Peter_Constable@... wrote:
>
> "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.

Cyrillic is a lot closer to Greek than Fraser is to roman!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...