Buy Brahmi Tablets >> Purchase Brahmi Free Shipping
buy brahmi in australiabuy brahmi plant
buy brahmi herb
cheap brahmin handbags sale
buy brahmi oil
>>> CLICK HERE to Buy Brahmi No Prescription Online <<<
INFOMATION:
Brahmi Brahmi script on Ashoka Pillar Type Abugida Languages Saka, Tocharian, Middle Prakrit languages Time period c. 3rd century BCE to c. 5th century CE Parent systems Proto-Sinaitic script Phoenician alphabet Aramaic script (?) Brahmi Child systems Gupta, Pallava, and numerous others in the Brahmic family of scripts Sister systems Kharoshthi (?) ISO 15924 Brah, 300 Direction Left-to-right Unicode alias Brahmi Unicode range U+11000–U+1107F This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. This article contains Indic text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks or boxes, misplaced vowels or missing conjuncts instead of Indic text. Brāhmī is the modern name given to the one of the oldest scripts used on the Indian Subcontinent and in Central Asia, during the final centuries BCE and the early centuries CE. Like its contemporary, Kharoṣṭhī, which was used in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India, Brahmi was an abugida.
Origins
Main article: Early Indian epigraphy History of the alphabetEgyptian hieroglyphs 32 c. BCE
- Hieratic 32 c. BCE
- Demotic 7 c. BCE
- Meroitic 3 c. BCE
- Demotic 7 c. BCE
- Proto-Sinaitic alphabet 19 c. BCE
- Ugaritic 15 c. BCE
- Epigraphic South Arabian 9 c. BCE
- Ge’ez 5–6 c. BCE
- Phoenician 12 c. BCE
- Paleo-Hebrew 10 c. BCE
- Samaritan 6 c. BCE
- Libyco-Berber 3 c. BCE
- Tifinagh
- Paleohispanic (semi-syllabic) 7 c. BCE
- Aramaic 8 c. BCE
- Kharoṣṭhī 4 c. BCE
- Brāhmī 4 c. BCE
- Brahmic family (see)
- E.g. Tibetan 7 c. CE
- Hangul (core letters only) 1443
- Devanagari 13 c. CE
- E.g. Tibetan 7 c. CE
- Brahmic family (see)
- Hebrew 3 c. BCE
- Thaana 4 c. BCE
- Pahlavi 3 c. BCE
- Avestan 4 c. CE
- Palmyrene 2 c. BCE
- Syriac 2 c. BCE
- Sogdian 2 c. BCE
- Orkhon (old Turkic) 6 c. CE
- Old Hungarian c. 650
- Old Uyghur
- Mongolian 1204 hh [clarification needed]
- Orkhon (old Turkic) 6 c. CE
- Nabataean 2 c. BCE
- Arabic 4 c. CE
- N'Ko 20 c. CE
- Arabic 4 c. CE
- Sogdian 2 c. BCE
- Mandaic 2 c. CE
- Greek 8 c. BCE
- Etruscan 8 c. BCE
- Latin 7 c. BCE
- Cherokee (syllabary; letter forms only) c. 1820
- Runic 2 c. CE
- Ogham (origin uncertain) 4 c. CE
- Latin 7 c. BCE
- Coptic 3 c. CE
- Gothic 3 c. CE
- Armenian (origin uncertain) 405
- Georgian (origin uncertain) c. 430
- Glagolitic (origin uncertain) 862
- Cyrillic c. 940
- Old Permic 1372
- Etruscan 8 c. BCE
- Paleo-Hebrew 10 c. BCE
- v
- t
- e
While the contemporary and perhaps somewhat older Kharosthi script is widely accepted to be a derivation of the Aramaic script, the genesis of the Brahmi script is less straightforward. An origin in the Imperial Aramaic script has nevertheless been proposed by some scholars since the publications by Albrecht Weber (1856) and Georg Bühler's On the origin of the Indian Brahma alphabet (1895). Bühler's ideas have been particularly influential, though even by the 1895 date of his great opus on the subject, he could identify no less than five competing theories of the origin, one positing an indigenous origin and four deriving it from various Semitic models.
