On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet c7.s1: A. The Borrowed Signs
On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet c7.s1
- Language
- English
A. The Borrowed Signs
c7.s1.1
Before proceeding to the details, it will be desirable to state the principles, on which the twenty-two signs of the Semitic alphabet seem to have been turned into Brāhma letters. Even a superficial examination of the Brāhma alphabet shows the following chief characteristics:—
c7.s1.2
(1) The letters are set up as straight as possible, and they are with few exceptions made equal in height.
c7.s1.3
(2) The majority consists of vertical lines with appendages attached mostly at the foot, occasionally at the foot and at the top, or rarely in the middle; but there is no case where an appendage has been added to the top alone.
c7.s1.4
[55] (3) At the top of the characters appear mostly the ends of vertical lines, less frequently straight horizontal lines, still more rarely curves or the points of angles opening downwards, and quite exceptionally in *ma* (No be turned topsy-turvy or to be laid on their sides, while the triangles or double angles, occurring at the tops of others had to be got rid of by some contrivance or other. A further change in the position of the signs had to be made, when the Hindus began to write from the left to the right. They had, of course, to be turned from the right to the left, as in Greek. [56] Instances, where the old position has been preserved, are however met with both in borrowed and derivative signs.
c7.s1.5
With respect to the single borrowed letters I have to add the following remarks.
c7.s1.6
No 1. That the Hindus, like the Greeks used the Semitic *Aleph* in order to express the vowel *a* has been suspected by Professor Weber. His successors have asserted the identity of the first letters of the two alphabets as a fact, though the Indian forms of the initial *A* with two curves, which have been mostly used for comparison,¹ do not agree very well. The doubtlessly oldest form with the angle to the left of the vertical (Col. V) which, as stated above, is peculiar to the Southern versions of the Edicts, agrees almost exactly with the oldest Semitic signs. Only the vertical has been placed at the point of the angle in order to make the appearance of the letter more regular, and the whole sign has, of course, been turned from the right to the left. On a Patna seal it occurs, however, once in its original position, see the Grundriss, Taf. II. 1. I, and p. 8.
c7.s1.7
¹ M. Halévy, however, correctly compares the angular form. His attempt to derive it from the Greek Alpha is not intelligible to me. The two signs possess a minimum of resemblance to each other.
c7.s1.8
No 2. I can only agree to the identification of the Brāhma *ba* with the Semitic *Beth*, which has been asserted on the strength of the Sabaean and Ethiopian forms² by Professor Weber and his successors, with the exception of M. Halévy, who derives it from the dissimilar Greek *Beta*. But I think that it is a development, derived by the Hindus immediately from the old Phoenician and Mesa signs. As the Hindus did not tolerate heavy tops, they opened the triangle and made the central stroke hang down from the end of the angle in the manner shown in the hypothetical form in Col. III.¹ The next result was a rhomboid form (Col. V, a), a few examples of which are found occasionally in various versions of the Edicts, where we have *e. g.* [Figure:] *bo* in *apalibodhāye*, Kālsī Edict V, l. 15. The liking of the [57] Hindus for straight top-lines produced further the square and the oblong *ba*, which latter is the commonest form in Kālsī and the regular one in the Bhaṭṭiprolu inscriptions. It may be noted, that this letter is frequently, though not regularly, made smaller than those with verticals. Regarding the want of the lower line in the derivative *bha* (Col. VI) see below.
c7.s1.9
² The Sabaean form is no doubt very similar to the Brāhma sign but, I think, due to a different modification of the ancient North Semitic letter. It would seem that the triangle at the head of the letter has been turned into a square and the stroke on the right has been made straight. Hence arose first the 月 and by a simplification ㄇ.
c7.s1.10
¹ An apparently analogous modification of the old Semitic Beth which one might be inclined to see in the b² [Figure:] of the Orkhon inscriptions (V. Thomsen, Insr. de l'Orkhon déchiffrées, p. 24) is disposed of by Prof. Donner's remarks on the sign in his essay, sur l'origine de l'Alphabet Turc, p. 57 f.
c7.s1.11
No 3. The identity of the Indian *ga* with the Semitic signs is so evident that it has been always recognised. I will only add that there are numerous instances in the Edicts where one of the sides of the angle is shorter than the other. The formal looking very pointed angles with perfectly straight equal sides are characteristic of the Western and Southern versions.
