--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> At 03:02 +0000 2005-09-29, suzmccarth wrote:

> Are you interested in improving a definition? We did use this list

to

> improve the definitions of Abjad, Abugida, and Alphabet.

I can't think of any way of defining the word 'featural' that would
make it apply to Syllabics. Hotsuma, maybe, but not Syllabics. Does
the word 'featural' have to stand or can it be changed?

> I cannot. You could ask this question on the Unicode list, where
> people track those things. I track other things.

I had thought of the Unicode list as a place to discuss encodings and
related issues rather than classifications of writing systems.
However, maybe we could come up with some terminology here and then
pass it on. If, of course, the word 'featural' can be replaced and
some of the paragraph about Syllabics rephrased. (If the
term 'featural' can be replaced, then there are a few people I would
like to consult on a possible replacement term.)

"In other cases, however, the syllabic symbols of a syllabary are not
atomic; they can be built up out of parts that have a consistent
relationship to the phonological parts of the syllable. Such systems
are called featural syllabaries. The best example of a featural
syllabary is the Hangul writing system for Korean. Each Hangul
syllable is made up of a part for the initial consonant (or consonant
cluster), a part for the vowel (or diphthong), and an optional
part for the final consonant (or consonant cluster). The relationship
between the sounds and the graphic parts to represent them is
systematic enough for Korean that the graphic parts collectively are
known as jamos and constitute a kind of alphabet on their own. In
other featural syllabaries, such as the Canadian Aboriginal
Syllabics, the relationship of sound and graphic parts is less
systematic." Unicode 4 section 6.1 page 149

>
> >(Anyway, they aren't usually called rotations but orientations,
> >vertical and horizontal flips, orientations - a detail.)
>
> Same difference.

You didn't really say that, did you? 'Ni' is a rotation of 'ke', for
what its worth, not a useful or productive principle, however, 'ki'
and 'ke' are left and right flips.

> Oh. Will this help the Cree?

Maybe.

> If you think about it you might suppose that the term must have

been

> used because someone

Who is 'someone'? Is there a lead author, a proofreader, an editor or
just a committe?

This is how I would rewrite the paragraph as a first draft but I
think other options should also be considered.

"In other cases, however, the syllabic symbols of a syllabary are not
atomic; they can be built up out of parts that have a consistent
relationship to the phonological parts of the syllable. Such systems
[can be called compositional] syllabaries. The best example of a
[compositional] syllabary is the Hangul writing system for Korean.
Each Hangul syllable is made up of a part for the initial consonant
(or consonant cluster), a part for the vowel (or diphthong), and an
optional part for the final consonant (or consonant cluster). The
relationship between the sounds and the graphic parts to represent
them is [segmentable] enough for Korean that the graphic parts
collectively are known as jamos and constitute a kind of alphabet on
their own. In other [compositional] syllabaries, such as the Canadian
Aboriginal Syllabics, the relationship of sound and graphic parts is
not segmentable." Unicode 4 section 6.1 page 149

My changes are in square brackets. Is this what was intended? I am
guessing that 'systematic' means 'segmentable' in this context.

Suzanne