Like Kharosthi, Brāhmī was used to write the early dialects of Prakrit. Surviving records of the script are mostly restricted to inscriptions on buildings and graves as well as liturgical texts. Sanskrit was not written until many centuries later, and as a result, Brāhmī is not a perfect match for Sanskrit; several Sanskrit sounds cannot be written in Brāhmī.
The most disputed point about the origin of the Brāhmī script is whether it was a purely indigenous development or was inspired or derived from scripts that originated outside India. Saloman noted that the indigenous view is strongly preferred by Indian scholars, whereas the idea of Semitic borrowing is preferred most often by Western scholars. He agreed with S.R. Goyal that biases have influenced both sides of the debate. Bühler curiously cited a passage by Sir Alexander Cunningham, one of the earliest indigenous origin proponents, that indicated that, at the time, the indigenous origin was a preference of English scholars in opposition to the "unknown Western" origin preferred by continental scholars.
Among scholars who have taken the origin to have been purely indigenous are F. Raymond Allchin, who speculated in a personal communication that Brahmi perhaps had the Harappan script (i.e. Indus script) as its predecessor. However, Allchin and Erdosy later in 1995 expressed the opinion that there was as yet insufficient evidence to resolve the question, though they were confident that the development of Brahmi was earlier than and "quite independent" of the Aramaic derivation of Kharosthi. G.R. Hunter in his book The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection with Other Scripts (1934) proposed a derivation of the Brahmi alphabets from the Indus Script, the match being considerably higher than that of Aramaic in his estimation. The most prominent alternative view in the indigenous origin category is that Brahmi was invented entirely independently of either foreign scripts or the Indus script. This view usually accepts that the Mauryans were previously aware of the art of writing in general but proposes that Brahmi was created anew for the purposes of writing Prakrit, based on well established theories of Vedic grammar and phonetics, and probably on the order of the reform-minded King Ashoka. From this point of view, Brahmi might be seen as a successful attempt to remedy some of the apparent limitations of Kharosthi as a vehicle for writing Prakrit.
There is little intervening evidence for writing during the millennium and a half between the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization c. 1900 BCE and the first appearance of Brahmi in the 3rd century BCE (earlier dates are claimed, but not widely accepted—see South Indian epigraphy below), and there is no accepted decipherment of the Indus script, but similarities to the Indus script have been nonetheless claimed by scholars such as Kak, who did not even acknowledge the existence of the Semitic-origin theory. A promising possible link between the Indus script and later writing traditions may be in the graffiti of the South Indian megalithic culture, which may have some overlap with the Indus symbol inventory and persisted in use up at least through the appearance of the Brahmi and Tamil Brahmi scripts up into the 3rd century CE. These graffiti usually appear singly, though on occasion may be found in groups of two or three, and are thought to have been family, clan, or religious symbols.
There appears to be general agreement at least that Brahmi and Kharosthi are historically related, though much disagreement persists about the nature of this relationship. Trigger considered them, as a pair, to be one of four instances of the invention of an alphasyllabary, the other three being Old Persian cuneiform, the Meroitic script, and the Ge'ez script. All four of these have striking similarities, such as using short /a/ as an inherent vowel, but Trigger (who accepted the Aramaic inspiration of Brahmi with extensive local development, along with a pre-Ashokan date) was unable to find a direct common source among them. Gnanadesikan also posited a stimulus diffusion view of the development of Brahmi and Kharosthi, in which the idea of alphabetic sound representation was learned from the Aramaic-speaking Persians, but much of the writing system was a novel development tailored to the phonology of Prakrit.
Aramaic hypothesis
The Semitic theory (Phoenician or Aramaic) is the more strongly supported by the available data. According to the Aramaic hypothesis, the oldest Brāhmī inscriptions shows striking parallels with contemporary Aramaic for the sounds that are congruent between the two languages, especially if the letters are flipped to reflect the change in writing direction.[citation needed] (Aramaic is written from right to left, as are several early examples of Brāhmī.) For example, both Brāhmī and Aramaic g resemble Λ; both Brāhmī and Aramaic t resemble ʎ, etc.
