Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10: Analysis of the Tables of Signs

The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10

Language
English

Contents

Analysis of the Tables of Signs

Analysis of Tables I and VI

c10.s1.1

It will be shown on the completion of the analysis of these tables that we have only 234 distinct signs, apart from compounds. Now the Brahmi script makes provision for 33 consonantal and 8 vowel sounds (ă (inherent) ā, i, ī, u, ū, ē, o). Now a syllabary consisting of 33 consonants each articulated with 8 following vowels would give us 264 signs. The number of syllabic signs required to form a simple syllabary of open syllables to represent Brahmi sounds 50 closely approaches the number of signs on our Texts that we may be moved to assume that our script is mainly a syllabary of this kind, as a first working hypothesis; provided of course we are previously impressed by the evidence of the Brahmi signs being derived from the Proto-Indian.¹ But this hypothesis has not been assumed before first investigating the script to discover whether an ideographic conception was tenable. It is not. There is clear evidence in Table I itself of the presence of phonetic elements. We may first take the sequence 𐍈 𐍈. Of this 𐍈 𐍈 will be seen to be a simple variant. 𐍉 𐍉 (variant 𐍉 𐍉 ) is clearly closely allied. For 𐍈 𐍈 is followed by 𐍈 final or quasi-final² in every case save one (T. VI. 31) and 𐍉 with its variants is similarly followed in every case save one (T. VI. 5). Now if we compare 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 with 𐀀 preceded by other signs, we shall find that of the 17 signs and sign-groups found immediately preceding 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 no less than 16 are also found immediately preceding 𐀀 alone, and that frequently. Compare T. I. Nos. 6-20, 22-38, with Tables LV, LXV, XXXIV¹, XCII, LIX, XIII, LI, XLVI, XXXI, LXXXIV, VII, XVI. In these 16 combinations the proportion of occurrences with an intercalated 𐀀 or 𐀃 to those without is as follows:

c10.s1.2

¹ See evidence of Comparative Morphographic Table. It is not to be inferred that any relation between the language of the Proto-Indians and the Aryan of the Asoka edicts is implied. Sanskrit and Pali and the other Prakrits had by this time absorbed the phonetic elements, notably the cerebral sounds of the Dravidian population.

c10.s1.3

² The 𐍉 in Table VI Nos. 18-21 is an independent suffix. See analysis of Table LVIII.

c10.s1.4

| 𐀄 | 3:8; | 𐀅 | 3:7; | 𐀆 | 1:4¹; | 𐀇 | 1:1; |
| 𐀈 | 1:7; | 𐀉 | 2:3; | 𐀊 | 2:1; | 𐀋 | 1:4; |
| 𐀌 | 1:1²; | 𐀍 | 1:5; | 𐀎 | 1:3; | 𐀏 | 1:6; |
| 𐀐 | 1:2³; | 𐀑 | 3:3; | 𐀒 | 7:2; | 𐀓 | 1:1. |

c10.s1.5

¹ See Analysis of Table XXXIV for identification of 𐀐 with 𐀐

c10.s1.6

² It is possible that this bird sign is a variant of the bird sign in No. 21 of Table I. In that case the proportion will be 2:1, and incidentally all 17 of the signs preceding 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 will have been found preceding 𐀀

c10.s1.7

³ For identification of 𐀐 with 𐀐 see analysis of Table XXXI.

c10.s1.8

There seems good reason to conclude that 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 is a 'spelling-out' (as we so frequently have in Sumerian and Assyrian names) for 𐀀. It is probable that 𐀀, which is so often final, is an open syllable. The principle which we see in Brahmi of regarding the simple form of every sign as containing an inherent final ă; and the fact that to this day in the Indian vernaculars words that we should regard as terminating in a consonant (from their pronunciation) are always regarded by the Indian grammarians as possessing a final ă and written accordingly; and the fact that in Sumerian, words appear to have been similarly so regarded, since the Sumerian never says lugal-na, lugal-ka but always lugala-na, lugala-ge etc., should make us be prepared to regard signs which are normally final (as 𐎠 is) as open syllables: while a sign which like 𐎡, 𐎢 is never final we may provisionally regard as a closed syllable. If then 𐎠𐎡 is a 'spelling-out' it is something in the nature of ak-ka. Whether this doubling of the consonant in the script had any counterpart in pronunciation (as in Assyrian) or not (as in Sumerian) is difficult to say. If it had it may well have been due to the quantity of the preceding vowel. The combination 𐎠 𐎣 is peculiarly interesting. Not only from its appearance, but from the fact that it is always followed immediately by 𐎠 final, we may be sure that it is a compound and that one of its elements is 𐎣 . The other element is clearly 𐎤 (see Table XVI). It is equally certain that this compound is phonetic and not ideographic. If it were ideographic, then by all our knowledge of ideographic writing its meaning must necessarily be different from 𐎣 . How then shall we account for its being found invariably in the same circumstances as 𐎣 . But this is not all. 𐎡 and 𐎢 though closely allied as shown from their relationship to 𐎠 are not actually variants. This is clear from the regularity and difference of their antecedents. If we take 𐎣 as ak we may take 𐎤 as ek¹. Probably the selection of one or other of these syllables in the 'spelling-out' process was influenced by the quality of the vowel of the preceding syllables, a principle common to Sumerian and many languages - vowel harmony. Now it is surely most significant that these same alternations of 𐎣 and 𐎤 are observable in the compound formed with 𐎤 . If then there is a difference of initial vowel as between 𓂝 and 𓂜 there is clearly a vowel difference between 𓂝 and 𓂞 . But if 𓂞 be a full syllable in itself, as must be presumed, and if that syllable is fully pronounced in the compound, then, with this constant syllable intervening, the carrying of vowel harmony over and in spite of it on to 𓂝 would be incomprehensible. But suppose that the syllable 𓂞 is, on combination with 𓂝 truncated, that it loses its vowel, that ba-ak becomes bak; ba-ek, bēk. Then everything is explained: the syllable bak has become bēk under the influence of something antecedent. In other words the compound represents the contraction or an open and closed syllable into one 'compound' syllable, and the first element in the compound has been reduced to a mere consonant, it has lost its inherent ă, it is what the Sanskrit grammarians call halant. This is precisely the principle governing the formation of compound (Samyukta) signs in Brahmi and Nagari to this day. If we are right the sequence 𓂝𓂞 (which twice occurs) is to be read ba-ka, while 𓂝𓂞 is b'ak-ka; a mere graphic variant as in Sumerian.

