Although it is possible that a fish is depicted at left in Aa2-24 and similar glyphs, I have decided to classify them only as GD73:
A borderline case is Aa7-80, with two fishes (as I see it) similar to GD47 glyphs:
I have inserted a hyperlink from GD38 to GD47 (and the other way around) to enable the user a quick look from one place to the other. Ab5-69 is another bordeline case and here I have decided to sort it as GD64 (only):
A hyperlink from GD38 to GD64 (and the other way around) helps the user. Yet another hyperlink is inserted, from GD38 to GD78 (but not the other way around). The need of this is clearly demonstrated by Aa3-18, which I have found is more GD78 than GD38:
Aruku Kurenga (B) Bb9-49 is classified as both GD38 and GD66:
A borderline case is the right part of Bb3-19 and I have classified that part both as GD38 and GD17:
Mamari (C) In Mamari I have been convinced to make exceptions to the rule that no fins besides the tail fin are allowed if the glyph should belong to GD38. Many glyphs in Mamari evidently show fishes with dorsal fins. Examples are Ca1-7, Ca5-27, Cb11-17 and Cb13-22:
These remarkable 7 glyphs (Ca6-21, Ca7-12, Ca7-20, Ca7-29, Ca8-7, Ca8-15 and Ca8-26) are unique:
Échancrée (D) Db5-105 is very clear example of how two glyph types may be mixed:
Keiti (E) Eb5-30 is a combination of GD38 with GD58:
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. |
