From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 6128
Date: 2005-09-30
>This only works as a description of Hangul if you take the
> --- 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.