Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> On 11/13/2001 04:43:55 AM Marco Cimarosti 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. [...]
> >
> >But, then, one could conclude that almost every script is "featural"...
>
> Precisely my point.
>
> >My understanding was that the term "featural" applies to a writing in which
> >the main graphic units denote "features" (or "traits" or "phonetic
> >properties"). So, if I want to write "can", I should write a sequence such
> >as "<velar><aspirated><stop>, <vocalic><open>, <dental><nasal><stop>", where
> >each expression like "<velar>" would be a single graphic symbol.
> >
> >But my understanding is clearly wrong, because I don't see how this would
> >apply to Hangul.
>
> This is exactly what I was thinking, but I drew a different conclusion:
> that that is a valid definition for "featural" (and far more explicit than
> most), and that Hangul did not fit in that category.

You're welcome to fight with Geoffrey Sampson. Warning: he doesn't fight
nice.

> I can live being told that this is not the best way to define "featural",
> but I will continue to think we're failing intellectually if we can't say
> explicitly what the definition of "featural" should be.

Maybe you can "classify" writing systems without using the category.
Fine! But if your "classification" doesn't note that Korean is
qualitatively different from all the others, then it's missing
something.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...