> > Featural Syllabaries: Ethiopic, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, Hangul
> Que? Hangul is an alphabetic script with (orthographic and > typographic) syllabic grouping of the letters (into squares). > There have been experiments writing Hangul "linearly", and > then it is a plain alphabet. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who questions the merits "featural" classification. At least Patrick made "featural" a qualification on "syllabary" rather than having it be its own thing contrasting with syllabary, alphabet, etc., which IMO is a step forward. I think your concern might be addressed (at least in part) if we described Hangul as a (featural) alphasyllabary. I think that label is appropriate because the structural elements are alphabetic, and (when not written linearly) they are arranged structurally into units corresponding to syllables. (Which is consistent, I think, with Bright's usage of the term.) And I'm willing to add the qualification "featural" for those who think the metaphorical aspect of the shapes of a few of the jamos is really important. (But then, Peter Daniels flatly rejects the notion of alphasyllabary, apparently because he is unable to step beyond the taxonomy devised by his teacher, Gelb.) I don't think I would have applied "featural" in the case of Ethiopic or CAS, though. If they are featural, then so is every abugida. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
