Peter Constable wrote: > On 10/23/2001 08:57:53 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote: > [...] But the definition you've given here for > "featural" is also somewhat different from that which Daniels > used in application to Hangul: if I recall, it was the > metaphoric similarity between the graphic shape and the shape > of articulators / point of articulation that led him to call > Hangul a featural system. That is a rather narrower > definition that what you are using.
This is also my understanding: that "featural" refers to a relationship between the *shape* of the signs and some physical characteristics of the *sounds* they represent. In this sense, could it be said that the tones in Mandarin Pinyin are "featural"? The shape of the accents is a rough depiction of the tonal curve. Although I haven't followed this discussion very carefully, I think that all the buzz is about the precise meaning of terms coined by Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. As both scholars are members of the Qalam Mailing List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), why not sending a short resume of the discussion there? _ Marco
