Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- 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 :)?

This scheme didn't work when Bühler proposed it over a century ago.
(1892; E.T. pub. 1904.)

First, you can't just pick letterforms from whatever script happens to
fit best. Second, the chronology doesn't work. Third, the resemblance
between Aramaic and Kharoshthi is patent. (P. K. McCarter once claimed
to have identified exactly which Aramaic script was the best fit, but he
was sick the day he was supposed to present the paper and never did
publish it or send me the copy he promised on at least three occasions.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...