“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #Grammatica et verba
Glamor and verve
Studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European
linguistics in honor ofHans Henrich Hockon the occasionof his seventy-fifth birthday

edited by

Shu-Fen Chen and Benjamin Slade

Beech Stave Press
Ann Arbor • New York“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #© Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Typeset with LATEX using the Galliard typeface designed by Matthew Carter andGreek Old Face by Ralph Hancock. The typeface on the cover is Post Hock by StevePeter.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Grammatica et verba : glamor and verve : studies in South Asian, historical, and IndoEuropean linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventyfifth birthday / edited by Shu-Fen Chen and Benjamin Slade.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN ---- (alk. paper)
. Indo-European languages. . Lexicography. . Historical linguistics. I. Hock, Hans
Henrich, - honoree. II. Chen, Shu-Fen, editor of compilation. III. Slade, Benjamin, editor of compilation.
. –dc
Printed in the United States of America    

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #Table of Contents
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  
  

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Bibliography of Hans Henrich Hock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
Anvita Abbi, Traces of Archaic Human Language Structurein the Great Andamanese Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Shu-Fen Chen, A Study of Punctuation Errors in the Chinese Diamond Sutra
Based on Sanskrit Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Jennifer Cole and José I. Hualde, Prosodic Structure in Sound Change . . . . . . . . 
Probal Dasgupta, Scarlet and Green: Phi-Inert Indo-Aryan Nominals
in a Co-representation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Alice Davison, Reversible and Non-reversible Dative Subjects:
A Structural Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Madhav M. Deshpande, Sanskrit Traditions during the Rule of the Peshwas:Role, Maintenance, and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Jost Gippert, An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Olav Hackstein, Polar Questions and Non-headed Conditionals
in Cross-linguistic and Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Stephanie W. Jamison, RV sá hinā´ yám (VI..) with a Return Visit
to nā´ yám and nā´ nā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Brian Joseph, Aspirates, Fricatives, and Laryngealsin Avestan and Indo-Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Jared S. Klein, Some Rhetorical Aspects of AdjacentInterstanzaic Phrasal Repetition in the Rigveda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Kelly Lynne Maynard, Balkan Sprachbund Features in Samsun Albanian . . . . . . . 
H. Craig Melchert, Agreement Patterns in Old and Middle Hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Adriana Molina-Muñoz, Sanskrit Compounds and the Architectureof the Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Don Ringe, The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #Table of Contents
Steven Schäufele, Constituent Order in Song Lyrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Marco Shappeck, Ecuadorian Andean Spanish ya:
Contact, Grammaticalization, and Discursivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Benjamin Slade, Question Particles and Relative Clauses in the History of
Sinhala, with Comparison to Early and Modern Dravidian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Karumuri V. Subbarao and Rajesh Kumar, Aspects of Agreement in Hmar . . 
Yasuko Suzuki, On Characterizing Sanskrit anusvāra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Sarah Tsiang, Horses Lost, Found, and Jockeying for Positionin the English Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #An Outline of the Historyof Maldivian Writing
HHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 
Among the Indo-Aryan languages, Dhivehi, the language of the Maldives, is very peculiar with respect to its written appearance, given that it underwent in its history aradical change of scripts which by the end of the th c.  led from a typical Southern Brahmi cursive named Dives akuru to a right-to-left directed script named Thaanathat has no equivalent anywhere else. The period covered by both these scripts extends over approximately  years, the oldest records of Dhivehi proper dating backto the th c.  when the islands were converted to Islam. However, the few preIslamic written monuments that have been preserved clearly show that knowledgeof writing must have been present in the Buddhist age preceding the Muslim epoch,even though it was primarily Sanskrit, not an ancient type of Dhivehi, that was themedium of literacy then. With the discovery of a brick-shaped coral stone inscribedwith a Buddhist dhāran.ı̄ in a primeval type of Brahmi on the island of Landhoo in
the northernmost atoll of the Maldives a few years ago, evidence for Maldivian literacy has changed dramatically: we may now safely posit writing to have been present
on the islands continuously for at least  years, starting with an “Insular” Prakritthat must have been the predecessor of what developed to be the Dhivehi language oftoday. In the following pages, I intend to outline the state of knowledge concerning
the history of Dhivehi and its writing systems, achieved in the course of a thoroughinvestigation of the written documents available so far.

 The periodization of Maldivian literacy
On the basis of the written records and their (presumable or explicit) dating, we arrive at five periods of Maldivian literacy that can be distinguished with respect to thecontents, the state of the language, the writing system, and the writing materials used:a) Buddhist Prakrit period (?–ca. th c. )This period is, for the time being, only represented by the Brahmi inscription fromLandhoo mentioned above. Its content is a spell against demons and evil events,
Cf. Gippert a as to the editio princeps of the inscription.


From Shu-Fen Chen and Benjamin Slade (eds.), Grammatica et verba: Glamor and verve. Studies in South Asian, historical,
and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday. Copyright ©
Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #Jost Gippert
which is very similar to dhāran.ı̄’s of (northern) Vajrayāna Buddhism. The language isa peculiar Prakrit, herein termed “Dhivehi Prakrit”, intermingled with Sanskritisms.

b) Buddhist Sanskrit period (ca. th–th c.)
This period manifests itself in a few inscribed artefacts from various islands, whichhave been collected in the National Museum of the Maldives in Male. The main
objects under concern are two statues bearing several faces, with weapon-like symbols suggesting that they pertain to a Vajrayāna-type Buddhist environment. Thisis confirmed by the inscriptions on them which represent a mantra pertaining toYamāntaka, the texts being essentially identical. Both inscriptions are written in an
extremely awkward way, in the same cursive as that used in the following centuries.
There is only one monument inscribed in Nāgarı̄ script; its contents have not been
identified yet. It is likely that in the same period an ancient stage of Dhivehi was also
written, e.g. in documents concerning the foundation of Buddhist monasteries; however, no such records have been unearthed so far.

