MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119655537 · doi:10.1075/dia.24.1.03est

On the development of the tense/aspect system in Early New and New Persian

2007· article· en· W2119655537 on OpenAlexaff
Azam Estaji, Vít Bubeník

Bibliographic record

VenueDiachronica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErgative caseLinguisticsPersianTypologyContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)HistoryParallelsMeaning (existential)DocumentationLiteratureComputer scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematicsArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unique documentation of the Iranian family of languages provides a rare opportunity to study the development of a verbal system over the span of several millennia. We argue that the rise of the Early New Persian aspectual type was a consequence of the loss of ergative typology, examining the rise of continuous and progressive aspects, and further development in the retrospective aspect, most notably the appearance of the perfect continuous. Another section is devoted to the study of the rise of the innovative ‘become’-passive. In both sections we pay special attention to the appearance of New Persian surcomposé formations and we review their analysis in the context of a number of interesting parallels in other IE and non-IE languages, pointing out some avenues for further comparative research in this area (especially the trend of the perfect and its surcomposé formations to develop inferential meaning). To strengthen our argument, we look at diverging developments in several Khorasani dialects which recall the Early New Persian state of affairs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiachronicaSame topicLinguistics and language evolutionFrench-language works237,207