The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s12: Analysis of Table XIII
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s12
- Language
- English
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).