> > A cryptotype is simply a semantic or syntactic type of feature which
> lacks explicit _morphological_ expression.  It's not something like an
> "undiscovered" feature.  One could easily even make a sketchlang with a
> cryptotype -- you know, suppose verbs don't express an active vs. stative
> distinction in their morphology at all, but suddenly when you add an
> adverbial adjunct naming a point in time ("at noon"), statives are all of a
> sudden read inceptively while actives are read normally.  Bam, cryptotype.
> Thank you for that concise definition! I have watched John's
> presentation three times now, and everytime it makes perfect sense at
> the time, and then someone mentions it a few months later and I've
> totally forgotten what the heck this thing is. I might be able to
> actually remember it now!

Wowsers, what a great video John! I'm definitely going to be sprinkling
these into all conlangs from now on! (I find the comment that you _can't_
have these 'cryptotypes' in conlangs to be nonsensical).

> Returning to your statistical point, are there natlang features that are
> significantly underrepresented in conlangs?
> Are there overrepresented features that everyone isn't already quite
> conscious of? The [T] one is well-known enough that, say, one would
> naturally include it in a parody artlang.

Here is a recent thread from the CBB comparing WALS with the conlang
equivalent, CALS, all in nice, easy-to-read graphs.

Some of the things that stand out: lack of reduplication in conlangs,
overruse of a 'have' verb for predicate possession and 'than' particle for
comparisons. Relative pronouns are very rare in the wild according to WALS
but seem to be common in conlangs. There are a few other tidbits that WALS
is good for, e.g. it is very rare to have negative indefinite pronouns
_without_ predicate negation, e.g. 'I ain't seen nothing'.