Jump to content

Talk:Bengali–Assamese script/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Alphabet Table

Let us first prepare the list of the scripts here, once finished, we can put it in the article-page.

Also, we should probably mention that the three scripts are the modern standards, in current use. Chaipau 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Vowel Table
Symbol Assamese Bengali Bishnupriya
Manipuri[1]		 Meithei
Manipuri[2], [3], [4]
অ ô/o ô/o a a
আ a a ā â
ই i i i i
ঈ i i ī î
এ e/ê e/ê e e
ঐ ôi oi ai ei/ai
উ u u u u
ঊ u u ū û
ঋ ri ri ri/ŗ ?
ৠ - - - -
ঌ - - - ?
ৡ - - - -
ও o/å o o o/ô
ঔ ôu ou au ou/au
I don't think ই and ঈ are pronounced differently in Assamese. Chaipau 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Same with Bengali. No need for those accent marks. --SameerKhan 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Consonant Table
Symbol Assamese Bengali Bishnupriya
Manipuri[5]		 Meithei
Manipuri[6], [7], [8]
ক k k k k
খ kh kh kh kh
গ g g g g
ঘ gh gh gh gh
ঙ ng ng η/ng ng
চ s ch c∫/ch ch
ছ s chh chh ?
জ z j j j
ঝ jh jh jh jh
ঞ y n ñ ?
ট t ţ ţ ?
ঠ th ţh ţh ?
ড d đ đ ?
ড় ŗ ŗ ŗ/r ?
ঢ dh đh đh ?
ঢ় ŗh ŗh ŗh ?
ণ n n n/ņ ?
ত t t t t
থ th th th th
দ d d d d
ধ dh dh dh dh
ন n n n n
প p p p p
ফ ph f ph/f ph/f
ব b b b b
ভ bh bh b'/bh bh
ম m m m m
য z j j ?
য় y e/Ø y y
র - r r r
ৰ r - r -
ল l l l l
ৱ w - w/v w
শ x/s sh/s ŝ s
ষ x/s sh ş ?
স x/s sh/s s s
হ h h h h
ক্ষ khy kkh kkh ?

N/U = not used. The table is not finished yet, feel free to fill it up. -Bikram98 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who can help us in the Manipuri part? Also, is these enough? Or, we can also include the name of the aphabets (as they are currently in the respective language pages)? - Bikram98 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Usingha is probably the only Bishnupriya/Manipuri speaking wikipedian ... he can help in this. --Ragib 06:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the table looks almost complete. Can we transfer it to the article page? Another point, before arrival of the Christian Missionaries, many other langauges used this scripts, like Bodo, Garo, Khasi, Mishing, Karbi etc. I am trying to find out references to support this point, but without much success. Would appreciate if you find any source. - Bikram98 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is ক্ষ listed as a consonant? It is a compound letter (jukthakkhor), created by adding ক+ষ. --Ragib 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's considered a separate letter in Assamese. --SameerKhan 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sameer is correct. ক্ষ is not a jukthakkhor in Assamese, rather a consonant and is placed just before ড় (followed by ঢ়,য়) in standard textbooks. - Bikram98 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's interesting. This is exactly why we needed the status quo set of articles :) Nice to know this. --Ragib 05:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the use of compound letters is a major difference among the languages. Inputs on this would be helpful too. Chaipau 11:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected Bishnupriya Manipuri part according to "An Etymological Dictionary of Bishnupriya Manipuri" by: Dr. K. P. Sinha, Published by: Punthi Pustak, Calcutta, 1986. Also I suggest adding some more alphabets:

Extended Consonant Table
Symbol Assamese Bengali Bishnupriya
Manipuri 		Meithei
Manipuri
ঃ ?
ৎ ?
ঁ ?
জ্ঞ gy/jñ ?

Thanks.--Usingha 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kanai Baraxiboa rock inscription.png

Image:Kanai Baraxiboa rock inscription.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut- and paste redirect

I realized afterwards that my attempt to move 'Eastern Nagari script' to 'Eastern Nāgarī script' was perhaps a bit overenthousiastic, and constitutes a Cut and Paste move which is considered bad. My apologies for this! Personally I think it's the best to have 'Eastern Nāgarī script' as title, in accord with e.g. titles such as 'Devanāgarī', and have 'Eastern Nagari' as a redirect. For now I copied the old talk page to the new page, but if anyone is willing to revert my mistake and properly move the article (which I am unable to do, as I am a non-admin), please do so! Joost (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that "Eastern Nāgarī script" is a better name for this article. Neither Bengali nor Assamese follow this romanization scheme in this wiki. I suggest we revert. Chaipau (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chaipau on this. If we wanted to be true to the pronunciation of the languages that use the Eastern Nagari script, we should write Nagôri (for Assamese speakers) or Nagori (for Bengali speakers). Neither language has a vowel length distinction, or a schwa-vowel, so there's no real reason to use the macrons. --SameerKhan (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Traditional v. Modern?

It's said in this article as well as in the Bengali and Assamese script pages that the Eastern Nagari script would likely diverge into traditional and modern variants with the effect of Unicode and digitization. What's backing this up? I always assumed that proper conjunts and ligatures were always favored over simpler, often incorrect forms. Unicode font creators and rendering machines always strive to correctly display these conjunts. I don't see how improper orthographic forms can cause the script to "diverge". --Sun'sSon 01:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Sun'sSon

Evidence for "Eastern Nagari"

