Proto-Austroasiatic is the reconstructed ancestor of the Austroasiatic languages. Proto-Mon–Khmer (i.e., all Austroasiatic branches except for Munda) has been reconstructed in

Harry L. Shorto Harry Leonard Shorto (19 September 1919 – 30 July 1995) was a British philologist and linguist who specialized on the Mon language and Mon-Khmer studies. He authored both a modern Mon dictionary and a dictionary of Mon epigraphy. He worked f ...

's ''Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary'', while a new Proto-Austroasiatic reconstruction is currently being undertaken by Paul Sidwell. Scholars generally date the ancestral language to 5,000-4,000 B.P. (i.e. 3,000-2,000 BCE) with a homeland in southern China or the Mekong River valley. Sidwell (2022) proposes that the locus of Proto-Austroasiatic was in the Red River Delta area about 4,000-4,500 years before present.

Phonology

Shorto (2006)

The Proto-Mon–Khmer language is the reconstructed ancestor of the Mon–Khmer languages, a purported primary branch of the

Austroasiatic language family The Austroasiatic languages , , are a large language family in Mainland Southeast Asia and South Asia. These languages are scattered throughout parts of Thailand, Laos, India, Myanmar, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Nepal, and southern China and are th ...

. However, Mon–Khmer as a taxon has been abandoned in recent classifications, making Proto-Mon–Khmer synonymous with Proto-Austroasiatic;Sidwell, Paul (2009)
The Austroasiatic Central Riverine Hypothesis
Keynote address, SEALS, XIX. the Munda languages, which are not well documented, and have been restructured through external language contact, have not been included in the reconstructions. Proto-Mon–Khmer as reconstructed by

(2006) has a total of 21 consonants, 7 distinct vowels, which can be lengthened and glottalized, and 3

diphthong A diphthong ( ; , ), also known as a gliding vowel, is a combination of two adjacent vowel sounds within the same syllable. Technically, a diphthong is a vowel with two different targets: that is, the tongue (and/or other parts of the speech o ...

s. Proto-Mon–Khmer is rich in vowels. The vowels are: * *a, *aa * *e, *ee * *ə, *əə * *i, *-iʔ, *ii, *-iiʔ * *o, *oo * *ɔ, *ɔɔ * *u, *uu, *-uuʔ The

s are: * *iə, *uə, *ai

Sidwell & Rau (2015)

Paul Sidwell and Felix Rau (2015)Sidwell, Paul and Felix Rau (2015). "Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). ''The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages''. Leiden: Brill.Sidwell, Paul. 2018
Austroasiatic Studies: state of the art in 2018
Presentation at the Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, May 22, 2018. propose the following syllable structure for Proto-Austroasiatic. * *C_i(C_m)VC_f Also possible are more complex forms with prefixes and infixes, as well as presyllable "coda-copying" from main syllables. * *(C_p(n/r/l))C_iVC_f Sidwell & Rau (2015) reconstruct 21-22 Proto-Austroasiatic consonants (the reconstruction of *ʄ is uncertain). All of the Proto-Austroasiatic consonants except for implosives and voiced stops can occur as syllable finals (C_f). All of the Proto-Austroasiatic unvoiced stops and voiced stops, as well as *m-, *N-, *r-, *l-, and *s-, can occur as presyllables or sesquisyllables (C_p). Medial consonants (C_m) are *-w -, *-r -, *-l -, *-j -, and *-h-. Sidwell & Rau (2015) reconstructs 8 Proto-Austroasiatic vowels, for which there is vowel length contrast. A long vowel will be appended with triangular colon (ː) instead of doubling. Proto-Austroasiatic diphthongs are *iə and *uə, and possibly *ie and *uo.

Morphology

Common structures include *CV(C) and *CCV(C) roots. *CVC roots can also be affixed either via prefixes or infixes, as in *C-CVC or *CVC (Shorto 2006). Sidwell (2008) gives the following phonological shapes for two types of stems. * Monosyllabic - C(R)V(V)C * Sesquisyllabic - CCV(V)C ''Note'': R is one of the optional medial consonants /r, l, j, w, h/. Sidwell (2008) considers the two most morphologically conservative Mon–Khmer branches to be

Khmuic The Khmuic languages are a branch of the Austroasiatic languages spoken mostly in northern Laos, as well as in neighboring northern Vietnam and southern Yunnan, China. Khmu language, Khmu is the only widely spoken language in the group. Homelan ...

and

Aslian The Aslian languages () are the southernmost branch of Austroasiatic languages spoken on the Malay Peninsula. They are the languages of many of the '' Orang Asli'', the aboriginal inhabitants of the peninsula. The total number of native speakers ...

