A hyperlink leads to GD85 where double-headed similar glyphs - looking like insects or crustaceans - may be found:
In Tahua there are no good examples. In Aa6-26 there are no legs, but I have anyhow registered it as GD68:
The outline of the 'body' is more or less as that in GD68. Maybe Ab2-50 (GD27) and Ab2-63 (GD27):
could allude to GD68? The swollen body, the bifurcated tail and mouth are structural features we recognize in GD68. Although the 'mouth parts' are differently designed and the 'insect legs' are missing I have (hesitantly) registered the two glyphs as alluding to GD68. In GD61:
we often find a bifurcated 'mouth' and 'tail' too, and I have therefore inserted a hyperlink also to GD61.
Aruku Kurenga (B) Bb12-33 I have registered both at GD61 and here at GD68.
Otherwise the GD68 glyphs are not seen also at GD61. Mostly the G68 glyphs in Aruku Kurenga are without 'legs', for instance Ba9-9 and Ba7-3:
The 'bulging stomach' is absent in Ba6-43 and for instance in Ba7-30 (where indeed the 'stomach' itself is on its way to disappear):
Ba7-30 is an example of glyph type which I have registered both as GD68 and GD43. The only glyph with legs is Ba5-31:
The 'root' at bottom appears in several other glyphs, e.g. Bb2-11 and Bb3-3:
A borderline case is Bb12-4 (which I have also registered as a glyph not fitting my structure):
Mamari (C) Ca12-19 I have classified as both GD61 and GD68:
Otherwise the GD68 glyphs in Mamari are not seen also at GD61. The experience from Aruku Kurenga makes is possible to include in GD68 the following glyphs (Cb13-14 and Ca2-21):
Ca2-21 is also classified as GD24, however. I have registered Ca13-12 both at GD43 and here:
Cb13-30 is clearly fundamentally GD18, but has features possibly alluding to GD68:
Échancrée (D) No glyphs have been found.
Keiti (E) No glyphs have been found.
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. |