I am interested in the evidence for the existence of an "Eastern Nagari" sub-class of scripts. Can the creator of this article please respond? What is the distinction between Proto-Bengali and Eastern Nagari? The Bengali, Tirhuta, Oriya, Newari and related scripts are commonly believed to be descended from a "Proto-Bengali" script. The term "Eastern Nagari" should in fact be a synonym of "Proto-Bengali" in taxonomic terms. "Eastern Nagari" is being used in Wikipedia is club together the Bengali and Assamese scripts, which adds an unnecessary level of hierarchy that has little basis in fact. Why are Bengali and Assamese considered Eastern Nagari scripts, when the origin of both is linked palaeographically to the Tirhuta script? If Bengali and Assamese are "Eastern Nagari", then clearly Tirhuta, Oriya, Newari, and Kaithi are also "Eastern Nagari". Clearly, the script being described in Wikipedia as "Eastern Nagari" is the Bengali script. Is the term being propagated to diffuse the sensitivies of labeling Assamese as a descendent of Bengali? Sarayuparin (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Eastern Nagari script includes the "alphabets" that arose from middle Ganges scripts, that developed into various scripts of Assam, Bengal, Orissa and Nepal. This is neither the Assamese-Bengali script, nor the proto-Bengal script. The evidence of a proto- script in stronger in Assam than in Bengal (R D Banerjee uses inscriptions from Assam to make his point in the "Origin of Bengali script", whereas no Bengal inscription are needed to "create" a proto-Assamese script). This article addresses these confusing issues. Chaipau (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

Could someone explain what the symbols in the table mean??? The symbols are mostly no IPA symbols, they are probably the usual (whose?) transcriptions, but not even that is clear from the text. For example for Bengali you have sh and for the other language s with a roof - is that supposed to be the same sound or what?? Another example: "a" with a horizontal line above it - is that supposed to be a long vowel (long a)?? The table is almost useless in this state.

Infobox image

I'm trying to put an image in the infobox, but for some reason it won't appear. Does the infobox not support images, or am I doing something wrong? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Tirhuta

Bengali-Assamese Unicode

It is confirmed that in an official news article that the Bengali Unicode block will eventually be changed to Bengali-Assamese by request but Bengali-Assamese is still an alternative name for Eastern Nagari. -47.156.8.159 (talk)

Requested move 13 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Bengali–Assamese script with the suggested endash rather than a hyphen. See general agreement below to rename this article. The "Eastern Nagari" title will continue to redirect to the new name. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Nagari script → Bengali-Assamese script – the current title is merly synthesis of Orginal research which wikipedia surely discourage. the entire article based on 3 weak sources and non of those mention any such title. allowing such original research based title can only help other to confuse and spreading false information !! 2A0A:A541:F3F6:0:7493:8BCE:255D:4829 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 22:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

strong opposition !? with weakest banal argument. just provide sources where on earth you got the "eastern nagari" or "eastern script" terminology! if it is so: "It spans two different scripts in the Unicode chart without common origin (at least no source provided here with ″eastern Nagari″ name)". than the entire article fall under original research n should be deleted!!—2A0A:A541:F3F6:0:7493:8BCE:255D:4829 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are some articles that mention "eastern nagari" on scholar.google.com. Chaipau (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Please remain civil. 128.135.96.56 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
comment: the provided scholar sources mostly about Bengali Script and Most of sources also added „Most commonly known as Bengali Script“ Definition. So it must go with Bengali Script as a most Common Term 2A0A:A541:F3F6:0:FC0D:4892:A978:53F5 (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The number of mentions is a misleading indication. The Tirhuta script had been supplanted by Devanagari for many year, along with the Maithili language, which became a scheduled language recently in 2004. So naturally, the amount of work associated with its development is very limited. Chaipau (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to "Bengali-Assamese script" or "Assamese-Bengali script": There's no doubt that this particular page title is result of Orginal research. No scholar from Assam or Bengal has ever mentioned Eastern-Nagari script in any book. It's funny how all the Google scholar citation dates are after 2007 when this article was created. Even an eminent institute IIT, Guwahati borrowed this name for their academic works. Twisting wikipedia policies will not bring any good for the users, readers and well wishers. Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The implicit claim here is that this Wikipedia article is the source of the name. This itself may invite WP:OR scrutiny. Nevertheless, the request for the page move is made in 2019, some twelve year after the page was created. A case has not been made yet that Assamese-Bengali or Bengali-Assamese is a better representation of this historical script today. Consider:
  • Eastern Nagari is a name that authors have started using to denote this script, and it is becoming increasingly popular. Here are the search results for 2018 and after:
Therefore, "Eastern Nagari" is more popular and should be used.
  • Historically, this script was used not primarily for Bengali or Assamese, but for Sanskrit.
  • Today, this script is used not just for Bengali and Assamese, but for many other languages; and these languages are named in the article itself.
Therefore, Bengali-Assamese or Assamese-Bengali is not just becoming unpopular, but also are inaccurate. We should continue using "Eastern Nagari" for the article name.
Chaipau (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course you would continue to support this terminology because you were also involved in creation of this name and article and hence trying to popularize it. I know the requested move would not take place because of some unfathomable reasons. Signing off Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Gitartha.bordoloi: Please assume good faith WP:GF. The discussion is recorded here: Talk:Bengali_alphabet#Merge_with_Assamese_script?. At first I supported merging the articles, but after failing to make it work that would do justice to the development of both the scripts, I changed my opinion. The language specific development of these scripts require their own pages. That is why this page should have a non-language specific focus. Please go through the discussion. The name and other decisions were made by others, not me. Look at edit history of this page as well. Chaipau (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"Eastern Nagari" includes 4 regional variations: Anga, Assamese, Bengali, Tihuta. Traditional Assamese styles were different from Bengali as much as Tirhuta is. But in mid 19th century Assamese started to be influenced by Bengali script due reasons like, making Bengali the official language of Assam replacing Assamese; it was easier to print the Bengali variants. So current Assamese script has almost no difference from Bengali script. Even the ৰ was widely used in Bengal. Probably more commonly than র. But since Eastern Nagari includes all of the region variants and obsolete forms, so it's better to keep this name than Bengali, Assamese, Bengali-Assamese etc. Msasag (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

unfortunately some people are discussing geopolitical views here which are not relevant at all. Using script from other language is not a offensive one or crime. Then why some people are crying or feeling offended here. Latin script (also slightly changed or modified) overhemly used for germanic, turkish and even malaysian languages. Should we rename latin script and create a neutral terminology for those too. Please stick to the most common name i.e. definitely Bengali script here or delete this article for original research criteria. Bengali assamese tirhuta or whatever, all are developed from brahmic→ gupta → Siddhaṃ script . We simply don't need to create an another common mother script from sky for them. peace!Barind (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

