On 11/13/2001 04:43:55 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>> >But what is the nature of the correspondences? That is the aspect of
>> >"featural" that I have not seen clearly explained, and I
>> would really like
>> >to know what people are meaning when they say that.
>>
>> It could be anything. It depends on the script. [...]
>
>But, then, one could conclude that almost every script is "featural"...

Precisely my point.

>My understanding was that the term "featural" applies to a writing in

which

>the main graphic units denote "features" (or "traits" or "phonetic
>properties"). So, if I want to write "can", I should write a sequence

such

>as "<velar><aspirated><stop>, <vocalic><open>, <dental><nasal><stop>",

where

>each expression like "<velar>" would be a single graphic symbol.
>
>But my understanding is clearly wrong, because I don't see how this would
>apply to Hangul.

This is exactly what I was thinking, but I drew a different conclusion:
that that is a valid definition for "featural" (and far more explicit than
most), and that Hangul did not fit in that category.

I can live being told that this is not the best way to define "featural",
but I will continue to think we're failing intellectually if we can't say
explicitly what the definition of "featural" should be.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@...>