Larius,
sorry for the delay. I have not a clear idea about how to answer,
but try to do it.
[you wrote]
> | I will use the term *feature* as equivalent either to *articulatory*
> | or to *acoustic* feature by wich a phonem may be defined.
>
> What's the difference between those?
[mariano]
The articulatory definition relates to the mode of articulation of a phone (allophone),
the acoustic features relate to the phone (allophone) physical properties. But, in the case
of phonems we need to think that we can describe them by prototipical features
as what actualy they physhicaly relate to is a range of allophones (or phones).
The acoustic features not unoften correlate to articulatory properties, but
there is not a univocal correlation and the same feature might
be obtained by means of a variety or articulations. Think for example /n/
for wich there are several ways of articulation wich can be related to several
allophones but that are just one phonem /n/ in Spanish (at least).
So, I would try as primary features the acoustic features and secondary the
articulatory features, they are two modes of definition for the same thing but
whilst the articulatory features could be a posible factor for actual phonem recognition
the acoustic features certainly are a factor for phonem recognition, because
even if the articulatory features were to be interpreted there is no other way
for a hearer to recognize articulatory features than making a previous interpretation
of the acoustic features, then, the acoustic features are primordial. (I know also
the question that if the speaker face is being seen by the hearer then to see the
speakers mouth movements might help recognizing phonem features, but we know
that speech is well understood without that).
The acoustic features can be found described in a book about acoustic phonetics.
For example, [+grave] as opposite to [-grave] or what is the same to [acute].
The [+grave] feature can be found in all phonems for wich prototipal sound has
a lower frecuency, and low frecuency depends in how big and deep is the bucal
cavity, so that for example /p/ that is labial and for wich the tonge is in a lower
position in the mouth we have a [+grave] feature, whilst for /t/ for wich the tonge
is in a higher position in the mouth the cavity is smaller and shorter so the sound
is [-grave] or [acute].
[you wrote]
> This is very interesting. I've tried to read your post several times,
> but it didn't come together for me before now. It seems that what I
> wrote in my previous posting (in response to Peter C, describing how I
> now understand "featural script") was correct. Can you confirm that?
[mariano]
Yes, you are right. I quote you here:
<< So, if we return to Daniel's restated definition of featural scripts,
which was a script "in which graphic elements correlate with features
of pronunciation, i.e. notions smaller than the segment," this seems
to start to make some kind of sense.
Features of pronunciation are so small they can't be independently
articulated, and if the characters of a script have graphic elements
that correlate with such tiny features of pronunciation they are
featural. Right?
The question then becomes: what features of speech are so tiny you
can't articulate them on their own? Is it things such as that a sound
is labial, palatal, or velar? So if a script uses, say, a hook at the
top of a character to say that it represents a labial sound you have a
featural script?>>
[you wrote]
> I think they're called "logosyllabic" because sometimes the Kanji
> represent words and sometimes they represent syllables, so the script
> is not purely "logographic".
>
> Ideogram everyone seems to agree is a misnomer.
[mariano]
I was thinking that some Chinese characters and Japanase kanji are simple
and some are compounds including a radical that marks pronuntiation.
[you wrote]
> Right. So the doubling is another example of correlation between
> graphical shape and phonetic features? And aspiration is another
> example of a feature?
[mariano]
Yes, I think that way. With more detail: I would not say that in han-gul
the doubling of a symbol to make another is a digraph. and, the aspiration
is marked with an upper horizontal stroke over a /k/, /p/, /t/, /ch/ symbol,
but it is not a diacritic; both cases in the composition of a phonemic
character by the doubling of a symbol not being a digraph and the stroke
that marks aspiration not being a diacritic might be very peculiar
to han-gul, together with being used to make moras of syllables instead
of linearly.
(I think that for han-gul have been also implemented some diacritics
to show syllabic tones. Isn't it?)
As a posible term instead of "alphasillabary" what about "alphasillabicary"?
[you wrote]
> Right. So being a phonetic alphabet is not enough to make a system
> featural? There has to be correspondences between graphical shapes and
> general aspects of the sounds referred to?
[mariano]
The only phonetic alphabet that I know is the International Phonetic Alphabet,
and, no, it is not a featural system, but, at least has some given featural
properties by means of diacritics.
Hope this helps.
Yours cordially,
mariano