Re: [OT] ANN: Site about scripts

[Peter_Constable]

>| 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 shap! e 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>