Michael Everson wrote:
> At 05:10 +0000 2005-09-26, suzmccarth wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> >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.
> Has it, indeed. You know what? All linguists do not share the same
> opinions, or the same definitions. But maybe you're too young to
> remember the Hell that was Chomskyan "linguistics".

Hallean phonology (which is the viewpoint that was incorporated into
"Chomskyan 'linguistics'" -- which is far from defunct) does not use
"feature" to refer to vowels or consonants. There is no way Cree
Syllabics can be interpreted as a "featural syllabary" using any
definition of "feature" that has ever been current in linguistics.

SPE (authored by Chomsky and Halle) has a feature [+vocalic], but even
it by itself does not demarcate the category of "vowel"; featurally,
vowels are [+vocalic, -consonantal] (and the other three permutations of
those two features are also used in describing the sound pattern of

> >Anyway, at least I can quote this and say that this is what you were
> >trying to say.
> What *I* was trying to say?

"You" in English is singular or plural. Suzanne was likely addressing
those of you who ascribe to and have contributed to the Unicode
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...