Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s3.t6.9

c7.s3.t6.9

This is not to say, however, that the Aramaic derivation as formulated by Bühler et al. is free of problems in all details. Bühler was severely criticized on methodological grounds by Halévy (“Un dernier mot,” 380–1), who charged, not without cause, that Bühler used Aramaic forms from widely differing periods and places for his hypothetical prototypes of Kharoṣṭhī characters.¹⁷³ And among Bühler’s specific formulations, Halévy (op. cit., 383) rejected the derivation of Kharoṣṭhī *śa* from Aramaic *ḥet* as an “idée bizarre”; while this, like many of Halévy’s criticisms, seems unduly harsh, it does legitimately point out a weakness in Bühler’s formulation. Also problematic on paleographic grounds is Bühler’s derivation of 𐨠 *tha* as a secondary form from 𐨟 *ta*. Dani’s suggestion (DIP 258–9) to derive Kharoṣṭhī *tha* directly from Aramaic 𐡈 *ṭet* (which, along with *ʻain*, is one of the two Aramaic letters for which Bühler found no correspondent in Kharoṣṭhī) seems preferable, though the equation is paleographically uncertain.