The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s9: Analysis of Table X
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s9
- Language
- English
Analysis of Table X
c10.s9.1
The signs in Col. IV are clearly all variants. They differ only as regards the shape of the enclosed element, and the varieties of this are precisely the same as the varieties of that element when it appears alone (see Table XI) where it can be shown that they are all variants (see analysis of Table XI). That the various signs in Col. IV of Table X are all variants is also evident from the sequences.
c10.s9.2
Alternatively it may be explained as 𐎺 modified by the vowel ū.
c10.s9.3
With regard to the function of this sign, we shall observe that (a) it is frequently initial, (b) it is never final, (c) it normally precedes signs that can be shown to be prefixes (like the fish-group) or sign-groups that are in themselves whole words; e.g. in Nos. 9, 11, 34-38, 39, 46, 50. It is clearly then frequently a prefix¹, probably in every case except Nos. 41-45, when it appears to be the second element in the word [Figure: ].
c10.s9.4
¹ By prefix is always to be understood "prefixed element in the system of name-formation" unless otherwise indicated.
c10.s9.5
With regard to the fact that [Figure: ] is never found final while [Figure: ] is so found and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, see analysis of Table XXXI. It has been noted that this sign contains two elements [Figure: ] and [Figure: ], which elements are also found independent in our script. (See Tables XI and XXVI). Are we then to consider it as a compound phonogram? In this case it must be either [Figure: ] or [Figure: ]. Now if it is [Figure: ] it is strange that it is never final. If it is [Figure: ] it is strange that it is never preceded by one of the numeral signs which so commonly precede [Figure: ].
c10.s9.6
I conclude that it is not a compound phonogram but (in origin) a compound ideogram as in Sumerian. (See Appendix II p. 6 No. 99). The sign then represents a garden - a tree in an enclosure². It is not likely however that it retained this sense in our texts. It is difficult to see how a garden or cattlepen could be utilised as a prefixed element in the formation of proper names, and a very common element withal. No! In our texts it is doubtless used as a simple phonogram, homophonous no doubt with the original ideogrammatic value, or an abbreviation of the latter, but unconnected with it in meaning. This feature probably holds good of the large majority of the signs in our texts. They were doubtless all formerly used ideographically, either in Proto-Indian or in the scripts where they originated, but have by the period of our Texts come to be used as mere phonograms. Whether when borrowed (in the case of those that bear evidence of borrowing) they were borrowed as idograms or phonograms, must be decided in each case on the evidence of the comparative Tables. Where a Proto-Indian sign can be identified both with an Egyptian or Sumerian sign and with a sign in Cypriote, Brahmi, or Sabaean, and the phonetic values of the former and latter coincide, we may infer that Proto-Indian borrowed the sign as a phonogram. When this is not the case we may infer that the Proto-Indians borrowed the sign as an ideogram, utilised it to represent a word in their own tongue of the same meaning, but of course phonetically different, and passed it on with their own phonetic value, which would be quite independent of its phonetic value in the script of origin.
c10.s9.7
² The motif of the Sumerian parallel is however different. A closer approximation in motif is the Sumerian sign No. 20, p. 1. This means "cattlepen" which may be the original ideographic meaning of the Proto-Indian sign also.