so you think you can fight against thousand well established sources with one weak line from someone. just give us a break n let your so called community publish more research and come than latter! we are talking here about script not the language. and again If you can not provide enough well written and well established sources i'm definitely gonna nominate for deletion this baseless article here as a long standing non sourced article ! it seems someone already challenged it on 2008 n then and now providing no source rather blaming demography!? do you think wikipedia is a joke and you can put anything what you want !! —Barind (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand your outrage. The policy of WP:RS is based on the academic system of citing sources. The only difference is that whereas academic writing require an original research reporting to be of good quality, Wikipedia totally avoids it under WP:OR. Nevertheless, WP:RS should not devolve into just counting the number of sources, but also consider the reliability and relevance in the context of itself and the trend in the academic world. I do not think Wikipedia can ignore the academic consensus or trend and keep counting the number of sources from years and years ago.
Furthermore, Unicode does not define the script name—it just names a block of codes. All Eastern Nagari scripts users use codes defined in other blocks. Examples are the dari and the double dari (Unicodes 0964 0965 defined in Devanagari block). Assamese also uses a 'urdho comma' which is not defined in the Bengali block (for example কলা and ক'লা are two different words). So it does not matter whether Unicode names it Bengali or Bengali-Assamese or Assamese-Bengali, and that is why the academic community is not calling it "Bengali" or "Bengali-Assamese" but "Eastern Nagari".
Why Nagari? Consider the following from Verma (1976) (full reference in the article): "These epigraphs (from the 5th-century) show that the Assamese scripts can seek their parentage to the Brahmi script which later on developed in North India into proto-regional script, popularly called by the palaeographers Kutila or ‘acute angled’ or Siddhematrika script. This, in due course of time, developed into proto-nagari and nagari. The Assamese happens to belong to this family of scripts." (p31). Also, "In these inscriptions, especially in the last two (Kamauli and Assam plates -ed), the alphabets are more developed. These form a branch of Nagari alphabets from which the scripts of the medieval Kamarupa or Assam developed." (p45). Therefore, Verma traces the following Brahmi→Siddhamatrika→Proto-Nagari→Nagari→(Branch of Nagari which evolved into Asamiya script). Note that R D Banerji in his work too uses the Kamauli grant (issued by Vaidyadeva in Kamarupa between 1138 and 1145), and inscriptions from Kamakhya from 1744 (during the reign of either Siva Singha or Pramatta Singha). Thus there is a strong support for this article to be named 'Eastern Nagari script' and not 'Bengali-Assamese' or 'Bengali' or 'Assamese'.
Chaipau (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barind: I am calling out WP:NOTFACTIONS on your statement: "just give us a break n let your so called community publish more research and come than latter!" We are here in Wikipedia not to fight our ideological battles. Chaipau (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A different version of the same script is added to unicode named Tirhuta. If we compare Tirhuta with the historical variations from Assam and Bengal, we will see very little difference. We should have a unified name for all of these regional variations. It's like how Hindustani is used for spoken Hindi and spoken Urdu. Msasag (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Msasag: Yes. This is what Verma says in answer to a question: "Historically speaking Bengali, Assamese and Maithili are sister scripts and although they had their independent traditions of development they were considerably influenced with each other." (Verma 1976, p71). Chaipau (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barind: Wikipedia takes from research available online. But this is not everything. The wiki readers are not like wiki workers who are very well informed about Wikipedia that they should not take these things seriously. People in Assam and Bihar don't call those variations "Bengali". And their ancestors also didn't. To impose a mostly used term on all is offensive. And also since the script has many regional variations, calling all variations as Bengali is misleading. Instead of choosing the majority, we should choose the correct one. Msasag (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gitartha.bordoloi: How about Assamese-Bengali-Tirhuta script or ABT script if not Eastern Nagari script ? Since this is the same script with different regional variations. We have an article KRNB lects. But please don't use a name based on one of the regions, this is offensive and incorrect. Msasag (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barind: @Za-ari-masen:, You are trying to ram down WP:COMMONAME on everyone else, ignoring WP:NOTDEM. You are making no attempt to come to a consensus.
@Gitartha.bordoloi: No one calls it Assamese-Bengali-Tirhuta. Besides it is not used by these languages alone. Some other languages that use this script are—Bishnupriya, Meitei, Chakma etc.
Chaipau (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau: Yes, I noticed some differences in traditional Manipuri version. Like গ‌ু. Also they used ৰ for ra in the manuscript I saw: https://www.google.com/search?q=Manipuri+manuscripts&hl=en-IN&source=android-browser&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibt6HTi8vgAhWHS7wKHftYC4QQ_AUoAXoECAwQAQ&biw=360&bih=518#imgrc=HBWTsrU7piaduM Msasag (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Meitei script, Chakma script, Kaithi and Ahom script were the original historical scripts for meitei chakma mithila and Assamese languages. all of them later adopted slightly reformed Bengali script and people are here arguing with zero. its nothing but Wikipedia:IDLI & Inferiority complex.there is no need to invent a umbrella term or rename a script. hundred of thousands language use script from other language but no one care to invaent a new umbrella name. or like chakma n meitei adopt your self script back ! wikipedia is not a language journal or script research publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A200:0:802:8407:6059:37D1:4801 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Anonymous user,
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that summarizes the state of knowledge. It is not an academic journal, but it needs to reflect the current state of knowledge as captured by academic journals, article, etc.
  • Meitei is the original script for the Manipuri language, but it is not the developmental predecessor of the script that is currently used. The Ahom script is used for the Ahom language, and not related to the current script used for Assamese. The Assamese language uses a script that traces its development in Assam from the 5th-century as stated in Verma (1976). Wikipedia is not a battlefield. WP:NOTBATTLE.
Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau:,@Msasag:, I supported the move but then some people started citing ethnic issues and other arguments which do not fit here. There will also be a number of supporters for renaming the page to "Bengali script", but then the numbers for renaming it to "Assamese script" won't be few. I can also name dozens of reference books by eminent authors and linguists which will show that developmentally modern Assamese script was never a clone of Bengali script. If an wikipedia article on script should solely be based on unicode range (I don't know of any such policy) then only renaming to "Bengali" is a go and all other articles should follow (Unicode range ≠ script; that much is clear). Renaming it to "Assamese-Bengali-Tirhuta script" or "ABT script" will raise the same issue we are dealing here. Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gitartha.bordoloi: since Wikipedia is based on collaboration and consensus building, it is OK to discuss and try to convince others or be convinced oneself. So it is OK to change or modify one's opinion (I have myself changed my opinion many times). If you have changed you opinion, you could strikethrough your previous position and insert the current one. Chaipau (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I stand by the my support of renaming to "Bengali-Assamese script" or "Assamese-Bengali script", not any other. Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. The we have already discussed this point. Chaipau (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gitartha.bordoloi: Calling the Bengal versions as Bengali script is correct. But Tirhuta and Assamese versions have some differences and calling them Bengali is incorrect. It's already mentioned that Tirhuta has its own unicode block. And we have different articles for unicode blocks, so I don't understand why we should consider a script (with its other variations, obsolete forms etc) and an unicode block which doesn't include all aspects of the script be the same thing. This script (let's call it Eastern Nagari for now) is not same as one unicode block that is based on a variant of it. And Modern Assamese style is different from traditional. Modern Assamese style is more similar to Bengali. If we analyse Eastern Nagari texts from Assam, we notice that many variations and characters that were always used until mid 19th century are not present in the current standard Assamese alphabet, so it's probably fully based on Bengali script and the only unique Assamese character is ৱ. So maybe we can call modern Assamese style to be a part of Bengali script (more research is needed. And for wiki, reliable sources). But traditional Assamese styles are different from Bengali styles. I think there should be a separate unicode block for the traditional Assamese style (the styles may look different, but the characters are basically the same in looks) because most ligatures are also different. But this should not change the fact all these are regional variations and belong to the same script. Wikipedia does influence readers, so misleading stuffs should not be promoted here. Msasag (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gitartha.bordoloi: Can you name some of the books that show that modern Assamese script (if you mean the modern style used currently) isn't a variant of a Bengali variants, but evolved from traditional Assamese variants? If possible please provide online ones. I'm doing research by myself of the images of manuscripts available online. I found those in sahapedia, British digital library, Dibrugarh University website, many PDFs, other websites. The modern characters and variants only appeared in mid 19th century. But they were present in the variants from Bengal. It's important to write older Assamese texts in their original variants. Some letters that were commonly written with different characters in traditional Assamese are a, ā, r̥*, gh, ṅ, ṭh, bh, v* (commonly with a dot), ku, ' (a different diacritics was used. Its usage is mentioned in the 1848 book on Assamese language), kr̥, gu, ṇu, tu, tr̥, du, nu, pu, bhu, mu, śu, su, hu, tū, bhū, dū, ky, ty, dy, hr̥, ndh, gdh, ddh, ṅk, ṅg, ṅkh, ṅgh, gb, gv, jb, jv, ṇb, ṇv, tb, tv, db, dv, nb, nv, pb, pv, mb, mv, lb, lv, śb, śv, sb, sv, hb, hv, ya kar, reph etc etc. Slightly different characters are u, ū, i, ī, r̥*, e, ai, au, kh, ñ, ṭ, dh, p, v etc. And alternative characters of i, ī, u, ū, r̥, anusvara, gh, ṇ, l, ś, 5 etc etc were always (since the 14th century Saptakanda Ramayana) different in traditional Assamese from modern Assamese style. In modern Assamese style these are exactly same current standard Bengali. Msasag (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Msasag: This research is welcome, but not relevant here. Eastern Nagari script concerns the script as it developed in the east right to the point of printing typefaces. Even after the typefaces were designed, in the 18th century, the shapes script continued developing to what is current now. The division into language specific script names is a more recent phenomenon and is causing us all the rouble here. The relevant reference is Verma (1976). Chaipau (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Msasag: The development of the script in medieval times in Assam is given in Mahendra Bora's book, listed in the reference section in the article. Chaipau (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau: I was talking about regional differences of the script. Of course it is the same script with different regional variations. For Assam it seems, 14th century to 1830s = same script, just few differences due to evolution. Then after some years two regional variations were used, traditional and Bengali (for printing), finally Bengali replaced traditional traditional Assamese (during that time the traditional art of making manuscripts was also vanished as I heard). Then both Bengali and the Bengali one adopted by Assamese evolved together to the current form. And yes it's not relevant because it's the same script, but I replied to Gitartha.bordoloi because he said modern Assamese one didn come from Bengali. We have discussed about this topic in a different place, so no more discussion about it here. Msasag (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added a hoax tag

