·     No glyphs given in BMM9, 25EMC.

·     Could be considered one of the “irregular” (i.e. non-CVC) verbs. L&D.p46 explains that the common non-CVC transitive verbs are:

o IL / ILA “see”.

o A’L “say”.

o TZ’IHBA “write” / “paint”.

Their classification as such seems to be based on a combination of their actual phonetic form and the inflections they take (e.g. they are different from CVC-verbs in the passive).

·     Do not confuse tz’ihb = “to write”, “to paint” (a verb) with phonetically slightly similar chehb / che’b / che’eb = “paintbrush” (a noun).

·     Variants (2):

o A. Hand holding a “single-stemmed” writing-brush (K&H, K&L).

o B. Hand holding a “multi-stemmed” writing-brush, with dark dots (representing ink) below (K&L, TOK).

·     Stuart-NST:

o Stuart-NST.p3.note1: Questions the reading of K&L.p30.#5.2 as TZ’IB, saying that it’s too different from K&L.p30.#5.1, with a TAJ-like element instead of a pen, and with SIBIK underneath.

o This is the paper which demonstrates that this logogram is equivalent to other instances of syllabogram-spelled tz’i-bi or tz’i-ba, because there are two instances referring to the same person, one written with a logogram TZ’IB, and the other spelled with syllabograms; none of the commonly available drawings of CRN Panel 6 P2 (including David Stuart’s new drawing in Stuart-NDLCP (2013)) show the logogram TZ’IB to nearly the level of clarity to make the association to the “hand holding a paintbrush” logogram, e.g.:

However, Stuart may have re-examined photo or original inscription, to produce the one in his blog, which is much clearer (such photos exist, but are not currently releasable for publication).

·     TOK.p19.r5.c4 lists the glyph but doesn’t assign it the reading TZ’IB.

 

·     Stuart-NST is the paper which demonstrates that the logogram TZ’IB is equivalent to other instances of syllabogram-spelled tz’i-bi or tz’i-ba, because there are two instances referring to the same person Ix Tz’ib Winkil – it cites one instance written with a logograph for TZ’IB, and another spelled with syllabograms. [Sim: Ix Tz’ib Winkil is given as Ix Tz’ibnal by some epigraphers – these must be from before the general acceptance of the WINKIL reading.]

·     The source of Stuart-NST.p2.fig5 is CRN HS2 Block 9 C2 as documented in StuartEtAl-TNoLCS.p7.fig8.

·     Also, StuartEtAl-TNoLCS.p8.AppA gives a very useful table showing old and new monument naming conventions for CRN (i.e. cross-reference).