Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nicolae Pavliuc and Ion Robciuc. Ukrains'ki hovory Rumunii: Dialektni teksty. Edmonton, L'viv, New York, Toronto: Instytut ukrainoznavstva im. I. Krypiakevycha NANU, 2003. xvi, 784 pp. $54.95, cloth.The work under review is not a study or description of Ukrainian dialects spoken in Romania but rather a collection of texts recorded in those areas of Romania where Ukrainian is spoken. It would have been preferable if this information had been cited in the title itself and not on the inside flyleaf. Also preferable because more accurate would have been to use the term hovirky Rumunii. Since it is now long established practice to distinguish hovir (a major dialect grouping) vs hovirka (a subdialect within a hovir). This is the terminology applied in the massive three-volume Atlas ukrajins'koi movy (1984, 1988, 2001) and is standard usage in all Ukrainian studies. The authors themselves return to this distinction in almost every instance throughout the text (flyleaf no. 3, pp. i, x, 102-3, 123, etc.). There is no question or controversy as to the origin of Ukrainian dialects in Romania. They do not in any sense constitute some grouping of late Proto-Slavic origin (or Early Proto-Ukrainian) as do the Northern vs Southwestern dialects, thus, termed hovory in modern Ukrainian dialectology. All the Ukrainian dialects in Romania are definitely subdialects, this is, hovirky of well identified dialects immediately to the north. Hutsul, Bukovynian and Transcarpathian-type dialects are found directly south of their counterparts within the modern Ukrainian Republic. The dialects of Dobrogea are refugee settlements resulting from the destruction of Zaporiz'ka Sich, 1775, whereas the villages in the Banat are the result of migrant labour from Transcarpathia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries (pp. 724, 741 ). Although subdialects are later divisions of a major dialect group, they may retain very archaic features.Out of 784+xvi pp., pp. 105-632 (ca 65% of the entire work) contain the texts already mentioned. They come from 32 settlements, the names of which are cited in both the local Ukrainian pronunciation and in the official Romanian form. In each instance, the name and age of the informant are given, and there is usually more than one informant per village. Only 7 settlements record one informant each; one has as many as 6 (see pp. 74951 ). The narrative of each informant is broken down into subject headings such as boyhood years; military service; household management; village history; haying season; ploughing; parts of a scythe, plough or wagon; birds and animals both domestic and wild; cooking and preparing food; clothing; celebration from the village vechlrnytsi to Christmas and Easter rituals; baptism and weddings; growing and pickling of cabbage and/or cucumbers; spring work before seeding; whitewashing homes; local legends; forestry; how to butcher a swine, and a few more. Each text is transcribed into an easy-to-read type of Cyrillic IPA, the symbols of which are accurately defined (pp. 10-14). This very same notational system is used when describing the phonology, foreign influences, morphology and syntax of each group (pp. 27-107). These pages (in Ukrainian) are the only portions of the work which can be considered a dialectal study. The same data are then concisely summarized in English (pp. 725-732), in Romanian (pp. 733-740) and again in Ukrainian (pp. 741-748). The majority of the texts were recorded in 1963-5, one in 1962, one in 1974 and one in 1991.The bibliography lists 81 items, 20 of which are in Romanian, 10 in Russian, 3 in English, one in German and all the rest are in Ukrainian.A very interesting and necessary part of this work is the Dictionary of the Dialectal Texts (pp. 633-718). It contains those lexical items which the average speaker of modern standard Ukrainian would not recognize. This includes, of course, the numerous borrowings from Romanian and to a lesser degree from Hungarian in the Transcarpathian dialects. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».