GD46 mostly is seen as a sign consisting of the 'triple roof' combined with other glyph types, as in Ab6-67 (GD53) and Ab7-21 (GD59):
Ab7-21 shows that the 'roof' may have just two layers and Ab6-67 that the uppermost layer may be in contact with the one below. That we can see also in Ab4-19 (GD38):
The distance between the uppermost layer and the two below may sometimes be greater (than that between the lowermost and the middle layer), as in Aa3-68 and Ab2-62 (GD17):
The fact that GD46 is so often combined with other glyph types makes it probable that the sign of GD46 is the 'triple roof', i.e. that the lower part indicates a combination with GD37. But at GD37 I have not included such glyphs as Aa3-68. The lower part sometimes seems to be inserted into an 'eye' in the 'roof' part, e.g. in Aa3-75 and in Ab4-19 (earlier above):
A hyperlink in inserted to GD31 where somewhat similar glyphs may be found, though they have a wavy appearance. With the exception of GD31 no other GD is similar enough for mistakes.
Aruku Kurenga (B) In Bb1-21 the 'eye' hole is more clearly drawn:
Ba3-31 has the intrusion higher up:
Mamari (C) My suggestion that GD46 fundamentally is the triple 'roof' is strengthened by the designs at the top of Ca10-8 and Ca11-30:
The 'roofs' have just two layers, but that is no problem. Also the following glyphs (Cb6-19, Ca6-11, Ca13-4 and Ca9-20) may incorporate GD46 (although located in other places than the top):
Échancrée (D) Da3-111 and Da3-113 have on the 'wings' GD46 marks:
Keiti (E) Ea8-106 at left has a composite giving the impression of half the 'roof' with two and the other half with three layers:
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. |
