Re: Number of writing systems
- suzmccarth wrote:
>How not? Why do you say phonetic not phonemic?
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@w...>
> > Chin-Wu Kim and Geoffrey Sampson independently came up with the
> > "featural" for Korean writing. Kim said it first, but Sampson got
> >in into print first.
> Thanks for this history. That helps a lot. I never thought of
> looking in Sampson for the origins of this term.
> > It simply means that the script denotes phonetic features.
> But surely not a relationaship between graph and sound patterns 'at
> the phonetic level', Hangul doesn't do that.
> >The Jakobson,Hunh? The shapes of Hangul, Pitman, Visible Speech, and Gregg correspond
> > Fant, and Halle 1951 features turned out not to be all that
> useful, but
> > the notion of binary features turned out to be quite useful -- see
> > Halle's Sound Pattern of Russian (1959) and everything based on
> it, such
> > as SPE and all its more realistic descendants.
> So that's why we had to learn it.
> > The notion of "phoneme" has no place in Hallean phonology.
> Which is why 'featural' is such a misleading label for a writing
to phonetic features. What's that got to do with Morris Halle's
derailment of phonology?
> Unicode lumps Ethiopic, Syllabics and Hangul together as 'featuralDon't axe _me_ what it's supposed to mean!
> syllabaries'. Does that make sense? I have never heard Syllabics
> called featural before and it makes my job difficult as I am trying
> to write about Syllabics and explain where all the different labels
> for it come from.
You'd probably be better off never to look in whatever Unicode document
you're looking in. They really don't seem to have known what they were
doing; they just made it up as they went along.
Engineers, not scientists, one might say.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
- At 19:56 +0000 2005-10-07, Jonathon Blake wrote:
>So just where did you post your mythical definition of writing system?I did not use the word "definition", and did not set forth a formal
definition, but what I was referring to a message I wrote on
2005-09-17. I just looked. It's right there, plain to see.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com