* Peter Constable
| But other experts on writing systems (among them Ken Whistler, Michael
| Everson, Lars Marius Garshol, and others)

I am no expert on writing systems, and it is not false modesty that
prompts me to say this, just embarrassment. I am learning, but very
slowly, and I have just started.

| recently got themselves into a discussion of script classification
| that went amuck (in my mind) when people started cross-classifying,
| and talking about "featural syllabaries". The potential for
| confusion was realised right then and there.

The potential for confusion should be quite obvious. B&D does contain
descriptions of some proposed types of scripts, but these descriptions
are so brief that they can be interpreted in any number of ways. Their
application within B&D by the various authors is also inconsistent.

The script classes 'alphabet', 'abjad', 'syllabary', and 'logosyllabary'
have so far been universally accepted (in this debate). The problems
arose over the terms 'abugida', 'alphasyllabary', and 'featural script'.
It is not at all clear that all these terms are meaningful, or that
they can co-exist within a single typology for writing systems.

The key questions that need to be answered, as I see it, are:

- what type of script is Hangul?

- what about Tengwar and Cree?

- what is the type of scripts in the Brahmic script family?

Various answers have floated around, and none are, I think, entirely

| When I decided to think about how to classify scripts using a
| consistent basis, it struck me that Hangul and the term
| "alphasyllabary" were a perfect match.

Is this "alphasyllabary" as defined by Bright, or "alphasyllabary" as
defined by Constable?

| It doesn't cover the term "alphasyllabary", however, which was
| introduced by Bill Bright. He has an article in a journal on writing
| systems (exact title escapes me right at this moment) from a couple
| of years ago that covers his use of that term.

Is this available electronically anywhere?

| However, the only place you'll find an amended classification that
| fits Hangul into a consistent model (IMO) is in what I have written
| right here.

I'll agree that the contenders for consistent typologies of scripts
are few, but I'm not sure your proposal is the only one so far. You've
hinted that you're dissatisfied with the term 'featural syllabary'
that Kenneth Whistler proposed. Could you explain why?

--Lars M.