We consider the convergence of the solution of a discrete‐time utility maximization problem for a sequence of binomial models to the Black‐Scholes‐Merton model for general utility functions. In previous work by D. Kreps and the second named author a counter‐example for positively skewed non‐symmetric binomial models has been constructed, while the symmetric case was left as an open problem. In the present article we show that convergence holds for the symmetric case and for negatively skewed binomial models. The proof depends on some rather fine estimates of the tail behaviors of binomial random variables. We also review some general results on the convergence of discrete models to Black‐Scholes‐Merton as developed in a recent monograph by D. Kreps. He shaped this field by applying masterfully the tools from stochastic analysis which he dominated so well.Mark Davis has dedicated a large portion of his impressive scientific work to Mathematical Finance initiated by Black, Scholes, and Merton  Brownian motion as for the binomial model. But if you try to apply the discrete time reasoning from the binomial case as in Cox et al.  to the tBut is this really the last word? From an economic point of view this sharp distinction between two similar approximations of the same object seems to be artificial. Can one find a more satisfactory answer? This question recently triggered the attention of David Kreps and led him to take up the theme of option pricing again, where he had made fundamental contributions some 40 years ago. This renewed interest resulted in the monograph Kreps  which apΩ=C0, the space of all continuous functions ω from  to R whose value at 0 is 0. We let ω denote a typical element of Ω, with ω(t) the value of ω at date t. Let P be Wiener measure on Ω.To analyze this phenomenon in proper generality let us fix some notation as in Kreps' monograph Kreps . We workS=eω(t) for the stock, taking the bond as numeraire. We know that there is a unique probability measure on Ω, denoted P∗, that is equivalent to P and, under which, S(t) is a martingale (Harrison and Kreps (We consider a Black‐Scholes‐Merton model of the form nd Kreps ).x:Ω→R. We let X denote the space of bounded and contingent claims which are continuous with respect to the norm topology on Ω=C0. The well‐known “complete markets” result for the Black‐Scholes model says that, for every x∈X, x can uniquely be writtenS‐integrable integrand α.Contingent claims are Borel‐measurable functions n=1,2,…, we have different probability measures Pn defined on Ω, with the following structure: For each n, the support of Pn consists of piecewise linear functions that, in particular, are linear on all intervals of the form , for k=0,…,n−1. The interpretation is that Pn represents a probability distribution on paths of the log of the stock price in an n‐th discrete‐time economy, in which trading between the stock and bond is possible only at times t=k/n for k=0,…,n−1. At time 1, the bond and stock liquidate in state ω at prices 1 and eω(1).Now suppose that for n‐th discrete‐time economy can implement (state‐dependent) self‐financing trading strategies (V(0),{αn(k/n),k=0,…,n−1}), where the interpretation is that V(0) is the value of the consumer's initial portfolio, αn is the number of shares of stock held by the consumer after she has traded at time k/n, and, after time 0, bond holdings are adjusted that any adjustments in stock holdings at times k/n are financed with bond purchases/sales. In the n‐th economy, the consumer only knows at time k/n the evolution of the stock price up to and including that date. In the usual fashion, if V is the value of the portfolio formed by this trading strategy at time k/n in state ω, then for all k=1,…,n,Consumers in the n, Pn specifies an arbitrage‐free model of a financial market in the usual sense: It is impossible to find in the n‐th discrete‐time model a trading strategy (V(0),αn) with V(0)=0, V(1)≥0Pn‐a.s., and V(1)>0 with Pn‐positive probability. This is true if and only if there exists a probability measure Pn∗ that is equivalent to Pn, under which {(eω(k/n),Fk/n);k=0,…,n} is a martingale  for the n‐th discrete‐time model. Of course, in general there will be more than one emm Pn∗. However, with respect to any emm Pn∗, (V(k/n),Fk/n) is a martingale with respect to Pn∗. In particular, the expectation of V(1) under every emm Pn∗ is V(0).We maintain throughout the assumption that, for each g et al. ). Such aXn:={x∈X:x(ω)=V for some trading strategy (V(0),αn) for the nth discrete‐time economy}. We refer to Xn as the space of synthesizable claims in the n‐th discrete‐time economy.Let X be approximated by elements of Xn? During a visit of the second named author to Stanford University in the spring term 2019 we jointly took up this scheme in the paper Kreps and Schachermayer ≤x¯})=1 for all n, where x_=infωx(ω) and x¯=supωx(ω).The claim A basic question treated in detail in Kreps' mongraph Kreps  is the fhermayer  and founx‐controlled risk can be attained:Theorem 1.2Pn on Ω=C0 weakly tend to Wiener measure P, and that, for some sequence {δn;n=1,…,} of positive numbers tending to zero, Suppose that the probability measures x∈X can be asymptotically synthesized with x‐controlled risk. Moreover, fixing the claim x, the sequence of claims {xn} that asymptotically synthesize x can be chosen where, for (Vn(0),αn) the trading strategy that gives xn, Vn(0)≡EP∗[x], the Black‐Scholes‐Merton price of the claim x.Then every (continuous and bounded) The main result result of Kreps and Schachermayer  states tAs a particular example, the theorem applies, for example, to the trinomial model and, more generally, to a wide range of incomplete approximations of the Black‐Scholes model. The message is: replacing the notions of sub‐ and super‐replications by Definition Theorem Let us recapitulate the setting which is slightly more structured than the assumption of Theorem ζ with mean zero, variance one, and bounded support. For an i.i.d. sequence {ζj;j=1,2,…}, where each ζk has the distribution of ζ, the law for the price of the stock at time k/n isFix a random variable Ω=C0. For each n, let Pn be the probability measure on Ω such that the joint distribution of (ω(0),ω(1/n),…,ω(1)) matches the distribution of (ξ(0),ξ(1/n),…,ξ(1)), and such that ω(t) for k/n<t<(k+1)/n is the linear interpolate of ω(k/n) and ω((k+1)/n). And let S:Ω→R+ be defined by S=eω(t). Donsker's Theorem tells us that Pn weakly tends to P, where P is Wiener measure on C0.Again we embed this model into the standard state space x, trading as above either in the discrete market or in the continuous limit.We imagine an expected‐utility‐maximizing agent who is endowed with initial wealth nth discrete‐time economy (where the stock and bond trade (only) at times 0,1/n,2/n,…,(n−1)/n), does the optimal expected utility she can attain approach, as n→∞, what she can optimally attain in the continuous‐time Black‐Scholes‐Merton economy?The question addressed in Kreps  is: If wun(x) be the supremal expected utility she can attain in the nth discrete‐time economy if her initial wealth is x, and let u(x) be her supremal expected utility in the Black‐Scholes‐Merton economy. Kreps (liminfnun(x)≥u(x). And he proved limnun(x)=u(x) in the very special cases of U having either constant absolute or relative risk aversion. But he only conjectures that the second “half”, or limsupnun(x)≤u(x) is true for general (sufficiently regular) U.Let y. Kreps  obtainedDefinition 1.3U is a strictly increasing, strictly concave, and continuously differentiable function U:R+→R, which satisfies the Inada conditions that limx→0U′(x)=∞ and limx→∞U′(x)=0.A utility function To tackle this issue in proper generality we first need precise definitionsun(x) and u(x) as the maximal expected utility an agent can achieve from initial wealth x by admissibly trading in the markets defined by the measures Pn and P.As usual, we define the corresponding value functions U, its asymptotic elasticity Kramkov and Schachermayer ((U), is defined byU(x)=xα/α for α∈, then AE(U)=α.For the utility function hermayer , writtenU implies that AE(U)≤1 in all cases; if U is bounded above and if U(∞)>0, then AE(U)=0. But if U(∞)=∞, AE(U) can equal 1; an example is where U(x)=x/ln(x) for sufficiently large x.The concavity of Theorem 1.4U satisfies AE(U)<1. Then, for all x>0, the value function x↦u(x) is finite‐valued and[KS 20 Theorem 1] Suppose that the utility function The following theorem gives an affirmative answer to Kreps' conjecture under the asymptotic elasticity condition.admitting the conditionAE(U)<1, this theorem settles the issue of convergence of the optimal expected utility in the discrete approximations of the Black‐Scholes‐Merton model in an economically satisfactory way. Note that we did not suppose the completeness of the discrete markets modeled by the measures Pn. In other words: the convergence of expected utility behaves well, independently of whether we are in the binomial or in the trinomial approximation. Also note that the assertion of finiteness of both terms in =1? For this case Kreps and the second named author found to their surprise that the answer to Kreps' conjecture turns out to be negative. More surprisingly: this pathology already happens in the framework of the binomial model!But, of course, at this stage the next question pops up. What happens for the—admittedly somewhat pathological—case of utility functions with AETo address this issue let us fix the notation for the special case of the binomial model in .p∈ we consider and i.i.d. sequence (αn)n=1∞ of Bernoulli variables withp∈. Denote by ζn the corresponding standardized variablesE[ζn]=0 and Var[ζn]=1. Again we denote by ξn,k the scaled partial sumsfn,k=P.For arbitrary S(n)(k/n)=eξn,k and extend S(n) by interpolation to continuous‐time processes as above, then (S(n)(t))0≤t≤1 approximates the Black‐Scholes‐Merton model (S(t))0≤t≤1 with S(t)=exp(ω(t)) for 0≤t≤1.If we again set ω(1) under Pn equals the binomial distribution of ξn,n=ζ1+⋯+ζnn12.The distribution of the random variable u(x) and un(x) asP∗ and Pn∗ now are the unique equivalent martingale measures pertaining to the Black‐Scholes‐Merton model and its n‐th approximation, respectively.Again we define the value functions p∈ we have E[ζn3]>0. This is the case where things go astray, as demonstrated by the counterexample in Section 9 of Kreps and Schachermayer , there is a utility function U satisfying the conditions of Definition AE(U)=1) such that u(x) is a perfectly well‐behaved finite function while limn→∞un(x)=∞, for all x>0. This phenomenon happens if E[ζn3]>0 which means that the up‐tick of the log‐price is larger than the down‐tick.When hermayer . If p∈, we haveIf The good news is that in this case everything works out as it should as stated in the subsequent theorem which is the main novel contribution of the present paper.Pn∗ and P∗ denote the unique equivalent martingale measures of the binomial and the Black‐Scholes‐Merton model, respectively.The theorem will follow from the subsequent more technical version of . As abovV:R+→R the conjugate function of U, that is, V(y)=supx>0{U(x)−xy}, and the corresponding dual value functions byProposition 1.6Under the assumptions of Theorem As usual we denote by Proof of Theorem 1.5(admitting Proposition 1.6) We deduce from  we obtahermayer  from =12πe−x22. SetProposition 1.7p∈, andgn(w) is bounded from above uniformly in n∈N and w∈.For the remaining cases, ithat is, ow thatlognfn,kow thatlognfn,kow thatlognfn,ktor of ≤n+112nlog(k!)