Talk:Brahmi script

Removal of Parent system

The parent source of Brahmi Script is not confirmed to be Proto-Sinaitic script or Phoenician alphabet or Aramaic alphabet, it can also be indigenous, therefore there is no confirmed source of Brahmi Script, removal of entire parent system is advised, or at least put valid citations.

"Disputed" Semitic origin

From what I can see, the Semitic origin of the Brahmi script is the scholarly consensus. Whether it is a direct descendant, or simply inspired, and from which script specifically, does not have such a clear consensus, but the overall Semitic origin does. So, why is it listed as disputed in the infobox of this article as well as of most Brahmic scripts on Wikipedia? Isn't it WP:UNDUE to give that much weight to the fringe and with a clear nationalist agenda hypothesis of indigenous descent of Brahmi? TuxCrafting (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, there is a whole army of Indian nationalist editors who will likely resist removing the undue weight given to the untenable indigenous origin theory. Metta79 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TuxCrafting: I personally think the question marks should be removed, and perhaps only a 'likely' added before Aramaic script (or after in brackets). The consensus among expert epigraphists is that it's primarily an Aramaic derivative. Metta79 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is unreadable because of the paragraphs and paragraphs of meandering, repetitive content that has been added to try to give the impression that there is no consensus and that the indigenous origin theory is just as valid as any other. It would almost be easier to rewrite the entire thing from a clean slate than to try and wade through all this stuff. Linguifauna (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article, especially the origins section, sounds laughable to anyone who has actually any real expertise on the matter. The fact is the "indigenous" theory of the origins of Brahmi is nonsense and against the scholarly consensus. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I did some factoring on these notes, not changing their substance because I was not informed enough, but this was my understanding. Remsense诉 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the note in the infobox claiming the Semitic origin is not "universally accepted" (neither is spherical Earth, but it is the academic consensus). Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

But it is still debated that how Kharoshthi, Aramaic (and according to some theory Phoenician and Greek) had its effect on origin of Brahmi - It is very unlikely to be a simple linear descent. I have added the reference that talks about this nuance (Salmon 1998) on info box. I think This reference should remain. Although Semitic Origin can indeed be called present Academic Consensus, direct descendence from Aramaic certainly not. 103.94.134.112 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I made sure first to reread the relevant passage from Salmon 1998. Now, let's look at how we're trying to interpret and represent it. In the infobox, you've attached Likely, but see (Salmon 1998:19–30) to the claim of Brahmi's descent from Aramaic. Here, you've articulated that

1. a Semitic origin for Brahmi is presently the academic consensus.
2. Brahmi's direct descent from Aramaic is presently not the academic consensus.

Salmon's positions appear to be the following:

1. An autonomous origin for Brahmi is "purely speculative, and lacks any hard evidence or documentary support".
2. Evidence for direct Greek influence on Brahmi's development is "not strong".
3. In hindsight, all evidence for direct Karosthi influence on Brahmi's development actually turns out to be much stronger evidence that both Brahmi and Karosthi were derivatives of some Semitic script.
4. Likewise, every piece of comparative evidence for a South Semitic origin is ultimately comprehensively stronger evidence for a North Semitic origin. (So far, there are no major supporters remaining for positions in points 1–4 among academics)
5. That essentially leaves two North Semitic scripts for a direct ancestor, if we are to determine one: Phoenician and Aramaic. Georg Bühler represents any major case for Phoenician, and Salmon summarizes this case as weaker than Aramaic's: derivation from Aramaic is stated as not only being more graphetically straightforward and plausible, but also more plausible on "historical, geographical, and chronological" grounds.
6. There are two primary pieces of evidence presented as plausible demerits to a specifically Aramaic origin:
7. The existence of Karosthi, a script that would have a very similar origin in space and time if the hypothesis is true, is also a script that is very distinct from Brahmi. This is hard to explain in isolation.
8. Even if correspondences are clear and compelling, it is also clear that scholars frequently characterize this generally-accepted derivation of Brahmi from Semitic as meaningfully less direct than say, Phoenician → Greek.

I'll reproduce Salmon's concluding paragraph in full for posterity:

“ In conclusion, there are strong systemic and paleographic indications that the Brahmi script derived from a Semitic prototype, which, mainly on historical grounds, is most likely to have been Aramaic. However, the details of this problem remain to be worked out, and in any case it is unlikely that a complete letter-by-letter derivation will ever be possible; for Brahmi may have been more of an adaptation and remodeling, rather than a direct derivation, of the presumptive Semitic prototype, perhaps under the influence of a preexisting Indian tradition of phonetic analysis. However, the Semitic hypothesis is not so strong as to rule out the remote possibility that further discoveries could drastically change the picture. In particular, a relationship of some kind, probably partial or indirect, with the protohistoric Indus Valley script should not be considered entirely out of the question.

”

Now, let's return to your statements and footnote: B) would imply that derivation from Phoenecian is also seen as plausible. I have not seen any evidence, Salmon or otherwise, that this is a position held by a sizable number of contemperary scholars. All that's left is to wring one's hands about how "direct" descent could be muddied, and I do not see that as justified. Other influences do not make direct descent—that is, the more-or-less comprehensive appropriation of both shape and orthographic notions—something else. It doesn't matter if our first literates were taught directly by Arameans, or snuck glances at Aramean traders while piecing the script back together letter by letter—in this sense it is clear according to the most plausible theory, that it was functionally a derivation.

Therefore, the footnote muddies the water from four smaller ponds (autochthonous, Greek, other Semitic) in a fundamentally synthetic way, which insinuates instead any one poses a popular alternative to Aramaic among experts, reaching a level of skepticism that Salmon does not. Aramaic does seem to be the consensus—even if there are open questions, there are no compelling alternatives, and the questions that exist are insufficient to dismiss the Aramaic hypothesis in addition to the others. Pointing to Salmon's work to justify a "likely, but" cutout is not justified, given what he actually said and how he said it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Consfusion on /r/

I noticed that in the Consonants section of Early Brahmi, ra is listed as /r/ but marked as 'Voiced Retroflex Approximant'. Isn't the latter /ɻ/ not /r/? Username203 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

influence on Conan Doyle

Brahmi was at one time referred to in English as the "pin-man" script, likening the characters to stick figures.

Hm, could it have inspired the Adventure of the Dancing Men? —Tamfang (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)