Mostly there are no problems in identifying which glyphs belong to GD25. In Tahua we find that the two bent left and right parts of the glyph do not always touch each other. There may be a gap at bottom or both at top and bottom (Ab1-7 and Aa1-70):
Assymmetries occur, e.g. in the left or right 'member' being larger, Ab7-9 respectively Ab8-63:
Vertical dislocation may be seen (Aa2-60):
The 'members' may have non-constant thickness, e.g. in Aa3-70:
Aruku Kurenga (B) A single example is found, Bb8-34:
Mamari (C) No GD25 glyphs.
Échancrée (D) Db2-102 is the only example of GD25:
Keiti (E) Only Eb1-34 belongs to GD25:
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. |
