·    No glyphs given in K&H, K&L, TOK, BMM9, 25EMC.

o With the exception of TOK, this is not surprising for the other four reference works, as they are very much based on the pronunciation of the glyph – without a confident pronunciation, a glyph will not be listed in any of these works.

o TOK is an exception to this general rule, and it lists many glyphs whose pronunciation is totally unknown. Despite this principle, this glyph has not been included.

o It is not included in the K&L.p45 list of undeciphered glyphs.

·    Features:

o A headless body sitting on the ground.

o No arms.

o Only one leg visible.

·    Do not confuse this with the visually similar “half-kneeling legs” / HKL.

·    This is not a very common glyph – There are only 10 hits on MHD for “blcodes contains HL6” (2022-10-27). Accompanying it are (the “floppy-pear” variant of) HUL, K’IN, ya, hi. Apparently, these last two are considered the initial and final phonetic complements of the logogram.

·    The MMM-consensus is that it is read YAH – TIK Stela 31 C3 is considered to have initial and final phonetic complements. Where is the paper which discusses this reading?

·    In TIK Stela 31 C3 it’s verbal (i.e. contributing significantly to the meaning of the narrative) whereas in the Denver-Brussels Panel it’s a toponym (i.e. noun-based, not contributing the “injure” meaning to the narrative – at most “Injure K’ina”?). Or perhaps it is a different glyph with K’IN?

·    The relationship of this glyph to the “other YAH” (which also has a “wound”-related meaning) is unknown – are they just two very different glyphs, like “UHMAN”.