glyphs home
GD78

The characteristic features of GD78 are clearly seen not only in Aa2-14 (the prototype for GD78) but also in Aa2-18 (together with GD48) and Ab7-55 (together with GD37):

     

In Ab7-56 (following immediately after) there is a resemblance which probably alludes to GD78:

However, the rhomboid middle part is hardly seen. Maybe GD43 instead is alluded to? I have inserted a hyperlink from GD78 to GD43 in order to facilitate comparisons and there is found e.g. the left part of Ab2-17:

The triplet Aa5-32--34 I have classified as GD78 and they are parallel with Ab7-55--56 (cfr above):

After some hesitation I have included also Aa3-18, Aa3-22 and Aa3-28 as GD78:

     

I have not classified the right hanging objects also as GD38 (fishes) but a hyperlink there leads to GD78.

 

Aruku Kurenga (B)

To begin with Ba4-18 and the right part of Bb2-31 they unquestionably belong to GD78:

  

Then we find in Bb10-9 an inverted GD78 as the 'tail of the shark':

As next step it becomes necessary to decide about Bb2-11, Bb12-1 and Bb3-3:

     

Are they not isolated cases of 'the tail of the shark' we just saw in Bb10-9? Possibly, but I have already classified them as GD68. I decide to not list them also as GD78, but instead insert a hyperlink from GD78 to GD68.

There remain two glyphs, Ba7-16 (GD37 + GD54) and Bb2-44 (GD43) which are marginal cases but which I anyhow have decided to register here at GD78:

  

 

Mamari (C)

I can find only one GD78 glyph, viz. Ca7-14:

 

Échancrée (D)

The complex Da2-109 definitely contains GD78 at left

Db3-108 is a marginal case, a glyph which at right has a part which looks as an upside-down GD78:

Keiti (E)

Eb1-30 is and interesting case:

 

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.