Palatal consonants in the Mennonite dialect Plautdietch in the light of the development typology of the Ingvaeonic consonantism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper deals with the system of palatal consonants: /t’/, /d’/, /n’/ in Low German, Prussian dialects of the Mennonites. This dialect was used in the “language islands” of the Ukraine and of several other regions of the Russian state and is today common in the Mennonite communities all around the world: Canada, USA, South America, Germany, Siberia and the Altai region. The research is based on the recent records of these dialects as well as on the data from the dialectal archive of Viktor Schirmunski (Žirmunskij) in St Petersburg. The rendering of the palatal consonants in the questionnaires in this archive by the dialect speakers in 1920s is examined. The palatalization of consonants in Plautdietch is considered from the background of the palatalizations and assibilations in the Ingvaeonic branch of West Germanic languages. It is emphasized that the palatalization is one of the characteristic phenomena of the Ingvaeonic languages, which can manifest itself in different periods of their history. Thus the development of the palatal consonants can be considered in the framework of genetically related languages’ typology. It is known that the palatalization of [k] and [g] occurred in Old English before and after front vowels. In Frisian, palatalization was followed by assibilation. In Dutch, palatalization is observed in the diminutive suffix. Palatalization in a number of Low German dialects occurred as well and was followed by zetacism. Thus the palatalizaion reflects internal trends in the development of the dialects of some West Germanic languages, namely those of the Ingvaeonic group. It is probably an intermediate stage preceding assibilation and affrication of consonants. In some cases it remains in the modern language in its initial state, as is the case in the Mennonite dialect of the Plautdietch.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".