GD55 is similar to GD48 (Aa1-45):
but GD55 has marks, either at right or at left, as in e.g. Aa1-19 respectively Aa1-17:
The number of marks vary, e.g. Aa1-34 (5), Aa1-28 (7), Aa8-41 (8), Aa7-61 (9) and Ab2-73 (4):
The length of the marks also vary, sometimes with a clear pattern, as in the septet Aa1-19, Aa1-21, Aa1-23, Aa1-25, Aa1-29, Aa1-31 and Aa1-36:
Or the marks looks as if irregular, for instance in the triple Aa7-40, Aa7-52, Aa7-61:
The length of the marks may also be very long or very short, as in Ab7-8 and Ab4-13:
The shape of the oval is not quite symmetric, and may be intentionally disfigured as seen in e.g. Ab7-8. A little 'foot' is at the bottom of Aa2-47:
GD55 can be combined with GD53 - for example Aa7-7, Aa8-58 and Aa8-64:
A hyperlink leads to GD18 because often they seem to allude to GD55, for instance in Ab4-16:
Aruku Kurenga (B) Here we encounter examples where one of the sides is straight or concave, e.g. Bb11-8, Ba9-21 respectively Bb3-17:
Furthermore, the glyph may be vertically subdivided as in Bb3-28 and Bb12-24:
It may also take on the shape of GD49, like in Bb12-30 and Bb9-23:
Odd is Bb10-12:
Mamari (C) Cb12-19 is designed to be leaning with a straight side:
Cb9-1 has a strange 'handle':
Échancrée (D) I have made exceptions with Da5-114--115:
There are no other GD55 glyphs in D. But the pattern of marks allude to GD55. Other similar glyphs (for instance Aa5-52--53) have therefore also been classified as GD55.
Keiti (E) Eb2-21 and Eb3-29 are unusual combinations with some other element:
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. |
