Here is a link on the comparison between various Indic scripts that have supposed to have been evolved from Brahmi.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acad...94/brahmi.html

"aravindhan"

.... "aaytham"....·....

// .... on a proper reading of the Tolkappiyam, the letter should be pronounced almost like the German 'ch', but in Tamilakam, at least, I've mostly heard it being pronounced like a 'k'...//

Dear Aravindhan,

.... I am unable to catch your point . Will you please Clarify?

Are you the only "German" here in the hub? Why are you so silent for so long.
I am often in Hannover - Medizinische Hochschule Hannover - for surgery and to lecture.

Here is a paper 'On The Origin Of The Early Indian Scripts: [1] A Review Article
by Richard Salomon of University of Washington, if you have not seen before.

"The development and early history of writing in India of the historical period (i.e. after the time of the Indus Valley Civilization) has long been a controversial problem. Basically, arguments turn around three main issues:

The sources and origins of the Indian scripts of the historical period, i.e. Kharo.s.thî and especially Brâhmî.
The date at which these scripts, or their prototypes, first came into use.
The relationship, if any, of the historical scripts to the writing of the proto-historic Indus Valley Civilization and the explanation of the long gap between them during which writing appears to have fallen out of use in India.
The principal reasons that these issues, particularly the second, are so problematic are:

There are no securely datable specimens of writing from the historical period earlier than the rock inscriptions of Ashoka from the mid-3rd century BC. Other early inscriptions which have been proposed by various authors as examples of pre-Ashokan writing are of uncertain date at best.
The external testimony from literary and other sources on the use of writing in pre-Ashokan India is vague and inconclusive. Alleged evidence of pre-Mauryan writing has in the past been found by various scholars in such sources as later Vedic literature, the Pali canon, the early Sanskrit grammatical treatises of Pâ.nini's and his successors, and the works of European classical historians. But all of these references are subject in varying degrees to chronological or interpretive problems."
For more: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/salomon.html

Th earliest Tamil-Brahmi writing are supposed to be The two rock-inscriptions of Netunceliyan at Mangulam. 3rd -1st Cent. B.C. Asoka's Brahmi introduced around ca. 250 B.C. into the Tamil country. Adapted between 250-220 to Tamil. From: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5180/kamil.html

Here is one possible tree on the evolution of Indian scripts: http://www.angelfire.com/co/malaiya/images/brah11.gif

Further, the present Tamil script was revived and reformed by Veeramaamunivar (Robert Beshchi) in the 17th century. It went through a few iterations, including the Periyar corrections. For instance we used to write 'lai', 'nai' and such words with a kombu in front, before the reforms to use the same prefix character that we use for say 'kai'. This helped in standardization, but increased the length of words. Shortening the length of words was a concern in the days when writing was on olai and hence the need to shorten characters with the use of 'kombu' and such superscripts and subscripts. This is no longer the case. This feature is very common in the Devanagari script used for Hindi.

Malayalam, evolved from the old Tamizh vatta ezhutthu, that was used even for the Grantham script that had extra characters to write both tamil and Samaskitam.

No, that's the soft "ch". I was talking about the hard "ch", the one that you use in "Ach!" or "Buch". It's what would be called a "velar fricative" in phonetics.

Check this thread also for discussion on aspects of Tamizh script.

http://www.forumhub.com/tnhistory/22693.21.33.27.html

Dear Friends,

As per Scholars, Brahmi was developed FOR Sanskrit and adopted to Tamil.

IF Mala has proofs Please give it, instead of saying meaningless ns.

Devapriya

I've heard most people pronouncing the · exactly like ì. My teachers, for example, used to pronounce «·È¢¨½ like «ìüÈ¢¨½. My grandfather told me this was wrong, and the Tolkappiyam said that · should be pronounced KH, a rather special and hard sound which I don't quite know how to transcribe, but which reminds me a little of the German hard 'CH'.

wow really interesting link..thank you so much for sharing that http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...on_biggrin.gif it's odd how much letters have changed...or have not changed... i have a question i never know the reason for the use of (ahenam) (three dots in the form of a triangle) (the mathematical symbol for therefore)....i don't know how to make it more clear...i have quite a rudimentary sense of written tamil.so im afraid im pronouncing the letter name wrong...i know we learn it as a letter but i seldom see it used

I don't know why my tamil script is not working, haven't change anything at my side http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/huh.gif
While replying everything was ok but after posting Tscavarangal font seems not function here, got to check in other sections.


