서브메뉴
검색
Indo-Iranian Complex Constructions with *KAR- 'make, do': Distribution, Function, and Origins
Indo-Iranian Complex Constructions with *KAR- 'make, do': Distribution, Function, and Origins
상세정보
- 자료유형
- 학위논문 서양
- 최종처리일시
- 20260202104641
- ISBN
- 9798280761599
- DDC
- 401
- 저자명
- Roy, Alexander.
- 서명/저자
- Indo-Iranian Complex Constructions with *KAR- make, do: Distribution, Function, and Origins
- 발행사항
- [Sl] : University of California, Los Angeles, 2025
- 발행사항
- Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2025
- 형태사항
- 309 p
- 주기사항
- Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-12, Section: A.
- 주기사항
- Advisor: Jamison, Stephanie W.
- 학위논문주기
- Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Los Angeles, 2025.
- 초록/해제
- 요약The Proto-Indo-Iranian verb root *KAR- 'make, do' is unusual among reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *KᵂER- 'carve, cut' in that its own reflexes in attested Indo-Iranian languages (beginning with Old Indo-Aryan √KR̥, Avestan √KAR, and Old Persian √KAR 'make, do') display characteristic properties of a generalized action verb. One notable property of such verbs is the capacity to participate in a variety of complex predicates and other similar constructions that alternate with synthetic verb forms. While such constructions are widespread in the modern Indo-Iranian languages, where their prevalence has generated a rich body of scholarship, the early history of this verb's functional range has yet to receive the same level of documentation and analysis. I work to close the gap by analyzing the distribution and functional range of three construction types in several premodern Indo-Iranian languages, defined by the category of nominal component: (1) constructions with abstract verbal nouns; (2) constructions with agentive verbal nouns and adjectives; and (3) constructions with patientive verbal adjectives. I approach the data with both synchronic and diachronic lenses.On the most basic level, constructions of type (1) are functionally comparable to a variety of transitive and intransitive verbal inflectional categories while those of types (2) and (3) approximate transitive and especially causative synthetic forms. There are, however, a range of specific functional motivations for the use of constructions within each type, which include morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic pressures.All three types have at least the potential to exist in Proto-Indo-Iranian; the early reflexes of *KAR- possess the properties that allow these functions to operate. The degree to which they were productive is less certain. In general the prevalence of type (1) increases with time, though the frequencies of these constructions vary also a great deal across genres and individual works as well as chronological stages. I argue that the type is reconstructible for the proto-language even if early examples are scarce in the available material. The frequency of type (2) meanwhile decreases with time in Indo-Aryan, coinciding with a functional expansion of causative morphology. There is almost no representation of the type in the Iranian data. Type (3) remains rare throughout, with the exception of the highly specialized potential construction known from Middle Iranian (not considered at length here). I argue that neither type (2) nor type (3) is reliably reconstructible into prehistory.
- 일반주제명
- Linguistics
- 일반주제명
- South Asian studies
- 일반주제명
- Near Eastern studies
- 일반주제명
- Ancient languages
- 키워드
- Indo-European
- 키워드
- Indo-Iranian
- 키워드
- Sanskrit
- 키워드
- Vedic
- 기타저자
- University of California, Los Angeles Indo-European Studies 0450
- 기본자료저록
- Dissertations Abstracts International. 86-12A.
- 전자적 위치 및 접속
- 로그인 후 원문을 볼 수 있습니다.
MARC
008260126s2025 us c eng d■001000017358309
■00520260202104641
■006m o d
■007cr#unu||||||||
■020 ▼a9798280761599
■035 ▼a(MiAaPQ)AAI32114146
■040 ▼aMiAaPQ▼cMiAaPQ
■0820 ▼a401
■1001 ▼aRoy, Alexander.
■24510▼aIndo-Iranian Complex Constructions with *KAR- 'make, do': Distribution, Function, and Origins
■260 ▼a[Sl]▼bUniversity of California, Los Angeles▼c2025
■260 1▼aAnn Arbor▼bProQuest Dissertations & Theses▼c2025
■300 ▼a309 p
■500 ▼aSource: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-12, Section: A.
■500 ▼aAdvisor: Jamison, Stephanie W.
■5021 ▼aThesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Los Angeles, 2025.
■520 ▼aThe Proto-Indo-Iranian verb root *KAR- 'make, do' is unusual among reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *KᵂER- 'carve, cut' in that its own reflexes in attested Indo-Iranian languages (beginning with Old Indo-Aryan √KR̥, Avestan √KAR, and Old Persian √KAR 'make, do') display characteristic properties of a generalized action verb. One notable property of such verbs is the capacity to participate in a variety of complex predicates and other similar constructions that alternate with synthetic verb forms. While such constructions are widespread in the modern Indo-Iranian languages, where their prevalence has generated a rich body of scholarship, the early history of this verb's functional range has yet to receive the same level of documentation and analysis. I work to close the gap by analyzing the distribution and functional range of three construction types in several premodern Indo-Iranian languages, defined by the category of nominal component: (1) constructions with abstract verbal nouns; (2) constructions with agentive verbal nouns and adjectives; and (3) constructions with patientive verbal adjectives. I approach the data with both synchronic and diachronic lenses.On the most basic level, constructions of type (1) are functionally comparable to a variety of transitive and intransitive verbal inflectional categories while those of types (2) and (3) approximate transitive and especially causative synthetic forms. There are, however, a range of specific functional motivations for the use of constructions within each type, which include morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic pressures.All three types have at least the potential to exist in Proto-Indo-Iranian; the early reflexes of *KAR- possess the properties that allow these functions to operate. The degree to which they were productive is less certain. In general the prevalence of type (1) increases with time, though the frequencies of these constructions vary also a great deal across genres and individual works as well as chronological stages. I argue that the type is reconstructible for the proto-language even if early examples are scarce in the available material. The frequency of type (2) meanwhile decreases with time in Indo-Aryan, coinciding with a functional expansion of causative morphology. There is almost no representation of the type in the Iranian data. Type (3) remains rare throughout, with the exception of the highly specialized potential construction known from Middle Iranian (not considered at length here). I argue that neither type (2) nor type (3) is reliably reconstructible into prehistory.
■590 ▼aSchool code: 0031.
■650 4▼aLinguistics
■650 4▼aSouth Asian studies
■650 4▼aNear Eastern studies
■650 4▼aAncient languages
■653 ▼aHistorical linguistics
■653 ▼aIndo-European
■653 ▼aIndo-Iranian
■653 ▼aSanskrit
■653 ▼aSupport-verb construction
■653 ▼aVedic
■690 ▼a0290
■690 ▼a0638
■690 ▼a0559
■690 ▼a0289
■71020▼aUniversity of California, Los Angeles▼bIndo-European Studies 0450.
■7730 ▼tDissertations Abstracts International▼g86-12A.
■790 ▼a0031
■791 ▼aPh.D.
■792 ▼a2025
■793 ▼aEnglish
■85640▼uhttp://www.riss.kr/pdu/ddodLink.do?id=T17358309▼nKERIS▼z이 자료의 원문은 한국교육학술정보원에서 제공합니다.