c) Old Dhivehi period (middle of the th–end of the th c.)
The Islamicization of the Maldives by around the year  brought about radical
change in that it led to the destruction of nearly all Buddhist monuments on the islands, including written records of the preceding period. The documents preserved
from the four centuries representing the early Islamic period of the Maldives are socalled lōmāfanu’s, i.e. copper plate grants issued by Maldivian kings in connection
with the foundation and maintenance of mosques. The eight lōmāfanu’s that haveremained accessible (either in toto or partially) extend from ca.  to about .
They are written in an early form of the Dives akuru cursive sometimes called Evēlaakuru, i.e. script (akuru < Skt. aks.ara) of yore (e vēla = ‘that time’). The language is anancient variety of Dhivehi, hereafter named “Old Dhivehi”, which abounds with Sanskritisms (sometimes written in Nāgarı̄ script in the earlier records) and Prakritisms
as well as loans from Persian and Arabic (sometimes written in Arabic script in thelater records). The period ended with the short interval of Portuguese rule on theMaldives (–).

d) Middle Dhivehi period (end of the th c.–th c.)
The subsequent period is characterized by the application of writing materials otherCf. Gippert to appear for a thorough account of the inscriptions, which were destroyed during thepolitical turmoil of February .

Arabic was also used in inscriptions in that period; cf. Gippert : as to the wooden board inscription of ca. – of the Male Hukuru mosque.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writing
than copper plates, including paper documents (so-called fatkol.u’s, i.e. ‘valuable
leaves’), inscriptions on wooden boards (so-called filā fatkol.u’s, i.e. ‘wooden f.s’), and(coral) stone inscriptions, all written in what may be regarded as the “standard” formof Dives akuru, with many foreign elements interspersed in Arabic script. The language of these monuments may be termed “Middle Dhivehi”. The period ended withthe gradual replacement of Dives akuru by the Thaana script in the course of the th c.

e) Modern Dhivehi period (th c.–today)
The introduction of the Thaana script by the end of the th c. marked the beginningof the modern period of Dhivehi literacy, which extends up to the present day. Although Thaana is but partially derived from Arabic (cf. below), it was clearly devised
to overcome the problem of having to mix (left-to-right) Dives akuru with (right-toleft) Arabic in nearly all contexts. Within the past three centuries, Thaana has undergone a few changes, though none of them systematic.

 The linguistic background of Dives akuru
While Thaana was clearly designed in accordance with the phonological requirementsof the Maldivian language of the late th century, comprising exactly twenty-four basic characters for the twenty-four basic consonant phonemes of the language (cf. §below), Dives akuru in all its varieties was much less in concord with the sound system
of Dhivehi in its different stages. Even in the Prakrit period, the Maldivian writing
system, which had historically developed from an early Brahmi type, was redundantin many respects due to the imbalance between the sound inventories of early Middle
Indic (for which the Brahmi script had been invented) and of Insular Prakrit (and its
descendant, Dhivehi). In order to illustrate this, it is necessary to re-draw here themain features of the sound history of Dhivehi in terms of a tentative relative chronology.

.

Relative chronology of Dhivehi sound changesa) Together with all other Middle Indic vernaculars, Insular Prakrit must have undergone the typical reduction of consonant clusters at an early stage. Thus, there is no
trace of the r of S(ans)k(ri)t grāma- ‘village’ in Mo(dern) Dh(ivehi) gan (toponym)< Mi(ddle) Dh(ivehi) O(ld) Dh(ivehi) gamu < D(hivehi) P(rakrit) *gam < E(arly)
I(nsular) P(rakrit) *gāma, or of the v of Skt. dvı̄pa- ‘island’ in MoDh dū (element ofe
The following treatise builds upon previous work published by the present author and S. Fritz (cf. Fritz
; Fritz and Gippert ; Gippert b).

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #Jost Gippert
island names) < MiDh duvu < ODh divu, duvu < DP div < EIP dı̄pa. In accordance with the so-called two-mora rule, most consonant clusters in medial positionchanged into either single consonants or geminates, depending on or interacting withthe length of the preceding vowel. In the relevant cases, Dhivehi only partly agrees
with Pali; cf. e.g. MoDh ra8 < MiDh rat. < ODh rat.u ‘island, land’ < IP *rat. <EIP *răt.t.a < Skt. rās.t.ra- (long vowel reduced before the geminate, ∼ Pali rat.t.ha-) vs.
MoDh rē < MiDh rei < ODh *rei ‘night’ < DP *reyi < EIP *rāti < Skt. rātrı̄- (single consonant after long vowel, vs. Pali rătti-). In a similar way, Skt. sūtra- ‘thread’
led to MoDh ū (via ODh *uvu < DP *suv < EIP *sūta, vs. Pali sŭtta-). Before this,the distribution of retroflex and non-retroflex consonants in the neighborhood of r
must have been realigned in many cases, yielding e.g. MoDh vo8 ‘lamp’ < MiDh vot.
< ODh vet.(u) < DP *vet.i < EIP *văt.t.i < Skt. varti- ‘wick (of a lamp)’. In the samecontext, we must assume that syllabic r was substituted by i or u after neighboring
dentals were affected by r, as shown by MoDh MiDh ODh kul.a ‘done, made’ < DP
*kud. < EIP kut.a < Skt. krta-; MoDh MiDh ODh bod.u ‘great, big’ < DP *bon.d. <EIP *bu’an.t.a < Skt. brhanta-; or the name of the lunar constellation MoDh miaheliya<< DP *miyasir s - < EIP *migasirasa- < Skt. mrgaśirasa-. Note that there is no indication that word-final consonants of Sanskrit (e.g., the accusative ending m) might
have survived into EIP; at least they have left no traces in Dhivehi whatsoever.
e