. On the other hand, Vietnamese morphology is far more similar to that of

Chinese Chinese can refer to: * Something related to China * Chinese people, people of Chinese nationality, citizenship, and/or ethnicity **''Zhonghua minzu'', the supra-ethnic concept of the Chinese nation ** List of ethnic groups in China, people of va ...

and the Tai languages and has lost many morphological features found in Proto-Mon–Khmer. The following Proto-Mon–Khmer affixes, which are still tentative, have been reconstructed by Paul Sidwell (Sidwell 2008:257-263). * Nominalizing *-n- (instrumental in Kammu, resultative in Khmu) * Nominalizing agentive *-m- * Nominalizing iterative (expressive of repetitiveness/numerousness) *-l-/*-r- * Nominalizing instrumental *-p- * Causative *p(V)- (allomorphs: ''p-, pn-, -m-'') * Reciprocal *tr-/*t(N)- * Stative *h-/*hN- (?) Roger Blench (2012) notes that Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan share many similarities regarding word structure, particularly nominal affixes (otherwise known as sesquisyllables or minor syllable prefixes). Blench (2012) does not make any definitive conclusions about how these similarities could have arisen, but suggests that this typological diffusion might have come about as a result of intensive contact in an area between northern Vietnam, Laos, and northeast Myanmar.

Syntax

Like the Tai languages, Proto-Mon–Khmer has an SVO, or verb-medial, order. Proto-Mon–Khmer also makes use of noun classifiers and serial verb constructions (Shorto 2006). However, Paul Sidwell (2018) suggests that Proto-Austroasiatic may have in fact been verb-initial, with SVO order occurring in Indochina due to convergence in the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area. Various modern-day Austroasiatic languages display verb-initial word order, including Pnar and Wa (Jenny 2015). Nicobarese also displays verb-initial word order.

Lexicon

Pronouns

Proto-Austroasiatic personal pronouns as follows, with reconstructions from Sidwell & Rau (2015) and Shorto (2006).

Determiners

Particles

Branch reconstructions

Austroasiatic branch-level reconstructions include: *Proto- Munda: Sidwell & Rau (2015) ( list) *Proto- Khasic: Paul Sidwell (2012)
list
*Proto- Palaungic: Paul Sidwell (2010, 2015)
list 1
list 2) *Proto-

: Paul Sidwell (2013)
list
*Proto- Pakanic: Andrew Hsiu (2016) ( list) *Proto-

Vietic The Vietic languages are a branch of the Austroasiatic language family, spoken by the Vietic peoples in Laos and Vietnam. The branch was once referred to by the terms ''Việt–Mường'', ''Annamese–Muong'', and ''Vietnamuong''; the term '' ...

: Michel Ferlus (2007) *Proto-

Katuic The fifteen Katuic languages form a branch of the Austroasiatic languages spoken by about 1.3 million people in Southeast Asia. People who speak Katuic languages are called the Katuic peoples. Paul Sidwell is the leading specialist on the Katuic ...

: Paul Sidwell (2005)
list
*Proto-

Bahnaric The Bahnaric languages are a group of about thirty Austroasiatic languages spoken by about 700,000 people in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Paul Sidwell notes that Austroasiatic/Mon–Khmer languages are lexically more similar to Bahnaric and Katui ...

: Paul Sidwell (2011)
list
*Proto- Khmeric: Sidwell & Rau (2015), based on Ferlus (1992) ( list) *Proto- Pearic: Sidwell & Rau (2015); Robert Headley (1985)Headley, Robert K. 1985.
Proto-Pearic and the classification of Pearic
" In Suriya Ratanakult et al (eds.), ''Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies Presented to Andre-G. Haudricourt''. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University. pp. 428-478. ( list) *Proto- Monic: Gérard Diffloth (1984)
list
*Proto-

: Timothy Phillips (2012)Phillips, Timothy C. 2012. ''Proto-Aslian: towards an understanding of its historical linguistic systems, principles and processes''. Ph.D. thesis, Institut Alam Dan Tamadun Melayu Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. ( list) *Proto- Nicobarese: Paul Sidwell (2018) ( list)

Origin and dispersal

Theories of the Austroasiatic homeland and dispersal have evolved rapidly in the 21st century. Proto-Austroasiatic migration