c10.s1.9

¹ It is of course to be understood that the selection of any particular consonant or vowel for purposes of illustration in the analysis of the Tables is arbitrary. For the selection of vowels see Analysis of table XXIX.

c10.s1.10

With regard to the sign 𓂝 and its variant form 𓂜 , the latter is probably original, and may be taken to represent a pair of arms with hands. This is one of the signs that shows affinity with Egyptian. See Gardiner, E.G. p. 445.D.28. The sign 𓂞 , which as we have shown is but 𓂝 articulated with a different vowel, is morphographically so akin to 𓂝 that it may well have arisen from it. This would imply the deliberate differentiation of signs to supply cognate phonetic symbols. There is abundant evidence of this elsewhere, as will be noted in the analysis of other Tables. In the present instance this differentiation will have been made by adding to 𐀀 a horizontal stroke in each half,¹ producing 𐀁 The further modification to 𐀂, 𐀃 is probably of the gunu order, and without effect on sense or sound.² The deliberate modification of a given sign to provide a symbol for a cognate phonetic value would presumably arise first in the case of syllables which, not forming a complete word in the language, or forming a word that was difficult or cumbersome to express ideographically, could not be written otherwise. It is an intelligent device that the cuneiform users seem never to have taken, being content to the end to represent e.g. ah, ih, uh by a single symbol. As far as we know Proto-Indian would appear to have been the first script to adopt this device. It is not without interest to observe that Ethiopic and Brahmi have the same traits. With regard to the shape of 𐀄, it probably represents a vase or jar with two handles, the upper horizontal elements representing the lips of the vase, the lower its handles. For the variety of its shapes and its Sumerian and Egyptian affinities see the Comparative Table.

c10.s1.11

¹ The symmetry of Proto-Indian signs is one of the characteristics of the script. It is in harmony with the artistic sense of its users, so abundantly exemplified in their glyptic designs on these very seals. In the modification of signs this symmetrical principle was continued, each equal portion (whether ½ or ⅓) of the sign receiving the same modifying strokes. See Tables V, XV, XIII, LXXIV, LXXV, LXXVI, CII, CVII.

c10.s1.12

² As often is the case with Sumerian gunu signs.

c10.s1.13

With regard to the meaning of 𐀄, at any rate of 𐀄 final, we may say that it is an affix. That it is an affix is suggested (1) by its normal position at the end of the text, (2) that it is preceded by well defined sign groups which there is reason to regard as complete words, either names of gods used in the formation of proper names, or titles, (3) that when it is found in the body of the text it is normally preceded by precisely the same combinations. That it is a suffix which is not a determinative is probable for the following reasons: (1) If 𝍖 be a determinative its frequency indicates that it is one of a very wide class. 'Man' and 'scribe' are the only two that seem possible. But if it is either of these how do we account for its presence on the copper coins where we should expect rather the determinatives of king or ruler? If we reply that the determinative 𝍖 = man was probably used after all men's names whether rulers or not, then how do we explain the fact that a large number of typical square seals end in 𝍗 or 𝍘 which, as is shown in the analysis of Tables XV and LXVIII, stand in exactly the same relation to their antecedent words as 𝍖 does to its antecedent words? So that if 𝍖 is a determinative then they also are determinatives. No! If 𝍖 is a determinative after men's names it is only one of several, and it would be difficult to account for its prevalence on the coins, in place of one of the more distinctive determinatives. While if we are right in deciphering one of these coins 'King of the land', 𝍖 would have to be regarded as a determinative either of 'king' or 'land', which in view of its prevalence on the seals, is impossible. So much for the negative evidence.

c10.s1.14

(2) That 𝍖 is a suffixed element in name-formation is strongly suggested by a comparison of Tables I and LXVIII. It will be seen that 𝍘 like 𝍖 is normally final. Like 𝍖, if followed by any single sign, it is followed by 𝍙, 𝍚. Like 𝍖 it is preceded by well defined sign-groups that clearly constitute words. But, the three distinguishable words that precede 𝍘, viz., 𝍛, 𝍜, 𝍝, 𝍞, occurring as they do 26 times are never once found preceding 𝍖, while of all the many sign-groups found regularly preceding 𝍖 not one is found preceding ⌂. Are we to assume that all the men whose names ended in, say., Enlil, Nannar, -mansum, were leather workers, and all other men whatsoever were scribes? For that is the position to which we are reduced if we insist on regarding ⌙ and ⌂ as determinatives.

c10.s1.15

We must now consider the forms ⌙ etc. Table I, Nos. 348-400, Col. IV. The first thing we notice is that these forms are never found at the end of a text. Secondly we note that they are often found with the same antecedents as ⌙. Compare Nos. 269-273 with 348-353, 375-6, 387; Nos. 49-65 with 354; Nos. 164-168 with 359. Nos. 243-245 with 360; No.309 with 364; No. 321 with 365; No. 43-44 with 367-368; 330-331 with 369; 157-163 with 372, 376; 195-197 with 373, 398; 290 with 382; 138-148 with 392, 399; 215-217 with 400.

c10.s1.16

The example ⌙⌠, ⌙⌠, ⌙⌠, ⌙⌠ has this peculiarity: it is the one combination commonly found with ⌙ in which ⌙ is not final. In all the other combinations with ⌙, the ⌙ is final in the totality or large majority of occurrences; with ⌠ it is not once final, but on the contrary, in all five occurrences the combination is initial. But I doubt if this signifies anything more than that this combination is a name (of a deity?) that lent itself to employment as an initial element in the formation of proper names. When we find ⌙⌠ it is the same word with a change of vowel in the final syllable. In the case of this word ⌙ would appear to have its normal use as a suffix, and consequently ⌙, ⌙, ⌙ also. But there is no reason to suppose that in their other¹ occurrences the ⌙ group are other than the syllabic elements of roots. It is significant that the great majority of combinations commonly found preceding ⌙ are not found preceding the ⌙ group (i.e. the signs in the 4th column of Table I, pp. 6 & 7). Thus both the form of the signs, which suggest deliberate differentiation from 𐀀 , and the circumstances of their occurrence combine to show that they are syllables allied to but not identical¹ with 𐀁 . Taking this evidence in conjunction with what has been observed concerning the modification of 𐀀 we may assume as a working hypothesis that both in the case of open and in the case of closed syllables signs were modified by the addition of short straight lines to represent syllables containing the same consonant but a different vowel.

