Harappan Deciphered?!

[Steve Farmer]

In rereading my recent analysis, I realize that one comment in it may
be incorrect. That doesn't change the general analysis, however.

I wrote:

> Dr. Elst raises a very key issue:
>
> >  An obvious weak point is that several sounds have
> > more than one sign representing them, though care was taken to avoid cases
> > where two such "allographs" appear on the same seal.
>
> On the contrary, from the point of view of claiming that you have
> "deciphered" the script, this could be viewed as another "strong" and
> not "weak" point -- since it would again give you extra degrees of
> freedom in forcing any inscription. Since the number of signs is very
> large, and the number of sounds is rather small, any would-be
> decipherer following this method would again have the freedom to drag
> a wide spectrum of meanings out of *any* inscription.

My comment would only be correct if the same sign could refer to
different sounds at different times. The situation would be different
-- but still muddled -- if multiple signs referred *unambiguously* to
single sounds.

Dr. Elst: Could you clarify which is the case in Jha/Rajaram?

Steve Farmer