Chinese loan-words in Malay
A. W. Hamilton published “Chinese Loan-Words in Malay” in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in June 1924 (Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 48–56). Writing in the early colonial period when Malay lexicography was still in its formative stage, Hamilton undertook a systematic survey of Hokkien-origin vocabulary absorbed into the Malay language, arguing that the linguistic footprint of Chinese settlement in the Peninsula is almost exclusively Hokkien in origin and concentrated in domains of food, domestic life, and gambling.
Summary
Hamilton’s central premise is that the earliest Chinese settlers in the Malay Peninsula came from the Hokkien province (the Amoy district) and were the only Chinese community to attach themselves to the soil and maintain daily, friendly contact with Malays. This sustained proximity, he argues, explains why virtually all Chinese loan-words in Malay derive from Hokkien rather than from Cantonese, Teochew, or other dialects. The total number of such words is fewer than 200, and they cluster around articles of food, household utensils, and games of chance—categories where no adequate Malay equivalent existed (p. 48).
A second thread of argument concerns the sociolinguistic mechanism of borrowing. Hamilton distinguishes between words adopted because no Malay equivalent existed and those borrowed to express a “shade of meaning applicable only to Chinese affairs.” He gives the example of hoe (society) versus pakatan, or kongkoan (club) versus persakutuan: the Chinese terms persist specifically for Chinese institutional contexts even where a Malay word is available (p. 48). A third mechanism is pragmatic: a common foreign word is preferred over a pure but rare Malay word that the listener might not recognise, as with bali (cabin) replacing kurong, or kuntau replacing bertinju (p. 48).
The bulk of the article is a tabulated lexicon presenting the Malay form, the reconstructed Hokkien source, and a definition. Hamilton cross-references two contemporary dictionaries—Wilkinson’s and Shellabear’s—using asterisks and section marks to indicate which entries appear in which work (p. 48). A final, shorter section addresses words of uncertain or disputed etymology, where the Hokkien connection is tentative or the word may derive from Cantonese instead (p. 56).
Key Findings
- The total inventory of Chinese loan-words in Malay is fewer than 200, the vast majority originating in Hokkien (the Amoy vernacular) rather than other Chinese dialects (p. 48).
- The semantic distribution is heavily weighted toward food items (e.g., bami, chang, tauge, bepang), household objects (e.g., loteng, pangkeng, teng, nyolo), and gambling terminology (e.g., po, chapjiki, susek, siki, toan) (pp. 49–55).
- Several entries reflect Chinese administrative and commercial institutions transplanted into Malay: chinteng (revenue officer in the Monopolies and Customs Department), chinchu (supercargo), tauke (employer of labour), taijin (Protector of Chinese), and pokoan (croupier) (pp. 50, 53–54).
- The article documents Chinese units of measurement adopted into Malay: chi (a mace, 1/10 of a tael), hun (a candareen, 1/10 of a mace or 1/100 of a tael), and chun (a Chinese inch, 1/10 of a Chinese foot) (pp. 49–50).
- A small number of entries are of disputed or non-Hokkien origin: kang (wide-mouthed tub) is tentatively linked to Cantonese kory, anchong to Cantonese ham chiong, and loki (Cantonese prostitute) is explicitly identified as Cantonese rather than Hokkien (pp. 55–56).
- Hamilton flags at least one error in Wilkinson’s Dictionary: the entry for cheki (a card game) is given as tsap ji ki, which he corrects to chit ki, noting that tsap ji ki is the source of the separate word chapjiki (p. 49).
Conclusion
Hamilton’s definitive takeaway is that Chinese influence on Malay vocabulary is narrow in origin (Hokkien), limited in volume (under 200 words), and functionally circumscribed to material culture and leisure—precisely the domains of daily contact between the two communities. The article serves as a baseline lexicographical record of Sino-Malay linguistic contact at a moment when the discipline of Malay historical linguistics was still being established in the colony.
Context
- The article cross-references two standard reference works of the period—Wilkinson’s Dictionary of the Malay Language and Shellabear’s Malay-English Dictionary—using a dual notation system (asterisk for absent from Wilkinson; § for present in Shellabear) to map the state of lexicographical coverage (p. 48).
- As an early contribution to the study of Malay contact linguistics, the article predates the more rigorous phonological and historical methods that would later be applied to Sino-Malay borrowing, and its etymological reconstructions (particularly in the disputed-origins section) should be read as preliminary rather than definitive.