The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s10.1

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.