≥logk−klog=α′(12)=α′′(12)=α′′′(12)=0 and for the forth derivative we have αiv(w)=−2/(1−w)3−2/w3<0 for w∈, and thus each of the functions α′′′(w), α′′(w), α′(w), and α(w) is strictly negative and decreasing for w∈.We have βn(1/2)=25/(12n) and βn′(w)=4−1/(2w)+1/(2(1−w))>0 for w∈, thus βn(w) is strictly positive and strictly increasing for w∈.We have w∈ we have gn(w)≤bn(3/4). As limn→∞βn(3/4)=1+log(2/3)<∞ it follows that gn(w) is bounded from above for the interval under consideration.For w∈ we have gn(w)≤α(3/4)n+βn(1−1/n). Now α(3/4)<0 and βn(1−1/n)∼12logn as n→∞. Here the second term on the right hand side of (α(3/4)n grows quicker than 12logn to conclude that gn(w) is negative for w∈ and sufficiently large n.For  side of  is the lgn(w) for w∈ replaced by gn(1−w) for w∈.The proof of  is compl□Having proved  and 17)17) we meC>0 is sufficiently strong. But we we can do better than that. We may adapt the above argument to yield a constant C=1+ε for n sufficiently large. Indeed, analyzing the above proof of Proposition  not at w=3/4, but at a point θ∈, which is close to 1/2 to obtain a better constant C, for large enough n. The detailed argument is given in the proof of the following proposition, which sharpens Proposition Proposition 2.1C>1 there is n0(C)>0 such that equations (n≥n0(C).For any quations –17) and andC>1 tquations –19) hol holC>1 tFor the above proof of Proposition ϑ∈ and proceed as in the proof of the Proposition w∈ and w∈. In the first case, when w∈, we have gn(w)≤βn(ϑ) andϑ and equals zero when ϑ=1/2. In the second case, for w∈ we have gn(w)≤α(ϑ)n+βn(1−1/n). Again α(ϑ)<0 and βn(1−1/n)∼12logn as n→∞, so that gn(w) is negative for w∈ and sufficiently large n.□We consider 3Proof of Proposition 1.6((asymmetric case) admitting Proposition 1.6) We fix p∈ and follow the steps from the symmetric case, but now we get instead of  and z1,1=(1−p)/p. Straightforward asymptotic expansions for n→∞ yieldδ>0. For p∈ it follows from the asymptotics thatn sufficiently large. In fact, these inequalities are also true for p=1/2 as can be seen from (stead of  the follstead of :(48)azn,k≥0 then ≤Hy and the uniform integrability follows just as in the symmetric case.Instead of  we now ck≥0 then  yields Hzn,k≤0 then ≥H∼y, where H∼y(x)=V(y∼e−x/2−1/8) with y∼=yeδ. Due to the convexity of V we have v(y∼)>−∞ and the uniform integrability follows just as in the symmetric case.□If we are in the left tail and k≤0 then  yields HProof of Proposition 1.7(asymmetric case) Following the steps from the symmetric case we now getgn(w)=α(w)n+βn(w), where w∈, andα(p)=α′(p)=α′′(p)=0. As regards the third derivative we find α′′′(w)=1−2p(p−1)2p2<0 for w∈, and thus α′′′(w), α′′(w), α′(w), and α(w) again are strictly negative and decreasing for w∈.equality  becomesβn(p)=112(6np−np2+1n−6log(−4(p−1)p)) and βn′(w)=1p−p2+12−2w−12w>0 for w∈, thus βn(w) is strictly positive and strictly increasing for w∈.We have ϑ∈. For w∈ we have gn(w)≤βn(ϑ). As limn→∞βn(ϑ)=−1/2log(ϑ(1−ϑ))+hp(1−p)−11−p−log2 it follows that gn(w) is bounded from above for the interval under consideration. For w∈ we have gn(w)≤α(ϑ)n+βn(1−1/n). Now α(ϑ)<0 and βn(1−1/n)∼1/2logn as n→∞ and thus gn(w) is negative for w∈ and sufficiently large n.□Similarly as in the proof of Proposition


The study analyses the linguistic situation in the three Ukrainian oblasts on the Black Sea coast using survey data collected from 1,200 respondents before the Russian attack on Ukraine. At the end of the 18th century, this region was the core of a “new Russian” governate during Tsarist times. Previously, the region had been ruled by Tatars and there were neither Russian nor Ukrainian settlements. From the 19th century onwards, the Ukrainian and Russian population dominated. Since the annexation of the Crimea, these oblasts represent a crucial part of the Kremlin’s plan to establish an “expanded New Russia (Novorossiya)” under Moscow’s control – extending along the Ukrainian-Russian border and the northern Black Sea coast, reaching from Xarkiv to Odesa. This area is clearly at the forefront of Russia’s current war goals since controlling it would allow them to establish the strategically important land bridge to Crimea.Linguistically, the area undoubtedly belongs to those regions of Ukraine where Russian was prominent, although apart from the Crimea at no time was there an ethnic Russian majority on the Black Sea coast – neither during Soviet times nor since Ukraine’s independence. This means that the population with Ukrainian “nationality” also made strong use of Russian. This situation is being instrumentalized by Moscow as an argument for its military intervention to protect the Russian or Russian-speaking population.The study firstly describes the linguistic situation in the region, differentiating between the so-called mother tongue, the first language acquired and the principally-used language. It can be shown that the traditionally assumed dominance of Russian is actually far weaker when the population’s “multicodality”, including the mixed variety Suržyk, is included in the analysis. A differentiation is made between respondents with Ukrainian and Russian nationality throughout the analysis. Using statistical procedures such as principal component analysis and cluster analysis, the interdependencies between stated mother tongue, first language and multicodality are presented. Different motives for claiming a certain mother tongue can be identified among subgroups of respondents. The analysis focuses particularly on the questions of the extent to which central government measures to strengthen the position of Ukrainian since Ukraine’s independence have changed respondents’ preferences when choosing a code, and whether respondents have perceived social pressure for any form of shift. On the whole, it can be established that speakers with Ukrainian nationality who were primarily socialized in Russian have considerably increased their usage of Ukrainian, but without abandoning Russian. At best, this can also be established to a minimal extent for respondents with Russian nationality. Furthermore, since there is only extremely scant evidence that respondents encounter disapproval or censure from their environment for their choice of code , Moscow’s claim of persecution, if not genocide of the Russian-speaking population is exposed as a blatant lie. Apart from the Crimean Peninsula, annexed by Russia in 2014, the Ukrainian oblasts on the Northern coast of the Black Sea (including the Sea of Azov), hold a prominent position in the predatory-prey pattern of Russia’s neo-imperial aggression under Putin’s government, of course together with the Donbas area and Xarkiv. The Black Sea oblasts would guarantee continental access to the Crimean naval port of Sevastopol, which is of major importance for Russian imperial interests – not only in the Black Sea, including the so-called Balkan area with the Russia-oriented Transnistrian pseudo-state, but also in the Mediterranean area as well as Africa and all of the Middle East. Historically, the territory of the contemporary Ukrainian Black Sea oblasts formed the core of so-called “Novorossiya”, literally New Russia, or, to be precise, the Novorossiya Governate of the Russian Empire established during the second half of the 18th century. In the first half of the last millennium, these territories did not have an autochthonous Slavic population, neither Ukrainian (or “Little Russian” in the terminology of the Russian Empire) nor Russian (“Great Russian” in the same terminology). Serfs fleeing from more central parts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth started to settle in these less controlled areas called “Wild Fields” in the 15th century. There, over the course of time, the Zaporizhian Sich and the Cossack Hetmanate developed, a semi-autonomous polity, which came to an ultimate end by 1775. The following colonization of these territories in Tsarist times was multi-ethnic, with Ukrainians and Russians being the largest groups in the long run, with differences between the share of the two groups over time, regions, cities / towns and villages. By the end of the 19th century, it suffices here to state that the All-Russian Empire Census  providesThe historical background,2014Apart from the Crimea, in all oblasts mentioned, ethnic Russians were in the minority, Ukrainians in the majority. This was the case in the first and until today only census taken in independent Ukraine in 2001 as well as in the last census taken by the Soviet Union in 1989  in a society like Ukraine. Several conceptions of native language will be highlighted and related to the three codes. Second, information on respondents’ “primary code” will be provided, accompanied by a discussion of the methodological problems confronting quantitative analyses based on this concept in multilingual societies. Third, the contemporary linguistic practice or current usage of the three codes will be discussed and, subsequently, the code of linguistic socialization during childhood will be investigated. Last but not least, the question of shifts between the codes over people’s lifetimes will be posed.Language usage in the sense of acknowledged languages or other codes, e.g. vernaculars, has an impact on the statement of one’s native language or “mother tongue”. But this statement has at least partially a different character because it can be only loosely, sometimes more, sometimes less connected with respondents’ actual linguistic practice,15The immediate question for the situation in Ukraine, not only in the three oblasts at issue here, is that of the ethnic groups of Ukrainians and Russians. We will start our analysis with this aspect. The results are presented in Fig. One difference between Ukrainian and Russian respondents is obvious. The latter declare Russian, their “titular language”, to be their native language with only very few exceptions, although every tenth respondent only reservedly agreed with the statement. Ukrainians do so with Ukrainian to an extent that is only a little lower, but every tenth respondent rejects Ukrainian as their mother tongue. The attitudes to the respective other language, i.e. Ukrainian or Russian, as well as to Suržyk are similar for both ethnic Ukrainians and Russians, although the acknowledgement of the other two codes among Ukrainians is a little higher. The acknowledgement of Russian as a mother tongue can be observed for roughly 550 respondents, only one fifth of whom are Russians, the others Ukrainians. Among the latter, three in four exhibit a reserved acknowledgement of Russian as their native language.The number of Russians among the respondents is thus comparatively small (but at least approximately corresponds to the share of Russian in the population of the region)After 2013 / 2014, i.e. after the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and in the light of the military conflict between the Russian Federation and independent Ukraine in the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhans’k and Donec’k, and in still other words, in times of severe pressure from the Russian Federation on Ukraine, it is far from surprising that many Ukrainians feel more Ukrainian than previously. Quite a number of Ukrainians  who mostly used Russian as their principal medium of communication before the cited conflicts or even in Soviet times, state that Putin has finally made them convinced Ukrainians. Accordingly, given the background of such a social atmosphere, it is not surprising that even on the Black Sea coast, which most earlier investigations described as overwhelmingly Russian speaking  for all three codes (missing responses are hard to interpret in this respect), then we can state the following: Only roughly 40 percent stated that they have just one native language: 30 percent Ukrainian, 10 percent Russian and less than 1 percent Suržyk. Another roughly 40 percent stated two native languages: 20 percent Ukrainian and Suržyk, 17 percent Ukrainian and Russian, 2 percent Russian and Suržyk. About 17 percent stated that all three codes are their native languages.A brief comment on reservedly rejecting one or the other codes: If these reserved rejections were to be accepted as some, although clearly restricted form of “felt mothertongueness”, the percentage of Suržyk and Russian would increase considerably, the former reaching about 50 percent the latter about 66 percent. Ukrainian  would gain much less: close to 90 percent rather than a little more than 80 percent.Declaring a language, a variety, or a code – to use the most neutral expression – to be one’s native language or “mother tongue” has, as has been mentioned above, at least to some degree a symbolic, attitudinal character, expressing identity, loyalty and the like. On the basis of a multifactorial approach it should thus be possible to grade the attachment to single codes. This, of course, holds especially when there is a “choice” between two or more codes in multilingual or “multicodal” societies. In this investigation, the respondents were presented with three statements, one for each code: “Ukrainian / Russian / SuržykStatement in Table The notion of “native language” or “mother tongue” is rather a layman’s category and as such it is multi-layered. Trying to grasp some and, hopefully, the most important layers or aspects of the notion, the respondents were asked to evaluate nine statements of the type “For me, the native language is a language, which …”. Here, there were only two options for the evaluations, yes or no. The statements that were evaluated are shown in the column There is no need to present descriptive quantitative data on the statements in detail. All but one statement did not reach a majority of positive reactions. This exception was that two thirds of the respondents agreed on point (A), that the native language is a code they acquired during childhood. It should be underlined that this agreement is by no means exclusive. Almost all respondents who agreed with this evaluation also agreed with at least one if not more of the other nine as well, however with large differences. The other statements reached agreement rates of between a minimum of 27 percent (B – the language I speak best as well as H – the language I love and appreciate) and a maximum of 40 percent (E – the language of my parents). The latter, E, and A as the only point agreed upon by the majority are, of course, in a way connected with each other. Both typically refer to the language acquired during childhood, a process in which parents are involved, at least in most cases. Such interdependencies can be stated for other points as well.i.Positive reactions to the statements “By ‘mother tongue’ I understand …” F – “… the language of my country”; G – “… of the nationality, I belong to”; H – “… I love and hold in a regard”; I “… of my fatherland” hint at an emotional, rather patriotic approach (PATRIO) to the notion of “native language” – the first component.ii.The second component with high values for B – “… the language I speak best”; C – “… I use in everyday life”; D – “… I think in” rather signal a practical approach (PRACT). based on the language(s) or code(s) in their current real linguistic situation.iii.The third component with high values for A – “… I acquired as a child” and E – “…the language of my parents” is practical or realistic in a similar way to ii. However, it does not refer to the current linguistic practice, but rather to that during childhood. One could speak of an acquisition approach (AQUI) to the notion “native language”. It should be noted that only the patriotic approach is a symbolic one, mirroring attitudes to a language or code. The practical and the acquisition approach are realistic approaches in the sense that has just been mentioned.In order to base this assumption not only on intuition, a factor component analysis has been calculated.Similar to Hentschel and Zeller’s  investigk-means clustering). For a k-means cluster analysis the number of clusters has to be fixed in advance. One may either predetermine the clusters and thus their number to be tested by reasonable non-quantitative hypotheses or fix the ideal number of clusters by another variant of cluster analysis: hierarchical cluster analysis. This method can only be run on a smaller number of elements to be clustered, which have to be drawn by random selection from the larger set of elements. As there are no hypotheses or suggestions at hand on how many (and which) groups of respondents should be distinguished on the basis of the three components, the latter approach was taken. The hierarchical cluster analysis was executed on 50 randomly selected respondents and yielded an ideal number of four clusters for the analysis of centroid-clustering that was conducted on the data of all 1,200 respondents. The latter yielded the results illustrated in Table The statistical method to achieve this aim is cluster analysis. For a high number of elements to be clustered  the adequate variant of cluster analysis is a centroid-based clustering symbolic patriotism (PATRIO)acquisition during childhood (ACQUI)an inclusive bundle of all components (INCL)On the basis of their approach to the concept of “native language”, the fixed groups of respondents or speakers will from here on be called speakers with an orientation towards For the first three, the same abbreviation will be used as for the components, for the last one the new abbreviation “INCL”.As can be seen in the last two lines of Table Regarding the quantitative data presented in the last lines of Table Суржик я счітаю своїм рідним язиком. (...) всі абщаються со мной, хто хоче, питається наладить св’язь, общається на суржикє. (...) Рідна мова… ну якой ти общаєшся постоянно, ну імєнна твоя удобна для тебе.(1230I consider Suržyk my native language. (...) everyone communicates with me, who wants, tries to establish a connection, communicates in Suržyk. (...) Native language … well, in which you communicate constantly, well, the one that’s convenient for you.current linguistic practice (PRACT) [родной язык] український. Незавісімо от того шо я ним не разгаваріваю практіческі (...). Український язик счітаю родним, поскоку, як я сказала, я роділась в Україні, поскоку являється державною мовою і єстєствєнно являється і родною мовою моєй. [my native language is] Ukrainian. Regardless of the fact that I do not speak it practically (...). I consider Ukrainian to be my native language, because, as I said, I was born in Ukraine, because it is the state language and, of course, it is also my native language.symbolic patriotism (PATRIO) Рідна мова – це мова, на якій ти розмовляєш з дитинства. Зараз скажу як по підручнику, але це мова, якої тебе навчила матір, а моя мама розмовляє на російській, тому моя рідна мова все ж таки російська.Native language is the language you have spoken since childhood. Now I’m going to put it as in a textbook, but this is the language that your mother taught you, and my mother speaks Russian, so my native language is still Russian.acquisition during childhood (ACQUI) родной [язык]... ну он больше с стороны именно, мне кажется, государства, и с другой стороны, тот, на котором тебе проще разговаривать. (...) большую часть жизни я говорю именно на нем [украинском], и все, что вокруг меня, это украинское, поэтому я считаю, что родной язык – это украинский. А русский – это просто, опять же, проще всем говорить на нем, вот почему-то так выходит. native [language] ... well, it is more on the part of, I think, the state, and on the other hand, the one that is easier for you to speak. (...) most of my life I speak it [Ukrainian], and everything around me is Ukrainian, so I think that my native language is Ukrainian. And Russian is just, again, it’s easier for everyone to speak it, that’s why it turns out that way.an inclusive bundle of all components (INCL) The survey we conducted was accompanied by open, in-depth interviews from which we can present utterances made by interviewees which illustrate the abovementioned classification from (a) to (d):20Having determined the four groups of respondents according to their conceptions of native language, the first question to be asked is whether there are different inclinations in these four groups to declare one or the other of the three codes to be their native language. Figures Here, only tables for Ukrainian and Russian are presented, because there are no significant differences between the four groups in their readiness to declare Suržyk as their native language. (We will return to the question of which aspects make respondent choose Suržyk as their native language later in the text.)Comparing Ukrainian and Russian, the first but not most important point to be made is that Russian is much less frequently declared as the native language in all four groups. This of course relates to the fact that the number of ethnic Ukrainians among the respondents is ten times higher than that of ethnic Russians, since both groups have been considered here. Of more interest are, however, the quantitative differences between the groups for each of the two codes. Most obvious in this respect is that a patriotic (PATRIO) approach to “mother tongue” as well as an inclusive (INCL) approach almost automatically make respondents declare Ukrainian to be their native language. As has been shown in Table For those respondents for whom a rather realistic conception of native language is characteristic, be it oriented on current usage (PRACT) or on acquisition during childhood (AQUI), the share of unanimous acceptance of Ukrainian as their native language is clearly reduced to approximately 50 percent in both groups. When reserved approval is additionally taken into account, then three out of four respondents in the groups PRACT and ACQUI consider Ukrainian their native language. For Russian, it must first be noted that the readiness to declare it one’s native language is much lower. Apart from that, the differences between the four groups with different conceptions of native language are diametrically opposite to the constellation for Ukrainian. Only about 10 percent with a patriotic or inclusive conception of native language unreservedly declare Russian to be their native language. Within respondents for whom current usage or acquisition in childhood is most important – among them almost all of the Russians involved in the study, we observe a very clear increase in the tendency to name Russian without hesitation as one’s native language, up to 35 or 40 percent, respectively.Briefly recapitulating this point, the first thing to note is that Russian tends to be declared the native language for symbolic or patriotic reasons on a very low level , Ukrainian on a very high one.We now turn to the question of to what extent the respondents’ estimation of their own linguistic practice, in terms of the significance of the three codes in current usage or usage during childhood, has an impact on their statement of specific “mother tongues”.The analysis of the primarily used code by KIIS , as illuTwo methodological points need to be clarified before we turn to our interpretation: First, in contrast to the question about the native language, only one answer was allowed for the primary code. Multiple options were not necessary because the respondents were asked to quantify their usage of each of the three codes, which allows for a detailed comparison. And these results formed the basis for Map As can be seen from Fig. In the following analyses it is not the primary code that is used, because it is inferior for mirroring the presence of the three codes in the tricodal society. The problem with the primary code is that for non-monocodal speakers we do not know on which grounds they select the primary code from the two or three codes they speak.With regard to the extent of current usage of the three codes in the three Black Sea oblasts, Hentschel and Taranenko , p. 284 These seven types correspond to the seven logically possible mono-, bi- and tricodal combinations of the three codes. As the types are based on a statistical cluster analysis of frequency estimations, a correspondence between the number of logically possible combinations and quantitatively based clusters would not necessarily be the case. A respondent from the monocodal type, say “U” for Ukrainian, usually does use the other two codes as well, but only to a quantitatively medium extent. This means that on quantitative grounds other types would be possible, e.g. “strong U and strong R” vs. “strong U and R of medium strength” etc. The names of the types are thus based on the interpretation of the results of the cluster analysis  among the monocodal speakers of Ukrainian. Second, two thirds of them are monocodal speakers of Russian, but, third, these respondents make up just one quarter of all monocodal speakers of Russian.For the seven types of speakers (respondents), based on their estimations of linguistic practice in everyday life, now the statements on their native languages will be compared and, in a second step, their statements about the first language or code they grew up with. Figures i.Speaker type U (218 respondents): The vast majority, eight out of ten of speakers of the speaker type U , names only Ukrainian as their native language, one in ten names Ukrainian together with Suržyk. As has been mentioned above, there are almost no respondents with Russian “nationality” in