The 'staff' of GD79 may take different forms. Although in Tahua there is no 'clean' (not disturbed by other signs) glyph to exhibit, we find examples where the arm has been converted to GD79, e.g. in Aa8-40 and Aa8-44:
Other examples are Aa2-84, Aa6-47 and Ab6-42:
The long 'shaft' of the staff is not always straight, as we have seen. Furthermore the upper end may be thick (Aa6-56) or changed in other ways (Aa1-87):
What may be other kinds of 'staffs' with longer downward ends are seen in Aa1-64, Aa2-73 and Ab2-46:
Following this lead we find even more extreme prolongations, Ab4-37, Ab4-38, Ab2-73 and Ab1-28:
Maybe the 'staffs' are, at least sometimes, to be regardes as wings? Bent branches may be another explanation, as perhaps in Ab6-31:
To this quick resumé must be added borderline cases, like Aa2-1, Aa2-11, Aa2-85, Aa4-13, Aa7-3, Aa7-54, Ab1-14 and Ab6-86:
Nearly in desperation I also added Ab8-67:
Aruku Kurenga (B) A rich flora of GD79 glyphs is found in Aruku Kurenga. A certain standard shape is seen in Ba6-17, Ba6-20, Ba6-25, Ba6-27, Ba6-30 and Ba6-32 (all in the same text line):
Onto this standard has in some glyphs been added signs of different sorts (Ba6-23, Ba6-29, Ba6-34):
A close scrutiny reveals that there is a slightly different standard in for instance Ba4-9, Ba4-23, Ba5-18, Ba5-29 and Ba5-32:
Other slightly different forms also occur, as in e.g Ba3-1, Ba4-34, Ba5-1, Ba6-15, Ba5-11 and Ba5-19:
In order to widen the perspective I have included also some marginal cases, viz. Ba1-44, Ba5-33, Ba5-35, Bb2-31, Bb5-36 and Bb10-42:
Mamari (C) Just a few GD79 glyphs occur in Mamari, two clear examples are Ca3-3 and Ca3-6:
Two marginal cases (which I have added to GD79) are Ca5-33 and Ca12-1:
Échancrée (D) Da7-108 and Da7-110 have 'staffs' bent inwards:
Da6-105 is a marginal case, with S-form and 'fingers':
Keiti (E) Very many glyphs in the Keiti text belong to GD79. Ea3-19 and Ea3-30 contain a strange straight variant:
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. |
