Wiktionary:Kukkuzi entry guidelines

English Wikipedia has an article on:

Kukkuzi dialect

Wikipedia

Kukkuzi (Russian Ку́ровицы (Kúrovicy), Estonian Kukkusi, Finnish Kukkosi), a village in Ingria, has historically been home to a Finnic language that has long puzzled linguists; it superficially appears to be a mix of Votic and Ingrian (also called Izhorian, but Ingrian on Wiktionary and henceforth), and has been considered to be either or a mixed language. Currently it is represented as a separate language within Votic; see the Classification section for more.

The variety spoken in Kukkuzi is undoubtedly a Finnic language (which belongs to the group of Uralic languages). It is unknown whether the variety is still spoken; it had been considered extinct since the 1970s, but some articles from the 2000s claims that the writers were able to find speakers of it.

The Kukkuzi variety appears to mix Votic and Ingrian features. It has traditionally been considered a divergent variety of Votic that has been inflenced by Lower Luga Ingrian. Its early divergence from the rest of Votic has been postulated based on its lack of several features that are generally considered characteristic of Votic, such as the palatalization of ⟨k⟩ /k/ to ⟨tš⟩ /t͡ʃ/ ahead of front vowels (which Krevinian doesn't have either) and (apart from Ingrian, but common with e.g. Estonian) ⟨õ⟩ /ɤ/ as a phonemic vowel that is considered the back vowel harmony equivalent of ⟨e⟩ /e/.

The three main theories about the classification of Kukkuzi are:

• Kukkuzi (Kukkuzi Votic) is a divergent dialect of Votic influenced by Ingrian, the traditional position held by e.g. Porkka (1885) and supported by Posti (1980).
• Kukkuzi (Kukkuzi Ingrian) is a dialect of Ingrian influenced by Votic, posited by e.g. von Köppen (1849) and supported by Jokipii (1995) (note that the Kukkuzians also considered themselves Ingrians);
• or that the Kukkuzi variety is in fact its own North Finnic language that both Votic and Ingrian have later influenced, posited by Viitso (1998) and supported by Kallio (2021).

The most recent extensive study regarding this topic was carried by Markus & Rozhanskiy (2012), who conclude based on comparisons of grammatical features that Kukkuzi is a mixed language, consisting of a Votic substrate with an Ingrian superstrate, and leaning towards classifying it as a variety of Votic. It is this categorization that is followed by Wiktionary; Kukkuzi is considered, alongside Krevinian, a sublanguage (for technical reasons a descendant) of Votic.

Words or phrases in Kukkuzi not found in other varieties of Votic (even Krevinian) but found in Ingrian can be considered borrowings from Ingrian to Kukkuzi (even if the opposite direction could also be true in theory, however unlikely). The categorization can become very difficult with inherited vocabulary that does not exhibit the characteristic Votic sound changes. For this reason, it can sometimes be unclear whether a term is inherited or borrowed from Ingrian (since it is unreasonable to consider all forms with ki- to be from Ingrian, for instance), so special care must be taken.

Inheritance from Votic to Kukkuzi should be indicated with {{inh|urj-kuk|vot|-}} (that is, without showing a form).

The Kukkuzi dialect is not written. Currently the orthography used by Vadja keele sõnaraamat is used. Posti's Vatjan kielen Kukkosin murteen sanakirja by Posti, ed. Suhonen uses UPA. At least the following correspondences apply:

• UPA l and л are both spelled l.
• Final A and Ä (reduced) are spelled a and ä respectively.
• Long vowels are doubled instead of using macrons like in UPA.
• ŋk is spelled nk.
• t́ś is spelled c, whereas tš is spelled tš.
• Semi-voiced consonants, which in UPA are written using small caps, are written as voiced (d for ᴅ).
• Fully reduced -ä after -k- is indicated as e (in e.g. pitke).

An UPA transcription may be given when quoting the aforementioned dictionary.

If the dictionary form (the nominative singular for most nominals, the nominative plural for pluralia tantum and the first infinitive for verbs) is unattested but can be inferred beyond reasonable doubt (as Posti has done in such cases and marked them with an asterisk), it is used as the lemma. If not, other forms may be used, but must be marked as which form they represent.