The hybrid origin of Brāhmī script from Aramaic, Phoenician and Greek letters

Karan Damodaram Pillai

Abstract

The origins of Brāhmī script have been mired in controversy for over a century since the Semitic model

was first proposed by Max Weber in 1856. Although Aramaic has remained the leading candidate for

the source of Brāhmī, no scholar has adequately explained a letter by letter derivation, nor accounted

for the marked differences between Aramaic, Kharoṣṭhī and Brāhmī scripts. As a result, the debate is

far from settled. In this article I attempt to finally answer the vexed questions that have plagued

scholars for over a century, regarding the exact origins of Brāhmī, through a comparative letter by letter

analysis with other Semitic origin scripts. I argue that Brāhmī was not derived from a single script, but

instead was a hybrid invention by Brahmin scholars from Aramaic, Phoenician and Greek letters

provided by a western Semitic trader.

Introduction

Brāhmī was the premier ancient script of the Indian subcontinent used to write both

Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages, including Prakrit and Tamil. The earliest

internally dated Brāhmī epigraphs are the edicts of Ashoka which date to the third

century BC.

 Another ancient Indic script that likely predates Brāhmī is Kharoṣṭhī. This was

used in Gandhāra and is widely accepted to be derived from the Aramaic script of the

Persian empire, sometime in the fifth or fourth century BC.1

Currently, there is no consensus on the exact origins of Brāhmī. A theory of

independent and indigenous origin has been proposed mainly by Indian scholars, but

as the late epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan states this is almost certainly impossible:

…the connection between Brahmi and some form of Semitic script is too strong. Buhler

pointed out the relation between Alif and A, B and Bay, Gameen and Ga, and so on. At

least I can see about 10 of the 22 Semitic characters very closely resemble Brahmi both

in form and sound. Statistically, such a resemblance is impossible except when there is

genetic relationship.2

Mainstream scholarship in the field of epigraphy is therefore united on the Semitic

origin hypothesis, with Aramaic being the prime candidate. However, the exact model

of creation has never been satisfactorily explained and considerable doubt remains.

1 SALOMON, Richard 1998. Indian Epigraphy, A guide to the study in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and

the other Indo-Aryan languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 28–52

2 MAHADEVAN, Iravatham 1998. Iravatham Mahadevan interview: Indus script and Brāhmī.

harappa.com.17 January 1998.

Contributing to this confusion is the fact that Brāhmī is paleographically too

dissimilar from Kharoṣṭhī, which makes a shared development from a common

Aramaic prototype incredibly unlikely.1

Despite this it is clear that the older Kharoṣṭhī script had influenced Brāhmī at

least on a structural level, with the introduction of its vowel stroke system.3

Saloman states that no one since Bühler in 1898 has “undertaken a

comprehensive and careful paleographic reexamination of the Semitic hypothesis”.1

In this article, I finally attempt this with a non-insular approach surveying the latest

data from Semitic scripts.

Pāṇini’s influence on Brāhmī

The creators of Brāhmī were undoubtedly Brahmin scholars well versed in linguistics.

This can be seen clearly by the systematic and scientific arrangement of letters based

on established Sanskrit phonetics, as described in Pāṇini's grammar the

‘Ashṭādhyāyī’.4

3 FALK, Harry 2018. The Creation and Spread of Scripts in Ancient India. In: Anne Kolb (ed),

Literacy in Ancient Everyday Life. pp. 43–66. Berlin: De Gruyter

4 LOCKWOOD, Michael 2019. The invention of the Brāhmī script: where and under what

circumstances! 21 Sept. 2019. pp. 15–20.

 Furthermore, certain vowel letters appear to be derived from other letters

following the principles of sandhi enunciated in Ashṭādhyāyī. In Pāṇini's defined

sandhi rules, guṇa vowels ē and ō substitute the base vowels i and u respectively,

whilst Vṛddhi vowels ai and au substitute the guṇa vowels ē and ō. This is mirrored

perfectly by the corresponding Brāhmī letter derivations.5

Table 1: Sandhi substitutions and their matching Brāhmī derivations.

Sandhi substitutions by Pāṇini Matching Brāhmī derivations

i>ē 𑀇>𑀏

u>ō 𑀉>𑀑

ē > ai 𑀏>𑀐

ō > au 𑀑>𑀒

Example: mahā + indra = mahēndra (i > ē).

<https://www.academia.edu/43832385/the_invention_of_the_brāhmī_script_where_and_under_what_c

ircumstances>, accessed 31 Dec. 2020.

