Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | 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.
>
> This I agree with. There are two things that set Hangul apart, and a
> classification that is explicit about at least one of them is better
> than one that is not.
>
> * Marco Cimarosti
> |
> | Any term is arbitrary and conventional, of course. Nevertheless,
> | standing the linguistic meaning of the English term "feature", seems
> | to me that "featural" may suggests "something connected with
> | (phonetic) features".
>
> Well, that is one of the things that sets Hangul apart, isn't it?
> There is a systematic correspondence between the shapes of basic
> symbols and phonetic features, and this is what is meant by calling it
> "featural".

*Also*, perhaps, the way the different additions and doublings also
correlate well with features.

> | But Hangul is not more "connected with phonetic features" than many
> | other writings systems.
>
> Not necessarily more, but perhaps in a different way. Abugidas, for
> example, denote vowels in a systematic way. However, as far as I
> understand, vowels are _not_ features, and therefore abugidas are not
> featural scripts.
>
> So, since there are many properties of speech which are not features,
> not all scripts are featural.
>
> | What is unique in Hangul (compared to purely alphabetic writing) is
> | that each syllable is graphically organized in a square cluster,
> | which must necessarily include an initial consonant sign, a vowel
> | sign, and an optional final consonant sign.
>
> How individual symbols are organized in Hangul is another thing that
> sets it apart, yes, but that's not what makes Hangul featural.
>
> | So, one could argue that the term "featural" fails to explain *what*
> | is unique in Hangul.
>
> Well, I don't think "featural" does explain what is unique about
> Hangul, nor do I think it (as a type in a typology) should even try.
> The proponents of the term have noted that the Gregg and Pitman
> shorthand systems are also featural, so clearly the term is not meant
> to define what's unique about Hangul. (We already have a term for
> that: "Hangul". :-)
>
> | However, while "ideographic" is a venerable term, very difficult to
> | eradicate, "featural" is much younger, and perhaps it is still
> | possible to come up with a more descriptive alternative:
> | "clustered"? "structured"? "syllabic"? etc.
>
> That's a term for something else, methinks. And since the other types
> have more to do with the relation between symbols and sounds than with
> the organization of symbols I don't think a type of this kind would
> fit very well.
>
> Of course, you could try making a different typology where the
> organization of symbols is what the types are organized by. Who knows,
> it might even work. :-)

By George, he's got it!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...