this speaker type,ii.R (210): Monocodal users of Russian reveal a heterogeneous picture of “mothertongueness”. Only four out of ten report Russian to be their only native language. For the ethnic Russians among them, the relation is however eight out of ten. Four in ten from both ethnic groups in speaker type R name Russian together with Ukrainian, one in ten name only Ukrainian. This all implies that monocodal speakers of Russian with Ukrainian nationality  preferably declare Ukrainian as their native language, although they rarely  practise it. Only a quarter of them unreservedly names only Russian as their native language, almost half of them Russian and Ukrainian, one in six only Ukrainian. With the latter group there is thus a complete mismatch between native language and current usage of codes.26iii.S-U-R (216): Of the speakers with a declared “tricodalism”, indeed more than one third name all three codes as their mother tongue. The share of those naming Ukrainian and Suržyk (but not Russian) as their native languages is a little smaller. The remainder name Ukrainian and Russian or only Ukrainian with comparable frequency. With regard to other speaker types, a quantification is less meaningful due to small numbers. It suffices to say that speakers of the S-R type (96) mostly name all three codes as their native language, (similarly to S-U-R speakers), to a lesser degree Suržyk and Ukrainian (but not the combination of Suržyk and Russian). S-U speakers indeed preferably name Suržyk and Ukrainian or Ukrainian alone.We start with the three largest of the seven groups of speaker type, which make up  almost three quarters of all of the 890 respondents who provided self-quantifications on the use and the status of native language for all three codes: i.Native language only Ukrainian (280 respondents): Six in ten declaring Ukrainian to be their sole native language belong to the monocodal Ukrainian speaker type (U). The other speaker types are represented to a much less extent: by either one in ten or by even fewer.ii.Only Russian (105): Almost nine out of ten are indeed monocodal speakers of Russian (R), one in ten uses Russian and Suržyk frequently (S-R).iii.Ukrainian and Russian (146): One half belongs to the monocodal Russian speaker type (R), about two in ten are each either bilingual speakers of Ukrainian and Russian or tricodal speakers.iv.Ukrainian and Suržyk (180): This group is very heterogenous in terms of speaker types: Four out of ten are tricodal speakers, two out of ten come from the S-U type, one from each of the monocodal types U, R, S.v.Ukrainian, Russian and Suržyk (150): One half consists indeed of tricodal speakers, a good quarter of S-R speakers and one out of ten is a monocodal S speaker. The number of speakers of other combinations are too small to be commented upon.From the point of view of respondents’ statements about their mother tongue one can make the following statements about native language: The general interpretation of these observations is as follows: Among those people in whose daily linguistic practice Russian, Suržyk or both codes play a major role, there is a considerable reluctance to name Russian as their native language , an even stronger one to name Suržyk  acquisition cf. Fig. c. This iii.Ukrainian and Russian are named as the only first language to a more or less equal extent of roughly one third of the respondents. Suržyk is named by one fifth. It is presumably safe to assume that at least some of the respondents were reluctant to admit that they grew up with only Suržyk in their family. This vernacular is stigmatized – as has been mentioned above – as the code of the uneducated, especially when there is no “literary” variety used as well. One might feel uneasy to reveal that this was the case in one’s family. This means that all three codes might be on a similar level as the first linguistic code acquired, although Suržyk is clearly named less frequently than Ukrainian and Russian. Regarding the ethnic groups of the respondents, we observe that among Russians more than two thirds declare only Russian as their first language (the rest is distributed rather evenly over other constellations of first languages), among Ukrainians more than a quarter do so. This means, on the other hand, that among those who in the first years of their lives were socialized only in Russian there are four Ukrainians and only one Russian.This brings us back to the question of the extent to which the three codes are currently used “in reality”. Up to this point we have only discussed data based on respondents’ self-estimations of their own linguistic practice. To a certain, but of course variable degree people are interested in presenting themselves in a good light, which is especially to be reckoned with for the symbolic aspects of the “mother tongue”, which for many, as has been shown, has a symbolic-patriotic significance. A similar approach cannot be completely ruled out even for statements on the codes frequently practised or on the ones acquired during childhood. We therefore now turn to the question of how respondents estimate the presence of the three codes in their surroundings. First, the situation in families will be looked at, which is of course a closer or more intimate social context for the respondents and, second, the situation outside the family. The corresponding questions were “How often is X used or to be heard?” The presentation of the quantitative relations will be differentiated for respondents with Ukrainian and with Russian nationality, because they differ clearly between the two groups. Figure The first thing to notice in this analysis is that there are very few refusals to answer this question. This underlines that personal statements in surveys can be influenced by a feeling of discomfort for some phenomena. The second point to be made is of course the differences between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. It looks as if the two groups are living in two separate linguistic worlds. Nearly one half of the respondents of Ukrainian nationality Fig. a report The most striking difference between the two ethnic groups is of course connected with the presence of Russian in their respective micro-worlds. More than 90 percent of the ethnic Russians state that it is frequent, mostly very frequent in their surroundings, both in their families and in other social contexts. In view of the widespread monocodalism of ethnic Russians already described above, this is of course less astonishing for family contexts than for other ones. The corresponding figures for ethnic Ukrainians are much lower: a little more than 50 percent use Russian frequently or very frequently.This leads us to the question of competence in Ukrainian and Russian and to the question of shifts from one language or code during the respondents’ lifetimes.Since there are relatively large groups that neither use Ukrainian nor Russian frequently, the question of competence in the two languages arises.The judgements about the level of competence in the two languages without distinguishing between active and passive competence in oral or written form are more informative, as the next figures illustrate:As a matter of fact, even these quantitative data in the general overview of Fig. Clear differences in the self-judgements on competence in Ukrainian and Russian become obvious when speaker types are discriminated; cf. Fig. It is obvious that many monocodal speakers of Ukrainian report a rather reduced competence in Russian Fig. a and vicSo far in this section, the two ethnic groups have been analysed together. What has to be added is a word on competence in Ukrainian among respondents of Russian nationality, almost all of whom, as has been outlined above, belong to the monocodal Russian speaker type. For this reason, a differentiation based on speaker types would not be meaningful. It is, however, possible to make a more precise comment on the results presented in Fig. These data hint at a situation in which Suržyk is to a certain degree some sort of communicative bridge in everyday life between speakers oriented towards Ukrainian or Russian, at least for ethnic Ukrainians. This is mirrored in the answers to the aspect of tolerance towards the three codes. There were two questions in our survey on this topic: “Have you ever felt embarrassed because of using X?” and “Have you ever been jeered because of using X?” Both questions were asked for all three codes. There are extremely few positive answers on either question. Three out of 100 respondents have experienced occasions of embarrassment for using Suržyk, one of 100 for using Ukrainian and even fewer for using Russian. Still fewer experienced objections to their choice of codes, interestingly more for Ukrainian  than for Russian or Suržyk .(5)це [суржик] деколи викликає сміх, aле такий позитивний, ти з цього посміявся і тобі ну..., не так, що “га-га-га” насміхаєшся. А це просто прикольно, навіть деякі слова можеш перейняти і потім так само їх використовувати.It [Suržyk] is sometimes laughable, but rather positive, you laughed at it and you, well ..., not that you would go laughing “ha-ha-ha”. And it’s just cool, you can even adopt some words and then use them in the same way. In most cases, according to the respondents, it is Suržyk that is stigmatized, but in some cases the use of the Ukrainian (6) or Russian (7) languages also causes ridicule or objection. (6)У нас получається в мене в сестри чоловік, він – руский, сам з Кемеровской області, но він поначалу нас не понімав трошки, а потом він уже привик, хоч він сам руский, і вже йому і за сємдесять, і як він не хотів перевести, як він не хотів промовить ці слова українські, то в нього всьо равно ніяк. То ми з нього глузували, а не він з нас. We have, therefore, my sister’s husband, he is Russian, himself from the Kemerovo region, but at first, he did not always understand us, and then he got used to it, although he is Russian, and he is over seventy, and as he wanted to translate, as he wanted to say these words in Ukrainian, he anyhow did not succeed. Then we made fun of him, not he of us.(7)Я работала в сфєрі обслуживанія, і я начала балакати, як я балакаю, то дєвочка одна мені сказала так: “нє разгаварівайтє са мной на украінскай мовє, разгаварівайтє са мной на русском язику”. I worked in the service sector, and I started talking as I talk, and one girl told me: “do not talk to me in Ukrainian, talk to me in Russian.” Respondents often even show self-confidence, despite ridicule of their language. (8)В унівєрсітєті, то да, ми приїхали з села, то в нас такий тута мєсний діалєкт, можна сказать. Уже Кривий Рог, город, всі по-русски там, то з нас, канєшно, всі підсміювалися, і ми як починали по-українськи, нам трошки було неудобно, і ми начинали, ето ж перві курси, під них підстраюваться, ну, балакали по-російськи. Ну а потім уже як трошки стали старші, то ми рішили, чо ми должні під них підстраюваться, нехай лучше вони під нас. І ми начали розмовлять по-своєму і, ну, і перестали, коли вони з нас сміялись, ми просто на це відповідали: хлопці, ви лучше підстраюйтесь під нас, українська Україна, українська мова, ну, тобто в таком плані. At the university, yes, we came from the village, we have such a local dialect here, as one can say. Kryvyi Rih, on the other hand, the city, all in Russian there, then of course, all of us laughed, and we started in Ukrainian, we felt a little uncomfortable, and we started – those were the first years of studying – to adapt to them, well, chatted in Russian. Well, then as we got a little older, we decided that we shouldn’t adapt to them, but rather they to us. And we started talking in our own way and, well, we stopped when they laughed at us, we just answered: guys, you better adapt to us, Ukrainian Ukraine, Ukrainian language, well, that is, something like that. However, the number of instances of ridicule or objection described above is far too small to interpret their differences. What can be interpreted is the low level of embarrassment and objections regarding the practice of the codes, even for Suržyk. Of course, there are conversational situations in which one of the codes is more appropriate or inappropriate. And discomfort may result if expectations for the use or non-use of a code are not fulfilled. This seems however to be bound to specific situations rather than general attitudes in society  languages. Here again, several utterances from the in-depth interviews are offered as illustration:32(9)Когда я была маленькая, в нашей семье все общались на суржике – мама, папа, бабушка, дедушка. Тому і я, в детстве і зараз, разговариваю на суржику. (…) я і зараз общаюсь на суржику, і з вами. (…) я разговариваю так як мені удобно, якщо вже мене не понімают, то я намагаюсь перейти на той язик, на який треба – русский чи український. Хоть мені це іногда буває сложно..When I was a kid, everyone in our family spoke Suržyk – mom, dad, grandma, grandpa. That’s why I, as a child and today, I speak Suržyk. (...) I still communicate in Suržyk, even with you. (…) I speak as I feel comfortable, if somebody doesn’t understand me, I try to switch to the language I need – Russian or Ukrainian. Although it is sometimes difficult for me.