Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)

On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 11:25  AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:14:06AM -0600, Dirk Elzinga wrote:
>> Hey.
>>
>> Since discussion on the Language Code (such as it was) has died down,
>> I
>> now take this opportunity to present the revised version,
>> incorporating
>> the comments I received. Feel free to suggest additions or other
>> changes.
>
>>        t       type of script
>>                f       featural (Hangul, Tengwar)
>
> How is Hangul featural?  The glyphs may have been designed based on
> phonetic features,
That's how it's featural.

> but it's really just an alphabet.
You could also make the argument that it's really just a syllabary,
since that's how the script is used. This is a place where people may
disagree; In the Code I assumed that the defining property is design
rather than usage. You're free to make a different assumption; I don't
think it will hurt the scheme too much.

> Anyway, let me try my hand at categorizing Okaikiar:
>
>         Tf Pt*p+{7,6}(c)v((c)c) Wctsr++ Ma++i+f++ Sbsovargn Lc+d++125
That's a pretty small phonological inventory! What do you mean by the
nested parentheses for syllable structure? What about head/dependent
marking? Is there tense/aspect/case/gender/number? Or are you still
working those features out?

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie

Reply