Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> On 11/13/2001 04:05:09 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>
> >>But what is the nature of the correspondences? That is the aspect of
> >>"featural" that I have not seen clearly explained, and I would really like
> >>to know what people are meaning when they say that.
> >
> >It could be anything. It depends on the script.
>
> Then that is a problem. It is simply too inexplicit. I could assert that
> any script is "featural" based on my own perception of the script, and
> there is no logical way for anyone to refute it. Obviously if I called
> latin a featural script, you'd disagree. Why? What is it that makes us
> willing to use "featural" to describe a script? Obviously it has some
> limits; what are they?
>
> >Ethiopic would be featural because the little flag thingies tend
> >(tend, mind) to be used in the same way in the different series to
> >indicate the same vowel. Of course there are exceptions due to ductus
> >and all.
>
> So does "featural" simply mean "has little flag thingies that tend to be
> used in the same way in different series of characters to indicate the
> same vowel"? No, I don't think so. What is the specific criterion that
> you're applying there? Is it one that others agree on? (We can't know
> until we all start being more explicit.)

Maybe if the little flag thingies changed one way to say "long vowel"
and another way to say "high vowel" and another way to say "front vowel"
(three features, 8 possibilities, that's all you need for Ethiopic).

> I wouldn't be inclined to consider calling Ethiopic "featural" at all. So,
> we have a disagreement about whether or not the term can be applied to
> that script. How can we measure which view is the better one? We cannot
> because we don't have a definition of the term.
>
> >One could consider the Latin letters P B F to be considered featural,
> >if you take P to be basic, consider B to be double-bowed to add voice
> >and F to have a broken bow to show affrication. That's pushing...
>
> It most certainly is pushing it. The shape P can also easily be morphed
> into the shape D, and there is some commonality in terms of articulation
> (they're both stops) in the sounds. Same for T and Z. Same a whole bunch
> of ad hoc combinations. Clearly we don't want to call Latin featural.
>
> > it but
> >it could be the basis for inventing a script
>
> Presumably you mean that by extending the kinds of patterns we would
> arrive at a script you would consider "featural". I think I can more
> readily get an idea of what you mean when you say "featural", but it's
> still not entirely clear to me (after all, you included Ethiopic, for
> which I don't see the same kind of pattern you were suggesting for P B F).
>
> What exactly is your (or anybody's) meaning of "featural"?
>
> >The West African syllabaries, some of them, do things like add dots
> >in the centre to indicate some vowels. Whatever the system is, it's
> >the systematic relation of glyphs to sounds that makes it featural.
>
> O systematically relates to certain sounds, but I don't see any reason to
> say therefore that Latin is featural. By this definition, every writing
> system is featural.

And every writing system notates morphemes. So what?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...