These pictures are almost exclusively in uncompounded forms, whereas the conventional glyphs, whether human, animal or otherwise, are subject to the general rules of incorporation. Writing is a system of conventional forms with established meanings, corresponding to and reflecting the structure of the spoken language; some picture elements whose value as such has remained either wholly or partly present in the minds of those who use them, are not inconsistent with genuine writing; when present they add vividness to the writing, and emphasize its ideographic character. A combination of picture forms only, may be used as means of communication to a certain degree, but can never constitute _writing_; that, like speech, must provide for the expression of the relationships and categories that make up the structure of language. Egyptian writing, which is of course _true writing_, contains elements of every class. It has symbols and also pictures, not only of things or creatures, but of actions as well, “contracted to a narrow space, made cursive”; these pictures, although still ranking as such, stand for _words_--they can be _pronounced_, and have syntax, which is the crucial test. Egyptian next has unrecognizable forms, whose meaning has become a simple convention, but which still stand for _words_, or particles. It has elements which are not pronounced for themselves, but only serve as determinatives. (Such a use of determinatives is not limited to hieroglyphic writing, but is possessed also by alphabetic; the second _o_ in the word _too_ is strictly a determinative, to distinguish the adverb _too_ from the preposition _to_, both pronounced alike. Tibetan has an elaborate system of silent letters used as grammatical determinatives.) And then Egyptian writing finally has pure alphabetic elements. As to Maya, I think it far more than likely that, when at last deciphered, it will be found to contain most if not all of these classes--_mutatis mutandis_. There seems every evidence that it is made up of pictures with probably both concrete and abstract meanings; word-conventions; and grammatical particles. It is at least probable that there are also silent determinatives and not unlikely that there is also a pure phonetic or alphabetic element. That the latter element is not the basic one may I think be now regarded as established. FOOTNOTES: [35-*] The Tibetan use of symbolical words in place of numerals is worth noting here, even though we do not know the Maya face numerals well enough as yet for any comparison. See Csoma de Kőrös, _Tibetan grammar_, Calcutta, 1824, pp. 155 _et seq._; also Ph. Éd. Foucaux, _Grammaire Tibétaine_, Paris, 1858, pp. 157 _et seq._ [39-*] “These [the Maya glyphs] do not represent a real script, as is so often maintained, but are only pictures which have been reduced to the appearance of letters, contracted to a narrow space, made cursive.”!--Dr. Eduard Seler, _Codex Vaticanus No. 3773_, page 65.--Well?