--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "John H. Jenkins" <jenkins@...> wrote:

>
> The term was, as I understand it, inherited from pre-Unicode
>encoding
> systems and understood at the time to be technically incorrect.

I had heard that it was a legacy term, fine, but that is not what
the Unicode book says - it says 'widely understood.' It gives the
impression that the Unicode authors think that this is a good name
for the writing system *type* not just the label or name of the
characters.

Anyway I am technically concerned about 'featural syllabary'. I can
see how it historically came to be used for Hangul, although maybe
not the best, but whatever reason it was suitable for Hangul does
not extend to Syllabics.

I am planning to write an article about Syllabics and I have to deal
with this issue - what should I say and who should I quote, what is
the rational for this term in the Unicode book?

Sometimes writing systems seem to be labeled by an academically
supported term for their type, as in abugida for Devanagari, but
then Ethiopic is labeled a 'featural syllabary' for 'presentation
and encoding' reasons.

It seems that each writing system should have three descriptors,
first its type, which is established in peer reviewed academic
literature; then its encoding style which is technical and historic,
practical or political; and finally its traditional presentation.
Sometiems all three are the same but often only 2 out of 3. The
Unicode book ought to be clear on this and not mix them up to make
encoding style appear as if it is consistent with writing system
type, which is often not so.

I could recommend Robert Bringhurst's book, The Solid Form of
Language, 2004, for its writing system types.

Bringhurst's types are
1. logosyllabic, (I prefer morphosyllabic, but I am in a minority
here. )
2. syllabic,
3. alphasyllabic, which includes two groups 3a Indic and 3b
Ethiopic, Hangul and Syllabics,
4 consonantal
5 alphabetic.

So Hangul and Syllabics are called alphasyllabic. He says "In
alphasyllabic systems, syllables are recognized as units but are
represented by symbols that acknowledge an awareness of underlying
consonants and vowels." I don't necessarily recommend this *as is*
but as a starting point. If abugida is a type then I think Ethiopic
is going to have to be an abugida, with the explanation that its
traditional presentation and encoding don't match the type. Tamil
also is traditionally presented as a syllabary.

How about 'analytic syllabaries' or 'systematic syllabaries'.

The term 'featural' should be reserved for Bell's Visible Speech.

Well, I know you don't want my advice, just give me the rational for
Syllabics being a 'featural syllabary' - I do need something I can
quote.

Suzanne