Re: About "features" RE: Hangul script type: (was Re: [OT] ANN: Sit

At 06:38 -0600 2001-11-13, Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>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

I'd say that the glyphs have to be similar in useful and memorable
ways. There's no way one could describe Yi as being "featural". But
Canadian Syllabics can easily be so described.

>there is no logical way for anyone to refute it. Obviously if I called
>latin a featural script, you'd disagree.

Yes, except for capital P B F, which would have been systematic were
it Tengwar but is just accidental in Latin

>Why? What is it that makes us willing to use "featural" to describe
>a script? Obviously it has some limits; what are they?

Shapes. A featural syllabary uses its glyphs to help you remember and
recognize the sounds. "All these ones that look alike have a similar
sound". A non-featural syllabary is a collection of shapes that have
no systematic relation to the sounds they represent.

> >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"?

In the case of Ethiopic, yes. Compare Canadian Syllabics, which has
little rotations 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?

Look at the script. See if it has any systematic relation between
shapes and sounds, or if they're just conventional, unrelated to one
another.

>Is it one that others agree on?

I couldn't say. It makes sense to me.

>I wouldn't be inclined to consider calling Ethiopic "featural" at all.

I can't see why not.

> >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.

I don't think it's TRUE. It was just an example. Actually Tolkien
himself noticed this and suggested that the Latin alphabet would have
made no sense to the Elves, because (heh heh) it wasn't logical and
featural like their script was, but they would have noticed this
particular relationship.

>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.

Stopness seems pretty weak. Though Tengwar has classes for stops and
for affricates.

>Same for T and Z. Same a whole bunch
>of ad hoc combinations. Clearly we don't want to call Latin featural.

No, of course not. PBF is accidental. If it were systematic, then
Latin would be featural.

>Presumably you mean that by extending the kinds of patterns we would
>arrive at a script you would consider "featural".

Yes, and I imagine that what featural scripts there are in the world
had this kind of extension in the mind of those who devised them.

>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).

No, there's a different kind of patterning involved in Ethiopic,
having to do with the vowels, not the consonants. Probably most
featural scripts go for vowels, or for consonants, but not both.

>What exactly is your (or anybody's) meaning of "featural"?

Vide supra.

> >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.

O? The letter O?

>By this definition, every writing system is featural.

Whatever the system is, it's the systematic relation of glyph shapes
to sounds that makes it featural.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Telephone +353 86 807 9169 *** Fax +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)