The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s29: Analysis of Tables XXXVIII-XLII
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s29
- Language
- English
Analysis of Tables XXXVIII-XLII
c10.s29.1
It was argued in Table XXIV that π was a form of the dative suffix, alternating with π and π when preceded by π. An examination of texts 12-18, 29, 30, 43 suggests that in the sequence π π also π is the dative suffix since (1) the sequence is normally initial, (2) is unconnected with what follows it. In the case of the sequence ππ, Texts 1-11, 31, 37, π is clearly part of the word, unconnected in meaning with the dative suffix, though doubtless homophonous with it.
c10.s29.2
Now in regard to the pronunciation of π, if π is π and π π, π may well be wi and ππ wi, i.e., long and short i pronounced with a labial glide. If π is cognate to π in sense, as it well may be judging from its contexts, it is possible that it is the same word differently articulated. If π is AN π may be UN. Then we should understand the is also suggested by the form of the Brahmi Ε which may well be derived from it. Have we also a Proto-Indian prototype of Brahmi Ε«? I think we have in the element π which we find in composition in certain Proto-Indian signs, viz. π, π, π. But the original form in Proto-Indian may have been π for which the stroke at right angles served as a support. The form π seems to appear in π. For it would seem fairly certain that π is π articulated with a labial vowel on the evidence of π, which is the only variety of 'fish' that follows it, (see Table I, Nos. 388, 390, 391). Can we infer from this that the numeral sign π on our texts is the same as this vowel Ε«? I think not. It would be most strange if the first three numerals were pronounced Δ, Δ«, Ε«, respectively. How independent Ε« (as distinct from Ε« in composition) was written in our script I have not discovered. The phonetic value of π, π, π as numerals is probably quite distinct from their value as vowels. That the vowels should be written with numeral signs is an arrangement obviously artificial, but very comprehensible. It shows that their origin does not go back to the ideographic stage of the script but is a later development of a phonetic age. That this age should be circa 3,000 B.C. is interesting.
c10.s29.3
If Ε« in composition in Proto-Indian is written π π and π, how is Ε written? This brings us to an examination of π.
c10.s29.4
If π is 'wa' what is π? The attachment of an inclined stroke to the lower portion of a sign is found in the case of π (see Table LIII) and π (see XLIX, 38, 39)ΒΉ. In these cases it is clearly a modification of the vowel of the syllable. Now if, as we have shown, there is reason to think π, π which in Brahmi syllables indicate Δ, Δ«, are derived from Proto-Indian π, π then surely π, π which in Brahmi syllables indicate Ε, is derived from Proto-Indian / , \ . In other words if internal evidence leads us to conclude that / , \ , in our script is a vowel, the external evidence of Brahmi makes us fairly certain that that vowel is Ε. Thus if / is 'wa', then β§ is uwa or wau. This in the script of Safa is π©₯ , which is identical with out Proto-Indian form. The sign in Safa has the value u and the name wawe.
c10.s29.5
ΒΉ Cf. also π Table (Table LXXXIV).
c10.s29.6
In other words both the sign, its phonetic value and its name have been taken from Proto-Indian!
c10.s29.7
The sign π©₯ of Table XLII is shown by its sequences to be quite independent of β§ of Table XLI. It is doubtless derived from a single ideogram, whereas β§ is, as we have seen, a composition of / and \ .