zompist bboard

Copy the texts you find most interesting from this conlang tool
http://sasha.sector-alpha.net/~ptsnoop/wals.php Not a natlang tool. A conlang tool.
Put the consonant and vowel inventory you would imagine from it.

Fixed Stress Locations : No fixed stress
Weight-Sensitive Stress : Fixed stress - no weight-sensitivity
Weight Factors in Weight-Sensitive Stress Systems: Lexical stress

Doesn't seem to be any cross referencing between the different fields

Yea it's kind of a mess. I got voicing in plosives and fricatives, but no fricatives. Four, sex-based genders but no gender. None-marking in the clause but head-marking overall. SVO & SV & VO but SVO&SOV and OV+Post and VO+NRel. Both A & P marked but only one of A & P are marked. Applicatives are for non-benefactives only, but benefactives only. Negatives are NegV, but obligatorily NegVNeg, but optionally NegV, but preverbal negatives are absent, but negatives are immediately preverbal.

EDIT: I guess it does warn of this in the opening, but it's really not useful if you're basically having to decide on half the things anyways.

finlay wrote:Doesn't seem to be any cross referencing between the different fields

Order of Subject, Object and Verb : SVO
Order of Subject and Verb : VS
Order of Object and Verb : OV

No, there doesn't!

ivazaéun wrote:

finlay wrote:Doesn't seem to be any cross referencing between the different fields

Order of Subject, Object and Verb : SVO
Order of Subject and Verb : VS
Order of Object and Verb : OV

No, there doesn't!

Makes sense to me. Transitive sentences are SVO, intransitives are VS and passives are OV. </rationalisation>

Ryan of Tinellb wrote:

ivazaéun wrote:

finlay wrote:Doesn't seem to be any cross referencing between the different fields

Order of Subject, Object and Verb : SVO
Order of Subject and Verb : VS
Order of Object and Verb : OV

No, there doesn't!

Makes sense to me. Transitive sentences are SVO, intransitives are VS and passives are OV. </rationalisation>

Then how do you rationalize when it says that you don't have /g/ and also aren't missing any common consonants?

I guess that if there's a contradiction you just pick from the options you're given.

Zaarin wrote:

Ryan of Tinellb wrote:

ivazaéun wrote:

finlay wrote:Doesn't seem to be any cross referencing between the different fields

Order of Subject, Object and Verb : SVO
Order of Subject and Verb : VS
Order of Object and Verb : OV

No, there doesn't!

Makes sense to me. Transitive sentences are SVO, intransitives are VS and passives are OV. </rationalisation>

Then how do you rationalize when it says that you don't have /g/ and also aren't missing any common consonants?

Or my awesome set of contradicting negatives above:
- NegV, no double negation
- Obligatory NegVNeg
- Optional NegV/NegVNeg
- No preverbal negatives
- All negatives are immediately preverbal

(And on a side not, that's not what it means by SVO/VS/OV, as something can't be both SVO and VS&OV as WALS uses the definitions).

Like I said earlier, if you've gotta pick half the features yourself anyways, it's not really great a tool in the first place.

Some of these contradictions are not actually contradictions under the WALS definitions.

"Common consonants" are fricatives, nasals and bilabials. /g/ is none of these. So that one is fine.

SVO and VS are fine, as "Order of Subject and Verb" gives priority to intransitive word order if it differs from transitive.

Other contradictions mentioned here are what they seem. OV can't be reconciled with SVO as they are interested in dominant, unmarked word order, which rules out justifying it with passives.

On the other hand, WALS itself has contradictions aplenty in the way it applies it's own rules.