(c)Мій основний язик – це змішана, ну ілі суржик. З дєтства мене учили разговарювать зразу синхроно на двох язиках. Я считаю, що це прекрасно, потому шо щас це мені дуже сильно помагає, я можу переходити з руского на українский, з українского на руский (...) Мені вообще це комфортно.My main language is mixed, well, or Suržyk. Since childhood, I was taught to speak synchronously in two languages. I think it’s great, because right now it helps me a lot, I can switch from Russian to Ukrainian, from Ukrainian to Russian (...) for me in general it’s comfortable.The above quotation provides an explanation for the enormous shift among speakers with exclusively Suržyk as the first code towards all three codes in everyday linguistic practice (S-U-R). This is simply a social necessity for communicating with the large number of speakers who practise only one of the two “real” languages. (d)Ну, я з самого дєтства балакаю на суржику, мені зараз восємнадцять год, і тута шоб сказать, шо на якихось опредєльонних – нє, у нас іногда проскакує і українська мова, і російська, і то все якось, якось вперемєшку.Well, I’ve talked in Suržyk since very early childhood, I’m eighteen years old now, and here one can say that in certain [languages] – no, sometimes people hop, between Ukrainian and Russian, and all this is somehow, somehow mixed up.Speakers with exclusively Suržyk as their first code almost never give up practising Suržyk frequently. The number of respondents reporting only one code, Ukrainian or Russian, in their everyday lives tends to zero, the number of respondents using Ukrainian and Russian (but not Suržyk) is zero. Quite a few of them report one of the combinations of Suržyk with Ukrainian or Russian  as their major codes: roughly 15 percent each. (e)Підприємці у нас всі суржики. Ну як частина єсть і російськомовні, єсть і україномовні. Ось, до речі, оці люди, вони україномовні. Але я вам скажу, а на суржик перейшов, ось підприємець, хлопчина оцей. Він україномовний, він з Тернополя, але на суржик перейшов.Entrepreneurs are all “Suržyk-folk”. Well, partially there are Russian-speaking ones, there are Ukrainian-speaking ones, too. By the way, these people are Ukrainian-speaking. But I’ll tell you, there’s one who has shifted to Suržyk, an entrepreneur, this guy. He is Ukrainian-speaking, he’s from Ternopil, but he shifted to Suržyk.The S-U-R-type of frequent current usage makes up the second largest group in the case of monocodal linguistic socialization with Ukrainian or Russian (15 or 18 percent), after the majority groups of monocodal-oriented speakers of Ukrainian and Russian. For both groups of the previously monocodal Ukrainian- or Russian-speaking children, according to (e) and (d) Suržyk becomes a frequently used code in further stages of their lives. It is well known that even people with a linguistic socialization in one of the literary languages during childhood and an academic education under certain conditions have to turn to a (mixed) vernacular, for example in professions such as engineers, architects or veterinarians to be accepted by workmen or farmers. (f)Я думаю, що ті, які приїжджають вони не сильно можуть пристроїтись, бо вони виросли на тому язику. А єслі людина виросла на чисто українськом язику чи на чисто руском, то їй тоже тяжко перейти на суржик. (…) Я знаю таких людей, які тут живуть годами і вони не перейшли на суржик полностю. Так на руском вони й говорять, не можуть перейти.I think that those who come here, they cannot adapt that much, because they grew up in that language. And if people grew up in pure Ukrainian or in pure Russian, it is also difficult for them to switch to Suržyk. (…) I know people who have lived here for years and they have not completely shifted to Suržyk. They still speak Russian, they are not able to switch.Apart from the group of current S-U-R speakers, a switch from Russian to Ukrainian is almost absent for speakers with only Russian in their first linguistic socialization – compare the very low share of U-R speakers. By the way, this is a clear indication of the fact that there is no pressure on the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine to abandon their code of first choice. It is even the case that there is a slight tendency for monocodal Ukrainian children to later turn to Russian as well. However, this might be a reflexion of the former predominance of Russian in public life. (g)Last but not least, it should be realized that people with a monocodal Ukrainian background have more readily turned to only Russian in current usage than vice versa. On the other hand, those with a monocodal Russian background more readily tend to add Ukrainian to their repertoire of frequently used codes than those with monocodal Ukrainian background add Russian to it. Thus, generalizing these observations, we can state the following: If there has been a shift among people to Ukrainian, which is more than probable but cannot be determined here precisely, then people with Russian or Suržyk as their code of first linguistic socialization add Ukrainian to their repertoire, rather than abandoning their first code completely. A further detail to be added in connection with this generalization is that there are almost no differences between respondents of Ukrainian or Russian nationality in this respect: If their first language was Russian, which was almost exclusively the case with ethnic Russians, they maximally add Ukrainian or (more often) Ukrainian and Suržyk to their repertoire, more or less to the same extent. Whatever shifts have been accomplished by people during their lifetimes, these were most obviously not caused by social pressure from people with a different linguistic orientation.The major observations are as follows: The region this study concentrated on belongs to the primary territorial aims of the war being waged by Russia against Ukraine. In the article, we tried to present basic insights on the linguistic situation in 2020 / 2021 in the three oblasts of Odesa, Mykolaïv and Xerson, which are traditionally seen as a region of Russian language predominance, even by Ukrainian colleagues from social sciences. As has already been pointed out by Hentschel and Taranenko , but dueThe sections above contain a wealth of quantitative data and the main points will be summarized and interpreted here comprehensively.The balanced tricodalism that Hentschel and Taranenko  have empIt is clear that with speakers of Russian nationality, who made up one tenth of all our respondents, there can be no question of a balanced tricodalism. Their language is predominantly Russian: As their native language, as their most frequently used language and even as the language being used and heard in their daily surroundings – in each respect with a more or less clear tendency to exclusiveness. This group of respondents seems to live to a large degree in a linguistically different social world, as do some of the monocodal Russian-speaking Ukrainians.In regard to the question of shifting from one code to two or three codes, this study mirrors rather precisely that there is a certain shift to Ukrainian in current linguistic practice. For the majority of those with a monocodal Russian background during childhood, Russian definitely remains the only frequently used language. This is most extreme for respondents of Russian nationality: only a few have added Ukrainian or Ukrainian and Suržyk to their linguistic repertoire. Among the ethnic Ukrainians with a monocodal Russian background during childhood, almost one quarter reports a frequent use of Ukrainian as well, often accompanied with a frequent practice of Suržyk. The self-estimated competence in Ukrainian in this group is considerable. It can (for the moment) not be discerned to what extent this reflects a shift to Ukrainian, as it may be the case that younger respondents could take advantage of better teaching of Ukrainian in the education system. Nevertheless, it is more than obvious that hardly anyone with Russian as the only code used during childhood abandoned it, not even ethnic Ukrainians.Apart from the “competition” between Ukrainian and Russian in Ukraine society, it can be stated that Suržyk holds onto its position in the “architecture” of linguistic codes pretty well, even on the Black Sea coast. Our figures suggest that it was (at least) on a comparable level with Ukrainian and Russian as the code of linguistic socialization during childhood. For approximately one half of our respondents it belonged to the frequently used codes even in later years, though only rarely as the only one in frequent use. Last but not least, people estimate the presence of Suržyk as much stronger outside their families.The most significant shift to be observed was that in the statement of their native language by ethnic Ukrainians. In the Soviet census of 1989 and in the only Ukrainian census of 2001, ethnic Ukrainians in the three oblasts at issue here clearly named Ukrainian less frequently as their native language than in our survey. In the former census, only little more than one half of the population did so, here it was up to nine out of ten speakers. The language policy in independent Ukraine has obviously at least tightened the symbolic-patriotic link between titular ethnic group and the “titular” language. That linguistic practice changes much less rapidly, is, of course, not astonishing.This study, of course, prompts many further questions. Almost all results presented here must be related, for example to sociodemographic criteria, such as age, sex, education, profession, diverse political and linguistic attitudes etc. This will be undertaken in the project underpinning this paper in the near future by employing multifactorial statistical methods to a much larger extent and by deeper qualitative analyses of the material gathered. Only then will further interpretations of the empirical results be possible. Nevertheless, we hope to have given a rather differentiated description of the linguistic landscape.However, none of the figures reported above, especially the reports about the general lack of objections and ridicule of their usage of any code (apart from rare exceptions), support the Kremlin assertion of prosecution of parts of the population for linguistic reasons. Almost no one claimed that their usage of Russian was objected to by others; not more or even fewer claimed to have experienced objections to their speaking Ukrainian or Suržyk. Of course, there are different opinions about the enforcement of Ukrainian by the state government and the legal status of Russian in the Ukraine (cf. Zeller, The linguistic situation in the three Black Sea oblasts in independent Ukraine can by no means serve as a legitimation for the Kremlin war in the sense of saving Russians or Russian-speaking people from prosecution. The assertion of such prosecution, if not worse, is one of the masses of lies that the Kremlin regime has spread over the last decades. Unfortunately, it is obviously not only a vast majority of the Russian people that is ready to believe these lies, but even a large group of “Putin-versteher” in the western world that has shown such inclinations, at least until recently.The ongoing war will change many things, including linguistic practice and attitudes as well. The situation which we have just described for 2020 / 2021 will most probably change radically.