e

e

˚

e

e

˚

˚

ee

b) Together with Sinhalese, Dhivehi is characterized by the loss of the aspiration opposition in stops. Thus, there is nothing left of the distinction between *p and *ph in
MoDh fen ‘water’ < MiDh ODh pen(u) < DP *pen < EIP *pāniya < Skt. pāniya-,
MoDh fonu ‘foam’ < MiDh *pon.u < ODh *pen.u < DP *pen. < EIP *pēn.a < Skt.
phen/n.a-, and MoDh foni ‘juice’ < MiDh *pon.i < ODh pen.i < DP *pen.iy < EIP*pēn.ita < Skt. phān.ita-. In the same context we may note the loss of inherited h as
in MoDh ay ‘hand’ < MiDh at < ODh atu < DP *at < EIP *atta < Skt. hasta- or
MoDh MiDh ODh mā ‘big’ < DP *mā < EIP ma’ā < Skt. mahā.
e

e

e

e

c) Still at an early stage, open initial syllables consisting of nothing but a short vowel
were dropped. This led to MoDh MiDh ODh dia ‘water’ < DP *diy < EIP *daka <Skt. ŭdaka-, MoDh MiDh ran ‘gold’ < ODh ran(u) < DP *ran < EIP *ranna < Skt.
hı̆ran.ya-, or MoDh daśu(-gā) ‘under’ < MiDh ODh dat.u < DP *dat. < EIP *dat.t.a< Skt. ădhasthāt. After this, the accent is likely to have been fixed upon the (resulting)first syllable of all words.
The stage reached at this point is here referred to as representing the “E(arly)
I(nsular) P(rakrit)” commonly underlying Dhivehi and Sinhalese.
eeed) An important sound change in the prehistory of Dhivehi was the development of

Cf. Fritz (: n. ) with further references.
Attested e.g. in the metrical recension of the Vikramacarita (.. / MR ).

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writing
initial y to a voiced dental stop d as in the verbal root yā- ‘go’ which is reflected in
MoDh MiDh ODh da- (modern lexicon entry form danı̄ ‘go’). This sound change is
one of the most remarkable shibboleths distinguishing Dhivehi from Sinhalese, where
y- has been preserved (lexicon entry form yanavā ‘go’).
e) Another important early change consists of the leveling of long and short vowels.
This led to the ı̄ in Skt. dvı̄pa ‘island’ (> ODh divu, via DP *div , EIP *dı̄pa) becoming
indistinguishable from the ı̆ in Skt. bhı̆tti ‘wall’ (> ODh bitu, via DP *bit , EIP *bitti).
Original ă and ā represent a special case here in that ă in open syllables had a peculiar
outcome, not falling together with ā; cf. e.g. MoDh akuru ‘letter, script’ < MiDhODh *akuru < DP *ak r < EIP *akkara < Skt. aks.ara- vs. MoDh MiDh ODh aharu‘year’ < DP *saṁsar < EIP *saṁcāra- < Skt. saṁcāra-. It is assumed here that ă inopen syllables developed into a schwa-like sound ( ), which later changed to u, i, etc.
e

e

e e

e

e

f) One more important change is vowel umlaut conditioned by a subsequent i or y(possibly even e). By this umlauting rule, a changed into e (possibly via ä as in Sinhalese) as in MoDh rē ‘night’ (cf. above), fen ‘water’ (cf. above), or MoDh ey ‘elephant’ < MiDh ODh *etu < DP *eti < EIP *atti < Skt. hasti-, perhaps also in ODhgemen (abl.sg.) ‘from the village’ < DP *gemen < EIP *gāmena < Skt. (instr.sg.)
grāmen./na. In the case of u as well as the schwa vowel emerging from ă in open syllables (cf. above), the umlaut result is i as in MoDh MiDh ODh iru ‘sun’ < DP *sir
< EIP sūriya < Skt. sūr(i)ya-. Obviously, this umlaut was also triggered by palatal affricates and sibilants (including inherited s.) as in MoDh firi- ‘male (person)’ < MiDh
ODh piri < DP *piris < EIP *purus.a- < Skt. purus.a-, MoDh mı̄h-ā ‘man’ < MiDh
ODh mı̄h- < DP *minis- < EIP *manus.(s.)a- < Skt. manus.(y)a-, or MoDh MiDh ODhdiha ‘ten’ < DP *dis < EIP *daśa < Skt. daśa. Another vowel change, which lowered
the high vowels i and u to e and o, is harder to account for in terms of triggering conditions. In MoDh o8 ‘camel’ < MiDh ODh ot.u < DP *ot. < EIP *ut.t.a < Skt. us.t.raand MoDh ko8 ‘making’ (converb) < MiDh kot.(u) < ODh kot.u < DP *kot. < EIP*kut.t.a < Skt. krtvā this may have been the geminate retroflex following it; however,this does not hold for MoDh MiDh ODh ge ‘house’ < DP *ge < EIP *gi’a < Skt.
grha-.
e

e

e

e

e

e

˚

˚

g) After exerting their possible umlauting effects, all palatal affricates and sibilants
must have fallen together with s, thus leaving but one sibilant in the system. Importantly, Dhivehi is clearly distinct from Sinhalese here again as the merger in Maldivian
includes not only (Skt.) c as in the latter language but also j; cf. e.g. MoDh ras(-gefānu)‘king’ < MiDh ODh ras < DP *ras < EIP *rāja < Skt. rājā, or MoDh MiDh ODhhataru ‘four’ < DP *satar < EIP cattāra < Skt. catvāra- vs. MoDh hay ‘seven’ <MiDh ODh hat(u) < DP *sat < EIP *satta < Skt. sapta, MoDh MiDh ODh ha ‘six’
e

