8. The alphabets of Northern India.—Subject to Rule 1; except so far as they rest upon the two following assumptions:—1st, That portions of the Hindu literature (the Vedas) are of an antiquity so remote as to be previous to either the invention or the diffusion of the first Semitic alphabet. 2d, That an Indian alphabet of equal antiquity, was necessary to embody them.
Admitting the latter of these two assumptions, I agree with those who doubt the first; and so far from inferring the existence of an ancient alphabet from the Vedaic writings, am inclined to infer a recent date for the Vedaic writings from the absence of an undeniably old and original alphabet.
9. The original alphabets of the Malays of Sumatra, Celebes, the Philippines, &c.—Subject to Rules 1 and 4.
10. The Tuarick alphabet of Oudney and Richardson.—So deficient in signs of antiquity as to come under Rule 3.[185]
11. 12. The[186]Cherokee and Vei Alphabets.—Manifestly subject to Rule 3.
Fig. 18.
14. The Chinese and its derivatives.—It is chiefly on the strength of Rule 4, taken along with the general unsatisfactory character of the evidence as to the antiquity of the Chinese civilization, that I allow no greater claims to originality to this than to any of the preceding alphabets.
Upon the whole, it may safely be said that no known alphabet, except the Semitic, has any very strong claims to be considered as an original and independent invention, by any one who admits the validity of the four foregoing rules, and recognizes the full difficulty and complexity of the notation of sounds addressed to the ear, by lines and points addressed to the eye.