CLOSED
Clearly not a hoax, the discussion is now evolving into a fork of the above RM, please input your arguments with regards to the name of the article there. SITH (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is hardly any evidence of the existence of this term "Eastern Nagari". Even the unicode calls it Bengali script as shown in the infobox. The entire article relies on a single source which is dead anyway while most part of the article remains unsourced, (most likely borrowed content from Bengali alphabet). This looks like pretty much a POV hoax of the article creator. If anything, it should be a redirect to Bengali alphabet. Wikipedia is not a place for hoaxes or neologism. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Nagari script is mentioned in sources: Eastern Nagari script. Removing hoax tag. Chaipau (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Google hits is not a valid argument. I can see the sources in your link are rather recirculation of this wikipedia article. Provide some specific reliable sources to back you up. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
How are you claiming that it is a recirculation of the Wikipedia article? Even so, it is established use now. Chaipau (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC) (edited) Chaipau (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The search query "Eastern Nagari" script -wikipedia on Google Books throws up ~400 books and journals, including those that predate Wikipedia and the more recent ones. A search query for the alternative term "bengali-assamese script" -wikipedia results in nearly 300 hits. Doesn't seem like a hoax to me. utcursch | talk 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, showing google hits is not a valid point. How many of them are they actually reliable sources? Or are they really referring to this topic specifically? Eastern Nagari script could very well be something related to Devanagari. Even if you prove the term actually exists, it appears to be just another alternative term to Bengali script as according to all the sources, the writing system of these languages in question is called 'Bengali/Bangla script', which is why I suggested to redirect it to Bengali alphabet. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
To add, I just had a look over this talk page and one editor here expressed a suspicion that this article on 'Eastern Nagari' might be part of a propaganda related to the ethnic issues in Assam. The suspicion gets quite reinforced in my case when I see the deliberate attempts to replace the terms "Bengali" with "Eastern Nagari" in different wikipedia articles. For instance, in several articles the term Bengali unicode was replaced by "Eastern Nagari unicode" when in fact, both officially and commonly, the unicode block is only known as "Bengali". Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus that this is a hoax. The scholar.google.com clearly shows that the academic community has adopted the "Eastern Nagari script". So please restore the status quo ante and discuss the issue here first. You have been warned to not take unilateral decisions in your talk page and discuss these issues here instead. 883783960 Chaipau (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Za-ari-masen, saying that this term is a "synonym for Bengali script" is not same as saying that this is a "hoax". If you want to propose a merger of this article with the Bengali script, you should use the {{merge to}} template, not {{hoax}} template. utcursch | talk 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Carmen Brandt, an academic, writes that the use of this script by many languages, and in academic writings, it is called 'Eastern Nagari', though commonly it is called 'Bengali':