c7.s1.12
No 4. The identity of the Brāhma *dha* with the Semitic *Daleth* has also been generally admitted, Dr. Taylor, who derives it from *tha* (No 9, Col. V) alone dissenting. To me it seems that the first form, given in Col. V, with the vertical on the right, is the immediate offspring of the oldest Semitic forms, the letter having been made higher and the right hand stroke straightened in accordance with the general principles of formation, stated, above. The round back is probably due to a cursive development. In the Edicts this form is rare, and the second, given in Col. V, which is younger and due to the change in the position required by the change in the direction of the writing, is found in the great majority of cases. The older one (Col. V, a) is used exclusively in the Bhaṭṭiprolu inscriptions and usually in the Western cave inscriptions of the Nānāghāt, Nasik, Karle, Junnar and so forth, which range from about 150 B. C. to 200 A. D. It is also the parent of all the later northern forms of the letter, including the present Devanāgarī *dha*. In the caves mentioned we find also in the Andhra and other inscriptions of the first and second centuries A. D. numerous triangular forms¹ like ⨞ or ⨞. They may be possibly ancient survivals, especially as the Edicts too occasionally offer forms with half angular backs like [Figure:].
c7.s1.13
The difficulty with respect to the phonetic value of the Brāhma sign, which does not exactly correspond to that of [58] the *Daleth*, may perhaps be explained by the suggestion that the letter was used for than the year 725 B. C. As this sign belongs to the eighth century B. C., when the very archaic forms of the *Aleph*, *Daleth*, *Cheth*, *Theth*, *Wav* and *Qoph*, represented by the corresponding Brāhma letters, still existed,¹ it may be considered the prototype of the Indian *ha*. The aversion of the Hindus against heavy tops, of course, caused the sign to be turned round, and their liking for regularity caused the bar to be attached to the stroke which then became the base-line, and the whole letter to be set up straight. All things considered, this explanation seems [59] more probable than attempts to connect *ha* with the later more exactly agreeing sign in Col. III, b, or with the still Edicts, given in Col. V, b—d, are all cursive, and represent attempts to make the letter with a single stroke or at least with two. The third form with a dot at the junction of the two curves, is of course a development from the second with the loop. And the substitution of a dot for a loop indicates that the persons who invented it wrote with pen and ink. A man working with a stylus would not think of such a substitution, nay could hardly effect it.¹
c7.s1.14
¹ Regarding the use of ink in India, see above p. 22. The ancient Indian term for ink is *maṣi*, often spelt *masi*, and now pronounced *makhi*, which is derived from the obsolete verb *maṣ*, *hiṃsāyām*, compare *maṣa* and *maṣmaṣā*. Etymologically and originally it means 'powder' (of charcoal and the like), used for the preparation of ink, see the larger Petersburg Dictionary under *masi*, and the Grundriss, I, 11, p. 91.
c7.s1.15
No 8. The discovery of the angular *gha* (Col. V, a) which occurs a few times in the Kālsī version² and is constant in the cave inscriptions, makes its identification with the three-barred [60] *Cheth* of the archaic Phoenician, of the Sinjirli and other ancient inscriptions, very probable. The Semitic sign, which often slants towards the left, has been laid on its side (see the hypothetical form in Col. IV) and the long upper bar, covering the letter, has been raised upwards and converted into the long vertical on the left.³ The usual form of the Aśoka Edicts with the curve is of course cursive. In the Bhaṭṭiprolu alphabet this letter has been discarded and a derivative from *ga* (No 3, Col. VI) takes its place. The Sabaean *Cheth* 𐩢, from which Dr. Taylor derives the Indian *gha*, is no doubt an analogous development from the old North-Semitic sign.
c7.s1.16
² The sign given in the Table has been taken from *upaghāte*, Ed. XIII, 1, l. 37.
c7.s1.17
³ It may be mentioned as a curiosity, that from the twelfth century A. D. the Nāgarī *gha* is again placed upright and has become almost identical with its Semitic prototype, see the Grundriss, Taf. V. 13. XX—XXII. This is, however, not due to a survival, but merely to the desire of equalising the breadth of the Nāgarī letters.
c7.s1.18
No 9. The identity of the Brāhma *tha* with the Semitic *Theth* has always been recognised and is evident enough. I may mention as a curiosity that a small cross appears inside the circle instead of a dot in the Pallava landgrant, Epigraphia Indica, Vol. I, p. 1 ff. In this document all dots are replaced by minute crosses. On the other hand, a *Theth* with a dot occurs on an Assyrian weight, see Col. III.