Problem solved!

So, how old are you now? How old were you 70 years ago?

Friends,

Asoka Brahmi- the name given to the Scripts, but not because it was invented by him, but he extensively made Stone Inscriptions all over India.
Karoshti was its earlier form, and we have few Scrolls also of it .

Brahmi has vowels which is absent till 800CE, in Hebrew and Aramaic, which are said to have been its source.

Brahmi Vowls shoe clearly that Brahmi was developed for Sanskrit, though stone inscriptions we have it show its earlier usage in Prakrit.

Tholkappiyam Ezuththathigaram matches with the Third stage of Brahmi which are dated to 100CE or Later, and it also confirms that Brahmi is done for Sanskrit.



Even Before Asoka, we have JAina Rishis in Tamilnadu, and hence Inscription of 3rd Cen BCE, earlier than 233BCE of Asoka is no Surprise.

Germans pronounce ... CHa.... as... SHa...

That means we must pronounce it as "Ashrinhai"... "Ashdhu"... and as ... "Ashkam" Surukkael

OK ?

Asoka Brahmi- the name given to the Scripts, but not because it was invented by him, but he extensively made Stone Inscriptions all over India.
Karoshti was its earlier form, and we have few Scrolls also of it .

Brahmi has vowels which is absent till 800CE, in Hebrew and Aramaic, which are said to have been its source.

Brahmi Vowls shoe clearly that Brahmi was developed for Sanskrit, though stone inscriptions we have it show its earlier usage in Prakrit.

Tholkappiyam Ezuththathigaram matches with the Third stage of Brahmi which are dated to 100CE or Later, and it also confirms that Brahmi is done for Sanskrit.

Even Before Asoka, we have JAina Rishis in Tamilnadu, and hence Inscription of 3rd Cen BCE, earlier than 233BCE of Asoka is no Surprise. What a gross misrep of history!!

Bad boy,

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/icon_eek.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/icon_eek.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/icon_eek.gif

It don't like your avatar.... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...n_confused.gif

Friends,

Evolvement of Brahmi Scripts have been analysed in Depth by Various Scholars and waht I said was only their View as Crisp.

Brahmi Tamil development can be put in 3 Stages.

BT1- Sanskrit Letters used for Pragrit used for Tamil withour consideration for Tamil Grammer mostly using Pragrit words and ends with Pragrit Literary styles.

BT2- Same now adopted and use Tamil grammer and Tamil ending - this starts by BCE50.

BT-Pulli Here putting Dots have started, with more Tamil words and tamil styles . This is from CE100-300.

Tholkappiyam Ezuthathikaram uses BT-Pulli for its base.

More from Tholkappiyam and Brahmi in my next posts.

Devapriya.

BT2- Same now adopted and use Tamil grammer and Tamil ending - this starts by BCE50.

BT-Pulli Here putting Dots have started, with more Tamil words and tamil styles . This is from CE100-300. In your next post, please also tell us how the dates were arrived at. Give us the "workings" by which these guys arrived at the dates they are giving.

Friends,

Asoka is dated now. Similarly Sathavhanas are dated, now to date Senkuttuvan with Silapathikaram and Srilanka's Mahavamsa- is possible. Chronology of Chera Kings is mostly possible with Pathirrupattu. Linking with Respective Pandya and Chola and Pulavars who sung who is possible.

Bishop Caldwell clearly said that " by having the special Tamil letters in vuyirmei series it has absorbed from Sanskrit. And Thani Tamil movement K.P.Aravanan went on to write that earlier Tamil started differently etc., and all this Non-provable claims becomes Nonsense.

Bismala Google search would give lot of answers to your questions.

Tamil uyir ezuthu writing as confirmed by Tholkappiyam and till 18th century end confirms that Sanskrit was the Basis for Brahmi. More details shortly.

Devapriya.

More from Tholkappiyam and Brahmi in my next posts. More details shortly. All hubbers visiting these threads, please do not make google searches: as quoted above, devapriya is coming out with the details SHORTLY.
So why waste time.... we just wait!!


it has absorbed from Sanskrit. Nothing comes from sans the scriptless.

Friends,

Brahmi was developed fOR Brahmi.

Vedic Texts are clear at very few places that they were put in writing.

Tamil burrowed it through Prakrit a BRanch of Sanskrit. Samana Rishis brought it.

Tamil did not have any writing on its own prior to it.

Why do not Research yourself and reply instead of keep blabering agains and again.

Devapriya.