·     TOK.p36.r5.c1 = three KAWAKs with flanking “wings” / “leaves” / “flames” accompanying the top KAWAK. TOK (very appropriately) distinguishes it from TOK.p36.r5.c3 = three KAWAKs without flanking “wings” / “leaves” / “flames” on the top KAWAK (which is then correspondingly much wider than the bottom two KAWAKs, to completely fill the original width).

·     Three KAWAKs with flanking “wings” / “leaves” / “flames” is the main sign in the EG of Seibal.

·     There is a proposal for a reading of TZIM, based on two known phonetic complements: tzi and mi (no reference to proposal; relevant inscriptions unknown). There is even some idea that it might be mitz, but tzim is considered more likely. BMM9.p21.r3.c1 gives this proposed pronunciation with a question mark. However, this is only for the glyph with the flanking elements – no reading is proposed for the glyph without flanking elements. TOK.p36.r5.c1 = BMM9.p21.r3.c1 but TOK gives “?” for the pronunciation; only BMM9 gives TZIM?.

·     Do not confuse this with the visually similar KA’/CHA’ “metate” (the “bent cauac”), which has:

o A large main KAWAK with a “step” in it (resembling T’AB and EHB, but only two steps = 1 rise).

o A smaller KAWAK mano on the top left (in the indentation of the step).

o One or two smaller KAWAKs under the main KAWAK.

·     There are now very strong doubts whether the glyph without the flanking “wings” / “leaves” / “flames” should be considered to be related to “three hearthstones” at all. Formerly, it was considered that the top KAWAK was drawn wider to take up the space of the missing flanking elements, but the resultant glyph is so unlike “three hearthstones” that it seems unlikely that it would be an iconographic representation of them. For the glyph with the flanking elements, the association with “three hearthstones” of course still remains valid.

·     Both MHD and Bonn distinguish the glyph with the flanking “wings” / “leaves” / “flames” (MHD.ZC6/0176st) from the one without (MHD.ZC9/1770st). Note that MHD.ZC9.3 does not have flanking “wings” / “leaves” / “flames” but is nevertheless (appropriately) classed with MHD.ZC9.1&2, which do have the flanking elements. This is because the top KAWAK doesn’t occupy the entire width of the glyph-block, but is, instead, the same width as the two KAWAK’s below it. This distinguishes it from the “proper” “3R”, where the top KAWAK occupies the entire width of the glyph-block.

·     Summary:

o The glyph with flanking elements has a possible pronunciation of tzim, while the one without flanking elements has no proposed pronunciation.

o This distinction doesn’t seem to be made in the K&L.p45 list of undeciphered glyphs. There, only the glyph with flanking elements is shown (K&L.p45.r10.c6).