The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s12.6

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)