>| For instance, Korean Hangul is not only featural but also alphabetic
>| and alphasyllabaric.
>
>How can this be? If a script uses diacritics out of temporal order to
>indicate vowels it can't be an alphabet, and, similarly, if it does
>not, how can it be an alphasyllabary?
There is one problem I see with a system of classification (such as
Daniels has presented) that lists "featural" as a type alongside
alphabetic, abjad, syllabary and abugida: the qualifying attributes are of
different sorts. An alphabet, an abjad and a syllabary are destinguished
on the basis of a relationship between the writing system and the
phonology being represented in terms of the types of units represented --
one represents all phonemes, another represents consonantal phonemes,
another represents syllables. In terms of structure, however, these are
not distinguished. The notion of abugida is defined in part on a
structural basis: there is a regular modification of symbols reflecting
the value of the syllable nucleus. It is structural factors that
distinguishes an abugida from a syllabary. On the other hand, the notion
of a "featural" writing system is defined on the basis of an abstract
iconicity between the shape of a symbol (something structural) and an
abstract phonological feature -- point of articulation. These are quite
different bases for characterisation of the writing systems.
Of course, Korean writing can also be characterised in terms of purely
structural or structural and/or phonological aspects: its symbols
correspond to phonemes (similar to the alphabet), but there is a
distinguishing structural arrangement: symbols consistuting a syllable are
arranged in a particular fashion within a visual cell. Structurally, there
is a similarity to SignWriting (and we might want to say that this is a
shared characteristic with e.g. Devanagari -- perhaps this is the
destinguishing characteristic of an "alphasyllabary"!). But I don't think
we could say that SignWriting is a "featural" system.
Since these classifications are defined on different bases that are
somewhat independent, it is potentially possible for one writing system to
fit into more than one of these various classes (but one writing system
couldn't fall into two classes that are defined on the same basis). So,
Korean Hangul can be featural on one basis of characterisation, alphabetic
on another basis of characterisation; and alphasyllabaryic on yet another
basis of characterisation.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Oct 13 2001 - 23:34:17 EDT