In Tahua we find both lean and fat examples of GD47 (Ab4-44 and Aa1-42):
Mixed glyphs are Ab4-45 (GD11), Aa1-47 (GD22), Aa1-48 (GD35) and Aa1-37 (GD67):
Furthermore, Bb12-23 is a glyph which indicates that the Y-form probably appears as a sign in different other glyph types too, as for example in the parallel glyphs Hb12-44--45:
Ab4-37, on the other hand is classified as (also) GD47 - there is a little Y-sign on top of the wing:
Some GD12 glyphs in Tahua have Y-signs or other similar signs at the top. Examples with Y-signs are Aa1-25, Aa1-30 and Ab3-18 (all of which have been included also here at GD47):
In Ab5-43, though, the sign at the top is not the Y-sign but a sign of GD39:
In e.g. Ab5-60 the sign at the top is not the Y-sign but either GD36 or GD44:
(Cfr also Aa7-80 earlier above.)
Y-signs at the bottom in GD18 (e.g. Aa6-61), in GD28 (e.g. Aa2-16), and at the bottom of other glyph types, has not persuaded me to also classify such glyphs as GD47:
Neither have I inserted hyperlinks from GD47 to other GD:s with glyphs having such Y-signs.
Aruku Kurenga (B) Ba2-9 and Ba2-35 are classified as GD47 (in addition to GD59) because of their shapes:
Otherwise they should have been registered under GD28 because 'feathers' cover both sides. A hyperlink leads to GD28 (and the other way around). A variant of GD47 with a curious bottom shape is found in Aruku Kurenga, e.g. in Bb5-16, Bb6-27 and, heavily marked, in Bb11-42:
Mamari (C) Small GD47 combined with birds are seen in Cb2-20 and Cb4-13--14:
Doubtful Y-signs which I have accepted as alluding to GD47 are found in Ca1-22, Ca3-21and Ca12-26:
More clear are they in Ca14-207--208:
Échancrée (D) No GD47 glyphs.
Keiti (E) Ea3-24, Ea8-107 and Eb7-8 are compositions with GD47 in the centers:
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. |