8th EuroSEAS Conference

11 – 14 August 2015
Vienna, AUSTRIA

The Mường features in the written Ancient Vietnamese

SHIMIZU Masaaki
Osaka University, Japan

Abstract: In the historical linguistics concerning Viet-Muong branch of Mon-Khmer family, the
languages of Mường, which contains not only the Mường group but the more conservative ones such
as Chứt, are generally compared with Vietnamese to reconstruct the Proto Viet-Muong (Thompson
1976, Ferlus 2009, etc.). In the course of the development of Vietnamese philology, internal evidences
of a number of old features of Vietnamese have been revealed thanks to the Chữ Nôm materials and
quite a few features of them could be found in the present Viet-Muong languages. In this study through
the analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese text of a Buddhist sutra Phật Thuyết Đại Báo Phụ Mẫu Ân Trọng
Kinh 佛説大報父母恩重經, which we suppose is the document compiled in the 15th century, we
could find a fair number of old characteristics of Ancient Vietnamese both in terms of phonology and
vocabulary which were also found in the languages of Mường and Chứt groups of Viet-Muong branch.
From the phonological viewpoint, many words in the text preserve the sesquisyllabic structure:
presyllable+major syllable, which is characteristic for the Proto Viet-Muong and still alive in the
languages of Chứt group. As for the lexical items, some ancient words found in the text are attested in
the languages of Mường group and others also in some Chứt languages. These correspondences will
be the evidences which can allow us to trace the development of Vietnamese phonology and lexicon
in the course of its history.

1. Preface
This study aims to point out the similarities between several Viet-Muong languages and the
written Ancient Vietnamese (hereafter, AV for short), especially the language written in the Sino-
Vietnamese Buddhist sutra Phật Thuyết Đại Báo Phụ Mẫu Ân Trọng Kinh 佛説大報父母恩重經
(hereafter, PMATK for short), for the purpose of showing to what extent the written AV shared the
features with the other Viet-Muong languages.

2. Data
The data used in this study is the Sino-Vietnamese text of PMATK which was written in
classical Chinese with the Vietnamese translation in Chữ Nôm characters. The date of compilation is
in controversy with two different opinions: one regards it as compiled in the 15th century (Hoàng Thị
Ngọ 1999, Shimizu 1996), and the other in the 12th century (Nguyễn Tài Cẩn 2008, Trần Trọng Dương
2011). I prefer the former opinion for two philological (non-linguistic) reasons: one is the taboo
characters contained therein, and the other is the pictures inserted in the text, which help us to assume
that the text cannot be earlier than the 15th century. The advocates of the latter opinion refer mainly to

1
its linguistic features and claim the linguistically old features of the language therein. In our opinion,
it should be reminded that Vietnamese had preserved the syllabic structure of CCVC/T with consonant
clusters containing liquid consonants as the second element until as late as the 17th century. Therefore,
it is not surprising that the language remained to be sesquisyllabic up until the 15th century, because
the syllable structure C-CVC/T is phonologically common between the 15th century and the 17th
century. The only difference is that the presyllables of both Proto Viet-Muong and the language in
PMATK could have contained non-distinctive vowel, while it had not existed between the first and the
second consonants of the clusters in the 17th century. We will discuss on this issue in section 5 below.

3. Classification of Viet-Muong languages

To make clear the internal features of Viet-Muong languages, it is necessary to refer to the
classification of Viet-Muong languages by several authors from the linguistic point of view.

(1) Viet-Muong (10) - Chut (3) Arem

Chut
Maleng
- Cuoi (2) Hung
Tho
- Muong (3) Bo
Muong
Nguôn
- Thavung (1) Aheu
- Vietnamese (1) Vietnamese

Classification of Ethnologue (https://www.ethnologue.com/)

(2) Việt-Mường Sesquisyllabic group Arem

Chứt
Mã Liềng
Aheu
Pọng
Monosyllabic group Cuối
Mường
Việt

Classification by Trần Trí Dõi (2005)

2
 Trần Trí Dõi (2005) classified the languages based on whether the languages preserve the
sesquisyllabic structure or not. In his classification, modern Vietnamese and Mường are the typical
monosyllabic languages, while Chứt and Arem are sesquisyllabic. Furthermore, Ferlus (2014) showed
the percentage of sesquisyllables in the Viet-Muong languages as follows:

