glyphs home
GD28

This glyph type has several 'subspecies'. Fundamentally, though, we see a standing figure with oval top and below that what looks as if a rhomb has been swallowed. Examples are Aa2-32 and Aa6-32:

In the unusual Ab8-80 the top oval is a separate part balancing on the bottom part, but the tendency to a thinner 'waist' is seen in other glyphs too, e.g. in Aa7-2 and Aa7-39:

Sometimes an 'eye' is attatched to the 'swollen rhomb' (Aa2-16 and Aa2-57):

Two 'eyes' also occur (Ab3-56 and Aa6-34):

The 'swollen rhomb' may take on other shapes (Ab1-16 and Ab4-60):

The top oval may have 'feathers', e.g. in Aa5-78:

Often, then, the 'swollen rhomb' has engendered 'limbs', as in Aa7-65 and Aa4-45:

But there are cases where the 'swollen rhomb' seems to have disappeared altogether without trace, as in Aa5-35:

The two strange glyphs Ab8-17 and Ab8-18, on the other hand, clearly belong to GD28:

  

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

A hole appears in the rhomb part of Bb2-40:

In Bb6-17 and Bb7-25 a bit has disappeared from the top:

  

In Bb12-44 we recognize the balancing-on-top oval (cfr Ab8-80 earlier above) :

The right part of Bb11-15 is unusual:

 

Mamari (C)

Ca9-15 and Ca10-12 are examples with holes:

  

In Ca12-8 the oval is extraordinary large:

Ca10-15 (the left part) is an example where the charcteristics of GD28 hardly are recognizable:

But as we saw earlier above at Aa5-35 glyphs with 'feathers' on both sides belong to GD28.

Ca13-1--2 are unusual:

 

Échancrée (D)

No GD28 glyphs have been found.

 

Keiti (E)

Ea4-28 obviously is a twin of Bb11-15, though here clearly designed to be two entities:

  

E.g. Ea5-13 resembles Ca13-1:

  

 

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.