glyphs home
GD37

GD37 is very frequent among the glyphs. Therefore restrictions must rule when allowing glyphs to be classified as GD37.

Many glyphs with more or less clear allusions to GD37 must be left outside. Examples are Ab7-68 (beak), Ab3-25 (elbow), Ab1-32 (protruding back) and Aa1-3 (leg)::

        

I have, though, allowed myself one exception to the strict rule, Ab7-3:

The reason is that GD37 is shown so extremely clear, a sign of importance.

The strict rule implies that some glyph types with GD37 as a more or less obligatory part must stay outside, examples are Ab7-31 (GD24), Ab4-12 (GD25), Aa6-23 (GD66) and Ab2-36 (GD76):

        

Hyperlinks lead to GD24, GD25, GD66 and GD76. But it would be impractical with many hyperlinks, and it is up to the user to understand that such glyphs as Aa1-13 (GD18), Aa5-22 (GD22), Ab4-48 (GD32) and many other glyph types may have allusions to GD37:

     

There is a variant of GD37, seen in e.g. Aa2-66 and Aa2-46:

  

Not only are the short ends 'sucked in', but the long sides are at their ends extended. This has made me accept the unusual Aa2-9 as GD37:

Strangely shaped examples of GD37 are Aa4-17, Ab4-42 and Ab4-7:

     

No more need to be said about the glyphs in GD37, because the strict rule allows only clear examples.

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

In Bb6-2 we can see an unusual example of short ends 'sucked in':

Another notable glyph is Bb6-13:

 

Mamari (C)

Ca2-21 is somewhat similar to Aa2-9 (see earlier above):

Both glyphs are also registered as GD24.

A few other curious glyphs are Cb11-15, Cb5-3 and Ca12-10:

     

 

Échancrée (D)

Db2-106 is an exception to the strict rule which limits the number of glyphs classified as GD37:

 

Keiti (E)

Interesting are Eb1-41 and Eb6-1:

  

 

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.