e

e



Cf. Fritz (:) with further references.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gippert< DP *sa < EIP *s.a < Skt. s.a(t.), MoDh MiDh ODh hia ‘hundred’ < DP *siy < EIP
sata < Skt. śata-, and MoDh MiDh ODh hāh- ‘thousand’ < DP *sās- < EIP *sa’assa< Skt. sahasra-.
eh) The next radical change concerned single non-retroflex stops in intervocalic position, which were reduced to glides (mostly y, more rarely v as in ODh divu ‘island’,
cf. above, or MoDh fāru ‘wall’ < MiDh ODh pavuru < DP *pav r < EIP *pākara< Skt. *prākara-). When the resulting glide was y, it caused umlaut of a precedingschwa-vowel as in MoDh MiDh ODh dia ‘water’ (via DP *diy < *d y < EIP *daka< Skt. udaka-), MoDh ODh miyaru ‘shark’ < DP *m y r < EIP *makara < Skt.
makara- ‘sea monster’, or MoDh MiDh ODh rihi ‘silver’ < DP *risiy < *r s y < EIP*rajata < Skt. rajata-, whereas a remained unaffected as in MoDh vā ‘wind’ < MiDhODh *vai < DP vay < EIP *vāta < Skt. vāta- or, in a trisyllabic environment, in mati‘above, upper part’ < DP *matiy < EIP *mattaka < Skt. mastaka-. Note that the sequences of * iy developing from * ata, * aka and the like remain more stable (yielding
MoDh i-stems) than *-iy representing older * (i)ya as in iru ‘sun’ < *sūriya- or fen‘water’ < pen(u) < *pāniya- (as “consonant stems”, with u probably representing anintermediate ); this may be taken to prove that the “original” y was lost in intervocalic position before the stops changed into a “new” y. Retroflex stops underwent a
different kind of “lenition” in intervocalic position, leading from *t. to *d. and further
to .l as in kul.a ‘done, made’ << Skt. krta- or MoDh (MiDh) ODh kukul.u ‘hen’ < DP*kukul. < EIP *kukkut.a < Skt. kukkut.a-.
e e

e e

e

e e e

e ee

e

e

e

e

e

e

˚

e

i) The disappearance of stops from medial positions caused an imbalance in the system which must soon have led to the reduction of geminates to singleton stops. Thischanged e.g. EIP *mattaka to DP *matiy (> MoDh mati ‘above’), EIP *akkara to DP*ak r (> MoDh akuru ‘letter’), and EIP *dakkin.a (< Skt. daks.in.a- ‘southern, right’)to DP *dekin. (> ODh MiDh dekun.u, MoDh dekunu). This development seems further to have affected all kinds of geminates, including sibilants as in EIP *sa’assa (<Skt. sahasra-) > DP *sās - > ODh etc. hāh- ‘thousand’, as the future development of
the sibilant exhibits no trace of a former gemination. The same holds true for geminates of nasals and liquids, as in MoDh han ‘skin’ < MiDh ODh *hamu < DP *sam
< EIP *camma < Skt. carma- in comparison with MoDh gan etc. < EIP *gāma <Skt. grāma- (cf. above).
e

e e

e

e

e

j) A new type of long vowel emerged from the contraction of vowels in hiatus position(in turn caused by the loss of original h). Thus hāh- ‘’ < DP *sās- < EIP *sa’assa< Skt. sahasra- or mā ‘big’ < DP *mā < EIP *ma’ā < Skt. mahā. In closed syllables,The Skt. term in question is usually spelled prākāra-, not prākara-; however, the older Dhivehi forms
force us to assume a short second syllable here.
The Ad.d.ū dialect has ked.e instead; cf. Fritz :.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writing
the resulting vowel may also be short, as in *bon̆.d. ‘big’ < DP bon.d. < EIP bu’an.t.a <Skt. brhanta-.
The stage reached at this point is here referred to as “D(hivehi) P(rakrit)”. All subsequent changes are either directly or indirectly documented in the historical sources.
ee˚k) After the reduction of geminates, s reflecting all former sibilants and affricates developed into a new h sound in word-initial and medial position. This resulted in the
numerals listed under (g) as well as many other words quoted above beginning withh- today. It is probable that word-final had been dropped after s before this change
occurred as only this accounts for word-final s having been retained until today;
thus, we find word-forms like hās ‘thousand’ besides hāh-e8 ‘one-thousand’ or hāh-ā(i)‘thousand and’, or the ODh plural rahun- ‘kings’ and the indefinite singular rah-aku‘a king’ besides the “basic” singular form ras ‘king’.
el) Sequences of a syllable-final nasal plus a following stop (as in *bon̆.d. ‘big’) are
the only consonant groups that had survived from Old Indic into Dhivehi Prakrit.
Such sequences are represented in the modern language by prenasalized stops; cf. e.g.
MoDh an̆ga ‘mouth, limb’ < MiDh ODh a(n̆)ga < DP *aṅg < EIP *aṅga < Skt.
aṅga-. As the nasal element of these sounds (here symbolized by n̆) was usually not
written in Old and Middle Dhivehi, it is probable that it was no longer assumed
to represent a distinct phoneme. For former sequences of nasal plus sibilant, Modern
Dhivehi shows no traces of the nasal element whatsoever; cf. e.g. MoDh etc. aharu‘year’ < DP *saṁsar < EIP *saṁcāra < Skt. saṁcāra-, or MoDh fas < MiDh ODhpas < DP *paṁs < EIP *pañca < Skt. pañca ‘five’ and < EIP *pāṁsu < Skt. pāṁsu‘sand’.
e

e

e

e

m) Word-initial h- tends to disappear, at least before high vowels; cf. e.g. MoDh in‘border’ < MiDh in, im(u) < ODh imu < DP *sim < EIP *sı̄ma < Skt. sı̄mā˘ or
MoDh ū ‘thread’ << Skt. sūtra- (cf. above).
en) Short open second syllables tend to be syncopated, at least from Old Dhivehi onwards, with new geminate consonants emerging in certain constellations. This is especially true for sequences of stops plus v resulting from syncopation in causative formations where v reflects the p of the secondary paya- suffix of Sanskrit; cf. e.g. MoDhdakkā (converb) ‘showing’ < MiDh dakkai < ODh dakvai < DP *dak vay < EIP*dakkapayya < Skt. *draks.apayya.
e

e



The dialect of Fuah Mulaku is exceptional in this respect; cf. Fritz :.
The dialects may vary in this respect as in the case of Ad.d.ū bon̆d.o vs. Standard bod.u; cf. Fritz :.

