本論文著眼於「共時」與「歷時」兩個視角，並從方言、跨語言現象及歷史語料討論「喫」「吃」「乞」的相關議題，包括歷史音韻、方言語法、歷史語法。 根據我們的研究結果顯示，「喫」「吃」兩字來自於「齧」「齕」的部件取代，而「喫」「吃」混用的機制是聲符「乞」「契」的音同所致，最終「喫」「吃」形成異形同義字。另外，也針對表示飲食義的「喫」進行歷史音韻的推測，按照音變的規則「見」系「溪」母的「喫」在現代漢語應讀為顎化音，但在詞彙擴散的效應下部份的聲母，流入中古的「照」系，其他的例子像是「廈」「閘」也循此變化模式。 文獻指出元明以後「喫」「吃」「乞」三者都有當作被動標記的用例，並且相互的混用。透過閩方言的音韻資料顯示，「喫」「吃」「乞」表示被動的語義根源並不相同，三者的混用主要是在歷史音變中形成一組同音字。 閩方言中有一個單用的入聲「乞」兼表給予、使役、索取、被動。而在閩南地區被動用法則為「乞與」或以授予動詞「與」兼用。因此，我們建立了一個假設：閩方言內部的被動標記「乞」可能有不同的語義根源，一個是和授予動詞「與」複合的「乞與」朝向授予>使役>被動發展；一個是「乞」由索求到被動。為了論證這個觀點，本文從英語的“get”作為觀察，並討論了「與格轉換」、「詞義分解」、原型施事受事理論。 從方言語料顯示「乞」可以出現在動詞及與格標記的位置，形成S+乞+DO+乞+IO；以及雙賓結構「乞+IO+DO」。透過與格轉換理論，前者可以推導出後者，另外歷史上也見到「乞與+IO+DO」的雙賓句式，這兩種句式的存在就是為了辨義作用，如同漢語的「借」和「借給」。閩方言裡不使用「乞與+IO+DO」的雙賓句式，因此我們推測當「乞與」形成之初是一組反義並列，隨著「與」的共現和語法化「乞與」複合成使役動詞並列，並朝向被動標記發展。對照「乞與」的發展推測，單用的「乞」其來源就值得探究。 閩方言單用的被動標記「乞」基本上都必須帶有施事者，形成長被動「NP1+乞+NP2+V」，但有少數的用例顯示，仍可以接受不帶施事的短被動「NP1+乞+V」。動詞「乞」的語義本身就帶有下對上的位階關係，因此操控權並非只限於 「乞」的主語。據此，論文的最後一章推測短被動「乞」的形成有兩個重要條件：動詞作格化(被動化)、動作事件的發生是在非自願性(不幸說)。歷史上「乞+N」最早出現，但是因為名詞動詞的模糊性產生「乞+N」>「乞+V」如「乞降」。 而長被動「乞」的產生，透過其他被動式的觀察，其發展應和「NP1+被+V+於+NP2」這個結構有關，透過句法操作、句式趨向最終產生「NP1+乞+NP2+V」。 兩相對照，短被動是在「乞+V」中「乞」重新分析為一個次要動詞(副動詞)；而長被動是在句法操作生成。 關鍵字: 詞彙擴散 被動標記 與格轉換 作格化(被動化) / Abstract This paper is aimed at two perspectives, “synchronic time” and “diachronic time,” and explores issues relating to “喫” “吃,” and “乞” from dialect, cross-linguistic phenol, and historical corpus discussions, including historical phonology, dialectic grammar, and historical grammar. The results show that the two words “喫” and “吃” are replaced by the “齧” and “齕” parts, while the mixed mechanism of “喫” and “吃” is derived from the homophone of “乞 (beg)” and “契”(bond), thus leading to the synonyms “喫” and “吃” Additionally, targeting the word “喫” that means diet, historic-phonology-related speculations were made. According to the sound shift rules, the word “喫” with “見” system and “溪” constituent should be pronounced as a palatalized sound (tilde) in the modern Chinese language. However, under the influence of lexical diffusion, some consonants fall under the “照” system. Other examples such as “廈” and “閘” also follow this pattern. According to literatures, there have been cases of “喫” “吃” and “乞” used as passive markers, which have been alternatively used. According to the phonological information of the Min dialect, it shows that the semantic roots of “喫” “吃” and “乞” are not the same and that the alternative use is mainly to form a set of homophones from the historical sound shifts. In the Min dialect, there is a single checked tone “乞” which means “give, causative, beg, supplicate, and passive.” In the Minnan region, the passive usage is “乞與” or the dative verb to be given “與.” Hence, the hypothesis is the passive marker “beg” in the Min dialect may have different semantic roots: one is the dative verb that compounds with “與” and “乞與” which are headed toward the direction of give>causative>passive; the other is the word “乞” that shifts from demand to passive. In order to demonstrate this point, the English word “get” was observed in this paper. The dative shift, lexical decomposition, and Porto agent Porto patient were explored. The dialectic corpus shows that “乞” can appear in the position of the verb and dative marker, thus forming S+乞+DO+乞+IO and the double object construction 乞+IO+DO. Through the dative shift theory, the latter can be deduced from the former. Additionally, the “乞與+IO+DO” double object construction has also been throughout history. The existence of the two sentence patterns plays the role of “to distinguish,” just like “borrowing” and “lending” in the Chinese language. In the Min dialect, the “乞與+IO+DO” double object construction is not used. Therefore, it is speculated that “乞與” was first formed as a set of opposite (meaning) antonym. With the collocation of “與” and the grammaticalization of “乞與” compounded to form and tie with the causative verb and head toward passive marker development. In conjunction with the development of “乞與” it is speculated that the source of the sole use of “乞” is worth exploring. Basically, the passive marker “乞” used in the Min dialect must have a causal agent, forming long passive construction “NP1+乞+NP2+V.” However, few cases show that short passive construction “NP1+乞+V” without a causative agent is still acceptable. The verb “乞” itself possesses the semantic bottom-to-top relationship. Thus, the control is not restricted to the “乞” subject. Accordingly, the last chapter in this paper covers two speculated important conditions that contribute to the formation of “乞”: ergativization/passivization and occurrences of actions that are involuntary (sad to say). In history, “乞+N” first appeared, but due to the ambiguity of the nouns and verbs, “乞+N” > “乞+V” such as “beg to surrender or got tamed” resulted. On the other hand, the generation of the long passive “乞,” as observed through other passives, is associated with the “NP1+被+V+於+NP2” structure. Through syntactic operations and sentential convergence, “NP1+乞+NP2+V” eventually resulted. In contrast of the two, short passive is the reanalysis of “乞” in “乞+V” to derive at a secondary verb (coverb), while long passive is generated through syntactic operation. Keywords: Lexical diffusion, Passive markers, Dative shift, Ergativization (passivization)