Peter C.,
[you wrote]
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.)
[mariano]
Well, I first want to recognize that I am not an expert on writing systems, but I am interested on
them (and have learned Japanese system). I think, as already mentioned in a previous message that
what is being spoken about is the representation of what in phonetics has been called *distinctive
traits*, sorry I was not aware that the term *featural* was being used to name them and I suggested
*phonemic distinctive traits writing system* that is a more explicit expression: I think that never
has been made a system of that kind (neither han-gul nor Bell's visible speech are that, and the IPA
neither isn't that).
[you wrote]
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.
[mariano]
I do not know so well han-gul as to give a concrete account, but I think that han-gul is not a wholy
*featural system* whilst having taken some *featural* characteristics of the articulatory traits of
the definitions of phonems. So that if we try to state a more explicit description for han-gul,
then, it is an *alpha/(articulatory)featural-syllabary*.
With respect the rest of your mail, it is interesting and I would like to know if there a relevant
manual-book that could be recomended about writting systems theoretical understanding and
clasification in that sense.
Yours cordially,
mariano
[the last part of your message]
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)
3. alphasyllabary: two levels of structural unit representing phonemes and syllables (prototypical
example: Hangul)
4. logosyllabary: structural units represent syllables and/or morphemes (e.g. Chinese ideographs)
I'm not familiar with Bell's visible speech, but I guess that would represent another
5. featural: structural units represent phonological features
but Hangul would *not* be an example of this class of script.
[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?
- 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@...>
www.egroups.com/group/qalam - world's writing systems.
To unsubscribe:
qalam-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.