Re: [tied] Devanagari -A script without a language?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:23:12 +0000, "A.S.Sundar" <yasun52@...> wrote:

>Summary of Responses Received

The following is far from a "Summary of Responses Received". A Summary of
Resposes Received would have been:

"I posted a message in which I claimed that all Indic (Indo-Aryan)
languages are written using the Devanagari script, but that there never was
a Devanagari language. The responses I received pointed out that not all
Indo-Aryan languages use the Devanagari script or its derivatives (e.g.
Urdu uses the Arabic script and Romany the Latin script). It was further
pointed out to me that Devanagari is the name of a _script_, not of a
language, and that it's a grave error to confuse the two (for instance,
there is no such thing as a "Cyrillic" language). As a matter of fact, the
Devanagari script only came into use in the 7th c. AD. It derives from the
Bra:hmi: script as used in the 3rd c. BC As'okan imperial inscriptions.
The Brahmi and contemporary Kharoshthi scripts are Indian adaptations of
the Aramaic alphabet, as used throughout the Persian Empire."

> At the outset let me thank all members who have responded to
>my above post.The under-noted questions form the crux of the issue.
>1)Can there be a fully developed phonetic script,without a backing
>language?
>2)For a phonetic script to develop, a language spoken for a
>significantly long period is a condition precedent.
> Some respondents suggested Brahmi as the source of the
>Devanagari script.The above two questions,however remains unanswered.

The answers to the above two questions are too obvious to deserve no
further comment.

> After due application of mind,I have arrived at the
>following possibilities.
>Possibility 1:
> Some scholars consider Brahmi as a possible source of the
>Devanagari script Asokan insciptions circa 300 BC were reported to be
>in Brahmi script.But no evidence is available to indicate that Brahmi
>was a spoken language at all

Again you're confusing the name of a script with the name of a language.

>(except the Tamil dialect Brahmi spoken
>in Baluchistan).

There is no Tamil dialect Brahmi spoken in Baluchistan. You're probably
referring to the Northern Dravidian language Brahui.

>Asokan inscriptions are in a script that appears to
>have centuries of development behind it .It is highly improbable that
>Brahmi could have been a source of such highly developed script.Some
>scholars suggested Indus script.However this possibility has been
>ruled out by some linguists as Indus script was pictorial in nature.

The Brahmi and Kharoshthi scripts were developed in Northern India/Pakistan
from an Aramaic model.

> I attempted to solve this problem on the following
>lines. I examined all the possibilities and my findings are:
>1)Possibility: The script could have been borrowed from any IE
>language.

The Aramaic script was originally used to write the Semitic language called
Aramaic. Aramaic was the chancery language of the Persian Empire. Only in
the Pehlevi period a version of the Aramaic script (Pehlevi script) came
gradually to be used to write Persian (interspersed with lots of
"Aramaeograms"). I'll spare you the gruesome details.

> Findings: Ruled out as no basic similarity is evidenced,

There is a large number of similarities between the Achaemenid Aramaic
script and the Kharoshthi script. Brahmi seems somewhat further evolved,
but there are still a decisive number of similarities.

>2)P :The script could have been borrowed from an established language
>spoken in the geographical area where Indic languages were spoken.
> F: The only other language family with established
>presence in India, is the Dravidian family of languages. The lead
>language of the family, Tamil has a history of atleast 2000 years and
>evidence of having been spoken widely in major parts of Indian sub-
>continent .The dialects of Tamil spoken across India upto
>Baluchisthan ,are
>Kolami,Parji,Naiki,Gondi,Ku,Kuri,Konda,Malda,Oroan,Gadna,Khurukh,
>Brahmi of Baluchistan.

*Brahui*

>As Tamil literary works dating circa 500 BC are
>available , the `speech' should have been pretty old. Tamil has a
>perfect script which could not have been borrowed

The Tamil script is quite obviously an adaptation of the As'okan Bra:hmi:
script.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...