c10.s1.17

¹ i.e. other than those in which a comparison with ⌙ has been invited above.

c10.s1.18

¹ A further proof that they are not identical is that 𐀀 is found on one and the same seal in conjunction with other members of the group. It will be observed however that of the other members no two varieties are found on the same inscription suggesting that they are mere variants of each other, or phonetically interchangeable. This is further borne out by the presence of the same sequences with different members of the 𐀀 group, which are not found with 𐀀 . Cf. Nos. 361 and 381; 355 and 386; 357 and 390; 372 and 378.

c10.s1.19

We may now consider the function of certain signs that follow 𐀀 when the latter would otherwise be final. These are 𐀂, 𐀃, 𐀄 and 𐀅 .

c10.s1.20

Now 𐀂 follows not only 𐀀 , but 𐀆 (which we have seen is functionally similar to 𐀀 ) and a miscellaneous collection of signs (see Table LVIII). It is probably a suffix. Allowing for the difference in the number of inscriptions as between Mohenjodaro and Harappa this sign is proportionately seven times as frequent in Harappa, where it appears on 77 texts as against 20 at Mohenjodaro. But these are mostly business receipts (see analysis Table LVIII). 𐀃 occurs twice after 𐀀 and four times after other signs. It is in every case final. It may be taken as a determinative. (See Table LXIV). 𐀃 in 9 out of its 10 occurrences (see Table XI) is final. It follows 𐀀 3 times, and of its other antecedents one is 𓃀 . It may be taken as a determinative. 𓊪 is final in 6 out of 7 occurrences (see Table CIV). It follows 𓍿 4 times, and 𓃀 twice. It is probably a determinative.

c10.s1.21

𓂋 when final is preceded by 𓍿 13 times out of a total of 15. The proportion is so high as to suggest that it may stand in functional relationship to the 𓍿 it follows. It is perhaps the determinative of the word 'servant' (𓍿 𓂋). That in point of grammar and syntax the combination of 𓂋 𓍿 appears to hold the same position as 𓍿 simple is suggested by the fact that, like 𓍿 , when final it is liable to be followed by the determinative suffixes 𓇋 and 𓏏, 𓊪 (see Table XLIX, 11, 14).

c10.s1.22

We may now examine the condition of that 𓍿 which is neither final nor quasi-final, but truly medial, being followed by several signs which are clearly words or portions of words, and not mere determinatives or suffixes. We shall observe a very interesting phenomenon. 𓍿 medial is preceded by signs which form complete words, sometimes complete texts! . The same words which precede 𓍿 final. It is then performing the same function as 𓍿 final. The sense of the inscription may then be said to halt at this 𓍿 medial, just as it does at 𓍿 final; i.e. we have reached the end of a word or phrase, complete with suffix; what follows must be something new - a further name or title. And this inference is confirmed by an examination of what follows medial 𓍿 in our texts. It reveals that medial 𓍿 is followed by complete names, sometimes found by themsevles as complete texts. The best illustrations of the argument in this paragraph are:-

c10.s1.23

Table I. 17, compared with I. 14-16 on the one hand, which shows that 𐀁𐀂𐀃 is a complete text¹; and LXX. 2,6,7 on the other hand, which shows that 𐀄𐀅 is a complete text.

c10.s1.24

Table I, 41 compared with I, 39 and VII, 1, 49, 45, 48 and passim.

c10.s1.25

T. I. 51² compared with T. I, 50 and XI, 2, 19, 27, 38, 37, 39, 78, 97.

c10.s1.26

T. I, 139 compared with T. I, 138 and XI, 28, 46, 47.

c10.s1.27

T. I, 106 " " T. I, 103 and I, 206, 209.

c10.s1.28

T. I, 230 " " T. I, 122 and I, 200 and Table LXXXVI³.

c10.s1.29

T. I, 192 " " T. I, 191, 193, 194 and Table XII, 3, 2, 4, 14.

c10.s1.30

T. I, 213 " " T. I, 212, 211 and T. I. 243-245.

c10.s1.31

Other examples might be given, but these are sufficient to substantiate our contention.

c10.s1.32

In Nos. 339, 341-347 𐀁 appears to be used simply as a syllable forming part of a word; in these cases it has probably no sense-connection with 𐀁 the suffix.

c10.s1.33

It remains to consider Nos. 4, 5 and 385 of Table I. If, as we have reason to believe, 𐀁𐀂 and 𐀁𐀂 are merely a spelling out of the same word (with a dialectal or euphonic modification of its pronunciation) which word when suffixed is usually written 𐀁, it follows from Nos. 4 and 5 that the full word is a bi-syllable ak-ka (perhaps pronounced as though containing a single consonant). Now it has been urged that this word is a mere suffix. How then do we explain its appearance alone? A clue to the explanation is afforded

c10.s1.34

1. On 𐀆𐀆 = 𐀆𐀇 see analysis of Table XIII, and on the detachable nature of 𐀈 and its antecedents see analysis of Table XXX.

c10.s1.35

2. with regard to the short perpendicular stroke ' being a mere liaison semi-vowel, virtually equivalent to a point of punctuation see Table XXIX analysis.