Cf. Fritz : as to the usage of “empty nūn”.
The dialect of Fuah Mulaku may have preserved a trace of such nasals in nasalized vowels as in fahã‘five’; cf. Fritz :.
“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gipperto) The schwa-vowel assumed for Dhivehi Prakrit is replaced by other short vowels
depending on its position in a word. In word-final position, the result is usually u in
Old Dhivehi, except after s and y where seems to have disappeared early; cf. MoDhgā ‘body; locative suffix’ < MiDh ODh gai < DP *gay < EIP *gāta < Skt. gātra(cf. above). In contrast to this, sequences of (DP) * y usually develop to i(y)a in both
medial and word-final position; cf. MoDh di(y)a ‘water’, hi(y)a ‘hundred’, and miyaru‘shark’ (cf. above).
e

e

e e

p) Subsequently, word-final u is lost after voiceless stops and l; cf. MoDh goy ‘sort,
kind’ < MiDh (ODh) got(u) < DP *got < EIP *gŏtta < Skt. gotra-; MoDh ay ‘hand’< MiDh ODh at(u) << Skt. hasta- (cf. above); MoDh ko8 ‘making’ (converb) <MiDh ODh kot.(u) << Skt. krtvā; or MoDh teo ‘oil’ < MiDh tel < ODh telu < DP*tel < EIP *tēla < Skt. taila-.
e˚eq) The glide v is lost in most intervocalic positions, yielding another set of (contracted) long vowels or diphthongs; cf. e.g. MoDh dū in island names < MiDh -duvu,
ODh divu (cf. above); MoDh ū ‘thread’ << DP *suv < EIP *sūt < Skt. sūtra- (cf.
above); MoDh MiDh veo ‘pond, pool, (bathing) tank’ < ODh *vevu < DP *vev <EIP *vāpi < Skt. vāpı̄-; or, in a syncope constellation, MoDh dorōśi ‘gateway’ < ODh
doruvet.i < DP *dor vet.iy < EIP *dvāravat.t.ika < Skt. *dvāravartika-.
e

e

e

e

e

r) In a similar way, n tends to be lost in the position between non-high vowels. Thus,vana, the present participle of the verbal root va- ‘be(come)’ (Skt. bhū), yields vā
within the Old Dhivehi period, and older vul.ena, present participle of the verb ‘live’(Skt. root vart?), develops into vul.ē, later ul.ē (written vul.e and ul.e in Dives akuru forlack of a special symbol for long ē).
s) The vowel e is backed to o in the position before retroflex consonants. This change
is dateable to the th or th c. A.D.; cf. MoDh MiDh atol.u ‘atoll’ replacing ODhhatel.u (< DP *sa(m. )tı̄t.a < Skt. *sam
. tı̄rt a-).
. )tel. < EIP *sa(met) Word-final u is lost after m, the consonant falling together with n as in MoDh gan(toponym) << Skt. grāma- or MoDh han ‘skin’ << EIP *camma < Skt. carma-. Thischange, too, is datable to the th century as it can be observed in the later lōmāfanu’s(cf. e.g. kan ‘fact’ < ODh kamu << EIP kamma < Skt. karma-).
u) Non-geminate t. in non-initial position develops into a special sibilant, usually tranCf. Fritz : as to dialectal divergences in this context.
The compound seems not to be attested; however, vartikā- in the sense of ‘stalk’ is attested in the
Mahābhārata.
Cf. Fritz and Gippert :–.


“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writing
scribed ś, as in MoDh daśu(-gā) ‘under’ < MiDh ODh dat.u << Skt. adhasthāt or
MoDh dorōśi ‘gateway’ < ODh doruvet.i << Skt. *dvāravartika-. This change musthave passed through an intermediary r-like pronunciation (cf. Czech ř) witnessed byspellings with r or rh in Roman transcripts provided by European travelers since theearly th century.
v) Non-geminated p changed into f as in fen ‘water’ << Skt. pāniya-, etc. This remarkable shibboleth of Modern Dhivehi, probably influenced by the pronunciationof Arabic teachers, must have emerged between the early th and the middle of theth century as the French traveler Pyrard de Laval, who sojourned in the Maldivesfrom –, still notes p in all relevant cases in his word list (e.g. penne ‘eau’) whilea later witness, Lt. W. Christopher, who visited the Maldives in , already writes f(e.g. feng ‘water’).
w) As in the last case mentioned, word-final n acquires a velar pronunciation, clearly
documented in Christopher’s word list (cf. feng ‘water’) but not indicated in any way
in Thaana spellings.
x) Word-final voiceless stops and -l develop in different ways. Together with the preceding vowel, -l yields either a long vowel or a diphthong; cf. e.g. MoDh mā ‘flower’< MiDh *mal < ODh malu < DP *mal < EIP *māla < Skt. mālā ‘garland’ or MoDhteo ‘oil’< MiDh *tel < ODh telu < DP *tel < EIP *tēla < Skt. taila-. Word-final -t
becomes -y, yielding another type of new diphthong as in goy ‘sort, kind’ < MiDh
(ODh) got(u) << Skt. gotra- or MoDh ay ‘hand’ < MiDh ODh at(u) << Skt. hasta(cf. above). The other word-final stops (k and t. > ś) are reflected by a glottal stop
today; cf. e.g. MoDh ko8 (still written koś) ‘making’ (converb) < MiDh kot.(u) << Skt.
krtvā or hāh-e8 ‘one thousand’ (lit. ‘thousand-one’) < MiDh ODh *hāh-eku < DP*sās-ek < EIP sa’ass-ĕkka < Skt. *sahasra-eka-.
e

e

˚

e

y) The retroflex nasal n. is confounded with the dental nasal n in most environments,
but word-final u is retained after it as in MoDh fonu < fon.u ‘foam’ << EIP *pen.a< Skt. phen/n.a- or, with a neo-geminate, MoDh fannu < fan.n.u ‘beach’ < MiDhODH *pan.n.u < DP *pan. v < EIP *pan.n.aka < Skt. parn.aka- ‘water plant’ (?). As theThaana script possesses a peculiar letter for retroflex n. (cf. § below) and a retroflex
pronunciation has been preserved in some environments, especially the future suffix
n.e, this change must have started after the conception of the new script.
e ez) The “new” ay-diphthongs tend to be monophthongized, yielding a long ä -vowel
as in [¯ä] ‘hand’ < ay < MiDh at(u) << Skt. hasta. This process is not reflected in the
Thaana spelling.


