GD43 contains glyphs which are rather heterogenous, although sharing a general shape. They are not numerous and it is difficult to find a GD43 glyph which is 'standard'. The left part of Ab2-17 clearly shows GD43:
Aa8-72 is also a composition with GD43 at left:
Then we have Aa8-33 which obviously must belong to GD43 too, though quite different in its design:
These three are all of its kind in Tahua.
I have also included glyphs where only the bottom part indicates GD43. Examples are Ab4-68, Ab4-69, Ab6-4 and Ab8-29:
Instead of a hand or a 'nut' hanging down we here see something like a 'wide open mouth'. There is no other GD which resembles these glyphs and therefore I have decided to define them as GD43. A hyperlink leads from GD43 to GD54 (and vice versa), a hanging head ('nut') is found at both places A hunch has later made me add Aa6-67:
Aruku Kurenga (B) 'Fingers' at the top possibly are seen in Ab3-22 and Ab3-24:
Bb2-44 somewhat resembles the glyphs mentioned in Tahua above as having a 'wide open mouth', but here the two 'limbs' are open:
The strange figures at right in Ba7-30 and Ba7-33 also resemble the Tahua glyphs with 'wide open mouth':
Mamari (C) Here too we find the 'finger' variant, Cb4-20:
Ca14-201 and Cb1-5 are glyphs without respective with a 'head':
Notably the 'head' in Cb1-5 is drawn with a mouth, an unusual feature for this glyph type. Ca13-12 belongs to the 'wide open mouth' glyph type:
Échancrée (D) Db2-106 has a strange beak which may allude to GD43:
Db3-108 has at top right what looks like an inverted similar sign:
Keiti (E) Eb8-37 is evidently an example of GD43, though an unusually slim variant:
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. |