Whereas some of these languages had their own script or only an oral literary tradition until literacy was spread among its speakers, Assamese has, like Bengali, a long literary tradition in this script which Assamese speakers naturally refer to as the 'Assamese script'. In fact, the term 'Eastern Nagari' seems to be the only designation which does not favour one or the other language. However, it is only applied in academic discourses, whereas the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere.

She explains the use of the 'Bengali script' in the popular space is not due to a historical necessity, but due solely to colonial writing and high demographics of Bengalis:

Certainly, the common name of this script is not owed to any rightful entitlement based on historic developments. It is rather solely the result of the predominantly Bengali perception of this script caused by the high demographics of Bengalis and, above all, writings of Bengali linguists already during colonial times.

Naturally, in the article above, Prof Brandt uses 'Eastern Nagari' as the name of the script in the text body as well as in the phot captions.
We at Wikipedia should use follow the academic usage, which is historically more accurate, and use 'Eastern Nagari', which is a neutral name.
Chaipau (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Chaipau, if you're arguing that "Eastern Nagari" is just another name for the more common term "Bengali script", see WP:COMMONNAME. If this article is supposed to be about the ancestral script of modern Bengali and Assamese scripts (as some Epigraphia Indica mentions on Google Books seem to suggest), it makes sense to have it as a stand-alone article. If this article is intended to be about what is otherwise called the Bengali script, it should be merged and redirected. If this article is intended to be about an umbrella term that covers Bengali, Assamese, and other related scripts, you must present sources that support the existence of and non-trivial usage of such term in reliable sources. utcursch | talk 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, firstly, I thought I made it clear in my comments that I'm inclined to concede that the term actually exists, apologies if they couldn't convey the message. I didn't re-add the hoax tag after Chaipau removed it. What I'm arguing is, the term "Eastern Nagari", even if really exists, doesn't seem to be significant enough to have a separate page on it and should rather be a redirect to Bengali alphabet as an alternative term. Secondly, Chaipau, thanks for providing a source but that's just a single one, there are tons of other academic sources that recognize the script as "Bengali script" or "Bangla script". If we apply the same google hit theory, the keyword "Bengali script" shows 12,500 results on Google Books as opposed to only 400 for "Eastern Nagari". Besides, as Utcursch has mentioned, for naming disputes Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME and your own source suggests the most common term for the script is "Bengali script". Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Utcursch: I am arguing that this article should address the ancestral script as well as the historical growth of the Bengali and Assamese scripts. This is because the historical growth of the current Bengali and Assamese scripts are not entirely independent and there is no clean point of departure. For example, R D Banerjee in his 'Origin of the Bengali script' has to take help of inscriptions in Assam to trace the development of the Bengali script.
  • "In a Sanskrit inscription written in Bengali characters of Saka 1666—1744 A.D, found at Kamakhya in the Gauhati District, Assam, we find that though the wedge at the bottom has disappeared, the line between the curve and the top stroke is still present." p87.
  • "The completely developed form is to be found in the Kamakhya minor temple inscription of the Saka 1666 = 1744 A. D. in L. 4 ; in the word Kajjala." p98
The name 'Eastern Nagari' is used today, and I would say that the source given above, the article by Carmen Brandt above,[9], is reliable. The author appears to be an authority in the area.
  • A non-trivial and clear usage of the name is given here: [10] in Table 1, page 71. For the entry on Bengali language (columns are Language, Language group, Script)—it has "Bengali" "IE/Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan" "Eastern Nagari script (Bengali alphabet)". Here it makes the distinction between the script "Eastern Nagari script" and the alphabet "Bengali alphabet".
I hope this satisfies the criteria you have defined above to maintain status quo on Wikipedia.
Chaipau (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: WP:COMMON is not the only criterion that applies here. WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:PRECISION, WP:NDESC also applies here. It has been seen that the academic community is using 'Eastern Nagari' over the common name. Wikipedia should take a NPOV and non-judgmental stand here. Chaipau (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, WP:NPOVTITLE doesn't apply here, we are not dealing with any offensive or contentious labels like 'terrorist', 'genocide' etc. Please take a look at MOS:WORDS to understand what constitutes POV words. There is a reason why the title of the article Partition of India is what it is and not Partition of British Raj or Partition of South Asia because the first one is the most common term to describe the event. Neither WP:NDESC has anything to do here if you understand what it refers to. WP:PRECISION rather reinforces the argument that the script should better be titled as Bengali script. Also, I believe you are misinterpreting the WP:N guidelines, specifically WP:SIGCOV. The source you brought is not really a non-trivial coverage of Eastern Nagari. And even the data in that source is extracted from Wiktionary which is affiliated with Wikipedia. So it's just another example of recirculation of the content from this article. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Za-ari-masen, WP:COMMON as described by you does not apply here because, as Brandt pointed out, because of demographics any other opinion will be drowned out. That is why the academic community is moving to a language-neutral name. We should respect the trend in academics and use the language neutral name. Because, obviously the Bengali alphabet is just a subset of the script. Chaipau (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
so we should ignore "well sourced" "most common" name for demography!? what an argument! Let's open pandora box for more N come to the example above. PARTITION 1947 also cover other countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma. Ask your so called academic community to move to a neutral name like "Partition of British Indian Empire" because of demographics any other opinion from Pakistan and Bangladesh will be drowned out too!—Barind (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, there was a typo, I have typed WP:COMMON instead of WP:COMMONAME, twice. WP:COMMON is actually the most important argument in this case. What I am suggesting here is what I believe is best for Wikipedia (you may differ). Chaipau (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Angika and Maithili

