I can't even tell exactly what all the grammatical bits are, but I'm guessing the first is German, the second is something Scandinavian, and the third is Icelandic, and I'd say the first and second look really similar, the third is a bit different but I could still tell what it says so I'd say they're mutually intelligle.Ephraim wrote:Here's the same sentence in three different Germanic languages:
Can you identify the languages and translate the sentence into English? And returning to the original question of this thread, would you consider the written languages to be mutually intelligible?
Pan-Germanic Logograms
-
- roman
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
1st one, just to agree with the other oval logograms.clawgrip wrote:Are these the only logograms that are absolutely agreed upon? Are there more?
foot, hand, eye, mouth, fish, octopus/kraken, guest, shield, in, yon, hold, die/dead, wind, water, sun
Also, which version of mouth looks better?
This is of course just the style of this particular typeface. For this particular type, There are thick vertical/curved strokes, thin diagonal strokes, and thin curved strokes. The first two always get serifs on their endpoints. Currently, curved thick strokes get serifs when they reach the top or bottom, even when they don't end there, hence the serifs on the tops and bottoms of the round glyphs, including "guest". Not sure what the best thing to do there is.
: | : | : | :
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
- Thrice Xandvii
- runic
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
- Location: Carnassus
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
...I'm sure the others would change to agree with whatever the one chosen for 'mouth' is.
That said, I think I do like the first one.
I'm pretty disappointed with how much "water" lacks visual flair. I wonder if we might come up with a more appealing design for it? I'm not sure what glyphs/runes might exist that are better. Perhaps a version of the *laguz rune?
That said, I think I do like the first one.
I'm pretty disappointed with how much "water" lacks visual flair. I wonder if we might come up with a more appealing design for it? I'm not sure what glyphs/runes might exist that are better. Perhaps a version of the *laguz rune?
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
The <*munþ/az>-glyph (‘mouth’) looks like a common form of the <ŋ>-rune (Ingwaz):
(from Wikipedia)
Also, I think this should be the <ŋ>-rune.
(from Wikipedia)
This is a good base for ‘mouth’, though, so perhaps just add some detail to differentiate them?k1234567890y wrote:mouth(PGmc: *munþaz)(also used as a 部首 for words indicating things or actions related to mouth or sounds)Spoiler:
I think I prefer the clean version without serifs actually but they all look nice.clawgrip wrote:Also, which version of mouth looks better?
This is of course just the style of this particular typeface. For this particular type, There are thick vertical/curved strokes, thin diagonal strokes, and thin curved strokes. The first two always get serifs on their endpoints. Currently, curved thick strokes get serifs when they reach the top or bottom, even when they don't end there, hence the serifs on the tops and bottoms of the round glyphs, including "guest". Not sure what the best thing to do there is.
Also, I think this should be the <ŋ>-rune.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
What about a wynn for "water" with a squiggle underneath, suggesting a ship sailing on water:
Or with multiple squiggles:
Or with multiple squiggles:
Native: | Fluent: | Less than fluent: , , | Beginner: , :fao:,
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
seems that I simplified it too much...maybe this version is better?Thrice Xandvii wrote: I'm pretty disappointed with how much "water" lacks visual flair. I wonder if we might come up with a more appealing design for it? I'm not sure what glyphs/runes might exist that are better. Perhaps a version of the *laguz rune?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
hmm...also, I think the versions clawgrip provided were modified my version. maybe he provided some versions to avoid confusion with the existing glyphs?Ephraim wrote:This is a good base for ‘mouth’, though, so perhaps just add some detail to differentiate them?k1234567890y wrote:mouth(PGmc: *munþaz)(also used as a 部首 for words indicating things or actions related to mouth or sounds)Spoiler:
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
The particular typeface I'm using/designing is meant to be a relatively advanced or modern form of the runes. Many angled strokes have systematically received stylistic rounding, but they represent the same underlying glyphs.
I would consider Ephraim's glyph style to be representative of the actual Proto-Germanic period, and mine to be of post-printing press style, with much heavier Latin influence.
