Indian Palaeography c9.s5.2

c9.s5.2

Quite obviously a system with such a large number of symbols must be very different from any known alphabetic scripts. On the other hand, the compound symbols, such as Pl. I*a*. III. 1 (= Pls. I*a*. I. 1 and II*b*. IX. 5), Pl. I*a*. X. 6 (= Pls. I*a*. X. 1 and I*b*. VII. 10), Pl. II*a*. IV. 4 (= Pls. II*a*. III. 7, Pl. I*b*. IV. 3), suggest the same principle as underlies the conjuncts in the later Indian scripts; e.g. म्ह = म + ह; च्य = च् + य; क्ख = क् + ख. Probably this feature led Langdon to propose the syllabic nature of the script, and Hunter further argued that this very nature is preserved right down in modern Indian scripts, which are not truly alphabetic except in the case of the initial vowels (e.g. क is actually क् + अ). This can hardly be dogmatically asserted when the recognizable objects easily suggest pictographic or ideographic meanings. On the other hand, the way in which strokes—horizontal, vertical, or slanting—are added to the original object symbols (e.g. fish sign or jar sign) militates against taking them to be simple pictographs or ideographs. The addition of strokes to the original sign is one of the chief characteristics of the Indus Script. They cannot all be taken to be *guṇa* additions. If they have any other meaning, they suggest different values. But such additional strokes are not to be found at all in homo-signs and some others. Obviously in these cases the pictographic character is preserved. Hence it seems that the nature of the Indus Script is picto-phonographic or ideo-phonographic—included by David Diringer among 'transitional scripts'.