The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s28.8

c10.s28.8

' ' , Table XXXIII, is not likely to be a graphic variant of ' ' since it appears in no normal numerical sequence. It may be compared in shape with the Proto-Elamite ' ' (See D.E.P. XVII. Tablets passim, usually in the first column, but never initial as here in texts 5, 6).¹ We may now consider ' ' in texts 144-116 of Table XXXI. Inasmuch as ' ' is found preceding ' ' in No. 112, where it is clearly phonetic (' ' is preceded by no other numeral of the Table), (2) ' ' is only found in 5 instances, Nos. 114-116, 118, 120, in all of which it is separated from other combinations of short strokes by only one intercalated sign, (3) in 116, which seems to be an identical word with those contained in 114 and 115, the order of the strokes is reversed without apparent derangement of the sense, I conclude that ' ' and ' ' are but ' ' combined. Similarly ' ' is but ' ' combined (doubtless on phonetic grounds). It is significant that ' ' and ' ' are normally preceded by numeral signs. Similarly ' ' is ' ' , ' ' is ' ' ; which again is what we should expect since elsewhere ' ' is preceded by numeral signs. And ' ' is ' ' . With regard to the sign ' ' in Table XXXI. It might be taken for a divided form of ' ' if any such sign existed. But as we have just shown it does not. '4' is always written ' ' . There is no sign of which ' ' could be a form modified for purpose of combination. Moreover it is quite certain that in the case of ' ' at least we have no compound of the ordinary sort. For from all we have seen of compounds the enclosed portion is always to be read last. Now in the case of Nos. 45 and 46 this would break up two well established sequences. Here the element ' ' can only represent a modification of or addition to the final syllable of the words ' ' , ' ' . In these two cases the modifying element 𐀁 would appear to make no difference to the sense, but to be merely euphonic due perhaps to these words being final: they are final nowhere else (see Table XIII). In the case of No. 41, 𐀁 seems to affect the sense as well as the sound of 𐀂, which would appear to be a name in itself. 'To 𐀃; The son of 𐀄'. 𐀂 is nowhere else found final. The same remarks apply to the occurrence of 𐀁 with 𐀂. A comparison of Table XIII, 183 and 181 with 195 and 197 would indicate that in these cases 𐀂 and 𐀅 were identical in sense, and if not identical at least interchangeable in sound. It will be observed that in the fragmentary text 53 𐀅 is final: elsewhere 𐀂 is never final - or solus. Here then there would appear to be a change of sense. In text 55 𐀆 is also final. It is only once final elsewhere (Table XIII, 297). In text 58 𐀇 is final, and solus; in 61 it is also final. Elsewhere 𐀇 is only once final (Table XXI, 34). It is noteworthy not one of the sequences found with 𐀇 are found with 𐀈, notably 𐀉 𐀇 : so perhaps 𐀈 is modified in sense as well as sound. 𐀊 is final in every occurrence; 𐀋 is never final. 𐀌 is final in No. 66. 𐀍 is never final.