glyphs home
GD49

First we have to separate the GD49 glyphs from glyphs which are to be classified otherwise. Clearly GD29 (the 'leg') has a shape which resembles GD49:

  

However, we immediately can see the differences: no 'toes' but a pointed end at the bottom and a smooth rounded top. Furthermore, above the 'knee' the 'leg' is thicker, not the same thickness above and below the 'knee' as in GD29.

GD57 also has a shape resembling that in GD49 (example of GD57 at left, at right an example of GD49):

     

GD57 does not have a thicker 'leg' above the 'knee' and it normally is oriented with 'knee' pointing at left (whereas GD29 normally has the 'knee' pointing at right). GD49 may have the 'knee' either way.

The resemblance between GD49 and GD57 is so great, that a hyperlink is inserted from GD49 to GD57 (and the other way).

Maybe GD49 illustrates the 'leg' part of GD42:

GD42 sometimes arrive in 'twins' oriented in opposite ways, e.g. Ba6-8 + Ba6-10 and Aa6-5--6:

     

The 'twin' pattern appears also with GD49, as in Bb2-2 and -4:

  

The possible sign of GD49 in GD42 glyphs does not imply that GD42 glyphs also are registered as GD49, and there is no hyperlink from GD49 to GD42.

After this short introduction to a somewhat difficult subject we proceed to the glyphs in Tahua. Three glyphs exemplify variants, Ab4-50, Ab8-30 and Aa1-77:

     

Presumably the middle glyph has a mark in form of the 'hook' at bottom and the right glyph at least one mark in form of the oval upper part of the 'leg' (but probably also another mark in form of the non-pointed bottom 'foot' end). That leaves the left glyph (Ab4-50) as possibly a 'clean' glyph (without marks, i.e. the 'pure' GD49 concept according to Tahua). Compared with how in other texts GD49 is written Tahua has a thin shape - the thin shape is in Tahua probably not a mark.

Three other glyphs, Aa8-68, Aa8-72 (with GD43 at left) and Aa8-81, share the thin shape:

     

But they have a common mark in form of the upper part of the 'leg' not being thick. A little 'eye' at the 'knee' of Aa8-81 is a sign too.

Another variant is seen in Aa5-39 and Aa5-35 (with GD28 at right):

  

And yet another variant is found in Ab3-52 and Ab3-49:

  

Ab3-58 (following shortly after Ab3-49 and Ab3-52) looks like a combination between GD49 and GD24:

Leglike signs are seen in e.g. Ab6-84, Aa5-31 and Aa5-14:

     

I have decided not to classify these three glyphs and other glyphs with similar legs as GD49. Practical reasons make me rather use GD79 for them and a hyperlink therefore leads from GD49 to GD79.

Finally, there are often 'elbow adornments' which look like GD49, e.g. in Ba1-20 and Ba1-25 ('twin' glyphs):

  

I think the 'elbow adornments' of different kinds may need a special classifying effort and therefore such adornments are not reason enough for classifying the glyphs as GD49.

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

We here find a variant of GD55 which presumably alludes to GD49 (Bb9-23 and Bb12-30):

  

Although not equally obvious I have decided to also classify Bb3-28, Bb10-12 and Bb12-24 as GD49:

     

I have followed the same pattern with e.g. Bb9-45 (no problem) and Ba9-40 (dubious):

  

Another similar case is the left part in Bb10-3 (no problem) compared with the left part in Bb9-1 (dubious):

  

Unusual is Ba8-39:

In an effort to put focus on other possible cases involving GD49 I decided to include also Ba6-15, Bb2-1 and Bb7-21:

    

 

Mamari (C)

Only three glyphs could be classified as GD49, Ca2-18, Ca5-3 and Cb9-6:

     

Though the first example rather belongs to GD51 (where it also is registered).

 

Échancrée (D)

Db3-106 is the only example

 

Keiti (E)

Eb3-10, Eb2-12 and  Eb7-29 have rounded 'heads' (cfr Ba8-39 and Ca5-3):

     

 

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.