@Chaipau: Hello. It seems Angika and Maithili do not use this script anymore. Is it necessary to mention them in the lede and infobox? In the infobox these can be tagged with a "formerly" but in the lede, what is this "Anga script"? Would you kindly explain? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: the Maithili language used to be written in this script, but it became a victim of Hindi nationalism and took to being written in Devanagari. But there has been a recent effort to set the language up as a formal language, and go back to the original script (Tirhuta script), at least partially. According to the proposal to Unicode, the script is used for ceremonial purposes and there was at least one digital Maithili periodical called Videha that used this script (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11175r-tirhuta.pdf). The Tirhuta script has many similarities with the medieval script as used in Assam. The examples are, the "ṅa", "la" and "va" (which looks like the modern Bengali "ra") Tirhuta#Consonant_signs. All these scripts variants, that evolved together, is this script; and so Maithili belongs here. Chaipau (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau:I don't have much problem with Maithili but Angika? If the script was used in the past, can't we mention "(formerly)" near it? And specially what is the "Anga script" in the lede: also Anga script, Assamese script, Bengali script, Eastern Nagari script, Purbi script or Tirhuta script recently added by Msasag? Is it referring the Ancient script of Anga kingdom or modern Angika? That is unclear. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Tirhuta has not been abandoned completely to gain "formerly" status, is my opinion. Again, it seems to be that there are some political posturing with regards to Angika/Anga and it is very close to Maithili. Irrespective of whether they are used today or not, these are historical scripts and belong here. Chaipau (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau: Is 'Anga' in the lede sentence same as 'Angika'? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: I have removed from the parenthesis the names that make no sense. Angika is the name of a language that is associated with the Anga region, named after Anga. So the Anga script is the script associated with this region. Chaipau (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau: I know about the origin of the language Angika. I was concerned that the different nomenclature, 'Anga' and 'Angika', might be confusing to the readers. Now since you deleted these script names from the parenthesis, I believe there's no confusion. Regards - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: my apologies. I don't think I understood your question. Chaipau (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unicode proposal and page move

Did the Unicode proposal to rename Bengali block influence the article move? --207.233.110.67 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be the reason. Some editors are desperately trying to push their unsourced POV in different articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The naming and renaming of unicode blocks have nothing to do with the names of scripts and alphabets on Wikipedia. Please do not impute motives of other editors. The renaming of the article to Bengali-Assamese from Eastern Nagari was the first mistake. Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Bengali Script

I have been WP:BOLD and moved the page to Bengali Script as this one is the most common name for the script. For detailed proof for this claim, please take a look at the earlier discussion of this talk page. A search query for the alternative term "bengali-assamese script" -wikipedia results in nearly 300 hits and 12,500 for that of "Bengali script" -wikipedia. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a sleight-of-hand move. Bengali script exists and it redirects to Bengali alphabet. Chaipau (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Follow the sources, don't push your unsourced POV. 90% of the sources call it Bengali/Bangla script. Za-ari-masen (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is about a script, not an alphabet. Please do not move this page unilaterally without consensus. Chaipau (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm also talking about the script. The script is known most commonly as Bengali scipt or Bangla script. As the unicode block also suggests [11]. Za-ari-masen (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
There are two separate Unicode blocks associated with this script---Bengali as we as Tirhuta. So this article does not go by the Unicode name. Chaipau (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Tirhuta may as well be treated as a separate script. In any case, 90% of the sources call it Bengali/Bangla script, even you know that. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The claim that the said script is known more popularly by the name of Bengali Script cannot be applied to here just because there are more contents found online named Bengali script than Assamese and other languages. We need to have a mere convenient compromise in naming the script. As everyone knows, the said script has been named recently as Bengali-Assamese Script by Unicode Consortium , so keeping that name would lead to a mild solution to this issue for now. And there wouldn't be a less amount of people claiming that script as Assamese Script because there are several proofs of having this Language script been old for centuries. That picture contained in this article from "Hastividyarnava" is a living proof of that. The Assamese ৰ "ra" is used here. The "Kanai Boroxi Bua Rock Inscription" is an another example. Thence moving the title of this article to Bengali Script can never be a mere solution. The title name "Bengali-Assamese" as taken by The Unicode Consortium would be a better solution. Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Za-ari-masen: please stop moving this page without consensus. The current title was agreed in a requested move discussion above, in the section #Requested move 13 February 2019. If you wish to propose an alternative title, then you need to file a new listing at WP:RM, giving your reasons why the page should be moved. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bengali and Assamese script

