Lipi and Sanskrit script

[Guest guest]

It has been shown that the word "Lipi (script)" came into Sanskrit

language much later, from Old Persian. Some tend to conclude that

Sanskrit might not have had a script till that time. Here we argue

that it need not be the case. In addition, one can even say that IF

there was a script for Sanskrit before word Lipi came into Sanskrit

vocabulary, then that script would have been the earliest one known

to that region. Let us see why.

 

When there is only one member in a group, neither the group nor that

member may have any word denoting them. There simply is no need for

that. Let us say English was the first and only language spoken on

earth. Then there would be no words such as `language'

and `English'. `Language' and "English" are common and proper nouns

respectively and have relevance only then there are more than one

language. People would just speak that language, without any need to

identify it. There may be however words in that language to

denote `speaking' etc. If another language comes into the picture

later, then we need to distinguish the former language. We would now

have to call it "English", and also have to coin the word `language'

to indicate the generic name of the two entities. Similarly if I ask

you to write the number one hundred -- most of you would write,

without further questions, a one, followed by two zeroes (on the

right), all in Arab (Indian?) numerals. This is because this system

is so common that it is almost like it is the only member. There is

no need to use the expressions `numeral system' or `number system'.

Nobody would ask in what numeral system they should write the one

hundred, or whether they should write in Roman numeral system or

so. A computer may not worry about the numeral systems, it may

however worry about the number system, and would ask whether it

should use Decimal, Octal, or Binary system.

 

Now Lipi is like that. It is a generic name indicating a whole

writing system of symbols, their arrangement, writing directions and

scores of rules. IF Sanskrit's script was the earliest and was the

only known writing system in the region, then there would have been

no word or common noun such as Lipi in Sanskrit. There would be

words for writing, alphabets or letters and so on, but not any for a

writing system.

 

Similarly there would be no proper noun to indicate that script or

writing system. If there were any such name, it would have come into

existence only after that script came into contact with another

script. For example, people would have given the name "Brahmi Lipi"

to either an existing script or a new script only to distinguish it

from other scripts they were aware of.

 

Please notice that I am not stating that Sanskrit's script was the

earliest in the region, - it is only that one needs to be cautious

when drawing conclusions from the facts about the entry time of the

word "Lipi" into Sanskrit vocabulary. The absence of the word script

in a language may not be a proof of absence of a script for the

language.

[Guest guest]

yaksh12000 wrote:

 

> It has been shown that the word "Lipi (script)" came into Sanskrit

> language much later, from Old Persian. Some tend to conclude that

> Sanskrit might not have had a script till that time.

 

What exactly is "old persian" here?

 

"Lipi" occurs in ashtadhyayi.

 

Earliest inscriptions in India are in Prakrits. Prakrits and

Sanskrit can be considered to be variants/dialects. If one is

looking for pure Sanskrit inscriptions, then we can say that there

was a script but no written Sanskrit for a few centuries.

 

There is some disagreement about earliest appearance of Brahmi

script. A few brahmi inscriptions are considered to be pre-Ashoka.

There has been a report that some Brahmi texts have been found at

Anuradhapura in Srilanka, which may be dated to an earlier period,

however it is not clear that it has been proven conclusively.

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "V.C.Vijayaraghavan" <vij@b...> wrote:

 

> However, a German Company digitises Indian manuscripts in German

> universities

>

 

The following is for Sanskrit, not for Hindi.

That's what is said in Sushil, Faruqi articles.

 

> http://www.e-ternals.com/english/publications/publications11.html

>

> It dates the Agrayaneshta : a Book of Mantras manuscript in

> Devanagari in early 17th C much before the inluence of the British.

>

> The Ananga Ranga, by Kalyana Malla. in Devanagari is stated to have

> been copied from an older manuscript in 1895 in Nepal.

>

> A manusript of The Kashmiri Paippalada Recension of the ATHARVAVEDA

> is on birch bark manuscript. If it had been done during British

> time, why go for birch bark, why not print it on paper.

>

> Prayascitta Prasna of 17th C is in Devanagari script

>

> There are other manuscripts in Devanagari made centuries before the

> British plot to helicopter Devanagari over all other scripts, as

> alleged in the article

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

> Use of writing was never confined to Brahmins. If there is a group

> associated with writing, it is Kayasthas.

>

 

Yes, the Kaithi script of the Kayasthas was popular among the

masses, while the Brahmins in some areas used Nagari to write

Sanskrit material.

 

Faruqi, Shamsur Rahman. Early Urdu Literary Culture and

History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001

The first chapter can be read from the web:

http://www.columbia.edu/~fp7/srf/early_urdu_ch1.pdf

 

For example, p. 27 tells about caste-specific nature of

the Nagari & Kaithi.

"For the vicissitudes of Kaithi in the Nineteenth century, see King,

One Language, Two Scripts. Kaithii is now practically unknown,

though instances of individual, isolated businessmen using it

for writing their accounts can be found till about the first

half of this century. It was fairly widespread until late into

the nineteenth century in parts of modern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,

and modern Madhya Pradesh. The British policy of promoting

the Nagari script apparently killed off the Kaithi." (p.27)

 

 

> I have seen a claim somewhere that the Vedic brahmins preferred to

> transmit their text orally, and thus were opposed to writing for

> some time. Thus unlike the Mauryas, Shungas did not leave any

> inscriptions.

 

In sangam texts also, "ezutA-k-kiLavi" (unwritten words) refers

to the Vedas. In Tevaram texts, "ezutu maRai" (written veda)

refers to the tamil tEvAram. Tamil Brahmins played a crucial

role in writing down the Vedas. The first Rgveda commentary was

written on the Kaveri banks in Tanjore under the patronage of

Cholas, much before Sayana.

 

Bhartrhari (5th century) in Vakyapadiya 2.486 says Sanskrit

grammar was rescued from the Parvata mountain. This could well

be the Malaya parvatam, one of the kula-parvatams.

 

In Tamil texts, "Poruppu" which simply means "the mountain"

refers to the Malaya-parvata. Pandya kings were had their

emblem - Malayadhvaja. There are many, many ref.s in old Tamil

lierature where "poruppu" ("the mountain") is the Malaya-parvata,

(can provide a list if asked).

I wonder whether the words, pobbata (prakrit) & parvata are themselves

related to draviidian roots. Eg., poruppu & the related words

like porumal/pommal & pammal in tamil.

 

OTOH,

Note that zrii-parvata is always called as such, never as

"parvata" alone. The Sanskrit texts of 5th century to 10th century

and more only refer to 'zrii-parvata' for the present day Srisailam,

and not to `parvata' at all. HarSacarita (Chowkamba ed. p.9),

KaadambarI (ed. Peterson, p. 224-228), Maalatii-maadhava (1.8,10)

and RaajataraGgiNI (3.267, 4.390), vAsavadatta, kathAsaritsAgara.

In HarSa's RatnAvalI, udayaNa's teacher hails from zriiparvata.

This is true even in MaJjuzrImUlakalpa. It refers to zrii-parvata

as: 'zrii-parvate mahAzaile dakSiNApatha saJiJike'. Inscriptional

uses of *zrii-parvata* continue well beyond: The earliest

inscriptions at Srisailam are dated to A.D. 1313. SII, vol. X,

nos. 503 and 504. They also refer to 'zrii-parvata', and not parvata.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan