http://blog.wals.info/case-syncretism/ WALS Online Blog Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:02:07 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 http://blog.wals.info/case-syncretism/comment-page-1/#comment-20331 Matthew Dryer Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:59:03 +0000 #comment-20331 See reply at http://blog.wals.info/datapoint-50-wals_code_hzb/comment-page-1/#comment-20244 See reply at http://blog.wals.info/datapoint-50-wals_code_hzb/comment-page-1/#comment-20244

]]> http://blog.wals.info/case-syncretism/comment-page-1/#comment-20177 Thomas Hart Chappell Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:42:35 +0000 #comment-20177 http://wals.info/feature/combined?id1=28&id2=51 What is meant by saying English, Fijian, French, and Spanish have case syncretism, when they have no case-affixes nor adpositional clitics? http://wals.info/feature/combined?id1=28&id2=51
What is meant by saying English, Fijian, French, and Spanish have case syncretism, when they have no case-affixes nor adpositional clitics?

]]> http://blog.wals.info/case-syncretism/comment-page-1/#comment-20175 Thomas Hart Chappell Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:38:56 +0000 #comment-20175 http://wals.info/feature/combined?id1=28&id2=50 also seems to show a few contradictions. Why is Hunzib listed as having no syncretism in feature 28, but as having syncretism in relevant NP types in feature 50? Why are Beja, Hamtai, Rama, and Squamish listed as having no or minimal inflectional case-marking in feature 28, but as having syncretism in relevant NP types in feature 50? http://wals.info/feature/combined?id1=28&id2=50
also seems to show a few contradictions.
Why is Hunzib listed as having no syncretism in feature 28, but as having syncretism in relevant NP types in feature 50?
Why are Beja, Hamtai, Rama, and Squamish listed as having no or minimal inflectional case-marking in feature 28, but as having syncretism in relevant NP types in feature 50?

]]> http://blog.wals.info/case-syncretism/comment-page-1/#comment-20172 Thomas Hart Chappell Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:32:36 +0000 #comment-20172 http://wals.info/feature/combined?id1=28&id2=49 seems to show many inconsistencies. Too many to list them all here. But for instance: How can Yurok have syncretism in core cases only when it has exclusively borderline case-marking? Why is Fur listed as having four cases in Feature 49 but as having no inflectional case-marking in feature 28? How can Fijian, French, and Spanish have case-syncretism (feature 28) when they have no morphological case (feature 49)? http://wals.info/feature/combined?id1=28&id2=49 seems to show many inconsistencies.
Too many to list them all here.
But for instance:
How can Yurok have syncretism in core cases only when it has exclusively borderline case-marking?
Why is Fur listed as having four cases in Feature 49 but as having no inflectional case-marking in feature 28?
How can Fijian, French, and Spanish have case-syncretism (feature 28) when they have no morphological case (feature 49)?

]]>