5 LOCKWOOD, Michael and BHAT, Vishnu 1991. The Brāhmī Script and Phonetics: An
Isometric Analysis of Vowels. Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India, Vol. 17, Article 22. pp. 1–
3. <https://www.academia.edu/32369410/The_Brāhmī_Script_and_Phonetics>, accessed 31 Dec. 2020.

The Aṣṭādhyāyī is dated by most scholars to after 350 BC, since it mentions the rupya

coin which emerged in the fourth century BC. Therefore, Brāhmī cannot realistically

predate the fourth century BC.6

Brāhmī letters

Standard Aramaic7 with its limited 22 letter alphabet could not provide all the letters

for the 43 Prakrit phonemes, and the Brāhmī creators were compelled to look

elsewhere. They did this by borrowing additional letters from other scripts and by

modifying existing Brāhmī letters. For example, both the Aramaic and Greek forms of

d were borrowed, but used for two different, but closely related phonemes in Brāhmī,

ḍ and dh (𑀟 and 𑀥).

Letter by letter analysis

1. a 𑀅

6 FALK, Harry 1993. Schrift im alten Indien: Ein Forschungsbricht mit Anmerkungen.

Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. pp. 302–304.

7. Standard Aramaic refers to the standard scripts of the Persian empire, both cursive and lapidary

(monumental). Aramaic was the lingua franca of the empire, and this persisted even after its fall in 330

BC, remaining the dominant trade language.

A reversed form of Brāhmī a 𑀅 with the same sound is attested in an Ashokan era Ar-

amaic inscription from Lampāka, Afghanistan dating to the third century BC:8

A similar form with the same sound is also attested in lapidary Aramaic dating to the

early fifth century BC from Tayma, northwestern Saudi Arabia:9

The lapidary Aramaic script persisted till at least the third century BC,10 and this ar-

chaic K like form likely reached India close to this time period.

The reversal of this letter in the Brāhmī script may have been influenced by the

reversal of the overall script direction in Brāhmī in relation to Aramaic.

8 HENNING, W. B. 1949. "The Aramaic Inscription of Asoka Found in Lampāka." Bulletin of

the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 13, no. 1: pp. 80–88.

9 AL-THEEB, Solaiman Abdal-Rahman 1989. A comparative study of Aramaic and Nabataean

inscriptions from North-West Saudi Arabia. Durham theses, Durham University. pp. 68–77, 223–237,

239–247. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1421/

10 NAVEH, Joseph 1995. The Inscriptions from Failaka and the Lapidary Aramaic Script.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 297: pp. 1–4.

2. ā 𑀆

The long vowel ā 𑀆 is a clear adaptation of the short vowel a 𑀅 by the addition of a

horizontal midline extension to the right.

3. i 𑀇

As mentioned before the short vowel i is substituted by the guṇa vowel ē in sandhi

rules. The Brahmin scholars were aware of this and thus derived the triangle of three

dots ī 𑀇 from the closed triangle of ē 𑀏.

4. ī 𑀈

The long vowel ī 𑀈 is a clear adaptation of the short vowel i 𑀇 by the addition of a

fourth dot.

5. u 𑀉

In Aramaic, the standard letter for w‫ו‬has a double function, and is also used to

represent the vowel u. This is same as the Brāhmī u 𑀉, but turned upside down. A

similar form is attested in a Nabataean Aramaic inscription of the second century

BC.11

6. ū 𑀊

The long vowel ū 𑀊 is a clear adaptation of the short vowel u 𑀉 by the addition of

another horizontal line to the right above the baseline.

7. ē 𑀏

The Semitic origin ‘ayin was used to represent the ʿē sound in Aramaic and e in

Hebrew.12 A triangular variant of this letter is found in Phoenician 𑀏, dating to the

fourth century BC, and is the likely source of the Brāhmī ē 𑀏.13

8. ai 𑀐

11 DEL RÍO SÁNCHEZ, Francisco 2015. Nabatu: Nabataeans through their inscriptions.

Barcelona: Magoproduction. p. 38.

12 BÜHLER, Georg 1898. On the origin of the Indian Brāhma alphabet. Second revised edition

of Indian studies, No III. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. pp. 67–70

13 DE VOGÜÉ, Melchior 1881. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Pars Prima). Inscriptiones

Phoenicias Continens. No. 91. Paris: Reipublicae Typographeo.

The Vṛddhi vowel ai 𑀐 is a clear adaptation of the long vowel ē 𑀏 by the addition of a

horizontal extension to the left. This reflects the sandhi rule where ai substitutes ē.