c10.s1.36

3. From which it will appear that 𐀉𐀊 is a word in itself.

c10.s1.37

by No. 385, where 𐍈 is found alone on each face of the prism (H. 77). While at Harappa I did not copy the design accompanying each of these 𐍈 in the blank portion of the prism, as I did not at that time appreciate its importance; I made a record in my notes however that the design was a figure like that shown on M. 440, facing right on face (a), left on face (b), and the figure of a woman (?) facing right on face (c). In the case of No. 4 (M. 24) the design on the reverse of the coin was too effaced to be distinguishable, while regarding No. 5 (M. 503) I observed one horn and a portion of an animal whose identity I could not determine. Now it has been shown above that 𐍈 and 𐍉 are allied sounds, and that in the case of the word 𐍈𐍊, 𐍈𐍊 they are undoubtedly variant pronunciations of one and the same word. I suggest then that in 𐍈𐍈, 𐍈𐍈 = 𐍈 and in 𐍈 of Nos. 4, 5, and 385 respectively we have the final element (suffix) of the word 𐍈𐍊, the 𐍊 portion being represented pictorially by the divine or heroic figure. In other words 𐍊 is the name of the figure in H. 77 and M. 440. If this is so, as what sort of a suffix are we to regard 𐍈? If the three seals are intended to give the owner's name, like all other seals, this name can hardly be Enlil-la-ge or Enlil-ra but only warad-enlil; or, to give a Hindu parallel which will be closer as preserving the order of the Proto-Indian, not Narayan-ka or Narayan-ko, but Narayan-Dass. In other words 𐍈 final is a suffix not in the sense of a grammatical suffix but as a suffixed element, 'servant' or the like, used in the formation of proper names.

c10.s1.38

The last 3 signs in Col. IV of Table VI are compounds. The last is a phonetic compound for 𐍈𐍋. If 𐍈 and 𐍋 are both closed syllables, as there is reason to believe (see analysis of Table XXIV) there can be no case of contraction or elision here. The compound will be either ideographic or integral (i.e. each syllable being pronounced fully as is the case with Sumerian compound phonograms.) The two preceding signs are probably phonetic compounds of the integral sort. The compound is resolved in text No. 5. The reason for writing integral syllables as a compound is probably the same as in Sumerian: viz., that they form one word.

c10.s1.39

¹ In which case the coins M. 25-31 should be read not 'King of the land' but 'servant (of the) King (of the) land.'

Analysis of Table II

c10.s2.1

The similarity of the form of the signs in Col. IV suggests that they may be variants or represent allied sounds. That they are not all variants is clear from No. 22, where U and U appears on the same text. But that U is closely allied to U in sound and can take its place, is clear from a comparison of Nos. 15 and 16. It is interesting to compare U with V . For just as V is clearly a member of the V group (cf. I. 401 with I. 391 and I. 51, 139. 331, 357) and probably a graphic variant of V ; so U clearly belongs to the U group and is probably a graphic variant for U , which is not found on these texts (perhaps to avoid confusion with U which is ideographically quite distinct). Again a comparison of Nos. 24 and 25 shows that U and U are variants, which again is parallel in the V group. The sequences in Table II give no direct evidence as to the value of U , but the analogy of the V group suggests that U should be regarded as phonetically allied to U and U . There is nothing repugnant to this in the sequences, while the morphography of the sign strongly supports such a view. We may conclude therefore that U is a syllable. That the remainder are graphic variants of a sign which was formed by a deliberate modification of U to represent an allied syllable.

c10.s2.2

The last two signs in Col. IV are variants of each other. The sign is a compound of U and ☤ .

Analysis of Table III

c10.s3.1

Really no evidence on which to form an opinion. The similarity of shape suggests that the two signs in Col. IV are identical. If it is phonetic its rarity is a matter for surprise, unless it be a compound. It may possibly be a compound of U and ◰, ◱, ◲, (see Table CIII). It is seen from ◳ and ◴ that U and ◰ are found elsewhere as compounds. (See Tables II and XXVI).

Analysis of Table IV

c10.s4.1

That the first two signs in Col. IV are simple variants is suggested by a comparison of Nos. I & 2. That the 3rd and 4th signs are also variants is virtually certain from their shape. That the 6th and 7th are either variants of the above or at least allied is implied by the sequences of Nos. 5, 6, 7. That the 10th sign is a variant of the 5th and 6th is suggested by the sequence ☵ ☶ . The 8th and 9th are clearly variants of each other. The last sign has a sequence in common with the 6th. Regarding the 7th we can only note its shape and its initial position in favour of regarding it as a variant of the group 5-11 (cf. Col. IV). On the analogy of Tables I, II and VI we may accept this group as variants. On the same analogy we should be inclined to treat group 1-4 not as a variant of group 5-11 but as an allied syllable, or gunu variety.

Analysis of Table V

c10.s5.1

The principle reason for including the signs in Col. IV under one Table is their shape. With regard to the 2nd and 3rd we have also the community of the suffixed 𝒱 . The similarity of shape between these two signs is also most marked. The additional stroke in the second of them recalls the addition of strokes to the base form of the sign in Tables I, II, IV, VI, and suggests that here also we have the modification of a sign to serve as the symbol of an allied sound. The 4th sign in Col. IV is sufficiently like the 2nd and 3rd signs, and sufficiently unlike any other sign in our texts to warrant its inclusion in the Table. We may take it provisionally then as a simple variant of the 2nd sign.¹ The inclusion of the first sign 𝒱 has less to support it as regards shape, and the sign would not have been included at all but for the fact that it is preceded by 𝒰 . This sign belongs to a comparatively rare group (Table LXXI) and the fact that it is twice found preceding 𝒲 suggested the possibility that 𝒱 (which was otherwise unconnectable with any sign) might be a later and simplified or cursive form of 𝒲 .

