glyphs home
GD29

This peculiarly drawn leg is normally closed at the top end, as in Ab3-34:

Though sometimes it is open, Aa8-79:

The shape may be expressive (carry extra meaning), e.g. Aa1-54, Aa5-71 and Ab7-65:

Frequently GD29 is combined with GD67, as in Aa3-2 and Ab2-23:

GD29 may also be combined with GD54, e.g. Ab5-56 and Ab7-22:

In GD15, GD26, GD52 and GD56 the appearance of legs similar to GD29 has normally not influenced me to include the glyphs also in GD29, e.g. Aa5-75 (GD15), Ab8-42 (GD26), Aa5-2 (GD52) and Aa6-50 (GD56):

But there are instances where probably GD29 and GD15 (etc) have been mixed, as in Aa3-36 (GD15+GD29), Ab2-77 (GD15+GD29) and Aa5-69 (GD15+GD56+GD25+GD29):

     

In birds, fishes and other nonhuman figures a leg sometimes appears, and in such instances I have included the glyph also in GD29. Examples are Aa2-82 (GD11), Aa5-30 (GD74), Ab2-50 (GD27), Ab4-74 (GD62), and Ab2-3 (GD86):

Furthermore, there are other combinations which suggest GD29 more or less clearly, e.g. Ab5-19, Ab7-58 and Ab7-59:

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

In for example Bb1-27 and Bb2-27 there is a little oval sign at the knee:

  

Combinations with GD84 appear, as in e.g. Ba5-42, Bb8-33 and Bb9-30:

     

Combinations with GD74 are evident in Bb2-5, Bb2-43, Bb8-20 and Bb10-11:

        

Unusual are Ba7-19, Bb2-31, Bb8-34 and Bb8-41:

        

 

Mamari (C)

Ca5-19 and Ca8-28 (both belonging to GD52) are examples where the leg is prominent and therefore also registered at GD29:

  

Cb13-25 is unsual in having symbols both on the outside and the inside of the knee:

Also in Mamari we have legs visible in GD84 and GD74 glyphs, for example in Cb14-7 respectively Ca12-12:

  

A few odd glyphs in other combinations are Ca9-7, Ca9-17, Cb5-20 and Cb9-13:

        

 

Échancrée (D)

Da2-115 is interesting, an example where arm and leg are joined with quite another typ of glyph (GD41):

In Db5-106 a bird (a combination of GD23 and GD74) has been supplied with a leg:

 

Keiti (E)

Ea3-13 and Ea7-1 are peculiarly slim, maybe an allusion to GD49:

  

 

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.