The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s6.1

c10.s6.1

It is clear from the sequences that the signs in Col. IV of this Table are simple variants, except the last three. With regard to the sign 𝒲 , we may compare No. 63 with Nos. 26, 27; No. 64 with No. 38; No. 65 with No. 58 (there is reason to think that 𝒳 is phonetically allied to 𝒴 , see analysis of Table XLIII) No. 66 with No. 55. But the similarity of sequences is not very close. In particular it is to be noted that this sign is not followed by ||| , and does not appear as initial or quasi-initial, whereas 𐀀 , 𐀁 are normally initial or quasi-initial (i.e. preceded by signs which are either whole words or prefixes. It will be shown later that all the members of the fish group, and 𐀂 are in the nature of prefixes). The sign is then related to, but not identical with, 𐀁 (of which 𐀀 is a less complete and probably later form). Now it will be observed that graphically the respect in which 𐀁 differs from 𐀃 is precisely in the addition of two short strokes. In view of what has been said in the analysis of the previous tables we may safely assume that here also we have a case of a syllabic sign being modified to represent a phonetically cognate syllable. We shall also on the same grounds take the penultimate sign in Col. IV as a simple variant of 𐀁 . Of course the variation may be of the gunu order and the syllable still be phonetically allied. The last sign may be a phonetic compound in view of its shape and the fact that it is initial. For if 𐀁 be the initial part of the compound we should expect to find it initial in the text, as 𐀀 is frequently initial or quasi-initial. That 𐀁 is the initial part of the compound we may assume, partly because it appears above the other portion, and partly on the analogy of Brahmi and its derivative Nageri which place the second element in a compound either after or below the first part, (an example of the second part placed after the first has already been noticed in Proto-Indian in the compound 𐀄 ). On the other hand if we take our sign as a compound it is difficult to identify the second element. Is it 𐀅 ? (see T. LVIII. Col. IV. last two signs). This seems the most probable explanation. If we regard it not as a compound but as a single sign it is to be observed that there is no sign in Sumerian or Egyptian with which it may be compared. There is of course the sign given as No. T. 24 page 500 of Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar, but this does not contain the element 𓆰 which would appear to be an essential part of the sign. I shall assume therefore provisionally that the sign is a compound of 𐎺 and 𐎷 .1