From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand Years of Language Contact and Change : With an Appendix of Chamic Reconstructions and Loanwords (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications)

419 Pages·1999·32.77 MB·English

by  Graham Thurgood

From Ancient Cham toM odern Dialects
Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 28
From Ancient Cham toM odern Dialects:
Two Thousand Years of
Contact and
Language Change
With an of Chamic
appendix
reconstructions and loanwords
Graham
Thurgood
University of Hawai'i Press
Honolulu
? 1999 University of Hawai'i Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
04 03 02 01 00 99 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data
Thurgood, Graham.
From ancient Cham to modern dialects : two thousand years of
language contact and change / Graham Thurgood.
p. cm. ? (Oceanic linguistics special publication ; no. 28)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 0-8248-2131-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Cham language?Dialects. 2. Cham language?History.
3. Language in contact?Southeast Asia. I. Title. II. Series.
PL4491.94.T47 1999
499'.22?dc21 98-54334
CIP
Camera-ready copy prepared by the author.
University of Hawai'i Press books are printed on acid-free paper
and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the
Council on Library Resources.
Printed by Cushing-Malloy, Inc.
Contents
Preface ix
xi
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations and Conventions xv.
1 Introduction 1
Chamic convergence with Southeast Asia 4
The general tendencies: A broad overview 5
Previous work on Chamic reconstruction 6
The degree of adjustment 13
2 The and Historical 14
Geographical Setting
The geographical setting 14
Chamic prehistory 15
Chamic history 17
The Chamic and MK languages inV ietnam 27
3 Classification of the Chamic Languages 30
The place of Chamic within Austronesian 31
Malayo-Chamic and broader affiliations 34
The Malayo-Chamic subgroup 39
Within the Chamic languages: A sketch 40
Acehnese, a Chamic language 47
A digression on Moken, a non-Chamic language 58
4 Altering the Basic Word: From Disyllabic toM onosyllabic
The iambic syllable: Early Mon-Khmer influence 61
The loss of the vowel before medial -h- 63
Disyllables with liquids > monosyllables and clusters 64
Loss of the unstressed initial syllable 65
v
vi Contents
5 Chamic Consonants 67
Presyliable consonants: The details 67
Main syllable onset consonants 80
Consonant clusters 93
Word-final consonants 99
6 Chamic Vowels 104
The literature 105
The PC presy liable vowels 106
The inherited PC main syllable vowels 113
The borrowed PC main syllable vowels 126
PC vowel length 138
The main syllable vowels summarized 151
7 Nasals and Nasalization 152
Nasalization in PC 152
Nasalization in Chru 153
Nasalization in Haroi 155
Nasalization in Cham 155
Nasalization in Tsat 160
Nasalization inN orthern Roglai 170
Nasalization inA cehnese 176
8 The Origins of Registers and Tones 178
Western Cham and the development of register 179
Phan Rang Cham, an incipient tone system 187
Haroi vowels and restructured register 197
Tsat and its fully-developed tonal system 214
The internal paths of change 232
9 PC Some Notes 237
Morphology:
A note on PC morphology 238
Verbs and verbal morphology 239
Nouns and nominal morphology 244
10 Contact, Multilingualism, and Change 251
Non-linguistic history 252
Chamic and the nature of language change 253
Accommodation to a linguistic area 258
Contents Vil
Appendix I: Language Names (and transliteration tables) 261
Acehnese 262
Bih 263
Chru 263
Haroi 265
Jarai 266
Krung 267
Noang 267
Phan Rang Cham 267
Rade 269
Rai 271
Northern Roglai 271
CacGiaRoglai 272
Southern Roglai 272
Tsat 272
Western Cham 274
Written Chamic 275
II: The Chamic Lexicon 277
Appendix
1. Chamic Vocabulary Reconstructable to PC 280
2. Words Borrowed After the Breakup of PC 346
3. English-Chamic Index 365
References 379
Author Index 395
Topic Index 399
Preface
The title of this book From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand
Years of Language Contact and Change, even more than showing my admiration
for J.M arvin Brown's work on Thai, reflects my belief that the term 'Cham' was
used at an earlier time as a general term for all the Chamic-speaking peoples of
Vietnam. It is reflected in the name of the kingdom, Champa, it the etymological
source of the name Tsat used by the Utsat people of Hainan to describe their lan?
guage, and it occurs quite early in the Chinese dynastic records in their references
to Champa.
