Talk:Brahmic scripts

Untitled
Why does the history of the alphabet (box) start with the Middle Bronze Age 19th c. BCE? Especially as it is well known that the Indus Valley (Harappan) script is much older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enduron (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This page was listed in Votes_for_deletion probably because it was confused with the Indus script. Please note that the two are very different. The Indus script was last used 3500 years ago and it hasn't been deciphered; Indic scripts are a family of scripts used by a billion Indians today.
 * OMG! why was this EVER up for deletion??? How could you begin to confuse the two - like confusing Linear A with Greek! Khirad 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Text from VfD
Accept or not looking at the structure, each alphabets are unique and is a mother of all language with out any political reservation or superiority
 * Indic alphabets - unnessesary. Vancouverguy 19:38, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make it a redirect? Once the language is deciphered (if possible), this article will be useful. wshun 00:41, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Could possibly redirect to Devanagari, but that's not the only Indic script; there's also Tamil and Kannada-Telugu. - Efghij 02:20, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * There are lots of different scripts used in India. We should have an overview article for them. I don't see why this couldn't become one. It looks a half-way decent attempt at a start. I see no reason to delete it. -- Oliver P. 12:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Should at the least be a stub and links to the other relevant articles (and there are a few) -- Jake 02:10, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)

Since Indic alphabets has now been merged with Brahmic family and redirected here, I expect the above is all rather irrelevant, but there it is anyway. -- Oliver P. 01:13, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vowel signs
This bullet point: looks dubious to me. I assume it doesn't fit all scripts of the brahmic family. Pjacobi 22:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) This is very much true of the majority of Brahmic scripts. --Kadooshka 05:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 'u' is written below, short 'i' is written to the left if distinct from long 'i'.

Relation of Aramaic to Indic scripts
When the relation between the Aramaic and Indic scripts is still shrouded in controversy and debate, why are Indic scripts mentioned under the Aramaic script in the History of Scripts? Is that not presenting a biased point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyerakshay (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Semitic?
I thought it was thought to be Aramaic, as it was the lingua franca of the ancient world. Although its not proven either so perhaps its best to keep it broad. Khirad 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

IPA
Each Alphabets are so unique, Sanskrit, Devnagri language is mother of all language

The list of IPA characters for Indic script letters is not suitable because pronunciation of consonants in Indic languages varies. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sukh here. Unless we specify that these IPA values are accurate for Sanskrit only, they should not be included. It's misleading. --SameerKhan 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I inserted the table I put 'Pronunciation is taken from Sanskrit where possible, but other languages where necessary,' which is needed because of letters like Tamil ழ whose sounds are not present in Sanskrit. If we want to be precise, we could specify which are from Sanskrit and which for other languages. Moszczynski 16:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed this also! Tuncrypt 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The IPA is still here. As others above have indicated, it is grossly misleading to have this column, since pronunciations are different between different languages.  Even within one script, such as Devanagari, the pronunciation of ऋ differs between Classical Sanskrit and Modern Hindi.  Seems like something should be done?  Grover cleveland (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I’ve transposed/turned/rotated two of the tables (vowels left), so that they take less horisontal space and that new scripts are easier to add. From a pure aesthetical point of view I would like to remove the IPA as I it is quite similar to the transliteration. Further, as noted above, the transcription is not, and can hardly be, detailed enough to warrant the specific IPA notation used, from this perspective is not the transliteration enough? It is after all a graphological comparison of the script. I personally believe the phonetic guides are better suited in the respective scripts’ articles and in some language evolution article. kess (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help and contribution
Dear Wikipedians,

We apreciate your valuable contribution in article named Indic transliteration scheme on english WIkipedia.

