This type of glyph I have already at GD11 defined as characterized by a front view of the upper body, by a head that is not bent downways and by the lower part of the body seen sideways. In Tahua we first of all find Aa1-15, where the right part is GD74 (and the left GD29):
Otherwhere, we find the head mostly turned towards right, as in Aa5-19 and Ab7-52:
Often the GD74 figure exhibits other GD:s by means of the outstretched arm. In Aa5-30 the sign can be regarded as an integrated hand and foot:
In Aa6-1 the arms are not used at all for the exhibition:
In GD74 glyphs we can at left observe a winglike member. A few further examples of this are Aa6-19, Aa6-54, Aa1-87 and Aa1-61:
There are slight similarities between GD74 and GD42:
But in GD74 we can see both 'wings' (due to the front view of the upper body).
Aruku Kurenga (B) In Ba4-27, -29, -33 and -37 the left wing (from us seen) is peculiarly transformed:
The leg 'sticks' appear in other glyphs too, e.g. Bb9-26 and Bb11-2:
Other positions of the arms sometimes occur, for instance in Ba5-43, Ba6-2 and Bb1-5:
Curious are Ba1-47, Bb2-24 and Bb2-5:
Mamari (C) In the unusual Cb2-25 I have understood part of the form at the back of this sitting person to be a wing:
Although I once decided to classify 'birds' with head down as GD54 I have anyhow classified Ca8-25 and Cb8-11 also as GD74:
Similarly, Cb2-13 has a head which indicates GD23, but the body posture says GD74:
Also, GD74 glyphs often have bulging stomachs. Strange heads are seen in Cb6-2--3:
Échancrée (D) Da2-110 has a bottom which maybe indicates GD42:
Keiti (E) Eb1-18 is also, it seems, equipped with just one '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. |
