--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:

> The next interesting point is that there is a theory which claims
> that Brahmi could be the invention of an individual who based
> symbols on geometric forms. Sounds like a sophisticated

grammatogeny

> (?) - don't you think. I would never suggest that it was invented
> by someone who did not already know what writing was but that it

was

> invented and not derived.
>
> http://www.cmi.ac.in/gift/Epigraphy/epig_invention.htm
>
> The Invention of the Brahmi Script.
> Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. 46, 1977
> also in, Indological Essays Commemorative Volume II for Gift
> Siromoney
> edited by Michael Lockwood, Madras Christian College, 1992
>
> "Here we wish to claim that the Brahmi script was invented at one
> strokepossibly by one individual. This means that we reject both

the

> theory that it was evolved from the Indus script and also the

theory

> that it was borrowed and developed from some non-Indian script.
>
> The basis we have for postulating the spontaneous invention of the
> Brahmi script, as against a continuous evolutionary derivation, is
> as follows. We can show that there were central, unifying

principles

> from which most of the letters of the Brahmi alphabet can be
> derived. We claim that there were two basic geometric patterns

from

> which the inventor of the Brahmi script derived the letters. These
> basic patterns were the cross inscribed in a square, and a circle
> superimposed on a vertical line."

That would also be consistent with someone 'tidying up' the system.
At that level I could just compare the Aramaic style I know best -
that of Hebrew, throw in the Phoenician style when that gets
nowhere, appeal to boustrophodon and come up with:

aleph -> independent a, a:
beth -> ba, bha
gimel -> ga, gha
daleth -> .da, .dha, da, dha
he -> ha
waw -> va, independent u, u:, independent o (?)
zayin -> ja, jha(?)
heth -> kha(?)
teth -> .ta, .tha, tha
yod -> ya
kaph ->
lamedh -> la
mem -> ma
nun -> nga, ña(?), .na, na
samekh -> ca, cha
ayin -> independent o- (? - a wild coincidence if true!)
pe -> pa, pha
tsade -> .sa, sa
qoph -> ka, kha(?)
resh -> ra (but Kharosthi ra looks as though it derives from lamedh)
shin -> s'a
taw -> ta

No eye of newt required!

The derivation of kha is particularly unclear - I could derive it
from heth or kaph.

The problem is that so many twists and turns are possible that such
an idea needs historical evidence, and I am pretty sure that no such
evidence has been found. Even more recent innovations are difficult
to *reconstruct* - is Thai ho nok huuk U+0E2E just a modification of
o ang U+0E2D, or is it actually a very cursive ro ruea U+0E23 (or
should I say ho huea => U+0EAE :)?

Richard.