Datapoint for feature 96 and language wals_code_nti

Discuss WALS Datapoint for feature 96 and language wals_code_nti.

2 Responses to “Datapoint for feature 96 and language wals_code_nti”

  1. Lewis Lawyer Says:

    It looks like Ngiti (and 53 other languages) has the value “other” in feature 96 (Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Relative Clause and Noun), but no value at all in feature 90 (Order of Relative Clause and Noun). It seems like “other” was intended to be reserved for languages that are not RelN or NRel but do fall into one of the other types in feature 90. Of course the number of languages in the “other” category is fairly unimportant in itself, but I though it the discrepancy was worth a comment since things like this can be indicative of database errors…

  2. Matthew Dryer Says:

    I understand why this might look like an error, but one must examine the definition of the fifth type on Map 96 carefully:

    “The fifth type shown on the map includes various types of languages not falling into one of the first four types. This includes languages lacking a dominant order of object and verb; languages with one of the four less frequent types of relative clauses shown on Map 90, namely internally-headed relative clauses, correlative clauses, adjoined relative clauses, and double-headed relative clauses; and languages which have two or more of the relative clause types without one being dominant.”

    What this means is that since Ngiti is OV/VO, it automatically satisfies the definition of the fifth type on Map 96, regardless of what type of relative clause it has. My database does not contain information on relative clauses in Ngiti, but because Ngiti is OV/VO, no information about relative clauses in Ngiti would change the fact that it is Type 5 on Map 96, so it can be coded as this type even in the absence of information on relative clauses in the language.

Leave a Reply

*