At GD39 I wrote: GD88 glyphs have at least two (connected) 'little balls', e.g. Aa6-55:
Whereas GD39, on the other hand, looks like some kind of plant growing from a nut at the bottom end:
From this definition follows that it is possible to classify also Aa2-46 as GD88 (in addition to GD15 and GD37):
In Ab1-23 and Ab1-25 it is GD41 which is connected with 'hanging balls':
Ab6-59 is yet another example of GD88, here together with GD16:
No example in Tahua exhibits 4 'balls' in the crosswise pattern shown above in the norm for GD88.
As a last step in ordering glyphs under GD88 I have taken the opportunity to here also register such glyphs which have only a single dangling 'ball', viz.: Aa2-23, Aa4-64, Aa7-27, Ab2-43, Ab2-60, Ab2-62, Ab2-64, Ab2-65, Ab3-2, Ab3-22, Ab3-24, Ab3-30, Ab3-41, Ab3-66 and Ab5-1:
Maybe I will later create a separate GD for these 'dangling balls'.
Aruku Kurenga (B) Examples of two 'dangling balls' are seen in Ba6-29, Ba9-3, Bb10-6 and Bb8-9:
We can even find a glyph (Ba3-37) which exclusively shows the two 'balls':
A single 'dangling ball' (though anyhow suggesting two 'balls') is exhibited in Ba4-5:
Mamari (C) Ca5-14 has the cross with four 'balls' according to the norm for GD88:
Ca1-13, Cb7-18 and Cb12-23 have two dangling objects, though not with circular forms:
Just a single oval hangs down in Ca1-4, but the string below suggests another:
Ca13-8 is a complex glyph with different hanging objects:
Cb6-19--21and Ca4-1--2 are registered both at GD38 and GD88:
The 'balls' (or similar) in GD88 do not necessarily have to hang down.
Échancrée (D) Da2-109 and Db5-112 are the only glyphs belonging to GD88:
Keiti (E) Ea9-29 resembles Ba3-37:
In one part of the text several GD88 glyphs appear close together, e.g. Eb7-9 and Eb7-13--Eb7-14:
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. |