In Section 3.2, “male” has been corrected to “hypertension”In Table 3, “male” has been corrected to “hypertension”In Section 3.3, “male sex” has been corrected to “hypertension”In the first paragraph of Discussion, “male” has been corrected to “hypertension”In Conclusions, “male” has been corrected to “hypertension”In the article titled “Novel Insights into the Predictors of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Development of a Predicting Model” , several


Listeriosis outbreak caused by contaminated stuffed pork, Andalusia, Spain, July to October 2019’ by Fernández-Martínez et al. published on 27 October 2022. The level of significance was noted as ‘p values  ≥  0.05’ in the originally published version. This was corrected to ‘p values  ≤  0.05’ on 28 October 2022. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.A correction was made to the article ‘


We include some examples that illustrate these applications. The obtained results of our proposed definition can provide a suitable modeling guide to study many problems in mathematical physics, soliton theory, nonlinear science, and engineering.A newly proposed generalized formulation of the fractional derivative, known as Abu-Shady–Kaabar fractional derivative, is investigated for solving fractional differential equations in a simple way. Novel results on this generalized definition is proposed and verified, which complete the theory introduced so far. In particular, the chain rule, some important properties derived from the mean value theorem, and the derivation of the inverse function are established in this context. Finally, we apply the results obtained to the derivation of the implicitly defined and parametrically defined functions. Likewise, we study a version of the fixed point theorem for  Daα(1) = 0, if α is not a natural numberThe Riemann-Liouville derivative does not satisfy Fractional derivative statements do not possess some of the fundamental properties of classical derivatives, such as the product rule, the quotient rule, or the chain ruleDαDβf = Dα+βfThese derived proposals, in general, do not satisfy f must be differentiable in the ordinary senseThe definition of the Caputo derivative implies that the function Fractional calculus is theoretically considered as a natural extension of classical differential calculus, which has attracted many researchers, both from a more theoretical point of view and for its diverse applications in sciences and engineering. Thus, from a more theoretical perspective, various definitions of fractional derivatives have been initiated. Fractional definitions try to satisfy the usual properties of the classical derivative; however, the only property inherent in these definitions is the property of linearity. On the contrary, some of the drawbacks that these derivatives present can be located in the following:More information on this definition of fractional derivative can be found in , 2.The locally formulated fractional derivative is established through certain quotients of increments. In this sense, Khalil et al.  introducRecently, Abu-Shady and Kaabar  introducThe GFFD definition is very important in studying various phenomena in science and engineering due to the powerful applicability of this definition in investigating many fractional differential equations in a very simple direction of obtaining analytical solutions without the need for approximate numerical methods or complicated algorithms like other classical fractional definitions. This definition is a modified version of the conformable definition to overcome all issues and advantages associated with the conformable one.Regarding the geometric behavior of GFFD, by following the previous research study concerning the fractional cords orthogonal trajectories in the sense of conformable definition , GFFD caOne of the limitations of GFFD is that GFFD is locally defined derivative, and some future works are needed to proposed nonlocal formulation of GFFD in order to preserve the nonlocality property of fractional calculus. However, nonlocal definitions come with many associated challenges while working on solving fractional differential equations. Therefore, the future studies will work on overcoming all these challenges.α-differential functions are proposed in α-differentiable functions are presented in α-differentiable functions are included. Some conclusions are drawn in The work is constructed as follows: The GFFD and its main properties are presented in f :  = a DGFFD[f] + b DGFFD[g], ∀a, b ∈ RDGFFD[tp] = (pΓ(β)/Γ(β − α + 1))tp−α, ∀p ∈ RDGFFD[ψ] = 0, ∀constant functions f(t) = ψDGFFD[fg] = fDGFFD[g] + gDGFFD[f]DGFFD[(f/g)] = (gDGFFD[f] − fDGFFD[g]/g2)f is a differentiable function, then DGFFDf(t) = (Γ(β)/Γ(β − α + 1))tα1−(df/dt)(t).If, additionally, Let 0 < α-derivative of certain functions using GFFD is expressed as:DGFFD[1] = 0DGFFD[sin(kt)] = (kΓ(β)/Γ(β − α + 1))tα1−cos(kt)DGFFD[cos(kt)] = −(kΓ(β)/Γ(β − α + 1))tα1−sin(kt)DGFFD[ekt] = (kΓ(β)/Γ(β − α + 1))tα1−ektThe generalized α-derivative of the following functions:DGFFD[(Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα] = 1DGFFD[sin((Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα)] = cos((Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα)DGFFD[cos((Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα)] = −sin((Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα)DGFFD[eβ − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα)((Γ(] = eβ − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tα)f(a) = f(b)Let c ∈ , such that DGFFDf(c) = 0.Then, ∃a > 0, α ∈ Let c ∈ , ∋h = (Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β)).Then, ∃α-differentiable functions, introduced in (t) = 0. If g not is constant in a neighborhood of a > 0, we can find a t0 > 0 such that g(t1) ≠ g(t2) for any t1, t2 ∈ . Now, since g is continuous at a, for ε sufficiently small, we haveWe prove the result following a standard limit approach. First, if the function Makingα-differentiability and assuming g(t) > 0, Equation DGFFDg(t) ≠ 0∀t ∈ g(b) ≠ g(a)DGFFDf(t) and DGFFDg(t) not annulled simultaneously on Let c ∈ , ∋Then, ∃Consider the functionF is continuous on , generalized α − DF on , and F(a) = F(b) = 0, then by c ∈  such that DGFFDF(c) = 0. Using the linearity of DGFFD and the fact that the generalized α-derivative of a constant is zero, our result follows.Since g(t) = (Γ(β − α + 1)/αΓ(β))tαObserve that a > 0, α ∈ Let DGFFDf(t) = 0, for all t ∈ , then, f is a constant on If DGFFDf(t) = 0 for all t ∈ . Let t1, t2 ∈  with t1 < t2. So, the closed interval  is contained in , and the open interval  is contained in .Suppose f is continuous on  and α − DF on . So, by c ∈  withHence, f(t2) − f(t1) = 0 and f(t2) = f(t1)Therefore, t1 and t2 are arbitrary numbers in  with t1 < t2, then f is a constant on .Since a > 0, α ∈  = DGFFDG(t)∀t ∈ . Then, ∃ a constant C such thatLet H(t) = F(t) − G(t), it can easily be proven.By simply applying the above theorem to α ∈ f is generalized Let a > 0, DGFFDf(t) > 0∀t ∈ , then f is strictly increasing on If DGFFDf(t) < 0∀t ∈ , then f is strictly decreasing on If Then, we havec between t1 and t2 withDGFFDf(c) > 0, then f(t2) > f(t1) for t1 < t2. Therefore, f is strictly increasing on , since t1 and t2 are arbitrary number of If DGFFDf(c) < 0, then f(t2) < f(t1) for t1 < t2. Therefore, f is strictly decreasing on , since t1 and t2 are arbitrary number of .If Following similar line of argument as given in the α ∈  if the f is generalized α − DF  on I and generalized α-derivative is continuous on I.Let I ⊂  an open interval, I ⊂  an open interval, α ∈  = b for some a ∈ I, and DGFFDf(a) ≠ 0. Then, there is an open neighborhood U of a in which f admits an inverse function f−1 of class Cα on the open neighborhood V = f(U) of b, and its generalized α-derivative isLet DGFFDf(t) is continuous in the open interval I, it is a known fact that there exists an open neighborhood U of a in which DGFFDf(t) has a constant sign (the sign of DGFDf(a)). From f that is strictly monotonic on U (increasing if DGFFDf(a) > 0 and decreasing if DGFFDf(a) < 0). Therefore, f is continuous and strictly monotonic on U, so there is the inverse function of the one-to-one function f : U⟶V, with V = f(U). This inverse f−1 : V⟶U is of class Cα and strictly monotonic (in the same sense that f is) on V. Equation (f(f−1(y)) = y for all y ∈ V, in which the α-derivative (with respect to y) is calculated, applying the chain ruleSince Equation  can be oα − DF functions are presented in this section.Some interesting applications of the results obtained on generalized F = 0 implicitly defines a function y = g(t) in a certain open interval I, if F) = 0∀t ∈ I. Suppose that g(t) and F) are generalized α − DF functions in an open interval I ⊂ (o.∞), then the derivative DGFFDg(t) can be found by calculating the generalized α-derivative of F), as a compound function, and canceling this derivative calculated.It is a known fact that an equation y = g(t) function at the point t = 8, such that g(8) = 1, and it is implicitly defined by the equationNow, we are going to calculate the derivative of the generalized 1/3-differentiable Calculating the 1/3 -derivative in this equation, we obtaint = 8 and g(8) = 1 in the equation above, we haveTaking Finally, the generalized 1/3-derivative is given byt = t(λ), y = y(λ) be generalized α − DF functions on an open interval I ⊂ (o.