Although the 'tiptoe' position is a characteristic feature of this type of bird there exist GD42 glyphs where this feature is not visible, e.g. Aa1-1, Ab6-14 and Aa6-31:
On the other hand when the feature is seen, that is enough to draw the conclusion that the glyph belongs to GD42 even if other signs indicate influence from other GD:s. Examples: Ab4-22 (GD22), Aa1-10 (GD15), Aa2-19 (GD15)
A hyperlink leads to GD23, where there are birds with a somewhat similar shape - though without the characteristic 'tiptoe' position, e.g. Ab6-43:
The 'tiptoe' may be transformed, as in Aa1-63, Ab3-28 and Aa6-48, but still we can recognize the feature:
Aruku Kurenga (B) The twins Ba6-8 and Ba6-10 clearly belong to GD42 in spite of their long 'beaks':
In the triplet Ba8-25, Ba8-28 and Ba8-31 we also recognize at bottom the 'tiptoe' position:
On the other hand, in another triplet, Ba10-17--19, the 'tiptoe' is not obvious:
Mamari (C) The 'tiptoe' is identifiable in Cb11-20, Cb9-29 and Cb3-8:
The two remaining GD42 glyphs in Mamari are more difficult, Ca1-13 and Cb5-2 :
Échancrée (D) The twins Db5-113--114 have a little 'ball' at their backsides:
Keiti (E) Eb4-38--39 are typical examples of GD42 twins:
Ea1-4 resembles Ba8-25 etc:
Ea6-7 exemplifies a transformed variant of the 'tiptoe' position:
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. |
