From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 638
Date: 2001-11-13
>Maybe if the little flag thingies changed one way to say "long vowel"
> 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.)
> I wouldn't be inclined to consider calling Ethiopic "featural" at all. So,And every writing system notates morphemes. So what?
> 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.