9. o 𑀑

As mentioned before the short vowel u is substituted by the guṇa vowel o in sandhi

rules. The Brahmin scholars were aware of this and thus derived the o 𑀑 from u 𑀉 by

adding a top horizontal line to the left.

10. au 𑀒

The Vṛddhi vowel au 𑀒 is a clear adaptation of the vowel o 𑀑 by the addition of a

horizontal line to the right. This reflects the sandhi rule where au substitutes o.

11. k 𑀓

A variant of the Greek letter chi (pronounced kai) 𑀓, which represents the sound kh

has the exact same form as Brāhmī k 𑀓. It is attested in the fifth century BC.14

12. kh

The deep guttural Arabic qoph (qˤ) is often rendered as the harsh sounding kh in

14 JEFFERY, Anne, 2004. Poinikastas: Epigraphic sources for early Greek Writing [online],

Oxford: Oxford University. <http://poinikastas.csad.ox.ac.uk>, accessed 31 Dec. 2020.

Arabic loan words in Indo-Aryan.12 A variant of Brāhmī kh 𑀔 with a circle base has

the same form as a qoph unique to Nabataean Aramaic,15 but turned upside down and

reversed:

Nabataean Aramaic qˤ

Nabataean Aramaic refers to the specific Aramaic script variants found in the

Nabataean kingdom, which was established in the third century BC.

13. g 𑀕

Brāhmī g 𑀕 is likely derived from the Aramaic g 𐡂. A similar form also exists in

Phoenician.

14. gh

The Arabic ghayn ‫ ع‬which shares the same letter as ‘ayin ‫ ع‬is used to represent the

voiced velar plosive gh. A similar form exists in its parent script Nabataean, but

rotated:

Nabataean Aramaic gh

15 NAVEH, Joseph 1975. Origins of the Alphabet. Cassel’s introducing Archaeology Series:

Book 6. London: Cassel. pp. 83–85.

The Brāhmī gh 𑀖 is likely derived from a cursive variant of the Nabataean Aramaic

form. The use of this shared letter for ghayn meant that an alternative ‘ayin outside of

Aramaic had to be sought to represent the ē sound.

15. ṅ 𑀗

Brāhmī ṅ 𑀗 is likely derived from a reversed variant of Aramaic n found in the

Levant. This later evolved into the modern Hebrew and the Maalouli Aramaic forms,

both derived from square Aramaic script:

‫נ‬ Modern Hebrew and Maalouli Aramaic n forms

16. c 𑀘

The Brāhmī c 𑀘 is perhaps derived from the Nabataean Aramaic form of ṣade sˤ, but

turned upside down:

Nabataean Aramaic sˤ

A similar form also exists in Kharoṣṭhī.

17. ch 𑀙

The aspirate ch 𑀙 is a clear adaptation of the Brāhmī c 𑀘 by the addition of a loop to

the right to represent the aspirate.

18. j 𑀚

The sound j is frequently used in Indo-Aryan to replace the sound z, particularly when

borrowing Arabic, Persian and Greek words.12 A variant of the Phoenician z dated to

the third-second century BC is the closest letter form to the Brāhmī j 𑀚, but rotated:19

Phoenician z

19. jh 𑀛

The aspirate jh 𑀛 is likely an adaptation of the Aramaic z 𑀭 by the addition of an upper

hook to the right to represent the aspirate. This form of z is also present in Nabataean

Aramaic.15

20. ñ 𑀜

Brāhmī ñ 𑀜 is likely derived from a variant of Aramaic n with the addition of a hook.

The letter was then reversed and turned upside down:9

Aramaic n

A similar form is attested in standard cursive Aramaic dating to the fourth century

BC16 as well as in Nabataean Aramaic.9

16 DUSEK, Jan 2007. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av.

21. ṭ 𑀝

The retroflex ṭ 𑀝 is a clear adaptation of the Brāhmī ṭh 𑀞, by halving the circle.

22. ṭh 𑀞

The Brāhmī ṭh 𑀞 is likely derived from a circular form of Aramaic Teth 𑀞. This is

attested in the Ashoka era Aramaic inscription from Lampāka, Afghanistan dating to

the third century BC.8

23. ḍ 𑀟

The Brāhmī ḍ 𑀟 is likely derived from a reversed form of the Aramaic letter d:

This form is attested in both the Lampāka Aramaic inscription8 and in Nabataean

Aramaic.9

24. ḍh 𑀠

The aspirate ḍh 𑀠 is an adaptation of ḍ 𑀟 by looping the lower half to represent the

aspirate.

