>> >Ethiopic and Canadian Syllabics and Tengwar are featural.
>>
>> I have never heard anyone suggest any script other than Hangul to be
>> featural. Please explain.
>
>If you examine the UCAS, you'll see that the orientation of the
>base consonant symbols (rotationally), and the placement of the
>dots (or dashes), correlate with the vowellings of the syllables.
Which it would seem means that this has properties of an abugida, I would
have thought.
>Ethiopic, examined as a syllabary, has some of the same kinds
>of characteristics as UCAS. The placement of the flags and
>loops correlates with the vowel ranks,
and for this reason I had heard Ethiopic described as an abugida. So what,
then, is the difference between a featural syllabary and an abugida?
>and the placement of the
>top "butterflies" corresponds with manner or other distinctions among
>the consonant ranks.
Writing systems for Mayan languages often add an apostrophe after a
consonant to indicate glottalised forms; writing systems of many languages
use a tilde over vowels to indicate nasalistion; many W. African languages
use grave and acute to indicate tone levels; etc. Does that make all of
these writing systems featural?
- 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: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Oct 19 2001 - 00:55:03 EDT