We at Marathi Language wikipedia do not have enough expertise to update IPA related info in our article, specialy we have been unable to import/update IPA templates and do not know how to use IPA symbols.Please click here-this link- to provide help to update "IPA transliteration for Indic Languages" article for Marathi wikipedia

We seek and request for help in updating above mentioned article and would like to know relevant resources and refferences in respect of Devanagari and IPA.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indic scripts
redirect to this page? Doldrums 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please modify the UTF-8 used here. This page is utterly un viewable on a MAC!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odzer (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO that is not a useful generalization. The default configurations of all current operating systems lack support of some of these scripts. I am running MacOS 10.4.11 and I have researched and downloaded all the free Unicode fonts necessary to view every character in this article. It was some work, but well worth it to me. Leave a note at my Talk page if you’d like my font recommendations. MJ  (t • c) 03:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tamil letters
Tamil letter ஃ is missing in the table. also ஜ, ஸ, ஷ, ஹ are not tamil letters but wrongly been included in the table. These things have to be fixed--Ravishankar 11:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First Brahmi inscription south India
First brahmi inscription of south india is in Brahmagiri edict where kannada words are found. Brahmagiri edicts are by Ashoka. I want to edict the earliest known Brahmi inscription to this one. Any objections meghamitra 12:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First Brahmi inscription is on Bhattiprolu stupa
Buddhism and Brahmi script spread from Bihar via Orissa to coastal Andhra first. Sala kingdom ruling from Bhattiprolu was the earliest dynasty in South India which existed even before Mauryans. The Brahmi progenitor of Telugu-Kannada script with a few Telugu words was found on the Bhattiprolu stupa. The display boards in National Museum (New Delhi) clearly mention Bhattiprolu script first and evolution of Telugu-Kannada script from it. Historians know the script as Telugu-Kannada script but use of Kannada words to denote this script smacks of bias.Kumarrao 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the age of bottiporulu inscriptions can you site any sources. meghamitra 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

---Bhattiprolu stupa and surrounding structures existed since pre-Mauryan times (4th century). The stupa was constructed before Asokan period. A small kingdom with the capital at Pratipalapura (Bhattiprolu) was the earliest known kingdom in south India. Kumarrao 12:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vowels or consonants
Why are there two "r"s and two "l"s that can be used as vowels? Le Anh-Huy 10:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is not meaningful unless you turn it around: These scripts do have these vowels; the question is why vowel sounds are transliterated with Latin consonants. They are simply the closest sounds available in the alphabet. They are all retroflex, as indicated by the dot under the letter in transliteration. See Approximant_consonant. MJ  (t • c) 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No dispute
There is no dispute regarding "Telugu-Kannada script". There is abundant evidence (at least 6 authentic references) now. In fact, the use of "Old Kannada" must be discontinued as it was fabricated by biased people, which crept into webpages such as those run by Adluri and Lawrence. Gnanapiti must refrain from reverting my edit supported by citations. Kumarrao 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

---If Gnanapiti continues to revert my edits I shall seek a block against him.Kumarrao 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't start another edit war now. Your words are not final. Let everybody reach consensus on Talk:Telugu script and based on the consensus we'll change all articles. And no, don't even try to scare me with your hoax threatenings. Because I care a squat about your threatenings. I'm reverting your edits back. Gnanapiti 19:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

---This reply reveals your true nature.Kumarrao 11:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gnanapiti, may I remind you of WP:CIVIL which you should adhere to regardless of the situation. You are an experienced editor and should know better. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---Retained the old version which talks of 'Old Kannada' and readded my input with citations, which was being persistenly deleted/reverted by User:Gnanapiti. I hope he will be satisfied now.Kumarrao 07:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

why telugu,kannada and many other scripts mentioned as 16th century when we know it much older then that?even tamil scriptures mentioned as 8th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Be reasonable
Gnanapiti,

As explained above, I have retained the original version. New references that came to light in favour of Telugu-Kannada script are readded without disturbing the main body. Why do you persist in reverting my edits? Is there any reason? Why do you do this without discussion? Is wiki your playground?Kumarrao 07:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue has been explained to you n times by n number of editors. I can't repeat the same thing again, again, again again and again. There is a dispute going on in Talk:Telugu script regarding the same issue and that has to be resolved first. Once the consensus is reached by all, we'll work together and change all articles according to consensus. Till then, don't push your POV in articles relating the issue. Now, please revert your edits back. By the way, why don't you work on resolving the issue in Talk:Telugu script? Unless you or User:Altruism reply there, that issue is not going to move forward. Dispute can't be resolved just by one side involved in it. And till the dispute is not resolved, don't make changes in articles. Gnanapiti 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---There is no dispute. There are plenty of authentic citations in favour of "Telugu-Kannada". I do agree that there are a couple of citations in favour of "Old Kannada". The most reasonable thing to do is to have both with respective citations. Since there is widespread use of "Telugu-Kannada" by linguists, it should be given prominence while mentioning "Old Kannada" too. That is what I am doing? In the name of 'consensus' you are trying to stifle my voice. OK. I shall write this in Telugu script talk page too. Kumarrao 08:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