J.-C. Leiden: Brill. Appendix.

25. ṇ 𑀡

The Brāhmī ṇ 𑀡 is a clear derivation from the Brāhmī n 𑀦 but with the addition of a

top horizontal line to represent retroflexion.

26. t

The Brāhmī t 𑀢 is a clear derivation from the Aramaic t:9

Aramaic t

A similar form is attested in a Nabataean inscription of the second century BC.11

27. th 𑀣

The Greek letter theta 𑀣 has the exact same form and sound as the Brāhmī letter th 𑀣,

both being aspirates. The letter is found in Greek inscriptions dating to the fourth

century BC.17

28. d 𑀤

17 WALBANK, Michael B. 1982. Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora Fifth to Third

Centuries B. C. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 51(1):

41–56.

Brāhmī d 𑀤 is likely an adaptation of Brāhmī dh 𑀥 by repositioning its back stroke.

29. dh 𑀥

Brāhmī dh 𑀥 is likely derived from a semicircular variant of the Greek d 𑀥, which has

been found in epigraphs dating to the fourth century BC.14

30. n 𑀦

Brāhmī n 𑀦 is likely derived from a variant of Nabataean Aramaic n:9

Nabataean Aramaic n

31. p 𑀧

Brāhmī p 𑀧 is likely derived from the Aramaic p 𐡐, but rotated and turned upside

down. The exact same letter is also found in Phoenician.

32. ph 𑀨

The aspirate ph 𑀨 is a clear adaptation of Brāhmī p 𑀧 by looping the tail of the letter to

represent the aspirate.

33. b 𑀩

A squarish b exists in Nabataean Aramaic, and is perhaps the source of Brāhmī b 𑀩,

by the addition of a closing back stroke:18

Nabataean Aramaic b

34. bh 𑀪

The Brāhmī aspirate bh 𑀪 is perhaps derived from a rotated form of the squarish

Nabataean Aramaic b, but with the addition of a hook to represent the aspirate:

Nabataean Aramaic b

35. m 𑀫

Brāhmī m 𑀫 is likely derived from the Aramaic m 𐡌. This is attested in the Ashoka

era Aramaic inscription from Lampāka, Afghanistan dating to the third century BC:8

Aramaic m

The top evidently closed in a loop, and the letter turned upside down by the time of

Ashoka’s Brāhmī edicts. A similar form is attested in a Nabataean inscription of the

second century BC.11

18 KLUGKIST, Alexander Cornelis 1982. Middle-Aramese Schriften in Syrie, Mesopotamie,

Perzie en aangrenzend gebieden, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. pp. 5, 66, 320.

36. y

Brāhmī y 𑀬 is likely derived from the Phoenician yodh turned upside down, with an

extension of the middle projection. Phoenician forms like this exist in both the fourth

and third centuries BC:19

Phoenician y

37. r 𑀭

Brāhmī r 𑀭 is likely derived from the Nabataean Aramaic r 𑀭, which is a single vertical

stroke that evolved from the cursive standard Aramaic r 𐡓. This vertical stroke

assimilated with the Nabataean Zayn 𑀭, and it became necessary in the later Arabic

forms to add a diacritic to differentiate the two letters.15 The ambiguity between

Nabataean Aramaic z and r is perhaps the reason why the Phoenician z was loaned for

Brāhmī j.

38. l 𑀮

Brāhmī l 𑀮 is likely derived from a reversed form of Aramaic l 𐡋. Similar forms exist

19 LIDZBARSKI, Mark, 1898. Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik Nebst Ausgewahlten

Inschriften, Weimar: Verlag Von Emil Felber. Table XLV.

in Nabataean Aramaic.9

39. v 𑀯

Brāhmī v 𑀯 is likely derived from a variant of Nabataean Aramaic w, but turned

upside down.9 The standard Aramaic form of w 𐡅 does not have the unique circular

head of the Nabataean form:

Nabataean Aramaic w

40. ś 𑀰

Brāhmī ś 𑀰 is clearly derived from the standard Aramaic s 𐡔, but turned upside down

with slight adjustment of the middle extension. A similar form is attested in a

Nabataean inscription of the first century BC.11

41. ṣ

Brāhmī ṣ 𑀱 and s 𑀲 are both likely derived from variants of standard Aramaic ṣade sˤ.