Leaving the title aside, two quite different views of research exist, each
with its own place, one more conservative, the other more exploratory. One view
is typified by the comment of the English poet Pope to lesser poets advising them
to keep their piece nine years. In this view, the endpoint is reached when every?
thing is completely clear and thoroughly documented. As will become evident to
readers, this monograph has been written in a quite different tradition: it is an
exploratory study that first reconstructs proto-Chamic and then, based on that
reconstruction, focuses on 2000 years of language contact and change. Central
themes in this exploration include the adaptation of Chamic to the Southeast
Asian linguistic area, the canonical restructuring of the basic shape of the word,
major changes to the consonant and vowel inventories, the development of regis?
ter, tone, and restructured register, and, of course, the role played by bilingualism
in all these developments.
However, from the outset it must be acknowledged that these analyses
offered here are, even more than usual, tentative, preliminary, and undoubtedly in
need of correction and amplification. In part, this reflects the fact that Chamic
studies are, in some senses, still in their infancy; in part, the numerous gaps inm y
background; and, in part, it reflects things that I have simply missed or misana
lyzed, and itw ould be surprising if all my errors should prove minor. In a number
of ways, the conclusions presented here differ from conclusions reached in my
own earlier work, and where they differ, these conclusions supersede the earlier
ones. In Chamic studies, only the outlines seem to be clear; far more remains to
be discovered than has been found thus far.
IX
X PREFACE
The preoccupation throughout with borrowed forms directly reflects the
preoccupation with language contact and the relative chronology of language
contact. Thus, their presence in the tables and text is relevant, not only to the
reconstructions involved, but also to the relative chronologies of the borrowings
themselves. If the loans participated in a change, they predate the change; if they
did not participate, then they were borrowed after the change.
The original plan for this work did not include Acehnese. It was only as
the first draft was nearing completion that a comparison with Acehnese made it
absolutely obvious thatA cehnese was simply a Chamic language whose speakers
had migrated to Sumatra, not a separate branch collateral with the mainland lan?
guages. At that point the whole manuscript was reworked to incorporate Ace?
hnese, not with the intent of being definitive, but hoping to confirm beyond all
reasonable objections that Acehnese was Chamic. A myriad of details has been
left for another time when more is known.
In addition to the main texts, this work is accompanied by three appendi?
ces: one is a set of transliteration tables, another is an appendix of reconstructed
and borrowed forms, and the last is an appendix of forms arranged alphabetically
by English gloss. The transliteration of a multitude of differing orthographies was
necessary for clarity of exposition. Almost without exception, this was done
mechanically, aside from an error that may have crept in here and there.
The other appendix lists both the proto-Chamic reconstructions and the
borrowings found throughout the manuscript, along with the forms that these
assessments are based on. Not all the languages are included, but there are
enough so that the reconstructions can usually be done on the basis of the forms
given.
Within this appendix, both reconstructed forms and borrowings are
listed. Undoubtedly there is some error in the identification of borrowings, but
none that invalidate any of the conclusions. A number of marginally attested
forms are included in this appendix, along with the supporting data, with the
hope that other researchers will help clarify their etymologies. Where Chamic
forms are suspected of having as of yet unidentified Mon-Khmer counterparts, it
is hoped that various scholars will help fill in these gaps.
Finally, it is expected that the forms reconstructed in this work for Proto
Chamic will be revised in the direction of the forms found reconstructed for
Proto-Malayo-Chamic, as better and more thorough use is made of theW ritten
Chamic inscriptional data.
Graham Thurgood
California State University, Chico
Acknowledgments
Despite the single author, this work is a collaborative effort, only made possible
through the generous help of countless others. Much of my work on Chamic
would not have been possible without the help of Bob Blust, who provided me
with encouragement, insights, and copies of crucial papers. In particular, the
Malayo-Polynesian side of this work heavily reflects his help. He gave freely of
his time, energy, and considerable expertise, making it possible not only to look
at the Chamic historical changes from the bottom-up?from the modern Chamic
looking back to Proto-Chamic, but also to look at them from the top down?from
the perspective of reconstructed Proto-Malayo-Polynesian. These twin perspec?
tives produced a much more sophisticated and insightful reconstruction and anal?
ysis than would have been otherwise possible.