According to Unicode, "The Bengali script is also known as Bangla. In Assam, the preferred name of the script is Asamiya or Assamese."(copy from: Official Unicode Consortium code chart). That means ‘‘Bengali Script’’ = ‘‘Assamese Script’’. Then why ‘‘Assamese Script’’ ≠ ‘‘Bengali Script’’? Do anybody agree with renaming the ‘‘Bengali Script’’ to ‘‘Assamese Script’’? If the script are the same, why not ‘‘Assamese’’? Why Wikipedia preferred ‘Bengali’? দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Unicode defines a code block (Script_(Unicode)). It does not name a script. Chaipau (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Then why wikipedia is following Unicode Consortium? If the two scripts are same, we can rename it as ‘Assamese script’ (renaming ‘Bengali script’ = renaming ‘Assamese script’) and if not, we need two different page. দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau:, @দিব্য দত্ত: I believe it should stay as "Bengali-Assamese script". Although I would have preferred 'Eastern Nagari' to avoid this kind of edit/ethnic warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: I completely agree. Eastern Nagari has been adopted in academia, so I see no problem with this. In any case, the script itself developed not on any linguistic basis, but on the basis of inscribing or printing technologies. The development of the script before the 19th century cannot be attributed to any particular language. Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau:, Very true. I believe a far bigger level of edit warring would have happened if Devanagri was named "Hindi-Marathi" - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk:, Exactly! "Eastern Nagari" would have been a good term to be used like Devanagiri, instead of Bengali-Assamese or vice versa. A strong consensus should be built to have this issue solved. Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ankur Jyoti Dewri: I agree Mr. Dewri. This seems like the best solution to what seems like a never ending edit war. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is of course a grave mistake committed by the govt of India while presenting the sets of Scripts to the Unicode consortium. They should have given more attention to the people speaking other languages than Bengali with similar scripts. This is nevertheless a political issue. Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Tirhuta

@Fylindfotberserk: Can we add Tirhuta ISO, unicode alias and unicode range in the main template? Msasag (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think so. Chaipau (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, which ISO, Unicode alias, and Unicode range do you mean? DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a legit article?

