It seems that languages naturally prefer netakavíhki phonemes, so we can use the rareness of a phoneme as an indicator of its takavíhkiness.
The same is of course true for the phonemic distinctions a language makes.
Ugliness also plays an important role here. /χ/ and /ɹ/ are ugly and therefore also takavíhki, as are nasal vowels.
Note that this is one of the instances where ugliness is objective.
What follows is an as of yet incomplete list of phonemes and their respective takavíhkiness values:
Nasals: /n m/ are entirely netakavíhki. It seems /ɳ ɲ ŋ/ aren't quite as common so they'll be +1. /ɱ ɴ/ shouldn't exist as phonemes and are therefore +5. Voiceless nasals are of course extra takavíhki; their takavíhkiness value is that of their voiced counterpart +2.
Plosives: /p t k/ + voicing and/or aspirations are the six stops that pretty much every language has, and therefore netakavíhki. /q/ is a lot rarer and therefore +2. The same can be said about ejectives, which are also +2. /ɢ/ is even rarer and therefore +4. Distinguishing laminal/apical or dental/alveolar is +3.
Fricatives: /f s ʃ/ are pretty universal, some languages having /ɸ/ instead of /f/, which, as it is slightly rarer, is +1. Voicing seems to be less common than in stops but nevertheless it is still so common that it deserves full netakavíhkiness. /θ ð/ are +3. Languages should be careful with their dorsal fricatives: netakavíhki dorsal fricatives are velar, preferably front-velar, but not palatal, and definitely not uvular. /x ɣ/ are therefore netakavíhki, whereas /ç ʝ/ are +2 and /χ/ is +10. Aspiration on fricatives shouldn't exist, so that's +5 per aspirated fricative.
Approximants: /j w/ are +0. /ɹ/ is ugly and therefore +10. A uvular approximant is +3. The two netakavíhki lateral approximants are /l/ and /ɫ/. All other approximants are +4. Voiceless approximants have as their takavíhkiness value that of their voiced counterpart +2.
Trills and taps: /r ɾ/ are not necessarily takavíhki, though distinguishing them is +2. /ʙ/ is +5. /ʀ/ is +3. I don't need to tell how takavíhki voiceless trills are, do I? :P
Vowels: /a ɛ e i ɔ o u/ are netakavíhki. Front rounded vowels are +1. Back unrounded vowels are +3. Other qualities are +2. Nasalisation distinction on some of the vowels is +5, on all of the vowels it's +8, and having nasal vowels without oral counterparts is +10. Distinguishing multiple phonations is +5.
Again, the rarity of a gap correlates with its takavíhkiness.
If the missing sound happens to be an ugly one, the language will be forgiven.
Lacking both of /ɧ ɣ/: +10
Lacking /g/: +1
Voiced velar obstruents without voiceless counterparts: +5
Most languages allow more complex syllables than just CV.
Most languages don't allow words like xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓.
We'll consider (C)(R)V(R)(C) the least takavíhki syllable structure. In this case, C excludes R. Every deviation from this gives raises the language's takavíhkiness by 1.
There are irregularities that affect a single word (i.e. no other verb in English is conjugated like "to be"), those that affect a closed class of words (i.e. the strong verbs in English) and those that are fully predictable (i.e. the genitive of Swedish nouns ending in /s/ being identical to the nominative). The takavíhkiness of the first type is 5, that of the second is 3, and that of the last is 1.
Note that having multiple inflection classes should be considered an irregularity.
Derivations are not considered separate words.
It is assumed that the total sum of this in an entirely netakavíhki language is n, therefore n is subtracted from the takavíhkiness from irregularities and the absolute value of that is taken.
The way inflections are formed
Suffixing appears to be way more common than prefixing and is therefore netakavíhki. Being mainly prefixing is therefore +3. Using mainly circumfixes or infixes is +10.
SVO and SOV are netakavíhki as the most popular word orders, VSO is +3, VOS is +5, OVS and OSV are mykefötakavíhki and both give +10.
Features that are different from most other dialects/closely related languages are takavíhki, features that are unique to a particular dialect even more so. Features shared with most other dialects do not raise the takavíhkiness.
Should the difference between two dialects be the lack of an ugly phoneme, that dialect will be forgiven.
This is for comparison between dialects and closely related languages and can be ignored otherwise.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.