Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fitting introduction to the present inquiry might be a quote from Menges' 1968 classic The Turkic Languages and Peoples (p.125):'The Altajic verb is of nominal nature, so that even when it is found in the function of the predicate there is no real equivalent to the Indo-European or Semitic finite verb'.According to Menges (p.127) the Turkic nomen verbale is equal to the verbal substantive of IE in independent position, in adnominal position to the IE participle, and at the end of a clause it may function as the finite predicate (if in the 3rd person).To exemplify the latter two options from Turkish (Osmanli), we may contrast the Retrospective (perfect) participle in its prenominal position (1) and the same form in the clause-final position, where it possesses the meaning of the Inferential mode (2):(1) gel-mi~arkadac ome+RETRO friend 'a/the friend who has come'(2) arkada~gel-mif riend come+INF '(I gather that) the friend has come' (Lewis 1967 calls (1) the mi~-past and (2) inferential; Aksu-Ko<; (1988: 22-3) calls (1) Resultative perfect and (2) quotative).Thus the nature of finiteness in Altajic (cornmon spelling) languages differs considerebly 'in its rudimentary structure' from that in IE 'representing ... a truly prehistorical form, while it is essentially and basically different from that of Semitic or Caucasian'.To stay with the Retrospective participle, its IE counterpart involves the addition of the characteristic suffix *wot to the verbal root which is ablauted and reduplicated; the finite forms of the retrospective aspect, however, do not contain that particular suffix *wot as a stern building element.Instead, a special set of finitizing suffixes (originally -He, -tHe, -e in the singular) is attached directly to the root.This is shown in (3) using the PIE root *leik w 'abandon'; L1NGUISTICA
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".