The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s29.2

c10.s29.2

Now in regard to the pronunciation of 𐀓, if 𐀕 is 𐀙 and 𐀔 𐀚, 𐀓 may well be wi and 𐀓𐀛 wi, i.e., long and short i pronounced with a labial glide. If 𐀖 is cognate to 𐀄 in sense, as it well may be judging from its contexts, it is possible that it is the same word differently articulated. If 𐀄 is AN 𐀖 may be UN. Then we should understand the is also suggested by the form of the Brahmi ŭ which may well be derived from it. Have we also a Proto-Indian prototype of Brahmi ū? I think we have in the element 𐆐 which we find in composition in certain Proto-Indian signs, viz. 𐆐, 𐆑, 𐆒. But the original form in Proto-Indian may have been 𐆓 for which the stroke at right angles served as a support. The form 𐆔 seems to appear in 𐆕. For it would seem fairly certain that 𐆕 is 𐆔 articulated with a labial vowel on the evidence of 𐆖, 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 𐆔 on our texts is the same as this vowel ū? I think not. It would be most strange if the first three numerals were pronounced ĭ, ī, ū, respectively. How independent ū (as distinct from ū in composition) was written in our script I have not discovered. The phonetic value of 𐆗, 𐆘, 𐆔 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.