Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t3.28

c7.s2.t3.28

By no means, however, were all of Bühler’s derivations beyond question. In order to account for graphic differences between many of the Brāhmī characters and their supposed Semitic prototypes, Bühler had to invoke certain general derivational principles (*OIBA* 56–8). For example, the “appendages” which constitute the distinctive portion of the letters are generally attached at the bottom or middle, rather than at the top as in Semitic; therefore, “a number of the Semitic signs had to 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” (57–8). But even if these principles are accepted, fewer than half of the equations of the twenty-two original Semitic characters with their alleged Brāhmī derivatives can be considered beyond doubt. Among these, only seven—*a*, *ga*, *tha*, *pa*, *ca*, *kha*, and *śa*—can be derived from their proposed prototypes with a minimum of manipulation, for example, by simple inversion as in the case of し *pa* < 𐤐 *pe* and 𑀔 *kha* < 𐤒 *qoph*. The remaining fourteen derivations range from likely but paleographically uncertain, for example 𑀬 *ya* < 𐤆 *yod*, to highly problematic, as in 𑀫 *ma* < 𐤌 *mem*, 𑀭 *ra* < 𐤓 *resh* and 𑀩 *ba* < 𐤁 *bet*. In his explanations of some of the more difficult derivations Bühler could well be charged with abusing his rather vague principle of “some contrivance or other” (58) in the adaptation of the Semitic forms to the Indian pattern.