"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote on 08/02/2003
09:07:51 AM:

> > I have been undecided for a while as to whether I'd want to consider
> > Fraser an extension of Latin or a new script derived from Latin. I
> > currently think I'd be inclined toward the former since there is
clearly a
> > very close relationship to Latin, there are no new script behaviours,
and
> > the letters can be considered Latin with some novel forms that are
very
> > clearly based on existing Latin letters.
>
> By that approach, cyrillic is just an extension of Greek.

Cyrillic very clearly took on a life and identity of its own, independent
of Greek. There have been additions and modifications that were not AFAICT
inspired by Greek at all. The same isn't true of Fraser.


> Fraser uses a
> plethora of letters that are not roman, and notates things that are
> rarely notated in any script at all.

I can't imagine what might be notated in the written form of a language
that hasn't been been notated for some language using Latin script. I'm in
Seattle, away from resources, though, so can't check out the details
regarding Fraser.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485