* *

A noteworthy technical line is to be found in the drawing of the glyphs.
Whereas in the case of the day-signs, faces, and conventional forms in
general, certain variations of handwriting, etc., are evidently
permitted, but only within certain definite lines, in some few animal
glyphs no two instances are just alike. In other words, the glyphs in
general are conventions with established meanings--actual writing;[39-*]
but we also have _pictures_ of birds or animal forms, where the writer
is not following convention, but nature. The freedom of style used in
the latter case only serves to emphasize the conventionality of the
former, and to separate the entire system from either picture or rebus
writing. See the following fish-glyph forms:

[Hieroglyphs]

These pictures are almost exclusively in uncompounded forms, whereas the
conventional glyphs, whether human, animal or otherwise, are subject to
the general rules of incorporation.

Writing is a system of conventional forms with established meanings,
corresponding to and reflecting the structure of the spoken language;
some picture elements whose value as such has remained either wholly or
partly present in the minds of those who use them, are not inconsistent
with genuine writing; when present they add vividness to the writing,
and emphasize its ideographic character. A combination of picture forms
only, may be used as means of communication to a certain degree, but can
never constitute _writing_; that, like speech, must provide for the
expression of the relationships and categories that make up the
structure of language.

Egyptian writing, which is of course _true writing_, contains elements
of every class. It has symbols and also pictures, not only of things or
creatures, but of actions as well, "contracted to a narrow space, made
cursive"; these pictures, although still ranking as such, stand for
_words_--they can be _pronounced_, and have syntax, which is the crucial
test. Egyptian next has unrecognizable forms, whose meaning has become a
simple convention, but which still stand for _words_, or particles. It
has elements which are not pronounced for themselves, but only serve as
determinatives. (Such a use of determinatives is not limited to
hieroglyphic writing, but is possessed also by alphabetic; the second
_o_ in the word _too_ is strictly a determinative, to distinguish the
adverb _too_ from the preposition _to_, both pronounced alike. Tibetan
h