Featural scripts (split from: Kala updates etc.)

[Kuchigakatai]

I was looking at the glyphs for Kala, partly because I'm still mucking around with letter forms for my alphabet for Vedreki and Cheyadeneen. The vowels all seem quite similar. They all have the same vertical stroke and get differentiated by marks top and bottom. But even those look similar - big dashes and little dashes and different numbers of dashes. Is this common, because I'm trying to keep my letters fairly different in form so they're easily recognisable and distinguishable?

So, if you're asking how natural the Kala glyphs are...they're not...but neither is Hangul (despite all the hype about the formation of the mouth correlating to the vowel symbols). The commonality of these types of 'sets of features' is fairly rare, but that doesn't mean you use a similar system.

I think evmdbm wasn't asking about the the featural side of Moya and Omyatloko, but rather was asking about how easily the vowel marks are distinguished in Moya (regardless of whether these are featural or not).

However, I am in fact interested in featural scripts. I just wanted to mention that the term featural means that a script modifies letters in a consistent way according to phonological features, like ±voice, ±aspiration, etc.; they don't have to resemble anatomy. For example, imagine a script where <b u ʁ> represent voiced /b d g/, and upside-down <p n ʀ> represent voiceless /p t k/.

I also think Hangeul well deserves its hype. The idea of grabbing the /p t s k l/ letters of 'Phags-pa (plus a novel null ㅇ), then simplifying them into anatomically-relevant shapes, and then creating a beautiful featural script around them is simply amazing. Top-grade work, especially so for a conscript supported by a medieval government (compare the infamous reform to the Latin script that was originally proposed for Kazakh, which has now been thankfully addressed).

[evmdbm]

I think evmdbm wasn't asking about the the featural side of Moya and Omyatloko, but rather was asking about how easily the vowel marks are distinguished in Moya (regardless of whether these are featural or not).

Yes, so the Omlatyoko vowels do seem easy (or easier) to distinguish from each other as a reader, the Moya ones less so. That's obviously a deliberate choice by Masako, but it's not clear to me, having a somewhat limited number of alphabets I'm familiar with, how common that type of similarity is. Incidentally the only other abugida I am familiar with is the Thai "alphabet" and those letters do all look alike with twiddles just being on different sides of essentially the same letter form (say).

[masako]

I just wanted to mention that the term featural means that a script modifies letters in a consistent way according to phonological features, like ±voice, ±aspiration, etc.

Right. This tells me you haven't looked very closely at Moya, or Omyatloko.

Hangeul well deserves its hype

For it's beauty, simplicity, functionality, yes.

anatomically-relevant shapes

This is NOT how they were designed, this was a 'reverse-engineered novelty' and a not exactly accurate one at that. If you accept that Hangul came from Phagspa, which in turn came from Brahmic, then there is a possibility that it ultimately derives from Phoenician (and even more anciently, Egyptian hieroglyphs), thereby nullifying the already fanciful notion that the letters are "consistent according to phonological features".

Yes, so the Omlatyoko vowels do seem easy (or easier) to distinguish from each other as a reader, the Moya ones less so.

I guess the Moya vowels can be a bit busy...at times.

[Kuchigakatai]

Right. This tells me you haven't looked very closely at Moya, or Omyatloko.

In what sense is that the case? I see that in Moya similar MOAs have similar shapes (in inconsistent ways), but the featuralness stops there, and Omyatloko is not featural at all as far as I can tell. I was saying that you were misinterpreting evmdbm's question there, and I agree with you that neither of the two conscripts is featural. The real purpose of my post was to criticize your use of terminology, as in your reply below.

This is NOT how they were designed, this was a 'reverse-engineered novelty' and a not exactly accurate one at that. If you accept that Hangul came from Phagspa, which in turn came from Brahmic, then there is a possibility that it ultimately derives from Phoenician (and even more anciently, Egyptian hieroglyphs), thereby nullifying the already fanciful notion that the letters are "consistent according to phonological features".

In my opinion, yes, the basic shapes are derived from 'Phags-pa (and are therefore ultimately Brahmic, etc.), and it is precisely the reverse-engineered novelty applied to these basic shapes that I admire, along with the derivation of the other letter shapes often done according to phonological features.

ㅃ ㄸ ㅆ ㅉ ㄲ don't come directly from 'Phags-pa, they come from applying the phonologically featural principle of "tense consonants are written by repeating the plain consonant letter horizontally" on ㅂ ㄷ ㅅ ㅈ ㄱ, which in turn come from 'Phags-pa. The non-featural derivation of ㅂ ㄷ ㅅ ㅈ ㄱ from 'Phags-pa doesn't nullify the featuralness of ㅃ ㄸ ㅆ ㅉ ㄲ. Yes, Hangeul isn't wholly consistent (ㅍ ㅊ don't look like two ㅂ ㅈ stacked on top of the other unlike how ㅌ ㅋ were derived), but it's still a very interesting conscript for the parts where it is, such as the derivation of the nasals by taking away a stroke or two off the plain consonant letters: ㅂ > ㅁ and ㄷ > ㄴ (which then stil remain reminscent of anatomy nevertheless!).

