Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * william bright
> |
> | in all the discussion of "featural" systems, i find it strange that
> | there is so little mention of pitman shorthand or gregg shorthand,
> | which were once used daily by thousands of people.
> For my part this is mainly because I haven't looked at those systems
> very closely yet. It does seem to make sense to include them, but I am
> incapable at this point to say anything sensible about them.
> | both these systems were partly "featural", pitman i think more than
> | gregg.
> Why were they only partly featural? What about them is it that makes
> them fail to be featural?

I think they're both more featural than Hangul. I generally list all
three together.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...