suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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.

This only works as a description of Hangul if you take the
syllable-blocks as basic, all several thousand of them, rather than the
latters (or "jamos," not a transliteration I've seen before).

And its (original) use of "featural" is nothing at all like what Kim or
Sampson intended by the term. They were pointing to the fact that
phonetic similarity between segments is reflected in graphic similarity
between letters.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...