I would consider Ephraim's glyph style to be representative of the actual Proto-Germanic period, and mine to be of post-printing press style, with much heavier Latin influence.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
If I flatten out the right side, I get this:Thrice Xandvii wrote:I'm pretty disappointed with how much "water" lacks visual flair. I wonder if we might come up with a more appealing design for it? I'm not sure what glyphs/runes might exist that are better. Perhaps a version of the *laguz rune?
Incidentally, this is also what I did to the <ᛟ> rune, resulting in:
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
I think maybe it's better for "ship"?CMunk wrote:What about a wynn for "water" with a squiggle underneath, suggesting a ship sailing on water:
Or with multiple squiggles:
However, it is possible that my thought is restrained by certain frames, and you are actually more creative and your opinion is actually better, no matter what, cheers.
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
We should take advantage of the fact that Proto-Germanic had a lot of transparent and (presumably) productive derivational morphology. For the most part, I think glyphs should represent roots rather than entire words. If there's been a lot of semantic drift, some historical roots may be represented by multiple glyphs, though. Derivational morphemes could be represented either phonographically or logographically.
Here are some ideas. Most of the derivation is written with the Fuþark but there are two logograms for derivational morphemes that are derived from other logograms combined with <þ>.
Note that the shift of the glyph <*daud/az> to <*dew/anan> changes the three sentences I poster earlier.
The vowel marks in red are of course optional. Note that the mark under a root marks ablaut grade. The mark under the <ō> in *fū·ô marks an overlong vowel.
Du inktvis, G Tintenfisch and Sw bläckfisk all mean inkfish. Da has blæksprutte and No blekksprut (ink-spray).
G Krake and D kraak are borrowings from a Nordic language (Compare Ic kraki, Sw krake). But it doesn't really mean octopus in the Nordic languages. The word has a very complicated history. It can probably go back to a PG form *krakô (but it's probaly a North Germanic word) and the oldest known meaning of this word seem to be something like ‘crooked and thin tree’. It's probably related to *krōkaz ‘something bent, hook’ (> ME crook). The nordic word krake came to be extended from the referring to trees to referring to a variety of weak and meager creatures, most commonly horses or humans. It was also used Icelandic and Norwegian sailors and fishermen for the legendary see creature, Kraken (definite form of krake). The creature is commonly depicted as a large octopus (Sw åttaarmad bläckfisk) or squid (Sw tioarmad bläckfisk). The German word Krake appears to have been borrowed based on this use of the word.
I like the glyph though. It actually reminds me a bit of some old depictions of horses. Here is Sleipnir from Tjängvidestenen on Gotland:
So perhaps the glyph should represent <*ehw/az> ‘horse’?
Here are some ideas. Most of the derivation is written with the Fuþark but there are two logograms for derivational morphemes that are derived from other logograms combined with <þ>.
Note that the shift of the glyph <*daud/az> to <*dew/anan> changes the three sentences I poster earlier.
The vowel marks in red are of course optional. Note that the mark under a root marks ablaut grade. The mark under the <ō> in *fū·ô marks an overlong vowel.
I'm not sure that octopus should have it's own glyph. When you look into it, it somehow feels like octopodes were very unimportant to early Germanic people. As far as I can tell, no Germanic language has a native root for it. I think all languages use either a transparent compound or a loan. It also seems to be common to use the same word for octopus, cuttlefish and squid.clawgrip wrote:
foot, hand, eye, mouth, fish, octopus/kraken, guest, shield, in, yon, hold, die/dead, wind, water, sun
Du inktvis, G Tintenfisch and Sw bläckfisk all mean inkfish. Da has blæksprutte and No blekksprut (ink-spray).
