Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> Hi Mariano,
>
> * mariano de vierna y. carles-tolra
> |
> | 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?

Articulatory is about how your mouth works, acoustic is about how your
ears work.

> | I would understand by pure or proper "featural" a writing system in
> | wich all *phonem* definitory *features* are represented (see below
> | for more explanation). I would say that a particular individual
> | symbol is featural if *it represents just one phonemic feature and
> | not a phonem or if it is a compound, each of the compound elements
> | represents one phonemic feature and all the features of that wich is
> | represented by the compound are represented*.

Not "all." There is no "complete" list of features (either kind). For
instance, Jakobson didn't use "[± Advanced Tongue Root]" (or an acoustic
corollary), but it's really popular in analyses now, because it has
explanatory value.

> | For example: the Japanese <"> is used as symbol for [+voiced] and de
> | <º> is used somewhat as symbol for [interrupted], so that both are
> | featural symbols, that I would classify also as diacritics in that
> | case.
>
> 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?
>
> | Japanese is a system logographic + syllabary with featural
> | diacritics.
> |
> | (I use "logographic" as far as I do not know about reasons for
> | another term).
>
> I think they're called "logosyllabic" because sometimes the Kanji
> represent words and sometimes they represent syllables, so the script
> is not purely "logographic".

That's Chinese, not Japanese. Kanji only represent "words."

> Ideogram everyone seems to agree is a misnomer.
>
> | I think that Han-gul is featural as far as the same symbol may be reused
> | to make another symbol (for example by doubling it) or a symbol is
> | used together with anothers to mark a feature (for example for the
> | aspirated phonems).
>
> Right. So the doubling is another example of correlation between
> graphical shape and phonetic features? And aspiration is another
> example of a feature?

Those are two features that are represented consistently across the
script.

> | But it is no featural with respect that there are symbols that
> | represent by themselves an individual phonem -what is analogous with
> | the phonemic (or alphabetic) and other systems- and because not all
> | features are represented.
>
> 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?

IPA is not featural. Bell's Visible Speech is featural.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...