∞), with DGFFDt(λ) ≠ 0∀λ ∈ I. If t = t(λ) and y = y(λ), define the function y = y(λ(t)) = y(t) (where λ(t) is the inverse function of t(λ)), and then, the generalized α-derivative of this function is given byLet Note that the above expression is obtained by applying the chain rule and the derivation formula of the inverse function, both in the generalized sense.y = y(t) defined parametrically byt)Thus, for example, consider the function α-derivative and its respective proof. In addition, we will establish some important results about the iteration of the fixed point in the generalized α-derivative sense. However, we first present some basic concepts and necessary results for the developments that we are going to carry out.We present the fixed point theorem for generalized t = f(t). Here, f is a mapping from X⟶X. We assume that X is endowed with the metric d. A point t ∈ X which satisfies t = f(t) is called a fixed point of f.Let the following fixed-point equation a > 0, α ∈ Let c ∈ , ∋h = (Γ(β)/Γ(β − α + 1)).Then, ∃Consider the functiong satisfies the conditions of c ∈ , ∋0CTtα[g](c) = 0. ThereforeThen, the function Hence,α-derivative.Now, we establish the fixed point theorem for generalized  a > 0 and α ∈   and f(t) ∈ , ∀t ∈ , then g has a fixed point at . If also, f is generalized α − DF on  andf has a unique fixed point p at .Let f(a) = a or f(b) = b, the existence of the fixed point is obvious. Suppose that f(a) ≠ a and f(b) ≠ b, therefore f(a) > a and f(b) < b. Let g(t) = f(t) − t, clearly continuous on , we haveIf p ∈ ∋g(p) = 0; that isBy the classical intermediate value theorem, then ∃f has a fixed point at p.Therefore, p and q are fixed points on  with p ≠ q. By ξ between p and q, and therefore, in , such thatp − q| < |p − q| which is contradiction, therefore p = q.Suppose also that Equation  is satisf, we choose an initial approximate value p0, and we obtain the succession {pn}n=0∞ by taking pn = f(pn−1) for each n ≥ 1. If the succession {pn}n=0∞ of converges p and f is a continuous function, thent = f(t) is obtained. This technique is called iterative technique of the fixed point or functional iteration.To approximate the fixed point of a function f converges a solution of the equation t = f(t) and that also chooses f correctly in such a way that it makes the convergence as quickly as possible.The following result provides a first step to determine a procedure that guarantees that the function a > 0 and α ∈  and f(t) ∈ , for all t ∈ . Also, suppose that f is generalized α − DF on  withLet p0 is any number in , then, the succession defined byp in .If a, b]. On the other hand, since f applies to  itself, the sequence {pn}n=0∞ is defined ∀n ≥ 0 and pn ∈ ∀n. Using Equation . Applying the above equation inductively resultsFirst, by Equation  and the k < 1, it easily follows thatpn}n=0∞ converges to p.Since f satisfies the hypotheses of If n ≥ 1, the procedure used in the proof of For m > n ≥ 1Hence, for By kn/1 − k, and the smaller k can be made, the faster the convergence will be. Convergence can be very slow if k is close to 1.It is clear that the speed of convergence depends on the factor Finally, we present an example that illustrates these last established results.α = β = 1/2. We can observe that f =  ⊂ . Also, f is continuous andf satisfies the hypotheses of −4. Taking p0 = 1, to obtain this precision, 54 iterations are required. Also, note that since the generalized 1/2-derivative DGFFDf(t) is negative, the successive approximations oscillate around the fixed point.Consider the function: Novel results regarding the Abu-Shady–Kaabar fractional derivative have been investigated in this study which are extensions of the previous research study's results in . In part


Women's death due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth is still high. Maternity waiting homes are one of the strategies to reduce it. However, there is limited evidence on the effect of using maternity waiting homes on birth outcomes, particularly in this study area. Therefore, this study was aimed to estimate the effect of staying in maternity waiting homes use on maternal and perinatal birth outcomes and its challenges in the Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia 2018.Institutional-based comparative cross-sectional study using both quantitative and qualitative approaches was conducted. Data were collected using structured questionnaire interviews, in-depth interview and chart reviews. Propensity score matching analysis was used to estimate the effect of maternity waiting homes use on birth outcomes. Propensity score matching analysis was used to match potential differences in background characteristics that affect pregnancy outcomes between comparison groups. We used thematic analysis for qualitative data.A total of 548 pregnant mothers (274 stayed in maternity waiting homes 274 did not stay) took part in this study. The proportion of adverse birth outcomes of mothers who stayed in maternity waiting homes were 15(5.5%) which is lower than those who didn't stay 35 (12.8%). After matching with baseline covariates, mean difference of adverse maternal birth outcomes, the difference between didn't use maternity waiting home and used was 10.4%, at (t = 3.78) at 5% level of significance. Similarly, the mean adverse perinatal birth outcomes difference between mothers who didn't use MWHs and used was 11% (t = 4.33).Maternity waiting home showed a significant positive effect on birth outcomes. Mothers who stayed in the maternity waiting homes had low adverse maternal and perinatal birth outcomes compared to non-users. Accommodations and quality health care services were the challenges mothers faced during their stay in the maternity waiting homes. Therefore, all concerned bodies should give attention accordingly to maternity waiting home services to reduce adverse birth outcomes through the strengthening of the quality of health care provided. In order to decrease geographic obstacles to get medical care as soon as problems or labor start, the World Health Organization (WHO) has supported the use of Maternity Waiting Homes (MWHs) . MaternaCurrently, regardless of their risk level, maternal waiting rooms are hosting women traveling from rural areas and outside the service delivery region on the last trimester of pregnancy . MWHs arWorldwide, around 6.3 million live births resulted in death before the age of five . The neoThe usage of maternal health care services is poor, and maternal mortality in underdeveloped regions is still 15 times greater than in industrialized regions . Every yMost of these deaths can be avoided with prompt access to emergency obstetrical care, but the location of the women's residences in relation to the closest medical facility may also have an impact . The avaLike other developing nations, Ethiopia launched maternity waiting homes in 1985. There is, however, a dearth of research, especially in our subject area. Additionally, past research did not make an effort to make the group comparable to other factors that influence pregnancy outcomes and instead used straightforward cross-sectional studies. This study evaluated the impact of maternity waiting homes on maternal and perinatal birth outcomes as well as its problems in the Amhara Region, Northwest Ethiopia.Between September and December 2018, a comparative cross-sectional study situated in an institution and involving 548 rural mothers who gave birth in the East Gojjam Administrative Zone was done. One of the eleven administrative zones in Ethiopia's Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) is East Gojjam Zone.Utilizing two formulas for population proportions, the sample size was calculated. Using EPI-INFO software version 7.2.4, the total sample size was calculated by taking into account the percentage of stillbirths among mothers who were using the maternity waiting homes setting (P1 = 1.2%), the percentage of stillbirths among non-users of the maternity waiting homes setting (P2 = 10%), the level of significance at the 5% level, and the power at the 80% level . MaterniThen, we used a multistage sampling procedure to choose the study participants. First, seven districts—Basoliben, Dejen, Hulete Eju Enese, Debre Elias, Enemay, and Sinan—out of the 20 in the East Gojjam Zone were chosen by simple random sampling to make up 30% of the research area. Second, two public health facilities with maternity waiting homes were chosen, one from each area. Finally, the study subjects were chosen using a simple random sample.We used the exit interview method to gather information for both mothers who use the maternity waiting home and non-user mothers who give birth in the public health facility.The treatment variable was maternity waiting home use, whereas the outcome variables were maternal and perinatal delivery outcomes (good/poor). Any residence that is close to or is a part of a health facility and is designed for a pregnant woman to stay in before giving birth is known