For the southern dialects cf. Fritz :.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gippert
.

Insular Brahmi and Dives akuru: coping with redundancies

It is clear that when the stage of “Dhivehi Prakrit” was reached, the sound systemof the ancestor of Dhivehi was extremely reduced in comparison with that of early
Middle Indic as reflected in the character inventory of the Brāhmı̄ script, with aks.aras
for aspirate stops, long vowels, or most of the sibilants being no longer needed. The
Maldivian pan.d.its nevertheless preserved the complete Brāhmı̄ inventory, using the“superfluous” aks.aras arbitrarily to denote related sounds in writing Dhivehi Prakrit
or, later, Dhivehi. Even in writing Sanskrit (or Sanskritisms), the deficiency of thesound system of the spoken language led to a general confusion of aks.aras indicating
long and short vowels, aspirated and non-aspirated stops, and various sibilants. A few
examples from the Buddhist inscriptions may suffice to show this effect.
a) The confusion of long and short vowels can clearly be seen in the names of bhūtaand bhūtı̄-demons appearing as bhuta and bhui in the Landhoo inscription. While thelatter may represent the “true” Prakrit outcome *bui (> Dhivehi bū), the former with
its intervocalic -t- must be regarded as a Sanskritism with “wrong” short u (and ofcourse, the aspirated bh- is a Sanskritism in both forms). In a similar way, asiti ‘’must stand for Skt. aśı̄ti , not its Prakrit outcome, because of the t being preserved;
cf. the Dhivehi equivalent āhi. From the Sanskrit inscriptions in Evēla akuru, we
may mention the compound vyagrasarmma which obviously represents Skt. vyāghracarma- ‘tiger skin’ but with the ā shortened. In contrast to this, the short i of Skt.
citta ‘mind’ appears as ı̄ in the introductory formula namas samanta’avaks.ı̄ttavadran.ām.
‘Reverenceofthe
Vajrasobviously standing for namas *samantakāyavākcittavajrān.ām.
(of) body, speech and mind all around!’b) The confusion of aspirates and non-aspirates as in vyagra- standing for Skt. vyāghra‘tiger’ can also be seen in the formulaic instigation binda ‘smash!’ representing Skt.
hhbhinda, or in sarva-buta-bam. -kara- ‘causer of. -kāra if this represents sarva-b ūta-b ayam
fear for all beings’. In contrast to this, the Landhoo inscription exhibits pisaccha forthe demon named piśāca in Sanskrit, and Skt. s.t. reflected partly by t.t. (in dut.t.a < dus.t.a‘bad’), partly by t.t.h (in cāsat.t.hi < s.at.s.as.t.i ‘’).
c) Apart from cases like asiti ∼ Skt. aśı̄ti ‘’, cāsat.t.hi < s.at.s.as.t.i ‘’, or sarma < carma‘skin’, the confusion of sibilants manifests itself in the compounds yasimusal.aparasupāsāsta ∼ Skt. asimusalaparaśupāśahasta ‘(You who have) sword, pestle, axe and snarein (your) hand!’ and sad.-muka, probably ∼ Skt. s.ad.-mukha ‘six-faced (one)’, appearing
in the Sanskrit inscriptions. Note that the j of Skt. vajra is substituted by d in vadra,in contradiction to the regular sound change; this might indicate external influences(from some other Indic vernacular transmitting Vajrayāna contents).


For the Sanskrit inscriptions cf. now Gippert to appear.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writingd) In the Buddhist inscriptions, there is no confusion yet of sibilants and h, whichsuggests that the sound change of stage §. (k) had not yet occurred when they
were written. However, the loss of the original h sound (stage §. (b)) and of the
hiatus resulting from it (§. (j)) must have taken place before. This is proven byhypercorrect spellings as in the formula mahā vilamba, where mahā clearly stands forthe negation particle of Skt. mā vilamba ‘don’t be late!’.

The paleographic development of Dives akuru

The Dives akuru documents of the Old and Middle Dhivehi periods we have access tostill exhibit a nearly complete Brāhmı̄ inventory. To illustrate this, the paleographic
development of Dives akuru is outlined in Table  below (pp. ff.), which comprises
materials from the pre-Islamic documents as well as the lōmāfanu’s, fatkol.u’s, and one
longer inscription. The table immediately reveals that the “superfluous” aks.aras for
aspirates or “extra” sibilants tend to be given up in the course of time, leaving only
dh in continuous usage (at the expense of plain d). As a general tendency, we observethat the “secondary” equivalents (aspirates or “special” sibilants) were preferred whensequences of identical aks.aras were to be avoided in narrow contexts. As a special case,the th-aks.ara developed to be a mere gemination marker in ligatures with a preceding
stop, starting from ligatures of tth. The same is true for the aks.ara denoting the velar
nasal ṅ, which is only attested in ligatures with following consonantal aks.aras, often
indicating their gemination in later documents. Another peculiar feature consists inthe fact that from the oldest copper-plate grants onward, the y-aks.aras were used as
equivalents of the aks.aras designating syllables with no consonantial onset; this feature may reflect the historical change of initial y to d- (stage §. (d)) and internal y> Ø (stage §. (h)), which left no syllables beginning with y- except, possibly, after
i where y was a “natural” glide and did not need to be written. Another remarkableproperty is the fact that the j-aks.aras were not used promiscuously with those of othersibilants but as equivalents of d-aks.aras; this may have been caused by Sanskritisms
where j is regularly replaced by d in the documents of Old and Middle Dhivehi asin the Buddhist documents (cf. above). Finally, a considerable amount of spellingvariation emerges from the loss of -u after voiceless consonants in final and syncope
positions, which led to u becoming exchangeable with virāma and vowelless ligatures.
It may suffice here to illustrate the most striking features addressed above with a few
examples.


