History
The Bengali script evolved from the Siddham, which belongs to the Brahmic family of scripts, along with the Devanagari and other written systems of the Indian subcontinent. In addition to differences in how the letters are pronounced in the different languages, there are some typographical differences between the version of the script used for Assamese and Bishnupriya Manipuri as well as Maithili languages, and that used for Bengali and other languages.
Illustration:
- The character ক্ষ (Assamese khyô, Bengali khio) is considered a separate letter in Assamese script (ক্ষ
) but considered a conjunct (orthographically ক্+ষ ) in Bengali. In both languages, it functions as though it were orthographically খ্য . - rô is represented as র in Bengali, ৰ in Assamese, and either of the two variants in Bishnupriya Manipuri and Maithili.
- Assamese script has an additional character sounding wô represented as ৱ not found in Bengali script.
The Bengali script was originally not associated with any particular language, but was often used in the eastern regions of Medieval India. It was standardized into the modern Bengali script by Ishwar Chandra under the reign of the British East India Company. The script was originally used to write Sanskrit. Epics of Hindu scripture, including the Mahabharata or Ramayana, were written Mithilakshar/Tirhuta script in this region. After the medieval period, the use of Sanskrit as the sole written language gave way to Pali, and eventually to the vernacular languages we know now as Maithili, Bengali, and Assamese.There is a rich legacy of Indian literature written in this script, which is still occasionally used to write Sanskrit today.
Read more about this topic: Bengali Alphabet
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“History is the present. That’s why every generation writes it anew. But what most people think of as history is its end product, myth.”
—E.L. (Edgar Lawrence)
“The history of reform is always identical; it is the comparison of the idea with the fact. Our modes of living are not agreeable to our imagination. We suspect they are unworthy. We arraign our daily employments.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)