(3) Vietnamese monosyllabic

Muong/mường monosyllabic
Thổ monosyllabic
Toum-Liha monosyllabic
Pong 10% of sesqui-syllabic
Thavung 35-40%
Maleng Brô 35-40%
Sách-Rục 35-40%
Arem 55-60%

Percentage of sesqui-syllables in Viet-Muong languages by Ferlus (2014)

As a matter of course, from the historical point of view the older sesquisyllabic morphemes
had become monosyllabic by deletion of the presyllables or the merger of the presyllables and the final
syllables.
Hereafter, we compare the vocabulary and phonological structure of the 15th century
Vietnamese with modern Vietnamese and other Viet-Muong languages in order to show what kind of
“Mường” features had been preserved in the written AV.

4. Lexical features
When compared with modern Vietnamese vocabulary, a number of forms in PMATK do not
share with it but they do with some other Viet-Muong languages, not only the monosyllabic Mường
but the more conservative sesquisyllabic languages. Some of the examples are as follows1:

(4) 15C Viet Modern Viet Monosyllabic VM Sesquisyllabic VM Meaning

1. 邁 *maj (mày)
2
mày [not polite] mi2 (M), mǝi (L) miː (P), mîː (Th) ‘you’
2. 莽 *maŋ (mắng)
5
nghe 2 1
măŋ , măŋ (M) 3
cǝmaŋ (R, S), ‘to hear’
tǝmɐ̀ŋ4 (Th)
3. 三 *saːm (tam)1
em saːm1 (Th) ‘younger

1 (M): Mường, (L): Liha, (P): Pong, (R): Rục, (S): Sách, (Th): Thavung

3
 sibling’
4. 淫 *jǝm (dâm) 1
đen zɤ̆m2, zɤ̆m1 (M) ‘black’
5. 抌 *ɗam (đăm) 1
(bên) phải tăm2, tăm1 (M) tɐ̀m² (R, S) ‘right side’
6. 燥 *saːw (ráo) 5
khô saw5 (M), kʰaw (L) ‘dry’
7. 之 *ciː (chi)
1
gì ci2, ci1 (M) Ɂaĵ ː (Th) ‘what’
8. 這 *çaː (giá)
5
rét ca5, ca3 (M) ‘cold’
9. 衆 *cɔːŋ (chóng)
5
nhanh cɔŋ3 (M) ‘fast, quick’
10. 庄 *caŋ (chẳng)
3
không căŋ2, căŋ1 (M) ßaŋ3 (R) ? ‘not’
11. 招 *ciew (chiêu) 1
(bên) trái ciǝw2, ciǝw1 (M) ceɛw2 (R) ‘left side’
12. 哿 *kaː (cả)
3
to ka4 (M) ‘big’
13. 盎 *Ɂaːŋ (áng) 5
bố, cha ɛɲ2 (M) ‘father’
14. 沃 *Ɂɔːk (óc) 7
gọi, kêu hok3, hok5 (M) ‘to call’
15. 咍 *haj (hay)
1
biết hăj2 (M) hiː1 (R) ‘to know’
16. 漢 *haːn (han) 1
hỏi han2, haɲ2 (M), haːɲ (P), haːɲ¹ (R, S) , ‘to ask’
haːɲ (L) haːn¹ (Th)
17. 歇 *heːt (hết)
7
tất cả het3 tʰăj4 (M) ht́ (Th) ‘all’
18. 歆 *hoːm (hôm) 1
đêm hom1 (M) ‘evening’

In (4), for most of the forms in PMATK which are different from those in the modern
Vietnamese we can find the cognates in Mường. Furthermore, some of the basic words such as ‘you’
(4-1), ‘to hear’ (4-2), ‘younger sibling’ (4-3), ‘right side’ (4-5), ‘left side’ (4-11), ‘to know’ (4-15), ‘to
ask’ (4-16), etc. are also common with the sesquisyllabic languages such as Rục, Sách, Thavung, etc.,
which reveals the quite old features of the written AV.

