Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> On 11/07/2001 09:50:13 AM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> >> There is no writing system that is featural in the sense that the
> >> structural units represent phonological features.
> >
> >So who ever said there was?
>
> Maybe nobody. But
>
> 1) People (in this thread before it came to qalam) were starting to
> use the attribute "featural" to apply to things like Ethiopic, which
> simply raised the question of what "featural" is supposed to mean, and
> whether it fits in a taxonomy of scripts that includes abjad,
> alphabet, syllabary, logo-syllabary and perhaps abugida or
> alphasyllabary. (I'm coming to the conclusion that it does not belong
> in this taxonomy.)
>
> 2) I suggested that hangul is structurally an alphasyllabary, and you
> and others responded that it's a featural system. So, I'm countering
> that there's no such thing as a structurally featural system.

Jim McCawley (600th Anniv. of Sejong paper) said it's not just featural;
it's alphabet and syllabary too. (Not abugida, because there's no
inherent vowel in any consonant sign.)

> My point is that when we try to classify scripts as abjad, alphabet,
> syllabary, etc. we are classifying in terms of what the structural
> units of the script typically represent in the phonology, and that
> scripts (with the possible exception of Bell's thing that you
> mentioned earlier) fall into these classes:
>
> 1. phonic/phonemic: structural units represent a phonological segment
> at some level in the derivation
> 1a. abjad: consonants only (e.g. prototypical example: ancient Semitic
> scripts)
> 1b. alphabets: consonants, and vowels (e.g. Latin)
>
> 2. syllabic: structural units represent a phonological syllable
> 2a. syllabary: no systematic relationship between shapes (e.g.
> Hiragana)
> 2b. abugida: regular relationship between shapes that corresponds to a
> regular relationship between phonemes (e.g. Ethiopic, Cdn Syllabics)

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! These CANNOT be lumped together!!

> 3. alphasyllabary: two levels of structural unit representing phonemes
> and syllables (prototypical example: Hangul)

Well that's certainly not how Bright uses the term, and it's his word!

> 4. logosyllabary:  structural units represent syllables and/or
> morphemes (e.g. Chinese ideographs)

There are no "ideographs" in Chinese!!!!!!!!!!!! (Even the numerals,
which in most other scripts _are_ ideograms.)

> I'm not familiar with Bell's visible speech, but I guess that would
> represent another

another logosyllabary??? not in the slightest!

WWS p. 837.

> 5. featural: structural units represent phonological features

Bell's Visible Speech.

> but Hangul would *not* be an example of this class of script.

No one suggests it is.

> [in an earlier message]
> >You'll have to take your fight to Geoffrey Sampson!
>
> Should we not be willing to see if we can improve upon what has been
> given to us?

Go ahead and try ... :-)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...