glyphs home
GD54

GD54 has a 'sleepy' head and a long curved beak. At its other end it looks like GD42:

I have as GD54 classified such glyphs which without the severely bent neck would be classified as GD42, e.g. Aa3-42 and Ab4-18:

  

The variations are many. Glyphs with bent neck and a long beak can be exemplified by Aa1-83, Ab1-32, Ab1-39, Ab2-33 and Ab4-52:

           

Tahua has a type of GD54 which incorporates the bottom part of GD11, e.g. Aa2-83, Ab2-71 and Aa4-57:

     

They are not included as glyphs under GD11 and therefore a hyperlink leads from GD11 to GD54.

Other GD54-glyphs have as bottom part GD29, e.g. Ab2-27 and Ab7-22:

  

They, on the other hand, are classified both as GD29 and GD54 and no hyperlink is needed for them.

The head hanging down is a crucial feature of GD54. However, in GD43, GD58 and GD84 there are glyphs with 'heads' hanging down and these glyphs, e.g. Aa8-33 (GD43), Ab4-43 (GD58) and Ab7-79 (GD84), are not registered as GD54:

     

Hyperlinks lead from GD54 to GD43, GD58 and GD84.

Some odd looking glyphs which I have classified as GD54 are Aa1-73, Aa2-21, Aa6-66, Ab4-6, Ab4-7, Ab6-86, Ab7-2 and Ab8-2:

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

Ba2-6 and Ba7-16 have curious open beaks:

  

Bb5-14 and Bb6-25 have two 'half-circles' each on their beaks:

  

The quartet Ba8-32, Ba8-43, Ba9-8 and Bb2-24 are marginal cases:

        

 

Mamari (C)

Ca8-25 and Cb8-11 show both wings and are therefoer classified also as GD74:

  

The trio Cb4-13--15 have no beaks:

Odd are Cb11-14 and Cb11-16:

  

The duo Cb11-12--13 have been given a separate GD (GD117) but are also listed here:

Curious are Cb3-1, Cb4-5 and Cb10-6--7:

     

 

Échancrée (D)

Da2-106 and Da3-110 exemplify how GD15 can have traits alluding to GD54:

  

 

Keiti (E)

Ea7-37 is another GD15 glyph which definitely must be classified also as GD54:

 

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.