·     L&D.p23.pdfp23 explains that the -ib suffix derives nouns with instrumental meaning from verbs: uk’ = “to drink” è uk’ib = “drinking vessel”. [Sim: we’ = “to eat” è we’ib = “utensil used for eating” = “plate”.]

·     In theory, It could be written either with the logogram WE’ or purely with syllabograms, e.g. we-e-i-bi or we-i-bi. However, in practice, it turns out that it’s only ever written with WE’.

·     MHD statistics (2024-03-1):

o A search in MHD on “blmaya1 contains we’ib” gives only 10 separate inscriptions (many more records because ceramics tend to have one glyph per glyph-block).

o Of these 10, there are 9 which are definitely transliterated as WE’, and one with uncertainty as WE’?.

o In any case, no spellings with we-e-i-bi or we-i-bi.

·     K&H.p33.pdfp35.r6.c1-2 gives an alternative form WE’-ma è we’em = “eating vessel”.

o This -em suffix appears to function in a similar way to -ib, but I haven’t seen a further explanation of it.

o I haven’t included it as an example here as I can’t quite relate the given glyphs to the given transliteration WE’-ma.