Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s2.t4.9

c7.s2.t4.9

Thus it may be more revealing to pay more attention to systemic features and patterns instead of concentrating on the formal derivation of individual characters. From this point of view, the Semitic hypothesis is more convincing. For instance, the system of postconsonantal diacritic vowel indicators looks like a natural adaptation of the Semitic consonant-syllabic script for use in Indian languages (2.1.2 and 2.3.6). Similarly, the evident development of the retroflex consonants as modified forms of the corresponding dentals suggests an adaptation of a non-Indic prototype, since in an originally Indian system one would have expected independent signs for the two classes from the very beginning. Particularly revealing is the pattern of formation of the aspirate consonants. For while these are typically formed as modifications of the corresponding nonaspirates (2.2.3.2.4), there are some striking exceptions to this pattern, notably, 𑀔 *kha*, 𑀖 *gha*, and 𑀣 *tha*,⁹³ none of which bear any graphic relationship to the corresponding nonaspirates (+ *ka*, 𑀕 *ga*, and 𑀢 *ta*) but which can be derived directly from Semitic prototypes, namely, 𐤒 *qoph*, 𐤇 *ḥet*, and 𐤈 *ṭet*, respectively. This pattern can hardly be coincidental, and is perhaps the single strongest systemic indication of a Semitic background.