Brāhmī does feature a number of extensions to the Aramaic alphabet, as it was required to write more sounds. For example, Aramaic did not distinguish dental stops such as d from retroflex stops such as ḍ, and in Brāhmī the dental and retroflex series are graphically very similar, as if both had been derived from a single Aramaic prototype. (See Tibetan alphabet for a similar later development.) Aramaic did not have Brāhmī’s aspirated consonants (kh, th, etc.), whereas Brāhmī did not have Aramaic's emphatic consonants (q, ṭ, ṣ), and it appears that these unneeded emphatic letters filled in for Brāhmī's aspirates: Aramaic q for Brāhmī kh, Aramaic ṭ (Θ) for Brāhmī th (ʘ), etc. And just where Aramaic did not have a corresponding emphatic stop, p, Brāhmī seems to have doubled up for the corresponding aspirate: Brāhmī p and ph are graphically very similar, as if taken from the same source in Aramaic p. The first letter of the two alphabets also match: Brāhmī a, which resembled a reversed κ, looks a lot like Aramaic alef, which resembled Hebrew א. The following table compares Brāhmī with Phoenician and Aramaic.
Possible derivation of Brāhmī from the Phoenician script Greek Α Β Γ Δ Ε Υ Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ϻ Ϙ Ρ Σ Τ Phoenician Aramaic , Brahmi ? ? ? Gurmukhi ਅ ਬ ਗ ਧ ਢ ਵ ਦ ਡ ਥ ਠ ਯ ਕ ਚ ਲ ਮ ਨ ਣ ਪ ਫ ਸ ਖ ਛ ਰ ਤ ਟ Bengali অ ব গ ধ ঢ দ ড থ ঠ য ক চ ল ম ন ণ শ প ফ স খ ছ র ষ ত ট Devanagari अ ब ग ध ढ व द ड थ ठ य क च ल म न ण श प फ स ख छ र ष त ट Tamil அ ப க த ட வ த ட த ட ய க ச ல ம ந ண ப ப க ச ர த ட Kannada ಅ ಬ ಗ ಧ ಢ ವ ದ ಡ ಥ ಠ ಯ ಕ ಚ ಲ ಮ ನ ಣ ಶ ಪ ಫ ಸ ಖ ಛ ರ ಷ ತ ಟ Telugu అ బ గ ధ ఢ వ ద డ థ ఠ య క చ ల మ న ణ శ ప ఫ స ఖ ఛ ర ష త ట Javanese ꦄ ꦧ ꦒ ꦝ ꦞ ꦮ ꦢ ꦣ ꦛ ꦜ ꦪ ꦏ ꦕ ꦭ ꦩ ꦤ ꦟ ꦯ ꦥ ꦦ ꦱ ꦑ ꦖ ꦫ ꦰ ꦠ ꦡ IAST a ba ga dha ḍha va da? ḍa? tha ṭha ya ka ca la ma na ṇa śa* pa pha sa* kha cha ra ṣa* ta ṭa* Both Phoenician/Aramaic and Brahmi had three voiceless sibilants, but because the alphabetical ordering was lost, the correspondences among them are not clear.
Not accounted for are the six Brahmi consonants bh, gh, h, j, jh, ny, some of which could conceivably derive from the three Aramaic consonants with no obvious correspondence, he, heth, and ayin. (Brahmi ng was a later development.) Salomon (1998), for example, states that gh probably derives from heth.
South Indian epigraphy
Main article: Tamil Brahmi Some common variants of Brahmic lettersThe earliest likely contact of the Hindu Kush region with the Aramaic script occurred in the 6th century BCE with the expansion of the Achaemenid Empire under Darius the Great to the Indus valley. It appears that no use of any script to write an Indo-Aryan languages occurred before the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE, despite the evident example of Aramaic. Megasthenes, an ambassador to the Mauryan court in Northeastern India only a quarter century before Ashoka, noted explicitly that the Indians "have no knowledge of written letters". This might be explained by the cultural importance at the time (and indeed to some extent today) of oral literature for history and Hindu scripture. Another Greek, Nearchus, a few decades earlier observed that in northwestern India letters were written on cotton cloth. Authors have variously speculated that this might have been Kharosthi or Aramaic, but Salomon thus regarded the evidence from Greek sources to be inconclusive.