c7.s1.19
No 10. The derivation of the Brāhma *ya* from the ancient Semitic *Yod* has been asserted by Professor Weber, who however could only compare the later round Phoenician form, which opens downwards.¹ The oldest Indian form is probably the notched one (Col. V, a stroke slants sharply to the left and the angle on the left is attached very close to the top, compare also the signs of the Siloah inscription, in Prof. Euting's Tabula Script. Aram. Col. 3. In setting the sign up straight, the Hindus took the upper stroke of the angle for the top of the down-stroke, and a cross-like figure was the natural result, which, on being made more regular, yielded the dagger-shape.
c7.s1.20
No 12. For the identity of the Brāhma *la* (Col. V, a) with the Semitic *Lamed* (Cols. I and II), which has been recognised by Professor Weber and accepted by Dr. Deecke and M. Halévy, the *la* of the Eraṇ coin (Col. IV), the Bhaṭṭiprolu *la* (Col. V, b) and the Bhaṭṭiprolu *ḷ* (Col. VI) furnish new illustrations. The most ancient survival is found in the last mentioned character, which, if the little bar denoting the lingualisation is removed, almost exactly represents the Semitic sign. Next comes the letter of the Eraṇ coin, which has preserved the original direction of the *Lamed*, but shows on the right the little bar, no doubt intended to mark the end of the line. This bar is wanting in the Bhaṭṭiprolu *l*, which however has been turned from the right to the left and has developed a curious long tail, hanging down from the top of the main line. Originally this appendage no doubt was a flourish, marking the end of the vertical.
c7.s1.21
No 13. The identification of the Brāhma *ma* with the Semitic *Mem* is also due to Professor Weber. He, as well as M. Halévy, derive it from the Aramaic sign of the seventh century¹ B. C., 𐡌. Though this derivation is no doubt tempting it seems to me that it is equally possible to connect the Brāhma *ma* with a sign like that of the Mesa inscription, which likewise shows a curve at the end of the down-stroke. A little stronger development of this curve would necessarily lead to a sign, like the hypothetical one, entered in Col. IV, which is almost the same as the first Pehlevī *Mem* of Col. 58 in Professor Euting's Tabula Script. Aram. And in support of this view I may appeal to the development of the looped *ka*, Northern ꦏ and Southern ꦏ from the dagger-shaped *ka* with a curve at he foot ꦏ, as well as of the round ad Southern *ra* 𑀭 from 𑀭, which show analogous changes on purely Indian ground. The superposition of the angle, which originally remained at the side, over *ña* (Col. VI, a), which consists of the hypothetical form, turned from right to left, and of a small bar at the top, indicating that it belongs to a different class or Varga.
c7.s1.22
¹ See M. de Vogüé, loc. cit.
c7.s1.23
Later only, I think, the Hindus substituted as a cursive development for the hook at the side, the single bar which protrudes on either side of the foot of the vertical.
c7.s1.24
No 15. Professor Weber doubtingly proposes to connect the Brāhma *sa* (Col. VI, d)
c7.s1.25
of the Edicts. The northern variety of the latter developed a new *sa* (Col. VI, d) with a curve instead of the straight limb at the side, and out of this the sign with two curves, one below the other (Col. VI, e), which occurs in the Kālsī version, in Daśaratha's Nāgārjunī cave inscriptions and so forth, and which probably is also intended for *ṣa*.
c7.s1.26
It would, of course, be possible to connect the Bhaṭṭiprolu *ṣ* with the cursive Aramaic *Samech* (Col. III) of the sixth century B. C. But then the cross bar of the Bhaṭṭiprolu sign would remain unexplained. Moreover, there would be the insuperable difficulty that the Aramaic *Beth*, *Daleth*, *Waw*, *Cheth*, *Ain*, *Qoph* and *Resh* of the sixth century are so strongly modified that they cannot be considered the prototypes of the corresponding Brāhma *ba*, *dha*, *va*, *gha*, *E*, *kha* and *ra*. It seems, therefore, advisable to assume, as must be done also in the case of *śa*, that the Hindus independently changed the form of the ancient sign, but in a manner analogous to that adopted by the Aramaeans.
c7.s1.27
[65] The derivation of the signs for *sa* and *ṣa* from the same original letter points to the influence of the Sanskrit grammarians or phoneticists, who are well aware of the intimate connection of the two sounds and duly teach that Sanskrit *sa* becomes *ṣa* through the influence of a preceding *i*, *u*, *ṛ*, *e*, *ai*, *o*, *au*, *k*, *r* or *l*.
