In Tahua the glyphs belonging to GD16 are easily recongnized. Both glyphs with inner oval and without appear, e.g. Aa2-54 and Ab3-75:
Glyphs with a single oval mostly have it drawn with an outline somewhat 'fruit-like' (assymetric), e.g. in Ab6-62:
In Aa1-56 the oval is open at bottom:
All GD16 glyphs in Tahua with the exception of Aa2-37
have 4 'legs'.
Aruku Kurenga (B) In Ba24-28 we find a composite glyph which includes the upper part of GD16:
Bb10-7 and Bb10-5 exhibit another arrangement with, seemingly, two of the 'legs' converted into something else:
Ba8-5 presumably incorporates GD16 in another strange glyph type (GD17?):
Mamari (C) The method of converting 'legs' into something else occurs also here, e.g. in Ca10-15:
In Ca2-5 we presumably find an allusion to GD16:
Échancrée (D) Strangely, the Échancrée text has no GD16 glyphs.
Keiti (E) Ea2-16, Ea8-106 and Eb4-26 exemplify complex GD16 glyphs:
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. |
