The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s9.6

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.