Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372Thomas, Cyrus
History
Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372
Thomas, Cyrus
Codex Dresdensis Maya; Maya language
The symbol No. 9 (U) of the preceding list is found repeatedly on vases
and also as a prefix to both simple and compound characters. As _U_ in
Maya signifies "moon," "vase," and certain pronouns and is also used as a
euphonic particle before vowels, we are perhaps justified in concluding
that the symbol is phonetic and denotes the word _U_. I am aware that
neither Perez nor Dr. Brinton gives "vase" as one of the meanings of this
word, yet its constant appearance on vessels seems to leave no doubt that
Brasseur is correct. Even admitting that he is mistaken and that we are
in error as to the signification of the symbol, its various uses justify
the belief that it is phonetic.
The symbol No. 34 of the preceding list, which is supposed to be that of
the god Ekchuah, is probably phonetic. The name of this deity is composed
of two Maya words, _ek_, "black," and _chu_, "calabash," and hence
signifies "the black calabash," and the form and coloring of the symbol
are apparently intended to denote this signification. If this
interpretation be correct it is phonetic, as there is nothing in or
pertaining to the figure of the deity which corresponds with it, except
the color.
If the interpretation given of the preceding symbols Nos. 22, 24, 26,
27_a_, and 33 be correct, there can be scarcely a doubt that they are
phonetic. In the first--_cacau_, _cacauak_, or _cacauche_, the "cacao"--we
see Landa's letter _Ca_, which is doubled in each of the three forms taken
from the different codices. In the twenty-sixth--_Kukuitz_, the
Quetzal--Landa's _Ku_ is duplicated, as it should be if phonetic, while in
27_a_, _Kuch_, it appears but once. There is here also an additional
evidence of phoneticism in the fact that, while one of the symbols used to
denote this bird shows simply its head, and is surely not phonetic, the
other is entirely different and bears no resemblance whatever to any
feature or characteristic of the bird. Moreover, both parts of it are used
in other combinations referring to entirely different things.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account