glyphs home
GD63

GD63 glyphs often incorporate as bottom part what looks like a variant of GD76:

In Tahua, however, we instead may perceive arms and legs, as in Aa8-39:

Though the arms may be converted into corners of a triangle (Aa2-76 and Aa2-49) or into limbs with a V-shape (e.g. Aa4-49 and Ab8-6):

           

The assymmetric head gear is not always there, as for instance in Aa2-49 (above), Aa4-5, Ab3-24 and Ab5-30:

     

One of the arms may be converted into an undulating wing, Aa5-72 and Ab7-84:

  

The assymmetric head gear I have regarded as an indication of GD63 and therefore e.g. Aa6-80 (GD15) and Aa3-69 (GD17) are classified as (also) GD63:

  

Another indication of GD63 is the bottom with its different variants, a fact that has induced me to classify also the following glyphs as GD63 - Ab8-2 (GD54) and Ab1-22 (GD54):

Borderline cases (classfied as GD63) are Aa3-76 and Aa4-11 (GD17):

  

In Aa3-76 there occurs a V-variation at the bottom which is enough for classification as GD63. In Aa4-11 I imagine the V-formed arms are alluding to GD63.

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

In Bb12-14 all four limbs and the headgear are 'open', while in Ba8-12 and Ba9-46 the limbs are 'open' and the headgears 'closed':

     

In Bb12-37 and Bb12-42 only the legs are 'open':

  

 

Mamari (C)

Cb1-16 and Cb5-11 have curiously thick arms:

  

 

Échancrée (D)

Db2-112 exemplifies how the headgear is enough for classification as GD63:

 

Keiti (E)

Ea4-35 is another example of this:

There are no marks on top of the headgear, but that does not matter.

 

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.