c10.s5.2

¹ Or as a gunu variant, from intermediary forms 𝒵 𝒵

Analysis of Table VII

c10.s6.1

It is clear from the sequences that the signs in Col. IV of this Table are simple variants, except the last three. With regard to the sign 𝒲 , we may compare No. 63 with Nos. 26, 27; No. 64 with No. 38; No. 65 with No. 58 (there is reason to think that 𝒳 is phonetically allied to 𝒴 , see analysis of Table XLIII) No. 66 with No. 55. But the similarity of sequences is not very close. In particular it is to be noted that this sign is not followed by ||| , and does not appear as initial or quasi-initial, whereas 𐀀 , 𐀁 are normally initial or quasi-initial (i.e. preceded by signs which are either whole words or prefixes. It will be shown later that all the members of the fish group, and 𐀂 are in the nature of prefixes). The sign is then related to, but not identical with, 𐀁 (of which 𐀀 is a less complete and probably later form). Now it will be observed that graphically the respect in which 𐀁 differs from 𐀃 is precisely in the addition of two short strokes. In view of what has been said in the analysis of the previous tables we may safely assume that here also we have a case of a syllabic sign being modified to represent a phonetically cognate syllable. We shall also on the same grounds take the penultimate sign in Col. IV as a simple variant of 𐀁 . Of course the variation may be of the gunu order and the syllable still be phonetically allied. The last sign may be a phonetic compound in view of its shape and the fact that it is initial. For if 𐀁 be the initial part of the compound we should expect to find it initial in the text, as 𐀀 is frequently initial or quasi-initial. That 𐀁 is the initial part of the compound we may assume, partly because it appears above the other portion, and partly on the analogy of Brahmi and its derivative Nageri which place the second element in a compound either after or below the first part, (an example of the second part placed after the first has already been noticed in Proto-Indian in the compound 𐀄 ). On the other hand if we take our sign as a compound it is difficult to identify the second element. Is it 𐀅 ? (see T. LVIII. Col. IV. last two signs). This seems the most probable explanation. If we regard it not as a compound but as a single sign it is to be observed that there is no sign in Sumerian or Egyptian with which it may be compared. There is of course the sign given as No. T. 24 page 500 of Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar, but this does not contain the element 𓆰 which would appear to be an essential part of the sign. I shall assume therefore provisionally that the sign is a compound of 𐎺 and 𐎷 .1

Analysis of Table VIII

c10.s7.1

The sign in Col. IV appears to be distinct. Morphographically its nearest neighbour is 𐎠𐎡 . But an examination of the sequences in Tables VIII and XV make it appear most unlikely that this resemblance is other than coincidental.

Analysis of Table IX

c10.s8.1

It is morphographically improbable that the two signs in Col. IV are other than simple variants. Again there is nothing to connect them with any other sign. If their sequences showed any striking resemblance to the 𐎷 group (which like this group seems to represent a plant of sorts) one might admit the possibility of a causal connective; but they do not.

Analysis of Table X

c10.s9.1

The signs in Col. IV are clearly all variants. They differ only as regards the shape of the enclosed element, and the varieties of this are precisely the same as the varieties of that element when it appears alone (see Table XI) where it can be shown that they are all variants (see analysis of Table XI). That the various signs in Col. IV of Table X are all variants is also evident from the sequences.

c10.s9.2

Alternatively it may be explained as 𐎺 modified by the vowel ū.

c10.s9.3

With regard to the function of this sign, we shall observe that (a) it is frequently initial, (b) it is never final, (c) it normally precedes signs that can be shown to be prefixes (like the fish-group) or sign-groups that are in themselves whole words; e.g. in Nos. 9, 11, 34-38, 39, 46, 50. It is clearly then frequently a prefix¹, probably in every case except Nos. 41-45, when it appears to be the second element in the word [Figure: ].

c10.s9.4

¹ By prefix is always to be understood "prefixed element in the system of name-formation" unless otherwise indicated.

c10.s9.5

With regard to the fact that [Figure: ] is never found final while [Figure: ] is so found and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, see analysis of Table XXXI. It has been noted that this sign contains two elements [Figure: ] and [Figure: ], which elements are also found independent in our script. (See Tables XI and XXVI). Are we then to consider it as a compound phonogram? In this case it must be either [Figure: ] or [Figure: ]. Now if it is [Figure: ] it is strange that it is never final. If it is [Figure: ] it is strange that it is never preceded by one of the numeral signs which so commonly precede [Figure: ].

c10.s9.6

I conclude that it is not a compound phonogram but (in origin) a compound ideogram as in Sumerian. (See Appendix II p. 6 No. 99). The sign then represents a garden - a tree in an enclosure². It is not likely however that it retained this sense in our texts. It is difficult to see how a garden or cattlepen could be utilised as a prefixed element in the formation of proper names, and a very common element withal. No! In our texts it is doubtless used as a simple phonogram, homophonous no doubt with the original ideogrammatic value, or an abbreviation of the latter, but unconnected with it in meaning. This feature probably holds good of the large majority of the signs in our texts. They were doubtless all formerly used ideographically, either in Proto-Indian or in the scripts where they originated, but have by the period of our Texts come to be used as mere phonograms. Whether when borrowed (in the case of those that bear evidence of borrowing) they were borrowed as idograms or phonograms, must be decided in each case on the evidence of the comparative Tables. Where a Proto-Indian sign can be identified both with an Egyptian or Sumerian sign and with a sign in Cypriote, Brahmi, or Sabaean, and the phonetic values of the former and latter coincide, we may infer that Proto-Indian borrowed the sign as a phonogram. When this is not the case we may infer that the Proto-Indians borrowed the sign as an ideogram, utilised it to represent a word in their own tongue of the same meaning, but of course phonetically different, and passed it on with their own phonetic value, which would be quite independent of its phonetic value in the script of origin.

c10.s9.7

² The motif of the Sumerian parallel is however different. A closer approximation in motif is the Sumerian sign No. 20, p. 1. This means "cattlepen" which may be the original ideographic meaning of the Proto-Indian sign also.

