Plural Alternations and Word-Final Consonant Syllabification in Brazilian Veneto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brazilian Veneto (a heritage variety of Veneto spoken in several areas of Brazil), a stem alternation targets the plurals of masculine nominals ending in a consonant. While nominals with a word-final rhotic or nasal are pluralized by adding the masculine plural suffix /−i/ ([bi't∫̑er]→[bi't∫̑eri] ‘glass’), pluralization in nominals with a final lateral involves deletion of the consonant (e.g., [ni'sol]→[ni'soi] ‘bedsheet’). I argue that these differences stem from word-final laterals having a distinct representation from rhotics and nasals: while the latter are represented as codas, the former are represented as onsets of empty-headed syllables. Based on a corpus analysis, I show that (a) speakers’ productions of these plurals are stable, and (b) other patterns of pluralization (namely, in monosyllables and words with final stress on a CV syllable) are consistent with the proposal. In addition, the behaviour of laterals with respect to resyllabification, metaphony and intervocalic consonant deletion further suggest that laterals are represented as onsets word-finally.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".