Theoretical implications of segment neutrality in nasal harmony
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In nasal harmony systems, any major consonant class (excluding laryngeal glides) may fail to undergo nasalisation. This paper proposes to derive the neutrality of stops, fricatives, liquids and glides from the satisfaction of a special set of faithfulness constraints; each member of the set commands the presence of a particular segment class in a consonant inventory. The analysis requires that the constraint commanding the presence of stops be active in every grammar and invariably take precedence over the demands of nasal harmony. The explanation of stop neutrality forces a rethinking of the nature of constraints and how they interact. The paper argues that the constraints regulating the cross-linguistic manifestation of segment neutrality are either universal grammatical features (i.e. principles) or language-specific choices (i.e. parameters of variation). It also postulates that constraint interaction is regulated by a set of metaconditions that determine ordering; constraint ranking is not random.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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 it