G Krake and D kraak are borrowings from a Nordic language (Compare Ic kraki, Sw krake). But it doesn't really mean octopus in the Nordic languages. The word has a very complicated history. It can probably go back to a PG form *krakô (but it's probaly a North Germanic word) and the oldest known meaning of this word seem to be something like ‘crooked and thin tree’. It's probably related to *krōkaz ‘something bent, hook’ (> ME crook). The nordic word krake came to be extended from the referring to trees to referring to a variety of weak and meager creatures, most commonly horses or humans. It was also used Icelandic and Norwegian sailors and fishermen for the legendary see creature, Kraken (definite form of krake). The creature is commonly depicted as a large octopus (Sw åttaarmad bläckfisk) or squid (Sw tioarmad bläckfisk). The German word Krake appears to have been borrowed based on this use of the word.
I like the glyph though. It actually reminds me a bit of some old depictions of horses. Here is Sleipnir from Tjängvidestenen on Gotland:
So perhaps the glyph should represent <*ehw/az> ‘horse’?
It's German, Swedish and Icelandic. The Swedish would be very similar in Norwegian and Danish but I think there'd be some differences.HoskhMatriarch wrote:I can't even tell exactly what all the grammatical bits are, but I'm guessing the first is German, the second is something Scandinavian, and the third is Icelandic, and I'd say the first and second look really similar, the third is a bit different but I could still tell what it says so I'd say they're mutually intelligle.
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
that's a good idea :)Ephraim wrote:We should take advantage of the fact that Proto-Germanic had a lot of transparent and (presumably) productive derivational morphology. For the most part, I think glyphs should represent roots rather than entire words. If there's been a lot of semantic drift, some historical roots may be represented by multiple glyphs, though. Derivational morphemes could be represented either phonographically or logographically.
Here are some ideas. Most of the derivation is written with the Fuþark but there are two logograms for derivational morphemes that are derived from other logograms combined with <þ>.
Note that the shift of the glyph <*daud/az> to <*dew/anan> changes the three sentences I poster earlier.
The vowel marks in red are of course optional. Note that the mark under a root marks ablaut grade. The mark under the <ō> in *fū·ô marks an overlong vowel.
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
Tell me about it... Spent quite a while not long ago researching it because I found it weird that all the pirate movies always talk about it like some sort of direct loan from Norwegian even tho that's not even near the current Swedish meanings and Norwegians don't really seem to recognise the word as meaning anything at all in my experience. Eventually figured most of it out and found all of the stuff you mentioned here, scattered across various pages.Ephraim wrote:The word has a very complicated history.
---
Also I don't like the rounded designs proposed. I feel it takes away from the runic æsthetic. Circles do not belong. Diamond is fine.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
Absolutely unattestable in Proto-Germanic, but you could combineEphraim wrote:We should take advantage of the fact that Proto-Germanic had a lot of transparent and (presumably) productive derivational morphology. For the most part, I think glyphs should represent roots rather than entire words. If there's been a lot of semantic drift, some historical roots may be represented by multiple glyphs, though. Derivational morphemes could be represented either phonographically or logographically.
Here are some ideas. Most of the derivation is written with the Fuþark but there are two logograms for derivational morphemes that are derived from other logograms combined with <þ>.
Note that the shift of the glyph <*daud/az> to <*dew/anan> changes the three sentences I poster earlier.
The vowel marks in red are of course optional. Note that the mark under a root marks ablaut grade. The mark under the <ō> in *fū·ô marks an overlong vowel.
I'm not sure that octopus should have it's own glyph. When you look into it, it somehow feels like octopodes were very unimportant to early Germanic people. As far as I can tell, no Germanic language has a native root for it. I think all languages use either a transparent compound or a loan. It also seems to be common to use the same word for octopus, cuttlefish and squid.clawgrip wrote:
foot, hand, eye, mouth, fish, octopus/kraken, guest, shield, in, yon, hold, die/dead, wind, water, sun
Du inktvis, G Tintenfisch and Sw bläckfisk all mean inkfish. Da has blæksprutte and No blekksprut (ink-spray).
