On 11/13/2001 10:00:31 AM Michael Everson wrote:

>>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)
>
>
>www.egroups.com/group/qalam - world's writing systems.
>To unsubscribe: qalam-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>