@Amshpatten, Chaipau, and Msasag: I am wondering if this article has any reason to exist, since Bengali seems to be derived from Gaudi and Assamese from Kamarupi. Perhaps this article should talk about Bengali-Assamese scripts as a collective term since those scripts are very close, but we should be very careful not to describe it as an ancestor script, since a single Bengali–Assamese script never existed. I'd like to hear your input. EDIT: I managed to find sources on the Bengali-Assamese script being legit, and Assamese deriving from Bengali-Assamese in the 19th century. I can't find anything about Kamarupi however. The Kamarupi article uses 1 source to claim that Assamese derrived from Kamarupi and before that Gupta (and thus no Bengali whatsoever). I think we should use newer and more reliable sources in favour of older ones that might have now incorrect claims.Glennznl (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I believe that Assamese, Bengali and Tirhuta (aka Mithilakshar) are different variations of the same script. Just like English, German, Polish etc are different variations of the Latin or Roman script. Similarly there are many variations of the Arabic script and others. I think the purpose of this article is to be the article of the main script, include all the variations. I support the name Eastern Nagari over Bengali-Assamese because the term Bengali-Assamese excludes Tirhuta. Now, some people may think that Tirhuta is a different script because it has its own unicode block and some letters are different, but if we look at the variations of Assamese and Bengali used in the 19th century CE and before, we will see most of the forms present in them which are absent in the current standard versions (which differentiate Tirhuta from the current standard forms of Assamese and Bengali). That means if we exclude Tirhuta, then the age of Assamese and Bengali will be 19th century CE rather than 13th century. Just like these are variations of the same script, Gaudi, Kamarupi and also Kalinga (of Odisha), Licchavi (of Nepal) are also variations of the same script. Actually Gaudi, Kamarupi and Licchavi include two scripts: Gupta script (earlier) and Siddham script (later). So they are just variations of Gupta and then Siddham. Msasag (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Glennznl: as user:Msasag has said the history of Bengali, Assamese and Tirhuta scripts/alphabets are entwined (and as T P Verma comments in page 71 quite succinctly: Historically speaking Bengali, Assamese and Maithili are sister scripts and although they had their independent traditions of development they were considerably influenced with each other.). For Assamese, the earlier rock inscriptions in Assam were in the Gupta script, whereas the Siddham script appears suddenly in the Nidhanpur grant. The Bengali script has to trace the evolution of some of its letters via inscriptions in the Kamakhya temple, in the heart of Assam. Some of the medieval Assamese ligatures are found in modern Tirhuta and some medieval ligatures in Assamese (that approximate Devanagari) have been abandoned. The academic community prefers the name Eastern Nagari script currently, though Bengali-Assamese was also used (as in Cordona 2013). The preference for Eastern Nagari is due to the fact that this script is used not just for Bengali and Assamese but also for Manipuri (which uses a hybrid Bengali/Assamese alphabet) and many other languages. Some of these languages use ligatures that are not used in either Assamese or Bengali. This article was called Eastern Nagari for a long time, but some users managed to change it to Bengali-Assamese. This is because both the Bengali and Assamese communities would like to have the name of their language in reflected in the name of the script. Chaipau (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Msasag and Chaipau: I have seen the names Bengali-Assamese and Eastern Nagari mixed up throughout Wikipedia. I also favor Eastern Nagari for its neutrality and it's visible relationship to (central) Nagari reflected in the name. I will vote in favor of renaming the page. I have been fixing up the family trees using sources. The only mystery left is Kamarupi. Glennznl (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Glennznl: the past scripts mentioned are not standards but phases in development. So we have to be careful. For example, there is no Gaudi phase for Assamese, though it is possible some ligatures as used in Gauda influenced some letters in Assam. Till the advent of Colonialism, these scripts were regional though now they are associated with languages. In the Assamese case, the stages could be Kamarupi, Medieval and then modern Assamese. The Kamrupi phase encompasses both the Gupta and Siddham varieties. The medieval phase emerged into three different varieties (Bamuniya, Kaitheli and Garhgaiyan). Though Kamarupi phase is important to trace the development of the script in Assam, it probably has less importance of the script that developed in Bengal. Nevertheless, it is covered here: [12]. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chaipau: Yes I understand that the scripts back in those days were more "liquid" and shouldn't be thought of as standards. For several writing systems, they used to be written in for example Gupta and then later dropped that old system in favor of a new Bengali derived script. I don't think we should act as if it is a continuous line where the scripts just morphed through different phases and styles. Imho it's better to split "a writing system" in multiple parts reflecting those stages, rather than acting as if each and every Indian script has been used and evolved in a continuous matter since 500 BC (which I encounter a lot). Glennznl (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Glennznl: You're re adding Gaudi script as an ancestor of Assamese, Tirhuta, Odia and Nepalese scripts. But then where will we put Kamarupi, Kalinga, Licchavi etc that are equivalent to Gaudi script and mostly used in specific regions? It is mentioned in the Gaudi script article that it's a far Eastern variation of the Siddham script. Meanwhile Siddham script was originally used in Eastern India and developed into the Eastern scripts. If we choose Gaudi, does that mean other variations of Siddham don't have descendants? And why should Gaudi be the ancestor of Odia instead of Kalinga? Also "variation" doesn't mean "descendant", but in thos article, Gaudi is considered as a descendant of Siddham. I think we can keep Gaudi as an ancestor of Bengali alphabet, but we should not use it for others, instead we should use Siddham for all because the whole script is called Siddham. Msasag (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Time periods mentioned on wiki articles:
Kamarupi script: 5th-13th century
Kalinga script: c. 600 - 1100 CE
Gaudi script: c. 900-1300 CE
Siddham script: c. late 6th century[1] – c. 1200 CE
Nagari script: Developed form: 7th century CE
This clearly shows that Gaudi, along with Kalinga and Kamarupi are or contain variations of Siddham script. There are many sources that confirm this. It also shows that Nagari is a sister of Siddham. I've seen many confuse scripts like Kutila, Siddham, Nagari, Devanagari. Many times, Nagari means Devanagari. Glennznl Your source mentions Nagari as synonymous to Devanagari, while they are not. Msasag (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: I don't think I touched Nepalese scripts? On the case of Kalinga, according to one of the sources on that page it dropped out of use and was replaced with a Bengali derived script. From what I understand, Assamese used to be based on a Kamarupi variety but then in the 19th century it was changed to be closer to the Bengali script. I believe we should choose the most recent ancestor of these scripts, and mention the other ancestors in the history sections. Also, some scripts don't have to have descendants, they could have gone extinct (like Licchavi it seems), if sources say so. Btw the time periods are very unreliable on most wiki pages, especially if there is not a source behind it. I have seen pages saying 500 BC but then when I checked it in sources it was 600 CE. Also, this is a circular reference, you want to edit Wikipedia based on what Wikipedia says. The most important thing to do is find good quality and preferably modern sources that we can use. Glennznl (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Glennznl: I agree with Msasag. There are too many convergences and divergences. Bengali was imposed in Assam, and there are examples from even the 20th century where the Bengali-ro was used in Assamese. The convergence with the Bengali script did not happen overnight. So it is best to keep Kamarupi script and Medieval Assamese script (to be created) as ancestors of Assamese alphabets. As far as this article is concerned, I suggest we keep Siddham as the ancestor script, as Msasag has suggested. So the lineage will be Gupta→Siddham→Bengali-Assamese. The other details depend on regional influences. Chaipau (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Glennznl: The article Assamese alphabet includes the traditional Assamese variation. Only few letters were different in traditional Assamese, like a, ā, r̥, ṭha. The ligatures were also present in Bengali dropped in 19th century CE. Assamese still contains ra and va from the traditional script plus rest of the letters that were the same, hence it's not completely derived from the Bengali variant. Licchavi evolved into the Nepalese scripts. Msasag (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chaipau and Msasag: I am fine with that solution, to me the most important thing is basing it on sources. Glennznl (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: It seems the periods of the scripts are strange on these wiki articles. In the article Brahmic scripts it's mentioned that Siddham script started from late 6th century. If we look at 6th century and even 7th century inscriptions, the script is still Gupta. For example 5th-6th century Gopika cave inscription (Bihar), 6th century Barganga inscription (Assam), 6th century Mandsaur stone inscription of Yashodharman-Vishnuvardhana (Madhya Pradesh), 7th century Dubi copperplate inscription (Assam), the late 7th century Udaipur inscription of Aparajita (Rajasthan) etc. After that a transition script between Gupta and Siddham starts. As seen in Nidhanpur copper-plate inscription (Sylhet, Bangladesh) which was probably made in late 7th century or early 8th century (it's mentioned in the inscription that the original inscription got burnt and it was remade later hence there are differences in the letters). Proper Siddham starts from late 8th century or early 9th century as in the early 9th century Khalimpur inscription of Dharmapala (West Bengal) [see "Epigraphs"]. In the 9th century Nesarika grant of Govinda III the early form of Siddham is used.
And it's mentioned in the article (Brahmic scripts) that Nagari script started from 7th century. And that Devanagari starts from 10th century. So in this case, Siddham gets 6th century (though in 6th century it was still Gupta), Nagari gets 7th, 8th and 9th century and Devanagari gets 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st century. And in case of Eastern Nagari, Siddham gets 6th (Siddham wasn't born yet), 7th, 8th (Siddham actualy starts from late 8th), 9th, 10th and 11th century. Then Bengali-Assamese gets 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century. It's mentioned that Sharada starts from 8th century, that makes Siddham's sister Sharada younger than Siddham's daughter Nagari. It seems these classifications and period datings are more current script "favoured". Msasag (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: As I mentioned earlier, the dates are often very unreliable. We should verify each and every one of them with sourced material, the newer the better, since perhaps new discoveries have been made. We should start with checking the dates on the individual script pages and then when all of that is finished we should edit Brahmic scripts to reflect that. The Sharada page says 300 CE for some reason, I will check the date in other sources.
To my understanding Siddham is the eastern variety of Gupta. It could very well be that in the east the script evolved to Siddham while in the west it did not change much yet. I believe the script pages often start counting at the earliest medieval forms. Perhaps Devanagari from 1100 looks quite different from the form today, but this is where Wikipedia starts counting. In the articles itself, we should get more into detail on the different stages of the scripts, like early, medieval, late medieval, early modern, modern, with the dates. Glennznl (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script/Archive_1&oldid=980237808"