This glyph type is easy to identify - a bent 'tail' at bottom and an enourmous 'mouth' at the other end. No 'fins' are allowed (except the 'tail fin' of course). Sometimes the 'tail fin' is converted into a 'leg with toes', for example in Ab8-42:
Though the 'toes' may be missing, Ab1-72:
The 'tail fin' may be big, small or absent, Ab8-69, Ab3-61 and Ab1-82:
Or it may be 'twisted around', Ab1-57:
The 'lower jaw' may be converted into an arm with hand or fist, as in Ab4-8 and Ab5-35:
The 'jaw' may be a separat unit (Aa5-17) or shifted into a more upright position (A3-54):
Or the 'jaw' may be changed so that only the general outline remains, e.g. in Aa3-60 and Aa7-59:
Aruku Kurenga (B) Compared with the Tahua glyphs the GD26 glyphs in Aruku Kurenga look more upright, examples are Ba3-19, Ba8-13 and Ba10-20:
In Ba5-7 the left top limb appears to be a sign, maybe of GD48:
Also in Ba10-30 we see unusual traits:
In Ba3-4 there is a sign in the tail:
Mamari (C) Among the very few GD26 glyphs in Mamari we find Cb8-28, possibly influenced by GD13:
Échancrée (D) Da8-202 could be an example, but probably it is something else than GD26:
Keiti (E) Ea9-26 is strange with its short 'hook' at bottom:
Quite possibly it is parallel with Ca1-2:
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. |