This reflects the influence of Sanskrit phonetics where both letters are closely related,

and sa becomes ṣa due to “the influence of a preceding i, u, ṛ, e, ai, o, au, k, r or l”.12

For ṣ 𑀱, an Aramaic ṣade9 was turned upside down and reversed, with the addition of

a horizontal midline extension to the right:

> > (Aramaic s > Brāhmī ṣ)

A similar ṣade is attested in Nabataean Aramaic.9

42. s

Brāhmī s 𑀲 is likely derived from the standard cursive Aramaic ṣade sˤ, but turned

upside down and reversed, with elongation of a hook to the left:

>

43. h

Brāhmī h 𑀳 is likely derived from a form of Aramaic h, reversed and turned upside

down:19

>

Western Semitic model

There are 23 Brāhmī letters cognate with Aramaic letters in both sound and form. This

leaves no doubt that Brāhmī is primarily derived from a form of Aramaic script. Such

phonetic and visual correspondence cannot be due to coincidence. Considering that

Aramaic remained the lingua franca and dominant trade language of the Near East

well into the third century BC, this is hardly surprising.

It is plausible that a form of Aramaic script intermediate to standard Aramaic

and its daughter Nabataean was the primary source. This is supported by the presence

of standard Aramaic letters in Nabataean, as well as variants unique to Nabataean

found in Brāhmī (see Table 2). This would explain the divergence of Brāhmī from

Kharoṣṭhī, as Kharoṣṭhī was sourced directly from standard Aramaic at a much earlier

date.

Excluding the 15 letters derived from standard Aramaic, we get a total of 3

Greek letters, 3 Phoenician letters, 7 specific Nabataean letters and 1 Square Aramaic

letter in Brāhmī. The latter three groups comprising 11 letters are all derived from the

Levant and Nabatea (western Semitic). This correspondence with specific western

Semitic letters in both sound and form, strongly suggests a part western Semitic origin

of Brāhmī.

Fig 1: Map of Nabataean Kingdom.20

The most plausible explanation for this is that a trader from this region introduced

these western Semitic letters to India via the sea route. The preponderance of

20 ZIFAN, Ali 2016. Map of the Nabataean Kingdom. Licensed for free use under the Creative

Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Labels added by present author.

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nabatean_Kingdom_(flat_map).svg> Accessed January 23,

2021.

Nabataean specific forms suggests that the trader was based in the Nabataean

Kingdom, or at least disembarked from a Nabataean port in the third century BC.

These specific variants could only have arisen after the fall of the Persian

empire at the hands of Alexander the Great in 330 BC, and the subsequent

diversification of standard Aramaic, which uniformity could no longer be preserved

by the empire’s scribes.21 Already from the third century BC, a process of regional

differentiation of Aramaic scripts can be observed.1818

There are no surviving Nabataean inscriptions from the third century BC, and

the earliest from the lapidary tradition are dated to the 1st century BC.22 It is this

branch of Nabataean where unique lapidary variants are first attested similar to

Brāhmī forms such as the circular ended qˤ and w (corresponding to Brāhmī kh 𑀔 and

v 𑀯). These variants are absent in standard Aramaic.

21 NAVEH, Joseph 1997. Early History of the Alphabet, An Introduction to West Semitic

Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press. pp. 82–84.

22 JONES, Richard, Philip C. Hammond, David J. Johnson & Zbigniew T. Fiema 1988. A

Second Nabataean Inscription from Tell esh-Shuqafiya, Egypt. Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research, 269: pp. 47–57.

 Whereas the trader was perhaps a Nabataean seaman, a more likely scenario is

the trader being of Phoenician origin. The Phoenicians were the premier long-distance

sea traders of the ancient world and were renowned for their maritime expertise. King

Solomon is said to have recruited a Phoenician fleet with ‘knowledge of the sea’, in

order to trade with India in the tenth century BC. Indian commodities such as

peacocks, monkeys, gold and sandalwood are said to have been procured on these

voyages via the Red Sea.23

While we have no direct evidence that the Phoenicians were still sailing to India

in the third century BC, it was well within their capabilities. The Greek writer Scylax

of Caryanda made the opposite journey in the sixth century BC from the Indus to the

Gulf of Suez, whilst the Phoenicians had circumnavigated Africa a century prior.24

The Phoenicians also maintained trade networks throughout the Mediterranean

and Levant in the third century BC, and would have been fluent in Greek, Aramaic

and Phoenician. A Phoenician trader with knowledge of all the above scripts would

have been the perfect person to provide the prototype letters for Brāhmī.