Cf. Gippert :.
For the abbreviations used cf. Fritz :[II],  ff.; F and F denote two more recently restored
fatkol.u’s of   and . Note that most of the inscriptions are calligraphic, thus exhibiting peculiar
graphic shapes. As a full documentation cannot be attempted here, the table only comprises the basic aks.ara’s
with inherent a-vowel. Aks.ara’s that are not attested as such but extracted from ligatures or the like aremarked with a shaded background.
Note, however, that Dives akuru preserved the original function of the y-aks.aras in certain ligatures. Cf.
Gippert to appear for the use of y-aks.aras in the Sanskrit inscriptions.
“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gippert
Skt. Dhiv.
a

a

ka

} ka

kha
ga
gha

} ga

ṅa

(ṅa) (gem.)ca} ha, sa

cha
ja
jha

} da

ña

(nya)

t.a
t.ha

} t.a

d.a
d.ha

} d.a

n.a
ta

n.a
ta

tha

(gem.)

da

} da

dha
na
pa

na



pa
ba

} ba

bha
ma

ma

Table .



pa



h

PI SI L– L

L

L

L

L

F

F

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

An Outline of the History of Maldivian WritingFF F MM

F

F

F

F

F

F F



“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gippert
Skt. Dhiv.
ya

(y)a

ra

ra

la

la

va

va

śa







s.a
sa
ha






.la

.la

PI SI L– L L L L L F F

ha, saza
Table  (continued).
a) Aks.aras for aspirates mostly occur in contrast with their “plain” equivalents. Thus
we find kh after k in the island name Kakal.os appearing as kakhal.os throughout in L (vs.
kakal.os in L); gh after g in the king’s name Gaganāditya (Skt. ‘Sun of the Heaven(s)’)
spelled gaghanādı̄tya (or dı̄ttha) throughout in the lōmāfanu’s (L–); masdidu, theolder loan for ‘mosque’ (< Arab. masǧid, vs. later miskit) often spelt mas(u)didhu,
sometimes also mas(u)dhidu (L and L); Dam̆bidū, the name of an island reflecting
Skt. Jambudvı̄pa, often spelled dabudhuvu or dhabuduvu (L) besides dabuduvu (L–)and jabuduv- (L, L); the name of the caliph Abūbakr spelled abūbhakaru (L); or
baibat- ‘rice portion’ (Skt. bhagabhakta-) spelled baibhat- alongside baibat- (L, L).
Such constellations may also extend over word-boundaries as in the case of kāpurun‘infidels’ (pl., < Arabic kāfir) once spelled khāpurun after the participle kı̄ ‘speaking’ inL; the participle tibi ‘being’ spelled thibi/ı̄ after matı̄ ‘above’ in L and s.eriyātu ‘sharia(law)’ in L; or even, with a change of the stop involved, in sad.ulu ‘rice’ (MoDh.
han̆d.ū) once spelled sad.hulu after sadakā ‘alms’ (Arab. s.adaqa) in L. Mere variation
may also be the reason for tibi sometimes being spelled tibhi (L–).
The use of the aspirate aks.aras in geminates may be regarded as a special outcome ofthe variation tendency, combinations such as tth alternating with “plain” tt without
any discernible rule in cases like utthara vs. uttara ‘northern’ (Sanskritism, vs. “pure”The relationship with Skt. tan.d.ula- is unclear.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

An Outline of the History of Maldivian WritingFF F MM F

F F

F

F

F F

Dhiv. uturu; L–, F etc.); or sattha vs. satta ‘seven’ (Sanskritism, vs. “pure” Dhiv.
hat(u); L, L). The combination tth is by far the most common of these “hybrid
geminates”. kkh appears only in family names with the element -kokka- (aiyadikokkha,
verukokkha-, vs. poilukokka-; L), while the use of bbh is restricted to pūrbbha ‘eastern’ (Sanskritism, for pūrva) contrasting with pūrbba, pūrbya, pūrubva, and pūrvva
in the lōmāfanu’s and fatkol.u’s, and that of ddh, to the Sanskritizing family namebuddhadisiru(y)a (for *buddhādhisūrya-?) in L. The development of the th-aks.ara intoa mere gemination marker is attested for the Middle Dhivehi period, in words likedakkai ‘showing’ (converb, < Skt. *draks.apayya) spelt dakthai (F) or the island name
Diggaru spelt digtharu (MM).
The voiceless aspirate ph is attested only once so far, in phatimā, the name of amosque in L; this obviously represents Arabic Fāt.ima, the name of the Prophet’s
daughter, with the noteworthy substitution of f not by p, as usual, but by the aspirate
as its closest equivalent.
b) The confusion of aks.aras for sibilants and h can easily be illustrated with examples
such as Skt. senāpati ‘army-leader’ appearing as henevi (in henevi-ras, lit. ‘army-leaderking’, in L) but also as senevi- (in senevi-ras- in L and L) and, as a quasi-Sanskritism,
chenāpati in L. Similarly, Skt. śatru- ‘enemy’ occurs as satru-, sattru (in sat(t)rubaa ‘fear

Cf. also ekusattha ‘’ as a hyper-Sanskritism.

