This glyph is composed of GD15 and GD79. I therefore start by rereading what I have written about these two glyph types in my dictionary. That time has arrived when I have to stand back and criticize, not only to use my imagination to try to recreate the fundamental building blocks of the rongorongo writing system.

Already at the first line I stumble: "... this type of glyph certainly shows a human appearance... " OK the legs perhaps, but the head and the arms? I must rewrite this line into: "... this type of glyph have a certain resemblance to a human being... "

But that is not enough. I have then ontinued my description in the same vein, as if it also was clear that this glyph type really means a human being. I haven't written it clearly, for that I was too cautious. I just sneakily tried to implant the idea as a natural consequence of the first sentence.

At this time I do no longer think this glyph type means a human being. Why should it? Every text seem to be about calendrical phenomena and there is no obvious reason why real people should enter the scene. I think GD15 depicts a god of some type. Reconsidering the new situation, I decide to rewrite the first sentence into:

"To begin with this type of glyph have a resemblance to a human being. However, that does not imply that the meaning is 'man', people (e.g. the Greeks) have always imagined that the gods are similar to men."