glyphs home
GD61

GD61 glyphs are rather rare and furthermore not very clearly defined in character. A vertical shape with forms of Y both at top and at bottom (with Y inverted) is the norm.

However, another variant of GD61 instead has a tail divided in three, as in Ab3-15, Ab5-23, Ab7-51, Aa5-31 and Aa5-41, and no bottom Y (or only a hint of it):

           

This is the variant which is used in Tahua and I cannot with certainty classify any more glyphs in that text as GD61.

After some hesitation I have, though, included also Aa6-10 (while the top part belongs to GD46):

A hyperlink leads from GD61 to GD64 because there are similarities between these two GD, as is seen e.g. in the unusual Ab4-26:

Another link leads to GD68 where also similar glyphs are assembled. The strange glyph Aa6-26 is, for example, insorted there rather than here: 

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

In Bb12-33:

we may have an example of GD61. However, I cannot but classify it also as GD68.

Then I have decided to - at least for the moment - include here Bb3-19 and Ba6-2--3:

  

Ba6-3 is not far away (in form) from Bb12-33 and Ba6-2--3 together have similarities with Bb3-19. The wedge-marks on Bb3-19 resemble those on Ab5-23 (see above).

 

Mamari (C)

Ca14-220 possibly has a central bottom part which is GD61:

The right part of Ca12-19 may likewise be GD61, or GD68. I have registered the glyph at both places:

There then remain three glyphs which possibly should deserve a separate GD later, viz. the right parts of Cb1-17, Cb3-3 and Cb10-13:

     

I have chosen to provisionally register them here as GD61, because of the Y-shape at top and because of the leaf-like appendages which have a certain resemblance with the prototype for GD61:

It must also be noted that there are three other glyphs which may belong to the same group, viz. Aa2-56, Aa2-62 and Cb1-21:

     

Their bent shapes have, though, persuaded me to sort them as glyphs which do not fit into the system (at least so far).

 

Échancrée (D)

No GD61 glyphs are found.

 

Keiti (E)

Ea4-28 has as head a strange Y-shaped form which maybe alludes to GD61:

 

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.