The normal GD73 probably is a compound created from GD45 and a stylized GD35 (though with 'elbow' at right):
Therefore a hyperlink leads from GD45 to GD73 (but not the other way around). No hyperlink leads from GD35 to GD73, however. The reason is that such variants of GD73 which show a non-stylized arm and hand are listed also as GD35. A few examples are Aa2-13, Aa2-27 and Aa4-39:
It seems as if in Tahua the left part of these glyphs differ from the left part of such glyphs which have the stylized right part, as in Aa1-33, Aa6-46 and Aa6-58:
The form of GD73 varies, which these glyphs show (Ab8-47 and Aa3-7):
I have included as GD73 also the peculiar Ab6-34 and Aa3-6 (arriving immediately before Aa3-7 - see above):
Aruku Kurenga (B) In e.g. Bb12-12, Bb10-37 and Bb12-20 we can see another left part than GD45:
Maybe the left part is an upside down version of GD47? I have not listed these three (and similar glyphs) as GD47 though. The left part of Bb8-42 is obiously similar to neither what we see in the normal GD73 nor in to the 'blown up' left part in the three glyphs above:
Mamari (C) Ca2-13 is the only GD73 glyph in Mamari and somewhat similar to Bb8-42 in being assymmetric with a side convex to the left:
Échancrée (D) Db2-109 has a shape like a fish at left, but the glyph probably alludes to GD73:
Db3-108 presumably has an upside down GD78 at right:
Keiti (E) Eb6-14 has GD49 at right and probably also alludes to GD73:
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. |
