https://tinyurl.com/yxp3fwp5
Arguing that the Indus Script is a logosemantic writing system. The pictorial motifs occupy the maximum space of inscriptions; they have to be explained and linked to the 'text' portion of 'signs' of the inscriptions. Many signs are intensely pictorial, for example, squirrel which appears on the longest inscription as the signature (left-most sign, third line from top). Each sign, each pictorial motif has to be read in the logosemantic writing system of Indus Script. I have shown that the writing system is NOT syllabic and the pictorial narratives are semantic, not mere 'cult' symbols. A tiger looking back at a person on a tree is NOT a cult narrative. Such pictorial narratives have to be explained together with the 'text' portions of an Indus Script Inscription..
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Arguing that the Indus Script is a logosemantic writing system. The pictorial motifs occupy the maximum space of inscriptions; they have to be explained and linked to the 'text' portion of 'signs' of the inscriptions. Many signs are intensely pictorial, for example, squirrel which appears on the longest inscription as the signature (left-most sign, third line from top). Each sign, each pictorial motif has to be read in the logosemantic writing system of Indus Script. I have shown that the writing system is NOT syllabic and the pictorial narratives are semantic, not mere 'cult' symbols. A tiger looking back at a person on a tree is NOT a cult narrative. Such pictorial narratives have to be explained together with the 'text' portions of an Indus Script Inscription..
