GD14 glyphs are easily recognized. The 'nut' at bottom may vary in extent from small to big, as in Aa6-15:
There may be 'legs' attatched (Aa5-14):
The outline may be nearly closed at the top end (Ab8-52):
Still they are classified as GD14.
The GD14 glyphs are easy to recognize I wrote. I have recently, though, discovered how in GD38 glyphs sometimes GD14 is hidden:
From this insight several other 'fish' glyphs also become possible to define as GD14, e.g. Aa3-27:
Aruku Kurenga (B) In Bb2-15 the 'nut' at bottom is pronounced:
Mamari (C) Even in Mamari we find a glyph with 'pronounced nut' (Cb13-20):
Furthermore, we have examples where the bottom end is cut off, e.g. in Ca12-15 and Cb12-14:
In Ca1-25 I have identified a case where instead the 'nut' is inflated out of all proportions:
I was at first rather doubtful whether the right part of the glyph really was GD14, but then I saw a similar (also with 'inflated nut') construction in Aruku Kurenga, Ba10-15:
Similarly, Ab7-2 (see above) helped me take the step to classify Cb5-4 and Cb14-17 as GD14:
(Also - they are somewhat similar to Ca1-25 and Ba10-15.)
Échancrée (D) Da6-104 has its middle string at the top divided:
The preceding glyph, Da6-103, has the top and bottom parts of the GD14 element separated:
Keiti (E) Ea7-8, -11, and -14 form a triplet with arms attatched:
The rest of the texts The texts above have been used as a kind of 'test ground' to see if the definitions could be used. For the rest of the texts the same principles have been used, although less stringently. The experiences gained have been relied upon rather than what is written above about what characterizes the glyph type. There may be a few extra glyph added, which would not have been so with a strict application of the written definitions. On the other hand there has been no attempt to ignore glyphs which according to the written definitions ought to belong to the glyph type. |
