Previous Page
Digits in the Indian Scripts (3)
The existence of two forms for the digit (5) in the Indian scripts being those of the digit (5) in the Arabic-Eastern and Arabic-Western forms, which are the two Arabic forms being geographically and chronically distant; these two ends conduct that the origin of such numerals is not Indian, but rather foreign from India, and every Indian nation has taken out of them as they saw - in some time - directly from its Arabic source through the Arab traders. If that has been an Indian source, the distance I have pointed out to would not have been found together with the forms of the digits in India keeping the same feature of simplicity (lack of artistic complications).
If it was multiple Indian sources inventing the numerals, most numeral forms in India would not have been that nearby in resemblance and simplicity. A similar example to this is just what happens in the life when news transmits from a source, and then some change and exchange would come over on the details at the other end than those at their source, though the news' general purport was kept.
In addition to another logical end, that the connection between Indian nations has not been tangible due to the Indian environment being mostly covered with tropical dense jungles, and seasonal inundation (in an early time of history), beside the weakness of the inter-dealings amongst Indian nations (no inter-trade - because the sorts of products being almost the same, and no tangible knowledge to exchange). That has been the same reason that unified not the eighteen Indian languages, neither unified between the eleven Indian scripts; meantime, the revolving of the Arab traders (the foreigners) around the Indian subcontinent coasts in their trade from Arabian Sea westwards, to Islands of Indonesia, Malaysia and China in the Indian Ocean eastwards - going and coming - represented the ideal transmitter of the Arabic numerals among such Indian nations. Being a seasonal transmitter (once or twice a year), has led to the variation and transformation to the same form of a single digit at the variant Indian nations, particularly putting into consideration that such transmittance of the Arabic numerals from Arabs to variant Indian nations has not been synchronous (has not been done with all of them at the same time).
By contrast, the European nations have preserved the oneness of the Arabic numerals' form (Ghebari) among them, though the surface area of Europe is as over double as that of Indian Subcontinent's, for two reasons:
| ـ | The good connection between the European nations in a relatively later time of the history (when Arabic numerals have transmitted to them) due to the weak environmental challenges among them. The same has also been the reason that limited the number of European scripts to only three: Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic. |
| ـ | The transmittance of the Arabic numerals to Europe has not been confined to the commercial relationship between Arabs and Europe - as it was between Arabs and India - but also tied to the scientific relation, as Arabs represented the source of sciences to Europe from Andalusia (University of Cordoba) and Sicily, and from the Levant through the European students going to its cities such as Baghdad, Basrah (or Busrah), Damascus (Damashq), and Cairo (Qaherat). |
"Zero" in most numeral forms of India is noticed to be rounded and not as a dot, as Ben-Annadeem has described, boosting that Arabs are the proprietors of the Zero's concept, which has also been written rounded among the Arabic-Eastern numerals at its concept's coming up - as we, God willing, will see in the manuscript proofs - and has later on transformed into dot without such transformation happens to it in the Arabic-Western form of numerals. This observation/notice also leads us that Indians had not known that rounded Zero till 975 AD (the average time of Ben-Annadeem); yet, non-Moslem Tamil there have never known it even thereafter.