Analysis of Table XI

c10.s10.1

It is clear from the sequences that all the signs in Col. IV except the last two are variants. The characteristics of this sign are (1) that it is normally final or quasi-final, (2) that it is normally preceded either by a numeral sign or by [Figure: ]. On the significance of the numeral signs see Analysis of Table XXXI. The sign is presumably a tree. It has two characteristic forms [Figure: ], [Figure: ] wherein the position of the branches relative to the trunk (or stem, if we consider it a plant rather than a tree) is symmetrical, and [Figure: ], [Figure: ] where it is not. This difference in morphography is marked, and seems to refer back to the (probable) Proto-Elamitic origin of the sign.¹ If we examine Del. au Perse XVII. Pl. III, No. 17, we shall see three kinds of tree or plant. Two of them have the upper portion thus 𐎀 , and are differentiated only by the number and position of their lower leaves or branches. They are evidently varieties of the same species², since in the total they are enumerated together. The third kind has the upper portion symmetrical thus 𐎁 , and is enumerated separately. It is virtually certain that the two species had separate names in Proto-Elamite. Yet their forms in Proto-Indian serve clearly to represent one single word:— are simple graphic variants. The most probable explanation is that the signs were taken over into Proto-Indian as ideograms: that in the Indus valley people did not, in the spoken tongue, differentiate between the two species of plant, and therefore did not differentiate in their script, but used the two signs indiscriminately to represent the word which, for them, covered the two species. From this it follows that at least one, probably many, and possibly all of the Proto-Indian signs borrowed or descended from Proto-Elamite, or collaterally descended with Proto-Elamite from a common ancestor, had at the moment of their borrowing, descent, or severance (according to the hypothesis we adopt) ideographic rather than phonetic import, and were on their first appearance in Proto-Indian ideograms and not phonograms. With regard to the last signs in Col. IV, they are clearly variants of one another since they differ only in the curvature of the 𐎂 element. But they are clearly not variants of the remainder of the group, since (a) the sequences found with the remainder are conspicuously absent, (b) the sequences found with them are found nowhere else in the Table. In particular 𐍊 is one of the very few signs of common occurrence that are now-here found preceded by 𐍈. And this is not surprising since what follows 𐍈 is always the beginning of a word¹, whereas 𐍊 is normally (perhaps invariably) the final element in a word. That it is this rather than a general suffix is indicated by the fact that it is found after relatively few sounds, and relatively many times after each of them. We may here anticipate the discussion on the numerals to remark that 𐍊 preceded by a numeral probably indicates such a word as the Latin secundus, tertius, sextus etc., and like the Latin names may be used either alone as in Nos. 2, 32, 33, 36, 46, 79, 86, 96, 101, or in combination with another word like Octavius Caesar. It will be noted that in all but two cases Nos. 28 and 11 it follows the word it qualifies, from which we may provisionally assume that in Proto-Indian the adjective normally follows the noun. It would seem also that the syllable 𐍊 is the ordinal suffix, or capable of serving as such, like Sumerian -kam. From the case of No. 11 it would appear that the word for 'eight' in Proto-Indian was phonetically of such a kind as to coalesce with this ordinal suffix to form one syllable, e.g. ba-ra = bra.² Returning to the last two signs of Col. IV in Table XI, it is probable that they represent a syllable allied to 𐍊. The form of modification 𐍋 is however peculiar. It seems to be different from the form of modification by the addition of strokes. It will be discussed later.

c10.s10.2

¹ The Proto-Elamitic origin is strongly suggested by the fact that the varieties of this sign in Col. IV are precisely the varieties of the sign (signs ?) in Proto-Elamitic. See the Comparative Table.

c10.s10.3

² Op. cit. p. 3.

c10.s10.4

¹ See analysis of Tables XXX and XXIX.

c10.s10.5

² It is of course possible that this and other compound phonograms may be integral compounds in which both syllables preserve their full value as in Sumerian. (See Appendix pp. ). But we have shown that in one case at least, 𐍌 there is a strong probability of elision of the final vowel of the first syllable.

Analysis of Table XII

c10.s11.1

The sequences show that all the signs in Col. IV are simple variants. The sign is always final except in No. 20. It is clearly not a general suffix but the second element in a word, except in Nos. 17-20 where it may be an independent word in itself. The internal strokes are of the gunu order and do not affect the phonetic value.

Analysis of Table XIII

c10.s12.1

That the first two signs in Col. IV are identical with the third sign is suggested by a comparison of text 1 with 8, 88-92; and 2 with 3-22. They are probably late and simplified forms of 𓆛 . With regard to 𓆛 , the form itself and its Sumerian and Egyptian resembling forms, suggest a fish. With regard to its function we may note first that it appears to be the second element in certain words, notably 𓆛𓏏, 𓆛𓏤. Secondly we shall note that in a large number of contexts it appears to be a prefix, appearing either as initial, 66, 78, 88, 89, 96, 97, 101, 102, 112, or quasi-initial after other prefixes or whole words, 23, 33, 34, 41, 90-95, 99, 100; and usually followed by sign groups which are whole words: 23, 25, 64, 77-79, 88-94, or by the signs which are commonly suffixed; 𓏤 passim, 𓏏 61-63, 𓆛𓏤 86, 87. From this it is clear that 𓆛 frequently appears as a word complete in itself which is often used before proper names, see especially H. 145 and M. 209 where the words which follow 𓆛 in 88 and 94 respectively are found as complete texts.

c10.s12.2

𓆛 unlike 𓆛 does not appear to be intimately connected with any sign, as 𓆛 is with 𓏏 and 𓏤 But apart from this it is surprisingly like 𓆛 . Almost every one of the signs both following and preceding it are also found with 𓆛 used as a prefix. When to this fact is added the marked graphic similarity it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that 𓆛 and 𓆜 are allied syllables representing dialectal variations of one and the same word. That the variation is dialectal rather than euphonic may be inferred from a comparison of 41 with 120, and 34 with 119, wherein respectively antecedents and sequents are identical.

c10.s12.3

𓆛 appears from its shape, its position in the texts in which it occurs, and the sequences in which it is found to be exactly parallel to 𓆜 . They are probably both formed from 𓆙 by the addition of an internal stroke. But they are clearly not identical in view of the fact that both varieties are found on the same text (see Nos. 126, 127, 130).

c10.s12.4

Phonetically 𓆛 would appear to be more closely allied to 𓆜 than to 𓆙 since both appear in sequence with 𓆞𓂧 . This as we shall see is characteristic of every sign in Col. IV except 𓆛 and the last two signs (which are independent of the 'fish' group). Like 𓆛, 𓆜 appears to be independent of the signs that precede and follow it; it is a separate word, a prefixed element, not an initial of final element in words.

