Talk:Brahmi script

Removal of Parent system

The parent source of Brahmi Script is not confirmed to be Proto-Sinaitic script or Phoenician alphabet or Aramaic alphabet, it can also be indigenous, therefore there is no confirmed source of Brahmi Script, removal of entire parent system is advised, or at least put valid citations.

I agree. Attesting a parent system can be controversial and literally misleading. Footy2000♡; 10:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding support to the above.

The infobox listing Aramaic as the “Parent system” is not consistent with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, as no modern scholarly consensus establishes an Aramaic → Brahmi derivation. Major surveys (Salomon 1995/1998; Falk 1993/2018; Trigger 2004) explicitly state that the origin remains uncertain; several scholars also argue for an indigenous or internal development.

Infoboxes should contain settled facts. Suggest changing parent_system= to “Origin: unknown” or removing the field entirely, with all hypotheses treated in the article body where they can be properly sourced. - Pipa3256 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Max Weber

Isn't that his brother Alfred Weber? 141.20.217.196 (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it is Albrecht Weber (no relation, I think). I've corrected it - thanks for pointing this out. RegentsPark (comment) 13:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is Sinhala shown as directly derived from Brahmi?

In the following code:

• • Siddham
    • Nagari script
      • Devanagari script
      • Kaithi script
      • Gujarati script
    • Gaudi script
      • Bengali–Assamese script
  • Sharada
    • Laṇḍā script
      • Gurumukhi script
      • Khudabadi script
      • Mahajani script
  • Tibetan
  • Kalinga
  • Bhaiksuki
• Tamil-Brahmi
  • Pallava
    • Khmer script
    • Tamil script
    • Grantha
      • Malayalam script
  • Vatteluttu
• Kadamba
  • Telugu-Kannada script
    • Kannada script
    • Telugu script

*Sinhala

• Tocharian

Sinhala is shown to be its own child system, despite it being more related to Grantha. 2601:182:81:36B0:8959:C3DF:DB32:6155 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

But also, I think that there are more mistakes beyond that. 2601:182:81:36B0:8959:C3DF:DB32:6155 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Parent system

This article needs revision. The second para of the Origin section reads as follows: "Early theories proposed a pictographic-acrophonic origin for the Brahmi script, on the model of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script. These ideas however have lost credence, as they are "purely imaginative and speculative".[38] Similar ideas have tried to connect the Brahmi script with the Indus script, but they remain unproven, and particularly suffer from the fact that the Indus script is as yet undeciphered.[38]" But the infobox still mentions Egyptian script as a parent of Brahmi. Either the infobox or the above para must be revised to remove this self contradicting statement. IND123456 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

the paragraphs means a direct derivation from Egyptian hieroglyphs is tenuous. However, proto-sinatic script is derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs and that in turn gave rise to Phoenician and ultimately Aramaic & Greek, and then finally Brahmi. Metta79 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)