c7.s1.28
No 16. Professor Weber's ingenious identification of the ancient *Ain* (Col. I and II) with the Brāhma *E*,—which is supported by the analogous proceeding of the Greeks, who also used it to express the gutturo-labial vowel, and of the which looks like a *dha* is found in the word *etina* of the Hathigumphā inscription of Khāravela, l. 8, and in the Sānchi inscription No 173 (Epigraphia Indica Vol. II, p. 375) where, not thinking of the Hathigumphā letter, I unfortunately have read *Dharakinā* for *Erakinā*. Professor Weber's conjecture has been accepted by Dr. Taylor alone, Dr. Deecke and M. Halévy, trying to connect the triangular *E* with *Aleph*. There was however a very good reason for giving up the round *E*. For it could not have been distinguished from the lingual *ṭha*, which the Hindus developed out of the corresponding dental. In my opinion the triangular *E* is a development, formed by the Hindus independently, and the angular forms for *Ain* in the later Semitic alphabets, Euting op. cit., Col. 8 b, 14 ff., are merely analogous, showing how easily a circular letter may be converted into a triangle or rhombus. It is just possible that phonetic considerations may have induced the Indians to select *Ain* for expressing their *e*. For according to a description of the Indian *e*-sound, which seems to go back to Śākaṭāyana and has been generally accepted by the later native grammarians,¹ it is half guttural and half palatal (*kaṇṭhya-tālavya*). As the *Ain* no doubt was a guttural, it may have appeared more suitable for *E* than for *I* or *U*.
c7.s1.29
¹ See Weber, Indische Studien, vol. IV, p. 119 f.
c7.s1.30
No 17. The fact that the Brāhma *pa* is the old Semitic *Phe* turned topsy-turvy, has been acknowledged by everybody. The new form of the Eraṇ coin, Col. IV, shows it in its original position.
c7.s1.31
No 18. Regarding the Brāhma equivalent of the Semitic *Tsade* I differ from all my predecessors. I believe that it was [66] used, as one would expect from its phonetic value, for the formation of the letter *ca*, the sound of which is and always has been, not the English *tsha*, but *tśa* almost like *tya*. The Semitic sign, of course, had to be turned topsy-turvy on account of its heavy top, and the small bar running to the right was turned towards the vertical. This process gave first a tailed [Figure:] and later with the direction to the left, [Figure:]. The angular shape of the letter has been well preserved in the *ca* of the Edicts, Col. V, a, which is not uncommon, and the tail appears in the Bhaṭṭiprolu form, Col. V, c.¹ The round *ca* (Col. V, b) is purely cursive, and not the parent of the later Indian letters, which mostly go back to angular or pointed forms.
c7.s1.32
No 19. With respect to the Semitic *Qoph* I must likewise differ from all my predecessors, who have compared it to the Brāhma *cha*, which is clearly an Indian derivative from *ca* and has a very different phonetic value. In my opinion the Semitic *Qoph* has its counterpart in the Brāhma *kha*, the oldest form of which (Col. V, a) consists of a circle with a superimposed vertical line ending in a curve. This is the oldest Semitic sign (Cols. I and II),² turned topsy-turvy on account of its heavy top. The curve at the end of the vertical has no doubt been added in order to distinguish the letter from *va*. The *kha* with the circle at the base occurs sometimes in Jaugada and is used frequently in the Kālsī version³ of the Edicts, where not rarely the circle is replaced by a somewhat irregular loop, sometimes attached to the right of the vertical line (see the *kha* figured above p. 41). It is the parent of most of the later Indian signs for *kha*, including the modern Devanāgarī form, which all show a loop or a triangle at the base of the vertical. In several versions of the Pillar [67] Edicts and elsewhere a well developed dot takes the place of the circle. This change In favour of this identification speaks also the fact that the modern Indians in loan words not rarely express the Arabic *Qoph* by their *kha*. Thus the Marāṭhī has खस्त, खस्सा, खुमास, खुरबाण, खूम and so forth for Arabic words with *Qoph*. This substitution shows that the Indian ear detects an affinity between the deep guttural *Qoph* and the harsh sounding *kha*.
c7.s1.33
No 20. I can only agree with Professor Weber's identification of *Resh* with the Brāhma *ra* or *repha*. But the original *ra* has not the form, consisting of a straight stroke, which is given in his table and in that of Dr. Taylor. The straight *ra*, evidently a late cursive development, is very rare in the Edicts. I know only of one instance in the Rūpnāth Edict in which a nearly straight stroke occurs. In the Girnār version, where *ra* is very common, it has at the top invariably one or two little angles, open to the right, or instead of the angle an irregular bulge towards the left, see Col. V, a—b. I take the form with the single angle to be the oldest and consider it to be derived from a Semitic form like that of the Mesa inscription, the triangle of which the Hindus opened, in order to avoid the heavy top, by attaching the vertical to the lower side of the base *i. e.* by putting [Figure:] for [Figure:]. The signs with two or more angles, Col. V, d—e, are no doubt artificial, ornamental developments. In the new Siddāpur Edicts this development has been carried to an extreme, and the whole letter has been converted into a wavy line, consisting of four or five little angles.