G Krake and D kraak are borrowings from a Nordic language (Compare Ic kraki, Sw krake). But it doesn't really mean octopus in the Nordic languages. The word has a very complicated history. It can probably go back to a PG form *krakô (but it's probaly a North Germanic word) and the oldest known meaning of this word seem to be something like ‘crooked and thin tree’. It's probably related to *krōkaz ‘something bent, hook’ (> ME crook). The nordic word krake came to be extended from the referring to trees to referring to a variety of weak and meager creatures, most commonly horses or humans. It was also used Icelandic and Norwegian sailors and fishermen for the legendary see creature, Kraken (definite form of krake). The creature is commonly depicted as a large octopus (Sw åttaarmad bläckfisk) or squid (Sw tioarmad bläckfisk). The German word Krake appears to have been borrowed based on this use of the word.
I like the glyph though. It actually reminds me a bit of some old depictions of horses. Here is Sleipnir from Tjängvidestenen on Gotland:
So perhaps the glyph should represent <*ehw/az> ‘horse’?
It's German, Swedish and Icelandic. The Swedish would be very similar in Norwegian and Danish but I think there'd be some differences.HoskhMatriarch wrote:I can't even tell exactly what all the grammatical bits are, but I'm guessing the first is German, the second is something Scandinavian, and the third is Icelandic, and I'd say the first and second look really similar, the third is a bit different but I could still tell what it says so I'd say they're mutually intelligle.
the polypode/octopus glyph with the one for 'sea' to make 'sea-polypode' = octopus, quid, cuttlefish, kraken,
While combining that glyph with *ehwaz, you'd get 'polypode horse' = Sleipnir.
An interesting way to associate Sleipnir with the Kraken (though really, there is no actual connection).
...Or maybe not.
\
*ehwaz + *slipraz (sorry about reversed order of glyphs) = Sleipnir
*saiwaz +*slipraz =Kraken; cephalopod
Spoiler:
Last edited by Lambuzhao on 25 Sep 2015 16:45, edited 1 time in total.
- Thrice Xandvii
- runic
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
- Location: Carnassus
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
The design that Clawgrip has been posting is a more modern take on what will have been very old characters in this alt-History we are all working in. They aren't intended to look like the runes that would have graced the stone tablets of long ago proto-Germans.Prinsessa wrote:Also I don't like the rounded designs proposed. I feel it takes away from the runic æsthetic. Circles do not belong. Diamond is fine.
A more traditionally runic look is the one Ephraim has been posting.
Last edited by Thrice Xandvii on 25 Sep 2015 17:02, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
Correct. As I said, my style is strongly based on the 17th century style posted by HinGambleGoth and is meant to be the typeface that was established more or less around that time and lasts until the present day, unless anyone has a better idea, but I hope not, because I like this style and am having fun adapting logograms to it.
The more angular and archetypal runes of Ephraim's various posts I take to be the original form that was used in say, the first millennium, which develops curves in manuscripts and eventually evolves decorative serifs and line thicknesses to result in the typefaces I have been designing.
Although it seems Ephraim uses curves to a limited extent, but as was posted previously, even quite old runic manuscripts show curved strokes.
Also, since we're dealing with numerous countries here, are we considering the possibility of kokuji/gukja, that is, characters that were invented in a specific region and whose use is limited to that region? These can account for recent coinings that can't be represented easily with existing characters, and there is also the possibility that if they are useful enough, their use could spread into the greater Germanosphere.
The more angular and archetypal runes of Ephraim's various posts I take to be the original form that was used in say, the first millennium, which develops curves in manuscripts and eventually evolves decorative serifs and line thicknesses to result in the typefaces I have been designing.
Although it seems Ephraim uses curves to a limited extent, but as was posted previously, even quite old runic manuscripts show curved strokes.
Also, since we're dealing with numerous countries here, are we considering the possibility of kokuji/gukja, that is, characters that were invented in a specific region and whose use is limited to that region? These can account for recent coinings that can't be represented easily with existing characters, and there is also the possibility that if they are useful enough, their use could spread into the greater Germanosphere.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
I think there should be an option for curved or straight lines, they should never contrast. No two glyphs should be distinguished only by the presence or absence of curved lines. The way I see it, a quarter-ellipse corresponds to a straight line.
