Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2012, North East Indian Linguistics, Volumn 4
https://doi.org/10.1017…
29 pages
1 file
This paper explores the use of serialized verbs in Boro, a Tibeto-Burman language known for its clause-chaining discourse structure. It provides a detailed examination of the grammaticalized verbs derived from motion and postural verbs, highlighting their syntactic roles and semantic implications through examples. The analysis aims to enhance understanding of verb serialization in Boro, while also addressing its unique tonal properties.
The goal of this paper is to describe some of the syntactic structures that are created through nominalization processes in Himalayan Tibeto-Burman languages and the relationships between those structures. These include both structures involving the nominalization of clauses (e.g. complement clauses, relative clauses) and structures involving the nominalization of verbs and predicates (e.g. the derivation of nouns and adjectives). We will argue that, synchronically, clausal nominalization, structurally represented as [clause] NP , is the basic structure underlying many of the nominalizing constructions in these languages, even though individual constructions embed and alter this structure in interesting ways. In addition to clausal nominalization, we will illustrate the presence of derivational nominalization, represented as [V-NOM] N and [V-NOM] ADJ , although some nominal derivations target the predicate, not the verb root as their domain. We will also demonstrate that derivational nominalization can be seen as having developed from clausal nominalization, at least for some forms in some languages, and that the opposite direction of development, from derivational to clausal structures, is also attested. We will conclude with some syntactic observations pertinent to recent claims made on the historical relationship between nominalization and relativization, demonstrating that there are various ways that these structures can be related. This study is based on data from five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: Manange, Dolakha Newar, Mongsen Ao, Dongwang Tibetan, and Zhuokeji rGyalrong.
The goal of this paper is to describe some of the syntactic structures that are created through nominalization processes in Himalayan Tibeto-Burman languages and the relationships between those structures. These include both structures involving the nominalization of clauses (e.g. complement clauses, relative clauses) and structures involving the nominalization of verbs and predicates (e.g. the derivation of nouns and adjectives). We will argue that, synchronically, clausal nominalization, structurally represented as [clause] NP , is the basic structure underlying many of the nominalizing constructions in these languages, even though individual constructions embed and alter this structure in interesting ways. In addition to clausal nominalization, we will illustrate the presence of derivational nominalization, represented as [V-NOM] N and [V-NOM] ADJ , although some nominal derivations target the predicate, not the verb root as their domain. We will also demonstrate that derivational nominalization can be seen as having developed from clausal nominalization, at least for some forms in some languages, and that the opposite direction of development, from derivational to clausal structures, is also attested. We will conclude with some syntactic observations pertinent to recent claims made on the historical relationship between nominalization and relativization, demonstrating that there are various ways that these structures can be related. This study is based on data from five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: Manange, Dolakha Newar, Mongsen Ao, Dongwang Tibetan, and Zhuokeji rGyalrong.
Indian Linguistics, 1980
This paper attempts to show that bol-e-morphologically, a frozen conjunctive form of the verb bOI-'to' say, speak' -has, in course of time, assumed various syntactic roles, To this date, it remains an unsolved problem as to how, since when and why did it take up to many duties which included, among other things, being used as a complementizer / quotative, non-lexical head-noun(?), reason, manner and other (= 'almost') adverbials, disjunct, (also a post-position,) and a designation-marker. The differences between je and bo/-e complements in Bengali are discussed in detail, and a parallel is drawn from Ki-bena-a Ba-ntu language in this respect. Although this paper identifies this particular puzzle in Bengali Syntax, it does not attempt to go into the language history, to suggest as to how] and why bol-e assumed multiple responsibilities,
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
… languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 2011
Himalayan Linguistics, 2020
Pacific World Journal 3.9. 2007 (Special Issue: Essays Celebrating the Twentieth Anniversary of the Numata Chair in Buddhist Studies at the University of Calgary, ed. Leslie Kawamura and Sarah Haynes), 2007
pp. 69-81 in Timothy J. Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop and Joana Jansen, eds., Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins., 2013
2008. In S. Morey and M. Post, Eds., North East Indian Linguistics. New Delhi, Cambridge University Press India: 127-152.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted in Tribhuvan University
Studies in Ditransitive Constructions
Lingua, 110:343-373, 2000
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 163, 2013
Doctorate Thesis, 2016