c7.s1.34
No 21. Professor Weber's identification of *Shin* with the palatal sibilant *śa*, which has been accepted by Dr. Deecke, seems also to me self-evident. It is only necessary to substitute for the late Indian form (given in Professor Weber's Col. II) the formerly not accessible, real old Brāhma signs, Col. V, a—c, which are found in the Kālsī, Rūpnāth and Siddāpur versions of the Edicts, on the Bhaṭṭiprolu prism, on the Ghasundi slab and in the Pabhosa cave inscriptions.¹ I con- [68] sider as their prototype the oldest Semitic form with two angles (Cols. I and II), not the very similar Aramaic *Shin* (Col. III) of the sixth century. For in accordance with the principles of the Brāhmī lipi, the Semitic letter had to be turned topsyturvy, and the double angle at the top had to be got rid of, which latter change could be most easily effected by placing the one angle inside the other. The Hindus may be well credited with the independent invention of this modification, as the later Phoenicians and the Ethiopians have likewise introduced it independently. Moreover, the same considerations, which make it impossible to accept the Aramaic *Samech* as the immediate source of the Bhaṭṭiprolu *ṣ* (see above p. 67), speak in this case against the assumption that the Semitic alphabet, adopted by the Hindus, contained the Aramaic *Shin*. Finally the Western letter-numeral *śu* for 100, still shows the two angles quite plainly, see App. II, pl. III and the Grundriss, Taf. IX, Cols. IV—V, XI.
c7.s1.35
¹ I enumerate the occurrences so fully, because, when the sign first turned up in Kālsī, it was considered to have been borrowed from the Kharoṣṭhī, which has the remotely similar lingual *ṣa* [Figure:]. I will add that in Bhaṭṭiprolu where we have *śamaṇudeśānaṃ i. e. śramaṇoddeśyānām*, in the Ghasundi inscription where we have *Parāśarīputa* and *śilā*, and in Pabhosa which offers *Śonakāyana* i. e. *Śaunakāyana*, this sign appears only in words which have *śa* in Sanskrit, while in the Edicts it occurs mostly and very irregularly in words, where the Sanskrit has *sa* or *ṣa*. The confusion is owing to the negligent pronunciation and writing of the clerk, who made the copy. His dialect probably contained two sibilants, the dental and the palatal, and his alphabet had three, the dental, the palatal and the lingual. His negligence in pronunciation made him pronounce *sa* for *śa* and vice versa, and his negligence in writing made him use *sa* and *śa* indiscriminately. As stated above, papers written in our times by half-educated clerks and others show exactly the same confusion and for the same reasons. They pronounce *e. g.* both *sac* and *śac* (*satyam*) and they write indiscriminately सच, शच and षच.
c7.s1.36
No 22. The oldest form of the Brāhma *ta*, which Professor Weber has recognised already as a modification of the Semitic *Taw*, seems to be that (Col. V, a) consisting of a long slightly inclined downstroke with a short straight bar slanting off to the right. Next comes the sign, given in Col. V, b, with the bar slanting off to the left, and this is due to the change in the direction of the writing. The *ta* consisting of a vertical stroke with an angle at the foot, Col. V, c, which is frequent in the southern and western versions of the Edicts and also on the Sohgaurā Plate, is probably [69] due to the formalism of the Hindus, their desire to set the letter up straight and to make it perfectly regular in appearance. The forms with a round limb to the right or left of the vertical (see above p. 41) of course are cursive. The oldest among these five forms for *ta* closely resembles the *Taw* from the earliest Sinjirli inscription (Col. III, b), which belongs to the beginning of the eighth century B. C., and still more that of Col. III, a, which occurs on an Assyrian weight of the reign of Salmanassar¹ and has therefore been engraved before 725 B. C. As it thus appears that Semitic forms, consisting of a long inclined downstroke with a crossbar very slightly protruding on the left or with a simple bar on the right, have been developed in very early times, it is not improbable, that one of them occurred in the alphabet which the Hindus borrowed. But the possibility that the Indian sign is an independent development from the straight Phoenician cross (Col. I), is not altogether excluded. For the cross could not remain in the Brāhma alphabet, because it would have been undistinguishable from *ka*.
c7.s1.37
¹ As Professor Euting kindly points out to me, the inscription is found Corp. Inscr. Sem., P. II, No 2 *c*.