“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gippertof enemies’ ∼ Skt. śatrubhaya), and catru- (in catru-saṅgrasa L vs. sattru-saṅgrahaL ‘seizing of enemies’ ∼ Skt. *śatrusam. graha), while the MoDh term is haturu.
The Skt. epithet cakravarti- ‘emperor’ appears as śakkravartthi in L and sakryavartthi
in L, and the name of the Sumeru mountain, as sumeru in L but s.umeru in L. The
equivalent of Skt. diś- ‘direction’ appears in locative and ablative forms as dise (L–),
dis.e (L) d(h)ihe (L), and disen (L, L), dis.en (L), d(h)ihen (L); correspondingly, we
have a locative dese (L– and L) alongside an ablative decen (L) of Skt. deśa ‘land’.
For the interchangeability of d with j cf. the name of the Buddha which usually appears
as bud(h)u (L, L etc.) but also as bhujāi (comitative) in L vs. “regular” budāi (L,L). The most complex permutation is found in an unexplained term which occurs inthe spellings ujichisu (L) and udhisahi (L) in connection with the Sumeru mountainand sūrya-raśmi- ‘sun-beam’ (śūryāiraśmi L; sūryainrasumi L).
c) The interchangeability of y-aks.aras with plain “vocalic” aks.aras is documented fromthe Sanskrit inscriptions on. Thus we find, within L, the word avurodun ‘year(s)’(originally pl.; Skt. sam. vatsara, borrowed from a non-Insular Prakrit) spelled withboth a- and y-aks.aras side by side, without any context condition discernible (e.g.
nuvavana avurodun vs. nuvavana (y)avurodun ‘ninth year’). In a similar way, the wordal.ā ‘servant’ (definite form) appears as al.ā and (y)al.ā side by side in the fatkol.u of A.H.
, and uturu ‘northern’ (< Skt. uttara-) as uturu and (y)uturu side by side in L. It
seems that only ya occurs after -i-aks.aras as in di(y)asin (< Skt. *udaka-sı̄ma-) ‘water
limit’ (L; in F we read dhyahin with a ligature); however, plain e and u may follow i
as in lievv- ‘writing’ (causative, Skt. likhāpaya-; F) etc. vs. li(y)evv- (F) etc.

The background of the Thaana scriptAs was stated above, the invention of the Thaana script in the late th century brought
about a radical change in Maldivian literacy as there was no more need then to copewith the redundant inventory of aks.aras inherited from antique times. With its twentyfour distinct characters, Thaana is well suited to cover the basic phonemic distinctionsof the modern language, and with its right-to-left directionality it can easily be mixed
with passages written in Arabic script. However, the Thaana characters were neither
derived from Arabic letters nor from Dives akuru aks.aras. Instead, it is clear at once

Attested in the Mahābhārata (..a and elsewhere).
Cf. śatru-nigraham in the Rāmāyana (..a). Note the hypercorrect spelling with -s- instead of -h- inL.


Cf. Fritz : n. .
Both times compounded with mand(h)āra, i.e. Skt. mandara-, the name of another mountain; cf. thecompound sumerumalayamandarasadrśı̄- in the Divyāvadāna (..).
For sibilants in Arabic loanwords cf. Gippert b:–.

It is a mere guess to see a case form of udı̄cı̄ ‘northern’ here (udı̄cı̄s.u loc.pl.?).


˚



“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

An Outline of the History of Maldivian Writing(and has been observed before) that the first nine characters of the Thaana “alphabet” reflect the Arabic (or, rather, Persian) digits from  to ; cf. Table :

Thaana character
Sound value
Persian digit
Numeric value

h

ś

n

r

b

.l

k

8

w



















Table .

It seems not to have been noted that the next nine characters of the Thaana “alphabet” have a “numeric” source, too, viz. in the digits of Dives akuru. As a matter of fact,
Dives akuru had inherited, together with its aks.aras, a full set of one-digit numericsigns including zero, and at least two of the lōmāfanu’s (L and L) provide attestations for them. Comparing the digits as appearing in L with the Thaana charactersfrom m to d. as illustrated in Table , it is clear that the seventh item of the list wasmeant to be the character standing for retroflex n., , which is obsolete today; it waslater replaced by palatal ñ, , which is an obvious modification of the character forplain n, , with an additional tail.

Thaana character
Sound value
Dives akuru digit
Numeric value

/
m

f

d

t

l

g

ñ/n.

s

d.



















Table .

In a similar way, most of the remaining Thaana characters are likely to be secondary
modifications. This is obvious, first of all, for p
which consists of the f-characterwith an additional diacritic dot. It is also obvious for j
and cwhich are built
upon dand t with the same additional tail as in ñ. The same tail can further be
and t.
if they rely upon r
and b . In the case of r and z, this may
seen in z
be a calque of the Arabic script where the latter is derived from the former (with adot, cf. vs. ), while the formation of t. from b may simply be due to the fact that bfollows r in the alphabet just as f (> p) is followed by d (> j). Only for y, , no such
Cf. Gippert :–.
Mostly in numbering the individual plates of the copper plate grant.

Note that the digit ‘’ occurs in mirrored form, too ( ).
Many other characters are used with diacritic dots in the transcription of Arabic words; cf. Fritz :.
“GippertOffprint” — // — : — page  — #

Jost Gippert
explanation is available off-hand; maybe it was modeled upon the glottal stop,
the schematic illustration in Table :

Thaana character
Sound value
Source character

z

t.

y

p

j

c

Sound value

r

b

8

f

d

t

. Cf.

Table .
All this leaves the question open how the alphabetic sequence came about or, inother words, why h etc. were associated with the Arabic numerals from  to  and m
etc., with the corresponding “Indic” numerals. An acrophonic principle can be ruled
out, as only for one letter, w , is there is a certain similarity with the corresponding Arabic letter (wāf, ). The rationale behind the Thaana “alphabet” thus remains
enigmatic.

References
Fritz, Sonja. . The Dhivehi Language. [ vols.] Würzburg: Ergon.
Fritz, Sonja, and Jost Gippert. . “Towards a historical phonology of Maldivian.”In  Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, ed. Manuela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko,
–. Graz: Leykam.
———. . “Bergland unter.” In Chomolongma, Demawend und Kasbek, ed. Brigitte
Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer, and Peter Schwieger, –. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.
Gippert, Jost. . Ogam: Eine frühe keltische Schrifterfindung. Prag: Universitas Carolina.
———. . “Early New Persian as a medium of spreading Islam.” In Persian Origins:
Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian, ed. Ludwig Paul, –.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
———. a. “A glimpse into the Buddhist part of the Maldives. I: An early Prakrit
inscription.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens :–.
———. b. “Schriftgebrauch zwischen Kontinuität und Wandel.” Die Sprache :–, –.
———. . “Sanskrit as a medium of Maldivian Buddhism.” In Indische Kultur im
Kontext, ed. Lars Göhler, –, –. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
———. To appear. “A glimpse into the Buddhist past of the Maldives. II: Two Sanskrit
inscriptions.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens .

