suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
> > At 03:49 +0000 2005-09-26, suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > If you think about it you might suppose that it must have been
> > because someone thought that regular rotations and superscription of
> > base characters was a regular way of indicating relationships.

"Someone" ought to have familiarized themself with existing usage before
arbitrarily throwing terms around.

> It *is* a regular way of indicating relationships, and Syllabics is as
> systematic as Hangul - I don't know what that was all about. It is
> just that 'featural' has had a different use in linguistics for some
> time. Anyway, at least I can quote this and say that this is what you
> were trying to say.

I.e., the word "feature" never denotes 'vowel' in linguistics. It
denotes voicing, or lip-rounding, or at least a dozen other properties
of speech sounds.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...