From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 639
Date: 2001-11-13
>You're welcome to fight with Geoffrey Sampson. Warning: he doesn't fight
> 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.
> I can live being told that this is not the best way to define "featural",Maybe you can "classify" writing systems without using the category.
> but I will continue to think we're failing intellectually if we can't say
> explicitly what the definition of "featural" should be.