as a maternity waiting home. Any mother death, fistula, uterine rupture, antepartum hemorrhage (APH), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and eclampsia are examples of adverse maternal birth outcomes. Any stillbirth, sudden neonatal death, and birth asphyxia are examples of adverse perinatal birth outcomes. Obstacles for mothers: -any social and economic issues mothers' encountered while residing at the maternal waiting home.p- value at 0.05. The qualitative results were divided into 6 primary themes and were analyzed thematically.After reading over a number of pertinent pieces of literature, we created a structured questionnaire. Data were gathered by interviewers using in-depth interview approaches, chart reviews, and administered questions. The data collection includes 14 nurses who served as data collectors and seven nurses who served as supervisors. The data collectors and supervisors received a two-days training on the study's objectives and data gathering methods in order to ensure the accuracy of the data. Investigators oversaw the entire data collection process. To match baseline obstetric and medical characteristics that influence pregnancy outcomes, we used propensity score matching. Finally, using STATA software, we calculated the average treatment effect of treated (ATT)  of them were Amhara by ethnicity, had a mean age of 27.5 years (SD + 5.6 years), and 152 (20.7%) of the mothers were Para-I (one) .In this study, 55(10.04%) mothers experienced unfavorable maternal delivery outcomes in total. Of the negative birth outcomes recorded, mothers who did not use MWH accounted for 35 (63.6%) of the negative maternal birth outcomes. Compared to the poor maternal birth outcomes seen in mothers who used MWH (20), this was worse (7.31%) See .First the propensity score was predicted. To predict the propensity score values for the independent variables Chronic Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, HIV status, Cardiac Disease, Anemia, Previous C/S, History of APH, History of PPH . Logit model was employed after the propensity score value predication of the different matching methods were applied . Second In addition to balancing test, another important step in investigating the validity or performance of the propensity score matching estimation is verifying the common support or overlap condition. To demonstrate the common support estimated results and test propensity scores for the two groups of this study, the researcher employed balanced score (PS) graph. The following output shows that the identified region of common support is  .After accounting for other variables that influence pregnancy and birth outcomes, mothers who stayed in the waiting homes before giving birth significantly improved the outcomes of birth. Mean good maternal unfavorable birth outcomes differed by 10.4% between users of Waiting Home and non-users (t = 3.78) nearest neighbor matching, at a significance level of 95% see .As shown below  mothers`The qualitative results were divided into 6 primary themes and were analyzed thematically as shown below;Theme 1: Regarding rooms' space insufficiency and improper preparation:The in-depth interviewees revealed that the rooms of maternity waiting homes are not properly prepared and insufficient.ክፍሉ አራት አልጋዎች ያሉት ሲሆን ክፍሉ በቂ ስላልሆነ እና ዝቅተኛ በመሆኑ ብዙ ነፍሰ ጡር እናቶች ሲመጡ መጨናነቅ ያጋጥማል። ለሆስፒታል ደንበኞቻችን የተዘጋጁትን ቦታዎች እየተጠቀምን ነው። እናቶች የተለየ መታጠቢያ ቤት ወይም ሻወር መጠቀም አይችሉም። እናቶች የተለየ መታጠቢያ ቤት ወይም ሻወር መጠቀም አይችሉም። እናቶች ለሁሉም ሰው የተዘጋጁ ክፍሎችን ይጋራሉ። እናቶች እዚያ እያሉ ምቾት አይሰማቸውም። በዚህ ምክንያት እናቶች እስኪወለዱ ድረስ እዚህ መቆየት እንደማይፈልጉ አምናለሁ።”.“Theme 2: Regarding availability of adequate accommodations in the maternity waiting homes:Likewise, in-depth interviewees elaborated that in some institutions, even if the maternity waiting homes' rooms have enough beds and space but it is not well constructed and in addition the quality of accommodation services is poor..‘‘ ክፍሉ በቂ ቦታ እና አልጋ ቢኖረውም ጥራቱ የተጓደለ እና በደንብ ያልተሰራ ነው። ግድግዳው እና ጣሪያው በቆርቆሮዎች የተገነባ ስለሆነ ክፍሉ ምቹ የሆነ የሙቀት መጠን የለውም፡፡ በሌላ አነጋገር በቀን ውስጥ ይሞቃል፤ በሌሊት ደግሞ በጣም ይቀዘቅዛል. በተጨማሪም የግድግዳው ውስጠኛ ክፍል በ “ቺፑድ” የተሸፈነ በመሆኑ ትኋንና ቁንጫ አልፎ አልፎ ይራባበታል፡፡ ይህ በእናቶች ላይ በሚኖሩበት ጊዜ ተጨማሪ ሥቃይ ያስከትላል፡፡ Theme 3: Regarding access to water in the maternity waiting homes:In some health care facilities, it can be exceedingly difficult to get pregnant women access to water..“በጤና ጣቢያችን ውስጥ ከሚከሰቱት ዋና ዋና ጉዳዮች አንዱ የውሃ እጥረት ነው::ነፍሰ ጡር እናቶች በቂ ውሃ ማግኘት ባለመቻላቸው ንፅህናቸውን ለመጠበቅ አዳጋች ሆኖባቸዋል። ገና የወለዱ እናቶች እንኳን ሻወር አይወስዱም። እናቶች በእነዚህ ክፍሎች ውስጥ መቆየት አይፈልጉም ምክንያቱም ይህ በሚያስከትለው ከፍተኛ ምቾት ማጣት ምክንያት። በእርግጥ ከከተማው “ጄሪካን” በመውሰድ ውሃ ላማቅረብ ይሞከራል, ግን በቂ አይደለም::” Theme 4: Regarding availability of entertainment options in the maternity waiting homes:As per the in-depth interviewees in most maternity waiting homes there are no entertainment options..ክፍሉ እንደ ቴሌቪዥን ወይም ሌላ የመዝናኛ አማራጮች የሉትም። ለመተኛት, ከጓደኞቻቸው ጋር ለመወያየት ወይም በቡና ሥነ ሥርዓት ላይ ለመገኘት ብቻ ለሚሞክሩ እናቶች, ይህ ችግር ይፈጥራል” “Theme 5: Regarding availability of affordable food in the maternity waiting homes:According to the in-depth interviewees providing a sufficient and balanced diet for pregnant women who are staying at maternal waiting homes up to delivery and for a few days after delivery is full of difficulties.በተለይ በእርግዝና እና ጡት በማጥባት ጊዜ በቂ እና የተመጣጠነ ምግብ መመገብ ያለውን ጠቀሜታ ለነፍሰ ጡር እናቶች እናስተምራለን። ለምሳ፣ እራት እና ለቁርስ ሰዓት “ሺሮወጥ” በእንጀራ ብቻ እየቀረበላቸው ይመገባሉ።ይህ በቀጥታ የስነ ምግብ ትምህርት ከምንሰጠው ጋር ይቃረናል ምንም እንኳን በቂ በጀት ቢኖርም የህብረተሰቡ የገንዘብ ድጋፍ ቢኖርም የነፍሰ ጡር እናቶችን እና አዲስ የሚወለዱ ህጻናትን ህይወት ማዳን አልቻልንም። “ “እናቶች ባሎቻቸውን ወይም ሌሎች ደጋፊ የሆኑ የቤተሰብ አባላትን ወደ አራተኛው የቅድመ ወሊድ ቀጠሮቸው እንዲያመጡ ይመከራሉ ስለዚህም እስከ ወሊድ ድረስ እዚያ በመቆየት ስላለው ጥቅም መወያየት ይችላሉ።” .However, they eventually wish to go back to their house when the mother's health improves. There is a chance that they will give birth at home, especially if they go against the advice of medical professionals and return home. This is because they think the doctors won't be delighted to see them again. Therefore, we will inform the health extension workers about mothers who go home again to avoid having a baby at home.Reducing maternal and perinatal mortality can be aided by maternity waiting homes . AccordiMothers of non-MWH users were more likely to experience labor obstruction (2.9% vs. 1 percent). There is no discernible difference between MWH users and non-users in the frequency of uterine rupture, nevertheless. Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) was more common in mothers who did not stay at the maternity waiting home compared to mothers who did. Early infant death rates were 2.2% (22 per 1000) for mothers who did not stay in MWH against 0.7 percent (7 per 1000) for those who did. Additionally, mothers who did not remain in the MWH had a higher percentage of stillbirths than mothers who did .This is consistent with a study conducted in a systemic review in low-income countries and rural Ethiopia .The results of this study demonstrated that staying in maternity waiting homes significantly decreased the likelihood of poor maternal birth outcomes. This is in line with research done in rural Ethiopia , 7. ThisSimilar to how the results of this study indicated that using maternity waiting at home before delivery significantly reduced poor perinatal birth outcomes. Compared to mothers who did not stay in the maternity waiting home, mothers who did tended to experience 10% less unfavorable perinatal outcomes. This is consistent with research from a systemic review done in low- and middle-income nations . This coThe waiting room was insufficient and not prepared to the required standard, according to the qualitative findings. Mothers find it uncomfortable when it gets crowded when they arrive. Mothers were not provided with a separate bathroom or shower. They distributed food from rooms set aside for everyone in the institution. In keeping with a study done in rural Zambia, there was no television in the mothers' waiting area . It was Even in the waiting area, mothers desired frequent visits from their medical professionals. However, the participant's experiences revealed that until mothers complain, it's possible that no one will check on their health. This research is consistent with a study carried out in southern Loa .Maternity waiting homes had a significant positive contribution to improving maternal and perinatal birth outcomes. Even though maternal waiting homes have significant contributions to the health of mothers and their neonates, mothers faced several challenges during their stay.


Analysis and results, paragraph 1 - the phrase “$2415 billion” should read “$2.415 billion”. The phrase “$50,671 billion” should read “$50.671 billion”. The phrase “$91,256 billion” should read “$91.256 billion”. Discussion Section, 1st paragraph, second to last sentence states: “Conversely, when public funding takes its minimum sample value and private funding takes its maximum sample value our model predicts the probability of FDA approval to be 97.3%” The value 97.3% should be 99.3%. Discussion section, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence begins: “Out study’s findings show no statistically significant relationship …”. “Out” should be “Our”. The dataset titles in Fig. 3 were reversed. The corrected Fig.