I chose to use circular branches and bows but closed loops are drawn with four straight lines. However, I'm probably not entirely consistent here (which is fine, I think).
Many runic inscriptions do in fact have curved bows (semi-ellipses) and/or branches (quarter-ellipses) but others have only straight lines.
Here's the 5th–6th century Möjbro Runestone from Uppland, Sweden, writing Proto-Norse in the Elder Fuþark with curved bows and branches:
This is the Proto-Norse Elder Fuþark-inscription from the 5th century Hogganvik runestone from Vest-Agder, Norway, with straight lines:
Perhaps the "octopus-glyph" meant *ehwaz, but add a couple of extra legs (it doesn't actually need eight legs) to mean "Sleipnir". This was probably an example of a character that was invented at a later stage and limited to North Germanic.
So perhaps in the Nordic languages, a new glyph was invented for the mythological creature Kraken, combining sea and Sleipnir. When German borrowed Krake, it also borrowed this glyph. And perhaps English just borrowed the glyph for the loanword octopus. I still think that bläckfisk and the like should be written as compound nouns, though.
The scope of this project is potentially huge, because we're dealing with multiple languages that each have their own history. So I think it might be easier to start with Proto-Germanic and work forward.
I chose to use circular branches and bows but closed loops are drawn with four straight lines. However, I'm probably not entirely consistent here (which is fine, I think).
Many runic inscriptions do in fact have curved bows (semi-ellipses) and/or branches (quarter-ellipses) but others have only straight lines.
Here's the 5th–6th century Möjbro Runestone from Uppland, Sweden, writing Proto-Norse in the Elder Fuþark with curved bows and branches:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The idea of ‘sea Sleipnir’ is kind of cool. Maybe Sleipnir should have his own glyph. The name means ‘the slippery one’ or something like that (related to OIc sleipr ‘slippery’), but it kind of makes sense for important mythological figures to have their own glyphs, I think.Lambuzhao wrote:Absolutely unattestable in Proto-Germanic, but you could combine
the polypode/octopus glyph with the one for 'sea' to make 'sea-polypode' = octopus, quid, cuttlefish, kraken,
While combining that glyph with *ehwaz, you'd get 'polypode horse' = Sleipnir.
An interesting way to associate Sleipnir with the Kraken (though really, there is no actual connection).
...Or maybe not.
'Sea Sleipnir' ≅ octopus; cephalopod
'Kraken Horse' ≅ Sleipnir
Perhaps the "octopus-glyph" meant *ehwaz, but add a couple of extra legs (it doesn't actually need eight legs) to mean "Sleipnir". This was probably an example of a character that was invented at a later stage and limited to North Germanic.
So perhaps in the Nordic languages, a new glyph was invented for the mythological creature Kraken, combining sea and Sleipnir. When German borrowed Krake, it also borrowed this glyph. And perhaps English just borrowed the glyph for the loanword octopus. I still think that bläckfisk and the like should be written as compound nouns, though.
I feel like all characters should have a history, we shouldn't just invent characters for the modern languages as they are today. But not all characters need to have been introduced at the Proto-Germanic stage, it makes sense that some would have been created much later and only have a limited spread.clawgrip wrote:Also, since we're dealing with numerous countries here, are we considering the possibility of kokuji/gukja, that is, characters that were invented in a specific region and whose use is limited to that region? These can account for recent coinings that can't be represented easily with existing characters, and there is also the possibility that if they are useful enough, their use could spread into the greater Germanosphere.
The scope of this project is potentially huge, because we're dealing with multiple languages that each have their own history. So I think it might be easier to start with Proto-Germanic and work forward.
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
maybe we should only create glyphs with straight lines?
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
There should be a "reference glyph" but I'm not sure if it should have all straight lines or some curved. If you look at the Möjbro Runestone for example, it's clear that not all lines that could potentially be curved are, some of them are straight. So for this reason, it seems to me that reference glyphs with curved lines actually contain more information.