The Acehnese portion of this work owes much toM ark Durie, who con?
stantly supplemented my meager knowledge of Acehnese, patiently pointing out
over email what worked and what did not. He not only supplied most of the Ace?
hnese forms?including a wealth of forms in an extremely valuable thesaurus
(Daud Bukhari and Mark Durie, n.d.) and a hypercard program containing
Chamic-Acehnese comparative material (Durie, 1990b), but he also looked them
over after the first draft of the manuscript was written, and supplied many that
were still missing. In a similar way, he critiqued and improved many of the anal?
yses, not just of Acehnese but also those of Chamic. Inm any instances, he played
the devil's advocate, forcing me to rethink, clarify, reformulate, and, with some
frequency, change positions taken in earlier drafts.
Whatever merits the analyses may have also owe a great deal to David
Solnit, who significantly improved a number of the analyses in both major and
minor ways. The phonetic analysis of Tsat owes its essence to work done on it by
IanM addieson, who supplied a significant number of the forms. G?rard Diffloth,
Theraphan Luangthongkum, Arthur Abramson, and, most recently, David Tho?
mas labored hard providing insights and straightening out my use of terminology
with regard to the terms register, voice quality, register complex, and so on and
clarified my discussion of the Chamic interaction with the MK. In addition, he
sent me invaluable materials on Mon-Khmer reconstruction as well as a copy of
Phraya Prachakij-karacak's (1995) Some Languages of Siam, containing a Jarai
XI
Xll Acknowledgments
and a Rade wordlist from the last century. At a much later point, Peter Ladefoged
suggested the explanation for the connection between breathiness and vowel rais?
ing and creakiness or tenseness and vowel lowering included here. Ouyang Jueya
kindly sent me additional forms, several of which turned out to be crucial for the
analysis of Tsat historical developments. Neil Baumgartner let me use the Cham
font he developed. A large number of other people made substantive suggestions
that are directly reflected in the ideas presented here: Eric Oey, Patricia Donegan,
David Stampe, Jean Tempeste, Zane Clark, Ibrahim b. Ismail, Ni Dabai, Joel
Nevis, Jerry Edmondson, George Grace, Paul Benedict, Jim Collins, Alan
Stevens, David Thomas, Osh Larish, Keng-Fong Pang, Karen Mistry, and Elzbi
eta Thurgood. There is no reason to believe, however, that those thanked will
even recognize what I have done with their suggestions, let alone agree with
them.
In addition toM ark Durie, who read the original "first" draft, a number
of other people kindly offered to read an earlier draft and provide me feedback:
David Thomas, Paul Benedict, John Wolff, Malcolm Ross, Martha Ratliff, Jim
Matisoff, and Jerry Edmondson, and Sander Adelaar. Paul Benedict send me
some useful notes about wider Austronesian connections as well as about the ety?
mology of the u- prefix found in Tsat. The feedback has been invaluable and has,
in some cases, substantially improved the description.
The Chamic lexicon contained in Appendix 2 has been painstakingly
gone through by a number of scholars, all of whom know more about Austrone?
sian than I do. The usefulness and accuracy of the appendix owes its merits to
their help. Specifically, Bob Blust, Mark Durie, K. Alexander Adelaar, David
Thomas, and Paul Benedict have all contributed time and energy to the appendix.
In particular, Bob Blust, Mark Durie, and K. Alexander Adelaar commented on
the forms, one-by-one where necessary. For this labor, I cannot thank them
enough.
In addition, various people have knowingly or unknowingly helped me
with my understanding of the history and the historical documents pertaining to
Champa and the surrounding area. I wish to thank the following people for their
suggestions and help: Bob Hsu, Barbara Andaya, Hilary Chappell, Pang Keng
Fong, Ngo Thanh Nhan, Arun Sinha, John Wolff, Mike Feener (by way of John
Wolff), John Marston, Mackie Blanton, Chris Court, Mark Durie, Sander Ade?
laar, and the late Gwyn Williams.
In a more general way, I wish to acknowledge my intellectual debts to
my early teachers: my friend and mentor Jim Matisoff, who introduced me to
Southeast Asia, Mary Haas, who taught me much of what I know about the com?
parative method, and Paul Benedict, who never lost track of the big picture.