23 BAR-ILAN, Meir 2015. King Solomon’s trade with India. ARAM 27:1&2, pp. 125–137.

<https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/articles/publications/publications0127.pdf>

24 RAWLINSON, George 1889. History of Phoenicia, London: Longmans, Green, And Co. pp.

708, 930.

 Some may argue that a hybrid script is a stretch of the imagination and unlikely.

However, it is much more unlikely for the 6 Brāhmī letters cognate to Phoenician and

Greek in both sound and form to be mere coincidences. These 6 letters (𑀣, 𑀥, 𑀓, 𑀚, 𑀬,

𑀏) are also absent in every Aramaic derived script, further corroborating the hybrid

origin of Brāhmī.

As mentioned before, there is a clear and logical reason why the Brāhmī

creators would have turned to other scripts outside of Aramaic. The 43 Prakrit

phonemes simply could not be covered by Aramaic’s 22 letter register, even when

variants are taken into account.

Both Aramaic and Greek scripts were known in India as early as the fourth

century BC, both lipi (derived from the Persian dipi for writing) and yavanānī (Greek

script derived from the Sanskrit rendering of Ionian, yavana) are mentioned in

Pāṇini's grammar the ‘Ashṭādhyāyī’.

The Greek influence on ancient India would have increased following

Alexander’s conquest of the Punjab in 326 BC, and the subsequent matrimonial

alliance between the Seleucid Empire and the Maurya Empire in 303 BC. A lady in

the Greek emperor Seleucus' family was said to have been given to the Maurya

emperor, Chandragupta in marriage following a peace treaty.3 Therefore, even if we

discount the proposed western Semitic trader’s fluency in Greek (a reasonable

assertion considering the Seleucid Empire ruled the Levant), alternative sources for

Greek script abound elsewhere in India.

The ability of scripts to borrow letters from other script traditions is also well

attested in Middle Aramaic scripts (dated to between 300 BC – 200 AD):18

The Middle Aramaic script-traditions did not develop out of each other. They can all be

traced back to cursive Imperial Aramaic script-forms, but they were not independent of

each other. They influenced each other mutually and borrowed various forms from

each other.18

There is no reason to exclude this phenomenon from Brāhmī, especially when western

Semitic traders were known to juggle several languages and scripts.

Dr Karan Damodaram Pillai,

Independent researcher and medical doctor.

Contact: kdpillai1986@gmail.com

Table 2: Brāhmī letters and their sources. (Aramaic refers to standard Aramaic).

Brāhmī Brāhmī Source letter Source Attested source

ā 𑀆 𑀅 a Brāhmī
i 𑀇 ē Brāhmī
ī 𑀈 𑀇 i Brāhmī
u 𑀉 ‫ו‬ u Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
ū 𑀊 𑀉 u Brāhmī
ē ʿē Phoenician

ai 𑀐 𑀏 ē Brāhmī
o 𑀑 𑀉 u Brāhmī
au 𑀒 𑀑 o Brāhmī
k 𑀓 𑀓 kh Greek
kh qˤ Nabataean Aramaic

g 𑀕 𐡂 g Aramaic
Phoenician

 gh ‫ع‬ gh Nabataean Aramaic
Arabic

ṅ 𑀗 n Square Aramaic
‫נ‬
c 𑀘 sˤ Nabataean Aramaic
ch 𑀙 𑀘 c Brāhmī
j 𑀚 z Phoenician

jh 𑀛 𑀭 z Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
ñ 𑀜 n Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
ṭ 𑀝 𑀞 t Brāhmī
ṭh 𑀞 𑀞 tˤ Aramaic
ḍ 𑀟 d Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
ḍh 𑀠 𑀟 ḍ Brāhmī
ṇ 𑀡 𑀦 n Brāhmī
t t Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
th 𑀣 𑀣 th Greek

 d 𑀤 𑀥 dh Brāhmī
dh 𑀥 𑀥 d Greek
n 𑀦 𑀦 n Nabataean Aramaic
p 𑀧 𐡐 p Aramaic
Phoenician
ph 𑀨 𑀧 p Brāhmī
b 𑀩 bh Nabataean Aramaic

bh 𑀪 b Nabataean Aramaic

m 𑀫 m Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
y y Phoenician

r 𑀭 𑀭 r Nabataean Aramaic
l 𑀮 𐡋 l Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
v 𑀯 w Nabataean Aramaic

ś 𑀰 𐡔 s Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
ṣ 𑀱 sˤ Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic

 s 𑀲 sˤ Aramaic
Nabataean Aramaic
h 𑀳 h Aramaic