IPA diacritics for त etc. (t̺ vs t̪)
Currently, the table says [t̺ 	t̺ʰ 	d̺ 	d̺ʰ] which mean Apical, but I think they should be [t̪ t̪ʰ d̪ d̪ʱ] with the dental diacritics (See International_Phonetic_Alphabet). I'd like to change them as such, if [  ̺ ] is just a typo for  [ ̪ ]. Would that be ok? —Gyopi (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

About the intro
Abugidas vs. Syllabic alphabets vs. Alphasyllabaries—that's not important. Whichever is fine (but not that only one of them is THE correct term). More importantly, I'd like to explain the concept a bit. Like... The Brahmic family is a large group of writing systems descended from or related to the Brāhmī script. They are abugidas (also known as syllabic alphabets or alphasyllabaries), which means, with a few exceptions, every character represents either a vowel (for example, a, i, u) or a consonant with an inherent vowel (for example, ka, ta, pa, assuming the inherent vowel is a). A syllable with a non-inherent vowel is represented using a diacritic, known as vowel sign (for example, ki = consonant letter ka + vowel sign i). With this kind of intro, the following big tables would be much more understandable for ordinary readers. Any suggestions? —Gyopi (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Something along those lines would be good. I think the start of the intro should be history and extent of use, with a basic functional description coming after. Also, abugida does not mean that a consonant has an inherent vowel, though that is the case in most abugidas; the basic meaning is that vowels are obligatory but not accorded primary position.


 * And of course your IPA corrections above are appropriate. kwami (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions, kwami. You're right. It's much better to say "The Brahmic family is this kind of abugidas", explaining the this kind part, than saying "The Brahmic family is abugidas, which in general means...". I'll think about it.—Gyopi (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pb in the comparison chart with Lao
The comparison chart is clearly problematic as far as Lao is concerned, and inconsistent with the Lao script article. I did not take the initiative to correct this present article given my poor IPA skills and my lack of knowledge of historical pronounciation of Lao. One thing is sure: ທ is "th"-ey in sound, and definitely not "d"-sounding and probably never was (see: in relation to the historical assimilation process of Pali in Lao). For that matter the letter "ດ" mysteriously disappears from the chart... Some glyphs are supposed to be unrepresented but all the same. I guess the key is found in this sentence, which I can't manage to decipher: "Some pronunciations may be inaccurate or different from the ones listed, partly because the graphemically corresponding glyphs listed in the same column are not necessarily phonetically identical." Rdavout (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who created those big tables, but I'm the one who added that quick note, which needs some edits. The text above the table says, "Pronunciation is taken from Sanskrit", meaning IPA is correct only for Sanskrit. For another language (such as Lao), the IPA part is correct only when the pronunciation of the letter in question happens to be the same with the pronunciation of the corresponding letter in Sanskrit. If the table was about phonetics, this would be terrible, because almost everything is wrong. But the table is about letters... It just says that the letter L1 in the writing system S1 and the letter L2 in the writing system L2 were derived from the same letter of the Brahmi script. It doesn't say L1 and L2 are pronounced identically. For example, we can see Devanagari य and Oriya ଯ are in the same column, meaning that they were originally the same letter ("graphemeically corresponding" <-- this was not a good expression), while Devanagari य [ja] and Oriya ଯ [dʒa] are phonetically not identical (i.e. they represent different sounds). Then again, the current explanation of the table may not be very good, and like you suggested there may be several problems in the table itself too.—Gyopi (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamil-Brahmi writing found on pottery in South India and Sri Lanka
This is an incorrect reading, This was found in Sri Lanka (not South India) and it's not Tamil. This was purposely read as Tamil by some historians (who are trying to prove Sri Lanka has Tamil Origin). External link about this reading written by me. —D dasun (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

