Peter Constable wrote:

> I think my comments have started to draw out of you a more
> explicit idea of what "featural" means to you, Michael
> Everson [...]
> If so, then the next thing I wonder is whether this is the
> same way that Peter D, and Bill and Ken and Marco and Lars
> and everyone else on this list understands it. [...]

Don't count me: I decided that I don't have my own definition of "featural".
I am not a linguist, so I can afford more generic terms.

(E.g., I've just finished to edit my presentation about text encoding,
changing all instances of "alphabet", "syllabary", "logographs", "letters",
etc. to the more neutral terms "script" and "sign". If someone asks what
kind of script Korean uses, I'll say "Korean". :-)

Of course, I too would like to understand what everybody's "featural" means.
I'm especially curious about Geoffrey Sampson's definition, as P.T. Daniels
said that he invented the term. Perhaps Daniels or Bright know him
personally and wish to invite him here?

_ Marco