The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s12.23

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