[Note the Unicode UTF8 encoding]

----- Original Message -----
From: <qalam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: August 04, 2003 4:21 AM
Subject: Digest Number 316

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 09:26:35 -0400
> From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> Subject: Re: Lars Marius's "undecided" scripts (was: bidi scripts and languages)
> 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!

Well, one could argue then in Russian, which is Cyrrilic-based, half of it being
derived from Greek, the other half is somewhat Latin.

The alphabet:

А а Б б В в Г г Д д Е е Ё ё Ж ж З з И и Й й К к Л л М м Н н
О о П п Р р С с У у Т т Ф ф Х х Ц ц Ч ч Ш ш Щ щ
Ъ ъ Ы ы Ь ь Э э Ю ю Я я

For example, these I would imagine have come from Greek:

Г г Д д Л л П п Ф ф

These could have been borrowed from Latin:

А а К к Е е О о М м С с Т т

These perhaps were re-inveted (I am simply not sure on how
to classify those; one could argue a lot where they came from;
some have strong resemblence to Latin or Greek, but pronounced quite
differently from those of Latin):

Й й Ц ц У у Ш ш Щ щ Н н З з Х х Ъ ъ Ы ы В в Р р Ж ж Э э Я я Ч ч И и Ь ь Б б Ю ю

This is for the typeset. However, when we write or better to say when we are taught
to write in the primary school, the common handwriting scheme resembles
the way the English and French speakers would write (write, not use typed
letters). So, for example our "Д" that resembles to Greek's "delta" (sorry,
can't type it here), when written, looks a lot like Latin "D". Likewise, the handwritten
"З" (pronunciation-wise similar to "Z") is written the exact same way as "z". It is also true that
there becomes more resemblence for the Greek-based ones to real Greek
letters when written. But in the essence, I was suprised when I learned English and French,
and then later a bit of Spanish, when I realized I almost didn't have to change my handwriting.

> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:46:04 -0400
> From: John Cowan <cowan@...>
> Subject: Re: bidi scripts and languages
> Doug Ewell scripsit:
> > By contrast, transcription is about transforming ???????????????????? into
> > Tschaikowski (for the benefit of German speakers) or Tchaikovsky (for
> > English speakers).
> Actually, Chykoffskee would do the job better, but the traditional English
> transcription is a sort of hybrid.

Actually, "Tchaikovsky" would be the best one so far presented. When we write in
Latin (let say for an email when we don't have Cyrillic support installed), we would
write "Chaikovsky" or "Chaikovskii". I would vote against "Chykoffskee". Should I see
that out of the context of this thread, I would have a not very easy time understanding
this. Especially, the "ee" part that does not reflect the original "ий". The first "и" is
pronounced as "e" in English; the "й" is a "short e" which is not even a vowel and is
very short. If you know French "й" in a way similar to "ille" in "famille" or "fille", or
somewhat like "y" in "boy".

DISCLAIMER: Just personal observations; I am not a linguist nor I am not at all guru in all
these issues, scripts, etc. It is also true that I might be mixing several things in one, but
I'm still learning. And I'm just a curious person :-)