MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035555667 · doi:10.1075/cilt.350.13bub

The rise of the analytic Perfect aspect in the West Iranian languages

2020· book-chapter· en· W3035555667 on OpenAlexaff
Vít Bubeník, Leila Ziamajidi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammaticalizationPersianSection (typography)LinguisticsSlavic languagesPresent perfectHistoryMathematicsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper focuses on the long-term grammaticalization of tense/aspect systems in the West Iranian languages, beginning with Old Iranian ( Section 1 ). In Middle Persian ( Section 2 ) the Aorist and the reduplicative Perfect of Old Persian were replaced by a new system of analytic constructions. The fundamental mechanism in the rise of the innovative Preterit (perfective) and Perfect categories was the process of grammaticalization, reducing the auxiliary ‘be’ into suffixes of the innovative Preterit. In Early New Persian ( Section 3 ) an unambiguous Perfect was recreated by attaching personal suffixes to the Perfect stem. In the second part of the paper ( Section 4 ) we turn to the elaboration of the evidential (‘non-witnessed’) subsystem in New Persian through grammaticalization and possible Turkic influence. A typological parallel in the southernmost Slavic languages ( Section 5 ) is provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicLinguistics and language evolutionFrench-language works237,207