There have been claims that fragments of Brāhmī epigraphy found in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka date as far back as the 5th or 6th century BCE. Recent claims for earlier dates include fragments of pottery from the trading town of Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, which have been dated to the early 4th century BCE; from Bhattiprolu; and on pieces of pottery in Adichanallur, Tamil Nadu, which were associated with radiocarbon dates to the 6th century BCE. The claimed pre-Ashokan Bhattiprolu and Adichanallur inscriptions have been widely reported in the press, but do not appear to have been academically published so far. Saloman recognized the potential significance of the Anuradhapura inscriptions with respect to dating the origin of Brahmi but was cautious in accepting the early dates. Coningham et al., in their thorough analysis of the Anuradhapura inscriptions, found that the language was Prakrit rather than Dravidian, and they were unwilling to draw any conclusions about the affinities of the script beyond its being Brahmi; no claim was made that it is Tamil Brahmi. The historical sequence of the specimens was interpreted to indicate an evolution in the level of stylistic refinement over several centuries, and they concluded that the Brahmi script may have arisen out of "mercantile involvement" and that the growth of trade networks in Sri Lanka was correlated with its first appearance in the area.
A date for Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions in Palani as early as the 6th century has also been claimed, but as of its 2011 announcement, Iravatham Mahadevan, "a leading authority on the Tamil-Brahmi and Indus scripts," and Dr. Y. Subbarayalu, Head of the Department of Indology at the French Institute of Pondicherry, cautioned that it was difficult to reach a conclusion on the basis of one single scientific dating.
Overall, evidence for pre-Mauryan Brahmi inscriptions remains inconclusive, restricted to pottery fragments with possible individual glyphs. The earliest complete inscriptions remain the 3rd-century-BCE Ashokan texts. Many early post-Ashokan remains show regional variation thought to have developed after a period of unity across India during the Ashokan period.
Ashoka inscriptions
Connections between Phoenician (4th column) and Brahmi (5th column). Note that 6th-to-4th-century BCE Aramaic (not shown) is in many cases intermediate in form between the two.Brāhmī is clearly attested from the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Ashoka, who used the script for imperial edicts. It has commonly been supposed that the script was developed at around this time, both from the paucity of earlier dated examples, the alleged unreliability of those earlier dates, and from the geometric regularity of the script, which some have taken to be evidence that it had been recently invented.
Early regional variants
The earliest Ashokan inscriptions are found across India—apart from the Kharosthi-writing northwest—and are highly uniform. By the late third century BCE regional variants had developed, due to differences in writing materials and to the structures of the languages being written. For example, Tamil-Brahmi had a divergent system of vowel notation.
The earliest definite evidence of Brahmi script in South India comes from Bhattiprolu in Andhra Pradesh. The Bhattiprolu script was written on an urn containing Buddhist relics, apparently in Prakrit and old Telugu. Twenty-three letters have been identified. The letters ga and sa are similar to Mauryan Brahmi, while bha and da resemble those of modern Telugu script.
cheap brahmin handbags
where to buy brahmi powder in singapore
buy brahmi tablets
buy brahmi capsules
buy brahmin handbags
buy brahmi amla hair oil
where can i buy brahmi plant
buy ramtirth brahmi oil
buy brahmi amla hair oil
buy brahmi tea
buy brahmi tea
buy brahmin handbags
buying wind brahmin
where can i buy brahmi powder
buy brahmi powder
buy brahmi seeds
buy brahmi uk
buy brahmi
buy doxycycline for dogs
hctz without prescription
buy brahmi online
cheap brahmin bags
buy himalaya brahmi
brahmin order
buy brahmi capsules
cheap brahmin handbags
brahmin order
where can i buy brahmi plant
himalaya brahmi buy online
buy brahmi tea
buy brahmi powder india
where to buy brahmi in singapore
buy brahmi online
cheap brahmin bags
buy brahmi tablets
buy brahmi online
buy brahmi plant
RELATED LINKS:
buy nexium at walgreens
buy brahmi powder