The bent tail, which is one characteristic of GD62, always seems to be oriented to the right. Possibly the reason is to make an allusion to the sitting person in GD52, which normally is oriented this way:
In Ab3-40 the similarity is further enhanced by the conversion of one of the fins into an arm (though with outward oriented hand):
The tail may be converted into a leg, as in Ab4-73:
After having become aquainted with the similarity between the fish in GD62 and the person in GD52 it is natural to find such middle forms as Aa6-28 and Aa8-38:
I have chosen to classify them as GD62 (and not as GD52) because of the double arms - not more than one arm is seen in GD52 glyphs. Aa8-83 is even more of a borderline case:
I have already classified this glyph as a variant of GD13, and at that point I also included Aa6-28 (see above) as GD13. The similarity with GD62 makes it practical to also include Aa8-83 as GD62. But for some reason - possibly a combination of factors: the hint of a knee and a more obviously sitting shape (with a slightly bulging stomach) - I did not include Aa8-38 as GD13.
Aruku Kurenga (B) A borderline case is Ba8-20:
I decided to classify it as GD62 due to the existence of the more regular Ba5-33:
Another strange glyph is Bb10-8:
Although not really classifiable anywhere among my GD:s (I have registered it as a glyph which does not fit into the structure) I decided to register the glyph here too. The shape of the fish is bent, we see a Y-formed tail and also fins at the head.
Mamari (C) 5 slightly variable glyphs is followed by a 6th more different and by a 7th radically different:
(Ca4-28, Ca4-29, Ca5-7, Ca5-8, Cb2-10, Cb9-18 and Cb12-10.)
Échancrée (D) Db1-104--105 are two examples of GD62 which definitely allude to GD52:
Keiti (E) Ea6-22 and Ea6-24 also show the 'knee':
The tails belong to GD78.
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. |
