Re: Optimum number of symbols

On Wed, 22 May 2002 23:11:15 -0400, Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:

>"Mike S." wrote:
>
>> The only exception to this common thread I see is the nonfeatural
>> syllabary, which in your classificational system is not distinguished
>> from the featural type.  This system strikes me as unique in relying
>> entirely on a different level of analysis of speech than all the other
>> systems.
>
>By "featural type", are you referring to systems that essentially write
>consonant and vowel as separate parts of a single character, or, as in
>the case of certain Native American scripts, indicate the vowel by
>rotating the character?  If so, I'd agree that those are more efficient
>than non-featural syllabries, altho I tend to find them less
>esthetically pleasing, which is part of the reason I don't use them in
>my conlangs, as efficiency is not a priority with me.
If you had not mentioned those Native American scripts, I would
have made the mistake of defining a featural syllabary as any whose
characters contain graphical components (I think And offered
"scriptemes") that encode subsyllabic (= featural = either phonemic
or phonetic) information.

Since you did mention them, I will offer that a featural syllabary
is any whose characters contain graphical devices (including such
things as rotation) that encode subsyllabic information.  In common
sense terms, a featural script has characters which break down into
smaller pieces in one way or another.  There could be separate
consonant and vowel features as you mentioned, but there could also
be a feature just for vowel length, glottalization, etc.

Some scripts can be more featural than others.  I gather that Hangul
is one of the most highly featural--I think ppl often mistake it
for an alphabet.  Others can be almost nonfeatural.  A completely
nonfeatural syllabary contains characters that cannot be analyzed
into any smaller units.   Each stands for a syllable, and that's it.

Having said all that, I'll add the disclaimer that the above is just
how I see things at this point. :-)



>Incidentally, I also find syllabries more esthetically pleasing than
>alphabets, but that is, of course, a purely subjective judgement.  :-)
I agree also that they are often attractive, but as they say,
de gustibus non est disputandum :-)


Regards

Reply