nghệ An Province and Quảng Bình Province in Vietnam.

Vietnamese was identified as an Austroasiatic language in the mid-nineteenth century, and there is now strong evidence for this classification. Today, Vietnamese is a monosyllabic tonal language like Cantonese and has lost many Proto-Austro-Asiatic phonological and morphological features. Vietnamese has also large stocks of borrowed Chinese and Tai vocabulary. For these reasons, there continues to be resistance to the idea that Vietnamese could be more closely related to Khmer than to Chinese or the Tai languages. However, these typological similarities are considered superficial, as they are due to language contact (Vietnamese was heavily influenced by Chinese and even used a Chinese writing system for hundreds of years; see Sino-Xenic). Many of the Vietic languages have tonal or phonational systems intermediate between that of Viet–Muong and other branches of Austroasiatic that have not had significant Chinese or Tai influence.

Classification

The following classification of the Vietic languages is from Chamberlain (2003:422), as quoted in Sidwell (2009:145). Unlike past classifications, there as a sixth "South" branch that includes Kri, a newly described language.

• Vietic
  • North (Viet–Muong)
    • Vietnamese
    • Mường
    • Nguồn
  • Northwest (Cuoi)
    • Toum
    • Liha
    • Phong
  • West (Thavưng)
    • Ahoe
    • Ahao
    • Ahlao
  • Southeast (Chut)
    • Cheut
    • Rục
    • Sách
    • Mày
    • Malieng
    • (Arem ?)
    • (Kata)
  • Southwest (Maleng)
    • Atel
    • Thémarou
    • Arao
    • Makang
    • Malang
    • Maleng
    • Tơe
  • South (Kri)
    • Kri
    • Phóng
    • Mlengbrou

Tone

The discovery that Vietnamese was a Mon–Khmer language, and that its tones were a regular reflection of non-tonal features in the rest of the family, is considered a milestone in the development of historical linguistics. The Vietic languages reflect every stage in this development.

• Arem: This language lacks the breathy phonation common to most Vietic languages, but does have glottalized final consonants.
• Cuôi: Hung in Laos, and Thô in Vietnam
• Aheu (Thavung): This language makes a four-way distinction between clear and breathy phonation combined with glottalized final consonants. This is very similar to the situation in the Pearic languages in which, however, the glottalization is in the vowel.
• Ruc, Sach, May, and Chưt: A dialect cluster; the register system is the four-way contrast of Aheu augmented with pitch.
• Maleng (Bo, Pakatan): Tones as in Ruc-Sach.
• Pong, Hung, Tum, Khong-Kheng
• Việt–Mường: Vietnamese and Mường. These two dialect chains share 75% of their vocabulary, and have similar systems of 5–6 contour tones. These are regular reflexes of other Vietic languages: The three low and three high tones correspond to voiced and voiceless initial consonants in the ancestral language; these then split depending on the original final consonants: Level tones correspond to open syllables or final nasal consonants; high rising and low falling tones correspond to final stops, which have since disappeared; dipping tones to final fricatives, which have also disappeared; and glottalized tones to final glottalized consonants, which have deglottalized.

Further reading

• Barker, M. E. (1977). Articles on Proto-Viet–Muong. Vietnam publications microfiche series, no. VP70-62. Huntington Beach, Calif: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

References

• Chamberlain, J.R. 2003. Eco-Spatial History: a nomad myth from the Annamites and its relevance for biodiversity conservation. In X. Jianchu and S. Mikesell, eds. Landscapes of Diversity: Proceedings of the III MMSEA Conference, 25–28 August 2002. Lijiand, P. R. China: Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge. pp. 421–436.
• Sidwell, Paul (2009). Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art. LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics, 76. Munich: Lincom Europa.
• SEAlang Project: Mon–Khmer languages. The Vietic Branch
• Sidwell (2003)
• Endangered Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia
• Ethnologue