·     No known logogram.

·     Pronunciation:

o CLK HB glyph-block C has (in theory) bu instead of mu.

§ In early inscriptions, there is only “mu” (just the “feeler”, without any cross-hatched circles), which could be read either bu or mu.

§ This is thought to have been because this glyph was borrowed from another language which didn’t distinguish b from m (ba and ma were also not distinguished at the time).

§ It was only in later stages that the cross-hatched circles were added to “mu”, allowing a distinction to be made between bu or mu). (ba and ma were also distinguished with some modifications for each usage).

This doesn’t fully explain the bu instead of an expected mu in CLK HB glyph-block C (it would only explain mu instead of expected bu, in an earlier stage, before they were distinguished). Nevertheless, we read mu here, based on context. This is supported by MHD, which assigns a transliteration of bu but a transcription of mu: u-te-bu è ute’m = “his throne”.

o The u-CH’AM-wa-te-mu = uch’amaw tem = “she grasped (the) throne” of PNG Stela 3 E3 was a peaceful assumption rather than a seizure of power by Ix Winikhaab Ajaw, Ix Namaan Ajaw, perhaps in co-rulership with or taking over from her husband K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II / "Kooj".

o EB.p165.pdfp170.#5 gives: te-mu > temul “seat, throne” (giving PNG Stela 3 as a reference). [Sim:

§ The reference in EB.p165.pdfp170.#5 is to F3, but this must be a typo for E3.

§ The difference between tem and temul is the question of whether it’s a monosyllabic word where the vowel of the second syllabogram is silent, or a disyllabic word with an underspelled final consonant.

§ It is rendered as -l in this case, though I don’t know why -l was chosen from the set of frequently underspelled consonants, -l, -h, -j, -n, -m, etc.

§ In contrast, EB.p29.pdfp34.#14 gives: ba-te-mu > ba[h] tem “first of the throne”, with te-mu è tem rather than temul. Most epigraphers seem to have opted for tem in both cases.]