The Complements of the Root dā in Avestan and Old Persian Languages

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD student.Department of Ancient Iranian Culture and Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor. Department of Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Ancient Iranian Culture and Languages, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Ancient Iranian Culture and Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In ancient Iranian languages (Avestan and Old Persian), in addition to inflectional structure, syntactic relations and semantic roles of the core and local cases would be examined. In these languages, the complements of the verb, which can be nouns, adjectives, or pronouns, are represented through case markers that indicate different roles depending on the verb. The representation of verb complements and the function of cases in the accompaniment of different verbs have not been the attention of researchers in this field, except for brief references- it is better to say that the investigation of this issue has been somewhat neglected in ancient Iranian languages. Therefore, in this article, the complements of one of the commonly used and more frequent roots of the Avestan language- but not of the Old Persian- dā, have been investigated. In the Avestan texts, it is mostly found in the meanings of giving, creating, and setting, and in the Old Persian inscriptions, it means giving and creating. According to the analysis of the sentences containing the root dā, the complements of this root, depending on the meaning and context, are shown by the accusative and dative cases in the Old Persian, and accusative, dative, genitive and locative cases in the Avestan. Either of them has several semantic roles, such as theme/patient, recipient, beneficiary, object complement, goal, and location.

Keywords


طبیب­زاده، امید (1393). دستور زبان فارسی بر اساس نظریۀ گروه‏های خودگردان در دستور وابستگی. چ2. تهران: نشر مرکز.
Ágel, V. & Fischer, K. (2015). Dependency grammar and valency theory. In.: Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. 2nd ed. (pp. 224-258). Oxford-NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Allerton, D. J.  (1982). Valency and the English verb. London/New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, J. M. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localistic grammar. London/ New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bartholomae, Ch. (1961). Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: Walterde Gruyter & CO.
Benvenuto, M. C. & Pompeo, F. (2019). Some remarks on the accusative in old Persian. Vicino Oriente Journal XXIII, pp. 81-93.
Blake, B. J. (2004). Case. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bussmann, H. (2006). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. translated and edited by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. London/ New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Dik,S. (1978). Functinal grammar. Amesterdam: North Holland.
Fillmore, Ch. (1968). The case for case. In: Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Götz-Votteler, K. (2007). Describing semantic valency. In: Thomas Herbst & Katrin Götz-Votteler, Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues, (pp. 37.49). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Terminology of Case. In. Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, The Oxford Handbook of Case. (pp. 505-517). Oxford-NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Helbig, G. (1992). Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Helbig, G. and W. Schenkel (1973). Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. 2nd ed. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
Herbst, Th. (2007). Valency complements or valency patterns?. In: Thomas Herbs & Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues. (pp. 15-35). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jügel, Th. (2017). Iranian 35. The syntax of Iranian. In: Jared Klein, Brian Joseph, Matthias Fritz, In cooperation with Mark Wenthe (eds). Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, Vol. I. (pp.549-566). Berlin/ Boston: de Gruyter GmbH.
Kent, R. G. (1953). Old Persian grammar, texts, lexicon. 2nd ed. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Kittilä, S. (2005). Recipient prominence vs. beneficiary prominence. journal Linguistic Typology.  http://hdl.handle.net/10138/251209. Accessed January 24, 2024.
Klein, J., Brian J., Matthias F., & Wenthe, M. (2017). Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics. I−III. Berlin/ Boston: de Gruyter GmbH.
Luraghi, S. & Narrog, H. (2014). Perspectives on semantic roles: An introduction. In: Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds). Perspectives on Semantic Roles. (pp.1-21). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the meaning of prepositions and cases (The expression of semantic roles in ancient Greek). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Narrog, H. (2010). A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery Journal 28. pp. 233-254. doi: 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.352.
Reichelt, H. (1909). Awestisches elementabuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätbuchhandlung.
Schmitt, R. (2009). Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden: Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung.Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Skjærvø, P. O. (2009). Old Iranian languages and middle west Iranian. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages. (pp.43−195, 196−278). London: Routledge.
Starosta, S. (1988). The case for lexicae. London: Pinter.
Tesniere, L. (1953). Esquisse d’une syntax structural. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Tesniere, L. (1959). Elements de syntax structural. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
West, M. L. (2011). Old Avestan syntax and stylistics with an edition of the texts. Berlin: De Gruyter. Westergaard, Niels Ludvig.