c10.s12.5

𓆝 appears from its shape, position and sequences to be allied in sound and function to 𓆛 and 𓆜 . All that has been said regarding them may be applied to it. That it is not however identical with either of them may be inferred (1) from its being found on the same texts (2) from the fact that it figures as prefix to the group 𓆟𓂝 to the exclusion of all other members of the fish group except for a single instance where 𓆠 is prefixed. (See Table I, 50-56). It appears to be derived from 𓆛 by the addition of 𓂝 to represent an allied sound which, as a word, is a dialectal variant of the word which could equally be written with any member of the fish group.

c10.s12.6

To 𓆟 may be applied all that has been said regarding 𓆞 in the matter of function¹ and phonetic value. It appears to be a modification of 𓆞 by the addition of 𓆝. It figures as prefix to the group 𓆡 𓆢 to the exclusion of every other member of the fish group. Again it constantly appears on the same texts as other members. Thus its individuality is clearly established. At the same time its shape, position, and contexts leave no doubt regarding its close alliance both in meaning and sound with the other members. We thus conclude that 𓆞, 𓆟, 𓆠, 𓆡, 𓆢 are all distinct, yet are all used to write one and the same word. In what then does the variability of this word consist? Certainly not in ideography. A scribe might, as in Sumerian, occasionally represent the same word by different ideograms, but he could not do it on principle; nor will an ideographic explanation account for the marked preference for particular forms in particular contexts. We are driven to admit that the variation is phonetic. Again this variation is not on grounds of euphony. The sequences show continually different varieties of the 'fish' sign between identical antecedents and sequents. The most striking illustration of this is afforded by Table XII. The variation must then be dialectal - varying from speaker to speaker, or village to village, or period to period. The next point to consider is the frequency with which two varieties of the fish sign occur together. In all these cases¹ the signs and sequences preceding or following the two fishes can be shown to be independent words. The two fishes may be assumed then to constitute a single word in every case. The question is whether all the combinations represent one and the same word with dialectal phonetic variations, or whether each variety of combination represents a different word. We should incline to the latter opinion, were it not for certain remarkable uniformities, viz:- (1)

c10.s12.7

¹ Excluding the combination 𓆞 𓆣 and 𓆟 which have been shown to be separate words.

c10.s12.8

| 𓆟𓆟 | occurs | 4 times | 𓆟𓆟 | occurs | 3 times |
| 𓆟𓆟 | " | 3 " | 𓆟𓆟 | " | 2 " |
| 𓆟𓆟 | " | 3 " | 𓆟𓆟 | " | 3 " |
| 𓆟𓆟 | " | 2 " | | | |
| 𓆟𓆟 | " | 5 " | | | |
| 𓆟𓆟 | " | 7 " | | no other varieties of |
| 𓆟𓆟 | " | 2 " | | the combination are found. |

c10.s12.9

It is curious if all these words are different that they should occur roughly the same number of times.

c10.s12.10

(2) It is curious if they are different words that they should occur so often in the same positions in the text, suggesting that their function in name formation is similar.

c10.s12.11

(3) It is strangest of all that they should be found in the same sequences. See especially M. 235 with H. 238; M. 318, 317, 485 with M. 139 and M. 507 and M. 453; M. 395 with M.388 and H. 136 and I 26; M. 318 with M. 260, 344 and M. 238; M. 183 with H. 113 and M. 475; M. 104 with H. 179, M. 501; M. 54, 317 with H. 179; M. 490 with M. 335 and M. 54.

c10.s12.12

(4) It is also curious that each variety of the modified fish should appear in these compounds roughly in same number of times in proportion to its total appearances. Thus

c10.s12.13

𓆟 appears in these double fish compounds 7 times in a total of 19 occurrences.

c10.s12.14

𓆟 " " " " " " 17 " in a total of 47 occurrences.

c10.s12.15

𓆟 " " " " " " 18 " in a total of 66 occurrences.

c10.s12.16

𓆟 " " " " " " 19 " in a total of 64 occurrences.

c10.s12.17

I think then that the evidence is cumulative and forces us to the conclusion that in all these varieties of the 'double-fish' group we have but one word with varieties of pronunciation that are dialectal or euphonic or both.

c10.s12.18

We now note another peculiarity. This double-fish word which like the single-fish word shows wide dialectal variations is found in the same relative position in the texts and in the same sequences as the single-fish word. This is best illustrated by Table XII, where we see the word 𝍖𝍘 preceded 3 times by the double-fish word and 6 times by the single-fish word. And every time the fish or double-fish is initial (or quasi-initial). Similarly we find 𝍙 suffixed to the single-fish word 16, to the double 6 times; compare also the occurrences of the two words with 𝍚𝍛, 𝍜𝍝 . In fact among the 33 signs which are found immediately before or after the double-fish word the only ones that are not found in the same relation with the single-fish word are 𝍞, 𝍟, 𝍠, 𝍡, 𝍢 and 𝍣 . The remainder are not only found, but found repeatedly. The evidence then is very strong that the single-fish word and double-fish word are identical. In fact the latter may be regarded as a spelling out of the former. We have then the following ways of writing this word, the phonetic relationship of which I have endeavoured to suggest by transliteration. The consonant 'b' is of course selected arbitrarily; the allocation of the given vowels to any particular variety of 'fish' is believed to be exact, for reasons that will be discussed later.

c10.s12.19

𝍤 𝍥 𝍦 𝍧 𝍨 𝍩 𝍪 BAB BIB BEB BIB BOB BE-BO BI-BO

c10.s12.20

𝍫𝍬 𝍭𝍮 𝍯𝍰 𝍱𝍲 𝍳𝍴 𝍵𝍶 𝍷𝍸 𝍹𝍺 BI-BA BO-BA BI-BI BO-BI BO-BE BI-BE BI-BE BO-BI

c10.s12.21

It will be observed that the same two varieties of fish are never found together in our Texts. This would seem to suggest that when the Proto-Indian formed a carative or a 'jangle' by the reduplication of the root, he avoided repeating the same vowel. The same tendency is observable in many languages, cf. English 'baby', French bébé, Italian 'bambino'.

