Peter_Constable@... wrote:

> >Let me ask one test question to see if I understand this: is the the
> >tall/deep distinction in Shavian featural?
>
> I need a definition before I can answer that.

See http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2362r.pdf

The deep characters all have descenders and represent the phonemes
b, d, g, v, eth, z, sh, ch, w, h. The tall characters are
the deep characters turned (rotated 180 degrees) --- therefore
they have ascenders -- and represent respectively p, t, k, f, theta, s,
zh, j, y, angma. Except for the last two, this is clearly a difference
of [+/- voice].

> The idea of
> the prototype definition is that the set of object to which that term
> applies does not have sharp boundaries.

Actually, this no longer represents Lakoff's view, as he makes clear
in WF&DT. The category "bird" is 100% sharp (something is either a
bird or not a bird), but there is still prototype-based grading:
a sparrow is a prototypical bird; a turkey is less so; a penguin or
ostrich is not prototypical.

--
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel