The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s69: Analysis of Table XC
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s69
- Language
- English
Analysis of Table XC
c10.s69.1
The first five signs in Col. IV appear to be variants. The base form is probably ⊞ (see the last sign in Col. IV) variously written ⊟ (see the third sign) and ⊞ (see the second sign). Later the internal strokes were omitted, and we get □ as the base form (see the first, sixth and seventh and penultimate signs). These base forms are then modified by the vowel " = i (written in each half of the sign on the symmetrical principle) and the vowel u (also written in each half: the sixth sign is probably defective). These three phonetic varieties; the base form, articulated with a (text 23), the form with i (texts 1-12) and the form with u (texts 13-21) are also distinguished by their sequences, )R with the form in a; ᗐR𐌗 with the form in i; R|| , 𐌗R, 𐌗, 𐌗R, with the form in u. I am at a loss to explain the penultimate form, with five strokes in each register, unless indeed it is indicative of some other vowel or dipthong. If so we must bear this in mind as a possible explanation of 𐌗 and other signs containing more than three internal strokes. For there seems little doubt that this sign is related to the l. or ⊞ (see the fifth sign, and the last sign but two).
c10.s69.2
preceding in view of their common sequence 𐀀𐀂, initial. It can however hardly be regarded as a simple variant of it, if the number of internal strokes has any significance at all¹; and this, in the case of texts 1-12 and 13-21 seems clearly established from the evidence of the sequences. So then we may resume our argument by say, 𐀃 differs from 𐀄 in a manner we understand - viz. as other signs in 𐀅 differ from their relatives in 𐀆, and 𐀇 differs from both in a manner we at present do not understand, but assume to be phonetic.
c10.s69.3
¹ Unless of course 𐀆 was indicated in Proto-Indian by three or more short strokes: or, where there could be no confusion with 𐀓, as in the form 𐀕, 𐀖 even by two or more strokes. See Table LIII, Nos. 33-38. This suggests that the scribe was indifferent as to the number of strokes by which he indicated a given vowel, provided there could be no ambiguity. See also Table XV.