Re: About "features"

Michael Everson wrote:

> >This could be an understandable usage for the term "featural", but my
> >understanding is that this is not how the term is used by modern
> >grammatologists. Otherwise, how would it apply to Hangul?
>
> Featurality in Hangul has to do with e.g. the K/G series, where the
> voicing is indicated by duplication of the horizontal.

I always considered the extra horizontal stroke as a diacritic, similar in
position and function to the dot inside Hebrew letters. Perhaps I was
wrong, but is *this* the reason why Hangul is called featural?

_ Marco