Only one glyph of this fairly unusual type is found in Tahua, Aa4-76:
A hyperlink is inserted to GD88 where some similar glyphs are be found. The difference is that GD88 glyphs have at least two connected 'little balls', e.g. Aa6-55:
Aruku Kurenga (B) Two fine examples are found, the nearly identical twins Bb4-29 and Bb4-31:
(Indeed, Bb4-29 serves as the norm for GD39.) A few other cases are Bb4-27, Bb12-32 and Bb6-33:
Mamari (C) In Mamari I cannot find any good examples. Marginal ones, though, are the unusual Cb6-19--21:
They may equally well be examples of GD88 and I registered them there too. The same goes for Ca4-1--2:
The right part of Ca4-2 belongs to GD67, which is fairly obvious and I have no hyperlink to GD67, because those glyph have neither little 'ball(s)' nor the double 'wedges' at the other end. Ca4-1 would not have been classified as GD39 without having been adjoining Ca4-2. Cb6-20-21 might, though, have been classified as GD39 even without adjoining Cb6-19 - the bottom parts are a little like wedges. Finally the strange glyphs Ca9-17 and Cb2-27 may allude to GD39 (with a 'ball' between the legs respectively at bottom left - as if being the head of a lying down figure):
Échancrée (D) No GD39 glyphs.
Keiti (E) No GD39 glyphs.
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. |
