As GD15 are classified 'standing persons' (with arms like birdwings) irrespective of how the head is designed, Aa5-50, Ab2-4 and Ab6-76:
But they may also be running (Aa6-44 and Aa5-42):
Gesticulating hands are often seen (Aa1-71, Ab2-84 and Aa3-20):
But one or both arms may also be distorted and/or ending in other forms than hands (Aa3-44, Aa1-82, Aa4-23 and Ab7-61):
Also the legs may be transformed (Aa6-43 and Aa8-19):
Lots of different additional signs are often encountered (Aa2-23, Aa7-27, Aa3-40 and Ab4-38):
And of course there are mixed glyphs (Aa2-8, Aa2-46, Aa4-10 and Ab4-6):
'People' with an oval sign on their stomach, e.g. Aa5-24, are not classified as GD15 but as GD59:
Those without arms, e.g. Ab8-41, also disqualifies classification as GD15. They are found under GD69:
Glyphs where there are two heads, e.g. Aa6-24, are classified as GD65, not as GD15:
Glyphs which are fashioned with what looks like 'bird bottoms', e.g. Aa1-15, belong under GD74:
At last, there are strange complex glyphs with 'persons' standing and bending over, e.g. Aa5-68 and Aa3-3:
These glyphs belong to GD84, not to GD15.
Aruku Kurenga (B) Ba4-28 exemplifies that I have included 'hanging head' glyphs as GD15:
In Tahua (Aa5-56) there are such glyphs too:
Both these glyphs (and others of similar kind) are classified also as GD54. No hyperlink is therefore needed (from GD15 to GD54 or the other way around). This logic is a result of the fundamental rule for GD15: every 'standing person ... irrespective of how the head is designed'. Even when the head is missing, though, a glyph may be classified as GD15, for example Ba9-32 and Ba9-49:
An extreme example is Bb12-8:
Mamari (C) Running persons are included in GD15, even such where the limbs are whirling around, as in Ca13-5 and Ca9-10:
Échancrée (D) Db1-114 exemplifies how a partly destroyed glyph yet can be classified as GD15.
Partly destroyed glyphs which cannot securely be identified are put into a separate apartment after the classifiable glyphs. Da8-103 is found there (because it may equally well be the remnants of e.g. a GD59 or a GD69 glyph)
However, I have included Da8-103 also here under GD15 (but not under GD59 or GD69). The reason is that most glyphs of this type do indeed belong to GD15. Sometimes I put a partly destroyed glyph both in the separate apartment and under a specific GD which I guess is the correct one. Keiti (E) Ea5-4, Ea5-7 and Ea5-35--36 are examples of glyphs which are intact, though which at a hasty glance may seem to be partially destroyed:
Ea6-5 exemplifies a GD15 glyph which is designed with only one arm:
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. |
