The Phonetic-Semantic Relations and Syntactic Representations of Verbs “Jiǎ (假)” and “Jiè (借)” in Ancient Chinese and Their Change

Abstract

In Mandarin, ditransitive verbs such as “Jiǎ (假)” and “Jiè (借)” have both the meanings of BORROW and LEND; whereas in pre-Qin Chinese they are distinguished by pronunciation and ditransitive construction. Furthermore, in monotransitive construction, the object is IO when LEND verb occurs while the object is DO when BORROW verb occurs. The DO, in the monotransitive construction “V + DO” which means BORROW, can be served by a subordinative phrase whose attributive is IO (i.e. V + [IO + zhī (之) + DO]). With the decline of “zhī (之)”, the construction “V + [IO + DO]” which means BORROW, is reanalyzed as double-object construction by possessor raising. At this point, both the meanings of LEND and BORROW exist in double-object construction simultaneously, although they are still distinguished by pronunciation. After Song Dynasty, this syllabic contrast disappeared. Therefore, there is no formal difference between the meaning of LEND and BORROW when “Jiè (借)” occurs in double-object construction.