c10.s12.22

It is also clear, if our inferences are correct, that at least some of the signs in our script stand for syllables that are closed at both ends consonant-vowel-consonant:- what have been called 'compound syllables'.

c10.s12.23

Is it possible from our texts to discover the meaning of this word which in one or other of its varieties occurs hundreds of times? We may note first of all that no member of the fish group is ever found final except 𓆟¹, and that only in sequences where it may well form the second element in a word. Nos. 81, 84, 85. Secondly the fish word is often found initial or quasi-initial. Thirdly it sometimes separates two sign groups which are clearly words, and probably names, in themselves, e.g., Nos. 73, 128, 156, 162, 166, 168, 209, 210, 211, 235, 245, 284, 285, 255, 257, 258. To these may be added all those cases where the fish word is preceded by a sequence ending in 𓆟. But these sequences although probably complete words are often not names of men but rather in the nature of a dedicatory formula (see analysis of Table XXA). Be that as it may these three considerations lead me to the conclusion that the fish-word may very possibly be the Proto-Indian word for 'son'. In this case the word 'son' comes before the name of the father as in Sumerian and Auzanite. It is worthy of note that where a modified form of 𓆟 precedes a member of the fish group, the nature of the modification, whether by one, two, or three strokes, seems to depend on the variety of the fish sign or vice versa. See Nos. 128, 156, 209-211; 266, 285, 286. We have seen that the varieties of the fish sign are phonetic varieties, and that 𓆛 etc. are phonetic modifications of 𓆛 . May we now assume that the number of strokes by which the 𓆛 is modified is not immaterial but indicates different phonetic varieties? If so it would appear that the law of vowel harmony was rigorously observed in Proto-Indian speech¹ and meticulously recorded in the script. This has its parallel in Sumerian also. On the whole I think we cannot reject the evidence of these concomitant variations and must assume that 𓆛, 𓆜, 𓆝 represent kī, kī, kui respectively.²

c10.s12.24

¹ And 𓆟 in No. 297: where also it is probably an element in a word, as 𓆟 is nowhere else followed by any 'fish' sign.

c10.s12.25

The last sign in Col. IV is possibly a graphic variant of 𓆞 via a lost intermediate form 𓆟 . It will be observed that the variety of preceding 𓆛 is 𓆜 . Or it may be an independent sign. It may be connected with 𓆞 (see Table XIV).

Analysis of Table XIV

c10.s13.1

In view of the fact that 𓆟 and 𓆞 are clearly modifications of 𓆠 and 𓆡 respectively we should expect

c10.s13.2

1. At least in the case of the liquid vowels. The simple form 𓆛 which is probably articulated with a (inherent in the base form of Brahmi and Ethiopic) seems more stable, being found before 𓆢 𓆣 and 𓆞 , and after all sorts of signs (see Table I). It is perhaps worth remarking here that if (as I think it is arguable) the Brahmi, Sabaean and Ethiopic scripts are all derived from Proto-Indian, and if the Ethiopians were allied in race to the Ethiopic Gedrosians (?) of the Indus valley, then the extraordinary fluidity in the Ethiopic liquid vowels, may have its explanation in the similar fluidity of these vowels in the Proto-Indian parent. By this I do not wish to suggest linguistic descent, but merely that if there was racial descent or affinity we may expect the phonetic peculiarities of the parent (which are determined by the physical conformation of the organs of speech) to be manifest in the descendant even when speaking a different tongue.

c10.s13.3

2. See analysis of Tables XXIX and XXXVIII.

c10.s13.4

to find a form 𓀀 as the base form of the sign in Col. IV. It is not however found. It almost certainly existed. Perhaps it dropped out, as many of the Sumerian signs of the Jemdet Nasr period dropped out, its place being taken by another symbol with the same phonetic value. It is not improbable that in 𓀁 (see above) we have a modification of this lost base-form.¹ For it is significant that 𓀁 is preceded by a solitary 𓀂 and forms part of a word ending with 𓀃. Neither of these features can be found with any other modified form of 𓀄. It is probable then that it is not a modified form of 𓀄 which leaves the way clear for considering it a modification of 𓀅. That is all we can say at present.

c10.s13.5

¹ For the graphic nature of the modification 𓀄 𓀁 cf. 𓀊, 𓀋, 𓀌 (Tables LIII, XCVI). (Table V).

Analysis of Table XV

c10.s14.1

All the signs in Col. IV are either variants or allied. This is indicated (a) by the shape (b) by the position, nearly always final, (c) by the sequences R𓀂 Nos. 3-6, 15, 37, 38; and R𓀆, Nos. 2, 28, 29, 43-48. These may be regarded as the key sequences of this Table. They will help us to decide whether the various signs in Col. IV are simple variants or allied only.

c10.s14.2

On morphographic grounds we may divide the signs in Col. IV into two groups; the first eight, ending with Text No. 20: and the last seven, Texts No. 22 to 52, 21 is of course indeterminate. Now it will be observed that while the sequence R𓀂 occurs five times in the first group, it occurs twice only with the second, and while the sequence R𓀆 occurs once only with the first group it occurs 8 times with the second. Again R𓀇 and R𓀈 occur twice, R𓀉 thrice with the second group and not at all with the first. Conversely R Y ♁ appears twice with the first group and not with the second. We may infer then that the two groups represent two sounds allied but not identical. It will be noticed that the respect in which they differ is the addition of short strokes. In view of what we have seen in the analysis of the previous Tables, we may be certain that this indicates a modification of the vowel of the syllable. The shape of the sign in No. 22 is peculiar. The vertical foundations or base for the horizontal strokes has been drawn, but the strokes themselves omitted. This is probably an error on the scribe's part or my own in copying.¹ The additional element may be compared with the same in the signs ♁ , ♁ . It probably indicates that the syllable is to be articulated with the vowel ū.

c10.s14.3

¹ It is to be regretted that in the case of the majority of the inscriptions I have had no opportunity of checking my autograph copies with photographs of seal impressions. I requested that such photographs might be supplied to me by the Archaeological Department of the Government of India, but up to the present they have not been received.

First 94 of 367 passages. Read on

Linked texts (2)