About images
I found two images which were not illustrative of the sections that they were in. Also, I added an image in Brahmi as there were none. Since this is a page about Brahmi and a number of its descendants (used cumulatively by more than a billion people), please discuss the utility of images before inserting them. Thanks. --Eukesh (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Balinese, Javanese, Philippines & other insular SE Asian scripts
Hi, I can view nearly all the scripts in this article properly, except for those listed above. I can also correctly view the characters on the separate Wikipedia pages for the Balinese and Javanese scripts. For consistency's sake, could the fonts used on this page for Balinese, Javanese etc be changed to be the same as those used on the main pages describing those scripts? With thanks, AJ 202.93.215.105 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I had same problem, but know I can view them properly with added syntax as well as "Tuladha Jejeg" font for Javanese, and "Aksara Bali" for Balinese. I don't know if it'll work in other computers as well. Alteaven (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian scripts
Added two other derivation of Brahmi used In Indonesia. There are several others actually, Batak, Rejang, and Rencong. But reliable information about Sundanese and Buginese are somewhat more abundant, so I only add them.

Font for Indonesian scripts (Javanese, Balinese, Sundanese, and Buginese) does not render the vowel e correctly. It should be placed before the consonant, but it is always rendered after the consonant, unless the input is graphical rather than logical. I use logical input, which I think is the Unicode standard. For Javanese, correct rendering can be achieved by using Tuladha Jejeg font and using Mozilla browser. Anyone know about the others? Alteaven (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Very similar
I'm no native user of these scripts, but it seems Assamese and Bengali script are very much alike. There are some letters that are different, but the rest is same. Should it be merged? Alteaven (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"List of Brahmic Scripts"--should it be its own article?
IMO, there's enough in this section to warrant creating an article for "List of Brahmic Scripts." That way we could shorten this article, and the new one could host a number of easy-to-read tables with more information (for example: scripts by number of users, by geography, by time period).

If we don't end up doing this, I believe "List of Brahmic Scripts" needs to redirect here. Elmsbye (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thai-Lao Consonant Splits
Indic <ṭ>, , and  split into Thai DO CHADA v. TO PATAK, DO DEK v. TO TAO, BO BAI MAI v. PO PLA and, in Lao, LETTER NYO v. LETTER YO. The former preserved the shape and is the usual syllable-final symbol, whereas the latter best represents the Indic spelling. LAO LETTER YO actually replaced a digraph in the area; the digraph itself (Thai อย) survives in 4 Thai words and is very much a new letter. The same pattern applies to Tai Tham (a.k.a. Lanna) which is currently not in the table, and probably to Tai Viet. Syllable initially, the earliest loans into Thai and Lao used the first member of the pair. Modern Pali/Sanskrit writing uses the second member of the first three in the Thai script.

I have accordingly updated the table to use the former letter. I have also removed the equation of LAO LETTER NYO with Indic <ñ>. - RichardW57 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brahmic scripts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224070409/http://www.bhashaindia.com:80/developers/MSTech/indicsupport/index.aspx to http://www.bhashaindia.com/Developers/MSTech/indicsupport/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

References WP:RDD, WP:RS, WP:HOAX
I have been advised or (maybe threatened) by a Administrators, utcursch at User talk:Peeta Singh to take my concerns to the article's talk page. These are the references used in this article:, , , , , , not a single one contains the term "Brahmic". Can someone explain what going on?

Peeta Singh (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, let's do away with this victm complex ("threatened"). You were simply asked not to indulge in original research such as:


 * Gurmukhi is a "Sikh-Scythic" or "Scythian" script, not Brahmic script
 * Punjabi belongs to "Scytho-Punjabi" branch of the Indo-Iranian language family
 * "users of Indian origin deceiving the public" by hiding these 'facts'.


 * Coming to the topic, the term "Brahmic scripts" simply refers to the scripts derived from Brahmi script. The topic of the article is certainly not a hoax, and the term "Brahmic" is not a hoax either. It is used in multiple scholarly articles, including for Gurmukhi / Gurumukhi.


 * The more popular term is "Indic scripts", and I've no problem if the article and Brahmic are moved to new titles. That'd actually go against your "Indian origin" tirade.


 * IMO, the proposed deletion of this article is completely unwarranted, but I'll let other users address it, since you feel 'threatened' by me. Pinging the top active contributors to this page by edits / added bytes (accroding to Revision history statistics):, , , and . Also pinging the creator ; and , the creator of Brahmic. utcursch &#124; talk 15:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with utcursch that the article should not be deleted. It's about Brahmi script and its descendants so the title seems appropriate.  That said, I wouldn't oppose renaming it to Indic scripts so long as "Brahmic scripts" redirected to it and the content, Brahmi script and its descendants, was made clear. DRMcCreedy (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the reason "Indic" might be disprefered is that many of the scripts are Dravidian, not Indic. Moving this article might open another can of worms, and this time not a crackpot one either. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have the impression that in the context of South Asia "Indic" is used to refer narrowly to the Indo-Aryan languages. From what I've seen, it's just a general term to refer broadly to anything related to South Asia. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured that was a reason for coining the term "Brahmic". Could also be to dab Kharosthi, which was also an Indic script used for Sanskrit, prakrits, etc. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Unclear Information
As I read this today, "Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, 19th century" is listed as an offshoot of Nagari Gupta script on the list of Brahmic scripts. Isn't that an error? --Sukkoth 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)

Collation of Japanese kana
The article states that "They [the Brahmic scripts] were also the source of the dictionary order of Japanese kana."

In simplified terms, the canonical order of Japanese kana in the so-called 五十音順 (gojū-on jun, or "fifty-sound order") is vowels a, i, u, e, o, then the same five vowels preceded by k, s, t, n, h, m, y, r, and w. The vowel order aligns with the Brahmic scripts, but the consonantal order does not.

There are other Japanese ordering systems, notably 天地 (Ame Tsuchi), 大為爾 (Tawini), and いろは (Iroha), all of which were based on pangrams. As pangrams, their ordering was not related to the ordering of Brahmic scripts.

Can anyone clarify what the sources are claiming with regard to Brahmic script collation influencing Japanese kana collation? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the consonant order does align. A relevant subsequence from the Brahmic scripts is 'k', 'c', 't', 'n', 'p', 'm', 'y', 'r', 'v'.  Now, Japanese /h/ is a historically weakened form of /p/, as is hinted at in the voicing marks.  Palatal consonants have a tendency to simplify to 's', though I don't know Japanese well enough to point to an example. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hmm, very interesting, yes. I think I see it.  I'd be interested in getting an actual quote from the indicated reference, since I don't have access to it myself.
 * Looking at the Brahmic_scripts table and referencing the Palatal consonants article, the 'c' is the weak point. Japanese has a Voiceless alveolar affricate, only before , but that is a later development from Old Japanese phoneme .  Japanese also has a voiceless postalveolar affricate , only before  and  glides, but that is a later development from Old Japanese phoneme .  I suspect you're right that the Brahmic phonetic value was reinterpreted as , which otherwise in the Brahmic ordering would come at the end, whereas the Japanese  kana are ordered where the Brahmic 'c' letters occur.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

AD/CE dating
The first use of AD/CE/BC/BCE appears to be this edit noting a century as CE. Accordingly, as per MoS, use of AD/BC is not applicable because it does not preserve the existing style. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tables getting too big
The tables for consonants, vowels and numerals are getting too big to be edited comfortably. I suggest that they be moved into templates (like the Unicode charts). KLITE789 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No Scrollbar when Magnifying Tables...
This topic maybe is related to the 'Tables getting too big' topic. Individual letters/symbols are too small for me to be able to recognize them. I tried ctrl + mousewheel but no sideways scrollbar appears, so that letters/symbols to the right are simply getting pushed out of view. Can any body help? I'm afraid I'd mess up the whole table trying. Korinthus (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Everybody please pardon me having bothered y'all. I was simply being too stupid to handle Wikipedia and my keyboard. (I really miss the 'ashamed' Emoji, right now...) Korinthus (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)