From: Jungshik Shin (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 00:39:24 CDT
Peter Constable wrote:
I'm sorry to resurrect an old thread.
>>>Featural Syllabaries: Ethiopic, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics,
> 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
Yes, it seems to be appropriate. A lot better than just classifying
it as a (featural) syllabary.
> 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.
I was under the (wrong?) impression that 'featural' can be used to
describe (among other things) a characteristic of Hangul (and other
scripts as well) by which letters representing similarly sounding
phonems have similar shapes. For instance, k (ㄱ) and k' (ㅋ) have
similar shapes because k' (ㅋ) is an aspirated k(ㄱ). The same holds
true for other pairs (t (ㄷ)/t'(ㅌ), p(ㅂ)/p'(ㅍ) ). Perhaps, with a
little stretch, virtually all scripts can be said to have this
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 00:41:56 CDT