In an oval outline there may be figures drawn, as for instance the chevron pattern in Ab1-31 and Ab2-3:
When defining GD48 I decided that oval outlines with signs inside should be classified as GD86 even if otherwise they would have been classified as GD48. Therefore there is a hyperlink from GD48 to GD86 and the other way around. We can normally discern GD48 by its slimmer outline:
In Ab7-38 we have a glyph with the outline of GD48, but with an internal sign and then it becomes easy to classify the glyph as GD86:
Hyperlinks lead from GD86 also to GD16 (example Aa2-37), GD19 (example Bb12-19) and GD75 (example Ab4-51):
Aruku Kurenga (B) Examples of glyphs with internal designs are Bb9-12 and Bb9-15:
Glyphs without internal marks are exemplified by Bb8-27, Bb9-9 and bb8-46:
Bb9-4 and Bb12-44 are glyphs with small ovals:
Also glyphs with multiple small ovals exist, viz. Ba6-34, Ba3-35 and Ba6-28:
Small ovals may look like balloons, as in Ba1-26 and Ba3-14:
Mamari (C) Cb13-10 has, strictly regarded, not an oval outline, but anyhow it obviously belongs to GD86:
Ca7-24 has a complex internal picture:
Ca10-3 has no internal marks but an outline which may point at GD86:
GD28 glyphs which possibly allude to GD86 are Ca12-8, Ca11-9 and Cb3-10:
Similarly we may have allusions to GD86 in glyphs belonging to other GD, viz. Ca1-25 (GD14), Ca2-1 (GD41), Cb5-18 and Ca6-5 (GD17):
Other, more marginal, examples are Cb6-25, Ca4-6 and Ca12-19 (GD64):
Ca4-21 is an odd case:
Échancrée (D) With Da3-114 one may hesitate whether to classify it as GD86 or GD48. However, the 'balloon' ovals in Ba1-26 and Ba3-14 made me classify those glyphs as GD86 and I ought to use the underlying principle here too: glyphs with small ovals above 'arms' or 'wings' belong to GD86:
Keiti (E) Ea7-29 and Eb4-40 also have 'ballons' arranged as in Da3-114:
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. |