From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 24798
Date: 2003-07-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.S.Sundar" <yasun52@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: [tied] Devanagari -A script without a language?
> Summary of Responses Received
> 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.
What do you mean by a 'language spoken for a significantly long period'?
Most languages have been spoken continuously for thousands of years, though
different stages may have different names (e.g. ancient Egyptian and Coptic,
British and Welsh). The exceptions are revived languages (which implies
written preservation), creoles and pidgins.
Most scripts (or rather combinations of language and script) degenerate
rather than improve with time. English with the Roman alphabet is a good
example. The Roman alphabet has been used for English for so long that we
are unwilling to add extra letters. We did a bit better when English was
first written, but now we would refuse any innovation peculiar to English.
> Some respondents suggested Brahmi as the source of the
> Devanagari script.The above two questions,however remains unanswered.
> 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(except the Tamil dialect Brahmi spoken
> in Baluchistan).
I don't think these two are connected. (Especially as you seem to have read
'Brahui' as Brahmi'!)
>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.
Which is one reason for believing that Brahmi was adapted from the Aramaic
script. Some letters do look like modifications of similar sounding ones.
For precedent, one could note that English 'f', 'u', 'v' and 'y' all derive
from Phoenician 'w'. Simpler cases are the derivation of Greek digamma (for
/w/, but whence comes 'f') and upsilon (= 'u') from Phoenician 'w' , and
Latin 'C' and 'G' from Etruscan 'c', itself derived from Greek gamma (for
/g/). Brahmi has itself undergone similar letter 'splits' for, for example,
Tamil and Thai. Indeed, there are 'splits' made to add extra letters to
Devanagari.
> Some
> scholars suggested Indus script.However this possibility has been
> ruled out by some linguists as Indus script was pictorial in nature.
> 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.
> Findings: Ruled out as no basic similarity is evidenced,
> Even the construction of vowels and consonants are unquestionably
> different.The number of vowels and consonants do not agree,after
> allowing a margin of, say, five for possible additions
Consider Pali. The palatal nasal is phonemic (just) in Pali, whereas it was
not in Sanskrit. (I see Piotr has simply said 'several prakrits'.)
> 2)P :The script could have been borrowed from an established language
> spoken in the geographical area where Indic languages were spoken.
Consider foreign influence. The Punjab was on the edge of the Persian
empire, and Bactria appears to have been within the Indian cultural area
around Asoka's time.
> F: The only other language family with established
> presence in India, is the Dravidian family of languages.
Munda? Burushaski? There are (or were) also several isolates in Central
India.
>The lead
> language of the family, Tamil has a history of at least 2000 years and
> evidence of having been spoken widely in major parts of Indian sub-
> continent .The dialects of Tamil spoken across India up to
> Baluchisthan ,are
> Kolami,Parji,Naiki,Gondi,Ku,Kuri,Konda,Malda,Oroan,Gadna,Khurukh,
> Brahmi of Baluchistan.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, considering its
> history of independent development and the geographical insulation
> of its command area.In the Tamil grammar treatise 'Tholkappiam'
> c 500BC,clear reference is available about a script
> called 'Vattaezhuthu'. Considering these factors, Tamil appears to be
> the source of the ` Devanagari script'.
> I sat down to confirm the position, Here is my
> comparative analyis,taking Hindi script as a representative for the
> purpose.
> Vowels:Tamil has 12 vowels . Hindi has 13. Certain Tamil
> vowels are absent in Hindi.Additional vowels in Hindi are `ru'
> and `am'.It may be observed that the additional vowels in Hindi are
> not pure vowels but a combination of vowel and consonant sounds.As
> such it could have been additions, necessitated by certain sounds
> prevalent in Sanskrit but not prevalent in Tamil.
> Consonants: Tamil has 18 consonants whereas Hindi has more
> than 30 in number.It may be observed that the additional consonants
> in Hindi are nothing but sound variants of the 18 consonants of Tamil
> only.For example, the consonant `k' of Tamil has additional 4
> variants namely `kha','ga',and'gha'in Hindi.
Look at the Brahmi forms (e.g. at
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm ) 'ka' and 'ga' look distinct
enough. 'kha' also seems to be distinct. 'gha' could be a modification of
'kha'.
> Similarly `cha' of Tamil
> has three additional variants `chha' 'ja' and'jha'.
I will grant you that Brahmi 'chha' looks like a modification of 'ca', and
'jha' might be a modification of 'ja'. However, 'ja' and 'ca' do not look
very similar.
> These script
> letters seem to have been carved out of the original Tamil letters by
> slight alterations .Such alterations are quite easy as the basic
> skeletal framework is already provided by Tamil .
The creation of an extra apical plosive and nasal for Tamil seems
self-evident from the modern script.
> The illustration
> provided in the annexure to this e-mail (as a .jpg attachment) would
> help you understand my point better.
Seems not to have been attached. It didn't arrive by e-mail, and isn't in
the archive.
Richard.