In Tahua we find only one example according to the norm, viz. Ab4-36:
Another glyph exhibits the character of a broken GD37, Aa6-23:
Maybe the 'normal' GD66 glyph is a picture of a GD86-oval broken in two.
Aruku Kurenga (B) Several glyphs look like the norm, e.g. Ba1-36, Ba2-22 and Bb7-26:
In Bb11-4 we see a combination, and the same type of combination also appears in Ba6-26, though here with only one part of the 'egg' left:
Other 'broken' forms than 'eggs' are seen too, for instance 'broken' GD37 (Bb8-28, Ba3-11 and probably Bb8-24):
The state of 'broken' possibly is illustrated also by linearly grouped 'eggs', e.g. Ba3-12 and Ba6-28:
'Broken' fishes with the middle, missing section, describing the form of an egg are seen in Bb9-49--50 and Bb10-26:
Special are Bb7-30 and Bb7-5:
Mamari (C) Examples of the norm are Ca3-12, Cb14-8 and Cb6-22:
Unique is Ca7-24 with 'broken' GD37 inside an 'egg':
Échancrée (D) No glyphs are found.
Keiti (E) Interesting is Ea9-22, with an open space continuing right through the 'persons' arm, body and leg:
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. |