This example may be even clearer. Some characters have curved brances but others do not:
Still, contributors can probably use whatever style they feel like so long as it's clear how the glyps are constructed.
Regarding the water glyph, I think k1234567890y's triple-caron proposal was pretty good actually, as was clawgrip's variant cut in half (it it's not used for water, it could be used for something else). But in clawgrips's drawing of the original three-caron glyph, the lines look too thin in comparison with the other characters. You get the same effect if you apply the line style I'm using as well. With a different angle, it looks better:
For reference, I included my drawings of <a> and <t>, where the brances have different angles. I'm not entirely sure why I drew them that way, actually.
This example may be even clearer. Some characters have curved brances but others do not:
Spoiler:
Regarding the water glyph, I think k1234567890y's triple-caron proposal was pretty good actually, as was clawgrip's variant cut in half (it it's not used for water, it could be used for something else). But in clawgrips's drawing of the original three-caron glyph, the lines look too thin in comparison with the other characters. You get the same effect if you apply the line style I'm using as well. With a different angle, it looks better:
For reference, I included my drawings of <a> and <t>, where the brances have different angles. I'm not entirely sure why I drew them that way, actually.
Edit: The idea behind the style I'm using is that it's drawn with a pen on paper, but with the shapes closely imitating old stone inscriptions (with irregularities smoothed out). This is different from how I imagine handwriting or most printed texts would look.
Last edited by Ephraim on 25 Sep 2015 18:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.clawgrip wrote:Correct. As I said, my style is strongly based on the 17th century style posted by HinGambleGoth and is meant to be the typeface that was established more or less around that time and lasts until the present day, unless anyone has a better idea, but I hope not, because I like this style and am having fun adapting logograms to it.
One can always have both, of course!
Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms
With such a large project, anyone can make their own style, just as they can with any real-world script. It's just that I've claimed my style as the default style, like if you bought a book or newspaper, ot would be written in a similarly-styled typeface. I particularly like the idea of this clearly old-fashioned style surviving into the modern age.
As for the water glyph, it's a good design, but it doesn't really suit my style, which is why it looks poor. However, like <2> or <Σ>, I think occasional style violation for improved aesthetics is warranted.
I totally agree that curves and sequences of angled strokes should never be contrastive. It's in line with actual runic inscriptions, and it is exactly this rule that allows me to use curves extensively without destroying the whole system.
Kokuji/gukja should only be used for vocabulary that is used extensively, but cannot be traced back to Proto-Germanic or are derived forms and that cannot adequately be written with existing glyphs. This was necessary for Korean and Japanese, since they are unrelated to Chinese, but may be less relevant to this project. Characters for Norse god names are a good candidate. Since they also appear in the days of the week, they could also be examples of characters with localized origins that spread into wider usage, such as 腺 and 働, which were invented in Japan and subsequently adopted in China.
A final note for now: I don't think glyphs should be any more vertically complex than -th/uz, which has a total of nine vertically overlapping nodes.
As for the water glyph, it's a good design, but it doesn't really suit my style, which is why it looks poor. However, like <2> or <Σ>, I think occasional style violation for improved aesthetics is warranted.
I totally agree that curves and sequences of angled strokes should never be contrastive. It's in line with actual runic inscriptions, and it is exactly this rule that allows me to use curves extensively without destroying the whole system.
Kokuji/gukja should only be used for vocabulary that is used extensively, but cannot be traced back to Proto-Germanic or are derived forms and that cannot adequately be written with existing glyphs. This was necessary for Korean and Japanese, since they are unrelated to Chinese, but may be less relevant to this project. Characters for Norse god names are a good candidate. Since they also appear in the days of the week, they could also be examples of characters with localized origins that spread into wider usage, such as 腺 and 働, which were invented in Japan and subsequently adopted in China.
A final note for now: I don't think glyphs should be any more vertically complex than -th/uz, which has a total of nine vertically overlapping nodes.