5. Phonological features
The more important issue is concerned with the phonological features of AV. The most
important feature among others is the sesquisyllabicity of the language shared with the other
conservative Viet-Muong languages. Some examples are as follows:

(5) 15C Viet Modern Viet Monosyllabic VM Sesquisyllabic VM Meaning

1. 巴邏 *bǝlaː 3
trả pla4, tla4, kla4 (M) ‘to answer’
2. 波來 *bǝlaːj (trái) 5
quả 3 3
plaj , tlaj , klaj 3
pleː (P), pəliː³ (R, ‘fruit’
(M), plaɛ (L) S), pʰaləː³ (Th)
3. 可列 *kʰǝrat 7
sắt 3 5
kʰăc , kʰăc (M), ⁷
kʰlɛc (P), kʰlat (R), ‘iron’
lac (L) ⁷
ʃat (S)

4
 4. 古弄 *kǝroːŋ 5
sống kʰoŋ3 (M), kʰloːŋ kʰloːŋ (P), kloːŋ³ ‘alive,
(L) ⁴
(R), tluoŋ (S) to live’

(6) 1. 可汝 *kʰǝɲǝː 5
nhớ ɲəː³ (M), ɲaə (L) kʰɲəː (P), kəɲəː³ ‘to remember’

(R), ɲəː³ (S)

2. 破散 *pʰǝsan 5
rắn tʰăɲ3, săɲ3 (M), siŋ (P), pəsiɲ³ (R, ‘snake’
sʌɲ (L) S)
3. 司盃 *təßu:j 1
vui puj2, buj2 (M), kpuːj (P), təpuːj¹ ‘joyful’
puːj (L) (R, S)
4. 車莽 *cǝmaŋ (mắng)5
nghe măŋ2, măŋ1 (M) cǝmaŋ3 (R, S), ‘to hear’
tǝmɐ̀ŋ4 (Th)
5. 羅打 *lǝɗa: 5
đá ta3, da3 (M), taː (P), lataː³ (R), ‘stone’
taː (L) taː³ (S)

The difference between (5) and (6) is the manner of monosyllabification: the words in (5)
had become monosyllabic through the merger of C1 and C2 in C1C2VC3/T, while those in (6) had
undergone the loss of presyllables (C1-).

(7) 15C Modern

C1C2VC3/T > C4VC3/T [merger of C1 and C2 for the cases in (5)]
C1C2VC3/T > C2’VC3/T [loss of C1 for the cases in (6)]

According to the classification of sesquisyllabic structure by Thomas (1992), there are 4

types of presyllables or minor syllables among the Mon-Khmer languages: (i) CǝC- = CC-, (ii) CǝC-
≠ CC-, (iii) CvC-, and (iv) CVC-. The case of the written AV is a typical case of type (i) in which the
medial vowel between the consonants has no phonemic value but does exist phonetically. The reason
why I suppose it does is that the rhyme of the Sino-Vietnamese of most of the Chinese characters
波 巴, 可, 破, 車, 羅) with only a few exceptions having /-o/
transcribing the presyllables is /-a/ ( ,
and /-ɨ/ which can obviously be regarded as the case of the regressive assimilation.
Considering the cases of (6-2) and (6-3) which are concerned with the spirantization process,
it is difficult to explain the process of C2 > C2’ without the existence of the non-phonemic vowel
between C1 and C2. And through reconstruction of the AV consonants (Shimizu 2015), it is quite
obvious that at the stage of AV the process of spirantization had not completed, therefore the
sesquisyllabic structure must have existed at the stage.

5
(8) PVM 15C 17C 20C NV cf. Rục
rắn *p-səɲʔ > *pʰǝsan5 > ɽan5 > ʐan5 > zan5 pusiɲ3
破散 *pʰa:5 sa:n5 (ta:n5) (ta:n5) (ta:n5)

(9) PVM 15C 17C 20C NV cf. Ruc ̣

vui *t-puːj > *təβu:j1 > βu:j1 > vu:j1 > vu:j1 tapuj1
司盃 *tɨ1 ɓo:j1 (ɓo:j1) (ɓo:j1) (ɓo:j1)

In addition, the fact that the author of PMATK used two Chinese characters to transcribe the
sesquisyllabic words can only be explained with the existence of the vowel.
As for the actual duration of the presyllables and the major syllables, we can refer the present
conditions of the sesquisyllabic languages, such as Rục. The phonetic realization of the presyllables
of modern Rục, is quite limited in duration when compared with its major syllables. Fig. (1) and Fig.
(2) show the actual duration of them in the spectrograms of [pusiɲ3] ‘snake’ and [tapuj1] ‘joyful’ in
modern Rục2.
Therefore, the notation in (7) is phonological, while its phonetic one must be as in (10).