At the same time I'm saying that "featural" doesn't usually mean "reminiscent of anatomy" (although I imagine some linguists might (unfortunately) use it that way), so what you mention about reverse engineering the basic letter shapes isn't quite relevant anyway... The script I mentioned where <b u ʁ> = /b d g/ and <p n ʀ> = /p t k/ would be featural even though there's nothing anatomical about <b u ʁ p n ʀ>.

[Nortaneous]

ㅃ ㄸ ㅆ ㅉ ㄲ don't come directly from 'Phags-pa, they come from applying the phonologically featural principle of "tense consonants are written by repeating the plain consonant letter horizontally" on ㅂ ㄷ ㅅ ㅈ ㄱ, which in turn come from 'Phags-pa.

Isn't this a recent innovation?

[Kuchigakatai]

ㅃ ㄸ ㅆ ㅉ ㄲ don't come directly from 'Phags-pa, they come from applying the phonologically featural principle of "tense consonants are written by repeating the plain consonant letter horizontally" on ㅂ ㄷ ㅅ ㅈ ㄱ, which in turn come from 'Phags-pa.

Isn't this a recent innovation?

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm basically thinking of Korean in contemporary synchronic terms vs. 'Phags-pa, I don't know what the original script in King Sejong's promulgation was really like. Even if they're recent, I appreciate the featural derivation, after all they could've done something more irregular on the lines of ㅍ ㅊ ㅌ but they didn't.

[WeepingElf]

My Old Albic featural alphabet stands in a similar relation to Phoenician as Korean to 'Phags-pa: the letters for /p t k s/ are derived from their Phoenician counterparts, and the circular base of the vowel letters from Phoenician ayin.

[Pedant]

My Old Albic featural alphabet stands in a similar relation to Phoenician as Korean to 'Phags-pa: the letters for /p t k s/ are derived from their Phoenician counterparts, and the circular base of the vowel letters from Phoenician ayin.

Curious...one of my abjads looks surprisingly similar. (Grin) Great minds, eh?

[Moose-tache]

This is NOT how they were designed, this was a 'reverse-engineered novelty' and a not exactly accurate one at that. If you accept that Hangul came from Phagspa, which in turn came from Brahmic, then there is a possibility that it ultimately derives from Phoenician (and even more anciently, Egyptian hieroglyphs), thereby nullifying the already fanciful notion that the letters are "consistent according to phonological features".

In my opinion, yes, the basic shapes are derived from 'Phags-pa (and are therefore ultimately Brahmic, etc.), and it is precisely the reverse-engineered novelty applied to these basic shapes that I admire, along with the derivation of the other letter shapes often done according to phonological features.

I think you might be misunderstanding Masako here. He's not saying that Hangeul includes reverse engineering to make the letters resemble mouth shapes. He's saying that this interpretation is entirely made up centuries after Hangeul was invented. It would be like teaching the Latin alphabet and claiming that S makes a hissing sound and so it was shaped like a snake. The truth is that there is no evidence in the Hunminjeongeum that the jamo are phonologically featural, except that aspirated consonants are clearly derived from unaspirated ones. As others have pointed out, the tense consonants actually post-date the invention of Hangeul. Calling them featural is probably a matter of definition (is it "featural" that geminates in Finnish are formed by doubling the letter?). In any case, the real featural aspect of Hangeul is found in the vowels, where orientation indicates harmonic class.

The best thing about Hangeul, though, is that it's Korean. Its good fit to the language is indicated by the fact that you didn't even realize which parts were innovations. Over time the script has become less featural in some ways due to sound changes (i.e. the harmonic classes have broken down). Some letter forms break the pattern. Some spellings are unpredictable. This messy realism is what I think a lot of featural conscripts lack. I would love to see what happens when some language community borrows either of Masako's scripts and ages them a thousand years.

[masako]

He's not saying that Hangeul includes reverse engineering to make the letters resemble mouth shapes. He's saying that this interpretation is entirely made up centuries after Hangeul was invented. It would be like teaching the Latin alphabet and claiming that S makes a hissing sound and so it was shaped like a snake. The truth is that there is no evidence in the Hunminjeongeum that the jamo are phonologically featural, except that aspirated consonants are clearly derived from unaspirated ones.

Yes, that's it exactly. Thank you!