The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s1.8

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.