Paul Sidwell (2009) suggested that the likely homeland of Austroasiatic is in the Mekong River region, and that the family is not as old as frequently assumed, dating to perhaps 2,000 BCE. However, Peiros (2011) criticized Sidwell's 2009 riverine dispersal hypothesis heavily and claimed many contradictions. He showed with his analysis that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere near the Yangtze. He suggests the Sichuan Basin as likely homeland of proto-Austroasiatic before they migrated to other parts of central and southern China and then into Southeast Asia. He further suggests that the family must be as old as proto-Austronesian and proto-Sino-Tibetan or even older. Georg van Driem (2011) proposed that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere in southern China. He suggested that the region around the Pearl River (China) is the likely homeland of the Austroasiatic languages and people. He further suggested, based on genetic studies, that the migration of Kra–Dai people from Taiwan replaced the original Austroasiatic language but the effect on the people was only minor. Local Austroasiatic speakers adopted Kra-Dai languages and partially their culture. The linguists Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) supported the theory of an origin of Austroasiatic along the Yangtze river in southern China. Genetic and linguistic research in 2015 about ancient people in East Asia suggest an origin and homeland of Austroasiatic in today southern China or even further north. Integrating computational phylogenetic linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015)Sidwell, Paul. 2015. ''Phylogeny, innovations, and correlations in the prehistory of Austroasiatic''. Paper presented at the workshop ''Integrating inferences about our past: new findings and current issues in the peopling of the Pacific and South East Asia'', 22–23 June 2015, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany. further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into Indochina from the

Lingnan Lingnan (; Vietnamese: Lĩnh Nam) is a geographic area referring to the lands in the south of the Nanling Mountains. The region covers the modern Chinese subdivisions of Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Hong Kong, and Macau, as well as modern northe ...

area of southern China, with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China. He tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the Neolithic transition era of

mainland Southeast Asia Mainland Southeast Asia, also known as the Indochinese Peninsula or Indochina, is the continental portion of Southeast Asia. It lies east of the Indian subcontinent and south of Mainland China and is bordered by the Indian Ocean to the west an ...

, with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the Pearl River watershed of

, which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the Mekong River via Yunnan. Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and

millet Millets () are a highly varied group of small-seeded grasses, widely grown around the world as cereal crops or grains for fodder and human food. Most species generally referred to as millets belong to the tribe Paniceae, but some millets al ...

, kept livestock such dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments. At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 B.P. However, Sidwell found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages. During the Iron Age about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as

, Pearic, and Khmer were formed, while the more internally diverse

branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification. By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during the Iron Age. Paul Sidwell (2018)Sidwell, Paul. 2018. ''Austroasiatic deep chronology and the problem of cultural lexicon''. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, held May 17–19, 2018 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum. Roger Blench (2018)Blench, Roger. 2018
Waterworld: lexical evidence for aquatic subsistence strategies in Austroasiatic
In ''Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics'', 174-193. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society Special Publication No. 3. University of Hawaii Press.Blench, Roger. 2017.
Waterworld: lexical evidence for aquatic subsistence strategies in Austroasiatic
'. Presented at ICAAL 7, Kiel, Germany. suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques) can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2018) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern Indochina (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years B.P. (2,000 B.C.), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P. Hence, this points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to

Sino-Tibetan Sino-Tibetan, also cited as Trans-Himalayan in a few sources, is a family of more than 400 languages, second only to Indo-European in number of native speakers. The vast majority of these are the 1.3 billion native speakers of Chinese languages. ...

, whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan. Sidwell (2021)
Video presentation)
/ref> proposes that the locus of Proto-Austroasiatic was in the Red River Delta area about 4,000-4,500 years before present. Austroasiatic dispersed coastal maritime routes and also upstream through river valleys. Khmuic, Palaungic, and Khasic resulted from a westward dispersal that ultimately came from the Red River valley. Based on their current distributions, about half of all Austroasiatic branches (including Nicobaric and Munda) can be traced to coastal maritime dispersals.

References

* Shorto, Harry L. Sidwell, Paul, Doug Cooper and Christian Bauer, eds. 2006. ''A Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary''. Canberra: Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics. . * Sidwell, Paul. 2008. "Issues in the morphological reconstruction of Proto-Mon–Khmer." In Bowern, Claire, et al. (eds). ''Morphology and language history: in honour of Harold Koch''. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mon–Khmer.com: Lectures by Paul Sidwell

External links

Mon–Khmer languages at SEAlangMon–Khmer languages
at Ethnologue

{{DEFAULTSORT:Proto-Austroasiatic Language * Austroasiatic