(10) PVM 15C 17C Modern

C1vC2VC3 C1vC2VC3/T C1C2VC3/T C4VC3/T
C1vC2VC3 C1vC2VC3/T C2’VC3/T C2’VC3/T

We suppose that the situation of 15C Vietnamese is same as that of sesquisyllabic Viet-
Muong languages such as Rục. However its syllable structure is phonologically same as that of 17C.
And it is quite probable that the syllable structure of modern Mường is same as that of 17C Vietnamese
which has consonant clusters without non phonemic vowels between them. Therefore adding the
situations of Viet-Muong languages to (10), we can generalize the process as in (11).

(11) I II III IV
C1vC2VC3 C1vC2VC3/T C1C2VC3/T C4VC3/T
C1vC2VC3 C1vC2VC3/T C2’VC3/T C2’VC3/T

I: Proto Viet Muong

II: 15C Vietnamese and sesquisyllabic Viet-Muong languages
III: 17C Vietnamese and monosyllabic Viet-Muong languages
IV: Modern Vietnamese

2
The Rục data were recorded at xã Thượng Hoá, huyện Minh Hoá, Quảng Bình province on 23 Sept. 2009 with the
cooperation of Prof. Trần Trí Dõi.

6
 [ k ɔː n pu̥ s i ɲ ]

Fig. (1) [pusiɲ3] ‘snake’ in Rục

[t ă p uː j ]

Fig. (2) [tapuj1] ‘joyful’ in Rục

6. Conclusions
I have examined the lexical and phonological characteristics of the written AV and
concluded that the written AV shared quite a few features with the sesquisyllabic Viet-Muong
languages, such as Rục. Meanwhile, from a phonological point of view, the 17C Vietnamese is quite
similar to the monosyllabic Viet-Muong languages, such as Mường. Therefore, in conclusion, one of
the most important criteria that distinguishes modern Vietnamese and other Viet-Muong languages is

7
the syllable structure types as shown in (11).

References
Ferlus, Michel (1982) Spirantisation des obstruantes médiales et formation du système consonantique
du vietnamien. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 11 (1): 83–106.

Ferlus, Michel (2009) A layer of Dongsonian vocabulary in Vietnamese. Journal of the Southeast
Asian Linguistics Society 1: 95–109.

Ferlus, Michel (2014) Arem, a Vietic Language, Mon-Khmer Studies 43 (1): 1-15.

Hoàng, Thị Ngọ (1999) Chữ Nôm và tiếng Việt qua bản giải âm Phật thuyết Đại báo phụ mẫu ân trọng
kinh. Nxb Khoa học Xã hội: Hà Nội.

Nguyễn, Tài Cẩn (2008) Một số vấn đề về ngành Nôm học. Hội nghị Nôm học, 11–12 tháng 4 năm
2008. Trung tâm Triết học, Văn hoá & Xã hội Việt Nam. Đại học Temple.

Nguyễn, Văn Lợi (1993) Tiếng Rục. Nxb Khoa học Xã hội: Hà Nội.

Nguyễn, Văn Tài (2005) Ngữ âm tiếng Mường qua các phương ngôn. Nxb Từ điển Bách khoa: Hà
Nội.

SEAlang Mon-Khmer Languages Project. SEAlang Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary.

(http://sealang.net/monkhmer/dictionary/)

Shimizu, Masaaki (1996) On the Chu Nom characters contained in the Sino-Vietnamese text of Phat
Tuyet Dai Bao Phu Mau An Trong Kinh [ 漢文＝字喃文対訳『佛説大報父母恩重經』に
見る字喃について]. Ningen-Kankyogaku 5: 83–104. Kyoto University.
Shimizu, Masaaki (2015) A Reconstruction of Ancient Vietnamese Initials Using Chữ Nôm Materials.
NINJAL Research Papers 9: 135–158.

Thomas, David (1992) On sesquisyllabic structure. Mon-Khmer Studies 21: 206-210.

Thompson, Laurence C. (1976) Proto-Viet-Muong phonology. Oceanic Linguistics Special

Publications No. 13, Austroasiatic Studies Part II. 1113-1203

Trần Trí Dõi (2005) Giáo trình lịch sử tiếng Việt (sơ thảo). Nxb Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội: Hà Nội.

Trần Trọng Dương (2011) Phâṭ Thuyết có phải là dịch phẩm Nôm của thế kỷ XII? Ngôn ngữ 4 (263):
31–47.