·    This glyph is not given in the syllabaries of MC, K&H, K&L, BMM9, 25EMC, nor is it in TOK.

·    Vepretskii&Davletshin-APTS (2022) is the paper which first proposed that a hitherto undeciphered glyph could be read as tze – Vepretskii&Davletshin-APTS.p24.para3.l-2: The composite sign with the central ko-like element tends to be associated with the syllables le and he; its plausible reading value is tze. See also tzo.

·    Sim: note that the description is “ko-like”, not just ko – the two ends do not have a tiny dot on the inside, which ko has.

·    Bonn gives 1900tv as tze with a high confidence level. This indicates that Bonn accepts the Vepretskii&Davletshin-APTS proposal with no reservations. However, MHD indicates tze? for the equivalent glyph.

·    Features (stacked):

o Top: butterfly/bowtie.

o Middle: two stacked ovalish elements, each with a ladder in the centre.

o Bottom: a ka-like or li-like element.

·    Sub-variants:

o The middle element can be a single ovalish element rather than double.

o The bottom element can be completely absent (but then the middle element is double).

o The top and bottom element can be completely absent (but then the middle element is double).

·    It’s listed in BMM9, CMC4 and FK2, but only FK2 lists it without a question mark. It’s not listed in K&H, K&L, TOK, and 25EMC. This seems to me to indicate considerable doubt as to the correctness of this reading.

·    It appears to be a codical-only form.

o MHD gives all examples (including a logogram equivalent TZEN?) as codical.

o Even in the codices, it’s quite a rare form:

§ There only 3 hits in “All - Blocks” for a search on “blcodes contains PHE”.

§ All 3 hits are PHEs and from the Dresden Codex:

·    The reading is uncertain: MHD assigns it tze? with a question mark, whereas Bonn doesn’t assign it a reading at all.